July 20, 2006 12:50 PM
Working parents selling kids short
This article is based on research with UK working parents. Scroll to bottom for my comments.
19 minutes - how long working parents give their children
By BECKY BARROW, Daily Mail
22:00pm 19th July 2006A 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.
With less than 20 minutes spent with their parents every day, this is only enough time to eat a quick breakfast together or have a couple of bed-time stories.
The Office for National Statistics looked at nearly 4,950 people over the age of 16 in Britain to find out what they do all day.
The findings make grim reading for working parents who already worry that they spend too much time at work - and too little at home.
Full article here.
Take-away for stay-at-home moms:
No matter how bad a day you have with your kids, be grateful you are home.
Take-away for working moms:
A reminder to spend as much time as possible with your kids. Consider coming home. When I look around at all the STUFF people buy, I am convinced a lot of two-working-parent families could manage to keep mom home if they would just stop buying so much STUFF. Sit down and figure out how much extra you are spending to work (commuting costs, wardrobe, stuff you buy your kids to make up for your absence), higher tax bracket. It might be more possible to stay home than you have thought.
If you must work, try for fewer hours or telecommuting. Create more family time by getting computers and TVs out of bedrooms, doing everything with your kids - shopping, cooking, cleaning, laundry.
When it comes to the argument about Quantity Time being more important than Quality Time - you still need Quantity to come up with Quality.
Working parents often think that dinners out and/or expensive vacations make up for all the hours they spend away from their kids. But aren't these just more unecessary expenditures which creates the "need" for additional income which necessitates two working parents, who make up for their absence by spending more money on vacations and STUFF which creates the need for more money - well, you catch my drift. This is a bondage which some parents just need to wake up and see they can walk away from if they truly wish to.
Some just need to get honest and acknowledge that they get more satisfaction from working than raising kids. But how would you know if you've never tried? And is life all about your satisfaction? Remember, Rick Warren's book The Purpose-Driven Life begins with this sentence: "It's not about you."
Once you become a parent, life isn't about you anymore. it is about your kids. And kids need you more than anything else. They need your time and attention. The whole argument about "Quality Time" is bogus through and through.
That's because when it comes to Quality vs. Quantity, Quantity is always best because there will be more spontaneous Quality moments possible. Quality isn't based at all on the money being spent. Some of my best conversations with my kids have occurred while we are working together on chores or just hanging out.
If you are a working mother (well, we're all really working mothers, but you know what I mean) considering coming home to serve your family more directly and intimately and sacrificially - or if you are discussing this issue with such a mother - here is a book that looks helpful: 7 Myths of Working Mothers, summarized at amazon thus:
Dispelling our most cherished myths about working mothers, Suzanne Venker argues that woman can’t be successful in the workplace and at home simultaneously. They can achieve the balance they so desperately seek only by planning their careers around motherhood, rather than planning motherhood around their careers.
Ms. Venker fearlessly tackles the most contentious issues of working motherhood: women’s equality, family economics, the notion of "quality time," women’s guilt and stress, and daycare. In each chapter, she exposes a different myth about working mothers, drawing on extensive research and her own experience as a mother and a teacher. The result is a powerful case for the link between the problems of today’s children and the absence of mothers from the home.
Posted in Mothering | Permalink
Comments
Once again, Barbara, thank you for your honesty. I think we often fail each other by glossing over this issue, especially with the 'quality vs. quantity' thinking.
Posted by: Nicki | July 20, 2006 3:07 PM
right on, barbara. too much of that in my neighborhood too. My boys keep asking when we are going to ____. FIll in the blank with get a motorhome, get a garage, or get anything else they see. We have talks and for 7, 5, and 3 I think they are beginning to understand. especially since I mention I'd have to go to work and they would have to go to daycare. For a while they did not know what day care was. Then they started asking to play with some of the neighbors. when I said they were in daycare and kept saying it, and kept saying it that helped them understand.
Posted by: Janet | July 20, 2006 8:38 PM
"The Office for National Statistics looked at nearly 4,950 PEOPLE over the age of 16 in Britain to find out what they do all day." reading the entire article it is clear that this data came from a study of a relatively small cross section of people living in England.
I was especially amused with the fact that their research yields that SAHMs get "more than nine hours sleep every night", I forwarded that to my best friend who just so happens to be a SAHM and she cracked up too.
