Children's Society report that nearly 2/3rds of us aren't able to spend enough time with children because of pressure of life and work - what are your thoughts?

[JustineMumsnet]

Hi all,
We've been asked for the Mumsnet take on a new report by the Children's Society which say that family life is under threat because of the pressures of work.

From the Children?s Society:

FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS STRUGGLING REVEALS NEW SURVEY
Date: 17 July 2007

Family relationships appear to be under threat as parents across the UK struggle with the demands of work, raising concerns over how much time they can spend with their children, a new poll commissioned by The Children's Society highlights today.

From this survey of UK adults, 61% said that parents nowadays don't get enough time to spend with their children while almost half of those questioned (48%) said that they had to put their career first even if this affected their family life. These results reflect the growing dilemmas over childcare British parents can feel when trying to juggle the many demands of modern life in a country that already puts in some of the longest working hours in Western Europe.

The survey, conducted by GfK NOP, is the second in a series called reflections on childhood commissioned by The Children's Society as part of its Good Childhood Inquiry - the UK's first independent national inquiry into childhood.

When adults were asked if a pre-school child was likely to suffer if his or her mother worked, almost half of all participants (48%) disagreed, but a significant number (37%) agreed. Two thirds (67%) of respondents said they didn't believe that parents should stay together when they didn't get along, even when there are children in the family.

Children contributing to The Good Childhood Inquiry* however, saw a happy home life as one in which they spent time together as a family. Although several submissions from children spoke of parents being too busy to spend time with them, saying:

'When your parents are always arguing or have full time jobs they don't spend any time with you. You feel lonely with nobody to talk to and all you can do is play on the computer or watch TV.'

Overwhelmingly, both the GfK NOP survey and the submissions to the inquiry identified love as the most important component for a happy childhood - 67% of adults polled and 70% of children's submissions.

Bob Reitemeier, chief executive of The Children's Society said: 'Family is hugely important in the lives of all children yet modern society appears to be pulling them apart. Only by taking a closer look at how a child's need for family can be met in the context of the 21st century, can we ensure a good childhood for all children. Without this fresh perspective and a better understanding of how to support families, we risk damaging the successful growth and development of future generations.'

(Daily Mail report here)

Would love to know what you think?

i meant frey bentos

Hmm - 2/3rds of us aren't able to spend enough time with children because of pressure of life and work, and the other 1/3 are probably all the SAHM's like me who spend far too much time with our ids and go insane because of it.

Like sophable and bk I do think the key is to stop making work the sole focus of our lives, and that means for mothers, fathers and those without children. We will never have any chance of work life balance whilst the majority of jobs, and particularly the majority of decent, stimulating careers, demand 50 hours a week plus and 120% commitment.

Spend too much time with their ids prufrock. Is that like navel gazing?

Ooooh Justine, you started a good one here! Guaranteed to get them all screaming at each other!

All I can say after seeing all this arguing is that spending more time together has worked for us. We now earn very little by working for ourselves but have no debts or credit cards. We work part time because we have walked away from the expensive way of life in the UK and have no major monthly expnditures. As a result, we are indeed very fortunate to spend as much time as possible with our son and together as a couple, even if it means that we are all together whilst doing housework, gardening, etc. We tried full time jobs for both of us in the UK. We also tried one of us working outside the home and the other homeworking in the UK. Personally they didn't provide us with what we wanted out of life (indeed, we just ended up more and more pressured by long hours, the mortgage, and just 'living to work') so we decided to make the change. No regrets - poor but happy.

But every family is different of course and wants different things out of life.

Actually Jammy, the way you phrased it implied that poverty was rare in the general population and very rare on MN. Perhaps you should look around some of the other threads discussing debts and so on to see that there are people on here who are struggling to get by.

I spend my (working!) day dealing with people in financial difficulty and I have to say that it amazes me that a lot of people get by at all. They really are working to live, not for luxuries. Times are tough for a lot of people.

expat you certainly seem to have a chip on your shoulder!

it seems to me that all those who have to sacrifice going to work are the aggressors in these threads and quick to jump down the thoats of anyone who is lucky enough to have the choice.

i go back to my original point, it is the government and society that has created the need to slog your guts out to make ends meet.

direct your anger there rather than being resentful towards those who aren't in the same boat as yourself!

jammy you have a clear view!

