Kids from well off families beats my lot hands down.

SandC

I'm still not really getting it.

What are these activities that the rich kids do? All I keep hearing about is two things - the climbing centre and horse riding. Well, here's a thing - not everyone likes or wants to ride horses! Perhaps there is a little thing of cos it is pricey it's some unattainable item on a wish list?

Seriously, what activities are the well off kids doing that the less well off are missing out on? From my recall, anyone more well off actually just seemed to stay in the house more than I did, playing with the more expensive indoor toys.

I have another suggestion. As kids we spent many a Sunday afternoon visiting castles and stately homes. Family membership if the National Trust is from £5 per month. Hardly breaks the bank does it? Again, I have more wonderful memories of my childhood Sundays visiting these places - yet again, interesting and fun but also informative and educational.

Really, sit and think and ask yourself what specifically are they missing out on? We will always miss out on things if we live in the countryside. Just as those who live in towns miss out on the things that we get for free!

aliasojo

Smashing wrote: »

How many organised activities do kids really need to do? Surely it's better to do 1 activity the child has a true passion for than try to fill every spare moment with something artificially structured?

Agreed. At no point did I suggest I needed to fill every spare moment with activity. But how does a child know what they have a true passion for unless they have experience of trying different things? I could have a Scottish champion wall climber sat in my living room but how would she or I know if she hadn't had the opportunity to try it?

If it's about experiences then do something different every now and again - do they need to climb the same wall week in week out for it to count?

Of course not.

Teaching them that these activities cost money and sometimes you have to make sacrifices for the things you want is a valuable lesson to learn rather than filling up the attic with endless equpiment bought for the latest fad that they soon got bored of.

Agreed but this is something my daughter already understands and we dont tend to indulge her every whim so we dont end up with 'endless equipoment'.

Are there no after school clubs? Drama? Netball etc? Do they enjoy art?

Yes, I've already said she does the more 'ordinary' type of activity.

Some kids are bombarded with stimuation of all kinds. Others aren't -it isn't a relection on your success as a parent.

This I know. I'm a bloody good parent. I have no worries on that score.

Don't be guilt tripped by the idea that everyone elses's kids are out there having endless fun. Lots of kids have times when they believe they are incredibly hard done by, doesn't mean you have to buy into it and berate yourself.

Thanks, but I'm not guilt tripped in any way and I'm certainly not berating myself. I'm just aware of certain differences and feel my daughter in particular would benefit if she had the same opportunities as children from richer families might perhaps have.

..............

aliasojo

SandC wrote: »

I'm still not really getting it.

I'm not sure you have to.


What are these activities that the rich kids do? All I keep hearing about is two things - the climbing centre and horse riding. Well, here's a thing - not everyone likes or wants to ride horses! Perhaps there is a little thing of cos it is pricey it's some unattainable item on a wish list?

These were used as examples off the top of my head, the climbing wall in particular because I was shocked at the cost. Thank you for educating me about the horses btw...there was I thinking everyone's secret desire was to ride horses. :rolleyes:

Seriously, what activities are the well off kids doing that the less well off are missing out on? From my recall, anyone more well off actually just seemed to stay in the house more than I did, playing with the more expensive indoor toys.

Well obviously your experiences are the same for all. Foolish of me to think we all have individual experiences really. :rolleyes:

I have another suggestion. As kids we spent many a Sunday afternoon visiting castles and stately homes. Family membership if the National Trust is from £5 per month. Hardly breaks the bank does it? Again, I have more wonderful memories of my childhood Sundays visiting these places - yet again, interesting and fun but also informative and educational.

This is a good, useful suggestion, thank you. Shame it was followed by 'Hardly breaks the bank, does it?'. We already do these things as there are various places around us.

Really, sit and think and ask yourself what specifically are they missing out on?

DIFFERENT experiences to those we normally do. We already cover most things that are cheap or free....to experience other things, costs.

We will always miss out on things if we live in the countryside. Just as those who live in towns miss out on the things that we get for free!

Yes....so it's just the way it is? We shouldn't even think about it? What on earth is so wrong with wanting to experience a taste of things you wouldn't normally do or see?

Obviously you and I have opposing views. Nothing wrong in that, but I'm getting a bit frustrated at some of the comments and the sarcastic tone that's being conveyed by some of them tbh.

I'm glad people are happy with their lot. I'm glad their leisure interests are suitable for them.

I dont feel any need to justify my reasons for wanting my daughter to be able to try out new things. Nor do I feel I should not hold the views I do about the differences in opportunties between rich kids and less well off kids.

mrcow

3KIDSNOMONEY wrote: »

i really disagree with the mrcow who said that you can find a way of providing these activities if you are serious. Money just doesn't come that easily.

Well what activity would you like your children to do? Perhaps rather than buying them yet more toys or "stuff" this Christmas, buy them the activity instead? or sell some of your stuff to facilitate it? Or cancel your internet subsciption if it's that important that you want them to do it? Or do some overtime at work (or get a job if you've not got one?).Like I said, it's not about money, it's about priorities?

I get really riled when people tell me how lucky I am to live where I do and have the life that we do. We all make (or should make!) sacrifices for a better life for our families, and some of us work very hard in order to do so.

It's funny though.......the harder we work, the luckier we seem to get.

laineyc_2

I understand what you meant, aliasojo.

I actually think that the gap in opportunities seems a lot wider than it was when I was a child. We never had much money but I never felt that I had less life experiences than more well off peers. There was certainly less emphasis on activities because we had so much more freedom.

