Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Igel

(37,550 posts)
5. Government support wouldn't do it.
Fri Aug 3, 2012, 04:19 PM
Aug 2012

The VPs a friend nannied for are a good example. They "had it all"--the woman worked as a VP at a financial institution. Nice house. Nice neighborhood. (Okay: Great house. Great neighborhood.) Relatively easy commute. No government support, but enough money to mimic it in spades: Live in nanny.

Except that the woman was "wired" wrong for this. She resented the nannies because her young children considered them closer than "mommy." Kid skins her knee while playing on the weekend with mommy, and cries, asking for the nanny. Little boy accomplishes something with his father, and his father says, "Go show mommy"--and the boy says, "No, I'm going to show aunt Sue!"

So every year the mother insisted on a different nanny. Government support wouldn't help this. Reduced hours, working half-time, would have. But the mother wired to be a stay-at-home mom, the mother wasn't wired to miss seeing her kids growing up.

There's the utilitarian, practical side: money, labor, housework. That you can share. Then there's the emotional side of raising a family. Put the kids in a day care? Won't solve that problem or it'll keep the kids from bonding, which is no less a problem.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Editorials & Other Articles»Who said “We could have i...»Reply #5