My husband and I do not have children yet, but we both want to have a baby. Maybe in a year or so....We both are busy, both own our own business and I am not a kind of a woman who can be a stay at home wife/ mom and be happy. I would like to stay at home with our future baby as long as I can, but eventually I have to go back to work. I think a live in nanny is a good idea. I mean I am not planning on working all day long and I want to spend time with my children and take care of them, but at the same time I know that I will go insane if I stay at home all the time taking care of the kids. My husband says that it is wrong to have a live in nanny because a mother should raise the kids, not a stranger. He thinks that I should stay at home until our future baby is at least 3 years old. He says that it is selfish and irresponsible to hire someone to take care of your baby. What do you think? Am I being selfish? Is something wrong with me?
2007-08-31 09:05:13 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Family & Relationships ➔ Marriage & Divorce
we both do not have anybody who could help us with a baby, our families live far away.
2007-08-31 09:11:05 · update #1
I think a live-in nanny is great. I've seen it work all around the world and I think it's great for the kids. She can become part of the family and a great blessing when you need time to yourself or to go out together.
2007-08-31 09:13:50 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
You guys haven't even figured out your own living arrangements yet - and you're arguing about a "live-in" nanny already? There's nothing wrong with a live-in nanny, but the child I'm sure would much rather have a parent who stayed home with them. There are different arrangements that can be made. If you're a career woman, maybe your husband could stay home with the kids; this is becoming more and more common nowadays. Perhaps there's something you can do (work-wise) that wouldn't take you away from home. Your husband has a point there; he's not even telling you that you have to give up working indefinitely - only for the duration of some of the very formative years of the child's life. I don't think 3 years is very much to ask for. When you are a mother, there are soo many more sacrifices that will need to be made - staying home for 3 years will seem like a walk in the park. I think, unless you're in dire circumstances when you couldn't survive and support the family without both paychecks, it is a much more responsible option to have one of the parents stay home with the child. And, like I say - this will not be the last, or the largest, sacrifice you will ever make for your children.
2007-08-31 16:25:06 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I can say I know many people who are wealthy and have a live in Nanny. I also know of stay at home moms who are not able to have a live in Nanny. The difference is the children with a nanny look at the nanny as there mother. Regardless of you spending time with your children they will bond to the one who is always around. In addition pending on who the nanny is do you really think this (nanny) is going to love your child like you will. It's a job to them. I know it's easier to go to work then be a stay at home mom but, your husband has a few valid points. Can you work part time from home so you are around even with a nanny? Take some time to think about all the play dates, activities there are what stay at home mom stays home every day?
2007-08-31 16:17:57 · answer #3 · answered by Kat G 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think children should be with their parents. If you have enough money to live on, then one of you should stay at home. Children involve SACRIFICE. The problem nowadays is most people do not want to actually give anything up.
My friend has a nanny (not live-in) and the child has is so attached to the nanny that she tells her mom she does not love her anymore and to "go away". (She is only 2!)
Perhaps you could work something out to where you only work part-time and had a nanny who comes only 2-3 times a week. But please do not be one of these women who "could" be there for their children but choose to further themselves instead.
Children who have parents that are involved in their lives will be happier and healthier children.
2007-08-31 16:49:16 · answer #4 · answered by lefttheroom222 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think the two of you shouldn't have children til you can find some sort of agreement.
Whats right for one woman isn't necessarily right for another. So I can't answer that for you, because if I had had the option I would have loved to have been able to stay at home with my baby. There was nothing worse than having to go back to work. I too thought I wouldn't have a problem and would NEED to go back to work for myself...but letting someone else get to see all of my child's firsts (first tooth, first crawl, first steps) breaks my heart and makes me resentful. I kept myself very busy that first 6 weeks and I'm sure that I'd of still been very busy.
2007-08-31 16:14:47 · answer #5 · answered by gypsy g 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think you are both making that decision way too soon. after your first baby is born, you may want to stay home. after your first baby you may NEED help. but the great thing is that you are discussing these things before hand. keep communication open and really try and keep an open mind. you'll never believe how much you evolve after giving birth. both of you might find you have completely new opinions and ideas.
2007-08-31 16:24:20 · answer #6 · answered by twosey ♥ 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