If you work ... How much time do you spend with your children each day?

Parent Cafe
61

<p>I thought the article was actually sympathetic to working parents in general. DRJ4 is asking great questions - it’s about time someone started questioning the status quo of our work environments and the effect they have on family life. </p>

<p>The bit of information that stuck out in my mind was that 50% of the moms surveyed said they would prefer to work part time ,yet meaningful part time work is tough to find. </p>

<p>If you have enough time to work full time and post on CC regularly then I would venture to guess that you have a lot more flexibility and freedom in your work schedule than the average Jane or Joe.</p>

62

<p>cheers: I didn’t realize the study was about you and marite. If I had, I wouldn’t have weighed in - believe me. :)</p>

63

<p>Actually, as a child of a SAHM mom who grew up in the 50’s and 60’s, I am quite sure that there was LESS one-on-one, child-focused contact between me and my mother than I had with my own children. What I remember most from childhood is hours of unsupervised, unstructured play time spent with other kids (siblings, cousins, neighbors). We saw our parents at meals - the rest of the time the adults did adult-centered activities, and kids were simply sent outside to play. My mom didn’t hesitate to go out with her own friends and leave me in the care of the maid, who didn’t speak English and whose job it was to clean our house. It was just the way things were in those days – parents took care of their children, but they didn’t spend very much time playing with or conversing with their children. My mom was an attentive, caring mom – in fact, the main difference that I was aware of in childhood was that she spent more time at home than most. But at-home time was rarely interactive time. </p>

<p>It was not a child-focused world in those days. Parents had kids and raised them, but they didn’t treat the process as if they had invented it. It was simply a system of benign neglect – there was always an adult around if we needed one, more often than not the adult was a blood relative, but for the most part we were left to our own devices. </p>

<p>So, I am quite sure that as a full-time working parent, I spent at least as much or more time focused on my kids. Possibly more, because the time seemed so important and special – it wasn’t something I took for granted. And if the “millenial” generation is anything, it is the product of a more child-centered lifestyle. There wasn’t any such thing as T-Ball or Gymboree when I was a kid – all of these are the result of significantly changed view of early childhood and children’s activities.</p>

64

<p>

</p>

<p>Apparently, the only “quality time” is spent reading a couple of bedtime stories. I’m assuming that eating breakfast is equivalent to walking one’s dhild to the bus-stop- namely a secondary activity. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Those figures do not add up to 24 hours, and it does not appear that the typical Brit man or woman is overworked if the man works 3.5 hours and the woman 2.2 hours in a 24-hours period. Also note that, whereas a parent (gender unspecified) spends 19 minutes with his/her child, s/he spends over 2 hours watching TV.: 140 minutes for a woman and 160 for a man. </p>

<p>It seems to me that the conclusion to be drawn from this “survey” is that the working environment is not to blame for the lack of contact between parents and children; it is the parent’s TV addiction.</p>

65

<p>I have spent many, many hours watching tv with my kids. I don’t consider it nonproductive time because it invariably was a way I could share their interests and we often were physically close during that time (snuggled together on the couch), and talked about what we were watching. I mean, I honestly would NOT have watched all those hours of Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers but for the semi-quality time it afforded with a kid.</p>

<p>So I wouldn’t write off the value of family tv watching entirely. A good deal of what is watched provides an opening for communication.</p>

66

<p>Calmom: </p>

<p>When my kids were little, I watched a lot more TV than I do now. I, too, put in time with Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers and a variety of children’s programs. To me, the TV watching was secondary to the oppportunity to be with my kids; obviously, I would not be watching these programs if it were not for the kids. But it looks like the folks who were surveyed do not watch with their kids. I am baffled as to where their time goes.</p>

67

<p>hereshopping, I never thought the article applied to me because, as the owner of my own business, I have had more flexiblity than a high achieving employee like marite. I’ve been able to work a 35 to 40 hour week for the last twenty years–give or take a few charettes.</p>

<p>Actually, marite was pretty brave to post those daycare hours though she may have been able to do so precisely because her finished puddings are so brilliant. The gratuitous ‘fabulous’ remark was the one that drew my temporary ire, frankly.</p>

