Au Pairs - the great debate.

MagicMarker · 22-03-2009 06:24PM #1

A post in another forum got me thinking about this.

What are people's opinions on Au Pairs? Or more to the point, parents who feel the need to hire one? Firstly, you're trusting a complete stranger to come into your home and practically raise your kid(s). Now I don't have any kids, but I don't know if i'd be comfortable with my kid 'bonding' with someone the way they should be bonding with me, all because I'm ''career driven''.

For all the women AND men out there, would you prefer to stay career focused and hire an au pair if it was financially viable? Or would you prefer to be a stay at home mum/dad?

22-03-2009 06:32PM

I'd prefer to continue working part time so I don't go insane from being deprived of adult company and talking babytalk all the time. I also love what I do, rather than just having a career.
Depends on who's earning more if it happens as well, ofc.

Dudess · 22-03-2009 06:33PM

bluewolf wrote: »

I'd prefer to continue working part time so I don't go insane from being deprived of adult company and talking babytalk all the time.

Yep, seems to be something all the mothers I know bemoan.

Stench Blossoms · 22-03-2009 06:43PM

I don't have any kida but I've seen loads of documentary's about how badly au pairs are treated and how bad some au pairs are.

I've spent too many years in college to be a stay at home mum.

22-03-2009 06:43PM

Dudess wrote: »

Yep, seems to be something all the mothers I know bemoan.

Well if it happens and himself is earning less, guess who gets to stay home anyway

GirlInterrupted · 22-03-2009 06:49PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

A post in another forum got me thinking about this.

What are people's opinions on Au Pairs? Or more to the point, parents who feel the need to hire one? Firstly, you're trusting a complete stranger to come into your home and practically raise your kid(s). Now I don't have any kids, but I don't know if i'd be comfortable with my kid 'bonding' with someone the way they should be bonding with me, all because I'm ''career driven''.

For all the women AND men out there, would you prefer to stay career focused and hire an au pair if it was financially viable? Or would you prefer to be a stay at home mum/dad?

The problem with this is that au pair's aren't nannies, they aren't supposed to take over the childcare role in its entirety, only perform a supporting role to the parents.

I think most children will bond with their primary care giver to a great extent, but in my observation, they never lose sight of who is actually Mummy and Daddy.

bluewolf wrote: »

I'd prefer to continue working part time so I don't go insane from being deprived of adult company and talking babytalk all the time. I also love what I do, rather than just having a career.
Depends on who's earning more if it happens as well, ofc.

Being in the company of children won't necessarily drive you insane, I work with children and its my choice to be with them and I love their company, their chatter and their challenges. I love what I do, too.:)

I think its very hard to anticipate how much you'll enjoy your own children's company, or how much you'll want to be with them.

Dudess · 22-03-2009 06:51PM

orla wrote: »

I don't have any kida but I've seen loads of documentary's about how badly au pairs are treated and how bad some au pairs are.

Depends on the home though. Au pairs can be treated superbly.

ntlbell · 22-03-2009 06:54PM

I think it's a bloody disgrace joe.

Same with people leaving their kids in crèche's etc.

The "career" has become more important than looking after your own sprogs

If you want the career then have it.

if you want the kids, look after them yourself.

disgrace joe bloody disgrace.

22-03-2009 06:57PM

GirlInterrupted wrote: »

Being in the company of children won't necessarily drive you insane, I work with children and its my choice to be with them and I love their company, their chatter and their challenges. I love what I do, too.:)

I think its very hard to anticipate how much you'll enjoy your own children's company, or how much you'll want to be with them.

Absolutely, but I've heard all over the place that the lack of adult company can be a killer, a balance really has to be struck. It's the lack of adults really I mean than the presence of children all the time, and if you're really stay-at-home all the time you might find it hard to get out and socialise etc to compensate like you normally would.

Stench Blossoms · 22-03-2009 06:58PM

Dudess wrote: »

Depends on the home though. Au pairs can be treated superbly.

