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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Someone previously alluded to Above the Law, the legal tabloid blog. When they do the wedding "legal eagles" post, they google the couples and dig up their wedding websites, registries, etc etc. Is that stuff "private?" If it's out on the internet, it's fair game.

OP did not post the name of the couple who posted the ad, so what's the big deal?

OP -- since you clearly ARE the OP -- this is a totally specious argument. When someone submits their own wedding announcement to "Legal Eagles," they are giving permission for the owner of that site to print private information about them. The owner of the site asks for information about wedding registries and website and the couple provides it -- or not. It's their choice.

And libel and slander laws provide for situations in which the name is not made explicit, but is clear to all by circumstances.

[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 have a fulfilling 40 hours a week legal job, and I make over $200K a year. I'm sure your husband is making a million dollars a year, hence the 90 hours, so you have no financial incentive, but truly, it could be done if you were so inclined.

[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.

Gosh, how about both?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's just not true. I know many men who suffer emotionally when their children suffer, and one who scaled back a great career to avoid the childrens' suffering. In that case, it's the mom who has a tin ear for the kids' needs. You simply cannot generalize like that in 2011.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not the OP, but I'm curious about the idea that a listserv is somehow "private." I am also on the listserv in question it's huge. I'm cognizant that when I post something, it is read by people who are not only my neighbors, but people whom I know professionally and personally. Also, there have been plenty of fights on this (and other) neighborhood listservs that have been fodder for Washington Post articles where people have been quoted by name. If you put something out there, and post your name, then it's up for public discussion.

Someone previously alluded to Above the Law, the legal tabloid blog. When they do the wedding "legal eagles" post, they google the couples and dig up their wedding websites, registries, etc etc. Is that stuff "private?" If it's out on the internet, it's fair game.

OP did not post the name of the couple who posted the ad, so what's the big deal?

Yet, you and the OP have the same IP address.

Jeff Steele, you are AWESOME.

Let's give PP the benefit of the doubt...perhaps she's not a sock puppet...maybe the PP didn't post, but his wife did. And he just realized that his wife is a venomous, petty, jealous troll. Could be an interesting night at their house!

OP? Response? Are you still here? You said "Flame away" but are now embarrassed that you were caught sock-puppeting. Or are you having a spat with your husband?

[Anonymous]

It's a CHOICE to feel guilty.

[Anonymous]

"(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)"

Europe is a country? Who knew?

[Anonymous]

Maybe OP is looking for another computer to sock puppet on. What a sad soul.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe OP is looking for another computer to sock puppet on. What a sad soul.

I just saw her in line at Best Buy. She'll BRB once she gets it connected.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not the OP, but I'm curious about the idea that a listserv is somehow "private." I am also on the listserv in question it's huge. I'm cognizant that when I post something, it is read by people who are not only my neighbors, but people whom I know professionally and personally. Also, there have been plenty of fights on this (and other) neighborhood listservs that have been fodder for Washington Post articles where people have been quoted by name. If you put something out there, and post your name, then it's up for public discussion.

Someone previously alluded to Above the Law, the legal tabloid blog. When they do the wedding "legal eagles" post, they google the couples and dig up their wedding websites, registries, etc etc. Is that stuff "private?" If it's out on the internet, it's fair game.

OP did not post the name of the couple who posted the ad, so what's the big deal?

Yet, you and the OP have the same IP address.

!!!!!!!! Love this!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that OP has posted many times on this thread. It's not hard to figure out the IP address.

I have also posted several times on this thread. I find it amazing that so many people are willing to bend over backward to find unlikely reasons that FT professionals would need these hours of childcare, rather than assuming the obvious -- that ALL of their children's physical parenting needs are being met by hired help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's just not true. I know many men who suffer emotionally when their children suffer, and one who scaled back a great career to avoid the childrens' suffering. In that case, it's the mom who has a tin ear for the kids' needs. You simply cannot generalize like that in 2011.

Yes, there are many women who have tin ears, as is obvious from this thread and others like it. But in general, women who want to be mothers vs. those who do it just because it is expected of them, are more likely to suffer from not being able to raise their kids themselves than men are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that OP has posted many times on this thread. It's not hard to figure out the IP address.

I have also posted several times on this thread. I find it amazing that so many people are willing to bend over backward to find unlikely reasons that FT professionals would need these hours of childcare, rather than assuming the obvious -- that ALL of their children's physical parenting needs are being met by hired help.

I've never considered obvious that seeking 4.5 hours/day of care means that the other 19.5 are not being met by the parents. I think it takes a lot more convoluted thinking to assume 24/7 childcare than it does to just take this at face value: these are parents who need afternoon/evening help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that OP has posted many times on this thread. It's not hard to figure out the IP address.

I have also posted several times on this thread. I find it amazing that so many people are willing to bend over backward to find unlikely reasons that FT professionals would need these hours of childcare, rather than assuming the obvious -- that ALL of their children's physical parenting needs are being met by hired help.

So what? I presume the most likely explanation is that SAHMs' financial needs are being met by their DHs' jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's just not true. I know many men who suffer emotionally when their children suffer, and one who scaled back a great career to avoid the childrens' suffering. In that case, it's the mom who has a tin ear for the kids' needs. You simply cannot generalize like that in 2011.

Yes, there are many women who have tin ears, as is obvious from this thread and others like it. But in general, women who want to be mothers vs. those who do it just because it is expected of them, are more likely to suffer from not being able to raise their kids themselves than men are.

But a mother working full time does NOT mean that she is not raising her kids herself. Nannies don't give moral guidance or money for tuition.