'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?

WHY are the most chippy people on this thread women who WORK full time...so not even anything to do with the original idea?

I'm a WAHM. DS1 goes to playschool in the mornings, and DS2 goes to mum's one morning a week, the rest of the time they are both with me. We colour, paint, read, cook, take walks, play etc. All of which is done during the day and early evening. I get caught up on work in the evenings and weekends.

Personally I couldn't justify paying for a full time nanny if I wasn't working away from home full time. But I do kind of envy people with the money to be able to do that - Ooooh, can you imagine being able to take a shower by yourself?

enid, please define what you mean by "chippy" - i notice you use that word quite a lot.

My goodness, some of you seem to be going in for personal attacks on this: obnoxious, Vicki Pollardesque, spoilt brat, more money than sense etc and all in reference to another MNer. I think you are going against the MN philosophy completely. Not on.
Of course you can disagree with what someone else does and thinks but there is no need to be personal and rude about it.

Those remarks were in response to being called "narrow-minded" and "dull" by the poster at whom they were directed. Why do you single out one side?

I didn't realise that you and Enid had specifically been singled out as narrow minded and dull. I will re-read the post.

The poster referred by clear implication to full-time SAHMs with no paid childcare as "narrow-minded" and having "dull lives". That's obnoxious in my view.

oh, fgs Coolmama, your post led us all to think you were a SAHM - of course we were fked off at the thought of you swanning around with a nanny to do the boring bits.

That's the whole point of the thread ffs.

Just re-read, no specific condemnation of anyone poster by Coolmama. Indeed she even posts a later apology for the strength of her feelings. Still feel it is not in the spirit of Mumsnet to single out one particular poster out for such scathing condemnation and personal attack.

Not necessarily Greensleeves. The way I read her post she referred to those who judged other peoples choices as narrow-minded and dull.

I responded to her apology with an explanation of why those remarks were made. She hasn't come back to argue about it. If you need to see yourself as champion of the Mumsnet philosophy, Bugsy2, then complain to Mumsnet.

well that's a very forgiving way of reading it Fairymum

I thought I would express my feelings on here in a grown up way, rather than having to bother Mumsnet towers. I think that is allowed!

Nobody is stopping you FGS

DH happened to mention an article the other day....written by a couple/family psychotherapist whose work he particularly respects (he's in same field).

This woman (can't remember name) thinks that many stressed families have a belief that they 'should' be able to cope alone ie without childcare. That they put themselves under enormous pressure to do so, whereas in the past, it was the accepted norm that parents coped with extra help from extended family, communities of various sorts, etc. She also believes that, if its at all possible, families benefit from having some sort of childcare (paid or unpaid, nursery or nanny, whatever).

In other words, that the loss of community and extended family have left a gap that, if not recognized and addressed, can cause shame or guilt or stress. She actually advises people to get some childcare if its at all possible.

Not relevent to the original post, obviously, nor to those who are happy and relaxed about not having help, or who have family/community around to help with children.

But it might be interesting to anyone (eg me) who tends to feel guilty for having help.
Thought I'd throw it in for good measure

well thats a load of middle class angsty shite as loads of people can't afford any bloody childcare.

sorry

Well to repeat what others have said, really each to their own surely? Elibean's point is interesting; I am a sahm of 4. the ypungest is just 2. I have no shame in admitting to 3 hours daily paid help (v. experienced mother's help) every weekday afternoon, plus recently I have added on a midday to 3pm bit of "me time", once a week. I'd get no time to myself at all otherwise, as dh works long hours which sometimes includes all/part of the weekend. The me time is sometimes really just that, though often I find myself filling it with dental appointments, eyetests etc. which aren't easy with a busy toddler in tow.
I have no family help. I work b*** hard, but also realise I'm lucky that we can, for now, afford the help.

Should add that the 3 hours a day allows me to "split up" the children at school run time, rather than allowing me time off for personal trainers, manicures etc. I have 3 hours to myself per week. I think that's reasonable.

It is interesting, Elibean, but there are plenty of studies and articles claiming the direct opposite. No one article is going to be that useful in proving that one view is correct.

I think Elibean's point is good - but tbh it's the sense of community I'd welcome more than the opportunity for >>vomit

I wouldn't get help even if I had the money, simply because I don't think it's "natural" for someone who is not the child's actual parent to look after a child for most hours of the day.

Quite often it comes down to: what is more important, making money or looking after your own child 24/7 for at least the first few years of their lives ?

I say this as an ex-lawyer who gave it all up to look after my son. I don't think any amount of money would make leaving my son with a total stranger justifiable.

I remember a very senior female partner at my ex-law firm coming back to work FULL-TIME exactly 3 days after giving birth. That is not what I call good parenting. Good for the pocket, but not good parenting.

I think "modern" society has it's priorities really screwed up.

totally agree Enid.

can't afford any desperately needed childcare here, usually getting paid peanuts to supply it!

But if you have the money to pay for some childcare, I honestly don't see what is wrong with it as long as your family is happy? It's not exactly neglect to leave your children in the care of others for a few hours a day if you have a manicure or conduct a secret affair with your window cleaner?

but fairymum, i thought this thread was about having full time care and not working, not a few hours?