Nannies with children

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I found a high paying job then I would leave my kids in someone else's care. The extra pay would be worth it. If I had any other type of job then I would have to leave them anyways, so I don't see it as an issue. If I felt so strongly that I wouldn't leave them elsewhere, then I would stay home with them myself. Either you need the money to survive and you do what you need to (aka work), or you stay with your kids at home and raise them. Where I am working makes no difference in the end, but a high paying job certainly makes it more worth it. Since I love kids, I would rather earn a good pay while still getting to spend my days with children, than spending my days working in an office and not getting to see and be with ANY kids throughout the day.

^^This.

If I worked at a daycare or a school, it wouldn't be an issue.

[Anonymous]

I'm leaving nannying for graduate school specifically because I want the option of having kids one day. I love my job, I get paid very well and support myself comfortably, but I could never stay in a field where I'd either have to hire my own nanny (wut) or send my kids to daycare while caring for someone else's. I get what everyone is saying about it being a job, and it is, but if I taught at a private school my kids would get to attend for free. If I worked at a daycare, they'd get to enroll at a steep discount. It is painful to think about women leaving their children in subpar care so they can provide the 1:1 attention kids thrive on to someone else's children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm leaving nannying for graduate school specifically because I want the option of having kids one day. I love my job, I get paid very well and support myself comfortably, but I could never stay in a field where I'd either have to hire my own nanny (wut) or send my kids to daycare while caring for someone else's. I get what everyone is saying about it being a job, and it is, but if I taught at a private school my kids would get to attend for free. If I worked at a daycare, they'd get to enroll at a steep discount. It is painful to think about women leaving their children in subpar care so they can provide the 1:1 attention kids thrive on to someone else's children.

This is my issue with it. I understand the need to work, but you have to be in some way selling your child short. In order for it to be worth it monetarily, you are being paid more than you are paying for care. You provide specialized individual care to someone's kid who has money, and to do so you send your kid to cheap daycare. I understand it may be necessary, but its a shitty situation. Your baby deserves you and the care you provide as much if not more than some rich woman's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't imagine a nanny leaving behind her own young child in order to care for a rich white woman's child. That would be the most unbelievable arrangement in the world. Although lots of immigrants leave behind their children. Unbelievable servitude, right here in the land of the free.

So it would be ok if it were a black rich family????

Do tell about when you saw a rich AA family employ a Caucasian American, who left behind her own young child.

Are you implying that AA families 1) don't need nannies, 2) they don't employ white nannies, OR 3) they don't employ nannies (regardless of race) that have children? Talk about profiling!!!!

[Anonymous]

This is my issue with it. I understand the need to work, but you have to be in some way selling your child short. In order for it to be worth it monetarily, you are being paid more than you are paying for care. You provide specialized individual care to someone's kid who has money, and to do so you send your kid to cheap daycare. I understand it may be necessary, but its a shitty situation. Your baby deserves you and the care you provide as much if not more than some rich woman's.

No, it's not selling your child short. It's a profession. People choose it for a lot of reasons. You making it sound like some dramatic servitude to a rich woman is both odd and ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This is my issue with it. I understand the need to work, but you have to be in some way selling your child short. In order for it to be worth it monetarily, you are being paid more than you are paying for care. You provide specialized individual care to someone's kid who has money, and to do so you send your kid to cheap daycare. I understand it may be necessary, but its a shitty situation. Your baby deserves you and the care you provide as much if not more than some rich woman's.

No, it's not selling your child short. It's a profession. People choose it for a lot of reasons. You making it sound like some dramatic servitude to a rich woman is both odd and ignorant.

