To think we don’t realise what modern life is doing to families?

[MrsGrindah]

I’ll own up here.. not a mother myself but a stepmother.
But I spend a lot of time travelling on trains for work and see so many parents on the phone to their kids ( in the mornings and before bedtime). Yes it’s great that technology allows this, but I just feel sorry for people missing out on being with their families. Last week there was a man talking to his little boy, apologising that he had gone before the boy had woken up and wouldn’t be back by the time he went to bed. I felt so sorry for everyone
Not blaming the parents and of course we all have to work. My point is as a society we are becoming used to this and almost expect people to be prepared to sacrifice a significant chunk of family life. Just makes me feel sad to see it and I wonder whether we’ll regret it in years to come.

Commuting and technology are the big things here. People have to commute further- this is different to moving for work- but we also have the means to work remotely in so many more jobs. Not all, of course, but more than it's currently being utilised for. The amount of time and space that could be freed up by those commuting in roles they could do remotely at least some of the time must be significant. To say nothing of the positive impact on the environment.

I agree OP.
My mum was a SAHM until we were older and she worked part time. My Dad worked in London, but I still remember having a sit down dinner every night and had conversations about what we were reading and the news etc.

YANBU

Longer working hours with lower overall efficiency and a culture of presenteeism.

It's unhealthy for everyone, parents and children alike.

It's endemic though and if a worker needs to work, often working hours and culture are not within their control.

It was not a criticism of working parents

Well it bloody well sounds like it!

YY re presenteeism. And of course this is a wider societal issue and it isn't necessarily (though it is sometimes) within the control of the individual worker.

I think what's unhealthy is this idea we have that there needs to be one primary caregiver, and that there was ever this magical place and time (beyond the early decades of the 1900's until about 1980) when one parent was souly dedicated to child rearing.

It's just not historically accurate. Not in hunter/gatherer societies, not in agricultural societies, not in industrial societies and not in the upper or lower classes.
The idea of a primary caregiver is incredibly new and incredibly middle class.
For the whole plane of human existence, except for perhaps 2 generations, parents and children got along just fine only seeing each other for a couple of hours in the evening, if that.

Presenteeism drives me crazy!!! One woman at work always stays a half hour late no matter what because she can't get her tasks done by 5.30. No matter what job she is given. Her mother minds her children and it suits her to let traffic die down a bit. I make sure all my tasks are completed and will work through lunch if it's particularly busy because I have to leave to race to creche. You can guess who got the promotion because of her dedication to her work. Presenteeism is crap but it really does benefit people who do it.

I agree op.

Many years ago, one person's salary was enough to support the family. Now, it's not.

YANBU. In both mine and DH's job we're expected to be on call 24/7. Usually that means late hours in the office, but when it doesn't it still means being on a blackberry through the night. That's what's expected now and people in our jobs are so scared of losing them, we all feel we have no choice but to work those sorts of hours. "Back in the day" people would clock off at 5/6pm and couldn't work through the night (no emails, mobiles etc). I do think society is going in a bad direction in terms of work/life balance .

I was born in 1964. My mum was a SAHM, my dad worked shifts as a collier and then in a factory, 7.30 to 3.00. So my parents were around a lot. But it's fair to say they weren't particularly hands on compared to parents today.

But women didn't really work much outside the home in our working class community: on the whole their husbands earned enough, either in the collieries or the steelworks, that it wasn't a necessity. A couple of my mum's friends had been to grammar school and had proper careers as teachers and the like, but it was fairly unusual. Those dual income families were percieved as extremely wealthy. Some women with no kids or feckless husbands also worked.

Honestly? For some families, I think there was a bit of a golden age.

Sashkin, I grew up in the 80s in rural Ireland, and it was common for children to help out - I've picked stones out a field, helped bring home the turf etc. I did it rarely, resentfully and badly, but it did happen.

OP, I have a certain amount of sympathy for your view - I don't hear you blaming parents, more regretting the situation some find themselves in. I work ft close to home, and my employer is good about letting me take time for school plays etc, but dd still laments having to go to after-school club/holiday club. But my job is not keeping us in electronics, trainers and holidays but food and housing, and I wish those posters who trill about sacrificing material goods to spend their time with their dcs would get some perspective. We wouldn't have much quality time together if we were permanently cold and hungry.

Re middle class expectations, I suppose the Famous Five might be an unreliable guide, but Julian, Dick and Anne were in boarding school and then headed off without parents for weeks in the holidays while Mother went overseas to keep Daddy company. I'm amazed they could even recognise their parents.

I don't think its middle class handwringing. I grew up working class on a council estate. Yes all the dads were out working mostly in manual work or driving jobs as it was a town with lots of factories/breweries (now closed), mums would be either SAHM or would take part time work if they had family around to help out as there was no formal wraparound care of any sort. But I remember seeing all my classmates mums at the school gates, knew their names. We had quite an idyllic childhood, like a Shirley Hughes book. As primary school was a million miles away from how it is now, no homework, teachers had flexibility with what they taught, less testing and paperwork. After school was just about playing in the garden or out with friends.

My mum (nearly 70 now) was a latch-key kid. Her mother worked in her grans sweet shop until late evening. Her father worked in the mine office and didn't come home until 6pm. From when she was very little she walked home from school alone and let herself in with her key. She was expected to lay and light a fire if it was cold so the house would warm up by the time the adults got home.

My Dad similar but at least he had his brother. His Dad was a miner and his mum worked at the Redifusion (whatever the hell that is). They came home from school alone.

