Nannies with children

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

So, when a woman with her own child applies for a job with me, my choices are 1) not hire her, 2) let her bring her kid(s), or 3) realize that I should feel terribly guilty and pay her to stay home with her kids? I don't get this. I put an ad on care.com and someone with kids applied. Clearly she wants the job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Any of your nannies put their own kid in daycare?

They were all past fifty. Not sure where they put their kids. It never came up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

So, when a woman with her own child applies for a job with me, my choices are 1) not hire her, 2) let her bring her kid(s), or 3) realize that I should feel terribly guilty and pay her to stay home with her kids? I don't get this. I put an ad on care.com and someone with kids applied. Clearly she wants the job.

I think I was pretty clear that I felt it was understandable that you'd want to hire someone without kids and that what bothers me most are the threads about "my nanny is pregnant when do i fire her?" Sorry if I wasn't clear enough for you.

Obviously your choices are to do whatever the F you want, but yeah, I do think you should feel guilty. Just like you should feel guilty if you shop at WalMart or eat at McDonalds. When you hire a nanny who's left her own kids behind you know that people are suffering unnecessarily for your benefit, and only a sociopath isn't phased by that at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Any of your nannies put their own kid in daycare?

They were all past fifty. Not sure where they put their kids. It never came up.

Case and point. You ladies don't give a damn about your nannies as people or fellow working mothers. Why do we do this to each other? There's no good reason that is not self serving or greed driven (i have the money so i deserve it, no matter the cost to you!)for not allowing a nanny to bring her child with her. Her job is literally to do all day exactly what her kid does at daycare. You don't see home daycare providers sending their children to outside even cheaper daycares. It just doesn't make sense and if look beyond your own selfish desires for 2 seconds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

You have a soapbox, clearly, but you know, I was just walking by, I'm not a cause of your problems.

Certainly, it is very sad that our maternity leave is so short, but it is not related to the issue at hand.

Also, I never mentioned that it's unreasonable for a nanny to want to bring her children with her. Certainly she is entitled to want that. Should she find an employer who's willing, she will likely make less money than she would solo. That is also completely understandable because half a nanny is worth less than a full nanny. If I wanted to work for someone else during my work day, my employer would have, legitimately, an issue with that because they'd be getting half of my time vs. all of my time. Again, that's a completely different from the issue at hand - that is, whether it is sad that nannies have to leave their own children in daycare while they care for someone else's child. Why aren't you sad for all the lawyer moms who have to leave their kids in care of someone else?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Any of your nannies put their own kid in daycare?

They were all past fifty. Not sure where they put their kids. It never came up.

Case and point. You ladies don't give a damn about your nannies as people or fellow working mothers. Why do we do this to each other? There's no good reason that is not self serving or greed driven (i have the money so i deserve it, no matter the cost to you!)for not allowing a nanny to bring her child with her. Her job is literally to do all day exactly what her kid does at daycare. You don't see home daycare providers sending their children to outside even cheaper daycares. It just doesn't make sense and if look beyond your own selfish desires for 2 seconds.

*doesnt make sense if you look beyond your own selfish desires for 2 seconds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Any of your nannies put their own kid in daycare?

They were all past fifty. Not sure where they put their kids. It never came up.

Case and point. You ladies don't give a damn about your nannies as people or fellow working mothers. Why do we do this to each other? There's no good reason that is not self serving or greed driven (i have the money so i deserve it, no matter the cost to you!)for not allowing a nanny to bring her child with her. Her job is literally to do all day exactly what her kid does at daycare. You don't see home daycare providers sending their children to outside even cheaper daycares. It just doesn't make sense and if look beyond your own selfish desires for 2 seconds.

You also don't see home daycare providers charging nanny rates for group care, now do you?

Do you think banks should feel guilty for not allowing tellers to bring their children along? Should law firms feel guilty for not letting female attorneys bring their kids along?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You have a soapbox, clearly, but you know, I was just walking by, I'm not a cause of your problems.

Certainly, it is very sad that our maternity leave is so short, but it is not related to the issue at hand.

Also, I never mentioned that it's unreasonable for a nanny to want to bring her children with her. Certainly she is entitled to want that. Should she find an employer who's willing, she will likely make less money than she would solo. That is also completely understandable because half a nanny is worth less than a full nanny. If I wanted to work for someone else during my work day, my employer would have, legitimately, an issue with that because they'd be getting half of my time vs. all of my time. Again, that's a completely different from the issue at hand - that is, whether it is sad that nannies have to leave their own children in daycare while they care for someone else's child. Why aren't you sad for all the lawyer moms who have to leave their kids in care of someone else?[/quote]

As far as the argument we are making, the true analogy would be the lawyer mom who is not allowed to defend her child in court because she gets paid more to defend someone else's, and she must see her child get stuck with a public defender. So no this doesn't make me sad, because it doesn't happen. The lawyer moms who leave their kids typically do so with either a very qualified nanny, or the best daycares money can buy. So no her kids are not getting short changed the way a nanny's almost certainly are, as for a nanny to make a profit she has to send her kids to a cheaper option than herself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You have a soapbox, clearly, but you know, I was just walking by, I'm not a cause of your problems.