I never said anything about servitude. I stated that your own child is more deserving of your attention than the child of some privileged rich woman. They are literally buying your attention away from your child. It is most definitely selling your baby short. If you were doing something else, anything else not related to caring for children, it could make sense, but your chosen profession is caring for children. The only reason you would choose someone else's kid over your own is for the money. It's really very sad to see so many women having to make this choice and so many privileged, also working women, so flippant about what they are expecting of another woman. They would never consider allowing nanny to bring her baby because 1) it takes away from their precious offspring who will get the best no matter what the cost to someone else, and 2) they are jealous, and know deep down they wish they could do the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is my issue with it. I understand the need to work, but you have to be in some way selling your child short. In order for it to be worth it monetarily, you are being paid more than you are paying for care. You provide specialized individual care to someone's kid who has money, and to do so you send your kid to cheap daycare. I understand it may be necessary, but its a shitty situation. Your baby deserves you and the care you provide as much if not more than some rich woman's.

No, it's not selling your child short. It's a profession. People choose it for a lot of reasons. You making it sound like some dramatic servitude to a rich woman is both odd and ignorant.

I never said anything about servitude. I stated that your own child is more deserving of your attention than the child of some privileged rich woman. They are literally buying your attention away from your child. It is most definitely selling your baby short. If you were doing something else, anything else not related to caring for children, it could make sense, but your chosen profession is caring for children. The only reason you would choose someone else's kid over your own is for the money. It's really very sad to see so many women having to make this choice and so many privileged, also working women, so flippant about what they are expecting of another woman. They would never consider allowing nanny to bring her baby because 1) it takes away from their precious offspring who will get the best no matter what the cost to someone else, and 2) they are jealous, and know deep down they wish they could do the same.

I am bewildered with this line of thinking. We all - yes, even rich white women - leave our kids during the day when we go to work. It makes absolutely no difference what you do during the day - if you go to work, you are leaving your kids "behind". Why does it suddenly stop making sense to go work for money if your work involves caring for children? It's a job like any other. Teachers care for children - should they not work because their own kids are not in their classrooms? Pediatric nurses care for children - should they not work because their own kids are not at their offices? (well I hope not).

Lots of jobs pay even less than nannying. The woman who flips burgers at McDonalds isn't bringing her child. Is McDonalds "literally" buying her attention away from her child? Is she selling her baby short?

Why are you resentful because you can't afford to give your own kids what some other woman can? Volvo plant employees probably can't afford to drive Volvos; couture seamstresses probably can't afford to wear Dior; top hairdressers probably cut their hair somewhere else unless their pals are doing it for free. It's the nature of the world. Because you happen to be in the job that provides services to the upper class (which you have to be to afford a nanny), you are suddenly resentful of them?

And yes, some employers are cautious about letting nannies bring their babies, and this has nothing to do with class. It has everything to do with purchasing one type of service and getting it. Why do you think nannies should get benefits that are unheard of at other workplaces?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is my issue with it. I understand the need to work, but you have to be in some way selling your child short. In order for it to be worth it monetarily, you are being paid more than you are paying for care. You provide specialized individual care to someone's kid who has money, and to do so you send your kid to cheap daycare. I understand it may be necessary, but its a shitty situation. Your baby deserves you and the care you provide as much if not more than some rich woman's.

No, it's not selling your child short. It's a profession. People choose it for a lot of reasons. You making it sound like some dramatic servitude to a rich woman is both odd and ignorant.

I never said anything about servitude. I stated that your own child is more deserving of your attention than the child of some privileged rich woman. They are literally buying your attention away from your child. It is most definitely selling your baby short. If you were doing something else, anything else not related to caring for children, it could make sense, but your chosen profession is caring for children. The only reason you would choose someone else's kid over your own is for the money. It's really very sad to see so many women having to make this choice and so many privileged, also working women, so flippant about what they are expecting of another woman. They would never consider allowing nanny to bring her baby because 1) it takes away from their precious offspring who will get the best no matter what the cost to someone else, and 2) they are jealous, and know deep down they wish they could do the same.

Good points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is my issue with it. I understand the need to work, but you have to be in some way selling your child short. In order for it to be worth it monetarily, you are being paid more than you are paying for care. You provide specialized individual care to someone's kid who has money, and to do so you send your kid to cheap daycare. I understand it may be necessary, but its a shitty situation. Your baby deserves you and the care you provide as much if not more than some rich woman's.

