I appreciate the sentiment of the article, but I hate that our culture plays up this idea that being a good parent means being there for all the arbitrary "milestones." I honestly don't remember if my dad was there or not on my first day of school, etc. I sure as hell remember that he called me when I got home from school every day to make sure I was okay and not getting into trouble.
You're not going to be able to convince corporate America that a kid's dance recital is more important than a client meeting. All you'll do by stressing that dance recital is make busy parents feel bad for not being able to live up to some ideal, or discourage ambitious people from having kids because they think they can't be good parents too. You'll get a lot further trying to push back on ideas like "face time" or competing on who can take the least vacation. Don't have much work? Go home at 2 and take your kid to a museum. That's just as valuable as your being there for an arbitrary "milestone."
Right. A survey showed that parents usually expect that children want more time with them instead of work, but that that's not usually what children want:
"One of Galinsky's more surprising findings centered around a question she posed to both children and parents: "If you were granted one wish to change the way your mother's/your father's work affects your life, what would that wish be?" Some 56 percent of parents anticipated that their children would want more time with their parents and for their parents to spend less time at work, yet only 10 percent of the children actually wanted more time with their mothers and only 16 percent wanted more time with their fathers. A far larger proportion, 34 percent, wished that their mothers would be less stressed and less tired, and 28 percent wished this about their fathers." - http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/05/listen_to_the_c....
He worked 2nd and 3rd shift for stretches until I was in 4th grade, then got a management position and put in 60+ hour weeks until he retired. While going to school at night. While occasionally traveling for work.
When he had to go in on weekends, which was often, he'd bring me and I'd sit on a spare souped up 386 in his office while we both worked in relative silence. I remember those times as fondly as some kids probably remember tossing a ball around with their dads. (It helped that we shared interests in sci-fi, movies, and computers.)
A stable, care-free life was one of the greatest gifts my parents gave me but it came at a cost - even mom worked 40+ hours a week, me and sis were latch-key kids, we never went on summer trips, dad missed "milestones", etc. Yeah, first world problems, but people (unbelievably) complain about this stuff.
I know people who saw their parents all the time - but moved around, went to public school (which were not good where I'm from), and whose parents fought about minor bills all the time or worse - whose parents now cannot afford retirement.
tl;dr imo providing a stable life for your kids > spending lots of time with them
Everything in life is kind of arbitrary. We apply meaning to events. There are certain events that we apply special meaning to. The first day of school is bigger for parents than kids. Its a sign of their child growing up. But I had a friend who played basketball. His dad never came to see him play through about 100 HS games because of work. To him these were milestones, and to this day (20 years later) he holds this against his dad.
Kids are made to care. I don't remember my graduation from grade school being a big deal -- I certainly don't remember having a ceremony and I doubt that there was any sort of fanfare surrounding it. This June I went to the neighbor's 5th grade graduation and it lasted as long as my high school graduation in the early 90s. Not saying it's wrong, but it's a shift in our values as a culture. Part of it is that parents, especially dads, are expected to be more engaged in their kids' lives than their fathers were. But I think that part of it also plays into the whole helicopter-parent trend, making a big deal of out achievements that everyone should reasonably be expected to attain.
On the other hand, those milestones are surely not the only time that this father missed with his daughter, they were the symptoms of a larger problem, so I'm not sure it's really relevant.
True. But it's hard to predict or script which moments make a lasting impression on a child. Speaking only for myself the moments I remember most vividly don't even register with my parents when I bring them up. But the interactions are forever etched in my mind.
Having a child of my own nowI remember that. I remember that the world is chaotic, unpredictable and in order to make memories, even one you first have to be present. This bite me in the ass when my wife reminds me of it at 5am when my second grade daughter wants to play games or draw pictures with one of us.
What if the kid cares because the culture makes a big deal out of it? IMHO, kids should just be kids, not have all this organized, scheduled shit anyway.
Since my parents were working all the time, extracurricular activities were usually just not possible because no one was there to drive.
The result was that I spent my grade-, middle-, and high-school years (especially summers) simply loafing around - biking around the hood, kicking it with other kids, walking to the library, the mall or arcade, catching a bus downtown, futzing around on the computer and learning to program, walking, reading, thinking, etc.
Magical times...
People really only have 18 years guaranteed obligation-free, why rob them of that?
You can do more than 18 years obligation free. It's just people want more money.
I'd argue we have it backwards. More free time as we get older and more structure when we're younger. Not 100% scheduled, but not loafing around all day.
Where was an article not too long ago on HN about the benefits of "unstructured play" and how we are creating much more stressed out and a lot less adjusted kids by denying them that historic social practice of just figuring out their social place within their social group, independent of the social position of their parents.
That's the point the dance recital is an indicator of the problem. It's not about earning parent points for achieving "milestones"
If you cannot attend functions that happen at 7, or come in to work an hour early to see your kid at the bus stop, you're not leaving at two to look at dinosaurs either.
Depends on the job. I can't count on making any given event at 7 pm. But over a month, I could bail at 2 pm several times. Many busy jobs have gaps, they just often don't line up with arbitrary events.
Comments
I appreciate the sentiment of the article, but I hate that our culture plays up this idea that being a good parent means being there for all the arbitrary "milestones." I honestly don't remember if my dad was there or not on my first day of school, etc. I sure as hell remember that he called me when I got home from school every day to make sure I was okay and not getting into trouble.
