How far should we "Lean In?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Accidents happen and you can't live your life as though your DH will slip on the treadmill one day. Lean in if you want, lean out of you want... Do what's right for you and don't judge others who make different choices.

On the treadmill, I would neither lean in (whatever that means) nor lean out. And I am now wearing the clip "deadman's switch" that stops the machine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

What is the evidence that poor nanny care is the reason children end up with "mental illness" or addiction issues ?

Most nanny/sitter care is horribly unstable, unfortunately.
Have you any idea of the probable consequences of repeated severed bonds during the first three years of life? Did anyone ever discuss with you the critical importance of bonding, and maintaining that bond with your child?

Stop hand-wringing and post evidence if you have it.

Stop posting on dcum and get a basic book on early childhood development. It's posts like this that give WOHMs a bad rep about their childcare.

You believe stable bonds are irrelevant? You need a little education.

I believe that your claim about poor nanny care causing mental illness and addiction issues is unsubstantiated, yes, this is why I am asking you to post evidence. It needs a little more than your say-so.

Is *your* condition inherited, or poor child care during your foundation years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Is *your* condition inherited, or poor child care during your foundation years?

Personal insults do not affect me. They usually indicate that someone has run out of rational arguments.

When you have actual evidence that poor nanny care leads to mental illness and addiction, please post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

If the care is
1. Stable
2. Competent
3. Loving
it's probably good, right?