Why even bother having kids? (Flame away)-- nanny ad, hours 3:30-8pm

[Anonymous]

Man here. Some of you women are a mess. The OP obviously struck a nerve but there is no need to fan the flame by responding. Nobody needs to defend their lifestyle. I really don't understand SAHM's stating that their lifestyle is the best for everyone and demanding that everyone follow their path. These are some of the most competitive women in terms of their children. Why do they want everyone to have their advantage? This leads me to believe that they aren't really satisfied with their choices. The SAHMs that I know (many) are quietly comfortable and secure with their decisions and support EVERY mother in their quest to provide the best for their children.

Now, everyone should get back to work...at home or in the office or whatever you do. Love your children, love your fellow mom and support each other. Legislation and workforce rules will not change to support mothers if their is such a divide. They will just be content seeing you fight it out amongst yourselves.

- A loving father and husband of a hard working wife.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People have children for all kinds of selfish reasons. I know I did. But for many people, once you have kids you are forever a different person because you are no longer the most important thing TO YOU -- your children are. Some people never experience that. And many people experience it and are told to stuff those feelings away and ignore them -- it will get easier to leave your baby with someone else; it will get easier to hear your baby cry at night. Etc, etc, etc. Being a good parent means making huge sacrifices, your own 'self' as paramount is the first one.

Why does being a parent mean having to make "huge sacrifices"? Yes - your life changes a lot and you put someone else's needs first, but it doesn't mean you have to become a martyr or give up your entire identity.

So what if they need childcare bc/ neither parent is home until 8 at night? That's their call and maybe their children will be better off for it - having two strong parental role models, having money for the best schools, etc.

Wow. So sad that these are your views on what is best for the child. The best schools over parental involvement.

as long the caregiver is good - nurturing, intelligent, qualified - then I'd rather have the best schools and not the most involved parents. England's aristocracy conquered the world during the Victorian Era, and those parents would have their kids presented occasionally - and were almost entirely raised by nannies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The reality is, if both parents are lawyers/bankers at firms, they probably have at least one live-in nanny who works 6 am to 3 pm and they are now looking for another (live out nanny) to fill the afternoon and evening role. I once knew a family with three kids where the dad was a partner at a major consulting firm (so he traveled out of town Mon-Fri) and the Mom worked as an investment banker in NYC (but they lived in DC where the husband's firm was)! So they had a full-time live in nanny, plus two other nannies to relieve the full-time nanny. Again, I tried not to judge, but why have kids? If you have a super high-powered family, I could understand having one (a la Hillary and Bill) and then realizing it wouldn't be fair to the kids to have more, but two or three? And both parents are working this hard by choice - they could very comfortably survive on one of their salaries alone. I agree that once you have kids, something has to give. And if it's not compromising to come up with some semblance of career/family balance, I fear what's "giving" is a certain amount of their children's happiness. Sure, the kids don't "notice" when they're babies or toddlers, but don't think they won't remember their parents' (extreme) absence when they get a little older.

Someone's watching the 1 year old and then a spare is needed to schlep the 5 and 7 year old to dance, sports, etc. I google people all the time. A nanny should google prospective employers and all should check the arrest records for driving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People have children for all kinds of selfish reasons. I know I did. But for many people, once you have kids you are forever a different person because you are no longer the most important thing TO YOU -- your children are. Some people never experience that. And many people experience it and are told to stuff those feelings away and ignore them -- it will get easier to leave your baby with someone else; it will get easier to hear your baby cry at night. Etc, etc, etc. Being a good parent means making huge sacrifices, your own 'self' as paramount is the first one.

I'm sorry, you don't get to define what being a good parent means for anyone else. You just don't.

Yes I do, and so does the rest of the world. Caring about yourself more than you care about your children goes against human nature. It is taboo to admit it -- that's why people who feel that way have to pretend it's actually okay that their children are being raised by hired help -- or that it's actually BETTER for children to have "role models" of career addicts as parents than it is to have loving, involved parents actually doing the job of being parents.

I'm not even sure I understand your response (the rest of the world gets to define what being a good parent means?). But it seems that you are implying that no one should work. Or at least one parent shouldn't work. So how would that work for most people?

You sound pretty sure that you're right about everything. That's usually a dead giveaway that you don't have a clue.

Ooooo, so confusing. Almost zen-like. It must be true even though it makes no sense.

Yes, I am implying that NO ONE SHOULD WORK. We should all sit around and DO NOTHING but hang around with our children and collect our government checks. Really that is the ONLY logical way to interpret what I've written. Key in the castration of minorities and the poor poster. I give up.

