Differences between nannying & parenting

[Lizita]

I'm not sure if I'm putting this in the right section, but here goes...

No real reason for asking this, just been wondering about it. Me & my dd sometimes hang out with my nanny friend & her friends and the children they look after, and it seems to me that the other children are so much more confident and independent than my dd. I do know that as well as a personality difference it'll partly be because a) they're a bit older than dd and b) they have come into a lot more contact with other children. But have also been wondering, do you think children with nannies or childminders are encouraged more to be independent? Or if being separated for that long from their parents helps this? My nanny friend is very keen on fostering independence and confidence in the children she looks after, and that's great - sometimes I feel inadequate next to her!

But then, and I don't really know how to put this without possibly offending a nanny or childminder, my relationship with my dd feels a lot more closer and bonded.
Is it that as parents we are so afraid of indavertently rejecting our child if we encouraged independence? Or is it that nannies & childminders don't feel...well, that inexplicable feeling that you have as a parent! (My nanny friend says she can't imagine loving a child more than she loves the children she looks after! I beg to differ. )

Would be interested to read what you all think, particularly nannies/childminders who then became parents! I do know that my nanny friend has a few nanny friends who became parents and she says: "They were really good nannies, very organised, on time, but as soon as they became mothers it all went to pieces, they were always late and disorganised!" One nanny i knew who was pg said to me "I think it'll be easy - I already know how to do everything." oooh how wrong she was!!

Yeah interesting point, me and my nanny friend have talked about that, providing the kids with proper activities etc etc. As a mum u can relax a bit in that respect, whereas as a nanny (I've heard) you can't sit and read the paper for a bit if u want or put daytime telly on! I have been looking after a friend's baby 1 day a week for the last 6 months and even my attitude changes on that day, even my dd gets more attention then!
My nanny friend also reckons (she's not a mum yet) that she feels that the responsibility as a nanny is more scary because they're not your children. I can see what she means but I think although it's a different sort of responsible feeling, I don't think it's any more scary. Being a 1st time mum to a baby is absolutely terrifying - plus you are their mum forever &, well, me anyway, would worry about psychological affects on the child etc. If I was a nanny, I think I'd quickly get used to be responsible for someone else's children but be able to focus more on the practical stuff - as u said UKMickey, giving them lots of fun activities, and consistent disicpline, and so on, and not worry too much about the deeper stuff.

Correct me if i'm wrong !

This is interesting. Might DS1 was the most clingy baby ever. I carried him everywhere from he was born and co-slept. Yet, at 6 months old he took to nursery like Duck to water and has always been quite happy there and is outgoing. I would still say he is a fairly clingy and sensitive little chap compared to my other children. So perhaps your DD would behave differently if you were not there? And perhaps the Nannies children would seem different if they had their parents around too?

I agree it is too much emphasis on independence and confidence too. This has to be built up slowly. I would think most good childcare providers would understand this. Children must be allowed to be shy and careful in situations without it being made obvious to them. I always tell my DS1 it is okey to be shy and that most people are a little shy sometimes.

Oh this is an interesting discussion.

I worked as a nanny for 8 years for four different families and had very strong bonds with the children especially the last family where I cared for the little girl from 10 weeks old until she was 3.

Now I have my own 13 month old little girl I feel incredibly differently.
I always had some kind of routine with the children I minded and I think this works well for a nanny generally (who arrives at a set time and leaves at a set time, and has never been up all night with a grumpy child) and also means that the parents have an idea what will be happening during the day and roughly what to expect when they get home.

It is so completely different with your own child though, for a start breastfeeding is completely different to bottlefeeding, so things work very differently that way. Its a much closer relationship than you can ever imagine before you have a child and you know your own child so wonderfully well (as long as you're with them a lot and listen to their needs). I now feel very strongly that the nicest way to parent is to follow your instincts and your babies' needs which you just can't do the same way as a nanny.

Lizita, I think you did exactly the right thing in comforting your child when she needs it. As a nanny you just don't recognise those needs the same, and also children tend to act more independent with their nannies because they don't have that close fulfilling relationship to fall back on so they just have to cope with things more for themselves.
Obviously there are pros and cons to both ways but I now firmly believe in meeting your child's needs and putting them first. One day they won't need you anymore and I've never heard anyone when their child is grown up say "Oh I wish I'd spent less time with my baby"

yeah, as a mum it's like you're tuned into their needs, and actually feel what they're feeling, particularly when they're a baby. I couldn't STAND my dd crying when she was a baby, but with the baby I've been looking after it was completely different (mind you he hardly ever cried!)

I've just had an example of that. My kids are staying with my Mum atm and she's just rang me to say that DD (3) has a high temperature and is coughing and should she give her calpol.