Ah yeah every situation is different.

I think there is a stigma though that au pairs are like slaves that you pay to watch your kids, cook, clean etc.

ntlbell wrote: »

I think it's a bloody disgrace joe.

Same with people leaving their kids in crèche's etc.

The "career" has become more important than looking after your own sprogs

If you want the career then have it.

if you want the kids, look after them yourself.

disgrace joe bloody disgrace.

This is one of the reasons I don't think I'll have kids in the future. If I were to have kids I'd want to look after them myself and not have them in a creche.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 22-03-2009 07:01PM

Let's get one thing straight here: ans Au Pair is NOT a qualified childminder or nanny, and is NOT supposed to left in charge of the kids for long periods of time. I think the distinction is thirty hours of week, not counting one/two evenings of babysitting.

A nanny is what you hire when both parents are in full-time employment, not an au pair.

stovelid · 22-03-2009 07:04PM

Ntbell, my son is in crèche two days a week.

Whatever about the extra income, my wife would go bat-shit stuck at home. Our son seems to enjoy himself at creche and seems to love his carers, something our friends with older children in the same set-up affirm.

I hate to play the moronic parent trump card, but wait until you're a stay-at-home parent yourself and then decide.

Ditto re: the financial circumstances people find themselves in. Sometimes, it's too easy to judge.

As for Au-Pairs. Any one that I ever knew was exploited. Not necessarily treated badly, but expected to provide a full-time surrogate parent role, including housework, for bad pay.

JC 2K3 · 22-03-2009 07:11PM

I think having hard working parents is a good example for a child. At the same time, parents do need to spend time with their children, but I'm not in favour of stay at home parents, personally. School ends at about 3 pm, if a parent can't manage to be home from work at that time, then I don't see the big deal with an au pair or child minder watching their kids for an hour or two. I don't think that's letting someone else bond with your kids any more than you're letting a teacher bond with them by sending them to school (ditto créches for kids who are under 4).

ntlbell · 22-03-2009 07:12PM

stovelid wrote: »

Ntbell, my son is in crèche two days a week.

Whatever about the extra income, my wife would go bat-shit stuck at home. Our son seems to enjoy himself at creche and seems to love his carers, something our friends with older children in the same set-up affirm.

I hate to play the moronic parent trump card, but wait until you're a stay-at-home parent yourself and then decide.

Ditto re: the financial circumstances people find themselves in. Sometimes, it's too easy to judge.

As for Au-Pairs. Any one that I ever knew was exploited. Not necessarily treated badly, but expected to provide a full-time surrogate parent role, including housework, for bad pay.

I like the way you make the assumption I haven't done it.

I can't see how a mother would get bored looking after their own flesh and blood it seems absolute bizarre to me.

if you can't afford to have kids then wait till can.

there's just not excuse for handing your kids off for someone else to get "bored" of looking after them.

a disgrace.

22-03-2009 07:16PM

ntlbell wrote: »

I like the way you make the assumption I haven't done it.

I can't see how a mother would get bored looking after their own flesh and blood it seems absolute bizarre to me.

if you can't afford to have kids then wait till can.

there's just not excuse for handing your kids off for someone else to get "bored" of looking after them.

a disgrace.

He didn't say bored, he said bat-s*.
Just because you did/could do it doesn't mean it works that way for everyone else and there is nothing wrong with it whatsoever.

MIN2511 · 22-03-2009 07:17PM

Hmmm...

We had nannies to raise us as kids, then off to boarding school at 10. My mum was a full time house wife too

I dunno, i would never quit working to raise my kids. My husband(if i marry

) and i will have to do this together(both working ofcourse).

