Families that don't do anything with children

My childhood was like that and my parents were both addicted to gambling. With my son we provide a good balance I think. Things do cost money and I suspect that’s a big factor for a lot of families. I only have one child and I complain about the cinema, ice cream vans in parks and school uniform for September! This time of year is expensive

Toothfairyat230

How do you know they’re just “sitting at home” all day though? There are plenty of things to do around the home that are fun, interesting and educational. They might be cooking, growing stuff in the garden, drawing, reading , sewing, the list goes on
You could just as easily ask why some people have to be out all the time. IME it’s much easier to go out, and harder work to entertain kids at home.

This- not every child that stays at home is sitting staring at a screen- there’s children down the road from us playing chasing/ on the trampoline most of the day, our neighbour’s son is practicing football trying to make the county football team. I’ll admit we had screen addicts, but we play board games, hide and seek, they play with the dog, we play board games and we live in the country so they help in the garden. Everywhere is a drive from here and actually there’s not much anyway local to us so we have to find our own entertainment

My daughter has had a holiday and 4 expensive days out, followed by some cheaper local activities, went to see a relative today and she asked her what she had been up to in the holidays and she said “not much, just hung out at home”
unfortunately for the next 3 weeks she will be stuck at home as I have used all my annual leave for the year, I was starting to feel bad reading this thread but I need to work and I have no other options.

I think when your child gets older or if you end up having other children whose needs also need to be accommodated, you might not be so quick to point out the activities your one, very young, child does in comparison to other kids her age.

Ultimately I spent huge amounts of time and money putting them into two activities each six days a week and now they are older, I realise I didn't have to do this. Especially when competitive sports training increased in frequency so other activities had to be dropped. I wish I'd saved it towards their education.

In general though there are all sorts of reasons people don't take kids out and about. Money is a big factor along with so many other reasons.

In our house, I am (and resent being) the driving force behind organising things all the time. It feels unfair and is unfair but DH literally can't be arsed. The kids whine too much, want different things and what should be enjoyable days out, end up with stressed parents and cross kids who moan they didn't want to go.
I have booked a theme park for tomorrow and my kids went to bed shouting that it looks boring and they are sick of me choosing things that I want to do. (I absolutely despise theme parks but they love them).

I can easily see why some parents can't be bothered to be honest.

ETA Some of my worst childhood memories are of 'days out'. They comprised of driving over an hour to the beach and having a crap bbq there, eating sand covered food, and in general having a really miserable time with a very grumpy father. I still shudder when I think of them (which I try hard not to do).

I used to take my dc out a lot when they were little because I could, Always took a picnic.

me and dd18 have just spent two hours visiting 3 local parks with my dgd 7 (my ds child) and having a whale of a time with her, parks quiet, nearly dark. Dgd has adhd and asd and gets overwhelmed so easily and is normally a nightmare to take out.

But I can drive. And that makes it so much easier. I went without a car for a year once, I didn’t go out much. So I don’t blame parents for not doing much with thier dc, it’s not always easy.

Now that is really sad. Personally, I think not having access to books at home (which can include library books) is really a shame for children. I think visiting the library regularly and regularly reading books (not just listening to audiobooks) is actually more important for a child’s development than being out doing activities every day.

I think I’ve said before on here but generally speaking the only things of good quality you can get cheaply in the charity shop nowadays are children’s books. They are not as valued by society so they don’t get swept up by the resellers like the clothes and toys do. You can get brilliant titles for between 20p and 50p a book.

My 2.5 and 4.5 yo are lovely out in public (even if I do say so myself). They'll watch a bit of tele at home and maybe do some painting for half an hour, but after that they get bored and start play fighting, which of course spirals into real fighting. I dread days when they're ill and we have to stay home. On days we're short of cash, we go to Stay and Play sessions or a museum or just out on their scooters to the park. I suppose there's an element of children with different temperaments being happy with different things though; I have a friend with a child who is mad on crafting and reading and doesn't really like being out in nature at all, so is perfectly content having days in. If a child is just in all day on a screen on the regular, of course that's a different story, and you're right OP - a shame for everyone involved.

