Like It Is

Mothers in particular, and parents in general, never lose a chance to tell childfree women what they are supposedly “missing” because they’ve decided not to parent. The trouble is, what they tell me I am missing and what I actually see them going through by virtue of being mothers are so different that all it does is confirm I made the right choice for me. I am talking about the bit that comes before the “…but it’s all worth it” line.

That however, is the subject of a future article. This post is about an article I came across in The Times today.

The Nanny Nightmares: 7 things you don’t want your nanny to do

I read the article, which OK, was all about the horrors things that can go wrong if you have the wrong nanny. Or if you have a nanny, period. Or, more realistically, if you fail to set some ground rules. Nannies come in all flavours and from the parents I know who have them, when you have a good one, you’d rather die before letting her (it is still invariably a her) go. There should have been a mention of the awful parents, which I am sure some nannies could attest to.

I was more interested in the responses to the article which seemed to bring out the usual suspects.

The comments vividly reminded me of the current raging battle between the SAHMS (Stay AT Home Mothers) and the GOTWMs (Go Out To Work Mothers). The SAHMs look down on the GOTWMs because they dare to go out to work and “desert” their children. They are proud to be full time mums, they intone doing their bit to raise their children and the GOTWMs are “bad mothers.” Meanwhile the GOTWMs fight a rear guard action defending not only their right to go out to work, but the fact that it’s the money, stupid. Necessary for the luxuries of life… like food and clothes for example. And they WANT to work thanks very much.

After all, if they stayed stuck at home with the kids, their brains would turn into cauliflowers that much quicker. There’s more to life than childrearing. Isn’t there? Well, isn’t there? (That’s not what they tell us childfree, by the way, but we’ll leave that one for now).

To which the SAHMs insist that if the GOTWMs did without those holidays and all the nice little luxuries, move to a cheaper place (one bed instead of two perhaps) they wouldn’t need to go out to work…they could manage. Let’s see now, exactly how would they then feed the brood?

Reading the comments to the Nanny Nightmares, I see several parallels to the SAHM vs GOTWM. The SAHMs self righteously say that if you have a child, you can’t take care of your children if you have a nanny. GOTWMs remind them that, unless you are very wealthy, not going out to work isn’t an option. Unless you consider living on welfare an option. Having a nanny is almost a necessity if you want to go out to work, particularly if both parents work.

Some of the comments are quite vitriolic. Where is the acceptance that people make the choices that work for them? If it was there at all it was drowned by the envy and criticism of others. No, the sanctimonious SAHMs insist that “their way, staying at home and sacrificing” to bring up their kids is by far the best way. The SAHMs don’t say where the lost income is supposed to come from, but that’s no surprise, really. State benefits maybe?

The most interesting assumption made by many on the board is that if you have a nanny, you must be wealthy. Of the parents I’ve known who have nannies, they were working, but not wealthy. It reminds me of how everyone thinks childfree people are wealthy simply because we don’t have kids. And have all kinds if assumptions to boot.

There were clearly two camps – the SAHMS brigade who insist why have children if you can’t/don’t want to/care for them.That women should stay home and look after them like a woman should…. and stop buying the salmon fillets (eh?!) and designer dresses and trying to “have it all “– career after child.

The opposite camp retort that the SAHM brigade needs to wake up and get a grip on reality. While they’d like nothing better than to give up work and stay home with the two-year old, economically it isn’t viable. Unless they sponge off the state. They can just about afford child-care and it allows them to work - and earn their keep.

I looked long and hard at the implications of having children on my working ability. Including child-care. I still see my colleagues run ragged or giving up careers or working when they have children because it is almost impossible to do both alone. And those who have nannies have good ones. But even good nannies get ill and can’t work. Then the finely tuned schedule collapses.

I didn’t like what I saw. Is that part of what I’m missing? I’m glad. I’m free to organise my life according to what I want. They cannot.

For this any many other reasons, I am SO glad I’m childfree.

Have a read of the comments and the article. See what you think.

Technorati Tags: childfree, parent, childfree