If it was any other 3 year old, I'd just say yeah, give her calpol, keep an eye on her, she'll be fine. But as it's mine, although rationally I know she's likely to be absolutely fine, I feel sick thinking about her being ill.

caligula. Hope she gets better...

aw caligula. Hope it's better soon.

Caligula, will a history lesson take your mind off DD? We have nannies now but people used to have wet nurses - how's that for bonding with a carer?

and Lizita, to go back to your question at the start, maybe being loved by nanny as well as mummy and daddy helps confidence, in an everyone loves me, kind of way? but there's big differences between siblings with the same care arrangements, so maybe not....

oops that was a bit patronising - didn't mean it

TBH i'm a bit confused about how the trust/security thing is built up. I've read, and adopted as my own view, that they need their parents, esp mother, as much as possible in first few years to feel secure & trusting later on, but on the other hand, perhaps children who are cared for by others as well learn quicker that that's ok too, that mummy & daddy don't disappear forever? My friend had heard that it was easier to hand a 6 month old baby over and that it was better in the long run to do it then than later on, but I had been given the opposite impression from what i read so I was surprised when she said that.

Oh sod it, it all depends on the child & its circumstances doesn't it!!

Huge difference!

I look at nanny friend of mine (who'd love to be a mum) and can already see how tough she would find it, although I am sure she would be great!

She only works 7.30am - 9am and then 2pm - 6pm so sometimes she will go out late, drag herself into work then come home and sleep until she needs to pick up her charge from school! I am sure she would adapt to having to look after an infant 24/7 but knowing her like I do I know she would find it tough! (Don't we all though..)

She loves the girl she looks after and sometimes sees the parents as fairly cold people (but I'm not judging!) but she has a fairly easy deal I think!

Agree with caligula... lucky for me my dd (16 months) seems fairly independent, which is good as she will be going to nursery soon. I think that is because she is used to moving around - her dad and I aren't together.

Lizita - although whenever I am around my dd prefers me (yeah!) she is happy when separated from me, ie with her parents and grandparents. I guess it is probably because she has spent a lot of time with them from a young age... like a nanny?

Yeah same with my dd.

sorry meant to say 'with her dad or grandparents!

sfg, regarding wetnurses, people didn't used to have them. Only the most upper class, richest people in society had them. Everyone else did their own breastfeeding unless there were exceptional circumstances, for some reason!

(Does anyone know the historical reason people did use wetnurses though?)

The poorer people did the wet nursing.

Cal..because rich people couldn't be arsed to look after their kids themselves no doubt? (As is still often the case...)

OOh Moondog, ain't you controversial, this time of night!

(Watch it kick off....)

Sure is simmering isn't it? Thought it might help it along....

I don't require my nanny to love my children (tho if she did, it would be a bonus). I expect her to play with them, be kind to them, feed them good food, do activities with them and clear up the mess afterwards so that I come home to a clean and tidy house.

Thinking about it, the major difference is that nannies get paid for it and mothers don't.

And if you didn't pay them, nannies wouldn't do it. However loving, however bonded. And when you don't pay them, mothers still do it. However rubbish at it.

With the usual caveats and exceptions, of course! (But please let's remember, those exceptions are oh so rare.)

People had wet nurses for a number of reasons.
The rich couldn't be arsed to look after their own children . In some cultures breastfeeding was considered distasteful/unladylike etc so they would employ a servant to do it. Also, particularly when the infant mortalilty rate was high, there would be pressure to get pregnant again quickly to produce more heirs, and bf is an (unreliable) contraceptive.
Actually, in the 19th century Europe (e.g. France) many women of all classes "farmed out" their babies.
For poorer working women, many could not afford to be away from the fields (or, after the industrial revolution, the factory) and employed a wet nurse to look after their children while they worked.
Actually many babies weren't wet nursed at all, just fed "pap" and lots of them died.
sorry this is all a bit gloomy for this time of night....

Lizita - the research/theory into attachment says that a baby/child needs to bond with a mother or ONE primary care giver (allomother?? something like that) for the first 3 to 4 years (when the brain structure is being formed), and this affects the way the brain is structured and functions thereafter. It's all quite interesting actually - I went on a course about it once and the guy running it had a big old rant about Gina Ford and how putting her routines in practice could affect attachment! which made me laugh...

This is interesting - what "pap" were they fed? I remember reading Marx ages ago thundering about the iniquity of poor mothers having to work in factories, to the detriment of their children. I presume this sort of thing is what he was talking about? (Wish I could remember where I'd read it!)

And congratulations on your name, Harpsichordcarrier!

lol re Gina Ford. I don't like her methods, but I wouldn't go that far!