Full-time Nanny with SAHP - Why?

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-28-2004
Full-time Nanny with SAHP - Why?
1258
Tue, 02-10-2004 - 6:41pm
Something I've often wondered about, but never had the opportunity to ask. Why do SAHM or SAHD need a full time nanny, especially when they aren't working from home. I can easily see the need if the SAHP is a WAHP, but what is the logic for a full time nanny otherwise?

Any comments?

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2002
Sun, 02-15-2004 - 1:03pm
The point is, theoretically speaking, you have a point....practically speaking, from the perspective of actually having gone through the experience of having a WOHM become a "finding her bliss" mom, we most certainly gave a hoot. It tells me that the chances of other children giving a hoot as well are likely much higher than people imagine. It is certainly not a risk that I would be willing to take, but then I agree with cocoapop that the vast majority of SAHPs with a nanny are not just goofying off 40-50 hours per week, which is why the concept doesn't bother me. But if people are going to contend that a child won't care at all about the reasons for the absence of the parent, then I am going to point out that this is not necessarily true, based on personal experience. Keep in mind that I was growing up in the time when there were no cell phones and many people at work had no access to phones or were very hard to reach. There were several times that my mother was simply unreachable at work for at least a couple of hours, and we understood this. It was a whole different ball game when she was off to the city center for the day to hang out at the latest art gallery opening/cafe/party/dance etc. She was equally unreachable, but for frivolous reasons and yes, we resented that.

Laura

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-02-2003
Sun, 02-15-2004 - 1:15pm
Which is presicely why we cannot make sweeping generalizations. Some children may give a hoot, while others will not. Parents need to take their children's personality into consideration in their childcare decisions. When I was a child, I had a nanny. I can't be 100% sure of what my mother was doing - but I assume that there were times her activities were frivilous. I never felt neglected. I could always reach someone - my mom, my dad or my nanny. Someone trusted was almost always available. I could have cared less if my mom was at the spa or at the office. She loved us and was a caring and affectionate presence in our lives - even when she wasn't present.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-21-2003
Sun, 02-15-2004 - 1:32pm
Stop twisting my words. I didn't say that volunteers were selfish, I said stay at home moms who spend 53 hours a week away from their kids and left them in othercare to pursue non-essential activities were selfish.

Again, people who can't figure out the difference have my sympathies.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-02-2003
Sun, 02-15-2004 - 1:34pm
And those who can't see the similarities have mine.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-21-2003
Sun, 02-15-2004 - 1:36pm
Oh, I see, it's called following our bliss. Now I get it.

Is everyone entitled to follow their bliss at their children's expense?

People who find following their bliss (when that bliss excludes children) to be essential probably not ought to have children. Leave that to those whose bliss includes their children.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-21-2003
Sun, 02-15-2004 - 1:37pm
I agree, like I said, most of the sahm's I know with nannies aren't gone for 40 hours a week. Usually something like 4 hours a day.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 02-15-2004 - 1:41pm
But what if the income of that job is not needed then doesn't that put the job in the "to pursue frivolous niceties" catagory. If a DH make $200,000+ and everything is taken care of (retirement, college, vacations ect) then why would working 40 hours a week be more noble then doing something else for those 40 hours a week.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 02-15-2004 - 1:44pm
Oops, sorry, when you get into these mega threads it is hard to keep track of who said what
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-21-2003
Sun, 02-15-2004 - 1:44pm
You have loads of free time when your children are in school to volunteer.

It's not like you're paying a nanny to care for your children when you could be doing that yourself, your children are in school, and yes, there is a difference, a huge difference.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-21-2003
Sun, 02-15-2004 - 1:48pm
"Are you implying that children of a SAHM who employs a nanny would be better of without the mother at all? Let's assume that if she has a ft nanny the family doesn't benefit from her being employed. If she hires a nanny then the family doesn't benefit from her presence at all right?"

Nope, that's not what I was saying at all. Poor misinterpretation on your part.

"Why would you assume that just because there is a nanny that the mother never takes care of the kids?"

I don't know, why would I? I never did assume that, I was responding to 2 hypothetical situations thrown out there by other posters.

"That is a more typical pattern than a mother who disappears completely for the entire day leaving all her kids in the care of a nanny." Yes, I realize that very well, so what's your point?

Pages