"Nanny as Parent" phenomenon
![[Post New]](/nanny-forum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
....their parenting role, as primary caregiver. At least during the early foundation years. |
Anonymous
| I'm a nanny and a mother. You're high if you think they are the same job. |
Anonymous
Can you please try again to make your point? Thanks! |
Anonymous
|
I am a 24hr nanny, and they have 24hr weekend nanny. They have a choice to spend time with their child or not. They choose not. I try not to form a huge bond with him, because I'm "just the nanny", but it worries me that if I'm not giving him THAT love, who is? It's not his parents. Last Christmas his parents had him for 4 hours alone for the first time because the baby nurse went for a quick break home to open gifts with her kids. The parents freaked! It was too much for them! 4hrs! They since have never been without 24hr care.
It makes me sad that they are planning on having another child. But whatever works for them. It's employment! |
Anonymous
| How heart wrenching for those poor children. |
Anonymous
| ...and for the nanny. |
Anonymous
|
Humans have been "outsourcing" childcare since we first came into being. In the book Brain Rules for Baby, the importance of non-family caregivers in prehistoric human societies is examined at length. And we certainly know that during "historic" human times parents have used nannies and nurses, master tradesmen, boarding schools, as well as the fields and factories as "caregivers" for their children.
Hiring a loving nanny to care for them while you work is in no way wrong. Yeah, my boss could financially afford to take more time off to stay home, but after three or four years of that her career would be a non-starter and then what would they do? Her salary pays mine, for now, so that she remains competitive in the market and will be able to command higher pay down the line. No one should have kids if they don't want to build a loving bond with them, but hiring a nanny in no way implies that is the case. Nor does staying home imply you are a great parent; plenty of SAHMs don't build loving bonds with their kids - ever see Supernanny? So many of those moms will go entire days without playing with their kids. Maybe we stop judging hypothetical people we've never met and just do the best we can in our own lives. If you work for parents who neglect and ignore their kids, by all means, complain about it - it's a heartbreaking thing to witness - but all this judgement about whether or not someone who can afford a nanny should stay home with them on and on, is so wrong and offensive. Like moms don't already get enough criticism in our society. |
Anonymous
| I am judging only what I see first hand. There's absolutely nothing hypothetical about that. When I see something that's plain wrong, that's just what it is. Wrong, and you know it's there's lots of it. Pretending it's ok, does no one any good, certainly not the children. Ok, you get a paycheck. Sooner or later, you'll begin to question if these children have really received the consistant parenting they deserved. |
Anonymous
| How can caring about a child's welfare, 14:00, be "wrong and offensive". I feel obligated to speak out about a condition that is harmful to children. Why don't you? |
Anonymous
|
14:00 here.
My response was really directed at this quote: "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 don't know if that came from either of my two critics, but I feel like that statement along is wrong and offensive. Being sad for the kids you work with is not wrong. Caring about their welfare is not wrong. Caring about the welfare of kids you don't know is not wrong. Assuming that a parent who can afford a nanny can afford to stay home is wrong and judgmental. Case in point, my best college friend just hired her first nanny. She and her husband are both post-docs, so her parents are paying a huge portion of the cost of a nanny. I guess go ahead and judge them if you want, but it isn't like they wouldn't RATHER be home with their baby. 
|
Anonymous
|
No one gets everything they want, but everyone that I know gets whatever it is, that they want most. For some parents, that means being a FT parent, hence the primary caregiver.
Others may choose their office careers over doing the harder work of parenting their young children. I do judge parents according to the choices that they make. How do you go about judging people? |
Anonymous
|
"Build and use a supportive network of friends and family." To the 14:00 poster, is this what you're referring to, from "Brain Rules for Baby"? It appears the essential key here, is "friends and family". One expects, that when one is, your "friend or family", they remain so, over the course of many, many years. I whole heartedly agree. The problem with the barrage of hired nannies, as so vividly described on this forum, is that they are really neither "friend", nor "family", much to the chagrin of thousands upon thousands of nannies. Whenever we hear of the rare circumstance of a family continuing an active ongoing friendship with a departed nanny, there is cause for much celebration. For indeed, it is a rare gift to the child, to be allowed by the parents, to maintain communication with his/her former primary caregiver. The more nannies you hire and fire, the less practical it becomes to maintain an ongoing active relationship with each one of them. At some point, the child becomes utterly bewildered with so many caregivers. Eventually, his ability to form healthy bonds, is shattered, when too many primary caregivers have come and gone. We often wonder why some children become "loners". They have simply "shut down" after endless failed attempts to form and maintain healthy relationships with consistant and stable primary caregivers. |
Anonymous
Uhhh... What on earth are you talking about? I don't understand how your tangent applies to anything I've said... nor do I think your final conclusion is sound. |
Anonymous
|
Oh please. I think someone is just trying to stir up trouble ...
FWIW, parenting absolutely is hard work but it's about a lot more than physical presence. It's about providing for all your child's needs - emotional and tangible. Your child is your child for the rest of both of your lives - not just a couple of years - and the toughest part of parenting is making short term and long term decisions on the basis of what is best for your child for his or her whole life (and that is different for every child and every family). Are there some absent parents out there? Of course. Just like there are some lazy nannies out there. But most working parents are trying to do what is best for their kids. I would love to be home more with DS but I make the best of every minute I have with him and I know I am a loving, caring presence in his life even if I can't be with him the rest of the time. At the end of the day, I think he will thank me for sending him to a good school/college, giving him a home in a safe neighborhood, giving him a comfortable life, and surrounding him by a community of caring people, including his wonderful nanny. I know I am grateful every day for my two loving, caring, hard (full-time) working parents who did the same for me. And I know my nanny would agree - she's a working mom too. |
Anonymous
|
22:58, I am describing the unintended potential consequences of babies and very young children having too many primary caregivers during the first years of life.
What "final conclusion" do you disagree with? Please be specific with your opposing opinion and please explain why you feel that way. |