WDYT- Re: Nannies

mrsjengle · March 2011

PiRSquared330:
keystonestreet@hotmail.com:
PiRSquared330:
keystonestreet@hotmail.com:
JamieS2006:

So, working moms who choose to work are bad in your book?

No. They "signed up" for something, and they're doing it.

ok, so what if someone signs up to be a stay at home spouse with kids? Thats what they signed up for.

That's stupid.

wow. How insightful. Thank you so much for your contribution to this discussion. You've added so much.

I'm sorry. I just don't even know what a "stay at home spouse" is? My hubby and I are hardcore blue collar workers (although teaching is technically white collar). I can't imagine a scenario in which either of us would consider making the other be the "breadwinner." We send Lo to DC from 7-3:30 every day. It sucks, but it's what we have to do to provide a "good" life for her.

I didn't mean to come of mean...this is just something that's beyond me.

PiRSquared330 · March 2011

mm&m2010:
PiRSquared330:

ok so here is a twist in the hypothetical debate: what if a mom has severe PPD she's dealing with. To help, she and her spouse hire a nanny to take some of the pressure off of her and allow her to also focus on herself.

is that lazy? Acceptable? Is she doomed to spend eternity in hell with the other lazy moms?

That's understandable- she has a medical condition.

Let me ask you something: A husband works full time, the wife is a SAHM. The couple has 1 child, and a full time nanny. The wife spends her days shopping, getting her nails done, sleeping, etc, and the nanny is at home taking care of the child. She has no medical issues, including no ppd to keep her from taking care of her child. If she isn't the websters dictionary definition of lazy- what is she?

She very well might be the definition of lazy. That, and lucky (I kid, I kid. I'm one of those who will always want to work)

But I think those cases are very very very rare. I think its being thrown out as the norm in this debate and really, its like the the mythical welfare queen. I don't think it exists, really, outside of The Real Housewives. Its eye roll worthy that everyone is using this mythical lazy mom to poo-poo anyone who doesn't work full time and has a nanny.

Like I've said, I grew up in a wealthy enviroment surrounded by many stay at home wives. Every single one volunteered a ton. I think that is more the norm than those who sit on their ass.

And with that, I'm out.

broomy · March 2011

PiRSquared330:
broomy:
PiRSquared330:
broomy:
PiRSquared330:

I disagree with your definition of lazy.

Is it lazy to go to the grocery store instead of growing your own crops?

Just because you could do something but don't doesn't mean you are lazy.

acording to the dictionary:

Lazy= adverse or disinclined to work

it doesn't mean that if you don't do something you could physically do, you are lazy.

If you're disinclined to do the yard work, so you hire someone to mow your lawn for you, that fits the definition of lazy. I've said a few times that it's not necessarily a bad thing. I enjoy lazy time, and, again, if I could afford the luxury of hiring other people to do that kind of work, I might. Sometimes, I even pawn my kid off on someone else so that I can be lazy for a little while.

I just think it's a different story when it comes to choosing to be a SAH parent, and then not doing it. You were right - it's more like being a SAH spouse, so maybe we're all just comparing apples & oranges.

Again, that is not the definition of lazy. I think you need to look it up. It is being adverse to work. It is not being adverse to one particular FORM of work. Nor is it realizing that your time can be spent better elsewhere. OR realizing that someonecan do something better than you can. Not doing EVERYTHING you can humanly do =/= lazy.

You seem to think that if you pay someone to do something for you, then you will spend that time sitting on your ass. That is, in most cases, not true.

I get that it is a luxery that many cannot afford. That does not, by definition, make it lazy. You seem to be confusing those two words.

Damn. Okay.

I think this discussion is getting off track, and that's probably my fault for using the words "by definition." The fact is, all of us want "lazy" time, down time, luxury time, no matter how we choose to spend that time.

As for the bolded -- It may not be true in most cases. But in the hypothetical situation that this post is all about, or at least what I have been addressing (a parent spending time sitting on his or her ass while a hired nanny takes care of his or her kids), then that is lazy.

Like I said in my previous example, if my husband stayed at home playing video games while his mother came over and took care of DS for 10 hours, I'd be pissed, and I'd call him lazy. I don't understand what's so wrong with that.

I'd be pissed, too. That would not be ok in our relationship.But if its ok in someone elses, I'm not going to get all pissy about it. Maybe he would be a horrible SAHD and both members of the couple realize that and chose to take another route.

For us, that would not be ok. I'm not, however, going to jump all over another couple's lifestyle choice as long as it doesn't hurt the child. And I don't see a nanny (especially onethat just tags along while the mother spends time with her child) as hurting the child.

I do think, however, this debate is very much like the welfare queen debate. I get tha tyou are talking about hypotheticals, but I think its harmful to do so because I really don't think that hypothetical exists. And if it does, its REALLY rare. All it does is cause people to be pissed at anyone who has a nanny without a full time job (like the other angry poster)

I see your point. I'm honestly not getting pissy about anything and I don't feel like I'm jumping all over anyone. I'm simply giving a side eye. As a SAHM, I don't see the need for a full-time nanny. If that's what another couple feels they need, that's fine. Side-eye simply means "Okay, but I don't get it."

And I agree - that hypothetical must be pretty rare. I think a more common occurrence would be the parents who pawn their kids off on the grandparents all the time... Someone like Farrah, whom nobody seemed to have any qualms talking sh*t about during her seasons of Teen Mom. Oddly enough, I came to her defense because I believed she had PPD.