Certainly, it is very sad that our maternity leave is so short, but it is not related to the issue at hand.

Also, I never mentioned that it's unreasonable for a nanny to want to bring her children with her. Certainly she is entitled to want that. Should she find an employer who's willing, she will likely make less money than she would solo. That is also completely understandable because half a nanny is worth less than a full nanny. If I wanted to work for someone else during my work day, my employer would have, legitimately, an issue with that because they'd be getting half of my time vs. all of my time. Again, that's a completely different from the issue at hand - that is, whether it is sad that nannies have to leave their own children in daycare while they care for someone else's child. Why aren't you sad for all the lawyer moms who have to leave their kids in care of someone else?

Hey, I said the issue was one and the same - not being able to care for nannies as people/women/mothers is directly connected to all the other mothers who sacrifice time with their children in our society. You're the one who's claiming they're unrelated, I feel sad for all of them but the issue of NANNIES being able to bring their kids to work is QUICKLY solved. Kid tags along all day. If it's that easy to bring your kid to your law office, then by all means, advocate for it! This is the one job (along with running a daycare) where your own children CAN EASILY FIT INTO YOUR DAY. Why wouldn't we, as women, celebrate this and want our nannies to make the most of it?

Yes, nannies should expect to take a 50% pay cut (nanny share) if she and her employers expect her child to take priority sometimes - employer's kids have to wait while her child attends swim classes, soccer practice, etc. She should expect a 10-25% pay cut if their child is along for the ride but all the catering is on behalf of her employer's child (i.e. her kid waits around while the other child does whatever they need to do). Obviously. No one in this thread is suggesting anything else. But what happens on this forum, and I'm sorry if you haven't seen it, is that people talk about firing their nanny as soon as she has a child because she wants to bring him/her with her to work.

And I don't have a soapbox, you're just being a twat trying to get a rise out of me. I answered WHOEVER'S question with my opinion. You can disagree. Whatever. People here are so selfish it makes me ill.

[Anonymous]

OP here. Read through everything. How are some of you so simple minded? The point is a mother would feel guilty to leave her own kids behind to WATCH SOMEONE ELSE'S CHILD. How isn't that understandable? All of the other career examples are irrelevant to my last sentence. Since bankers and lawyers aren't taking care of other children after all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Any of your nannies put their own kid in daycare?

They were all past fifty. Not sure where they put their kids. It never came up.

Case and point. You ladies don't give a damn about your nannies as people or fellow working mothers. Why do we do this to each other? There's no good reason that is not self serving or greed driven (i have the money so i deserve it, no matter the cost to you!)for not allowing a nanny to bring her child with her. Her job is literally to do all day exactly what her kid does at daycare. You don't see home daycare providers sending their children to outside even cheaper daycares. It just doesn't make sense and if look beyond your own selfish desires for 2 seconds.

You also don't see home daycare providers charging nanny rates for group care, now do you?

Do you think banks should feel guilty for not allowing tellers to bring their children along? Should law firms feel guilty for not letting female attorneys bring their kids along?

A 2:1 ratio in your child's home, on a schedule convenient for you, with rules expectations and duties that you dictate is not hardly the same as a daycare. So get out of here with that crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Any of your nannies put their own kid in daycare?

They were all past fifty. Not sure where they put their kids. It never came up.

Case and point. You ladies don't give a damn about your nannies as people or fellow working mothers. Why do we do this to each other? There's no good reason that is not self serving or greed driven (i have the money so i deserve it, no matter the cost to you!)for not allowing a nanny to bring her child with her. Her job is literally to do all day exactly what her kid does at daycare. You don't see home daycare providers sending their children to outside even cheaper daycares. It just doesn't make sense and if look beyond your own selfish desires for 2 seconds.

You make it sound like hiring a nanny is a charitable effort. It isn't. It's a job. The nanny is selling her skills and the employer is purchasing it, to mutual satisfaction. Of course it's self-interested on the part of both - what's wrong with being selfish? The nanny wouldn't work for free, now would she? I completely understand how the nanny would want to bring her child along with her, but if you look at this from the employer's standpoint, there is no benefit whatsoever - none - to the employer to choose a nanny with a child vs. a nanny without one. The benefit is all for the nanny. Helping someone is all good and well, but you know my employer didn't hire me to help me, they hired me to fill a need that they had. That's the nature of the employer/employee relationship. Why do you insist that nannying is not a job? You're not a neighborhood kid who babysits for extra money. You're a professional who sells their skills, and your employer is purchasing them. There is nothing else to that context, regardless of your desire to infuse it with kumbaya-ness and a delusion of working mother solidarity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Any of your nannies put their own kid in daycare?

