'SAHMS' that have full time childcare or help - a fantastic liberation or downright lazy?

[Enid]

There are lots of mothers down here in Dorset who are (or whose husbands are) well off enough to afford NOT to work. I know a few and they all have full time aupairs or nannies. One of them has TWO nannies - one for each of her children.

It seems to be a matter of pride that you always take the nanny/au pair on holiday to help with your children. Also that the nanny/au pair takes the children to clubs and activities.

OK - I think it is outrageously lazy (and so does dh). What do you think?

As someone who doesn't have any family nearby, I can see the benefit of having some occasional help - as it is I rely on my mum visiiting a couple of times a year to get dental visits, etc done - otherwise I have to get friends to help out. However, it somehow doesn't feel right to me to send my kid off to a nursery or childminder for a day or two EVERY week, if I'm not working. I know two people who do this, but tbh neither of them have family nearby either. Maybe I would feel differently if I could afford it! But I became a SAHM so I could bring my kids up myself (have been both a WOHM and SAHM btw so not against WOHM at all). Unless I was working (paid or voluntary) or had a major house project to deal with I think I would feel hard-pressed to justify it to myself. They are only little for such a short while.... most kids around here go to pre-school from 2.5 so you get some time to yourself then.

I'm a SAHM who sends ds2 to nursery 2 days a week so I can have 'ME' time and I love it.

Live and let live I say.

Had a lovely day today - met a friend for coffee in town at 10 and another for lunch at 12. That's not being lazy, it's being sociable

ds2 had a lovely day at nursey getting covered in paint

I'm at SAHM with a 3 and 2 year old. The 3 year old goes to preschool for 3 mornings a week, but the 2 year old does nothing. I wouldnt want to get anyboyd else to care for them apart from me. We held out having kids until we were in a position for me to be a SAHM, and most of the time I do enjoy it. I too have no family around, so rely on my mum visiting to help out with some things or rely on friends, but not that much. If we were stinking rich I would get somebody to help out with the housework/ironing/gardening though.

Hoo hoo, ho, ho, I have only read the first post and noticed that this is in active conversations and yet has 480 posts so I think I'll assume it's kicked off, ha ha. Right, will read it now.

i have a craft nanny
a chef
and a little red headed woman who kindly takes parenting guilt - and reads guru books

If money were no object I'd certainly be a SAHM with a nanny too - simply for ease of babysitting, or flitting off to the gym, or shopping sans enfants, or whatever.

I would certainly get the nanny to take the kids to clubs/societies, etc. When the boys were small I used to find swimming lessons (or whatever) so exciting, but now I just find them tedious and rather annoying. So yes, I'd jump at the chance to send someone else instead!

I'd choose to have a cleaner before a nanny though.

I used to pay this homesick Latvian girl a pittance, to go to the loo for me - we reached a certain income level and I found I just didn;t fancy going myself any more, it all seemed so vulgar.... anyway, I had to let her go in the end, she kept forgetting to flush. You just can't get decent help.

Was thinking about this whilst cleaning dinner of my dining room floor
I tend to think that those who have nannies and stay at home are those who would have had nannies themselves, and whose mothers had nannies when very few women worked anyway. I fortunately don't have the pleasure of mixing in such circles . There are always going to be people who feel certain work is beneath them, how sad when it be raising your own child is less important than lunching with mates, walking dogs, treatments etc. Whilst I completely understand why women work, and i feel children understand this too, what a rejection to know that mummy hired a nanny when you were young so she had more 'me' time. Like i said I'm just glad i don't have the pleasure, up the working classes

My initial reaction is.... WHY have children when you have no intention of caring for them yourself whilst not working?!

Not sure what the thread has gone on to say as I have only read opening post.

I am a SAHM and intend to stay that way until they reach school age, and then I might consider going back to work. We cant really afford for me to stay at home, but childcare for 2 kids under 2 would cripple us.

ft child care..= mad and lazy

part time help = sensible (obviously they have to be doing somethig worthy with their time

"Whilst I completely understand why women work, and i feel children understand this too, what a rejection to know that mummy hired a nanny when you were young so she had more 'me' time."

eh??? I have help (social services paid for), but I very rarely get child free time (I had a coffee in a cafe last July, that's it). I have help so I can spend time with my children- we share them out, that way they can each get time with me/us/the person helping out Me time? I wish. As of next week ds3 will be going to a childminder a couple of mornings a week (he's been going on odd occasions anyway- but this will become regular). I'll be studying, which will free up my evenings a bit-I'm fed up of never having time to even have a bath. I don't think he'll be insanely mad to know that I am giving myself a few hours a week - more like he'll love being somewhere else with new toys and new people).