(Yes, I know, she's a TV personality. I did have a friend who was exactly like her at age 18, though - it does happen, and people aren't quite as forgiving of those girls as they are an adult woman with the money for a nanny, if that makes sense).

Now I feel all dirty. I hate the welfare queen debate with a passion, and didn't mean for this to turn into that. Yucky.

::passes out skittles all around...::

PiRSquared330 · March 2011

keystonestreet@hotmail.com:
PiRSquared330:
keystonestreet@hotmail.com:
PiRSquared330:
keystonestreet@hotmail.com:
JamieS2006:

So, working moms who choose to work are bad in your book?

No. They "signed up" for something, and they're doing it.

ok, so what if someone signs up to be a stay at home spouse with kids? Thats what they signed up for.

That's stupid.

wow. How insightful. Thank you so much for your contribution to this discussion. You've added so much.

I'm sorry. I just don't even know what a "stay at home spouse" is? My hubby and I are hardcore blue collar workers (although teaching is technically white collar). I can't imagine a scenario in which either of us would consider making the other be the "breadwinner." We send Lo to DC from 7-3:30 every day. It sucks, but it's what we have to do to provide a "good" life for her.

I didn't mean to come of mean...this is just something that's beyond me.

Thats my issue, I think, with this thread. So many cannot fathom a life different from their own.

Its not always about "making" someone else be the bread winner. Sometimes, especially in the business world, a SAHW (or husband) can help the other spouse's career by running the house. Is it the life I want? No. but it can be a big boost. As can networking. You might think hanging with friends or going to the spa is a waste, but it actually can be a way wives network and create more oppertunities for their husbands. It does happen in the high levels of business. The spouse might also have to be avilable to go on buisiness trips (that involve spouses) and such that are hard to do if you work, obviously.

And really, if one spouse is making millions and the other would make 25k at their job, is that other spouse really contributing to the "bread winning" if they work? Not really. Working at that level is more about if you want to or not.

If that is what is best for that couple, and they decided that together, who are we to judge?

I appreciate you expanding on your view. Thank you.

mrsjengle · March 2011

DrinknDerive:
keystonestreet@hotmail.com:
PiRSquared330:
keystonestreet@hotmail.com:
JamieS2006:

So, working moms who choose to work are bad in your book?

No. They "signed up" for something, and they're doing it.

ok, so what if someone signs up to be a stay at home spouse with kids? Thats what they signed up for.

That's stupid.

Very good point. Does the concept bother you because it isn't the conventional family structure? I'm really having a hard time understanding why SAHMs with nannies are so bothersome to you. It doesn't affect you in any way. The kids aren't any worse off for it. Please explain it to me.

No, it's not that it's not the traditional family structure. I just don't understand how a SAHM could be SO busy that she needs full time help with her kid. Don't get me wrong, I could never be a SAHM; I would be nuts. It definitely is a lot of work, being home all day with your kid. But that's just how life is. Whether you go to work or stay at home and work. But really if you choose to have a kid, but let someone else do most of the rearing (not out of necessity) why did you choose to have a kid in the first place.

Perhaps it's just the way I was raised. You have to work in life; it can't all be rainbows and sunshine.

sleepingbeauty825 · March 2011

Maybe they're in a polyamorous relationship that they're keeping on the DL. Maybe the nanny is really the mom. You never know!

mrsjengle · March 2011

PiRSquared330:
keystonestreet@hotmail.com:
PiRSquared330:
keystonestreet@hotmail.com:
PiRSquared330:
keystonestreet@hotmail.com:
JamieS2006:

So, working moms who choose to work are bad in your book?

No. They "signed up" for something, and they're doing it.

ok, so what if someone signs up to be a stay at home spouse with kids? Thats what they signed up for.

That's stupid.

wow. How insightful. Thank you so much for your contribution to this discussion. You've added so much.

I'm sorry. I just don't even know what a "stay at home spouse" is? My hubby and I are hardcore blue collar workers (although teaching is technically white collar). I can't imagine a scenario in which either of us would consider making the other be the "breadwinner." We send Lo to DC from 7-3:30 every day. It sucks, but it's what we have to do to provide a "good" life for her.

I didn't mean to come of mean...this is just something that's beyond me.

Thats my issue, I think, with this thread. So many cannot fathom a life different from their own.

Its not always about "making" someone else be the bread winner. Sometimes, especially in the business world, a SAHW (or husband) can help the other spouse's career by running the house. Is it the life I want? No. but it can be a big boost. As can networking. You might think hanging with friends or going to the spa is a waste, but it actually can be a way wives network and create more oppertunities for their husbands. It does happen in the high levels of business. The spouse might also have to be avilable to go on buisiness trips (that involve spouses) and such that are hard to do if you work, obviously.

And really, if one spouse is making millions and the other would make 25k at their job, is that other spouse really contributing to the "bread winning" if they work? Not really. Working at that level is more about if you want to or not.

If that is what is best for that couple, and they decided that together, who are we to judge?

I appreciate you expanding on your view. Thank you.

Yeah, civilized debate. It's kind of hard to find on TB.

I suppose I could, on some level, understand the networking thing. But having a nanny help you take your kid to the playground doesn't seem like a "networking" endeavor. Now, of course, we are missing tons of background info on this person. And we really are talking more on the hypothetical level here any how.

