"Nanny as Parent" phenomenon

[Anonymous]

My mb works 15 hours a week yet has 2 nannies. It's about 60 hours a week between the both of is. Her and her husband are off weekends and still have FT care. I hardly ever see her holding the babies unless she has to. She just gives orders all day long.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My mb works 15 hours a week yet has 2 nannies. It's about 60 hours a week between the both of is. Her and her husband are off weekends and still have FT care. I hardly ever see her holding the babies unless she has to. She just gives orders all day long.

Thank you for sharing your experience. It's so sad. Bless you for being there. I hope you're well-paid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Most parents do indeed, love their children.

But love is an ACTION word, not just a feeling you have while you're sitting in your downtown office shuffling stacks of papers. The fact that your absentee parenting provides your child with a grandiose lifestyle, does not make up for it.

The more you're away from your child, the less you know "your" child.

The more tired and stressed you are when you DO see your child, the LESS capable you are to be the parent that your child desperately needs, and deserves.

Why do you think more and more rich kids are growing up RAGING, full of anger and resentment?

"But we gave our child everything." Sure, everything money could buy. Everything, except stable and consistant care during the first three to five years of life. Why do you think they're called "the foundation years"?

Usually, (not always) when the early years go poorly (yes, rich kids often have very sad childhoods), you can have a lifetime of trying to "fix" it. Lifelong therapy and "medication". And hope that does the trick, and there won't be any REALLY serious consequences.

You can give this, any kind of pretty label you want. But whatever you call it, it magically, is NEVER correlated to early childhood care/parenting, or lack of.

This is not about a "blame game".
It's about putting some thought into our values and priorities, and asking,

Is this really the best we can do?

bp

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it disappointing that nannies with all that resentment are in the business of caring for children. Really, nannies, your judgmental attitudes are really unflattering to you and your profession.

Nanny of 10+ years here and I agree.

I have interviewed with and come across only a few families that have no interest in the their children. Here's the kicker: not all of them had a nanny. This problem is not unique to people with nannies.

Some nannies may tell themselves that all parents are like this. That doesn't make it true.

[Anonymous]

No one ever said that ALL parents are bad parents. What are you talking about?

[Anonymous]

No one ever said that ALL parents are bad parents. What are you talking about?

[Anonymous]

I may be in the minority, but i think it's the nanny's job to support the parent/child relationship as much as the parent's.

I talk to my charges daily about the hard work their parents do. When we do something that costs money, we talk about how hard Mommy and Daddy work so that they have have all they need and money left over for fun stuff. When the kids are proud or excited and want to show/tell me about something, I whip out my camera and have them make a video to show parents. Parents get photos of every activity, as well as heads up about anything going on (everything from "X hit her brother today and here's the consequence I gave" to "ask Y to tell you about his painting."). All via text/email so that they walk in the door ready to engage. I make dinner for the family every night so that they can sit down and eat together as soon as MB walks in the door. I do all that I can for the parents' presence to be felt all day, not just in the time they are here. I know nannies who begrudge their MB/DB information about the kids, and whose judgement and resentment is obvious to me, and therefore obvious to the kids. Then they wonder why the kids don't feel connected to mom and dad. It's a two way street, and nannies have to act as a facilitator.

[Anonymous]

I see most nannies start out with lofty intentions to support the parents. However, when you hear from career senior-level nannies who have worked with dozens of varied families, they have a more accurate view of the majority of parents who have nannies. It's simply a rare occurance to find a mb who makes the children a real priority. But the nanny can still hope that her next mb will be better than the current one.

[Anonymous]

Haven't nannied very long - about 8 years and with my 3rd family for the last 4. I have to say that even though all the parents work, they were all involved and love their kids.

Why are we always saying crap about the very parents that hire us. If you have so much resentment, you shouldn't be nannying then.

[Anonymous]

Personally, I've seen lots of accolades on this forum for well-deserving parents. (Check out the "favorite nanny perks" thread, for example.) Lots of parents appreciate and honor the nanny.

No one is painting all parents with a broad brush. There is just as much bad parenting, as there is bad nannying. I think almost anyone would agree with that.

[Anonymous]

Accessory children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think that mentality was more prevalent in the past than it is now.

I think parents are more involved now, even if they do have a nanny.

I agree.

It used to be standard for parents to spend virtually no time playing with their kids. Standard. Not the realm of the rich and disinterested, but common across all socioeconomic lines. Today, parents know how important it is for their kids to build relationships with them through play time, and even busy working parents make an effort to get that bonding time in before bed or on weekends.

While some don't, like the ones mentioned upthread, I don't believe this is typical anymore, nor nearly as common as it was even 30 years ago.

+1. Even going past 30 years go, in many times and places, it was common for a parent to send a child around the age of 6 or 7 to the home of another family (usually in a better socioeconomic situation) to finish being raised, do an apprenticeship, etc. The level of intense parenting you see today is really quite new in the grand scheme of things.

[Anonymous]

Being raised by a family member is in no way comparible to the procession of hired sitters in and out of your child's life so common today. The most unfortunate aspect of your so-called "intense" parenting, is that you seem to want to believe that this is good for your child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Being raised by a family member is in no way comparible to the procession of hired sitters in and out of your child's life so common today. The most unfortunate aspect of your so-called "intense" parenting, is that you seem to want to believe that this is good for your child.

Well, such is life. Someone has to make money to live and eat, right? And in today's world, it's a need for both parents to work...does that mean they should then not have kids? Because if that is to be the case, not many people would at all.

[Anonymous]

The real question is how much of your parenting duties are you going to outsource just so you can have the life-style you think you are entitled to? Or are you a single parent receiving no $$$ from the other parent?

You can't have it both ways. If you can afford a nanny, than you can afford to do more of the work of actual parenting.

I have more respect and admiration for the parents with PT nannies. They understand the necessity of maintaining