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

Parent Cafe
101

<p>Before I log off for good on this thread, cheers, I want to clarify that I have said NOTHING intolerant (check my posts) and I most especially was NOT the poster who asked why then do women bother to have children (I got the impression that was a student), although I do feel that IS a perfectly valid opinion.</p>

<p>Also, the question I quoted from the OP WAS the second part of her original post (it had two parts).</p>

<p>I still think it’s disgraceful that I, or anyone who disagrees with you and marite, should so readily be labeled as intolerant. Of course, you and marite could NEVER be considered intolerant of other viewpoints.</p>

102

<p>Calmom:</p>

<p>You may be right.<br>
I do think that when kids get to be a certain age, spending time with your kids involves doing things with them, be it going to movies or watching TV together (would I be watching Sesame Street if I did not have kids?). Many dads are teaching their kids how to play baseball or some other sports.
I should think that as the children grow older, there are more things parents can do with their kids–unless the kids prefer to be with their friends or never eat at home.</p>

103

<p><a href=“http://www.familiesandwork.org/announce/2002NSCW.html[/url]”>http://www.familiesandwork.org/announce/2002NSCW.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>More statistics to chew on … U.S. statistics. The first site I listed has studies done by the University of Chicago - does that count?</p>

104

<p>Lizschup:</p>

<p>Thanks for posting the links. I had a quick look at the second one, and one thing that struck me was the report that in 2002 parents spent more time with their children (6.2 hours) than in 1977 (5.2 hours) despite the fact that dual earners couples spend more time at work (91 vs. 81 hours).</p>

<p>This also contradicts the survey data from the UK. The time in the US survey is per week, so in 2002, parents spent less than one hour per day with their children (age unspecified) but definitely more than the 19 minutes mentioned in the article on the UK (but not in the survey on which the article is based).</p>

<p>It’s hard to know what to make of all these statistics, especially since they use different methodologies. I will take a look at the other link later.</p>

105

<p>Actually, the study says that work hours per week for dual earner couples increased by 10 hours, from a combined 81 per week to 91 hours per week — obviously leaving both earners less time for their personal lives off the job – but that, surprisingly, the combined time spent on children ON WORKDAYS (not per week) rose from 5.2 hours in 1977 to 6.2 hours in 2002. Go figure. The proportion of wage and salaried employees living as dual-career couples rose from 66 percent in 1977 to 78 percent in 2002 (but doesn’t break down how many of these have children.)</p>

<p>It would be extremely interesting and helpful to discussion if this very statistical study included more detail: age of respondents, age range of children referred to, type of employment, specifically which of the “combined” hours for child care referred to the mom and which the dad, income level, etc.</p>

<p>Study respondents in the first link by Lizschup indicate that they overwhelmingly feel they don’t have enough time to spend with their children.<br>
I’m sure that’s a fair and accurate statement by the majority of working parents. But to evaluate whether the kids are being adversely affected – the concern of the OP — one needs more detail about who is making that response and why. What percentage of the kids of these particular working parents are infants, toddlers, elementary school kids and older? What alternative child care, if not a parent at home, are these responders using? Trusted and loving relative? Excellent attentive nanny? Well-regarded day care center with good ratio of adults to children? Poor or substandard unlicensed day care or centers with very high ratios of adults to children being cared for? Wouldn’t the quality of day care come into play for evaluating whether children are suffering from having both parents working full time?</p>

106

<p>Jazzymom:</p>

<p>I read the stats a bit hastily and thought the 6.2 hours were per week. If they are per day, they are way above what Brits supposedly spend with their children.<br>
I agree that we need far more details about parents’ jobs and children’s ages to evaluate the data properly and we need more information about child care options and quality.</p>

107

<p>The familyandwork.org statistics don’t appear to match up with the US Time Use Survey statistics. However, I’m not knowledgeable about the methodologies of these studies so they may be comparing apples and oranges. In any event, the US Time Use Survey indicates Americans spend 1-1/2 to 2 hours a day caring for household children - 2 hours a day for younger children and 1-1/2 hours a day when averaged over all households caring for children under 18. Here’s the link: <a href=“http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t09.htm[/url]”>http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t09.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>EDIT: Actually, these are average numbers. Women spend 1.76 - 2.73 hours per day caring for children. Men spend 0.84 - 1.21 hours in caring for children of the household.</p>

<p>If I had known about the US Time Use Survey I probably wouldn’t have posted this thread, but then I also wouldn’t have benefited from this interesting discussion about children, parents, and Britain. Thanks to everyone for helping me learn something new.</p>

108

<p>DRJ:</p>

<p>The US figures sound far more plausible than the UK figures to me, given what I know of working hours and interaction between parents and children.</p>

<p>We can still have a discussion about whether 1 1/2-2 hours per day is an adequate amount of time to spend with children, and I’m sure different families will have different takes on the topic. :)</p>

109

<p>Good idea, Marite, although I am a little gun-shy …</p>

<p>Anyway, these averages look good to me but maybe it’s because I’ve been looking at the UK numbers. I remain concerned for our British friends since the UK Time Use Survey numbers don’t bode well for British children or their futures.</p>