But to add to your million dollar spouse and 25k spouse, if they decided to have kids, and she wanted to be a SAHM, I would find it odd that she'd need a nanny. Her financial contributions are not "making a dent" in the family budget, so she can contribute by being a worker at home.

I just envision some of the dead beats I know who would be high on the couch while the nanny took the kid to the park.

So based on that alone, I think we are thinking of very very different "family make-ups."

RadicalDreamer143 · March 2011

keystonestreet@hotmail.com:
No, it's not that it's not the traditional family structure. I just don't understand how a SAHM could be SO busy that she needs full time help with her kid. Don't get me wrong, I could never be a SAHM; I would be nuts. It definitely is a lot of work, being home all day with your kid. But that's just how life is. Whether you go to work or stay at home and work. But really if you choose to have a kid, but let someone else do most of the rearing (not out of necessity) why did you choose to have a kid in the first place.
Perhaps it's just the way I was raised. You have to work in life; it can't all be rainbows and sunshine.

Again, for many women it is not necessary to work, but choose to and have the same opinion as you ("I could never be a SAHM I would be nuts"). You do realize that you are choosing to have someone else watch your kid for a majority of your waking hours right? Should we be asking you why you chose to have a child? Mind you, I would never ask you that.. because it is none of my business how you choose to spend your money/raise your child, and because I support WM's - I was one. But understand that your way isn't the only way, and plenty of people might side-eye you for your choices as well.

PiRSquared330 · March 2011

keystonestreet@hotmail.com:
PiRSquared330:
keystonestreet@hotmail.com:
PiRSquared330:
keystonestreet@hotmail.com:
PiRSquared330:
keystonestreet@hotmail.com:
JamieS2006:

So, working moms who choose to work are bad in your book?

No. They "signed up" for something, and they're doing it.

ok, so what if someone signs up to be a stay at home spouse with kids? Thats what they signed up for.

That's stupid.

wow. How insightful. Thank you so much for your contribution to this discussion. You've added so much.

I'm sorry. I just don't even know what a "stay at home spouse" is? My hubby and I are hardcore blue collar workers (although teaching is technically white collar). I can't imagine a scenario in which either of us would consider making the other be the "breadwinner." We send Lo to DC from 7-3:30 every day. It sucks, but it's what we have to do to provide a "good" life for her.

I didn't mean to come of mean...this is just something that's beyond me.

Thats my issue, I think, with this thread. So many cannot fathom a life different from their own.

Its not always about "making" someone else be the bread winner. Sometimes, especially in the business world, a SAHW (or husband) can help the other spouse's career by running the house. Is it the life I want? No. but it can be a big boost. As can networking. You might think hanging with friends or going to the spa is a waste, but it actually can be a way wives network and create more oppertunities for their husbands. It does happen in the high levels of business. The spouse might also have to be avilable to go on buisiness trips (that involve spouses) and such that are hard to do if you work, obviously.

And really, if one spouse is making millions and the other would make 25k at their job, is that other spouse really contributing to the "bread winning" if they work? Not really. Working at that level is more about if you want to or not.

If that is what is best for that couple, and they decided that together, who are we to judge?

I appreciate you expanding on your view. Thank you.

Yeah, civilized debate. It's kind of hard to find on TB.

I suppose I could, on some level, understand the networking thing. But having a nanny help you take your kid to the playground doesn't seem like a "networking" endeavor. Now, of course, we are missing tons of background info on this person. And we really are talking more on the hypothetical level here any how.

But to add to your million dollar spouse and 25k spouse, if they decided to have kids, and she wanted to be a SAHM, I would find it odd that she'd need a nanny. Her financial contributions are not "making a dent" in the family budget, so she can contribute by being a worker at home.

I just envision some of the dead beats I know who would be high on the couch while the nanny took the kid to the park.

So based on that alone, I think we are thinking of very very different "family make-ups."

I know this involves stereotypes, but stereotypically, I don't think these types are going to be the ones who can afford a full time nanny while only one spouse works.

DrinknDerive · March 2011

keystonestreet@hotmail.com:

No, it's not that it's not the traditional family structure. I just don't understand how a SAHM could be SO busy that she needs full time help with her kid. Don't get me wrong, I could never be a SAHM; I would be nuts. It definitely is a lot of work, being home all day with your kid. But that's just how life is. Whether you go to work or stay at home and work. But really if you choose to have a kid, but let someone else do most of the rearing (not out of necessity) why did you choose to have a kid in the first place.

Perhaps it's just the way I was raised. You have to work in life; it can't all be rainbows and sunshine.

We, as a human race, are not doomed to a life of drudgery. We are allowed to strive for more. If I have the means and the desire to hire a nanny, I can do that without being lazy or less of a parent. Choosing to over-exert yourself is not heroic, IMO.

mrsjengle · March 2011

JamieS2006:
keystonestreet@hotmail.com:
No, it's not that it's not the traditional family structure. I just don't understand how a SAHM could be SO busy that she needs full time help with her kid. Don't get me wrong, I could never be a SAHM; I would be nuts. It definitely is a lot of work, being home all day with your kid. But that's just how life is. Whether you go to work or stay at home and work. But really if you choose to have a kid, but let someone else do most of the rearing (not out of necessity) why did you choose to have a kid in the first place.
Perhaps it's just the way I was raised. You have to work in life; it can't all be rainbows and sunshine.

