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
Thu, 02-19-2004 - 3:54pm
Working is required if you have a job. But for many moms having a job is not required. So I repeat my question. Why is ok to work, but not ok to volunteer, assuming mom is working for extras? After all, mom could always quit her job.

Do you feel differently about lesser volunteer hours (which I beleive to be the norm)?

Jenna

Avatar for 1969jets
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 02-19-2004 - 3:57pm
So you only do things that directly benefit your children? And you call ME selfish?

Jenna

Avatar for 1969jets
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 02-19-2004 - 4:04pm
So working and caring for kids/home are the only acceptable things for women to do during the day?

Jenna

Avatar for 1969jets
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 02-19-2004 - 4:11pm
Actually, I haven't personally had a nanny since I quit working ft around 3 1/2 years ago. I just don't think it's so terrible for anyone else to hire one.

Jenna

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-21-2003
Thu, 02-19-2004 - 4:16pm
Where do you get that I disapprove of volunteering? I do quite a bit of it myself.

I disapprove of a SAHM taking off for most of the day and leaving her kids with a nanny when she's doing something other than what she has to do, ie, a job. I don't assume anyone is working for extra's, even p&j, I don't consider college, retirement savings or a comfortable home to be extras.

Maybe a SAHM who does leave her kids in someone else's care ought not call herself a SAHM, because essentially, she isn't one.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-21-2003
Thu, 02-19-2004 - 4:21pm
Neither do I, especially if they're working or if they are a sahm who needs the nanny for help rather than as a replacement so she can take off all day pursuing nonessential activities.

I don't think anyone really deserves a life of total leisure. Maybe that's just my hang up, but why do you think they do? Should we all get to do whatever we please, not work, not take care of our kids? Somebody has got to do it, why should only moms be exempt?

Avatar for 1969jets
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 02-19-2004 - 4:37pm
Not everyone who disagrees with you is a moron. I am not missing your point, I am refuting it.

My point (which you can feel free to disagree with me on) is that both of us spend time on things that are not absolutely necessary. AND that we are both away from our children for some of that time. In that way they are equivalent.

Jenna

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 02-19-2004 - 4:42pm
It is NOT a direct benefit, even if you choose to see it that way.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

Avatar for 1969jets
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 02-19-2004 - 4:57pm
I was referring to your (rather nasty) comment to me about being able to do things other than cleaning and taking care of your kids without having a nanny. Since I haven't had a nanny for over 3 years I understand full well that parents can do plenty without employing a nanny.

I do not think anyone "deserves" a life of leisure. But I can't understand why you would object to someone hiring a nanny to make their life more leisurely. Just because you don't live a life of leisure it doesn't mean it's immoral to have ANY leisure time.

Jenna

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 02-19-2004 - 5:09pm
Edited because I made an erroe in my thinking.


Edited 2/19/2004 5:10:23 PM ET by texigan

Pages