How far should we "Lean In?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:4. One can argue that good therapy can be a good thing to learn how to be a good parent.

One may, but it would have nothing to do with the argument at hand.

One may reread #3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not the PP, but what you've said is truly astounding to me. "Nannies impact a very small segment of society... a nanny's contribution is less valuable to society than the contributions of a lawyer or doctor." This is the person you've entrusted your own children to. The person who is supposed to keep them safe from harm, every minute that you're not with them. I'm appalled at your complete lack of empathy towards your own children. I guess anyone with a pulse and a driver's license will do just fine.

No matter how much I love my children and want them to be well taken care of, a pediatric cardiac surgeon who saves ten lives a day, every day, is objectively more important to society than my nanny. It has nothing to do with how much empathy I have for my children. It has everything to do with recognizing there are other things - besides my children - that are important to this world. If my nanny does a mediocre job, the impact of that is two children who had mediocre care. The impact of a surgeon not doing his job is ten dead children a day. I think we can all do the math.

Is myopic vision a necessary trait of a surgeon?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:4. One can argue that good therapy can be a good thing to learn how to be a good parent.

One may, but it would have nothing to do with the argument at hand.

One may reread #3.

NP here - you are trying very hard to not look bad after your ramblings on narcissistic parents have been taken apart. It's not working, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:4. One can argue that good therapy can be a good thing to learn how to be a good parent.

One may, but it would have nothing to do with the argument at hand.

One may reread #3.

NP here - you are trying very hard to not look bad after your ramblings on narcissistic parents have been taken apart. It's not working, though.

Not the same poster. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since when is raising a child, "not working"?

Hope you don't tell the nanny, she's "not working."

You don't need a graduate degree to raise a child.

And yet, the earlier example of the "perfect" nanny stated that she had a degree in child development. So clearly, education is highly valued when searching for a childcare provider. But it makes no difference if you're "just" talking about a parent? Ridiculous. I have several degrees that I may or may not put to use again in the future. But my children certainly benefit from having someone who's been educated take care of them.

But in your case, the difference between a less qualified child care provider providing 40 hours a week of care versus you is, you hope, meaningful. I don't think it is; hence, the reason my family does not have a SAHP.

And that speaks volumes about how little it really matters to you who is taking care of your child. Anyone will do.

No, use logic here. I'm saying kids don't need a parent to SAH to be well cared for. That's a huge leap from "anyone" to "someone who's not a parent."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would I spend the money to go to college and law school if I could just have been a nanny? You don't think it's right that higher education = more money? Huh? Are you a capitalist, at all?

So you value the ability to lean in, but not the person who enables you to do so.

Got it.

These posts make very clear the vitriol and condescension regarding SAHPs correlates directly with the fact that child-rearing - no matter who's doing it - is seen by many as unimportant work.

Very true and SO pathetic.
What kind of future do little children have, when they're being denied a wonderful early childhood and cared for by people who love them?

Such a hysterical, emotional, female-typical response. So using paid childcare "denie[s] a wonderful early childhood"? Hoo boy, talk about irrational hyperbole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most positions of responsibility that require you to lean in also require you to make a choice between work and family in terms of priority. If you have work/life balance you dont have a high lowered job.

I don't have a high powered job! But making over $200K in the 35 hours a week I work will pay the college bills. That's more leaning in than most women do in terms of earning power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not the PP, but what you've said is truly astounding to me. "Nannies impact a very small segment of society... a nanny's contribution is less valuable to society than the contributions of a lawyer or doctor." This is the person you've entrusted your own children to. The person who is supposed to keep them safe from harm, every minute that you're not with them. I'm appalled at your complete lack of empathy towards your own children. I guess anyone with a pulse and a driver's license will do just fine.