Again, for many women it is not necessary to work, but choose to and have the same opinion as you ("I could never be a SAHM I would be nuts"). You do realize that you are choosing to have someone else watch your kid for a majority of your waking hours right? Should we be asking you why you chose to have a child? Mind you, I would never ask you that.. because it is none of my business how you choose to spend your money/raise your child, and because I support WM's - I was one. But understand that your way isn't the only way, and plenty of people might side-eye you for your choices as well.

Raising a kid is work. That's the point. I send LO to DC because we wouldn't have enough money to raise Lo the way we want if one of us stayed home.

But were talking about women who not only don't work, but don't have an active role in raising their kid because they hire a full time nanny to do it for them.

I've seen so many "young" parents who thought it would be "fun" to have a kid and then let someone else raise it so they could have "free time." And I work all day and take care of my kid in the evenings and love enough free time for a bath. I know I know pitty party table of 1 here, but I just think somethings that are important require hard work.

mrsjengle · March 2011

DrinknDerive:
keystonestreet@hotmail.com:

No, it's not that it's not the traditional family structure. I just don't understand how a SAHM could be SO busy that she needs full time help with her kid. Don't get me wrong, I could never be a SAHM; I would be nuts. It definitely is a lot of work, being home all day with your kid. But that's just how life is. Whether you go to work or stay at home and work. But really if you choose to have a kid, but let someone else do most of the rearing (not out of necessity) why did you choose to have a kid in the first place.

Perhaps it's just the way I was raised. You have to work in life; it can't all be rainbows and sunshine.

We, as a human race, are not doomed to a life of drudgery. We are allowed to strive for more. If I have the means and the desire to hire a nanny, I can do that without being lazy or less of a parent. Choosing to over-exert yourself is not heroic, IMO.

I'm not saying we should work ourselves to an early grave. I do think that a lot of people in society always choose the easiest route. Of course it's human nature to prefer the easy way. But I like hard work and the rewards that come with it. And I think that striving for more entails some hard work. I think being a SAHM is definitely hard work, but I think having a full time nanny is overkill. Maybe someone to help out a few times a week so you could run errands. But every day. That would be like me having a full time intern. I'd be bored out of my mind! (I currently have an intern. She's here for a semester, and I am so missing teaching/working already!)

RadicalDreamer143 · March 2011

keystonestreet@hotmail.com:
Raising a kid is work. That's the point. I send LO to DC because we wouldn't have enough money to raise Lo the way we want if one of us stayed home.
But were talking about women who not only don't work, but don't have an active role in raising their kid because they hire a full time nanny to do it for them.
I've seen so many "young" parents who thought it would be "fun" to have a kid and then let someone else raise it so they could have "free time." And I work all day and take care of my kid in the evenings and love enough free time for a bath. I know I know pitty party table of 1 here, but I just think somethings that are important require hard work.

And these "young" parents are hiring full time nannies so they can live a life of leisure? I'd have to applaud them for being able to afford such a thing.

Your comparisons aren't making sense.

As for the olded part, if we are still talking about the OP's beef with this woman at the playgroup... seems to me that she is WITH the nanny, not off being lazy or whatever you deem it to be. How is delegating the task of diaper changing equating to not raising a child?

Ciconrad · March 2011

DrinknDerive:
keystonestreet@hotmail.com:

No, it's not that it's not the traditional family structure. I just don't understand how a SAHM could be SO busy that she needs full time help with her kid. Don't get me wrong, I could never be a SAHM; I would be nuts. It definitely is a lot of work, being home all day with your kid. But that's just how life is. Whether you go to work or stay at home and work. But really if you choose to have a kid, but let someone else do most of the rearing (not out of necessity) why did you choose to have a kid in the first place.

Perhaps it's just the way I was raised. You have to work in life; it can't all be rainbows and sunshine.

We, as a human race, are not doomed to a life of drudgery. We are allowed to strive for more. If I have the means and the desire to hire a nanny, I can do that without being lazy or less of a parent. Choosing to over-exert yourself is not heroic, IMO.

This. My DH has a job that would make it challenging for me to work (at least in the type of job I would actually want to work in). He works long hours, his schedule can be unpredictable, he travels. Me working just really isn't a viable option in our situation.

I'm also not the type who can be home with the kids 24-7. I need time to myself. Just like some working moms said , they'd go nuts if they had to SAH (which no one seems to get their panties in a bunch about)...so do I, without breaks. We make enough money for me to stay home and have nanny help. It gives me the opportunity a few times a week to socialize with friends, read....whatever I feel I need that day. DH couldn't care less. The nanny help doesn't make a dent in our income, he loves his job - he loves the time he spends there and he wants me to be happy too. I am. I love my situation. My kids are thriving.

I'd be a lot less happy giving in to mommy martyrdom and feeling tied to my kids 24-7 or working. It works for us.

mrsjengle · March 2011

JamieS2006:
keystonestreet@hotmail.com:
Raising a kid is work. That's the point. I send LO to DC because we wouldn't have enough money to raise Lo the way we want if one of us stayed home.
But were talking about women who not only don't work, but don't have an active role in raising their kid because they hire a full time nanny to do it for them.
I've seen so many "young" parents who thought it would be "fun" to have a kid and then let someone else raise it so they could have "free time." And I work all day and take care of my kid in the evenings and love enough free time for a bath. I know I know pitty party table of 1 here, but I just think somethings that are important require hard work.

And these "young" parents are hiring full time nannies so they can live a life of leisure? I'd have to applaud them for being able to afford such a thing.