110

<p>Marite, </p>

<p>I’m not trying to pick on Britain or the Brits - IMO they’re great - but look at this article (I’ve quoted the last paragraph but there’s quite a bit prior to that): </p>

<p>

Her attitude works for her and her kids but it’s not hard to imagine the low numbers in the OP if this attitude is shared by other mums in the UK. Still, I can’t imagine very many parents (other than the 6-7 mentioned in the article) find their children “mind-numbingly boring”.</p>

111

<p>DRJ:</p>

<p>I was going to post that article, too! </p>

<p>I have the feeling the article is intended to be provocative, that she feels secure in the way she raises her children and that they love her (see the accompanying photograph) and that she is trying to get a rise out of readers.</p>

<p>There is a kernel of truth in the article. Many parents find kids-centered activities very boring. I can’t say that my idea of a good time was watching Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood or going to see kiddies’ movies. What bothered me about the article was not the confession that these kinds of activities are boring, but the contention that children should adapt themselves to parents’ schedules and interests. It did raise the question in my mind: “Why bother having children at all?”</p>

<p>It should be interesting reading reactions to that article.</p>

112

<p>marite: Look at that photo again. The kids are listed as age 12 and 10 in the article. That picture is ancient! I doubt the woman has been around them enough in years to have been photographed with them. </p>

<p>“So how have we reached this point where so many intelligent women are subverting their own needs and desires to that of their children?” Sorry, but if you can’t subvert your own needs for your kids, don’t have them. She also states that she thinks her kids are fine because she has “told” them they are loved. But she sure hasn’t shown them.</p>

<p>I always hated the minutiae of childcare: Moms chatting about teething & brands of diapers, cleaning the high chair tray (& surrounding area!) several times a day, cleaning up after the exploding diaper, etc. But I always loved just watching my kids interact & explore. This woman is either a narcissistic witch or she is just pulling our leg to get a reaction.</p>

113

<p>Stickershock:</p>

<p>Good point about the photograph. I strongly suspect she is pulling our leg, as you put it. She is acknowledging, as you and I do, that parts of child-raising are boring. But you and I would not be able to sell articles that balanced the mundane and the delightful (I once wrote an article that tried to balance the pros and cons of a particular policy decision and was told that I had to make a stand, the article was not provocative enough…). So I tend to think the article was written with tongue firmly planted in cheek. If her kids showed signs of being maladjusted, I’m sure she would not dare write such an article. The UK press is merciless.</p>

114

<p>I agree with you, Marite, and I agree this mother must be supremely confident in herself and how her children are developing. I wonder if she will be sending them to boarding school soon?</p>

<p>My problem with this story is that, even if the mothers quoted are all exaggerating, the cumulative effect of their attitude has a negative impact on their friends and family and on those who read this article. It gives everyone permission to focus on how boring parenthood is, to the exclusion of everything else, and I don’t think that as a good thing. Yes, it can be boring to be a parent. Parenting can also be a source of anger, fear, sadness, happiness, pride and humor. It is unfortunate for these mothers to focus on how boring parenthood can be simply because it makes them look witty and sophisticated.</p>

115

<p>DRJ:</p>

<p>I am speculating that the women in question are over-reacting to the many many books, magazines devoted to child-rearing. I don’t tend to take this kind of articles seriously, but you may be right. The interesting thing is that the women have children, presumably by choice rather than by accident. </p>

<p>Re: boarding school, I think that it is even more of a tradition among the British upper classes than here, ever since Eton and Harrow were established.There is a whole body of literature and of films based on the boarding school experience, both good and bad. The author of the article sounds like a fairly affluent woman, so I would not be surprised if her kids were sent to boarding school.</p>

116

<p>After the birth of our first child, we couldn’t imagine ever sending him off to boarding school because we couldn’t bear the thought of parting with him. During middle school, we realized it might not be such a bad idea after all! Several of our friends’ children were sent to Northeastern boarding schools although a few returned home for high school. I’m glad we chose to keep our son at home but there are definitely good reasons (for both parents and child) to consider a boarding school.</p>

117

<p>DRJ and marite:</p>

<p>I agree that the writer wanted to be provocative with her opinions; there is obviously a desire to elicit the responses of readers and to be interactive, you gotta get people going. But I don’t think she was exaggerating that much. BTW, I concur that childcare can be boring. It’s no surprise to anyone who’s ever been around little children that it is not one magical moment of delight after another. And there is tedium and boredom in mundane chores (felt that way about aspects of working too.)</p>

<p>The thing that bothered me about the article, though, is not that she found being with children and doing mother-activities boring, it’s that she let her children KNOW that she found the role and spending time with them boring. That seems pretty self-centered to me. Presumably, she had her career for stimulation and plenty of nanny help. It seems to me that the time she did make for them should have been given a little more selflessly and not with the put-upon attitude that became obvious to them. Kind of sad in a way. The writer’s approach and attitude saved her from all the boring aspects of childraising, but she missed out on the little “primo” moments that sneak in while you’re engaging in those everyday chores. </p>