<p>Nevermind, now I wonder. Marite, among working mums who used long hours in day care to raise children, do you think your parenting success is a one-off–or have you seen multiples of your success using that method of care–in America or elsewhere? </p>

<p>FWIW, we didn’t even have a TV when the boys were younger. We watch much more ‘together TV’ and movies now that they are older and trying to avoid intimacy with overly inquisitive old people.</p>

68

<p>Marite, it looks to me from what I can glean from the survey that it was structured in such a way that watching t.v. with the kids wouldn not have counted as kid-time, because it would have been chalked up under tv-watching time. Cooking dinner for the kids counts as cooking, not kid-time. </p>

<p>I don’t know, it’s just that the way the report was worded it pretty much sounded like the only thing that was counted within the 19 minutes were activities that were exclusively focused on the kid – so perhaps bathing the child or reading a bed time story would count, but any time the parent is also doing something else, it wouldn’t. </p>

<p>So I just remain very skeptical of the conclusion about the 19 minutes. I don’t see how it is humanly possible to live in the same house as a child and not spend more than 19 minutes with them… but most family interaction is rather casual and not necessarily purposeful.</p>

69

<p>calmom:</p>

<p>That was precisely my reaction to the survey. It just does not seem right to me. My SIL, when she worked, had a 3 hour round-trip commute and still managed to spend more time with her child than the 19 minutes in the survey. If parents spend 2.4 hours in front of the tube and only 19 minutes with their child, then their priorities are screwy, not their work schedules (although I think that a 3-hour commute is excessive, child or no).</p>

<p>Cheers:
Thank you for your kind words about my two “puddings.” I’m pretty proud of how well they’ve turned out and am happy to take all the credit (shared with H, of course).
There are quite a few daycare centers in my area, and many take children 10 weeks old. They are open the same number of hours as our old one was. I also live in an area where most families are dual working families, some by choice, some by necessity. A few neighbors have nannies who come to their house 8-6 on weekdays. I had one for a while for S2, but it became clear that S2 liked to be with other children.
In my kids’ k-8 school, parents showed up for portfolio breakfasts or afternoon performances in large numbers, and many volunteered regularly, so I assume that their working schedules were fairly flexible.
I cannot say whether my kids or their friends are typical. I suppose that like is drawn to like. One of S’s friends is rather neurotic (S agrees with me on that); but it is probably due to the fact that her parents are divorced and live on different coasts. Or perhaps she was born that way. Who knows? The rest are pretty well-adjusted kids and successful academically. They don’t appear neglected to me.<br>
In France, there is free daycare for all children starting at 3 months old.
My SIL made use of this, but not for every day (she works part time).</p>

70

<p>June Cleaver here, looking in through the grimy lens of feminism…</p>

<p>This survey sucks as much as my Black and Decker dustbuster. :D</p>

71

<p>This thread definitely veered off from what I expected but that’s the beauty of CC. For those of you who are intent on seeing this as a flawed anti-mother survey, I doubt what I have to offer will change your minds and FWIW you may be right. Nevertheless, the OP study was conducted by the British government through its Office of National Statistics. The methodology involves selecting random households (around 28,000) and mailing packets that include questionaires and diaries. Approximately 21,000 packets were completed and returned. The resulting data was weighted and compiled into a report called the Time Use Survey 2000. Apparently the data is updated annually and the study in the OP is a part of the 2005 updates. </p>

<p>Here is a link to the home page of the Time Use Survey 2000: <a href=“http://www.statistics.gov.uk/timeuse/default.asp[/url]”>http://www.statistics.gov.uk/timeuse/default.asp&lt;/a&gt; and this is a link to the results: <a href=“Home - Office for National Statistics”>Home - Office for National Statistics; . Click on the options in the second link for drop-down menus that provide an amazing array of information about British life. </p>

<p>For comparison purposes, here is a link to the American Time Use Survey: <a href=“http://www.bls.gov/bls/proghome.htm[/url]”>http://www.bls.gov/bls/proghome.htm&lt;/a&gt; . It’s interesting how extensively the British government inquires into the lives of its citizens compared to the American studies.</p>

