Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:OP again...just wanted to say thanks to all for the reassuring comments. Yes, her recent references say she is very good at taking directions, good at keeping to schedule parents set, and so on. She seems to be a lot less ego driven than other younger nannies we have had. I don't anticipate conflict with her on that level. I am mainly worried about the physical aspect but I can see how this is more of an issue at 1.5+ than now. Good things to think about.
I think you are being a little silly and quite ageist. Unless this nanny is 80 or in poor health, I don't see where the stamina issue comes into play. My mother is 60 and still runs marathons. I would hire an older nanny in a heartbeat if I could find one.
Thanks for your opinion. My question is based on the fact that I'm not as fit as I was at 20, and the same goes for the vast majority of people I know. Maybe you know something about the general rules of aging that I don't?
Apparently, I do know something more than you about general rules of aging!
It is not age but overall health that matters. We are taking about taking care and teaching little ones here - not sharp shooting or professional sports! Of course, general health and fitness matter more than age for a nanny. If you are a mother or young children and not as fit as you were in your twenties, that is your fault - not a product of your age. My mother who will be 61 next year ran the NYC marathon while my next door neighbor who is clinically obese and only 29 had a heart attack. Fitness not age.
How interesting. It sounds as if your mother might beat death, and as if general statistics matter a lot less to you than anecdotes. I wonder why the National Institute on Aging says:
"The rate and progression of cellular aging can vary greatly from person to person. But generally, over time, aging affects the cells of every major organ of the body. Changes can start early. Some impact our health and function more seriously than others. For instance, around the age of 20, lung tissue starts to lose elasticity, and the muscles of the rib cage slowly begin to shrink. As a result, the maximum amount of air you can inhale decreases. In the gut, production of digestive enzymes diminishes, affecting your ability to absorb foods properly and maintain a nutritional balance. Blood vessels in your heart accumulate fatty deposits and lose flexibility to varying degrees, resulting in what used to be called “hardening of the arteries” or atherosclerosis. Over time, women’s vaginal fluid production decreases, and sexual tissues atrophy. In men, aging decreases sperm production, and the prostate can become enlarged."
Of course, different individuals age differently and genetics matter. But overall, I don't think it's ageist at all to say that biological and physical function peaks between 20-35 years of age. Why would athletes retire if what you say is true?