Help me articulate why this comment by a nanny bothers me so much...

[mamasaurus]

I am a nanny-employer, so I keep up on nanny-related news and events. There was an article today in the USA Today about nannies - very positive about them, by the way. There was a nanny quoted several times - Michelle LaRowe. She has written a book about being a nanny and was the International Nanny Association's Nanny of the Year one year, and so they wanted to quote her. Anyway, she made the following comment:

"I commit myself (to) ... raising emotionally, physically and spiritually healthy children. I have an objective eye, and my views aren't tainted with umbilical-cord emotions."

What? Umbilical-cord emotions? : I mean, does that sound like a slam against Mothers or what?

I was even more annoyed about it because I have a great nanny who would never say anything like that. My nanny is highly experienced, educated, and just terrific with kids. Yet, she would never say something like that. She would consider that such an insult to me.

What exactly about that statement is getting my goat? Can you all articulate it for me? Because I'm so livid right now, I can't seem to get my thoughts in order.

Here's the link:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/compan...ies-usat_x.htm

[SneakyPie]

It's bothering you because there is *no such thing* as an "objective" view of raising children. We are ALL "tainted" by emotion, whether it is of blood relation or thinking children are no good or carrying our own childhood baggage or whatever. So she is making an impossible statement to start with.

Next, she is making children into "objects" in this view, which is completely creepy.

Last and worst, it's pissing you (and me) off because she is implying that a mother's love of her child blinds her to a child's real needs. Of course the exact opposite is true -- the better we are able to feel and express our love, the better able we are to identify our children's needs and assist them.

Does that help? I'm sure there's more!

[oceanbaby]

It's because it implies that she would be better at doing this than you would be because as the mother you can't be objective.

[Ann-Marita]

Those "umbilical cord emotions" that she denigrates are the basis of all society, IMNSHO. Without a mother's love for her child, family units, extended families, tribes, villages - none of this happens without first a mother loving her child. Not a nanny, a MOTHER.

I find her comment very insulting.

[dantesmama]

No one can raise "emotionally, physically, and spiritually healthy children" better than the loving, attached mother of those children. Sure, a nanny might see children in a different light, but that's because she doesn't know them so well. This comment irks me because of the way she put it - "tainted with umbilical-cord emotions" - makes it sound like you can't do what's best for your children because you love them and you gave birth to them. It makes loving your children sound like a bad thing!

[OakBerry]

I don't find her statement offensive, just laughable. What does she want, a bunch of little kid-robots? "Umbilical Cord emotions" are essential, her job is secondary!

[MamaBug]

I honestly found the comment that SHE is "raising" the children more offensive. And yes perhaps she does not have the connection to my children like I do because I gave birth to them, however that does not mean I cannot be objective and I would hate for any nanny I might have to not feel connected and emotional about my child in some way? Very odd. I was also a nanny and I loved those girls almost as dearly as I now love my own boys.

[mamasaurus]

Thanks Mamas! Keep the thoughts coming! I'm getting it now!

[Breeder]

What a smug, idiotic, self important thing to say! :

If I was her employer and I read that quote she would be dismissed immediately, award winner or not.

I wonder how she 'raises' children, do the parents just take off for Africa when the baby is a week old and return when they are an adult? I find it hard to believe that people just hand over their children saying, "Do what you will, I have no say in what my children should be taught." Having an "objective eye" doesn't matter if people want their kids raised in a certain way.

[talk de jour]

That's too creepy for words. It's like she views herself and the children as robotic automatons, and the mothers as slithering pools of uncontrollable emotion.

Creeeeeeeeepy. :

[mamasaurus]

I figured it out!!!!

It's her use of the word "tainted"!!! As in "tainted with umbilical-cord emotions."

What a horrible choice of word... Big thumbs down...



Here's the definition:

taint ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tnt)
v. taint·ed, taint·ing, taints
v. tr.
To affect with or as if with a disease.
To affect with decay or putrefaction; spoil. See Synonyms at contaminate.
To corrupt morally.
To affect with a tinge of something reprehensible.

v. intr.
To become affected with decay or putrefaction; spoil.

n.
A moral defect considered as a stain or spot. See Synonyms at stain.
An infecting touch, influence, or tinge.

[Ann-Marita]

I agree. If she had said "colored with umbilical-cord emotions" it would have been less offensive.

But I still wouldn't like the statement. She comes off as being very arrogant.

[Kirsten]

Hmmm... well, I guess I'm in the minority here. I don't find it odd or insulting at all (except maybe the "raising" part - though some nannies DO raise the kids; it depends on the situation).