I live in London and have four boys. They certainly have less freedom to play on their own outside than we had growing up. They all have activities and it does cost quite a bit of money. The cheapest group they are in is the Beavers/Cubs/Scouts and it is by far the best value for money and most beneficial for their self-confidence and in gaining independence. I think that a lot of costs involved in activities does exclude a lot of children that would certainly benefit from them.

aliasojo

Lunar_Eclipse wrote: »

I have heard it said more times than I could possibly remember that if you only do one thing for your child, make sure that they can read. And ideally instil a love of books in them by hearing and reading to them daily. Technically this is 'free' if you have a library nearby. Additionally I would personally say that travel broadens the mind and touches the heart and soul more than any other direct experience ..... maybe apart from that first true love?!

I am happy to say that my daughter has inherited my love of reading and is above her peer group level in this respect. She was at the library this week as it happens.

I agree with the travel comment. I'm not well travelled, as a child the furthest we went was Dunbar. Even now, we have only been on 2 proper family holidays and I went on my first plane trip at the age of 40 (ish ).

I would dearly love to be able to travel more tbh. We bought a tent thinking it would help us do just that but it wasn't a great success with the eldest tbh.

3KIDSNOMONEY

Lunar_Eclipse wrote: »

But in this case it's all about priorities. If horse riding/go karting was more of a priority in this example, then each child sacrificing one of the activities they currently do (brownies/gym/football/swimming) could pay for a horse riding lesson once a month say.

And as far as I know, Tesco/M&S/Sains/Asda/xxx are always recruiting. So I agree with mrcow. It is only a matter of priorities for some people. Sky TV or monthly horse riding lesson? Mobile and land line telephone or go-karting for the children? Takeaway on a Friday night .... you get my point I'm sure.

The other thing I have just remembered is the inverse correlation between family income and money spent on gifts for children at birthdays/Christmas. Obviously only up to a point, thus excluding the highest and lowest 10% of income. But of all the people I know, it is those earning least who spend more on gifts for their kids (which could therefore be expensive "experiences".) Most of our friends earn c £100k/year. And would not spend more than £100 on their children for Christmas - including pressies from Santa. Some cap it at £60. I am aware that many people will think that's a fortune. But I am trying to make a point. How many people, who would love to give their children horse riding lessons for example, buy them a new toy, chocolate bar and fizzy drink every few weeks I wonder?

I'm off to bed now. Very interesting thread, but I'm beginning to bore myself now!!

but the point is do our 'poorer' kids miss out and yes they do because a 'richer' child could do brownies, swimming, etc and do horse riding or whatever aswell - whereas children such as mine would have to sacrifice 2 cheapish weekly activities for a month for one session of another activity. If more well off parents choose not to do/give things to their kids then that is their choice and up to their parenting. i have friends who take their kids skiing/shows and lots of fantastic places which i believe enhance their children's lives because they are fantastic experiences.

personally, as a parent of 4 children, i do feel that they miss out on eperiences as we can't afford to provide them. i spend time with my kids and they bake and play etc. but in answer to the initial poster i believe that poorer children have their life experiences limited.

I know that i have 4 children and obviously i chose to have 4 children and i would have been able to afford some more activities/experiences for my children if i had chose not to have so many.

SandC

aliasojo wrote: »

Obviously you and I have opposing views. Nothing wrong in that, but I'm getting a bit frustrated at some of the comments and the sarcastic tone that's being conveyed by some of them tbh.

I'm glad people are happy with their lot. I'm glad their leisure interests are suitable for them.

I dont feel any need to justify my reasons for wanting my daughter to be able to try out new things. Nor do I feel I should not hold the views I do about the differences in opportunties between rich kids and less well off kids.

I was only asking what things you were thinking about - every suggestion is met with the response that you already do it and it's ordinary. Your kids appear to be missing out on nothing and at no point did I ever say that my experience was everyone elses experience.

I did not deserve your scathing sarcastic comments.

aliasojo

laineyc wrote: »

I actually think that the gap in opportunities seems a lot wider than it was when I was a child. We never had much money but I never felt that I had less life experiences than more well off peers. There was certainly less emphasis on activities because we had so much more freedom.

I live in London and have four boys. They certainly have less freedom to play on their own outside than we had growing up.

I agree with you. I grew up in the heart of Edinburgh but we always seemed to find streams or 'natural' areas to play in. We went out at 9am and came home at 6pm, filthy and starving, lol.

We had a wide range of friends and my circle was a group of around 6 boys AND girls that we played with every day. Being grounded in my day was the end of the world. :rolleyes:

However we had communities then and people who knew you and cared. We had local Bobbies who we saw regularly. We lived in a tenement and I got trapped upstairs by a paedeophile one day at lunch time. Ovbiously at the time I didnt know what he was and wondered why he wanted me to take my top off. :rolleyes: I just knew I was scared. I literally jumped over him and the bannister and ran out of the tenement crying. A passing man shouted on the local Bobby and he chased him.

Now if that were to happen today.....where's the local Bobby? Where's the people that care? Did anyone watch the Esther Rantzen thing the other night about all the people who walked by the lost kids without even giving them a second glance let alone helping them?

So it's NOT like it was years ago. It doesn't matter who had what experience when they were a kid, it's all largely irrelevent to today. Like it or not, we need to have more of a hand into kids social development than was necessary years ago.

aliasojo

SandC wrote: »

I did not deserve your scathing sarcastic comments.

Which is EXACTLY what I thought when I read your post tbh.