Posted by: laura | July 21, 2006 1:21 AM
19 minutes? How is that even possible? Do those children sleep 16 hours a day? My husband has a contractual obligation to work 42.5 hours/week, which he routinely exceeds, and he still spends about 3 hours a day (during the work week - much more on weekends) with our son. 19 minutes?
I do have to say, I'm not sure it's fair to subtract out the time spent doing "other things at the same time." (though adding those 16 minutes back in doesn't make the picture look any better)Am I supposed to subtract the time I spend cooking while my son plays with pots and pans on the floor and call that non-child care time? We always go the grocery store together - it's so much harder to shop with him, too - but why is that not child care time? If I read the newspaper while he plays independently, do I subtract out that time too?
But 19 minutes? Really?
Posted by: swissmiss | July 21, 2006 1:40 AM
I've tried working at home as a freelance writer and transcriptionist for almost a year now. But I just got accepted for an 8-hour day job. Now, I'm having second thoughts about taking the job.
Posted by: maying | July 21, 2006 2:57 AM
Often when I exhort my kids about important matters they quibble about the fine points and miss the heart of what I'm saying. Then I remind them that this is a technique to avoid a reality they'd rather not see. In our family we call these little verbal excursions "rabbit trails." (And my advice to you as parents is to be on guard against this when you discuss things with your kids - stick to the heart of the matter.)
I am not here to defend this study. I too think that 19 minutes sounds ridiculous, and I agree with swissmiss that leaving out working-together time is missing the boat. What I personally think of that should be clear from the rest of my lengthy thoughts on the subject of working mothers.
I think grabbing on to the 19 minutes and finding fault with the study is a rabbit trail, however.
The article - to which I allowed 134 words of a 738 word entry - was merely a springboard to the heart of what I had to say. With most of my entries I start with an idea and then ruminate on it to produce something that reflects my opinions and beliefs.
So the 604 words which follow are much more important than the piece of information which stimulated them.
The fact is that children of working parents are shortchanged. And often because of reasons having to do with materialism and mothers following their desire to seek fulfillment in things other than motherhood - which I call selfish because I believe the Christian life involves sacrifice of my desires to follow God's plan for my life.
Laura, we've had this quarrel before. And once again your reaction seems rather kneejerk. I've previously said that I don't judge you for choosing to work, as I don't presume to know God's plan for your life. But your automatic reaction seems very defensive. If I were a working mother and had confidence that God's plan for my life involved my working - for whatever reasons others might not understand - then I would still have to agree that many working mothers are lying to themselves when they say they HAVE to work because their family needs two incomes.
The fact is they are CHOOSING to work for the reasons I said - for more material wealth (which becomes the vicious cycle I described), or for personal satisfaction. Neither of these involve putting their children first.
Let me be clear: I am not condemning working mothers - particularly single working mothers who truly have little choice (I was a single mother myself for five years.
But as I pointed out the last time we had this discussion - and I'm sighing with weariness that we have to have it again - I will not submit to Thought Police who somehow hear the sound of the boxing ring bell whenever I express my opinions of what's best for the family.
I still do not understand this dynamic. As I said before, one of my best blog friends is Spunky - who recently won not one, but two Blogs of Beauty awards (Go, Spunky!) - who is a passionate homeschooler. I agree with her that homeschooling is best for children. But I am confident that God's plan for our family for the past few years has called for most of my kids to be in public school. I don't come out swinging when Spunky writes passionately about her beliefs in the value of homeschool. Is that because I'm confident? And Laura, if you're confident in your postiion in God's eyes, then why get defensive? I'm not trying to recruit people to follow my path because I consider what God has required of our family an aberration (think mission field). Do you seriously believe I am wrong in saying that many working mothers are working for the wrong reasons or in denial about why they work?
The fact is that SAHMs do not receive the external affirmation - paycheck, accolades, awards, adult recognition - that working mothers do. They must be directly dependent on God. It is a spiritual discipline - and one many working mothers never have to submit to. But to the SAHMs reading this, I promise you your sacrifice is holy in God's eyes. And those are the eyes that matter.
And as regards the last comment, Maying - who knows but that the crossroads at which you stand is the very reason I was prompted to write an entry yesterday that I did not plan and which surprised me as it poured forth? I so appreciate your sharing and hope that you will choose wisely and well.
