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

Avatar for 1969jets
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 02-16-2004 - 10:31am
You said "How does a mom who neither works nor cares for her children benefit the family? What is her purpose in life - and please don't tell me it's to look good."

The logical extension of your line of thinking leads me to the conclusion that you feel a SAHM with a nanny is useless to her family. If she were truly useless why would the family need her? It may not have been what you meant but it is the logical extension of what you said. And pointing out how ridculous that line of thinking is was my point.

You say you never assumed that a SAHM with a nanny never took care of her kids. Please review your words above. I didn't write that you did. How could I possibly interpret your statement to mean anything else?

You may realize that they typical SAHM with a nanny does not spend the entire day away from her kids but your statements indicate otherwise.

Jenna

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-19-2003
Mon, 02-16-2004 - 10:48am
So you're saying that it's *not typical* for a choose to work WOHM to not have her income increase the family's SOL?

In that case, I agree with you.

Avatar for 1969jets
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 02-16-2004 - 10:56am
But I only have loads of time becaue I have childcare for my youngest child. If I didn't have childcare for him the past 2 school years I would NOT have been able to do as much volunteer work. What would I have done, let him watch himself? He was 3 years old at the beginning of the last school year.

I don't have a nanny because I feel my child is better off in preschool than with a nanny, but if I want to volunteer I do need someone to watch my him. I chose a preschool,others chose a nanny. There are women who are active in school with a nanny to watch the younger kids.

My point is more that volunteering can be a benefit to your family even if it doesn't benefit each and every family member. You don't necessarily NEED to to volunteer but if you want to volunteer and you have young kids you NEED to find someone to watch them.

Jenna

Avatar for 1969jets
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 02-16-2004 - 10:59am
Well I agree about making a contribution to the world. Even with a young child only in preschool for 3 half days I have plenty of time for me and volunteer work. If I didn't have housekeeping help that might not be true.

Jenna

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 02-16-2004 - 11:00am
But it is a luxury in the idea that there are other, less expensive, less convenient, options.

SUS

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-19-2003
Mon, 02-16-2004 - 11:08am
I agree that younger kids probably don't know the difference between mommy going to work and mommy going to the spa/lunch/etc.

But older kids do.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-29-1999
Mon, 02-16-2004 - 11:21am
I don't necessarily view it that way. The examples I mentioned are people who need childcare. A nanny is one way to meet that need. There are other ways to meet that need as well, but that doesn't make the nanny a luxury.

We've said that people need cars, a Lincoln and a hyundai, both meet the need. If you choose the more expensive model, it doesn't make the need any less valid.

A boat (in most situations) is not a need. Therefore any type of boat, from canoe to yaught, could be considered a luxury.

Avatar for 1969jets
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 02-16-2004 - 11:22am
But your kids don't require ALL of your time when you are a SAHM.

If my kids were all still small I wouldn't mind having a nanny available to me so that I could do some grocery shopping without schlepping 3 young kids to the store. Or so I could get to the gym while they napped. Or so I could be a part of the activities at my older kids school while younger ones still needed care at home. Or so I could get my hair cut at a time when dh wasn't home. I wouldn't mind having an extra set of hands at the playground so I could take a slightly older child to the bathroom without having to drag a baby and a toddler with me. I wouldn't have minded being able to take one child out somewhere and leaving the others home with a nanny to get some one on one time with each child.

There are lots of reasons to have a nanny that don't mean you just abandon your kids all day every day.

Jenna

Avatar for mygriffin
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-28-2003
Mon, 02-16-2004 - 11:28am
I suppose it doesn't HAVE to be about the kids. But it would be for me. There's just no way I would SAH for any other reason.

So when you first became a SAHW. What *were* the reasons?

And by the way, because I work only part time in order to spend more time with my young children does NOT mean that they are at the center of all decisions. In our decision as to whether I'd be a SAH MOM or a WOH MOM, of course they factor in. THEY are the REASONS we even had a decision to MAKE.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 02-16-2004 - 11:55am

No but if you buy the Lincoln, you are buying a luxury car.

SUS

Pages