No, it's not selling your child short. It's a profession. People choose it for a lot of reasons. You making it sound like some dramatic servitude to a rich woman is both odd and ignorant.

I never said anything about servitude. I stated that your own child is more deserving of your attention than the child of some privileged rich woman. They are literally buying your attention away from your child. It is most definitely selling your baby short. If you were doing something else, anything else not related to caring for children, it could make sense, but your chosen profession is caring for children. The only reason you would choose someone else's kid over your own is for the money. It's really very sad to see so many women having to make this choice and so many privileged, also working women, so flippant about what they are expecting of another woman. They would never consider allowing nanny to bring her baby because 1) it takes away from their precious offspring who will get the best no matter what the cost to someone else, and 2) they are jealous, and know deep down they wish they could do the same.

Good points.

I agree also. It is especially hard to stomach because, like PP said, you are providing CHILD CARE. Not law advice, not medical care, not office filing, childcare! Your expertise, your profession, your work history is all geared toward making you the best CHILD CAREGIVER you can be. To then have your own children cared for in a lower quality setting?

It would be like if you were a doctor and instead of having your kids treated at your practice or by a pediatrician you're friends with, you sent them to the emergency clinic around the block. Or a lawyer leaving their pot-possessing kid to navigate the legal system on their own. You use your skills to better the lives of your children, whenever and wherever you can. My skill is caring for children, why would I want someone else to care for mine?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It would be like if you were a doctor and instead of having your kids treated at your practice or by a pediatrician you're friends with, you sent them to the emergency clinic around the block. Or a lawyer leaving their pot-possessing kid to navigate the legal system on their own. You use your skills to better the lives of your children, whenever and wherever you can. My skill is caring for children, why would I want someone else to care for mine?!

The answer to your much-punctuated question would generally be "so I can keep my children fed and clothed". Never mind, you do what you like with your own children. But your assumption that nannies who leave their own kids in someone else's care while they go to work are somehow short-changing their babies is both short-sighted and insulting to women who earn an honest and good living providing childcare.

Your doctor and lawyer comparisons make zero sense. If a pediatrician treats no one else but their kids all day long, she won't have much of a practice soon. If a lawyer does nothing all day but defends their own kids in court, well, that may be a better option than a public defender, but it's also unsustainable financially.

Again, your basic issue is that someone else's kids get something better than yours, and they happen to get it from you. Tell me - do cooks at Le Bernardin get to feel resentful as they prepare these foie-gras-studded meals? No cook can afford a steady diet of ingredients they get to play with at work, after all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be like if you were a doctor and instead of having your kids treated at your practice or by a pediatrician you're friends with, you sent them to the emergency clinic around the block. Or a lawyer leaving their pot-possessing kid to navigate the legal system on their own. You use your skills to better the lives of your children, whenever and wherever you can. My skill is caring for children, why would I want someone else to care for mine?!

The answer to your much-punctuated question would generally be "so I can keep my children fed and clothed". Never mind, you do what you like with your own children. But your assumption that nannies who leave their own kids in someone else's care while they go to work are somehow short-changing their babies is both short-sighted and insulting to women who earn an honest and good living providing childcare.

Your doctor and lawyer comparisons make zero sense. If a pediatrician treats no one else but their kids all day long, she won't have much of a practice soon. If a lawyer does nothing all day but defends their own kids in court, well, that may be a better option than a public defender, but it's also unsustainable financially.

Again, your basic issue is that someone else's kids get something better than yours, and they happen to get it from you. Tell me - do cooks at Le Bernardin get to feel resentful as they prepare these foie-gras-studded meals? No cook can afford a steady diet of ingredients they get to play with at work, after all.