<p>The other thing that struck me was that this sort of article is the same sort of fingernails-on-the-blackboard piece to SAHMs that articles about working parents spending too little time with their children are to working moms. Maybe not guilt-inducing but insecurity-inducing. The underlying message is: How can a bright, college-educated woman subject herself to (sneer) nanny work — changing diapers, endless rounds of swing pushing, watching saccharine kid vid like Barney (shudder), kissing boo-boos or, horrors, talking to other moms instead of setting the world on fire? This stuff is BORING. People who do boring things are boring people …that’s the way SAH parents are sometimes made to feel. So I was irked by the article for that reason.</p>

<p>I could go on more about how ambivalent I feel about the work/stay home dilemma mothers face, the sacrifices and trade offs involved in the decision either way. But I’m more curious about what other women have felt and what they have told their college-bound daughters about whether it
is possible to “have it all.” This isn’t something mothers of sons tend to discuss, except to try to train them to help around the house (an uphill battle.) But maybe that’s another thread.</p>

118

<p>Jazzymom:</p>

<p>Your comments are very apt. I don’t have daughters so I have not had a mother/daughter talk about “having it all.” I’m sure my kids realized that I watched Sesame Street to keep them company rather than for my own entertainment, and I never told them that what I did with them or for them was boring. I doubt many parents do. I hope the children of the author of the article have learned to take what their mother writes with a huge grain of salt. </p>

<p>I have done my share of exchanging stories about potty-training and other topics that are fascinating to parents at particular stages in their children’s lives. It is no more boring than obsessing about college applications in front of people who’ve either gone through the process or do not have children. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>When S was 4, he had a huge crush on another 4-year old in the daycare center. They were planning to marry (they discussed holding a ball and what to wear, and he told me H and I would be invited “if you are still alive then”) The two of them also planned to have careers. S told me that when he got home from work, he would help his wife with household chores because “that’s only fair.” I never found out how the two of them had come to that conclusion.</p>

119

<p>marite: I’m curious, does your husband travel? For instance, I am currently very frustrated with my two teenage sons because my husband has been away for three weeks, including weekends. Everyone seems to have agreed on this thread that teenagers require less time from parents, however, I have not found that to be the case. Older S drives; younger doesn’t. That means driving to social and other occasions. In addition, oddly enough to some perhaps, my sons still seem to require vasts amount of my time, including input on their daily lives, even at their ages, including older S in college, who this summer has full-time internship employment. </p>

<p>This has more or less been the pattern since my children were born. H has spent weeks at a time in Mexico, Germany, Thailand, and other countries. I would like to offer to this thread the perspective that it is almost challenging to the point of almost killing to be home alone with children, with no relief. I returned to work when younger S was in first grade. H and I chose not to spend money on nannies or sitters because we decided money was better spent on other things (saving for college, for instance). I get summers off in my work. Right now, even though my sons are 16 and 20, with housework, groceries and chauffering, and husband traveling (as usual) not to take up any slack, I can say it is very, very difficult even now.</p>

<p>Most of the stress is emotional. I have no extended family in the area. Husband is only source of support: in the suburbs most moms are busy enough taking care of their children and really have little or no time to help other moms (at least in the area in which I live).</p>

<p>Most of all, moms who do stay home, I feel, are not given the respect that working moms receive. Even my sons do not appreciate (unfortunately) the difficulty of being a SAHM. They have been trained in the schools to value working moms much, much more. They have learned, like your 4 year old did, that dads should contribute because moms <em>should</em> be working. They’ve learned that SAHM’s are not <em>really</em> working. Because my sons didn’t learn this at home I have to assume they learned it at school and in the culture at large. </p>

<p>I know that <em>someday</em> they will appreciate what I have done. But it may be after I’m gone, who knows? In the meantime, it is often very painful. Especially so when there are so many women who do appear to have it all, including perfect careers, perfect marriages, and perfect children.</p>

120

<p>I love the minutiae of child rearing, the discovery in that process. Bored my firends and family senseless, no question. I love hearing the minutiae from other parents too. At the risk of causing further offense, I find SAHM often ASSUME I find their conversation boring when it isn’t the case. Boring? Compared to the conversation I had with the plumbing subcontractor about the merits of copper piping? Boring compared to the owner wetting his pants for the hundreth time about the cost of the construction? Uh, not bloody likely. Anyway, we talk about childrearing on the construction site every day. Guys on the construction site love to talk about their feelings for their children–or their frustration with their teenagers. It’s interesting to hear them articulate that emotion. </p>

<p>I loathe the minutiae of household management–which is why I subcontract what I can afford.</p>

<p>There is a tricky formula for ‘having it all’. I absolutely talk to my boys about the range of work/home solutions and have done since they were little. However, like all my other motherly advice, some of it appears to be falling on deaf ears!</p>

<p>**here…my father travelled constantly --up until the time when the six of us were grown–agreat mystery according to my mother. You imagination isn’t playing tricks on you, it is very difficult on the single mom at home. My brothers resented it and they fired that resentment at the parent in front of them. My poor mother was really under strife with my four brothers-- they absolutely took advantage of her gentler nature. I can only advise that you not sacrifice too much of yourself. cyber hugs to you.</p>