[Anonymous]

I think it's so much easier for a man to reply in such an idealistic way. Men just don't seem to have as much guilt with respect to childcare as women do. Based on my own personal experience, my husband works 90+ hours a week and is literally not around during the week to spend any time with the kids. He does love the kids and spends time with them during the weekend days when he's not traveling. But he feels no guilt whatsoever about not spending much time with the kids - and society also seems to be okay with that. He's incredibly successful in his business and people applaud the fact that he spends time with the kids during the weekends. As a mom, if I were to do that, people would think I was an evil selfish monster who shouldn't have kids. I think our society puts incredibly unreasonable demands on our moms and offers relatively little support. I have an Ivy League law degree and I have been home with my kids (ages 9,7 and 3) for the last 9 years because with my husband's schedule, I didn't think it would be fair to the kids for me to be away (and in the US, unlike other countries - Europe in particular, it's extremely difficult to find a fulfilling part-time or even 40-hours-a-week legal job). And it sucks that every time I want to do anything during any time of the day (hair cut, doctors appt, etc.), I have to hire a sitter. It makes every decision more challenging. I envy people who live near grandparents who want to be involved in their grandkids' lives. That seems to be the ideal solution. It seems that it does take a village ... or you have to hire one and deal with the guilt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually participate in the same listserv and saw the original posting. And no, it would never occur to me to google someone who had posted an ad for child care. I don't get why you care or are even curious.

You may want to quietly email this nice couple off-list and let them know this is here. They might be able to contact Jeff and ask for it to be removed. I'm sure they won't appreciate being stalked by this woman, what with having 3 small kids and all.

Agree 100%. How embarrassing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People have children for all kinds of selfish reasons. I know I did. But for many people, once you have kids you are forever a different person because you are no longer the most important thing TO YOU -- your children are. Some people never experience that. And many people experience it and are told to stuff those feelings away and ignore them -- it will get easier to leave your baby with someone else; it will get easier to hear your baby cry at night. Etc, etc, etc. Being a good parent means making huge sacrifices, your own 'self' as paramount is the first one.

Why does being a parent mean having to make "huge sacrifices"? Yes - your life changes a lot and you put someone else's needs first, but it doesn't mean you have to become a martyr or give up your entire identity.

So what if they need childcare bc/ neither parent is home until 8 at night? That's their call and maybe their children will be better off for it - having two strong parental role models, having money for the best schools, etc.

Wow. So sad that these are your views on what is best for the child. The best schools over parental involvement.

as long the caregiver is good - nurturing, intelligent, qualified - then I'd rather have the best schools and not the most involved parents. England's aristocracy conquered the world during the Victorian Era, and those parents would have their kids presented occasionally - and were almost entirely raised by nannies.

Each reply is more sad. I don't necessarily agree with the OP (and think it's wrong she posted the family's post here) but if you'd rather conquer others than have a loving family, hey, that's says something about your personality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FWIW, I am also a participant on the original posting listserve and recognized the ad. I sent the link to this discussion to the moderators of that listserve so that they would know it had happened. They agreed that OP was absolutely violating the terms of that listserve but that because DCUM is anonymous they can't do much about it.

Could you please forward them Jeff's contact information? They can contact Jeff on behalf of the listserv, and he can possibly shut this thread down, since it violates the terms of the listserv. I am baffled that someone would do this -- it's just so crazy and petty!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Note to self: Stop posting on neighborhood list serve. People with no life may google me, make assumptions about me, and then put my life up for public ridicule.

Amen. I also participate in that listserv. I will never post a part-time nanny ad there now. Yikes! I also was about to post on the listserv to volunteer to shovel elderly neighbors' sidewalks on weekends when it next snows, since there is a bit of a discussion going on about that. OP will Google me and decide to indict me here because, since I work, I really should be home with my kids every second of the weekend rather than doing a neighborly deed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's so much easier for a man to reply in such an idealistic way. Men just don't seem to have as much guilt with respect to childcare as women do. Based on my own personal experience, my husband works 90+ hours a week and is literally not around during the week to spend any time with the kids. He does love the kids and spends time with them during the weekend days when he's not traveling. But he feels no guilt whatsoever about not spending much time with the kids - and society also seems to be okay with that. He's incredibly successful in his business and people applaud the fact that he spends time with the kids during the weekends. As a mom, if I were to do that, people would think I was an evil selfish monster who shouldn't have kids. I think our society puts incredibly unreasonable demands on our moms and offers relatively little support. I have an Ivy League law degree and I have been home with my kids (ages 9,7 and 3) for the last 9 years because with my husband's schedule, I didn't think it would be fair to the kids for me to be away (and in the US, unlike other countries - Europe in particular, it's extremely difficult to find a fulfilling part-time or even 40-hours-a-week legal job). And it sucks that every time I want to do anything during any time of the day (hair cut, doctors appt, etc.), I have to hire a sitter. It makes every decision more challenging. I envy people who live near grandparents who want to be involved in their grandkids' lives. That seems to be the ideal solution. It seems that it does take a village ... or you have to hire one and deal with the guilt.

