upset at nanny -- vent

"Bruce and Jeanne" wrote in message
...
Michelle S. Spina wrote:

Nina wrote:

"Michelle Spina" wrote in message
m...
"iphigenia" wrote in message
...


So if you want to raise your children yourself, are you
looked
down on?

Heck, SAHM's with that opinion are looked down on here by
many, as
well. ;-)

Sorry, pet-peeve of mine. Both DH and I are raising our
children.
Our
employment status has no bearing on this fact. I don't *think*
you
meant it in the tone that I read it, but I still couldn't just
let
it
go...

My personal belief is that children are raised by their primary
caregivers
so if my kid is at daycare 10 hours/day and with me maybe 3
waking
hours/day
I would feel as if someone else were raising my child, based on
MY
definition of
"raise".

You might feel that way, in theory, but if you've never been in
any
other situation than SAHM, you don't understand what happens in
reality
when you have a nanny or other childcare arrangements. What you
say here
is just plain silly. Might be what you *feel* in theory, but that
doesn't at all make it true.

m.



Too true. I'm currently a SAHM - decided to stay at home after DS
was
born and I didn't have a job. But I worked full-time when DD was an
infant. Both times, I and DH were and are the parents. No one else
"raised" our children, although we did have support from our daycare
provider with DD.

I'm finding that I always have a lot of admiration for the *other*
side.
I mean when I worked, I thought SAHMs were incredible - lots of
energy
and organization. But now that I'm a SAHM, I think working moms
have it
rough and *they* are something akin to superwomen.

At times, I wish I am working - to be honest, it's not as draining
(I

I've done it all, been a married SAHM, married and Out of the home
(school, not work)
Single and SAHM, and Single and in school.
It was all pretty difficult, just in different areas,
MY PERSONAL BELIEF is that the ideal is for young children to spend as
much
time with their parents as possible, not a daycare worker, not a
nanny. `
So for me, not being the one interacting with my child, teaching her,
feeding her
playing with her etc, would be a big problem.
For those who it isnt, I dont have a problem with that.
Its funny, Im not jusdging anyone, but immediately I am told
that my beliefs are silly, and that if I believe what I do that it is
out
of ignorance, yet I havent disparaged anyone elses beliefs.

"Dawn Lawson" wrote in message
news:WkEWb.466772$JQ1.155936@pd7tw1no...


But still, these families are basically one community, and I wonder how
they manage to so consistantly show the traits. Perhaps it has to do
with how they *value* the work ethic and therefore how they keep going
better through the mud-bog times. I get a general sense that the
average member of the "opposite" group I described tends to value a lot
more disconnected time (TV, etc) and a greater willingness to "leave
that til later" than what I see in the first group.

Dawn


I think this is very true.

Unfortunately, in our household, DH values his relaxation time in front of
the TV very highly and can't understand that I don't feel the same way. He
frequently tells me I should "sit down and chill for a few", instead of
busying myself about the house cleaning, cooking, etc. I have never been
able to get him to understand that I have no interest in watching TV and
can't fully relax as long as I know there are dishes to wash, laundry to do,
carpets to vacuum, etc. It's not that I enjoy doing the cleaning as such,
but I don't mind doing it and I do get a lot of satisfaction from getting it
done. To me, sitting down when there are things to be done is just a waste
of time. I'd rather finish the housework and then, if I have time left
before bedtime, I'll relax with a book or a crossword or in the bathtub, not
vegging in front of the TV.

I'm not saying either way is right or wrong, but it seems to be just the way
we are programmed and it's unfortunate that DH and I are out of sync on
this. He's now beginning to get to the point of agreeing to disagree, but it
took a lot of convincing I know he only has my happiness at heart, but he
just doesn't know how to achieve it sometimes...

Sorry, this is totally off topic and rambling....

Lucy

"Denise Anderson" wrote in message ...

I wonder if the people who prefer to be referred to as African-American vary
by region or socio-economic class or something. None of my friends
particularly cares for "African-American," and when its been brought up in
our conversations they prefer to be "black."

I've seen a mix. In the context of academic discussions, I've known
more black people who use the term "African-American." But in just
everyday discussions - eg describing a person, refering to a community
group, whatever, it's "Black".

My SIL prefers "black' over African-American, but that's because
she's from the Caribbean (a US territory, so techincally she's
American). Actually she prefers 'Caribbean'

"iphigenia" wrote in message ...

*shrug* Well, I've never been a working mother, but I was always the *child*
of a working mother. I'm coming from the perspective of being the child who
spent significant amounts of time at daycares, with babysitters, etc., often
unhappy, often isolated.