72

<p>You are losing the point by focusing on the nineteen minutes and your own situations. There are many parents of all working arrangements that raise great kids. Yes, people watch too much TV and the survey is silly for being so rigid in how it counts time to together - that doesn’t discount the fact that many children don’t have enough adult supervision or adult attention. </p>

<p>I don’t think our culture is family friendly in many regards and if half of the women surveyed would like to be staying at home with their kids or working part time, that says more to me than the “nineteen minutes” .</p>

<p>I don’t know what the answer is but I don’t think we’ve found it yet and we’re not going to find it by defending the status quo or our own situations.</p>

73

<p>DRJ:</p>

<p>Thanks for the link. I don’t see where the 19 minutes come from, though.</p>

<p>Also, it’s a long time since I lived in England, but the Brits must be eating TV dinners all the time and do no household chores at all. The time spent in combined childcare and housework goes from 3 hours for ages 0-2, to less than 2 hours for ages 3-4, to 1 hour for ages 5-9, to about 15 minutes for ages 10-15 to 0 for ages 16-17.</p>

<p>Curiouser and curiouser. I used to fix breakfast and make lunches for my kids when they went to school (so they could sleep in a little longer); and it did not take 0 minutes. I also cooked dinner, and we cleared the table, did the dishes together. Food shopping, laundry, how can these be done in no time? Or am I misreading the stats?</p>

74

<p>Marite,</p>

<p>I don’t know where the 19 minutes comes from either, other than the statements in the original news article that indicate it is a part of the Time Use Survey data. The Time Use Survey website only has data through 2004 so it’s probably due to delays in getting the info published and on the web.</p>

<p>EDIT: I don’t think you are misreading the stats and it is curious.</p>

<p>Another anomoly (to my way of thinking) is that most of the family data concerns children from birth to age 16. I’m used to birth to 18 or 21 in American studies. Do they consider children out of the household after 16 in Britain? Possibly this is related to the dramatic increase in British unmarried births coupled with younger children living alone as noted in this BBC article: <a href=“http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4733330.stm[/url]”>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4733330.stm&lt;/a&gt; . Apart from general common sense and my own limited travel in Britain, I don’t have a feel for the British lifestyle so it’s hard for me to know what this means.</p>

<p>As to why I focused on the 19 minutes (or 35 minutes if you count the extra 16 minutes each day of childcare combined with other activities), the simple answer is that it shocked me. If those numbers are true, and it’s difficult to discredit them based on the source, it’s hard for me to imagine having any meaningful contact with one’s children in that amount of time.</p>

<p>I do agree with the other commenters on one thing: Kudos to you for taking such good care of your family. We wouldn’t need to have this discussion if everyone were like you.</p>

75

<p>DRJ:</p>

<p>The 19 minutes shocked me,too, but in a slightly different way than you! If it is indeed true, then obviously it is a cause for concern. But as I have said, I do not believe it’s true, and so I’m left wondering what would be a more appropriate amount of time on average (bearing in mind that all children are different).</p>

<p>There are lots more kids who leave school at 16 in Britain than in the US (not including drop outs) since fewer go on to university. They are supposed to go into the workforce, though the level of unemployment remains high in Britain as in the rest of Europe. So this is probably why the survey goes up to the age where they can leave school and enter the workforce. It does not necessarily mean that they live away from home, but it complicates the picture.</p>

<p>Interestingly, we do have a June Cleaver view of childhood of SAHMs able to spend large amounts of time with their children. But in Victorian England, children were put to work far earlier than they are today, and for far longer hours than adults work today. It was considered radical when children’s working hours were reduced from 12 hours to 10. What this means is that working class children were separated from their parents for 10-12 hours a day starting at 8 or 10, or even younger, especially in textile mills where small hands were valuable (never mind the risk of injury). They probably had to be quite self-reliant at home, too, since both parents would have to be working. At the other end of the spectrum, children of the aristocracy were brought up by nannies and saw their parents for very little time each day.</p>

76

<p>I’m not sure child labor in the last century or children of the aristocracy are useful examples for this discussion, unless one wants to say that children are so resilient they can withstand any environment. </p>

<p>I similarly think the ubiquitous June Cleaver image is way too simplistic (you want to go back to the JUNE CLEAVER DAYS? - you retrograde, semi-racist, you!). </p>

