Nanny-ness

The good folks at Babble have taken on the nanny discussion over the last couple of weeks (er, excuse me, the childcaregiver discussion, or the babysitter discussion, according to the article here), and as someone who has had a nanny (childcaregiver? babysitter? I'm going to stick with nanny, and I'll tell you why in a minute) since Caetlin was three months old and I went back to work, this is a subject near and dear to my heart. Or at the very least, interesting and of vital personal relevance to me.

First, the terminology issue. Notwithstanding the article, I do and will continue to call my nanny a nanny. I don't think she minds, as she's not West Indian and doesn't have the "vagina" association with the word "nanny." I personally don't mind caregiver, as I think that's more apropos of what she does for us, but it's a little cumbersome and stuffy. The thing about nanny versus babysitter, though...one of the comments to the article states: "Meh. I worked as a "nanny" during the summers when I was in university, and while the term didn't offend me, per se, I realized that people's fondness for using it generally rose in direct proportion to how pretentious they were. Unless the person providing your childcare has (1) an English accent, (2) a carpetbag, and (3) an umbrella that lets him/her fly away with the West Wind, it's BABYSITTING, people." I have a real issue with that characterization, first because I'm pretty sure I'm not especially pretentious about it (that commenter also wrote "in university" which makes me think they are English, so maybe it's pretentious in England to say "nanny"). But more importantly, in my mind, a nanny is permanent, while a sitter just minds the children for a few hours, maybe so parents can have a date night or whatever. Nanny connotes something so much more permanent and professional to me, and my nanny has certainly earned my respect enough to call her by a title that suggests her professionalism to me. I have to note that it would be different if she ever asked me not to call her nanny; I definitely don't care enough to impose my connotations on her if she has different ones. But for now, nanny is a mark of respect from me.

One other thing about that article that I immediately wondered- had any of the nannies mentioned ever asked their employers not to call them nanny? I didn't get that sense from reading the article, only a sense of being overwhelmingly wronged on a daily basis by the parents for whom they worked. I can't speak for every nanny employer, but I know I want to foster an environment of respect and happiness in my home, and my nanny is included in that in a big way. If I have ever offended my nanny, it was completely unintentional, and if my nanny thought I was being unfair with her, she should feel comfortable enough to speak up. The article had a sense that the caregivers were long aggrieved, and I would like to hope that no nanny who ever works with me would feel this way.

Second, and somewhat relatedly, we get this discussion board from Babycenter about whether a woman who employs a nanny who brings her one year old daughter to work should have to feed both the nanny and the daughter. Overwhelmingly, the responses are some variation of, "What are you, cheap? Feed the people already!"

Now, here's the thing. It never occurred to me to feed my nanny. I guess I think of it as her job, and no job I've ever had provided or paid for my lunch for me. Even the crappy jobs paying way less than what I pay my nanny (because some of the comments run along the lines of, "Unless she's compensated accordingly, you should feed her."). If someone makes this point on the board, other people jump in with, "But it's not just a job! She's taking care of the most precious part of your life! Do what you must to make her happy!" Which I agree with to a point- you should try to keep one's nanny happy if you appreciate them and think they do a great job with your child. But whether she is worth keeping happy is a very different issue, to my mind, than whether she is entitled to lunches as a matter of employment. There was also the issue that the nanny in the question was bringing her one year old daughter to work with her. I certainly wouldn't think that the employer would mind feeding the child, but no one seemed to recognize that the employer had already done quite a lot by allowing the nanny to bring the baby.

Let me say that I would not hesitate to feed my nanny, if she requested it. It's one of those, "To keep her happy" things, though. As I said, I've never had a job that paid for or provided food, even fast food jobs. I just am not positive that it should be a recognized perk. Is that me? And it disturbed me how many posters on the board seemed to think the parents were completely out of line for even questioning it.

I have to say, the nanny-employer relationship is one on which I've given a lot of thought, and I probably will write about it again soon. This was a great book for getting me thinking about it in the first place. It always makes me nervous that I'm doing or saying something wrong, but I generally just trust that my genuine respect for her will win the day, along with my hope that she will say something to me if I do or say something that upsets or offends her. I also hope she will ascribe good motives to me, will give me the benefit of the doubt. I trust her implicitly; I mean, I let her take my daughter where ever she wants to go, I let her have full run of my house- she has access to everything that is dear to me. I wouldn't do that if I didn't have the utmost respect for her. I hope she knows that.