<p>I have worked full-time since before my kids were born. They went into full daycare since they were 2.5 months old and still, we have managed, until they went off to college, to spend more than 19 minutes per day with them: breakfast, dinner, as well as most weekends, etc… Any more togetherness and they probably would think we’re smothering them. </p>
<p>And I do believe that a lot of families with two working parents are not any different from us. I refuse to believe that the majority of American or British families are dysfunctional.</p>
<p>Call it four hours a day during the week when they were little and 10 to 12 hours a day on the weekends. </p>
<p>We weren’t there every minute of every day. As they got older and more private, we did turn to movies and television for ‘shared’ entertainment. How much parent-gatory time are we looking at? Figuring CC time counts as helicopter time…oh…it’s going to be a long after-life.</p>
I agree that there probably are many similarities. Regarding the psychological aspects, I guess it depends on how we define dysfunctional. I think our family is typical of two-parent families and we certainly don’t spend as much time with our children as my 8-5 working father and full-time mother spent with their children. In addition, children today spend far more time engaging in solitary high-tech activities. I don’t think that’s a bad thing but it is different and it may have consequences - good and bad - that are worth considering. I also think it’s worth considering that more and more of our children’s quality time is spent in solitary activities rather than with their parents, their peers or their school/neighborhood friends.</p>
<p>Of course, there are other considerations such as the increase in divorce and single parent families. Whether or not these children are better off because of the family issues that led to the divorce, the average working custodial parent probably doesn’t have as much time to spend with his/her children as a result.</p>
<p>“A typical working parent spends just 19 minutes a day looking after their children, official figures revealed yesterday. The startling research shows the devastating impact that working full-time has on children who hardly see their parents.”</p>
<p>^I agree with that. I see my mother two days a week, sometimes three and only actually spend about 30 minutes with her, just one on one. Although I keep myself busy, I would give anything for another half hour with my mother. This whole setup sucks. I really hope I don’t grow up into that type of parent, it seems inevitible though. =(</p>
<p>Of course you can be a different type of parent. While we all tend to become more like our parents as we age, we don’t act like our parents in those areas that really matter to us. My parents argued about politics all the time. My spouse and I never do, in large part because I found it so troubling as a child that we agreed to resolve our political disagreements in more amicable ways. As a parent, you will someday make your fair share of mistakes but they don’t have to be the same mistakes your parents made.</p>
<p>Dunno about the idyllic Mom at home scenario. My mother had six children under the age of eight. As the oldest, I had a few minutes of parent time each day in what I thought was a fairly happy childhood. With no car for the first ten years of her marriage and my father travelling on business four days out of five, she was pretty harried. </p>
<p>My boys have had three or four times the one-on-one attention. She and I have a running bet to decide whether that’s been a good thing…;)</p>
<p>Meanwhile, now that the older one is gone, my youngest will do anything to dodge ‘family’ dinners and two pairs of inquiring eyes. “Let’s eat in front of the TV!” is the usual plea.</p>
<p>I’ve been a happy at-home mother and a happy employed mother at different times, with kids who seem to be turning out pretty well regardless of their mom’s employment status. I don’t know if this study could be defined as scientific or even objective, since much of the data must be self-reported (unless the authors followed the 4950 study subjects around for days at a time). After all, it also says this:
Um - I wish. How many mothers do you know who get more than 8 hours of sleep per night, as the study would have us believe even working mothers do? When I was at home with young children, 6.5 hours was a good night (interrupted twice for nursing, bad dreams, and the occasional stomach virus).</p>
<p>Studies that are reported in the popular press have usually been misinterpreted, condensed, and politicized beyond any standard of usefulness.</p>
<p>I believe in watching the baby, then the child, then the adolescent for what they need from their parents. Some babies need constant body contact and soothing (approximately 1400 minutes per day, with time off for Mom’s bathroom breaks and a shower). Some teens need very little focused time with their parents and are resentful when the adult wants more. And how much time are the fathers of the children in the study spending with them, I wonder?</p>