No matter how much I love my children and want them to be well taken care of, a pediatric cardiac surgeon who saves ten lives a day, every day, is objectively more important to society than my nanny. It has nothing to do with how much empathy I have for my children. It has everything to do with recognizing there are other things - besides my children - that are important to this world. If my nanny does a mediocre job, the impact of that is two children who had mediocre care. The impact of a surgeon not doing his job is ten dead children a day. I think we can all do the math.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not the PP, but what you've said is truly astounding to me. "Nannies impact a very small segment of society... a nanny's contribution is less valuable to society than the contributions of a lawyer or doctor." This is the person you've entrusted your own children to. The person who is supposed to keep them safe from harm, every minute that you're not with them. I'm appalled at your complete lack of empathy towards your own children. I guess anyone with a pulse and a driver's license will do just fine.

No matter how much I love my children and want them to be well taken care of, a pediatric cardiac surgeon who saves ten lives a day, every day, is objectively more important to society than my nanny. It has nothing to do with how much empathy I have for my children. It has everything to do with recognizing there are other things - besides my children - that are important to this world. If my nanny does a mediocre job, the impact of that is two children who had mediocre care. The impact of a surgeon not doing his job is ten dead children a day. I think we can all do the math.

Maybe you should "Lean In" as much as you want because it does not seem you really want to be with your kid. It is ok. Some women are not the maternal type. I hope though that you have a high powered career like Sheryl, because leaning in when you are making a pittance and when your salary is needed at home, is not "leaning in" - it is your constraint.

That is then another thread.

Why does acknowledging that providing childcare is providing unskilled labor, equal not wanting to be with one's children? Using one's education for the betterment of society = not wanting to do childcare? Is that how MEN think about it, or is it assumed they can both work and parent?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not the PP, but what you've said is truly astounding to me. "Nannies impact a very small segment of society... a nanny's contribution is less valuable to society than the contributions of a lawyer or doctor." This is the person you've entrusted your own children to. The person who is supposed to keep them safe from harm, every minute that you're not with them. I'm appalled at your complete lack of empathy towards your own children. I guess anyone with a pulse and a driver's license will do just fine.

No matter how much I love my children and want them to be well taken care of, a pediatric cardiac surgeon who saves ten lives a day, every day, is objectively more important to society than my nanny. It has nothing to do with how much empathy I have for my children. It has everything to do with recognizing there are other things - besides my children - that are important to this world. If my nanny does a mediocre job, the impact of that is two children who had mediocre care. The impact of a surgeon not doing his job is ten dead children a day. I think we can all do the math.

Again - wow. Now you're attempting to use hyperbole to illustrate the ridiculous example of the hypothetical surgeon not doing his job, resulting in "ten dead children a day". If your nanny does a mediocre job, the impact of that is YOUR two children having had mediocre care. But that seems to be just fine with you.

We were discussing relative importance of different jobs to society, not to me or any one personally. In the context of societal good, ten children kept alive are more valuable than two children raised well.

I guess that's how some people need to rationalize their choice to not be there for their children.

I guess that's how you rationalize not working and raising your children at the same time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not the PP, but what you've said is truly astounding to me. "Nannies impact a very small segment of society... a nanny's contribution is less valuable to society than the contributions of a lawyer or doctor." This is the person you've entrusted your own children to. The person who is supposed to keep them safe from harm, every minute that you're not with them. I'm appalled at your complete lack of empathy towards your own children. I guess anyone with a pulse and a driver's license will do just fine.

No matter how much I love my children and want them to be well taken care of, a pediatric cardiac surgeon who saves ten lives a day, every day, is objectively more important to society than my nanny. It has nothing to do with how much empathy I have for my children. It has everything to do with recognizing there are other things - besides my children - that are important to this world. If my nanny does a mediocre job, the impact of that is two children who had mediocre care. The impact of a surgeon not doing his job is ten dead children a day. I think we can all do the math.

Again - wow. Now you're attempting to use hyperbole to illustrate the ridiculous example of the hypothetical surgeon not doing his job, resulting in "ten dead children a day". If your nanny does a mediocre job, the impact of that is YOUR two children having had mediocre care. But that seems to be just fine with you.