I will not employ an au pair/nanny... The kids are my responsiblity... We will have to work something out

GirlInterrupted · 22-03-2009 07:19PM

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I think having hard working parents is a good example for a child. At the same time, parents do need to spend time with their children, but I'm not in favour of stay at home parents, personally. School ends at about 3 pm, if a parent can't manage to be home from work at that time, then I don't see the big deal with an au pair or child minder watching their kids for an hour or two. I don't think that's letting someone else bond with your kids any more than you're letting a teacher bond with them by sending them to school (ditto créches for kids who are under 4).

I'd agree with most of this except two points.

I wouldn't assume that parents who stay at home with their children aren't hard workers, its not called the hardest job in the world for nothing.

I'm neither for, nor against, parents staying at home; if they can afford it and want to, then they should, if not, they shouldn't.

ntlbell · 22-03-2009 07:20PM

bluewolf wrote: »

He didn't say bored, he said bat-s*.
Just because you did/could do it doesn't mean it works that way for everyone else and there is nothing wrong with it whatsoever.

when your fully capable of looking after your own kids and you decide to pass them on to someone else to do it

that is wrong.

facht.

22-03-2009 07:22PM

ntlbell wrote: »

when your fully capable of looking after your own kids and you decide to pass them on to someone else to do it

Maybe after certain lengths of time, they're not fully capable anymore.

that is wrong.

facht.

Typing fact [or "facht"] after something doesn't make it true. :rolleyes:
it remains your opinion only.

ntlbell · 22-03-2009 07:25PM

bluewolf wrote: »

Maybe after certain lengths of time, they're not fully capable anymore.

Typing fact [or "facht"] after something doesn't make it true. :rolleyes:
it remains your opinion only.

huh? if there's two "capable" parents and are sharing most duties i dont see why one would become incapable any more

are you going to actually contribute something to the thread ?

Whispered · 22-03-2009 07:28PM

I don't want kids ever so it's easy for me to imagine getting bored or frustrated looking after a child all day every day. I'm just not a maternal person so that may dictate my opinion but, wouldn't it be better for both parent and child for the child to spend a few hours a week in a creche?

Both parents can work (perhaps one not full time) meaning more income and a life outside the home for both and the child gets to learn how to interact with other children and other adults, sort of like socialisation for want of a better word.

Dee369369 · 22-03-2009 07:28PM

I had an au pair when i was younger, there was 4 children under 6 so the extra help was welcome! and 18years since she left we're still in contact with her and her family and i've gone to france to learn french by minding her children for a few weeks.

I don't see why so many people seem against it yes we all bonded with her but she didn't take the place of my parents at all.

22-03-2009 07:29PM

ntlbell wrote: »

are you going to actually contribute something to the thread ?

You mean something more than "my opinion is that x is wrong, fact" ?? Yeah hard to top that one all right...

No, there's really no further point talking to you on this

JC 2K3 · 22-03-2009 07:29PM

GirlInterrupted wrote: »

I wouldn't assume that parents who stay at home with their children aren't hard workers, its not called the hardest job in the world for nothing.

I know that it's not easy. But many parents both work and raise their children. You can't say that stay at home parents have it as hard as them.

GirlInterrupted wrote: »

I'm neither for, nor against, parents staying at home; if they can afford it and want to, then they should, if not, they shouldn't.

I wouldn't deny anyone the choice to be a stay at home parent, but would be against things like extra social welfare for stay at home parents and would frown upon stay at home parents who don't at least have some kind of part time job when their kids are of schoolgoing age. I mean, what are they doing for 6 hours a day while their children are at school? Housework isn't an excuse as families with two full time working parents manage fine in that regard.

stovelid · 22-03-2009 07:55PM

ntlbell wrote: »

I like the way you make the assumption I haven't done it.

I can't see how a mother would get bored looking after their own flesh and blood it seems absolute bizarre to me.

if you can't afford to have kids then wait till can.

there's just not excuse for handing your kids off for someone else to get "bored" of looking after them.

a disgrace.

If you are a parent, I apologize.

You're not the mother of everybody's child though, including mine, and as such, you should park the righteousness. Even a parent's jurisdiction ends with their own kids. People make their own choices.

