Help me articulate why this comment by a nanny bothers me so much... - Page 2

[loving-my-babies]

as far as I'm concerned being "tainted by emotions" is a good thing.

[wannabe]

I thought of a good argument FOR impartiality today. Consider the delayed child who might benefit from early intervention (be it physiotherapy or speech therapy or whatever). Sometimes a mother is so scared that her child might not be normal that she ignores signs that he isn't, and loses opportunities for intervention. In that situation someone who is impartial might be useful.

Originally Posted by MamaBug

I honestly found the comment that SHE is "raising" the children more offensive.

But in some families that is the case. When the nanny is in charge from waking to bed five das a week, and from waking to nap the sixth day, who is raisiing the children?

Of course, that makes her lack of emotion even sadder - you want the caregiver to love the kids.

[QT_Mommy]

It's bothering you because she's saying that, as mothers, we can't do what's best for our children because our umbilical-cord emotions screw us up.

Um, how would she know? Is she a mom?

[lilyka]

I don't know that it offends me (although I do find it quite an arrogant comment). I mean isn't that why we are constantly running things by each other here. because we want an opinion from someone who views our children a little (ok a lot) more impartially. sometimes that lack of mother love can be helpful in deciding what needs to be done.

am i partial to my children? you bet I am. they are the prettiest, smartest, fastest, strongest, funniest kids in the freaking world. and when they are driving me nuts it helps to get the opinion of someone who can see thier warts more clearly. who doesn't live and die for an "I love you mommy".

So i guess I see what she is getting at. she could have said it in a warmer, more user friendly fassion.

[Nannyshell]

From the nanny herself....

Hey there-

I came across the site on the google search and I can see that my comment seemed to upset many of the posters. Some seemed to understand what I meant, others didn't, so I figured I'd write a post.

First, I believe the word I used was TINTED, but TAINTED was what got picked up.

In no way was my comment meant to be a put down to parents, but a response to the question of "Why do children often respond better to their nannies to their parents?" and in my experience, it's because I have been more likely to stand firm, and not give in to tempting situations,when mom usually has. From those interactions with my charges, a respect develops where the child understands that I mean what I say and I say what I mean - regardless of their behavior.

I love being a nanny. I was with my last set of twins since they were ten days old- they are now seven years old. They recently moved across the country and we visit and talk regularly. For sixty hours a week, for seven years, I poured my heart and soul into these precious children. We will continue to be an important part of each other lives - as one of them always says "Shell we will be old friends."

In responds to the "raising children" comment, I work as a team player in helping to raise children - that's not the role that all nannies play, but it's the one I am most often hired to do. It's called the coordinated care model. When you engage in this model, it's usually because both parents have decided to pursue their careers along with raising a family and believe that having a nanny as a team player would best benefit their child and the needs of their family.

My comment regarding "umbilical cord emotions" means to me that because I don't have that powerful tug of connection, the tears, the whining, the tantrums don't affect me the same way as I've seen them affect moms. I can step back from the situation and see that just because it may feel good in the moment to give in, in the long run it isn't always the best solution.

So, to all who took offense, I apologize.

When you are with a child the amount of time a nanny is you impact the children you care for in such a significant way. For this reason, I've spent countless hours advocating for certification and national screening processes for in home childcare providers, educating parents on selecting qualified care givers and working with the media to educate the public on who today's nanny is- an educated professional with a working knowledge and genuine love for children. I know the impact that I make on my charges and believe that all children should have properly screened caregivers that provide above standard care.

So if believing that my job is important, that advocating for standards is important and teaching parents that they need to know who is caring for their children is important- and being vocal about it occasionally makes me come across as arrogant, I'm willing to accept it.

Being a nanny is the only job that you sign up for where your ultimate goal is to be "fired" because you are no longer needed. I take pride in knowing that I've reached that goal.

Regards,

Michelle LaRowe
2004 INA Nanny of the Year
Author, Nanny to the Rescue
www.michellelarowe.com

[lilyka]

thank you for your input.

[FancyPants]

Behavioral training versus Emotional Imprinting

Yes, thank you for responding.