I was a nanny for five years - after college graduation and before having kids of my own. Eleven hours a day and took care of everything remotely related to their son, and lots of stuff that wasn't. I took him for his first haircut. My dh and I took him to his first movie at the theater (my dh took the afternoon off work to do so). I bought all his clothes (on her charge card of course), as well as all his birthday and holiday gifts from them. I took him for professional photos, then chose which ones to buy. I did all the research on preschools. I planned his birthday parties. I took him to all his pediatrician appointments (well checks, as well as when he was sick - even took him to the hospital to be checked for e coli once). I was ATTACHED to this boy! To this day, my dh refers to him as my firstborn (as in "your firstborn called today").

And honestly, I was did a MUCH better job as a nanny than I do as a SAHM. MUCH better. Not even remotely close. It is sad, but it is true. I was more patient. I played on the floor with him more. I took him to more parks, zoos, etc. I did all the "mommy and me" stuff - swimming, gymnastics, etc. I explained everything from Martin Luther King to why you can see the moon during the day sometimes. Because I had more time just to focus on him. My "real" life was back at my house - so none of my time with him was taken up with household stuff (well, that isn't exactly true - I did do their laundry and grocery shopping, but would have him help me). I just was younger and more excited about all the "firsts" and less stressed with life in general. AND (this is the biggie I think) had breaks every night and every weekend! Imagine how much more positive and patient and energetic we could be if we got that much down time for ourselves??

But in reference to the "umbilical cord" comment - I think she means that we (as moms) feel guilty if we do too much or too little. We question if we are making the right decision about everything. It is on us; if we screw them up, there is no one to blame but ourselves. Sometimes we break down and let them have something they shouldn't because we are too tired to argue/insist. That never happened when I was a nanny. I was fresh every morning at 7:00 a.m. - I stuck to my guns and was really consistent. He did so well with that! I loved that little boy with all my heart; I was so loving with him (he told me "I love you" and I didn't mention to the mom. A week or two later, she excitedly told me that he'd said it to her. I didn't tell her he'd already told me.) But I could hold my ground with him better than I do with my own kids - or than she did with him. There isn't the guilt that goes along wtih - did he get this trait from me? Did I do something - or not do something - that caused him to act this way? When the little boy I nannied misbehaved in public, it wasn't a reflection on me. I could stay really calm and just do what needed to be done. It is harder with my own kids.

I just understand the comment the nanny made, and think it is accurate. Coming from having been a nanny and a mom, I can see it from both sides. I don't think it is a slam on mothers at all. It is her perception, and I think it would hold true in my experience.

[Tonia80]

I think she came off very arrogant on the whole thing. makes us mommies look pretty clueless all wrapped up in our emotions with no common sense. And I agree about her "raising" comment. Thogh I have known a couple nannies who had to do just that, to proclaim that as your objective as a nanny....hoo boy, if she were MY nanny her POV would get her fired.

[BusyMommy]

Yes, very poor choice of words. I"d like to give her the benefit of the doubt but her comment was so steeped in ambiguity it's easy to read her as arrogant.


And, yes, I thank God I am tainted by umbilical cord emotions. Sure wouldn't hire or recommend anyone who saw that as a disadvantage or fault.

[seablue]

I think one reason the comment is annoying is that it plays into prevalent attitudes towards parents and mothers in particular. This notion that someone else can be 'objective' and know how to raise another person's child better than the child's own parents is what fuels the aggressive and coercive tone of what is dictated as 'correct' parenting. Each parent-child relationship is unique and, like in a marriage, is best understood and managed by those within it. Think about it, the relationships of a child to each of its parents is different, and what works with one parent may not work with the other.

We have had a part-time nanny for the last eight months, and I am very happy that my son has learned to love someone else. But there's no need to compete for his love, the point is for him to be able to love many people in different ways. And it seems that the 'I'm better than the Mom because I'm more objective routine' is at least in part about having somehow won such a competition. With all due respect to the nanny who responded by describing her own very deep connection to the child she nannied (and given the amount of hours a day, it's not surprising), I find it telling that you had to comment that the child had said 'I love you' to you first (and that this happened without the mom's knowledge). For all the objectivity that gets bandied about as being so great for dealing with children, what it really boils down to is the emotional bond with the child.

Which is also why I find it disturbing that emotions are being cast as problematic. What are human relationships about if not emotions? Parent-child relationships are more complicated precisely because of the amount of emotion, but that is what gives the relationship depth and sustenance. I'm a better parent than I was a babysitter (and don't get me wrong, I was a very good babysitter), because 'objectivity' doesn't give me more patience or understanding with a child, but the intense emotion I feel for that child does. And don't forget that my capacity to deal with our emotional relationship is something that I'm also teaching and transmitting to this child. Perhaps if we started to value that as much as this so-called 'objectivity' we'd have less of the emotionally walking-wounded in this world...

