Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think the brief, postwar period in which one parent (usually the man) worked and the other (usually the woman) stayed home and took care of kids really is the ideal. Except I would want to update it so that men would be just as likely to stay home as women would.

My spouse and I both work and both try to be there for the kids (doctor visits, camp and ballet sign ups, cooking meals, trips to the playground, etc.). Let me tell you, it's exhausting. Specialization would be better. But few can afford to live on one salary in the modern economy.

I don't. Domestic violence was rampant when the majority of women stayed home. Lots of women stayed in bad marriages because they had no way to financially support themself. I'm all for extended maternity leave, but I don't think it's a good idea for the majority of women to check out of the workplace.

It's such a relief women can do what's best for themselves and their families and not have to worry whether or not anyone "thinks it's a good idea". Guess what? Domestic violence can occur in any type of partnership - with SAHMs or WOHMs. Bad marriages and divorce are rampant even now, regardless of work status. I find it incredibly amusing when some women insist that WOH is the only way to protect oneself from divorce, or a cheating spouse, or domestic violence. Bad things can happen in any type of partnership or work situation. At some point, you have to find a partner you trust and do what works best for your own family. Honestly, the best thing I ever did was "check out of the workplace" - or "lean out," if you will.

You can be unhappy in any kind of marriage, but it's a lot better to be unhappy and financially independent than unhappy and financially dependent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's be frank here, ladies. Everyone has their own priority in life. In the dual career families, the children are the ones getting short changed. I'm the nanny who's expected to pick-up the pieces. I'm not interested in being another parent to your children. I don't want your children more waking hours than you care for your own children.

I'm the mom in a dual-career family and believe me, our children see plenty of both of us. I'm glad you aren't our nanny.

When exactly? Skype? Dinner, when you manage to have the time and energy? Sandberg said they tried to at least do that... before dashing BACK to work. Who do you think gave the children their evening baths, read them bedtime stories, and tucked them into bed every night? I don't suppose ANYONE knows how many nannies they've burned through over the years to maintain that ultimate Silicon Valley power couple status. One can at least hope those nannies were well-compensated for their long hours of demanding work.

And btw, I no longer care to work with your type. I find it much more satisfying to devote myself part-time to several families who are all doing their share of caring for their own children themselves. I've seen enough horrors with children who's parents don't know them.

Fleeting moments of so-called "quality time" doesn't cut it, and deep down, you know it.
We all do.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think the brief, postwar period in which one parent (usually the man) worked and the other (usually the woman) stayed home and took care of kids really is the ideal. Except I would want to update it so that men would be just as likely to stay home as women would.

My spouse and I both work and both try to be there for the kids (doctor visits, camp and ballet sign ups, cooking meals, trips to the playground, etc.). Let me tell you, it's exhausting. Specialization would be better. But few can afford to live on one salary in the modern economy.

I don't. Domestic violence was rampant when the majority of women stayed home. Lots of women stayed in bad marriages because they had no way to financially support themself. I'm all for extended maternity leave, but I don't think it's a good idea for the majority of women to check out of the workplace.

It's such a relief women can do what's best for themselves and their families and not have to worry whether or not anyone "thinks it's a good idea". Guess what? Domestic violence can occur in any type of partnership - with SAHMs or WOHMs. Bad marriages and divorce are rampant even now, regardless of work status. I find it incredibly amusing when some women insist that WOH is the only way to protect oneself from divorce, or a cheating spouse, or domestic violence. Bad things can happen in any type of partnership or work situation. At some point, you have to find a partner you trust and do what works best for your own family. Honestly, the best thing I ever did was "check out of the workplace" - or "lean out," if you will.

Anonymous wrote:Let's be frank here, ladies. Everyone has their own priority in life. In the dual career families, the children are the ones getting short changed. I'm the nanny who's expected to pick-up the pieces. I'm not interested in being another parent to your children. I don't want your children more waking hours than you care for your own children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ This is the kind of thing that only people who make a lot of money can sit around and debate. So many moms work because they can't afford to SAHM.

Yes, but those aren't the moms involved in this conversation. This is a conversation about choice and why we make the choices we do.

Anonymous wrote:^^^ This is the kind of thing that only people who make a lot of money can sit around and debate. So many moms work because they can't afford to SAHM.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny how mum many posters are staying on the "leaning in" potential of their nannies!

My nanny has no leaning in potential. She was lucky to graduate from high school. Who cares?

I hope sincerely you do not consider yourself a feminist.

Of course I'm a feminist. But I acknowledge that this is a classist society, too. A person born into a poor family is more likely to settle for a nanny's wage than to go on to medical school. It's not fair, but it is what it is. If you are functionally literate at the 10th grade level, pray tell how you should lean in?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
It's a debate that only the well-educated can afford to have.

While professional women engage in hand-wringing about whether they're "leaning in" enough, they don't stop to consider that for the nanny they employ, no amount of leaning in on her behalf will ever lead to a discernible increase in her salary/ benefits/ prestige.

Leaning in only considers the concerns of the professional class.


Truth.

I also agree. It's part of the "feminist" mantra: I want MY rights on the job, but the hell with my domestic workers hidden behind my closed doors.


Right. Equal rights for all - who think and look like us. The undereducated, immigrant women we rely upon so that we and our husbands may "lean in" need not apply.


I don't understand. Do you think nannies should make what doctors and lawyers make? What point are you trying to make?


That different standards seem to apply to different (types of) women. And why shouldn't a nanny make as much as a doctor or a lawyer? Unless, of course, you consider her contribution to society to be less valuable than that of doctors and lawyers.

Objectively speaking, yes, a nanny's contribution is less valuable to society than the contributions of a lawyer or a doctor.

Lawyers and doctors are required to invest a great deal in specific knowledge to advance their fields for a large number of people.

Nannies have no specific subject matter expertise, no barrier to entry in the profession, and impact a very small segment of society, namely, the few families they work for.

Anyone can be a nanny. Not everyone can be a doctor or a lawyer.

Is this seriously a surprising concept for you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny how mum many posters are staying on the "leaning in" potential of their nannies!

My nanny has no leaning in potential. She was lucky to graduate from high school. Who cares?

I hope sincerely you do not consider yourself a feminist.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I have two graduate degrees and I retired at the ripe old age of 40 to stay at home. Having saved every single penny of my earnings, I was in a good position to do that + my DH is in a secure and well paying job. No debts, low mortgage and pension and savings, fully funded college and tons of insurance means that I can rest easy.

I think my graduate degree actually enabled me to be a SAHM with financial security, unlike a nanny. Another thing - there is a huge difference in the interaction any child will have with a very educated mom vs. a poorly educated child care provider. We all want to give our children the best advantage in life. In our family's case - I was the best advantage.

Wow, you got married before you started working, so your husband supported you financially while you were in, or immediately after, grad school? Great gig. I didn't even marry until I'd been out of grad school 6 years.

Wha? She didn't say anything like that.

Yes, she did. She said she saved every single penny of her earnings. She couldn't save it all unless her husband paid all her bills now could she?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You still don't need a college degree to raise a child. My mother was a two time college drop out and I think she did an excellent job with me and my siblings. We all went on to get degrees, get married, etc and my brother has an extremely successful career. You don't need a million degrees to be a good mom or dad.

True. But it sure isn't a detriment either!

It's a detriment if the kid doesn't turn out any "better," but the mom went without her income and other intangibles from her career. Let's be real, it's moms who are burned out on working who are the gold standard SAHPs. They don't SAH unless they'd rather be home than work.

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.