Maybe I'm just plain silly - after all, I only *lived* it as a child - but I
don't think of what my parents did as parenting. It didn't feel that way.
And that's reason number one why I don't work, and won't do so until Gabe's
school-age. I'm not saying that all children of WOH moms feel the way I did
(I suspect that, on the contrary, there are a lot of mothers who manage to
really be *involved* in their kids' lives), but that's how I felt growing up
and that's why I'm a SAHM.

I was also the child of a working mother, and it never bothered
me. I'm in no way trying to argue with your perceptions, just
presenting an alternative data point for anyone who's reading this
and might be feeling worried.

My mom was very careful to make us feel like we were the most
important thing in her life, even if she happened to be away
some of the time, and I think that made a huge difference to
me. I never felt remotely 'unparented'. Actually, given the
intensity of focus that my mom brought to being a parent,
the idea is almost humorous - again, I'm not making fun of your
perceptions, you'd just have to know my mother to understand.
I would have given a *lot* to have my mother be more detached
during some portions of my childhood.

Anyway, so I don't think that you're being silly, I just agree
that your experience isn't universal and neither is mine. I
think a lot more goes into it than just the WOH/SAH divide.

Beth

"Dawn Lawson" wrote in message
news:tLMWb.482471$ts4.58117@pd7tw3no...

PattyMomVA wrote:

Yes, blond/blonde can be used as an adjective or a noun, according to my
dictionary, as can black and white. I agree they can be useful as a
noun
when pointing someone out. What bothers me a bit is when they are used
in a
context in which the person's hair or skin color has no reasonable
importance to the discussion. For example, "This blonde I met at work
also
comes from Colorado." Can anyone else understand why this bugs me?

*g* you're blonde?
She's actually from Oregon?

:-)))

Dawn, just kidding.

lol. Nope, not me. My entire family has brown hair.

Ha.

Is this an over-developed sense of *what?* color-blindness? respect of
personhood? I don't know.

-Patty

Taniwha grrrl wrote:
"Circe" wrote in message

I'd say black is a broader term for all people of the darker sorts
of skin tone that originate in Africa and might apply equally well
to some Pacific Islanders (e.g. Papua New Guineans

Not here in New Zealand, if you called a Maori or an
Islander black your likely to get your head kicked in. It's
a pretty offensive term. You're referred to according to
your culture, Maori, Islander, Somali or Asian rather than
your skin tone.

I'm just saying that if I saw someone I'd never met before who was Papuan or
possibly Maori, I might well describe that person as "black" if asked.
I don't claim to be able to intuit people's cultural affiliations from their
skin color, and I think it's a bad idea to try, since you can very easily be
misled. Again, citing my favorite example, Sammy Sosa of baseball fame is
black, but he's Hispanic rather than African-American.

I guess I don't completely understand why we impute so much meaning to words
that are really just intended to describe relative skin tones. Black as a
description for skin tone isn't, strictly speaking, any more accurate than
white, but it's a word we all understand as describing a certain range of
skin tones. I'm white, my husband is brown, my kids are brown, my Zulu au
pair was black, and my "colored" South African au pair was also black
because her skin tone fit into the range of skin tones we Americans describe
with the word "black". Colin Powell, IMO, is not black. I'm not saying he's
not African-American, because of course, he is. It's just that black doesn't
really correctly describe his skin tone--he's more in the range I'd consider
brown.

Incidentally, my brown husband of Mexican descent is often mistaken for
being either Greek or Hindi by people who meet him. People who are also of
Mexican descent easily recognize him as "one of them", but his features and
skin tone are in a range that could have a lot of potential cultural
affiliations. And because there are a lot of people like this in the States,
it would be pretty dangerous to try to describe a person physically purely
by cultural reference, since that can't necessarily be determined by
appearances.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [23 mos.] mom)

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
Financing for "5" years -- car dealership sign

Mommy: I call you "baby" because I love you.
Julian (age 4): Oh! All right, Mommy baby.

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

Elizabeth Reid wrote:

I was also the child of a working mother, and it never bothered
me. I'm in no way trying to argue with your perceptions, just
presenting an alternative data point for anyone who's reading this
and might be feeling worried.


Thanks, actually, for adding your perspective - now that I'm a little less
upset about the whole thing, I hope I can make it clearer: my
growing-up-in-childcare experience was so awful for me that I will do
anything I can to avoid my child having to be in alternative care (and it
grieves me deeply to know that I probably won't be able to avoid it
completely). I can understand intellectually that some caregivers have
close, loving relationships with their charges, but I don't understand it in
my heart, because of the aversion I learned from my experiences.


--
tristyn
www.tristyn.net
"i have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.
i do not think that they will sing to me."

