Kids Raised By Sitter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many people (nannies) have no idea what it takes to be a top level professional. It is all consuming. There are issues and problems and concerns that you can't even begin to imagine. Most of these jobs aren't "family friendly". Doesn't mean that these professionals shouldn't have families. It just means that their method of child-rearing or spotty appearances seems unusual to normal middle class people.

But many of these people (myself included) believe we have a calling. The success of our companies means jobs for thousands of people and therefore, we are supporting families much bigger than our own, and providing good opportunities for everyone. Being around to wipe a kid's butt is not as important as teaching them by example the benefit of good work ethic and using your gifts to the best of your ability. There are several reasons why the greatest indicator of children's success if their parents' education level and success- many of which aren't apparent to nannies and others.

Wow, way to miss the point and insult nannies all in one go.

PP with the husband raised by nanny this pp and banker mom have no idea what they are missing and they won't until they are about 65 like my MIL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The baby will see this at the neighbor hood park or a walk around the block to. The trip to the museum is nothing more than mom wanting to feel like she's doing something superior for her baby.

Why do you think going to a museum is superior?

I don't, but banker mom does. It's why she does it to make a show of her parenting her son.

That's quite the assumption. My husband and I have often taken our son to museums. Ones we live when he was a kid and now increasingly air and space, nature, etc. which are more kid friendly. I don't think they're better for kids than being in nature or being read to by grandma, it's just different and my son thrives on variety...

Anyway, my point is that those of us who are not that well off make a lot of assumptions about those who are (and certainly it's also the case the other way around), but that's only contributing to divisions and inequality.

The only the only thing banking mom wrote that made me chuckle was that she referred to weekends as her "rest." LOL, how I wish!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many people (nannies) have no idea what it takes to be a top level professional. It is all consuming. There are issues and problems and concerns that you can't even begin to imagine. Most of these jobs aren't "family friendly". Doesn't mean that these professionals shouldn't have families. It just means that their method of child-rearing or spotty appearances seems unusual to normal middle class people.

But many of these people (myself included) believe we have a calling. The success of our companies means jobs for thousands of people and therefore, we are supporting families much bigger than our own, and providing good opportunities for everyone. Being around to wipe a kid's butt is not as important as teaching them by example the benefit of good work ethic and using your gifts to the best of your ability. There are several reasons why the greatest indicator of children's success if their parents' education level and success- many of which aren't apparent to nannies and others.

Wow, way to miss the point and insult nannies all in one go.

PP with the husband raised by nanny this pp and banker mom have no idea what they are missing and they won't until they are about 65 like my MIL.

I agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many people (nannies) have no idea what it takes to be a top level professional. It is all consuming. There are issues and problems and concerns that you can't even begin to imagine. Most of these jobs aren't "family friendly". Doesn't mean that these professionals shouldn't have families. It just means that their method of child-rearing or spotty appearances seems unusual to normal middle class people.

But many of these people (myself included) believe we have a calling. The success of our companies means jobs for thousands of people and therefore, we are supporting families much bigger than our own, and providing good opportunities for everyone. Being around to wipe a kid's butt is not as important as teaching them by example the benefit of good work ethic and using your gifts to the best of your ability. There are several reasons why the greatest indicator of children's success if their parents' education level and success- many of which aren't apparent to nannies and others.

Their emotional success? No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many people (nannies) have no idea what it takes to be a top level professional. It is all consuming. There are issues and problems and concerns that you can't even begin to imagine. Most of these jobs aren't "family friendly". Doesn't mean that these professionals shouldn't have families. It just means that their method of child-rearing or spotty appearances seems unusual to normal middle class people.

But many of these people (myself included) believe we have a calling. The success of our companies means jobs for thousands of people and therefore, we are supporting families much bigger than our own, and providing good opportunities for everyone. Being around to wipe a kid's butt is not as important as teaching them by example the benefit of good work ethic and using your gifts to the best of your ability. There are several reasons why the greatest indicator of children's success if their parents' education level and success- many of which aren't apparent to nannies and others.

DCUM satire at its finest. And on the nanny forum no less! Thanks for the chuckles PP.

Wow, way to miss the point and insult nannies all in one go.

[Anonymous]

Everyone is different. My boss (the CEO of our company) has a wife that SAH with their 3 kids. She has 24hr coverage. She has a day nanny, a night nanny, and a weekend nanny. Our CEO "works" from home more than anyone in the company and i don't hear a word from him for days on end. I call and hes sometimes in the car going somewhere with the kids on a Tuesday morning.

I cannot figure them out. All i can guess is that they had kids late in life and are too tired for the circus and throw money at 3 nannies? I thinknthey are notncut out for it and his wife must have some mental problems. He is "baffled" by the fact that i can work in a dual income household with one AuPair. He says he is "in awe".

[Anonymous]

To the pp: 3 kids is a lot. Your CEO and wife sound like they have things set up weel:they spend quality time with the kids and have enough coverage so that no one is overworked or exploited. What's the problem with that? In a previous century we'd all have more aunts, uncles, grandparents and neighbors to help. Now we have to outsource these close relationships, but that's a separate topic altogether.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many people (nannies) have no idea what it takes to be a top level professional. It is all consuming. There are issues and problems and concerns that you can't even begin to imagine. Most of these jobs aren't "family friendly". Doesn't mean that these professionals shouldn't have families. It just means that their method of child-rearing or spotty appearances seems unusual to normal middle class people.

But many of these people (myself included) believe we have a calling. The success of our companies means jobs for thousands of people and therefore, we are supporting families much bigger than our own, and providing good opportunities for everyone. Being around to wipe a kid's butt is not as important as teaching them by example the benefit of good work ethic and using your gifts to the best of your ability. There are several reasons why the greatest indicator of children's success if their parents' education level and success- many of which aren't apparent to nannies and others.

[b]

You sound like such a wonderful, caring parent. Too bad you didn't listen to your calling and not become a parent. Awful. Your poor kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While my husband was deployed, I had someone here from 7-7 every day, including weekends. During the week, most of the day I had two people scheduled. So, we had our full time nanny M-F 8:30-5, morning person 7-12, and afternoon person 2-7.

On the weekends, a friend's teenage daughter came to stay with us from about 9am Saturday to 7pm Sunday. If she wasn't available, I hired my regular people in shifts to cover the weekend, or had a couple of other people to call.

We have four children, only one school aged last year. The baby was very young, and still waking up all night. This was more coverage than I needed most days, but we have no family here and are relatively new to the area. I wanted to be 100% certain that we had coverage for the 4-5 hours/day I work, and that I had back up if someone was out sick or took a day off. On the weekends, I just wanted a second set of hands, so a teenager was fine.

I still felt like I was scrambling for coverage sometimes, but it took away a lot of stress having these people in place. Since the only way we were going to get part time people to commit was to offer them enough hours, the morning and afternoon people also did some housekeeping, which was a real luxury for a very tired mom.

It was crazy expensive, but we won't ever have to do it again since the next time he deploys we'll have older kids. I'd still hire some extra help, but I wouldn't need the all day, overlapping coverage just to work my part time job, and still spend time with my kids.

[b]

That sounds excessive