The comparison I made was meant to illustrate that people use their skills to improve the lives of their children. If you are skilled in the medical field, it is a safe bet your kid will receive some high-quality healthcare. If you are skilled in the law, your teenagers are likely to benefit from that by increased understanding and (hopefully never needed) access to attorneys. If you are a skilled chef, your kids will grow up eating healthy and well-prepared meals and being comfortable with new foods.

Me? I am skilled in caring for kids. I am trained in their emotional, linguistic, and physical development. I am experienced in using positive discipline, in sleep training infants, and in potty training toddlers. How could I possibly feel good having someone else do all of those things with my children while I offer those SAME skills to someone else? Your kids will have the benefit of a good nanny (professional caregiver) and probably two professional parents who'll bring their own skills to their lives - doctoring, lawyering, politicking, whatever. Mine would have what, exactly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is my issue with it. I understand the need to work, but you have to be in some way selling your child short. In order for it to be worth it monetarily, you are being paid more than you are paying for care. You provide specialized individual care to someone's kid who has money, and to do so you send your kid to cheap daycare. I understand it may be necessary, but its a shitty situation. Your baby deserves you and the care you provide as much if not more than some rich woman's.

No, it's not selling your child short. It's a profession. People choose it for a lot of reasons. You making it sound like some dramatic servitude to a rich woman is both odd and ignorant.

I never said anything about servitude. I stated that your own child is more deserving of your attention than the child of some privileged rich woman. They are literally buying your attention away from your child. It is most definitely selling your baby short. If you were doing something else, anything else not related to caring for children, it could make sense, but your chosen profession is caring for children. The only reason you would choose someone else's kid over your own is for the money. It's really very sad to see so many women having to make this choice and so many privileged, also working women, so flippant about what they are expecting of another woman. They would never consider allowing nanny to bring her baby because 1) it takes away from their precious offspring who will get the best no matter what the cost to someone else, and 2) they are jealous, and know deep down they wish they could do the same.

I am bewildered with this line of thinking. We all - yes, even rich white women - leave our kids during the day when we go to work. It makes absolutely no difference what you do during the day - if you go to work, you are leaving your kids "behind". Why does it suddenly stop making sense to go work for money if your work involves caring for children? It's a job like any other. Teachers care for children - should they not work because their own kids are not in their classrooms? Pediatric nurses care for children - should they not work because their own kids are not at their offices? (well I hope not).

Lots of jobs pay even less than nannying. The woman who flips burgers at McDonalds isn't bringing her child. Is McDonalds "literally" buying her attention away from her child? Is she selling her baby short?

Why are you resentful because you can't afford to give your own kids what some other woman can? Volvo plant employees probably can't afford to drive Volvos; couture seamstresses probably can't afford to wear Dior; top hairdressers probably cut their hair somewhere else unless their pals are doing it for free. It's the nature of the world. Because you happen to be in the job that provides services to the upper class (which you have to be to afford a nanny), you are suddenly resentful of them?

And yes, some employers are cautious about letting nannies bring their babies, and this has nothing to do with class. It has everything to do with purchasing one type of service and getting it. Why do you think nannies should get benefits that are unheard of at other workplaces?

I actually don't have kids, so yeah.....not resentful of your rich self. I just find it appalling that women who spend their days loving and caring for children are forced to pawn their babies off to a cheapo daycare to care for a privileged white woman's baby. It's just twisted and sad, especially that you don't see the difference between this line of work and others. If I were a teacher, my kids would go to my school. If I were a doctor, I would care for my ill children. No matter what my job, if I could use it to the better of my children I would. If/when I have children I sure as hell will use my knowledge and skills for them, not send them to a daycare that can't hold a candle to me so I can cater to someone else's kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I actually don't have kids, so yeah.....not resentful of your rich self. I just find it appalling that women who spend their days loving and caring for children are forced to pawn their babies off to a cheapo daycare to care for a privileged white woman's baby. It's just twisted and sad, especially that you don't see the difference between this line of work and others. If I were a teacher, my kids would go to my school. If I were a doctor, I would care for my ill children. No matter what my job, if I could use it to the better of my children I would. If/when I have children I sure as hell will use my knowledge and skills for them, not send them to a daycare that can't hold a candle to me so I can cater to someone else's kid.