Thing is if you don't drive, you need bus fare. I got a bargain family ticket for £75 for the summer but lots of places don't have that kind of offer. If you go out, there's also food - it seems to costs more for a packed lunch that eating in cos you naturally pack more, and then there's the constantly saying no to stuff the other kids have - bottles of pop, ice creams etc. Actually with drinkers like my 3 the hardest thing is packing enough liquid, we always have to buy bottles of pop. It can just get tiring constantly saying no to everything.

But I've been in all week with a broken ankle and my GOD I just want out. The eldest got to club via friend but I've had twin 5 year olds in all week and possibly in all next week with too much TV. I'm bored. DH has aired the kids as much as he can this weekend whilst not leaving me alone too much. They needed some fresh air. But it's also easy. No money spent. No rushing to get dressed. No haranging about suitability of outfits. We've just pootled through the day. Got a small garden, got toys, TV, computer games.

I can definitely see how some people just fall into that lug of low energy

I was never taken anywhere as a child or had any real interaction. DM has admitted 'it never crossed her mind', even though she never worked (more interested in her own social life). DF just wasn't interested.

So I'm the opposite with my DC (DB is the same). I lacked confidence & the ability to interact in different situations & struggled because I had no idea of life outside a tiny sphere of our rural street or school. I only found my confidence when I started travelling. I want my DC to have more.

Oh definitely with you on the one kid thing, especially if you’re lucky -and it really is luck , rather than anything else- enough (like me) to have a generally chilled /easily entertained kid.Though you’ll find a lot of people saying one is harder , because two or more entertain each other. I don’t see it, but it must be true for some.I suppose it’s all very subjective and own experience based .

Where on earth did I say that, because I can afford it, others should be able to as well? I’ve been quite vocal on this thread about how staying in with your kids is fine, especially if times are hard.

And for what it’s worth, while we aren’t poor we also definitely aren’t rich. I haven’t bought new clothes in years. I don’t buy make up. The kids are dressed entirely in second hand clothes. The car is a second hand old banger I got from my step dad. We are lucky to have some disposable income to spend on an NT membership. But it’s not without sacrifice elsewhere.

It’s interesting you say this.

All my favourite memories of childhood were about running around with friends, going for walks, building dens, playing games with the kids on the street.

we did go on family excursions which I enjoyed, but it wasn’t a patch on a giant game of hide and seek.

i also remember being bored.

my DC’s childhood has been far more structured. Simply because kids don’t play out by themselves any more. I’ve tried to compensate with clubs and structured activities, but I think the way we ‘do’ childhood now isn’t the best for kids

Kids need down time. It is good for them to have time to choose what they want to do, play with their friends/siblings, and sometimes get bored. That's how you learn to be creative.
There is loads of stuff you can do in a house/garden.

I take mine out enough (in my opinion) but understand why others in a similar position wouldn't.

I've got three DC who are 7, 6 and almost 4. My 7 and 4yo are neurodivergant. Outings require planning with military precision and atleast one other adult on hand as my eldest gets very overwhelmed very quickly on outings. My youngest runs off constantly and has no awareness of danger.

Together, their behaviour can be seen as "feral" (as once described by a lovely old chap in sainsbury's) and it attracts negative attention because they don't 'look' disabled.

Their father works 5 night shifts a week and despite being a hands on committed dad - he just can't come along to every activity.

I also have a chronic illness so I admit there are some weeks we don't get to do much at all.

I imagine there are thousands of parents up and down the country who don't find it as easy as you to jump up and go wandering around national trusts.

Side note, I've only ever seen that cited on here as something fun to do. My children would be bored shitless and therefore very likely to act up, and we wouldn't want to upset the dear national trust members, would we?

You'd soon be wishing we had indeed stayed home on the Ipads 😂

It's not just about being able to drive/having money though, because lots of our parents didn't have a car/much money, yet we didn't stay in. I was going to say it's maybe because most mums work now, whereas in the 80s/90s a lot didn't work FT when the kids were small, but then you were talking about whole families being at home, so are you meaning people who don't work? Or do you mean parents who wfh-if so, that's something else that's changed. Up until 5 years ago, I didn't know many people who wfh, so they either had their kids in childcare, or they were off work and took them out. Not in any way judging this, wfh can be a great thing, I'm simply saying it's factor in change. Places like parks did generally seem to be much busier when I was a kid compared to now when I'm a mum (and I don't think there's fewer kids in general, given that there's more/bigger schools in the areas I used to live in). Obviously then and now some families have health issues, but another difference is that back then, most families I knew only had one or two TVs in the house (relatively few had computers/video games, though richer families might have had), yet now, nearly every kid seems to have a phone or a tablet (only the rich had mobiles when I was a kid in the early 90s, and we didn't get social media/much beyond calls/texts on phones until I was an adult).