And as for going any further here - as in the no-doubt Byzantine and ultimately tedious road that rising to your bait will take me - no thanks.

ntlbell · 22-03-2009 07:58PM

stovelid wrote: »

If you are a parent, I apologize.

You're not the mother of everybody's child though, including mine, and as such, you should park the righteousness. Even a parent's jurisdiction ends with their own kids. People make their own choices.

And as for going any further here - as in the no-doubt Byzantine and ultimately tedious road that rising to your bait will take me - no thanks.

I'm not the mother, correct, I'm a man.

i have no problem with people making choices and I'm voicing my opinion on it.

I'm not trying to bait you, the OP asked for peoples opinions I gave mine, you commented on my opinion, I didn't engage you.

Dudess · 22-03-2009 08:08PM

ntlbell wrote: »

I like the way you make the assumption I haven't done it.

I can't see how a mother would get bored looking after their own flesh and blood it seems absolute bizarre to me.

if you can't afford to have kids then wait till can.

there's just not excuse for handing your kids off for someone else to get "bored" of looking after them.

a disgrace.

Only a non parent would have such an overly simplistic view - a bit like single men being rabidly pro-life.
One's "flesh and blood" doesn't make jacksh1t of a difference - if it did, there wouldn't be post natal depression. I like the way you imply a woman is a heartless monster if she doesn't spend every moment with her child. My friends - loving, overjoyed, worried mothers - are chuffed they can do some part-time work. Sitting at home every single day, five days a week, alone, lonely, their husbands/partners not home til late due to the current economic climate, all their friends at work... is misery for them. How the hell is it "bizarre" to want a break from that? Oh yeah, it's bizarre to you - a working man. Therefore it should be bizarre to everyone.
Suggesting mothers should be revelling in the joys of their baby being there (I've heard a glow emanates from the cot and wraps itself around the mother :rolleyes:).... it's like something out of a lame Disney movie. A very young baby is asleep most of the time anyway.

And the financial question: "wait til you can afford kids". LOL at the oversimplification. What if that never happens? Women can't hold off indefinitely you know.

Then again, you're not actually putting yourself in a woman's shoes.

I think being minded now and again by someone other than the mother/father is actually very good for the child - my mother was stay-at-home and I became too clingy to her all together, with the result I'd get really upset if she went anywhere for an hour and left me with a friend.
And it's good for kids starting school - they're already prepared for the fact that there are other people who mind them besides Mammy/Daddy.

galwayrush · 22-03-2009 08:13PM

Most people with au pairs have to constantly remind the rest of us that they have one. Seems to be a badge of honour with the new breed of idiots the celtic tiger overdraft caused.

ntlbell · 22-03-2009 08:21PM

Dudess wrote: »

Only a non parent would have such an overly simplistic view - a bit like single men being rabidly pro-life.
One's "flesh and blood" doesn't make jacksh1t of a difference - if it did, there wouldn't be post natal depression. I like the way you imply a woman is a heartless monster if she doesn't spend every moment with her child. My friends - loving, overjoyed, worried mothers - are chuffed they can do some part-time work. Sitting at home every single day, five days a week, alone, lonely, their husbands/partners not home til late due to the current economic climate, all their friends at work... is misery for them. How the hell is it "bizarre" to want a break from that? Oh yeah, it's bizarre to you - a working man. Therefore it should be bizarre to everyone.
Suggesting mothers should be revelling in the joys of their baby being there (I've heard a glow emanates from the cot and wraps itself around the mother :rolleyes:).... it's like something out of a lame Disney movie. A very young baby is asleep most of the time anyway.

And the financial question: "wait til you can afford kids". LOL at the oversimplification. What if that never happens? Women can't hold off indefinitely you know.

Then again, you're not actually putting yourself in a woman's shoes.