I personally hate the posts that imply the last word has been said (with their post) and that means there is nothing more to add to the thread. I always wondered if they were posted by men....

PP, I believe that men and women have truly different sets of emotions regarding their children. I don't think it has anything to do with society -- I think it is hormonal. But society does leave women high and dry when it says they can have serious careers AND have kids -- and when the kids sacrifice because of that it is somehow justified by a woman's right to do that, or when the mothers feel they wish they could spend more time with their kids, then they are somehow not being feminists. It is not a test of emotional endurance for men to have serious careers with long hours and know their kids are taken care of by someone else, the way it is for (many) women, no matter what society says. It's just not.

[Anonymous]

AdequateParent wrote:The dad poster has a good point about getting back to work, but if OP and "yes, I do" are still online, are you available for in-home consults about child-rearing? You could observe our at-risk children and judge their happiness and adjustment, then draw up personalized parenting plans and reading lists.

I think that this is a niche that's just crying out to be filled (why good evening, Dr. Freud).

You could buy advertising here or just post an ad on the neighborhood listserv.

Edit yourself. Since you are signing in, you may want to refrain from posting when you are not funny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People have children for all kinds of selfish reasons. I know I did. But for many people, once you have kids you are forever a different person because you are no longer the most important thing TO YOU -- your children are. Some people never experience that. And many people experience it and are told to stuff those feelings away and ignore them -- it will get easier to leave your baby with someone else; it will get easier to hear your baby cry at night. Etc, etc, etc. Being a good parent means making huge sacrifices, your own 'self' as paramount is the first one.

Why does being a parent mean having to make "huge sacrifices"? Yes - your life changes a lot and you put someone else's needs first, but it doesn't mean you have to become a martyr or give up your entire identity.

So what if they need childcare bc/ neither parent is home until 8 at night? That's their call and maybe their children will be better off for it - having two strong parental role models, having money for the best schools, etc.

Wow. So sad that these are your views on what is best for the child. The best schools over parental involvement.

as long the caregiver is good - nurturing, intelligent, qualified - then I'd rather have the best schools and not the most involved parents. England's aristocracy conquered the world during the Victorian Era, and those parents would have their kids presented occasionally - and were almost entirely raised by nannies.

Each reply is more sad. I don't necessarily agree with the OP (and think it's wrong she posted the family's post here) but if you'd rather conquer others than have a loving family, hey, that's says something about your personality.

hah. the point was that was a very successful time for England, and not just with respect to conquering, and the leaders of that society were raised by extraordinarily detached parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

AdequateParent wrote:The dad poster has a good point about getting back to work, but if OP and "yes, I do" are still online, are you available for in-home consults about child-rearing? You could observe our at-risk children and judge their happiness and adjustment, then draw up personalized parenting plans and reading lists.

I think that this is a niche that's just crying out to be filled (why good evening, Dr. Freud).

You could buy advertising here or just post an ad on the neighborhood listserv.

Edit yourself. Since you are signing in, you may want to refrain from posting when you are not funny.

I think the poster is quite funny. The poster is also offering very helpful and relevant suggestions for a very bored OP with too much time on her hands. The OP is a good example of the small and petty world some moms happen to encompass. Maybe the OP just needs some fresh air?

[Anonymous]

No offense, OP but you are being very judgemental and assuming too much about someone else's life. I saw this same ad as well in our neighborhood listserv. Shame on you for posting it here of all places. Instead of shaking a finger at someone else why not take a look at yourself, are you perfect?

[Anonymous]

Like a PP, if you googled me you wouuld see that I'm a partner in a high powered company. What google wouldn't tell you is that I pick up my kids from school every day and supervise their homework and put a hot meal on the table most nights. My high powered husband is home to sit down for dinner (and sometimes cooks it) and coaches his kids' sports teams. We are fortunate to have the flexibility we do. Not everyone does. So what if this couple needs help in the evenings? Good for them that they can afford it. My mom had a live-in nanny and a housekeeper and she was a fabulous mom. OP is a nosy little rumormonger who should mind her own business.