I love the National trust and agree that if you can afford it it’s worth it. But I find it a little disingenuous to describe a yearly cost of £165 for a family membership as a day out that just cost petrol money. For a lot of families it is a big upfront expense, then petrol/bus/train money on top or, saving for a one off pay on the day visit, it is at least £20 for one adult assuming kids are under 5.

Depends what age you’re talking about. I like to do things with my youngest because she is still learning and gets excited. She loves farm parks, nature, organised events, anything really. Even when we don’t have plans I’ll make sure we get out just for a walk if nothing else.

My teenager on the other hand is too old for family days out and would much prefer to be left alone on his phone or PlayStation. And during the holidays it’s a nightmare trying to please them both. Quite often I’ll just take the little one out and eldest will invite a friend over so they can stare at screens together. Occasionally I insist he joins us but I often end up feeling demotivated and pissed off by the whole thing because he doesn’t want to be there.

I definitely think we live in a time where people are obsessed with ‘making memories’ and doing loads of stuff with their dc and it’s mainly for the benefit of social media so they can show off what great parents they are and how many great experiences they’re giving their kids. There has to be a middle ground imo. Days out are great but kids need chill time and to make their own fun too.

Respectfully, as I don’t know your circumstances, I personally find one child does make things a lot easier. I find it much easier staying at home with my 5 year old when I can be fully absorbed in whatever he wants to play. It becomes very hard when there is also a 2 year old snapping at my feet.

I also think a ‘chill day’ can be different to different people. For me, hiking with my husband is the ultimate form of chill. I appreciate that’s not the same for everyone though.

And, I have to say, despite mumsnet being awash with small kids who can self entertain for hours on end, I generally don’t find that reflected in real life. Most small kids need assistance from their parents to play. I suspect the ‘don’t feel guilty’ comments are in response to a day of screen time in lieu of parent interaction, as opposed to not leaving the house for an activity.

But that's 3 activities, not none, ever.

These families aren't poor.

There was a group in the library the other day, they'd gone in for a drink of juice and the librarian started talking to them about the summer reading challenge. All 3 of them (10, 8 and 6) said they had no books at home, and they had no library card and couldn't sign up without a parent.

The 10 yo sat down and read a book to her siblings so they could get their sticker, which was lovely, and they both sat like it was a West End show.

The library is in the village, it's walking distance from these children's house, completely free, and they've never been in with their parents.

Possibly the boy's recount wasn't accurate - in the past we've had very active school holidays, trip away, lots of outings, etc but to read my son's school holiday recount it sounds as though we did nothing but let him watch sports on TV!

Chronic illness meaning that energy management by the parent is a limiting factor.
Sensory needs of one of the children being incompatible with crowds, noise, people and unexpected demands.
A preference for rest over hustle.

There is more than one way to live a meaningful life.

If the rest of the year is busy and children are always following someone else’s agenda it can be nice for them to have unstructured time at home. So many are in school, the wrap around care, or clubs that time home being lazy together can be cherished.

I worked term time when mine were primary age and our holiday was often a trip to grandparents in London for a week, a couple day trips to the beach and some trips to the park. I didn’t have much money. I bought them a paddling pool most summers and they spent a lot of time in the garden. I also let them camp in a tent in the garden although they never lasted the night! But we all loved our lazy summer.

Ah this is true about organised activities!
I had a 90s/very early 2000s childhood and we did always go away for one week but the rest of the school summer holidays were ‘playing out’.

They were the best days though! And I have such fond memories of summers. In a lot of ways I think it was better than the scheduled, organised, paid-for activities that dominate now.

The people that enjoy chilling/relaxing at home does that they don’t leave house for a walk.

For us a chill day at home would include a walk with kids on bikes/scooters just on our road and not driving somewhere.

We love day trips but also some days it’s lovely for kids to potter round home searching for mischief.

I worked with vulnerable families for years. So definitely not living under a rock. Yes there are families like this, they are considered chaotic families and their children and maybe the adults need various supports or more. But there are also other families who spend lots of time at home for other reasons.