A friend of mine has a nanny and a housekeeper and 3 kids. She works one day a week, has one morning at the gym and runs about with the kids the rest of the time. Sometimes she has all 3 kids at once, sometimes she does stuff with 1 or 2. Ideal if you ask me.

I gave up at about 2pm but read up to there and I'm out to lunch with MI, Issymum, Caligula et al. In fact, when I had ds and advertised for a mothers help my own mother said "but WHY would you not want to do it all yourself?" and I think I said something along the lines of I'm a crap martyr, hate cleaning and wouldn't mind an hour to myself now and again. Because she had no choice when her children were small (no money), she really seemed to resent the fact that I did. I would definitely have a cleaner, housekeeper, cook, gardener AND a nanny to do all the boring bits (whoever said they hate bathtime, me too. I also DETEST school drop off and pick up, always have) while I was left with the nice outings/playing/reading books stuff.

I 'help' women for a job, and unfortunately see alot more cases of women who seriously want to have 'me' time then people who genuinely need help. Often those who need it most just can''t afford it.

haven't read it all-personally am dreading going back to work and leaving gorgeousness of six month old ds and cannot imagine being SAHM with FT nanny however-also cannot imagine the worked-out, higlighted, made up, botoxed pedicured Jimmy Choo wearing vision I would presumably morph into given that much money and half a chance......sigh-sits here like Cinders chopping onions for tea with roots showing, ratty old cardigan and baby belly...

Message withdrawn

Greensleeves -
Quite agree with you!
(I found a wonderful Ukrainian girl who went into labour for me. She was so grateful for the work, and thought £10 was a bit too much)

oh WWW quite agree- one of the best things about ds1 going to special school is that he gets picked up and dropped off. No more charging around insanely trying to get all the kids ready to drop one to school.

DS2 starts in September, but because I have to be at home to see ds1 onto his school bus I can get dh to do the school drop off (haven't worked out the pick up yet- that'll be interesting, but I know I'll escape as I'll have to be at home to meet ds1 from his school bus).

I'm not actually typing this but dictating it to my Personal Assistant. Don't want to break my nails!

I know mums that are sahms & have a nanny or aupair plus cleaners & gardeners.

The mums get to do the easy bits & the nice aspects of being a mum - going on holiday - great everything packed & sorted by someone else! Going to have friends to play - house clean & sorted plus. Never missing a nights sleep as the night nanny is there, kid throws up - no problem. All the hard graft is done. These mums look great & their kids with perfect clothes!

Only trouble is when the home helps are all away at the same time!!! A quick reality check.

I think it is fair enough to have some help (if one can afford it!) in the form of a cleaner, gardener etc - but I don't understand why any stay at home mum would require a nanny. Can someone explain this?! I have to go back to work next week, meaning that dd will be going to nursery 3 days a week, and it is breaking my heart. I would love nothing more than to stay at home and look after her myself Hopefully we might be able to afford a cleaner occasionally but I say sod it if the house goes to pot!

I don't think women who are sah-mums and have nannies are wierd. I just think they're sad. I've been at home for nearly 8 years now and the kids do drive me nuts sometimes. But the thing that keeps me going is the incredible bond I have with them that I know will always be there (for me anyway!!). I think if you choose to stay at home and still have someone paid to look after the kids all day that bond must be pretty non existant and thats just sad.

Issymum, can I join you at Harvey Nicks????

This perfect parenting is all getting a bit too competitive for a simple soul like me

Who loves their children most = those that are prepared to subordinate all their needs to their children.

Don't think it works like that myself!

How absurd to say that if someone else is in the house all day, you won't have a bond with your child.

Mental. Just mental.

I can see the argument that you want to be the one who decides how your kid spends their days - I agree with that myself - but that aspiration is not in conflict with having another adult there who is paid to look after the children with you, or instead of you when you're doing something else. If someone else looks after your children, by definition they do it your way. If they want to do it their own way, they can have their own children.

I'm with you, Soapbox (think you'll find I'm on the Harvey Nicks list!)

Its the polarisation on these threads that I find off-putting - ie you have some paid help with your children, therefore you must spend all your time having your hair streaked and your teeth bleached.

I'll repeat - some people don't have any available unpaid help with their childcare. Paying for that doesn't turn you into Madonna. I grade myself as a mother by many, many different gauges and find myself wanting a lot of the time, quite frankly. But the level of "this is how much I do for you" is not one of them.