Sorry guys, gotta go with Jeff on this one. Some things in life are WAY more important than others.

I also agree - to some extent.

We don't know how much time the mother is away; some short nanny-time won't hurt and has been very common thru history. Obviously, this one is not a good one.

..."become a real mom". What a sanctimonious load of crap.

^^^^ yep. Sorry Mr Higgins...not right at all.

Nothing wrong with a nanny from the time school is out to the time parents get home. It's what happens after that that counts. I'm afraid many parents fail in the time they have so having a LOT more time may not solve any problems.

Higgins, you might have to bend a little here.

I still think his overall point is a good one -- as long as it isn't pushed too far.

One thing to consider of course is that the little one is 3 and has special needs.

I would be even more cautious than usual entrusting the care (not parenting) of my child to someone in this instance. I would want someone who can demonstrate relevant experience in whatever special needs little one has.

Parenting encompasses so much more than a few hours extra a day spent with your kids. You all know this; you're intelligent men ;).

What makes a good Mum isn't spending 24/7 with her kids.

Now, what makes a good Dad???

Now that's what i'd call ironic.

Oh, I know, that came off a bit more harsh than intended. My apologies.

I'm inferring from the nature of the situation described that she is a "full time" nanny. He did say his wife is working and the kid is only three. With special needs at that.

I have no issues whatsoever with a few hours of after school care to fill the gap between when the kids get home and the parents get home. My issue is with full time nannies and daycare for children that should be at home with their own mom.

I believe modern society has pushed women (and men) into unnatural roles in some misguided zeal to be "progressive" or "modern". Women have been pushed into ever more masculine roles, and men have been expected to abandon the traditional vestiges of manhood. I'm sure the "progressive" elements of our society that have been pushing these changes would be tickled pink to see men and women meet somewhere in the middle, with no clear distinctions left between the two.

Problem is, everything they hope for flies in the very face of human nature. The fallout from these efforts could keep us busy discussing and debating forever, so I'll stick to the original issue - child rearing.

Let's face it - women are eminently more suited to the nurturing of our children than men can ever hope to be. And no one, no matter what they are paid, no matter how loving and caring they can be, will ever replace mommy's love and affection. Truth be told, even in a healthy, normal family, daddy can't even do that. Particularly for infants, that aspect of their relationship with their mother is the most critical thing in their young lives. It is not something that can be provided by anyone else. It's not something that mommy can provide on a part-time basis, when she is done with "more important" things. Nothing is more important...

Every couple I have ever known who employ a nanny, or drop the kid(s) off at full-time daycare, justify this behavior by claiming mom "has" to work. Yup - she "has" to work so they can live in the right house in the right neighborhood. She "has" to work so he can drive a Porsche. She "has" to work so they can take expensive vacations (often leaving the children at home with relatives). She "has" to work so they can go out for fancy dinners, be members of the right country club or tennis club.

Most often, though, it seems she "has" to work because if she didn't, why, she would be "just" a mom. Pretty tough on her at the cocktail parties and other social events where all the career women look upon her with scorn and derision, with their ill-founded superiority complexes placing the "mom" well down at the bottom of their pecking order. My wife endured this when she abandoned her career to be home with our young children. She told me at the time just how catty women are in this regard, and how humiliating it was for her to have to listen to that kind of nonsense from those women.

Fortunately, she had the self confidence and strength of will to endure all of that. She resumed her career when both kids were in school full time. We adjusted our schedules so she dropped them off in the morning and I picked them up after school. We came out of her non-working years in a bit deeper of a hole financially than we had anticipated, but we made do. We never lived in the "right" house in the "right" neighborhood and drove the "right" cars to the "right" clubs or any of that. We made do, because we had made that commitment when we decided to undertake the most awesome responsibility ever entrusted to mankind - raising the next generation.

Funny, now, after having been married 25 years and having raised two wonderful boys, most of those oh-so-superior women have been divorced (some more than once), their kids have almost universally been in one form of trouble or another (some dropping out of school, some knocking up or getting knocked up, some with records already, and on and on), and their relationships with their kids are virtually non-existent.

Funny, too, now that I'm middle aged, I have never met a woman who says "I wish I has spent less time with my children when they were little".

Exactly....

Sorry Jeff still a little too pompous. Not everyone's situation is the same. Example, if the wife is in a career in which you can't simply return to the work force after a 5 year absence. Same is true if I left career for 5 years. Nobody would want to give me privileges with that kind of absence.

I know I wouldn't want to spend all day at home with the intellectual stimulation provided by a 4 year old. I don't know why a female parent would find it any less constricting.

"I believe modern society has pushed women (and men) into unnatural roles in some misguided zeal to be "progressive" or "modern". Women have been pushed into ever more masculine roles, and men have been expected to abandon the traditional vestiges of manhood."

