|
|
| Author |
Message |
mta
|
|
Nannys and AuPairs
| 
Nov 4 04:49 UTC 1997 |
Nannys and Au Pairs have long been a European answer to the high demands of
child rearing and to the busy lives of some parents. (My ex-husband, a Swede
from a wealthy family, was essentially raised by nannies and aupairs.) Over
the past few years the cocept has begun to catch on among working families here
in the US.
What is your opinion of the nanny or the au pair as a substitute for
institutional daycare or babysitters? Do you know the difference between a
nanny and an au pair? Have you, or would you, bring one into your home if
money and space weren't constraining factors (all other things in your life
being more or less the same as they are now)?
Why?
|
| 33 responses total. |
kami
|
|
response 1 of 33:
|
Nov 4 06:59 UTC 1997 |
I like daycare; lots of attention from creative adults who not only are
trained to be there, they *want* to be there, it's not just a way to finance
travel. Moreover, they get to learn how to play well with other kids. Now,
I'd be glad to have a third adult in my household to help out with the kids,
but finding the *right* one takes an imense amount of luck and supervision,
and can cause so much trouble if you get it wrong. Again, in a daycare center
or even a group daycare home, there are generally more than one adult around,
so fewer opportunities for disaster of one kind or another. And yes, I've
had a housemate who was there to watch Timothy. She did quite well with him,
taught all of us some neat things about toddlers and stuff to do with them,
and yet, the small differences in values and style eventually got to be more
grating than I could cope with. Would rather, say, share a duplex with a
single mom or family which was compatible enough that we all parented in
common.
|
mary
|
|
response 2 of 33:
|
Nov 4 12:25 UTC 1997 |
I think fathers should stay home with their children as my God
intended. ;-)
I too like a safe and stimulating daycare environment for all but infants.
Although having live-in help would be far easier for the parents the
children would end up with care that is only as good as *one* person's
skills. Just like when one parent plays homemaker - it can be great or it
can be not so great.
|
kami
|
|
response 3 of 33:
|
Nov 4 20:13 UTC 1997 |
I tend to think of infants as appendages; carry them with you wherever you
go...<g>
|
valerie
|
|
response 4 of 33:
|
Nov 5 04:01 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
mta
|
|
response 5 of 33:
|
Nov 5 19:00 UTC 1997 |
<grin> I hoped you'd ask.
An au pair is a young girl who wants to trade some light babysitting and
household chores for the chnace to live with a family overseas. She has
little training and sometimes has little real childcare experience. (As
little as six months.) She's more appropriately thought of as a "mothers
help" than a true employee.
A nanny is a mature woman (though maybe not very old) who has a degree in some
related field (nursing, child development, teaching, etc.) who has also
attended at least a year od peofessional Nanny Training and earned a
certificate. She has been trained to be the primary caregiver in a family
setting. Often she has a home of her own and, as opposed to the au pair's
3 to 12 month 'contract", she is generally hired for many years at a time and
unless there are problems can be expected to move on only once the children
no longer need her. She is responsible for caring for infants, teaching small
children, helping with homework, supervising anything to do with the children,
such as cleaning their rooms and doing their laundry.
Most Americans don't understand the difference and think that by hiring an
au pair, they're getting a Nanny on the cheap. It's better to think of an
au pair as an exchange student that you can count of for some babysitting.
Nanny's usually arrive in time to wake the children and make their breakfast
and leave after the children are in bed. Au pairs, by definition, live with
the family, and so may do the same, but they are limited to 45 hours a week
of child care, so they must go "off-duty" somewhere near dinnertime.