Your comparisons aren't making sense.

As for the olded part, if we are still talking about the OP's beef with this woman at the playgroup... seems to me that she is WITH the nanny, not off being lazy or whatever you deem it to be. How is delegating the task of diaper changing equating to not raising a child?

As far as they "young" thing...they don't so much hire people as get their parents/grandparents to do it.

And as far the bolded part I just feel that it's my job to "take care" of my child. Do the dirty work. Even when my MIL comes over to send time with Lo. When her diaper needs changed, I do it. To me those mundane tasks are the root of raising a kid. People love feeding babies. It's all cute and what not. But the cleaning up puke, settling temper tantrums, changing diapers and drying tears those are the real "raising your kids" things in my eyes. And the way I read the OP, that's what this nanny is doing. And yes, she's there with the nanny, but that doesn't mean she's focusing on her child. It doesn't mean she's not either, though.

Ciconrad · March 2011

keystonestreet@hotmail.com:
JamieS2006:
keystonestreet@hotmail.com:

Raising a kid is work. That's the point. I send LO to DC because we wouldn't have enough money to raise Lo the way we want if one of us stayed home.

But were talking about women who not only don't work, but don't have an active role in raising their kid because they hire a full time nanny to do it for them.

I've seen so many "young" parents who thought it would be "fun" to have a kid and then let someone else raise it so they could have "free time." And I work all day and take care of my kid in the evenings and love enough free time for a bath. I know I know pitty party table of 1 here, but I just think somethings that are important require hard work.

And these "young" parents are hiring full time nannies so they can live a life of leisure? I'd have to applaud them for being able to afford such a thing.

Your comparisons aren't making sense.

As for the olded part, if we are still talking about the OP's beef with this woman at the playgroup... seems to me that she is WITH the nanny, not off being lazy or whatever you deem it to be. How is delegating the task of diaper changing equating to not raising a child?

As far as they "young" thing...they don't so much hire people as get their parents/grandparents to do it.

And as far the bolded part I just feel that it's my job to "take care" of my child. Do the dirty work. Even when my MIL comes over to send time with Lo. When her diaper needs changed, I do it. To me those mundane tasks are the root of raising a kid. People love feeding babies. It's all cute and what not. But the cleaning up puke, settling temper tantrums, changing diapers and drying tears those are the real "raising your kids" things in my eyes. And the way I read the OP, that's what this nanny is doing. And yes, she's there with the nanny, but that doesn't mean she's focusing on her child. It doesn't mean she's not either, though.

I'm sorry but I change more of my kid's diapers than anyone else. If my mom or MIL is here and offer to change one, I'm not going to refuse. Seriously, you sound like you have a serious case of mommy martyrdom.

RadicalDreamer143 · March 2011

Ciconrad:
keystonestreet@hotmail.com:
JamieS2006:
keystonestreet@hotmail.com:

Raising a kid is work. That's the point. I send LO to DC because we wouldn't have enough money to raise Lo the way we want if one of us stayed home.

But were talking about women who not only don't work, but don't have an active role in raising their kid because they hire a full time nanny to do it for them.

I've seen so many "young" parents who thought it would be "fun" to have a kid and then let someone else raise it so they could have "free time." And I work all day and take care of my kid in the evenings and love enough free time for a bath. I know I know pitty party table of 1 here, but I just think somethings that are important require hard work.

And these "young" parents are hiring full time nannies so they can live a life of leisure? I'd have to applaud them for being able to afford such a thing.

Your comparisons aren't making sense.

As for the olded part, if we are still talking about the OP's beef with this woman at the playgroup... seems to me that she is WITH the nanny, not off being lazy or whatever you deem it to be. How is delegating the task of diaper changing equating to not raising a child?

As far as they "young" thing...they don't so much hire people as get their parents/grandparents to do it.

And as far the bolded part I just feel that it's my job to "take care" of my child. Do the dirty work. Even when my MIL comes over to send time with Lo. When her diaper needs changed, I do it. To me those mundane tasks are the root of raising a kid. People love feeding babies. It's all cute and what not. But the cleaning up puke, settling temper tantrums, changing diapers and drying tears those are the real "raising your kids" things in my eyes. And the way I read the OP, that's what this nanny is doing. And yes, she's there with the nanny, but that doesn't mean she's focusing on her child. It doesn't mean she's not either, though.

I'm sorry but I change more of my kid's diapers than anyone else. If my mom or MIL is here and offer to change one, I'm not going to refuse. Seriously, you sound like you have a serious case of mommy martyrdom.

Does this mean since I CD my son and use diaper area wash and clean his diapers out by hand then wash them that my son is going to love me more than yours will love you? I mean, I want to know how much better I am raising my child since I am obviously going above and beyond. Also, since diaper changes and feedings are equated to raising, does that mean your DCP gets to share the title of Mommy?

I really hope key realizes how silly this sounds.

mm&m2010 2 · March 2011

I never thought this thread would go so far- can we all just please agree to disagree on this subject? I PROMISE to never bring it up again!!

PiRSquared330 · March 2011

laura_belle:

Here is my beef with this thread. People are so myopic. They only see life as they know it and cannot understand anything outside of that scope. It is a mentality of "It's my way or it's wrong".

exactly!

mrsjengle · March 2011

Ciconrad:
keystonestreet@hotmail.com:
JamieS2006:
keystonestreet@hotmail.com:

Raising a kid is work. That's the point. I send LO to DC because we wouldn't have enough money to raise Lo the way we want if one of us stayed home.