You're not going to be able to convince corporate America that a kid's dance recital is more important than a client meeting. All you'll do by stressing that dance recital is make busy parents feel bad for not being able to live up to some ideal, or discourage ambitious people from having kids because they think they can't be good parents too. You'll get a lot further trying to push back on ideas like "face time" or competing on who can take the least vacation. Don't have much work? Go home at 2 and take your kid to a museum. That's just as valuable as your being there for an arbitrary "milestone."
Right. A survey showed that parents usually expect that children want more time with them instead of work, but that that's not usually what children want:
"One of Galinsky's more surprising findings centered around a question she posed to both children and parents: "If you were granted one wish to change the way your mother's/your father's work affects your life, what would that wish be?" Some 56 percent of parents anticipated that their children would want more time with their parents and for their parents to spend less time at work, yet only 10 percent of the children actually wanted more time with their mothers and only 16 percent wanted more time with their fathers. A far larger proportion, 34 percent, wished that their mothers would be less stressed and less tired, and 28 percent wished this about their fathers." - http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/05/listen_to_the_c....
Yes, and if you ask kids if they want candy or vegetables for dinner, what will the majority of them answer?
I would think there's a high correlation between working more and being stressed or tired. Wanting less of the latter doesn't negate the former.
I rarely saw my dad, at times.
He worked 2nd and 3rd shift for stretches until I was in 4th grade, then got a management position and put in 60+ hour weeks until he retired. While going to school at night. While occasionally traveling for work.
When he had to go in on weekends, which was often, he'd bring me and I'd sit on a spare souped up 386 in his office while we both worked in relative silence. I remember those times as fondly as some kids probably remember tossing a ball around with their dads. (It helped that we shared interests in sci-fi, movies, and computers.)
A stable, care-free life was one of the greatest gifts my parents gave me but it came at a cost - even mom worked 40+ hours a week, me and sis were latch-key kids, we never went on summer trips, dad missed "milestones", etc. Yeah, first world problems, but people (unbelievably) complain about this stuff.
I know people who saw their parents all the time - but moved around, went to public school (which were not good where I'm from), and whose parents fought about minor bills all the time or worse - whose parents now cannot afford retirement.
tl;dr imo providing a stable life for your kids > spending lots of time with them
Everything in life is kind of arbitrary. We apply meaning to events. There are certain events that we apply special meaning to. The first day of school is bigger for parents than kids. Its a sign of their child growing up. But I had a friend who played basketball. His dad never came to see him play through about 100 HS games because of work. To him these were milestones, and to this day (20 years later) he holds this against his dad.
What if the kid cares?
Kids are made to care. I don't remember my graduation from grade school being a big deal -- I certainly don't remember having a ceremony and I doubt that there was any sort of fanfare surrounding it. This June I went to the neighbor's 5th grade graduation and it lasted as long as my high school graduation in the early 90s. Not saying it's wrong, but it's a shift in our values as a culture. Part of it is that parents, especially dads, are expected to be more engaged in their kids' lives than their fathers were. But I think that part of it also plays into the whole helicopter-parent trend, making a big deal of out achievements that everyone should reasonably be expected to attain.
On the other hand, those milestones are surely not the only time that this father missed with his daughter, they were the symptoms of a larger problem, so I'm not sure it's really relevant.
True. But it's hard to predict or script which moments make a lasting impression on a child. Speaking only for myself the moments I remember most vividly don't even register with my parents when I bring them up. But the interactions are forever etched in my mind.
Having a child of my own nowI remember that. I remember that the world is chaotic, unpredictable and in order to make memories, even one you first have to be present. This bite me in the ass when my wife reminds me of it at 5am when my second grade daughter wants to play games or draw pictures with one of us.
What if the kid cares because the culture makes a big deal out of it? IMHO, kids should just be kids, not have all this organized, scheduled shit anyway.
I wish I could upvote this a million times.
Since my parents were working all the time, extracurricular activities were usually just not possible because no one was there to drive.
The result was that I spent my grade-, middle-, and high-school years (especially summers) simply loafing around - biking around the hood, kicking it with other kids, walking to the library, the mall or arcade, catching a bus downtown, futzing around on the computer and learning to program, walking, reading, thinking, etc.
Magical times...
People really only have 18 years guaranteed obligation-free, why rob them of that?
Thank you. Very well stated. Sorry for the "right-on" comment but an upvote to you and the parent post felt insufficient.
You can do more than 18 years obligation free. It's just people want more money.
I'd argue we have it backwards. More free time as we get older and more structure when we're younger. Not 100% scheduled, but not loafing around all day.
Where was an article not too long ago on HN about the benefits of "unstructured play" and how we are creating much more stressed out and a lot less adjusted kids by denying them that historic social practice of just figuring out their social place within their social group, independent of the social position of their parents.
Wish I had saved the link...
That's the point the dance recital is an indicator of the problem. It's not about earning parent points for achieving "milestones"
If you cannot attend functions that happen at 7, or come in to work an hour early to see your kid at the bus stop, you're not leaving at two to look at dinosaurs either.
Depends on the job. I can't count on making any given event at 7 pm. But over a month, I could bail at 2 pm several times. Many busy jobs have gaps, they just often don't line up with arbitrary events.