We were discussing relative importance of different jobs to society, not to me or any one personally. In the context of societal good, ten children kept alive are more valuable than two children raised well.

I guess that's how some people need to rationalize their choice to not be there for their children.

Feel free to propose an alternative theory without getting personal - if you can.

The alternative theory is that when you have the luxury of having the choice to work or stay at home there are some people who are narcissists. They rationalize their preference for personal professional fulfilment, money, recognition and prestige by convincing themselves that this path is also what is best for their children. That may or may not be true, but it is soothing to these narcissists to believe it is true in all cases, even when they are inflicting damage on their children. I've seen many of these narcissists in the DC metro area and the damage they do to their families; unfortunately they are not rare.

How many hours can a parent WOH without inflicting damage on his or her children? Does the age of the child, or the type of care, factor in? Is 20 hours of paid employment a week ok? Is full time work ok if the childcare is done by a close relative of the parents?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not the PP, but what you've said is truly astounding to me. "Nannies impact a very small segment of society... a nanny's contribution is less valuable to society than the contributions of a lawyer or doctor." This is the person you've entrusted your own children to. The person who is supposed to keep them safe from harm, every minute that you're not with them. I'm appalled at your complete lack of empathy towards your own children. I guess anyone with a pulse and a driver's license will do just fine.

No matter how much I love my children and want them to be well taken care of, a pediatric cardiac surgeon who saves ten lives a day, every day, is objectively more important to society than my nanny. It has nothing to do with how much empathy I have for my children. It has everything to do with recognizing there are other things - besides my children - that are important to this world. If my nanny does a mediocre job, the impact of that is two children who had mediocre care. The impact of a surgeon not doing his job is ten dead children a day. I think we can all do the math.

Exactly.

This assume that you can add up lives to calculate overall value.
If you think that every human life has infinite value, then 1 or 10 are about the same.
I think one should do what one is best at. I get very anxious and nervous (and depressed) when I am home with my kids for a long time. I am a better more dedicated mum if I go to work and then enjoy them evening and weekends. I had to cut short my maternity leave for this reason. A great nanny is priceless- just like a great surgeon.

[Anonymous]

PP, wanted to add... It is not what is 'best' in general; it is about what is best for a certain set of circumstances. Less money, neurotic SAHP is not that great. But happy fullfilled SAHP, and enough money to go around, sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not the PP, but what you've said is truly astounding to me. "Nannies impact a very small segment of society... a nanny's contribution is less valuable to society than the contributions of a lawyer or doctor." This is the person you've entrusted your own children to. The person who is supposed to keep them safe from harm, every minute that you're not with them. I'm appalled at your complete lack of empathy towards your own children. I guess anyone with a pulse and a driver's license will do just fine.

No matter how much I love my children and want them to be well taken care of, a pediatric cardiac surgeon who saves ten lives a day, every day, is objectively more important to society than my nanny. It has nothing to do with how much empathy I have for my children. It has everything to do with recognizing there are other things - besides my children - that are important to this world. If my nanny does a mediocre job, the impact of that is two children who had mediocre care. The impact of a surgeon not doing his job is ten dead children a day. I think we can all do the math.

Again - wow. Now you're attempting to use hyperbole to illustrate the ridiculous example of the hypothetical surgeon not doing his job, resulting in "ten dead children a day". If your nanny does a mediocre job, the impact of that is YOUR two children having had mediocre care. But that seems to be just fine with you.

We were discussing relative importance of different jobs to society, not to me or any one personally. In the context of societal good, ten children kept alive are more valuable than two children raised well.

Children who end up dealing with mental illness or addiction issues as a result of being poorly raised is a drain on society. Two children raised well will, in turn, raise their children well, contribute meaningfully to society, and likely be fully realized people - these metrics are invaluable.

[Anonymous]

Care to answer 15:41?