Posted by: barbara | July 21, 2006 7:08 AM
I had a post all ready to go about this article and I saw your comment. I said those same words, it isn't about us.
Barbara, I love ya! Keep up the great blogging.
Posted by: Spunky | July 21, 2006 9:00 AM
Spunky wrote a piece on this subject today at http://homeschoolblogger.com/spunkyhomeschool/170483/#c315315, linking to my article and commenting on my line about life for parents being about their children:
I agree with her in part. When we become a parent, life isn't about us anymore. It wasn't before that really. However, it often takes becoming a parent to help us realize that simple truth. But as a parent, I try and resist the urge to make it about my children as well. Yes, they need our time and attention, but life isn't about our kids. If we begin to believe that then we'll raise another generation who believe that life revolves around them. The sad cycle will just continue. Life isn't about me or my children. It's about the One who gave me and my children life. When I live a life that revolves around Him, it is easier to order my priorities in such a way that will benefit all of us.
I stand corrected! :)
See why I like this woman?
Posted by: barbara | July 21, 2006 1:45 PM
I think your take-away may be correct if you look at this particular cross-section of the U.K. However, if you look at working parents in general, I think you've made some pretty unfair and sweeping generalizations.
Many working parents work so their children can eat, which you pointed out in the case of single mothers but neglected to emphasize in the case of dual-income households. What about those of us whose husbands earn significantly less than we do? Your point is purely based on women, not parents.
Many working parents outsource chores SAHMs have to do due to lost income, so they are able to spend more time focusing on their children when they are home. We may have to work our teaching moments in while we're microwaving dinner, but if they get in there, who cares when it happens?
I agree that putting children above material possessions in the right thing to do - I absolutely agree with you about that. Putting children above any single pursuit, though - I respectfully disagree with you there. I believe in putting family harmony before children specifically. Family harmony is easily disrupted when someone feels put-upon, when money is so tight there's no relief for the weary or when spouses or partners fight because they can't make ends meet. Children know when things are hard. This tension does far more harm to a child than being cared for by a multitude of loving teachers, babysitters, nannies, parents, grandparents, etc.
I think your arguments may make the most sense (I'm still not entirely sure I agree that women should give up their professional aspirations simply because they gave birth - what sort of an example does that set?) if the man of the house has a high-paying job and can comfortable (not luxuriously) support his family and his SAHM wife. It makes no sense to me if the entire family would have to live in month-to-month terror simply so the mother can stay home. And I really think most working mothers work because they have to - ask 100 working moms that question and see what they say. I don't think you'll find one mother who says she works so she can drive a Lexus.
Why should I care, as a working mother, if more people love and care for my child? Why should I object if she feels safe with people other than me? Why should I need to be the only authority figure in her life?
I wanted to be a SAHM when my daughter was born, but financially I did not have that option. Thus, she's been in daycare since she was three months old. She's now two and a half. I worked through my disappointment, because I want my daughter to remember me as a young mother as a happy young mother, not as one who cried all the time because she had to go off to her bad old job. She may have to make the same decision someday - she will probably have to - and I want to show her that sometimes we have to make tough decisions, and things can still work out. My marriage is solid. Her college fund is growing. My writing career is fulfilling.
My child does not have more toys than those of SAHMs. We live in a house that cost $127,000. My husband does half of the childcare and chores. My child has loving, affectionate teachers, and I have a fabulous network of working parent friends whose children share their days with my child as a result of her daycare situation.
Yes, my response is largely about my own life, but all of our evidence is anecdotal. Kids are all different, and so are people. I don't understand why we as mothers have to be so polarizing and criticize each other's way of life. Why does it matter whether we as women, as mothers, stay home or work as long as our children are happy, healthy, well-adjusted and loved? I rarely see working mothers attack SAHMs, but I see a lot of the reverse.
Why?
Posted by: dorothy | August 19, 2006 4:32 PM
Great Information.I found your site very interesting With the right information.Single parents are often working parents because someone needs to earn money to buy food, clothing, and a place to live. Having a job means your mom or dad is able to provide these things and more for you. People work for other reasons, too.
Thanks
Posted by: working parents | April 23, 2008 12:56 AM