But were talking about women who not only don't work, but don't have an active role in raising their kid because they hire a full time nanny to do it for them.

I've seen so many "young" parents who thought it would be "fun" to have a kid and then let someone else raise it so they could have "free time." And I work all day and take care of my kid in the evenings and love enough free time for a bath. I know I know pitty party table of 1 here, but I just think somethings that are important require hard work.

And these "young" parents are hiring full time nannies so they can live a life of leisure? I'd have to applaud them for being able to afford such a thing.

Your comparisons aren't making sense.

As for the olded part, if we are still talking about the OP's beef with this woman at the playgroup... seems to me that she is WITH the nanny, not off being lazy or whatever you deem it to be. How is delegating the task of diaper changing equating to not raising a child?

As far as they "young" thing...they don't so much hire people as get their parents/grandparents to do it.

And as far the bolded part I just feel that it's my job to "take care" of my child. Do the dirty work. Even when my MIL comes over to send time with Lo. When her diaper needs changed, I do it. To me those mundane tasks are the root of raising a kid. People love feeding babies. It's all cute and what not. But the cleaning up puke, settling temper tantrums, changing diapers and drying tears those are the real "raising your kids" things in my eyes. And the way I read the OP, that's what this nanny is doing. And yes, she's there with the nanny, but that doesn't mean she's focusing on her child. It doesn't mean she's not either, though.

I'm sorry but I change more of my kid's diapers than anyone else. If my mom or MIL is here and offer to change one, I'm not going to refuse. Seriously, you sound like you have a serious case of mommy martyrdom.

I didn't say I would refuse help. I was meaning I wouldn't expect someone else to just do it for me. Maybe I do have a serious case of mommy martyrdom, but I'm happy. To me it's the equivalent of having someone over for dinner and then expecting them to help clean up. I would never just expect them to go out and load the dishwasher the same way I would never just expect my MIL to change my daughter's diaper. But I think I've gotten us of the topic of nannies. I guess I just think the dirty work is what makes me have respect for my mom. I respect her most for those times when she dug deep to help, like doing the crap work.

RedWingsFan · March 2011

mm&m2010:
PiRSquared330:

ok so here is a twist in the hypothetical debate: what if a mom has severe PPD she's dealing with. To help, she and her spouse hire a nanny to take some of the pressure off of her and allow her to also focus on herself.

is that lazy? Acceptable? Is she doomed to spend eternity in hell with the other lazy moms?

That's understandable- she has a medical condition.

Let me ask you something: A husband works full time, the wife is a SAHM. The couple has 1 child, and a full time nanny. The wife spends her days shopping, getting her nails done, sleeping, etc, and the nanny is at home taking care of the child. She has no medical issues, including no ppd to keep her from taking care of her child. If she isn't the websters dictionary definition of lazy- what is she?

Wealthy? Happy? Aware enough to know that the nanny could provide loving care that maybe she can't?

I don't know, I just don't think that's laziness - it's that couple's way of parenting, and so long as the child is taken care of and loved, and the parents are in agreement, what's the big deal?

Also, Ciconrad - I envy your situation. I think it's great that you and your family can have the help that you do, because like you said, it allows your weekends/family time to be spent 100% as a family. It's exhausting for C and I to drag the babies along with us on our weekend errands, or to have to clean intermittently during naps. We've talked about getting both lawn and cleaning services so we can have a similar situation as you do on the weekends.

mrsjengle · March 2011

JamieS2006:
Ciconrad:
keystonestreet@hotmail.com:
JamieS2006:
keystonestreet@hotmail.com:

Raising a kid is work. That's the point. I send LO to DC because we wouldn't have enough money to raise Lo the way we want if one of us stayed home.

But were talking about women who not only don't work, but don't have an active role in raising their kid because they hire a full time nanny to do it for them.

I've seen so many "young" parents who thought it would be "fun" to have a kid and then let someone else raise it so they could have "free time." And I work all day and take care of my kid in the evenings and love enough free time for a bath. I know I know pitty party table of 1 here, but I just think somethings that are important require hard work.

And these "young" parents are hiring full time nannies so they can live a life of leisure? I'd have to applaud them for being able to afford such a thing.

Your comparisons aren't making sense.

As for the olded part, if we are still talking about the OP's beef with this woman at the playgroup... seems to me that she is WITH the nanny, not off being lazy or whatever you deem it to be. How is delegating the task of diaper changing equating to not raising a child?

As far as they "young" thing...they don't so much hire people as get their parents/grandparents to do it.

And as far the bolded part I just feel that it's my job to "take care" of my child. Do the dirty work. Even when my MIL comes over to send time with Lo. When her diaper needs changed, I do it. To me those mundane tasks are the root of raising a kid. People love feeding babies. It's all cute and what not. But the cleaning up puke, settling temper tantrums, changing diapers and drying tears those are the real "raising your kids" things in my eyes. And the way I read the OP, that's what this nanny is doing. And yes, she's there with the nanny, but that doesn't mean she's focusing on her child. It doesn't mean she's not either, though.

I'm sorry but I change more of my kid's diapers than anyone else. If my mom or MIL is here and offer to change one, I'm not going to refuse. Seriously, you sound like you have a serious case of mommy martyrdom.