An au pair is in the family home primarily as a tourist and student, she (90%
are female) must spend time on her studies and wants very much to experience
life in the country outside the family home. A nanny is often a citizen, and
while she may be taking classes to keep up her certification, generally her
primary responsibility, six days of the week, is the children under her care.
|
gracel
|
|
response 6 of 33:
|
Nov 5 21:39 UTC 1997 |
Well, if we had space and money, I would have some interest in having an
au pair -- a big sister for the boys, another adult for them to talk the ears
off of, and a little household help. Maybe even exposure for us all to
another language & culture.
|
mta
|
|
response 7 of 33:
|
Nov 6 00:27 UTC 1997 |
Yeah, me too. ;) I don't have little kids anymore, but when I did I would
have loved to have an au pair to help out (and another adult to keep me sane
and intelligent!)
|
mary
|
|
response 8 of 33:
|
Nov 6 03:45 UTC 1997 |
Well, I don't have a lot of need for childcare these days but
I should could use an old fashioned wife. ;-)
|
e4808mc
|
|
response 9 of 33:
|
Nov 6 17:45 UTC 1997 |
BTW what conference was this linked from? Im intrigued.
|
mta
|
|
response 10 of 33:
|
Nov 6 21:32 UTC 1997 |
I didn't know it was linked...I entered it in "smalls".
Mary, I know the feeling! I was very fortunate in meeting larry. He
pretty much fills that role at our house since he works from home. It's
been amazing to come home to a hot meal and a fire in the fireplace
every night!
|
davel
|
|
response 11 of 33:
|
Nov 7 15:01 UTC 1997 |
It's not linked.
|
beeswing
|
|
response 12 of 33:
|
Nov 23 19:01 UTC 1997 |
Oh dear. I do not approve of daycare AT ALL. Yes there may be caring, creative
employees there, but in the end they are employees. They are not going to love
your kids and be as concerned for their welfare as much as you will. I want my
kids to bond with me, not a daycare worker. A toddler does not care if I'm
happy or not... all they know is that I'm not there. My mom would take me to
Mother's Day Out occasionally, which is fine, except that being around other
kids more often resulted in my getting sick.
I agree kids need a break from Mom and Dad. They do indeed need socialization
as they get older. But not 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. Someone, mom OR dad,
needs to be there. My parents sacrificed a lot so that my mom could stay home
with my brother and me. And neither me nor my parents regret it.
|
valerie
|
|
response 13 of 33:
|
Nov 23 21:57 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
mta
|
|
response 14 of 33:
|
Nov 24 05:53 UTC 1997 |
I think it boils down to what makes the parents happier. (Assuming high
quality day care is available. A mother who stays home and resents it isn't
doing the kids a favour because they'll pick up on her feelings *very* quickly
and are likely to wonder what they've done wrong. A mother who goes out to
work, but feels guilty about it, is sending her kids the messsage that day
care is somehow bad.
A kid whose parents go (mostly) happily off to work and are thrilled to see
them at the end of the day will learn that that's how life is. Parents go
to "work" and kids go to "school". They may well question it later, as they
approach their teens -- but they'll question the Mom who stays home just as
often.
I think they key here is, as Valerie said, "Your milage may vary."
|
valerie
|
|
response 15 of 33:
|
Nov 24 18:40 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
mta
|
|
response 16 of 33:
|
Nov 24 20:14 UTC 1997 |
I agree, Valerie -- if only because the parents (or at least one of them) will
be the constant in an ever-changing array of sitters.
One thing, though. A sitter with values different from your own can even be
a plus -- an opportunity to discuss what you believe and *why*, which will
help reinforce your beliefs and encourage your child to be tolerant and even
understanding of other people's values. They have their reasons, too, after
all. (Within reason, of course. There are things I wouldn't subject my kids
to that other people consider no big deal.)
|
kami
|
|
response 17 of 33:
|
Nov 25 02:31 UTC 1997 |
One thing, though. A sitter with values different from your own can even
b
Um. I've had a pretty mixed experience of that. I mean, in the long run
it did no harm, but Timothy had a live-in babysitter when he was about
2, who taught him a bunch of "We're number one" sports-fannishness. He's
gotten over it...Other than that, I learned more from her than anything
else. The differences in values were more noticeable in the family as
a whole, since she was living with us. But then, aren't I one of those
people who might teach your kids to believe in "Weird Stuff"?...<g>
|
mta
|
|
response 18 of 33:
|
Nov 25 17:39 UTC 1997 |
Well, the sorts of "wierd" values I had in mind (because my kids were exposed
to them) were the "you can't be a real member of society of you don't plug
into the TV for several hours every day to keeo up with what's happening in
the world. Heaven forbid you should not be able to discuss sitcoms at
recess!" type. We didn't have a TV for most of their childhoods -- in part
because I didn't want it to become a habit for any of us. My kids have rarely
complained about being "bored'. They never learned to expect to be passively
entertained. But people around us would sometimes voce shock at my negligence
at depriving my kids of this necessary part of childhood. It gave us a chance
to talk about what TV is for, how it's used both by consumers and by
advertisers, and just how important various kinds of activities are in the
grand scheme of life.