They were all past fifty. Not sure where they put their kids. It never came up.

Case and point. You ladies don't give a damn about your nannies as people or fellow working mothers. Why do we do this to each other? There's no good reason that is not self serving or greed driven (i have the money so i deserve it, no matter the cost to you!)for not allowing a nanny to bring her child with her. Her job is literally to do all day exactly what her kid does at daycare. You don't see home daycare providers sending their children to outside even cheaper daycares. It just doesn't make sense and if look beyond your own selfish desires for 2 seconds.

You make it sound like hiring a nanny is a charitable effort. It isn't. It's a job. The nanny is selling her skills and the employer is purchasing it, to mutual satisfaction. Of course it's self-interested on the part of both - what's wrong with being selfish? The nanny wouldn't work for free, now would she? I completely understand how the nanny would want to bring her child along with her, but if you look at this from the employer's standpoint, there is no benefit whatsoever - none - to the employer to choose a nanny with a child vs. a nanny without one. The benefit is all for the nanny. Helping someone is all good and well, but you know my employer didn't hire me to help me, they hired me to fill a need that they had. That's the nature of the employer/employee relationship. Why do you insist that nannying is not a job? You're not a neighborhood kid who babysits for extra money. You're a professional who sells their skills, and your employer is purchasing them. There is nothing else to that context, regardless of your desire to infuse it with kumbaya-ness and a delusion of working mother solidarity.

Bullllll***T.

And MBs who employ nannies with children probably do find there are benefits to them. Maybe that their first child is not being raised in a single-child environment where they are catered to every waking moment, or for the opportunity their toddler has to socialize and learn to share/live with other kids in the familiar location of home, or maybe the friendship between their 6-year-old daughters who spend all afternoon playing and talking to one another after school.

These are the forward-thinking mothers of tomorrow. The rest of you classist jerks are only reacting this way because you can see your people are on their way down. Grasp at straws as long as you want, progress is inevitable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Bullllll***T.

And MBs who employ nannies with children probably do find there are benefits to them. Maybe that their first child is not being raised in a single-child environment where they are catered to every waking moment, or for the opportunity their toddler has to socialize and learn to share/live with other kids in the familiar location of home, or maybe the friendship between their 6-year-old daughters who spend all afternoon playing and talking to one another after school.

These are the forward-thinking mothers of tomorrow. The rest of you classist jerks are only reacting this way because you can see your people are on their way down. Grasp at straws as long as you want, progress is inevitable.

Why don't you open a thread asking MBs who had nannies that brought their own children whether this arrangement benefited them in any way? I am willing to bet that the only two reasons this was allowed was either a) moms who wanted to save some money by paying, in effect, a nanny-share rate, or b) mom and nanny had a very good relationship prior to nanny's pregnancy and mom decided to keep her on rather than look for someone else.

You would be very hard pressed to find a mother boss who actually prefers that a nanny brings her own child.

I know you're angry and all, but in grad school, where you said you're headed (was it you?), they will no doubt teach you that making a good argument doesn't involve name-calling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Bullllll***T.

And MBs who employ nannies with children probably do find there are benefits to them. Maybe that their first child is not being raised in a single-child environment where they are catered to every waking moment, or for the opportunity their toddler has to socialize and learn to share/live with other kids in the familiar location of home, or maybe the friendship between their 6-year-old daughters who spend all afternoon playing and talking to one another after school.

These are the forward-thinking mothers of tomorrow. The rest of you classist jerks are only reacting this way because you can see your people are on their way down. Grasp at straws as long as you want, progress is inevitable.

Why don't you open a thread asking MBs who had nannies that brought their own children whether this arrangement benefited them in any way? I am willing to bet that the only two reasons this was allowed was either a) moms who wanted to save some money by paying, in effect, a nanny-share rate, or b) mom and nanny had a very good relationship prior to nanny's pregnancy and mom decided to keep her on rather than look for someone else.

You would be very hard pressed to find a mother boss who actually prefers that a nanny brings her own child.

I know you're angry and all, but in grad school, where you said you're headed (was it you?), they will no doubt teach you that making a good argument doesn't involve name-calling.

Okay

1) Saving money IS a benefit.

2) And because those MBs don't post here. (I don't think there are more than 10 that do, although it's impossible to be sure.)