expat, like alot of other people in this country, does not have a CHOICE about whether she works or not. Her finances just about cover her bills and NOTHING else. There is NO FUN in living like that at all but its life for ALOT of people in this country

nightshade - the reason people get so angry is the implication (no matter how subtly worded) that parents work to fund a 'lifestyle' rather than simply a life.

i agree totally.

it is about choice, however it is not me or anyone else on this thread that have raised property prices, council tax, income tax or limited flexibility at work for parents.

under such pressure it is inevitable that the children are affected.

society has created a generation of children who are forced to be separated from their carers, who see stress, struggle and strife and who in your own words, don't have much fun.

surely this is not the best alternative.

sorry haven;t read the thread but GRRRRRRRRR at the survey question. why was it "when mothers work" as opposed to "when both parents work". ffs are we sill in the 50s or what? I have been able in the past to forgive serious studies that compare the actual effect of both working by comparing such families with ones where only the dad works and thereby coming out with something that in reality is about the difference when mums work - because I recognise that it is difficult to get data that truly reflects the effect of both parents working but an opinion survey???? nooooo. unforbloodygiveable.

I agree with Dullwitch and Blu.

Oh yeah, hatwoman. Bad mothers, going out to work leaving the poor deprived children to fend for themselves. Entirely to fund our expensive clothing habits, of course.
Not impressed with this survey, very leading questions.
UNICEF study much better and profoundly more depressing.

Nightshade, as I said, I am lucky enough to have a choice so I'm not resenting anything.

Just because i'm not in financial difficulty myself does not mean that I am so naive, as I think Jammy is, to understand that poverty is everywhere in this country.

It's quite convienient to assume that those who are saying that 'choice' is laughable for many, are just bitter and twisted people who have spent all their money on non-essentials.

justine - whats your view?

i have not stated anywhere that i believe people are spending money on frivolities, nor do i feel that it is naive for others to think that there is little poverty in this country.

look at other cultures and i think we can all agree that it is unlikely that many families in britain are going to starve to death today. i believe that is what jammy meant by lack of poverty.

the fact that we have become such a consumer society means that people are no longer satisfied with making ends meet.

in previous eras most felt they were doing well to 'just cover their bills' nowadays we are made to feel that getting by is a lowly position.

thank you nightshade

I am unable to maintain anything like the same standard of living that I had as a child even though my dp works full time and I work 23 hours a week.

I would like to spend more time with my child and less time at work but this would mean that we could only afford to own/rent a one bedroom flat - not very suitable for family life. I work so that we can have 2 bedrooms.

No need to post as TheDullWitch has said what I think. I think the study found that the Brits are the moaniest and this starts in childhood. Moan moan moan...

And this thing about choice doesn't add up much. Does it make me morally superior if I chose to stay at home with the children than someone who chose to work full time because she happens to like her job? no

Nightshade, you state that,
'you do not (sic) believe it is naive for others to think that there is little poverty in this country.'

I totally disagree with this and feel it's shockingly naive for anyone to think there is little poverty in this country.

You are implying that because people are not displaced from their homes and literally famine victims then they cannot be desperately poor.

I remember growing up, 4 of us sharing a tin of beans and some bread for our dinner. So because we were just hungry not literally starving then we weren't poor!

if you were sharing a tin of beans between 4 of you and your parents ran a car then surely (if it was the case) priorities were misplaced? obviosly im not saying your parents did run a car for example but if they did....

You're fighting a losing battle trying to get your point across to Jammy and those of that ilk, homemama. Because no matter how poor you were, she'll always make the conclusion that it was somehow or another your parents' fault - if they ran a car, for example, because there was no other way to get to their pay for peanuts job, well, then that's the reason you ate beans.

After all, poverty is rare in the UK.

[rolls eyes]

naturally this is turning into a sahm v wohm argument but i guess if our darlings are at school all day then obvioulsy any quality time spent with the children will be in the evenings and weekends. My children, like a lot of others, do a variety of activities and Im guilty of encouraging that time spent on individual activities rather than as a whole family thing m- i guess this is also called into question. How much time is spent each week in the pursuit of child only activities?

My car is a major priority for me frankly

I'd rather go without expensive food than without the freedom it gives me.

And beans are good - nutritious, lwo fat, healthy.

But they make you fart.

No Jammy they did not run a car. Does that mean we pass the poverty test? They both worked BTW.

Although many people in that situation may well need to run a small car in order to get to work to afford the beans. Only in cities and large towns is public transport reliable or frequent.