You're being unnecessarily dramatic. No one is forced to pawn anyone off. No one puts a gun to your head and asks you to be a nanny. You don't want to be a nanny? Go be a detective. Or a heart surgeon. Whatever. Whatever you do during the day - if you DO something - your kids will be in someone else's care. Regardless of what you want to believe, there is nothing particularly unique about nannying. You have a skill and you're selling it. Do you find it sad that other women are "forced" to use cheap daycare while they flip burgers? Or clean houses? No? It's only sad for nannies? Is it sad that a banker goes to work, leaving her child in your care? No?

Again, if you were a doctor, you wouldn't care for your ill kids 9 to 5. If you were a lawyer, you wouldn't defend your kids 9 to 5. You might - occasionally - but that wouldn't be your full-time job, or you and your kids will be resorting to public defenders before too long 'cause you'd go bankrupt. If you were a teacher, you wouldn't teach your kids 9 to 5. You'd do it occasionally but it wouldn't be your job. Nannying is a full-time job. You do it for the money. Just like lawyers, doctors, teachers or firefighters.

Also, you have an odd obsession with whiteness. We are a brown family. We've had nannies, both white and brown. So?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I actually don't have kids, so yeah.....not resentful of your rich self. I just find it appalling that women who spend their days loving and caring for children are forced to pawn their babies off to a cheapo daycare to care for a privileged white woman's baby. It's just twisted and sad, especially that you don't see the difference between this line of work and others. If I were a teacher, my kids would go to my school. If I were a doctor, I would care for my ill children. No matter what my job, if I could use it to the better of my children I would. If/when I have children I sure as hell will use my knowledge and skills for them, not send them to a daycare that can't hold a candle to me so I can cater to someone else's kid.

You're being unnecessarily dramatic. No one is forced to pawn anyone off. No one puts a gun to your head and asks you to be a nanny. You don't want to be a nanny? Go be a detective. Or a heart surgeon. Whatever. Whatever you do during the day - if you DO something - your kids will be in someone else's care. Regardless of what you want to believe, there is nothing particularly unique about nannying. You have a skill and you're selling it. Do you find it sad that other women are "forced" to use cheap daycare while they flip burgers? Or clean houses? No? It's only sad for nannies? Is it sad that a banker goes to work, leaving her child in your care? No?

Again, if you were a doctor, you wouldn't care for your ill kids 9 to 5. If you were a lawyer, you wouldn't defend your kids 9 to 5. You might - occasionally - but that wouldn't be your full-time job, or you and your kids will be resorting to public defenders before too long 'cause you'd go bankrupt. If you were a teacher, you wouldn't teach your kids 9 to 5. You'd do it occasionally but it wouldn't be your job. Nannying is a full-time job. You do it for the money. Just like lawyers, doctors, teachers or firefighters.

Also, you have an odd obsession with whiteness. We are a brown family. We've had nannies, both white and brown. So?

Any of your nannies put their own kid in daycare?

[Anonymous]

There's just something distasteful about a woman hiring me to love and care for her kids because she thinks I am the best available substitute for her, then asking me to have someone else care for my kids.

I think your perspective is wrong, and I think it's indicative of the great class divide in America as well as the culture we have created where mothers, in the role of mothering, are undervalued. Our lack of maternity leave, lack of affordable childcare options, this ongoing burden of shame we try to heap on mothers whether they work or stay at home, use daycare or hire a nanny, are all features of this problem. And you are contributing to it with your assessment that it is unreasonable of a nanny - whose JOB and SKILLS are directly correlated with being a parent - to want to bring her children with her.

It is understandable that you would choose not to hire someone with their own kids, certainly, but it breaks my heart to think you'd let go a beloved nanny if she gave birth to her own child (unless she found alternative care). It's disgusting, frankly.