<p>Do you actually know any family in which parents spend 19 minutes per day with their kids? I don’t, and most people I know are working couples.</p>
<p>This survey carries a whiff of nostalgia for a time that never really existed. Think about the man in the grey flannel suit, the mostly absent father; remember the song, Cat’s Cradle.<br>
The interesting thing is that the survey starts with “parent” but ends up with “mother.” So what are fathers doing? As I said, this article’s agenda is to induce guilt-tripping, especially among mothers. Another interesting tidbit: fathers spend more time at work than men without children. I have my theories about why this is so.</p>
<p>Now, I’m off to be a helicopter mom for my catered generation kids. Someone has to do the catering, right?</p>
<p>I don’t know how much time my working friends spend with their children. I hope it’s more than 19 minutes a day but the comments by Fendergirl and BornAnnoying suggest some families do fit this study. Obviously we should think for ourselves and view studies with skepticism (and I applaud you for doing that), but we should also recognize that our experiences may not be universal. Not every working family is from the same socio-economic class and less affluent workers may not be able to leave work when their children need them. And, as Garland’s comment illustrates, in some affluent families the nannies and not the parents bond with the children.</p>
<p>Finally, whether you agree with it or not, studies like this are about children - not fathers or mothers. It concerns me that people are so willing to view this through a feminist prism that sees mothers as “victims”.</p>
<ol>
<li>You should bear in mind that Fendergirl is a college graduate, not a child. In fact, the unusual thing is that Fendergirl is living at home.</li>
<li>Two anecdotes do not amount to evidence.
3.So: parents spend only 19 minutes per day with their kids. How is it then that they are helicopter parents and that their kids belong to the catered generation?</li>
</ol>
<p>There are indeed lots of kids who spend hardly any time with their parents, at least in the US, because tneir parents are behind bar (not the case in the UK), or with one parent (because they are divorced). But the parents in jail are not the ones being in the survey and the survey made no mention of divorce as a factor in how much time parents spend with their children. </p>
<p>Yea, the kids, according to other articles, are victims, all right. But victims of too much rather than too little parenting. Take your pick and take surveys like this with a huge grain of salt and some historical context.</p>
<p>If you read the survey carefully, the 19 minutes is one-on-one full-contact childrearing and everything else, including cleaning the house, cooking, buying groceries, etc., is considered as a secondary activity. So apparently it doesn’t count if you’re cooking and the child is doing her homework at the kitchen table.</p>
<p>Okay, I yield to the female experts on this subject. The world’s kids have excellent parents and, if anything, their parents do too much for them.</p>
<p>By the way, which one of you ladies would like to be married to a man that only gives you 19 minutes of undivided attention each day?</p>
<p>The survey says nothing about what type of parents were polled–at least not according the article I read. I really question the 19 minutes a day. You yourself say you don’t know anyone who spends that little time with their kids. I don’t either. </p>
<p>Now my “kids” are in college, I don’t spend as much time with them as I used to when they were little, nor would they want me to! But we don’t know the age range of the kids in the survey.</p>
<p>There are indeed plenty of parents who do not pull their weight: they’re behind bars, they’re drug addicts, etc… but I’ll bet they were not included in the survey sample. </p>
<p>The fact is that a lot of these article writers and survey -takers have their own agenda. On the one hand, there are those who feel parents do too much for their kids, and on the other, there are those who feel they do not do enough. It cannot be all true. The kids I know are mostly all right.</p>
<p>And as a parent, doesn’t YOUR experience count? What should gender have to do with parentinng time or expertise?</p>
<p>After 23 years of marriage, I’m pretty sure I could get by on 19 minutes of attention on any given day. :eek:</p>
<p>Don’t bash the nanny system if you haven’t tried it! I employed full time nanny/housekeepers for fifteen years, then part-time housekeepers and a laundry service for the last five years. My nannies never went to ANY doctor or teacher appointments. My boys never called any nanny ‘mommy’. My boys know their momma very well–and I know them too. </p>