It seems to me that this debate has raged for some time, hundreds and probably thousands of years. Societies as we have been able to make them work, work when people obey rules of conduct. Thus behavioral training of young humans is encouraged. Parents and guardians are praised when they produce children who adhere to whatever rules are the vogue or presumed need of the current society. I find it ironic that while behavioral training requires great consistency, the behaviors we train for have fluctuated so much over time.

On the other hand, emotional imprinting where you respond to your child in an instinctual and emotion based/empathic way (I lack a better way to phrase this), is organic and tribal and has probably been going on for millions of years. At least if you believe in evolution.

The mother who mostly requests/requires/patterns a behavior but sometimes gives in/reacts with emotion is definitely upsetting the behavioral applecart in not being consistent. However, she may be conveying to her child that he is more important to her than his behaviors. She reacts differently to him than other people or children because he is family. Tone, body language, scent and touch would all convey this.

So I would find this remark annoying because it is more of the same packaging wherein behavioral training is considered (vastly) superior to emotional imprinting, which is suspect, weak, unnecessary and detrimental to social order. Mothers who have not CIO were weak, mothers who nursed past a certain point (for my mother's generation this was 2 months and she was swayed by her umbilical cord emotion so I got a whole 3 months plus) were causing unnecessary fuss and mothers who didn't toilet train their children by 2 at the latest were dooming their children to a life of degeneracy.

Parents are always under attack for not being consistent and/or not conforming to the training methods of the day. Good caregivers (and nannies) will inevitably be more consistent, calm and therefore better at training the behaviors they desire. This is indeed because they have a certain level of detachment. So what? Baring abuse I really can't imagine a scenario in which any person will go to a therapist to resolve their issues of angst about their nanny/daycare provider/preschool teacher.
I remember many good teachers/camp counsellors/babysitters fondly but I don't still love them, kwim? On the other hand, as I muck through the emotional (and often draining) day to day grind with my children, I find myself developing an even stronger bond with my parents. My parents, by almost any behavioral yardstick, sucked. They were inconsistency defined.

And when I was 10 and so much better at being consistent while babysitting my siblings, I felt vastly superior to them too. :

[seablue]

Originally Posted by FancyPants

Parents are always under attack for not being consistent and/or not conforming to the training methods of the day. Good caregivers (and nannies) will inevitably be more consistent, calm and therefore better at training the behaviors they desire. This is indeed because they have a certain level of detachment. So what? Baring abuse I really can't imagine a scenario in which any person will go to a therapist to resolve their issues of angst about their nanny/daycare provider/preschool teacher.
I remember many good teachers/camp counsellors/babysitters fondly but I don't still love them, kwim? On the other hand, as I muck through the emotional (and often draining) day to day grind with my children, I find myself developing an even stronger bond with my parents. My parents, by almost any behavioral yardstick, sucked. They were inconsistency defined.

And when I was 10 and so much better at being consistent while babysitting my siblings, I felt vastly superior to them too. :

Well put FancyPants. Excellent response.

And if I may add, again, why are we so hung up on behavior and continue to dismiss the importance of emotions, the whole range of them, which is what makes us human, makes us grow, and makes life interesting in the first place?

[MamaAllNatural]

Michelle,

It didn't really offend me, though I agree it comes across as pretty arrogant.

It's true that kids are worse always for their own mothers/parents! It's just the way that I am way more honest/rude/emotional w/my dh. I know him more, I can open up to him more and show him my true colors. Kids are no different. It's also true that what our kids do affects us so much more physically and emotionally. When I worked in preschools and did daycare I could listen to kids scream and cry and it didn't bother me. My kids get under my skin though! All of my nerves stand on end!

Also, I agree that everyone who is spending time with your child regularly is helping to raise them. There's nothing wrong with that. It's just a fact.

As far as being better w/kids than their own parents are...well, I worked with many kids in many different settings for many years before I had kids and let me tell you...

I was the PERFECT mother BEFORE I had children!

Sad, but true. There's nothing like having your own kid to completely change your outlook, and judgements of parents.

[mamasaurus]

Yes, thank you for responding.

There is also a conversation about your comment over at the Nanny Network message board, in case you are interested.

[vermonttaylors]

Originally Posted by 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!

: Really well said Sneaky Pie!