<p>I personally think it’s just common sense that a mother should probably be with her child more than an hour a day, especially before age 3. I agree with the above poster who said that, despite how we like to think of ourselves, we are NOT a very family-friendly country. Almost all recent studies I’ve read (done in this country) conclude that women would very much appreciate more flexible working arrangements so they could spend more time with their young children.</p>

77

<p>Yes, marite and her neighbors are so highly educated, they must be classified as atypical moms though I am impressed that you see many success stories among your colleagues, marite. Agreed, no government should develop policy based on the daycare navigational abilities of marite and her super bright children.</p>

<p>The question of family friendly society is a different one than the OP. I’m not sure the US is unfriendly. I’d say Americans at all socioeconomic levels appear to be child obsessed but I’m ready to read hard data stating otherwise.</p>

<p>Non-working moms (like slugg? Doesn’t writing count as work?) are the anamoly in history. </p>

<p>Personally, I wish every woman had the economic freedom to make the choice. In my view, the choice should be made on the spot. I don’t think a woman truly knows whether or not she wants to continue working until she has the baby in her arms. Working women need time to sort out that decision–and sometimes it’s a stop and start kind of deal. Sometimes it’s a stop deal. All the choices are good, in my opinion, as long as the mother and child find time to love and care for each other.</p>

<p>Flexibility is hard to come by–even at high socioeconomic levels. A successful working woman needs:</p>

<p>A big heart, health, high-energy and low-self maintenance requirements.</p>

<p>A 100% low maintenance, healthy, energetic, big hearted, egalitarian husband</p>

<p>15 minute commutes</p>

<p>2, maximum 3 children</p>

<p>Her own high paying business or job with incredibly flexible hours and min 6 weeks vacation</p>

<p>An ability to happily delegate</p>

<p>A sense of humour and optimism</p>

<p>That’s the recipe I give out when I am asked if a woman can ‘do it all’. Among my best friends, many of whom have post-graduate degrees, I see every variation of stop and start working. Mine is one of the most linear careers, partly because I was able to follow the recipe above but mostly because I had two children, three years apart, before the age of 30.</p>

78

<p>

That proves my point. If I’m keeping a diary of all my activities, and I am sitting in front of the t.v. with one kid snuggled up next to me and a nursing baby in my lap – I would write down that I was watching t.v. If I’m sitting at the dinner table with my spouse and kids together – I would write down that I was eating a meal. </p>

<p>I think a better survey would simply ask how much time is spent with family members together in the same room. When my kids were small, one or the other invariably ended up in our bed at night, whether we wanted them there or not. That’s a lot of togetherness time that wouldn’t “count”. (and if it’s not important or significant… then why were the kids so insistent on crawling in with us??)

I can’t find that data, but your summary of it leads me to see another problem with the 19 minutes. If it comes from “childcare” as opposed to time spent with the child, then it is excluding all but certain kinds of interaction. If I am helping my toddler put on his shoes, then it is “childcare” – but if I am sitting in my livingroom reading a magazine, with my toddler sitting on the floor at my feet happily playing with his toys – it isn’t “childcare”. So almost any mutually pleasurable, participatory activity gets excluded.</p>

<p>As to the declining figures as to combined childcare and housework… maybe the cultural norm there is to have older children do most of the housework? Especially when parents are working? I mean, there are some parts of the world where 12 year olds are expected to do basic household cleaning chores.</p>

79

<p>Calmom, </p>

<p>You quote one sentence that I wrote to generally summarize the methodology of the British Time Use Survey, and from that you assert it “proves your point”. If you have concerns about the methodology, I encourage you to look at the details as set forth on the Office of National Statistics website. Here’s one small part:</p>

<p>

Feel free to look at the methodology in more detail. I’ve never said I know this study is correct, only that it troubles me because it might be correct. Nevertheless, if we’re going to critique it, let’s be fair about doing so.</p>

80

<p>

</p>

<p>Cheers:</p>

<p>You may find Philippes Aries’ Centuries of Childhood an interesting read. I quote an excerpt from a review below: </p>

<p>CENTURIES OF CHILDHOOD
By Philippe Aries. New York: Vintage Books, 1962. 447 pages.</p>

<p>Bob Corbett
1985</p>

<p>

</p>