Lots of women would argue that society pushes them into the traditional role of breeders and that if they have ambitions beyond motherhood they are looked down on as too aggressive and un-feminine.

Sorry Peter, far too selfish.

My wife is a nurse. It did take some time and effort to re-enter her career. Lots of classes, had to sit for boards again, start back on the "bottom" at virtually an entry level position, and all of that. Ten years later, she is now the nursing supervisor over half a dozen clinics in one of the largest asthma/allergy practices in Washington, with 150 some odd nurses working for her. She made it work, but it took one hell of a lot more effort (and money) than if she had farmed out our child rearing.

So, no, not everyone's situation is the same. Neither are everyone's priorities. We make the things work that are priorities for us. If your (or her) career takes priority over your children, well, I feel very sorry for your children. They only get one shot at being your kids, and you only get one shot at being their parents. They are totally at your mercy. I, for one (and my wife as well) would hate to ever have to tell our sons that either of our careers were more important to us than them. Or, worse yet, to have to lie to them and tell them they were more important than our careers, when our actions very clearly demonstrated otherwise.

Yeah, providing a house, food etc for their growing up years does sound pretty selfish.

EDIT: And don't forget the expected $200K in expenses for higher educ for each of them. Plus fund retirement (hopefully), all after starting to really work after age 35. (& no we are not in a country club, and yes the GT3 is going away - wanna buy it?)

you left out 'she "has" to work so she can advance her career as an OB/GYN'

It would have been selfish for me NOT to work. The kids would not have had anything like the opportunities we've been able to provide for them otherwise.

Over the years that would have meant -
no after school sports, dance, swimming etc.
no weekends away
no holidays
there's more but you get the gist.

The children also gained an enormous amount from attending really good childcare centres. The learning programs were excellent and the opportunity to socialise with lots of kids their own age gave them all great confidence from a very early age. And they absolutely loved the primary school after care programs.

I didn't have a choice. I would have let 3 generations down if I didn't work. Family biz is like that...I worked for Mum and Dad, I worked for Mike and I and I worked for our children. I still work for 2 generations (us and the kids).

Jeff,

what you are saying is very noble. But we don't live in an ideal world and money to live has to come from somewhere...

Otherwise it would only be the rich who had children...that's a bit Hitler-esque for me. It takes all kinds to make this world go round...selective breeding to this extent won't contribute to the tapestry of the ball we live on .

Not everyone can afford the re-training either to re-enter the workforce like your good wife. Some know they wouldn't stand a chance getting back in, so they stay and make the work/family life balance thing work for them.

Mr Higgins, my Mother practiced as an anesthesiologist for 40 years. You take the position that she was motivated by greed and selfishness.

To you, her career, the thousands and thousands of people she cared for, the years she served as Chief of Staff, Chief of Anesthesia are all tainted. This could not be further from the truth.

You have a wrong headed perception regarding this subject that causes me to question how you have come to the beliefs you hold about it.

Lots of good discussion here. Lots of shades of points of view.

In Jeff's defense, I can see that he and his wife made sacrifices in order to give their kids the best parenting they knew how to give them, and it worked out all around.

The core of Jeff's position...

...is something we all know about and have seen. Parents make choices everyday that impact their kids' lives in one way or the other.

Jeff and his wife took the best path they knew how to take, lived within their means, and have been rewarded for it.

Others have done things differently and have had it work out for them, too.

IMO, if more parents did their best to follow the path Jeff and his wife took, more kids would "turn out better."

I believe his position provides for a higher percentage of positive results on the whole parenting situation.

Just based on life experience and observation, of course.

Of course not. Why do you feel the need to resort to such patently absurd extremes in an effort to make your point?

Anyway, no, providing food, shelter, and clothing in no way sounds selfish - but the '79 930, 2.7T A6, Odyssey kid carrier, Accord sacrificial lamb, and 997 GT3RS sure do.

Oh, but wait - you are willing to "sacrifice" the GT3RS. What a guy. When our kids were young, we had two cars - one for each of us. Mine was a '71 Land Cruiser, hers was an '84 Mercury Lynx station wagon. We didn't "need" two cars apiece (and that's only after you "sacrifice" that GT3RS...).

We paid (actually still paying for the second) for both of our sons' college educations. My retirement savings are very healthy, thank you. And this is on an engineer's and a nurse's (interrupted) salary. Aren't you some kind of surgeon or something?

Not in a country club. Wow. How do you survive? I bet you still live in the "right" house in the "right" neighborhood with a mortgage that would shock a lot of folks even on this BBS flush with over-achievers.

In some families, it could be the husband who stays home as the wife makes more money (just thought I'd throw that out there just for the heck of it).

Also, in my humble opinion, the "stay home while young" thing is a little over-rated. If you want to stay home for 4 or 5 years to nurture your children, then do it while they are teenagers... They need good parenting more as a teenager then they do as a toddler.

angela