Nina wrote:
MY PERSONAL BELIEF is that the ideal is for young children to spend
as much time with their parents as possible, not a daycare worker, not a
nanny. So for me, not being the one interacting with my child, teaching
her, feeding her playing with her etc, would be a big problem.
For those who it isnt, I dont have a problem with that.
Its funny, Im not jusdging anyone, but immediately I am told
that my beliefs are silly, and that if I believe what I do that it
is out of ignorance, yet I havent disparaged anyone elses beliefs.

I believe that you have no INTENT to disparage or judge other people's
choices, but when you use words like *ideal* to describe your own choices,
it's hard for other people not to read criticism between the lines. It would
seem much less critical if you said that for *you* as a mother, the ideal is
to spend as much time with your *child* as possible. When you cast your
choices as being best for your child instead of as being best for you, I
think you necessarily suggest that people who make a different choice don't
care as much about doing the best for their children.

I think what is best for both the child and the parents is very situation
and personality-dependent, and it's therefore somewhat perilous to say that
X situation is "ideal" for young children as a blanket statement, even if it
is merely a blanket statement of your own opinion.

See what I mean?
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [23 mos.] mom)

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
Financing for "5" years -- car dealership sign

Mommy: I call you "baby" because I love you.
Julian (age 4): Oh! All right, Mommy baby.

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

Elizabeth Reid wrote:
I re-read the _Little House on the Prairie_ books when my
son was an infant, and it was blindingly clear to me that
Ma Ingalls was *definitely* not doing the kind of child-
raising I was, not and making all the clothes from scratch
and washing them by hand and cooking all the food from raw
components, many of which she grew, and milking the cow and
so on. I don't know if it's a greater willingness to 'ignore'
the kids in a benign way, or a greater ability to involve
them in adult household activities, or maybe those activities
are intrinsically more involving if they're obviously
part of the pattern of life rather than just 'tasks', or
what.

I think this is a really good point. I have always said much the same about
my paternal grandmother, who in addition to raising five children was also
the "farmer's wife" on a dairy farm in Minnesota in the 30s that did not (at
least initially) have either electricity or running water. Frankly, there is
just no *way* she could have done her "job" and also have spent anywhere
*near* the amount of time or energy on childrearing as most modern parents
who hold jobs outside the home do. What has changed, IMO, isn't that women
now have jobs when they didn't before (my grandmother certainly had a job
and was hardly a full-time mother in any sense we'd recognize) but that work
and home have been in the same place for most of human history (and
prehistory, I hasten to add) and now, they are not.

It's really an anomaly from an economic point of view for one parent to be
supported primarily by the earnings of the other; in past generations,
women's work went well beyond childrearing and added a great deal to the
economic bottom line of the family. I'm not saying that modern SAHMs don't
add to the family's economic bottom line in ways similar to those of past
generations, but I'm reasonably certain that their economic contributions
don't match up--percentage-wise--to those of Ma Ingalls or the farmer's wife
like my grandmother or the female "gatherer" in a hunter-gatherer society.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [23 mos.] mom)

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
Financing for "5" years -- car dealership sign

Mommy: I call you "baby" because I love you.
Julian (age 4): Oh! All right, Mommy baby.

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

"iphigenia" wrote in message ...
Michelle S. Spina wrote:

You might feel that way, in theory, but if you've never been in any
other situation than SAHM, you don't understand what happens in
reality when you have a nanny or other childcare arrangements. What
you say here is just plain silly. Might be what you *feel* in theory,
but that doesn't at all make it true.

*shrug* Well, I've never been a working mother, but I was always the *child*
of a working mother. I'm coming from the perspective of being the child who
spent significant amounts of time at daycares, with babysitters, etc., often
unhappy, often isolated.

Maybe I'm just plain silly - after all, I only *lived* it as a child - but I
don't think of what my parents did as parenting. It didn't feel that way.
And that's reason number one why I don't work, and won't do so until Gabe's
school-age. I'm not saying that all children of WOH moms feel the way I did
(I suspect that, on the contrary, there are a lot of mothers who manage to
really be *involved* in their kids' lives), but that's how I felt growing up
and that's why I'm a SAHM.

Sounds like you had lousy parents. Do you feel that they would have
been good parents if one of them had been home? That it was their work
that made your childhood less than what you wished for? In all other
ways, they were really great parents, and it really was that they
weren't home for those 8 hours, M-F, that was the crucial time you
needed?

It sounds like you have excellent reasons for you to want to be home
for your kids! I'm not denying that at all - great, have at it! I just
don't agree with the assertion that it's a SAHM vs. WOHM issue. WOHM's
can be (and should be, as ALL parents should be!) very involved in
their children's lives, and should most certainly be "raising their
children." Uninvolved, bad parents, are uninvolved, bad parents,
whether they WOH or SAH. I've heard similar feelings of isolation,
etc., from people who's mothers WERE at home. I really don't think
that employment status is the underlying issue here at all. Maybe your
experience proves otherwise, I don't know.

m.