Does this mean since I CD my son and use diaper area wash and clean his diapers out by hand then wash them that my son is going to love me more than yours will love you? I mean, I want to know how much better I am raising my child since I am obviously going above and beyond. Also, since diaper changes and feedings are equated to raising, does that mean your DCP gets to share the title of Mommy?

I really hope key realizes how silly this sounds.

No, DC doesn't get to be mommy, but they do get props for helping me rear Lo.

And "silly" is relative. I think having a full time nanny when you are a SAHM is silly. You think the way I look at it is silly. I'm not here to bust anyone's chops or name call. I just thought it looked like an interesting topic to debate and I jumped in. In the end, everyone is going to do what they think is best for their kids. I'm not here to change anyone's mind. Just debate.

Of course not. That's all part of how you choose to raise your kid.

Ciconrad · March 2011

RedWingsFan:
mm&m2010:
PiRSquared330:

ok so here is a twist in the hypothetical debate: what if a mom has severe PPD she's dealing with. To help, she and her spouse hire a nanny to take some of the pressure off of her and allow her to also focus on herself.

is that lazy? Acceptable? Is she doomed to spend eternity in hell with the other lazy moms?

That's understandable- she has a medical condition.

Let me ask you something: A husband works full time, the wife is a SAHM. The couple has 1 child, and a full time nanny. The wife spends her days shopping, getting her nails done, sleeping, etc, and the nanny is at home taking care of the child. She has no medical issues, including no ppd to keep her from taking care of her child. If she isn't the websters dictionary definition of lazy- what is she?

Wealthy? Happy? Aware enough to know that the nanny could provide loving care that maybe she can't?

I don't know, I just don't think that's laziness - it's that couple's way of parenting, and so long as the child is taken care of and loved, and the parents are in agreement, what's the big deal?

Also, Ciconrad - I envy your situation. I think it's great that you and your family can have the help that you do, because like you said, it allows your weekends/family time to be spent 100% as a family. It's exhausting for C and I to drag the babies along with us on our weekend errands, or to have to clean intermittently during naps. We've talked about getting both lawn and cleaning services so we can have a similar situation as you do on the weekends.

If you can afford it, DO IT!!!! Even if you have to make some cuts elsewhere to make it work, DO IT!!!!! I didn't have a housekeeper or lawn service until DS #1 was about a year old. He wasn't a child who let me multi-task so I did everything during his very short naps or in the evening. DH spent Saturday mornings doing lawn work, it sucked. When I got pregnant with #2, we were like...something's got to give...so we got help! Hallelujah! We were crazy not to do it before but I definitely had some martyr syndrome I had to get over. It didn't take long once I had nap times to relax and our weekends to do things as a family!

PiRSquared330 · March 2011

keystonestreet@hotmail.com:
Ciconrad:
keystonestreet@hotmail.com:
JamieS2006:
keystonestreet@hotmail.com:

Raising a kid is work. That's the point. I send LO to DC because we wouldn't have enough money to raise Lo the way we want if one of us stayed home.

But were talking about women who not only don't work, but don't have an active role in raising their kid because they hire a full time nanny to do it for them.

I've seen so many "young" parents who thought it would be "fun" to have a kid and then let someone else raise it so they could have "free time." And I work all day and take care of my kid in the evenings and love enough free time for a bath. I know I know pitty party table of 1 here, but I just think somethings that are important require hard work.

And these "young" parents are hiring full time nannies so they can live a life of leisure? I'd have to applaud them for being able to afford such a thing.

Your comparisons aren't making sense.

As for the olded part, if we are still talking about the OP's beef with this woman at the playgroup... seems to me that she is WITH the nanny, not off being lazy or whatever you deem it to be. How is delegating the task of diaper changing equating to not raising a child?

As far as they "young" thing...they don't so much hire people as get their parents/grandparents to do it.

And as far the bolded part I just feel that it's my job to "take care" of my child. Do the dirty work. Even when my MIL comes over to send time with Lo. When her diaper needs changed, I do it. To me those mundane tasks are the root of raising a kid. People love feeding babies. It's all cute and what not. But the cleaning up puke, settling temper tantrums, changing diapers and drying tears those are the real "raising your kids" things in my eyes. And the way I read the OP, that's what this nanny is doing. And yes, she's there with the nanny, but that doesn't mean she's focusing on her child. It doesn't mean she's not either, though.

I'm sorry but I change more of my kid's diapers than anyone else. If my mom or MIL is here and offer to change one, I'm not going to refuse. Seriously, you sound like you have a serious case of mommy martyrdom.

I didn't say I would refuse help. I was meaning I wouldn't expect someone else to just do it for me. Maybe I do have a serious case of mommy martyrdom, but I'm happy. To me it's the equivalent of having someone over for dinner and then expecting them to help clean up. I would never just expect them to go out and load the dishwasher the same way I would never just expect my MIL to change my daughter's diaper. But I think I've gotten us of the topic of nannies. I guess I just think the dirty work is what makes me have respect for my mom. I respect her most for those times when she dug deep to help, like doing the crap work.

but this is where you get me: By your logic, you respect yourself less as a mom since you use DC. You aren't doing as much dirty work as I am. So therefore I deserve more respect since I do more crap work.

I think being a mom is more than that. At least I sure hope it is.

I don't expect others that I invite over to do a dang thing. But I assume you expect those you pay, aka DC, to do certain things. Its the same thing with a nanny.

I am lost, though, as to how we got here. It seems like you know some people who pawn their kids off on their parents and do whatever they want, Farrah style. Its not the same thing that we are talking about.

