'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?

I find this very difficult to understand. I know it will make people sneer, but I really feel at a deep level that tidying up after them, deciding what to cook for them and gauging whether they will eat it, washing their clothes, cleaning up after their "little accidents" and being bloody annoyed about it - this is the nuts and bolt of parenting them, it's a huge part of loving them and feeling responsible for them. I can't imagine "enjoying" all the nice easy bits and letting another woman do the "caring" for them - a favourite uncle or family friend could do that! I am their mother and although I complain, get tired and hate cleaning as much as anyone else, I wouldn't really relinquish the physical mothering of my sons to somebody else. It's such a huge chunk of what it is to be a parent.

Here here greensleeves I echo your thoughts.

ah sweet greensleeves I also echo that

its a PITA sometimes though

as I'm at work haven't had time to read the thread properly but here's my 2p worth anyhow

being at home and having a nanny?! O.k. I dream of that at the moment, because I'm exchausted, not sleeping at night and working... but in reality if I had enough money I'd rather spend it on somebody doing my cleaning, washing, ironing, food shopping, cooking etc .

O.k. some help with the kids to get the occasional break I don't object to .

One comment caught my eye though 'isn't going to work fobbing them off'
... erhem...
strongly disagree...
I think it'd be much worse for kids to be palmed off with mum being in the vicinity. My dd (4) has understood for a long time that mama is going to work to earn money because we need money to live. And when I get home it's play session for at least 30mins.

Actually saw an article the other day that showed that sahm don't necessarily spend more active time with their kids than working mums

I am so glad you changed your name from Meanoldmummy

Sounds like I'll be in the same position as you soon canadianmum - thanks for the encouragement and will keep the wine cooled! For those Mums who cannot understand us SAHMS with Nannies because they don't want someone else caring for their kids - then I envy them. I find playing with and entertaining my children hard work and really felt that I needed those days in the week when I could be as little or as much involved with my boys as I wanted essential for me to keep my sanity. Don't get me wrong, I love my children, but I will always maintain that being a mother comes more naturally to some than others. Those days 'off' give me some breathing space, so that on the other days, I can really appreciate and enjoy being with them without thinking 'I should be doing this or that'. My Nanny has also helped me by introducing new ideas/activities/methods that she has picked up over her years of experience - things that I probably never would have thought of. I don't regret having her for a minute and just hope I don't regret losing her!

What about people who work not for the money, but because they enjoy it? Is it OK to fob the kids off on the nanny then?

If you have twins having an extra pair of hands is great. Very sensible. I think that's what is missing in a lot of this., Yes its lovely to clear up accidents, sort out the cooking, be there, do the mum stuff etc, but its not easy to chase ds1 to wipe his bum and get him dressed before he spreads it everywhere (usually on ds2's bed), whilst ds3 is screaming because he's in his playpen (or even worse legging it towards the stairs as fast as his 13 month old legs will carry him) whilst ds2 is tugging at me saying "mummy can you come and build my train track". With an extra pair of hands everyone is happy. DS2 may like me to build his train track with him, but he prefers anyone to no-one (which is what tends to happen if I'm looking after all 3).

yes of course poppadum - cos thats what I do

What you describe could be the experience of any mother with more than one young child, GBIYJJ, not just twins. Yes, it is bloody hard work, and draining, and demanding. But my reasons still stand for not getting somebody else to do it. No-one is saying it is easy (apart from large sections of the media, men, and some WOHMs)

Well said Greensleeves.

(previous post, I mean)

If you lie on the sofa and eat cream cakes all day while a nanny plays with your children, I suppose you can be classed as lazy, but it doesn't necessarily make you a lazy or bad mum. No more than being a SAHM or a WOHM says anything about your mothering skills as such......

Wahey - lets ban cream cakes!!!!

I am fairly sure that at no other point in history have children been so exclusively reared by their parents, as they are currently done in the developed West. A friend of mine worked out in the foothills of the Himalayas and as soon as babies no longer need to be breastfed they are left with the village old people & other children while their parents all go off to work, to get food & make stuff so that they don't all die of hunger. There is no agonising over it, it is simply about survival. I imagine that this is what it must be like in most places apart from the developed West and until not so long ago here too.
Seems crazy to me that we are all trying to score points over who wants to be a SAHM with no extra help or not. If you can afford it, why on earth not? Children need consistent care - it doesn't have to be a mother's care. It doesn't have to be anyone in particular. They just develop best if they are well attached to a carer or even several carers. If you want that to be you and enjoy it, well that's great. If you can afford for it to be someone else & you are quite happy with that - well then as a parent that is your decision to make too.

Enid - downright f**g lazy

Ah, Bugsy, your post has led us full circle. and I expect to hear the strident cry of "But why did you have children then?" ring out any minute! I agree with your point about the developed West; never have so many perfectly good mums felt so much guilt over so little.

I can't speak for mothers in other cultures, historically or geographically, because I only grew up in this one. All I can say is that for me personally, while my children are little, it feels completely natural and right for me as their mother to be the one who cares for them, knows all their habits and preferences and needs, disciplines and nurtures them, cleans up their mess, feeds them, reads with them - it is consistent in a way that multiple carers are not. It's not for show, or to make a political point, it's just a question of doing what comes naturally. And I do believe that it is what's right for them too, while they are so young. I know them so much better than anyone could who cared for them part-time or was paid to attend to them.