I'm not saying it is great for kids to rarely see their parents but it isn't entirely a modern thing either. At least we don't stuff them up chimneys or send them to work in the mills. Teachers don't cane them for not knowing work they've not yet been taught.

The modern age comes with it an overabundance of food, toys, tech and concern for kids welfare. This is a good thing (fewer children go hungry, efforts to combat abuse etc..) however it also comes with challenges (obesity for example). Life is not perfect now but it is important to remember the progress that has been made and to continue to work towards improving things for kids and families in the future.

Longer working hours with lower overall efficiency and a culture of presenteeism. It's unhealthy for everyone, parents and children alike. It's endemic though and if a worker needs to work, often working hours and culture are not within their control.

I agree with this. Work demands have become more and more unreasonable. And there is no pressure at all on companies to become more family friendly. It's bad for parents and children alike.

I also think there was a bit of a golden age for some people. DH's father had a well paid professional job, which started at 9.30. He left at 6.00 every day so he could be home for dinner at 6.15, when the whole family ate together.

He was considered to be particularly diligent and hard working in the company he was in. Most people left at 5pm. He was also able to afford a house 15 minutes walk from the city centre on one income. My MIL was a SAHM.

DH and I frequently work much, much longer days that that. I'd say DH is averaging 14 hour days at the minute. I'll regularly have to work 9.30-21.30 (a couple of days a week). My industry is a bit unusual in that evening work is part and parcel. We have 1 child and another on the way and managing that having quality time for anyone is really challenging.

My kids' dad is dead. They can't even Facetime him. Is our family doomed?

That's very sad Niche but not really relevant to the discussion.

I didn't work when mine were small. In the southern commuter town where we lived 20 years ago there were plenty of well educated SAHMs and even the odd Dad. Working partners had jobs like teaching or other professions. We all lived in two or three bed terraced houses, not rented.

And in the naice north west village where we live now there's are loads of SAHM's, though pretty much all go back to work when their kids are settled in school. Most kids are picked up by a parent though.

I stayed at home when ours were small and my dh went to work(still does!) We moved so his commute was shorted and he could see the girls and put them to bed. Luckily the move meant more house for our money. I accept that buying a house in 1998 meant we had a smaller mortgage but being a sahm we still made massive sacrifices(no new clothes, holidays etc) so the kids had someone at home. For us it meant giving them the best start. Yes, homes are more expensive and working hours longer but I STILL think a lot of people put careers and lavish lifestyles ahead of being with their kids.

Some people have to work extremely long hours for their job, it's not their choice and I'm sure if they could find something different they would, but as pp said they need to pay the bills. Some people work extremely long hours to be the most highflying person in their industry. They could choose to do something more family friendly, or even just work fewer hours at the expense of career progression without ever worrying about how they will pay the bills. For example my friend says she works with a husband and wife pair at her magic circle law firm who are so desperate to make partner that even though they work in adjacent offices they hardly see each other, and often sleep at the office so rarely see their children. They have daily Skype calls with them apparently, but only actually go home a few times a week. Now I appreciate that that's a very extreme scenario but it's definitely not about keeping a roof over their kids heads! They could very easily move to smaller firms, work fewer hours, or even change careers, but they want to be top dog in their profession and having basically no free time or family life is the price they have to pay. Fully understand that some people have no choice in the hours they work just to survive, but some people do have a choice and yes, I think one day they may well regret it.

At least we're not all down the mines. Parents hundreds of years ago had to work long hours and the kids as well! This is the price we pay for being in a society driven by money!
We're all doomed I tell ya!

To jump a generation... My grandad worked as engineer in the 60's building/ designing big structures. He was rarely at home...had to travel all over the world.
My nan was a seamstress and worked from home while the kids where primary school age and later worked FT.
(So nothing new in my family... for them it did pay off they could retired comfortably in their 50's.)

but I STILL think a lot of people put careers and lavish lifestyles ahead of being with their kids

I'm not seeing much of this. What I do see are people who have found themselves in un-family-friendly professions (consultancies/law/finance) based on decisions they made in their early 20s.

On having kids, many of these people have found it very difficult to go part time or scale back their hours, because their industry doesn't really allow for this. They could theoretically change careers, but that would involve starting at the bottom of the payscale somewhere else and everyone has a mortgage to pay and a pension to fund. They could take a career break, but there are no guarantees they'd ever get back in. So they're stuck.

Most Mums/Dads I know personally are not trying to move up the payscale or become partner, they're just trying to keep their heads above water and minimise the impact on their family. But it's very difficult.

I agree OP. Some people are happy just to see their kids at weekends though.

I was also utterly bemused by those who say no one on their death bed says they wish they'd worked more.

Why not?

Work for me involved pride in my career, social contact from colleagues and financial independence.

My sister is at home with a screaming threenager, one at school and a dh she never stops bitching about.....fuck that for a game of soldiers.

Unless your home lives are so idyllic it is reminiscent of care a lot. But based on what I read here I would say not.

I never had that much pride in my career. I mean I was good at it, but I wasn't the only person in the world who could have done what I did. And I wasn't exactly performing heart transplants or finding a cure for cancer or anything.

As for colleague, well yeah, I rubbed along with them fine, but they weren't friends. I have real friends.

And DP and I have always pooled all our money anyway. It works for us, neither of us has any intention of running off or anything.

In my early fifties, yes I do have friends who wish they'd stayed home when their kids were small. I wouldn't trade anything about my SAHM years.