I think being minded now and again by someone other than the mother/father is actually very good for the child - my mother was stay-at-home and I became too clingy to her all together, with the result I'd get really upset if she went anywhere for an hour and left me with a friend.
And it's good for kids starting school - they're already prepared for the fact that there are other people who mind them besides Mammy/Daddy.

and as usual your interpretation of my posts are miles off the mark.

This is not about women, when I stated about a "woman" getting bored looking after their child I was referring to his partner not "all" women.

I was the stay at home parent and my FEMALE partner went to work.

So if i thought she was a monster wtf would I be doing having kids with her?

I have no problem with for example both parents doing some part time work, so there's always one parent wit the child.

Or for example the one who works during the week can mind the child on the weekend while the other trys to rid of some boredome by doing weekend work?

There's 101 ways to skin this cat without pawning your kids off on a stranger, so don't try and make me look like some sexist prick here.

It's bizzare to me that anyone would want to pawn their kids off to soemone else while they were more worried about their career than the child man or woman.

I'm a working man _today_

I was a stay at home parent.

I don't need to put myself in a womans shoes, as A COUPLE we decided we would only have kids if we were financially sound.

and by finacially sound i mean getting yourself into a position where you don't need TWO full salrays coming in for X amount of years. if you have both been working i can't see how this would be that hard to achieve?

there's a HUGE difference between being "minded" now and again by someone else than handing your kids to someone every day to bring your kids up yea?

at this point can i throw out the usuall bollix that usually comes now

are you even a parent? :rolleyes:

Dudess · 22-03-2009 08:37PM

ntlbell wrote: »

and as usual your interpretation of my posts are miles off the mark.

Well then you need to be a bit clearer.

This is not about women, when I stated about a "woman" getting bored looking after their child I was referring to his partner not "all" women.

I was the stay at home parent and my FEMALE partner went to work.

So if i thought she was a monster wtf would I be doing having kids with her?

Hmmm... you specifically said "mother".

I have no problem with for example both parents doing some part time work, so there's always one parent wit the child.

Well some parents just can't afford that.

Or for example the one who works during the week can mind the child on the weekend while the other trys to rid of some boredome by doing weekend work?

Well when it comes to the loneliness/boredom, that's not much use because this is experienced particularly acutely on weekdays.
A break from the child will make the parent appreciate them more too.

It's bizzare to me that anyone would want to pawn their kids off to soemone else while they were more worried about their career than the child man or woman.

The "career" sh1t is always thrown out (also, see opening post) - it's more about sanity really... oh and the need for a second income in some cases.

I don't need to put myself in a womans shoes, as A COUPLE we decided we would only have kids if we were financially sound.

That was your choice - it doesn't have to be others'.

and by finacially sound i mean getting yourself into a position where you don't need TWO full salrays coming in for X amount of years. if you have both been working i can't see how this would be that hard to achieve?

What about the mortgage? Mortgages went nuts in the past few years - and please don't mouth off your usual sh1te about people being stupid with money during the boom. Even a reasonably priced house had an insane mortgage up to the recession.

there's a HUGE difference between being "minded" now and again by someone else than handing your kids to someone every day to bring your kids up yea?

If one parent works two or three mornings a week, then yeah, that to me constitutes being minded now and again... hardly "being brought up" - such melodrama... "yeah?"
Are you even a parent? You say you are, but your views on parenthood are so simplistic, I'd have my doubts.

22-03-2009 08:46PM

NTL bell. You live in cuckoo land.

I am a working mother. My husband has a very well paid job. We don't have a big house. I left work last May and returned in January because it was crippling us trying to live on one salary. It was also very unfair that my husband; who has worked so very very hard to get where he is, who does exams every few months to keep on top of his career, who gets paid good money; to have to think about whether or not he could afford to go for a couple of pints after work or buy a t-shirt! It was stressful.

Yes, I would like to to pick my daughter up from school every day and take her home/out for the afternoon etc but it's not an option. You have no right to call people who don't spend every waking moment with their children, a disgrace.

Au Pairs - the great debate.

Comments