Hip2Bsquare · March 2011

I was gone all day and so I missed this thread...I read all 5 pages.

My first reaction was wow what a horrible mom for not taking care of her own kid. I since have been enlightened by this debate. I can now totally see how it's myopic(sp?) of me to think that.

After reading this thread I now think I am the horrible parent. I have never paid to have assistance in raising my child or cleaning my house other than DH. My family lives far away so I don't even have my parents or his parents to help out for free. I totally feel less of a parent now for having to clean my bathroom and make dinner myself and then when DH is home....I have him watch DD so I can do more stuff. Oh and I feel bad that I have to lug my kid around to all my errands too. DH and I rarely get to just sit there and play as a family or give the baby to someone else while DH and I have time together to spend time on each other as individuals and as a husband and wife....not just have sex but totally laugh and not worry about what didn't get done, how much is the babysitter going to cost etc. I am tired and I would love some true me time and couple time. I can totally see how a nanny even as a SAHM does improve the standard of living because everyone is happy and well taken care of....even mom. It's like a DVR! I love those things!

I go to play groups without a Nanny and it is fine. However, I have to admit I get so frustrated because mom groups aren't just for the kids to have socialization but the mom too! There have been countless times where I have to end my conversation or miss part of a convo because DD needed me elsewhere. I would love to have 1 hour where I can talk and laugh and get uplifted by people my own age to get me through the next week or month. If I ignored my kid at the play group so I could get "me" time then I would be a bad parent, yet if I bring someone along to watch the baby so I could get "me" time then I also would be a bad parent. Looks like the only option is for me to be happy or unhappy with the little socialization that I get because I can't win either way.

With that all said I still have a hard time "getting" a SAHM mom with a FULL time Nanny but that is just me and my myopic view. I agree the cases are truly very far and few between where you have the true bon bon eating mom and full time working DH and Nanny. I am still just a little stunned that a mom would be sitting there chatting away at the park with the other moms while her Nanny sits beside her feeding her child a jar of peaches. Forget the bad back and not being able to bend over and change.

I agree this is just another thing that we will/are going to judge mothers and parents on but seriously I think it's funny that some people here are telling the OP to not judge this woman on having a nanny yet we will sit and judge a bumpie or friend for wanting to deliver their kid early or not wanting to BF or having a repeat c-section because they want to or having 2 showers. We are all going to find something to judge others on and we each have our own little things that we find horrific. Some people think you being judgmental on something is lame yet the thing that they judge a bumpie on is so much more judge worthy etc. Good grief we all judge...probably every day...probably multiple times a day too!...I think it's natural that we find something to judge people on for whatever reason.

mm&m2010 2 · March 2011

Hip2Bsquare:

I was gone all day and so I missed this thread...I read all 5 pages.

My first reaction was wow what a horrible mom for not taking care of her own kid. I since have been enlightened by this debate. I can now totally see how it's myopic(sp?) of me to think that.

After reading this thread I now think I am the horrible parent. I have never paid to have assistance in raising my child or cleaning my house other than DH. My family lives far away so I don't even have my parents or his parents to help out for free. I totally feel less of a parent now for having to clean my bathroom and make dinner myself and then when DH is home....I have him watch DD so I can do more stuff. Oh and I feel bad that I have to lug my kid around to all my errands too. DH and I rarely get to just sit there and play as a family or give the baby to someone else while DH and I have time together to spend time on each other as individuals and as a husband and wife....not just have sex but totally laugh and not worry about what didn't get done, how much is the babysitter going to cost etc. I am tired and I would love some true me time and couple time. I can totally see how a nanny even as a SAHM does improve the standard of living because everyone is happy and well taken care of....even mom. It's like a DVR! I love those things!

I go to play groups without a Nanny and it is fine. However, I have to admit I get so frustrated because mom groups aren't just for the kids to have socialization but the mom too! There have been countless times where I have to end my conversation or miss part of a convo because DD needed me elsewhere. I would love to have 1 hour where I can talk and laugh and get uplifted by people my own age to get me through the next week or month. If I ignored my kid at the play group so I could get "me" time then I would be a bad parent, yet if I bring someone along to watch the baby so I could get "me" time then I also would be a bad parent. Looks like the only option is for me to be happy or unhappy with the little socialization that I get because I can't win either way.

With that all said I still have a hard time "getting" a SAHM mom with a FULL time Nanny but that is just me and my myopic view. I agree the cases are truly very far and few between where you have the true bon bon eating mom and full time working DH and Nanny. I am still just a little stunned that a mom would be sitting there chatting away at the park with the other moms while her Nanny sits beside her feeding her child a jar of peaches. Forget the bad back and not being able to bend over and change.

I agree this is just another thing that we will/are going to judge mothers and parents on but seriously I think it's funny that some people here are telling the OP to not judge this woman on having a nanny yet we will sit and judge a bumpie or friend for wanting to deliver their kid early or not wanting to BF or having a repeat c-section because they want to or having 2 showers. We are all going to find something to judge others on and we each have our own little things that we find horrific. Some people think you being judgmental on something is lame yet the thing that they judge a bumpie on is so much more judge worthy etc. Good grief we all judge...probably every day...probably multiple times a day too!...I think it's natural that we find something to judge people on for whatever reason.

Yes

Want a personalized experience?

WDYT- Re: Nannies

Re: WDYT- Re: Nannies

Choose Another Board

Search Boards