<p>DrJ…you asked a direct question from a fairly affluent bunch. The answers would, of course, be different if you ask a different economic group.</p>
<p>Agree with Cheers here. Your OP question is not only going out to a generally affluent group of readers, but one with grown or older children. My teen boys are not pining for more time with mom and dad, believe me. For me, quality time IS somewhat divided-attention time because it mainly is the drive from point A to point B with the 14-year-old monosyllabic captive in my car. Young families, with both parents working long hours and (here in the L.A. area) subject to horrendous commutes between work and affordable housing, would feel this issue more keenly and probably have a whole 'nother set of responses to that survey. </p>
<p>Cheers:</p>
<p>I have experienced the “nanny system” when my kids were babies and we were living abroad and I have one word for it. Sweeet! Best of both worlds to split the young child raising with a trusted “other” for one on one attention and giving oneself the time to pursue work or adult interests. I worked only part time and free lance after S1 was born and we moved to Nairobi. His ayah taught him numbers and colors and songs in English and Swahili; I never felt he was neglected because it wasn’t me myself with him all day long. In fact, I thought he was lucky to have a mom who wasn’t bored or resentful (as I know my own mother often was) when I did take over the reins. Same for S2, although his nanny was Russian, had a degree in physics, and started to teach him shapes, words, numbers etc. in both languages when he was two. By the time we came back to the States, they were entering K and 3rd grade and nannies were not necessary anymore. I chose not to go back to work full-time so I could be there for the after-school stuff and to put them on that “enrichment track” that requires an on-call chauffeur.</p>
<p>IMO, surveys and articles such as this one in the Daily Mail are not intended to induce guilt in anybody. They simply hold up a mirror to what is happening in society. If some parents see themselves in that article, and don’t like the picture, they can feel whatever they feel: guilt, anger, helplessness, or resentment for the situation. They can give it some thought. And they can decide whether it matters to them to make a change or not. The lucky families are the ones that will some options open to them.</p>
<p>Good thread…Now I know the gender behind each screen names. It had taken me a long time to figure mini as a man. Now I know cheers, frazzled, spoonyj, drj…</p>
<p>I went back to work full time after my kids were 6 weeks old. They were in daycare from 8am to 6pm. For some reason, they did not go to bed until fairly late, so H & I got to spend about 2-3 hours with them during weekday (not counting the large amoung of time I spent trying to get them to sleep and waking up at night). When they went to school, they had afterschool until 6 as well. </p>
<p>I have a hard time coming up with a scenario where parents of young children spend only 19 minutes with their child per day. Just getting them fed and dressed in the morning takes longer.</p>
<p>Of all the people that comment at CC, in my opinion you are one of the most open-minded about discussions on wide-ranging topics. Specifically, you are willing to look at the issues, consider different positions, and even change your mind. In this thread, I wasn’t initially and I’m still not focusing on the details of the article or the validity of the study. I confess I don’t care much how the British raise their children, although I do find many British child-raising techniques and theories interesting. My focus was as follows: If it is true that the typical British parents only spend 19 minutes a day giving undivided attention to their children, it’s troubling.</p>
<p>I realize that you have personal knowledge of British culture and people; that you have strong and probably good reasons to question this study; and that you object to what you perceive is a bias against mothers. That may all be true and normally I would relish the chance to discuss those topics with you. If our past discussions are any indication, I would probably agree with you. Nevertheless, on this one issue and thread, I am fixated on the notion that families might have such limited interaction with their children.</p>
<p>How much time should parents spend with their children? Obviously it varies by age and by temperament. I don’t think there is an optimal amount of time. 19 minutes seems far too little to me, but then, as I’ve said, I have a hard time believing that is correct. Even if parents and children see one another only over dinner, surely, it takes at least about that time to eat? I’d like to see a real time & motion study. It’s a bit like keeping track of all the food one has consumed. The amount is invariably much greater than one thought.</p>