Also, my kids had Christian babysitters from time to time. Once in a while
they'd be devout enough to worry about my kids souls and try to prostelitise
to my wee'uns. We talked about what they believed and why they felt it was
important to try to "save" other people. We discussed how one can go about
honoring someone elses beliefs while demanding that they respect ours, too.
Without being impolite.
It sees to have had the desired effect. My kids hold their beliefs very
adamantly (no, not always the ones I would have prefferred) but they're open
minded about other people's rights to believe what they believe, too, and are
less prone to being judgemental about people they disagree with than many of
the adults in their lives are.
|
beeswing
|
|
response 19 of 33:
|
Nov 26 06:28 UTC 1997 |
Parents who work having "real lives"... huh?
Why is it that a person has to work outside the home to have a real life? I'd
think when your full-time job is to help mold a tiny human being into a
self-sufficient adult, it's more real than any desk job you'll ever have. No
one will care what your job was when you're dead, or how much money you made.
You'll be dead and that's it. The only thing that is going to keep going is
your children.
It seems nowadays that people have kids because it's a means of having it all.
Kids are just an addition, an accomplishment. The British nanny's family is a
case in point. When both parents have highly demanding careers (both were
physicians), they need to think twice about the sacrifices involved in having a
family. I sure wouldn't want to quit my job after all those years of schooling
and training. My own internist is a woman and her husband is also an internist.
They decided not to have kids because neither wanted to curb their careers to
raise a family. I hate that society puts so much pressure on couples to have
kids... there is certainly nothing wrong with deciding not to have them. It's
not for everyone.
I guess it's like a double edged sword. If you stay home with your kids, you're
lazy and you eat bonbons all day, because you don't want to deal with a "real
job". If you choose to work full time after you've had kids, you're a selfish,
career-driven bitch.
|
mary
|
|
response 20 of 33:
|
Nov 26 14:11 UTC 1997 |
Hey, some of my best friend are selfish, career-driven bitches. ;-)
Good moms, too.
|
valerie
|
|
response 21 of 33:
|
Nov 26 15:08 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
mta
|
|
response 22 of 33:
|
Nov 26 19:50 UTC 1997 |
As someone who tried it, I say AMEN! Valerie. I wasn't up to it. I was a
much better parent once I had outside activities. (First school, then work.)
I was much more there when I was with my kids when I wasn't with them every
moment. "Mamma" became a much more welcome, musical thing to hear once it
wasn't all I heard every day. I wanted to be a good at home Mommy -- but the
reality of it was too stressful for the reality of me. I needed time away
to be able to give myself fully to those darling little boys when I was with
them.
My mother was a stay-at-home Mom all my childhood. I *never* remember really
connecting with her except when I was ill. She was caught up in the day to
day struggle to keep the house clean and never had time to play with me or
my five brothers or to just sit and talk with us. I suspect that she has a
temperament like mine. The stress of raising kids full time was so exhausting
that there was nothing left of her to give to her kids. (Of course, with 6
kids it may have been exhaustion plain and simple.) Would we have been worse
off if she'd worked outside the home and (perhaps) been more glad to see us
when she came home? Dunno. I can't say.
I do know that my tots and I grew much closer when my reaction to them was
more enthusiastic. Today, problems and all, we're still extremely close.
|
n8nxf
|
|
response 23 of 33:
|
Dec 1 13:05 UTC 1997 |
Bingo!
Most jobs are less stressful than raising children.
I say, few jobs are as meaningful as raising children.
|
mta
|
|
response 24 of 33:
|
Dec 2 04:05 UTC 1997 |
Exactly rigt. But that's why it "takes a village to raise a child".
|