I don't think anyone is trying to score points - people are simply offering their personal perspectives. I certainly am. It's interesting how many angry and defensive reactions there are here.

on the subject of having full time childcare when you are a lady of leisure that is slightly odd to my mind, would more understand the frequent use of a babysitting service for example when the mother wanted to do other things, however , what do i know, maybe these women are more re-assured having the same face around and a person who has an ongoing relationship with their children. I don't think all childcare is WRONG or failing at motherhood or anything absurd like that. If a woman wants to work, thats her right, i am sure that 99.9% of women are carefully considering the pros and cons, e.g more money for the family, self-happiness, childrens welfare etc and making sound decisions. you know, some women have children who they very much wanted to have but the reality of it is that they find it stressful/extremely hard for whatever reason and therefore may feel that they can't cope and are very wise in making the decision to work/have help so that they can be a calmer nicer parent to their children. of course this is a luxury if the woman is not going to work and a lot of mothers couldn't afford this if they wanted to. question is which kids grow up the soundest? the ones who had their mothers constantly there but perhaps screaming at them and plonking them inb front of the telly or the ones who had nannys and constant 'activities' organised for them to do but ''perhaps'' missed their mums. who knows?! we all have our reasons for doing what we do and choosing the choices we make, 99.9% of us love our children and are just doing what we think is best! ...was reading this article about happiness in psychologies magazine recently and it said that a lot of unhappiness came down to choice, so the more options you have to choose between the more unhappy you are. for example the woman who has the finances to choose whether to have a nanny and not work may be more unhappy than one who doesn't have this option as they have the choice and therefore they can be with their children/at lunch with their friends/away for the weekend with their husbands etc and feel uncertain that they've made the right decision, whilst a mother with none of those options is simply satisfied as she is. ?

The thing is Greensleeves, every time you say that you believe you are "right" when you express your point of view, as you just did in your last post - it automatically infers that those who do something else are wrong in your opinion.
No one wants to think that they are doing the "wrong" thing for their children and that is what gets people defensive.

a friend of mine nannied for a very rich couple in new york who never spent time with the kids and went away at weekends to have dos at their long island beach home and the nanny had to stay in manhattan to be with the kids as they werent invited plus the woman adopted a child because she said she didnt have time to be pregnant and it would ruin her figure!!! plus two years later she adopted another child for same reasons..she`s such a socialite and never spends time with her kids in fact the child didnt even realise it had a real mother as the nanny had had the child from birth as she came into the job as the maternty nurse then became the nanny!!!! but i must admit if i had the money i would have p/t help just so i could get o with the boring chores errands that my kids wouldnt enjoy and then have someone to clean so i could spend quality time with my kids without having to dash off t get on with yet another job!!!

But every time you state your opinion, Bugsy, it infers that mine is wrong too! That is the nature of debate, surely? It doesn't bother me one jot, because I believe I am doing the right thing for my children (note use of the word "my"). I, like all SAHMs, get fairly fed up of being talked down to, jeered at and generally treated like a poorly-educated, socially irrelevant brood mare, and with the assumption that, because I believe that what I am doing is right for my children, I must LOVE cooking and cleaning and Playdoh and poster paint, and never find it dull or wish I had more time to myself. Of course I do - I just don't believe that it would be the right thing to do. There are some gaping misunderstandings between women who work outside the home and women who do not. I do not think that my posts are loaded with scorn and hostility for mothers who are doing things differently from me, although the very nature of discussion means that I am presenting the full-time SAHM's view. There are plenty of posts illustrating the other viewpoints in this debate, and it doesn't make me feel defensive.

I don't think cleaning up after children and doing their washing constitutes "the nuts and bolts of parenting" Greensleeves. Children mostly couldn't care less about a clean house/who cleans up their mess. So in order for it to be worthy it has to be hard is that right? So hard and boring, i.e. cleaning and washing and getting bloody annoyed about it = ok but pleasurable and interesting - eating cream cakes and getting your hair done - = not OK? I so don't get this work ethic thing but as I've said I do idle very well indeed. I'm on the second day of sitting on my arse on the sofa while someone else looks after my children!

I suppose I try not to go around saying I am "right" Greensleeves. Yes, I have an opinion but I do not believe it is necessarily "right". I can't see a problem with well off women paying for additional childcare. It is their choice. I'm not saying it is wrong or right. I don't think they are lazy or hardworking - I have absolutely no idea tbh.
I have been a SAHM, while on maternity leave. Currently I don't have a choice about working as I'm on my own. It's a luxury that I can't afford. Don't really recall much sneering of SAHMs here on Mumsnet, certainly no more than for WOHMs. Each to their own I say. We all have to work out what is best for us and our families and is always better to do that without someone suggesting that our way is not the "right" way!

I think my children, while very little, do gain additional security and a feeling of being loved and cared for, from the knowledge that their mum takes care of their physical needs. I know my 3yo takes great delight in watching me wash his clothes and clean up after his painting and make his lunch. He is interested in how it's all done, but he is also pleased that I do it for him, and he knows that I do it because I love him and care about him. And now he is getting a bit bigger he is starting to want to help, too, and regards it as something nice he can do "for Mummy, because we love each other". Those are his own words. It isn't worthy (what an awful word) because it's hard. It's worth doing, in my opinion, because I believe it's the most secure and happy way for my children to experience their early childhood. It's not driven by some horrible servile work ethic, or to be holier-than-thou and make other mothers feel bad. I will definitely work when they are older - I look forward to it. But while they are tiny I do think it's a vital part of the parenting role for them to know that I take care of their physical and emotional needs (in partnership with their father, of course, who pulls his weight and is very close to them). It would feel terribly wrong to pay a stranger to do the bits I find less edifying. If I employed such a person now, I think my sons would feel rejected and betrayed. I can't speak for anyone else's children.