[wannabe]

Another ex-nanny here.

I would say I do find it insulting to mothers, or maybe a better way of saying it is that I think she's missed the point.

The advantage a nanny has is not that they don't have the mother-love, but that they have a wide range of experience. All kids are different, and most mother have only known one or two kids. Nannies have known dozens.

[Inci]

I'm a former nanny, current babysitter, not-yet-a-mama, and I find that nanny's comment insulting to mothers!! SHE won "nanny of the year"?? Ugh. Makes me want a new name for the job I do, so I don't have to be associated with her and people who celebrate her views.
talk de jour, you said it perfectly - "That's too creepy for words. It's like she views herself and the children as robotic automatons, and the mothers as slithering pools of uncontrollable emotion." So wonderfully descriptive!

I've been babysitting/nannying for 14 years, and have cared for 170+ children, from 54+ families... I do the work because there's nothing I love more than being with children. But I am always aware of the weirdness of the fact that I wish my job wasn't necessary. That is, I know and fully admit that I, as a nanny, am second best to the parents. I wish parents could/would stay home with their children instead of hiring nannies; I think it would be better for the kids. But as long as I AM nannying, I take my job very seriously and give the kids all the love and attention that I can. (I was raised with AP, and although calling myself an "AP nanny" is a contradiction in terms, I do my best to let AP principles guide me!)
Mostly, I have nannied by piecing together several part-time nanny jobs. There was a time when I was interviewing for lots of positions, including ones for 10-11 hrs/day. One mother was looking for a nanny from before her son woke up in the morning until after he went to sleep at night, and I realized with a shock, wow, that means she - his MOTHER - would only see him on weekends or if he woke up in the middle of the night! I wouldn't feel comfortable working for a family that devalued the parent-child bond so much that they'd want me/a nanny there that many hours.

I agree with you, seablue, about the value of emotions/emotional bonds, and how troubling it is that emotions are so often viewed as problematic. I've worked with children in a wide variety of settings over the years, and although I can no longer make a living nannying/babysitting because I need health and dental insurance, I prefer nannying precisely because it allows for closer relationships with children than relationships formed with children in institutional settings (schools, daycares). I've worked in preschools that actually have "no hugging" rules!! Bonding with children in preschools is taboo - "attached" is a bad word. When someone refers to a child being "attached" to a teacher, it's usually in a way that makes the child sound like a barnacle that must be dislodged.
I love nannying because the families I've been with have welcomed me into their families, and to me it's an honor and a joy. I love the children as if they were kin. I don't say "as if they were my own," because that doesn't describe it - as a nanny, I don't see myself as a mother substitute. My favorite nanny jobs have been the ones in which there were opportunities for the parents and kids and I to all hang out together! I think if I had negative feelings towards the parents - jealousy, bitterness, disapproval - I wouldn't be a very good nanny, nor would they be a good family for me to work for. There has to be a "good match," in nanny lingo. When I've nannied for parents whose philosophies and child-raising practices were in opposition to mine, my time with them has generally been short-lived. I could never be a full-time, long-term nanny for children of parents whom I disapproved of, arrogantly thinking I was "better" for the kids. I think that kind of attitude (from the nanny) only serves to weaken the parent-child bond even more.
Over the years, I've gotten to know a lot of different parents, and thus, a lot of different parenting styles. It has helped me become more flexible and open-minded, and see more shades of gray, instead of always black and white, "right" and "wrong." Although I was raised with AP and plan on APing my own (future) children, I have learned to have compassion for all parents - who are almost always genuinely doing what they feel is best, or trying to, and genuinely love their children. I am strongly against spanking/physical punishment of any kind, but on the other hand, the family/children I spent the longest time with and was most bonded with occasionally used spanking as a discipline method. When I was able to see firsthand that the household was full of hugs, kisses, "I love you"s, laughter, joy, silliness, play, cuddles, togetherness, respect, trust, empathy, fun, compassion, AND the occasional spanking, I could no longer hold onto my stereotypical view of parents who spank as mean and uncaring. They were wonderful parents whom I respected. I still won't ever spank my own (or anyone else's, for that matter!), but I won't be so quick to judge those who do.

Wow, tangent city. Sorry! My point, I think, was just that I would never give a nanny who looks down on parents, or thinks she's better for the kids than their parents are, an award... no matter HOW skilled she is with the kids and how much the kids like/respect/listen to her. It's not the point.

[mamasaurus]

Inci - that was an amazing post. Thank goodness there are nannies like you in the nanny profession.

[CalebsMama05]

Originally Posted by mamasaurus

Inci - that was an amazing post. Thank goodness there are nannies like you in the nanny profession.

ITA!!!!