There is, of course, no such thing as a "good" w-lfs-ning; the only appropriate modifiers are "painful" or "extra painful."
"w-lfs-ning", Tim, not "Rogering".
"Over scotch and cigars, Ben would tell me about all the ladies and lasses to whom he'd given what he called 'a good w-lfs-ning'."
It may have gone less discussed because there's really not much to discuss about it, y'know? She has dodgy spelling and grammar ("for whom she works with"), and more than that her writing (as evidenced by that post, the only one I've read) kinda blows. But that's beside the point innit?
Jude Law has a better idea of how to treat a nanny.
"I just want to say I am deeply ashamed and upset that I've hurt Sienna and the people most close to us," said Law, 32.
Yeah, great. What about Wright?
What really needs discussed is the inexcusability of her inexcusable crush. Tucker Carlson? That's worse than the Galt.
Robin Williams pulled the ultimate nanny trick. He left his wife for the nanny. The court then awarded the kids to the person that was closest to the kids: the nanny. That is just evil.
The Helaine Olen column reminds me of the "My Turn" column in Newsweek. They find narcissistic assholes of every sex, race, creed, religion and political affiliation. America truly is a crazy-quilt of "what about me?".
It goes without saying that Olen's piece is far longer than 500 words.
You know, neither of the principles here seemed like all that bad a person. They're muddling through, like the rest of us. But since everyone is reading their own issues into this drama, I will too: all "work" involves fictions about its role and importance in the life of the person doing it. As employers, we construct and believe in these fictions for our own peace of mind, or to assuage our conscience; as employees, we feed the fictions because seeming dedicated and enthusiastic can help us get ahead, or just help us get through. The more important the work, the more rigid the rules of fiction. So it's probably correct to say that Olen was upset that Tessy had a life, but not necessarily because Olen is a big prude, but just because however much you *know* that your nanny is a real person with a life of her own, you don't want to have to think about it.
I don't think #12 is quite right. Many people are upset with Olen, not for firing the nanny, but for writing about it in the NYT. She's got a much bigger microphone and authority borrowed from the paper; deploying both the way she did is what makes her a bad person.
Yeah, she shouldn't have published under her real name (although no one who didn't already know Olen would have known who the nanny was).
I agree with Tim.
The problem wasn't Olen firing the nanny. When it comes to your kids, you have to do what you think is right. The problem was Olen writing a new york times article justifying her decision by slandering the nanny.
Would you like to see a NYT article by an ex-employer about your sexuality after you got fired. "Perhaps if he had reset his Tivo, he would have been better in job tasks X,Y, and Z"
So it's probably correct to say that Olen was upset that Tessy had a life, but not necessarily because Olen is a big prude, but just because however much you *know* that your nanny is a real person with a life of her own, you don't want to have to think about it.
Yes, but Tessy was *fired* for this. "I don't want to have to think about it (yet I can't stop myself), so you're fired" is not so easy to dismiss with "she's muddling through".
14:
Not totally true. Olen included quotes from the nanny blog, so anyone with rudimentary google abilities could find it. Sure, the nanny blog was semi-anonymous, but outing someone's blog like that on a national newspaper, while simultaneously calling her, more or less, a promiscuous, irresponsible alcoholic, was pretty messed up.
Olen included quotes from the nanny blog, so anyone with rudimentary google abilities could find it
I missed that. That changes things considerably. Sorry.
Caitlin Flanagan has written so many awesome articles about nannies for the Atlantic Monthly, I'm hoping she'll take up this topic.
Would that be the same Caitlin Flanagan who wrote an article for the New Yorker on how she went to Hawaii on vacation with her family, took great care to attend only the cheesiest of tourist-trap resorts—not once venturing beyond its confines—and then decided, based on this exhaustive research, that Hawaii sucks?
gaaa, and complained incessantly about the expense of everything, after having chosen her resort hotel specifically because it was so posh and exclusive --
it's probably correct to say that Olen was upset that Tessy had a life, but not necessarily because Olen is a big prude, but just because however much you *know* that your nanny is a real person with a life of her own, you don't want to have to think about it.
But as Lindsey Beyerstein pointed out, there's a huge element of hypocrisy here. Part of Olen's article was spent talking about how she liked thinking about her nanny as quasi-family, and wanted to know more about her and be friends. Then when her nanny shares her personal blog, an intimite act as Lindsey points out, Olen is horrified at having her own wish fulfilled. Then, of course, she, the one who is worried about the nanny acting immorally, violates her nanny's trust by first exposing the blog to her friends, then the world.
Re Flanagan: this excerpt makes it sound like she liked it.
I think that excerpt directly precedes a rant on how she found condoms floating in the swimming pool.
Or was it lube? I forget.
and she says that the resort is one for the "upper middle class"? what part of the middle class can afford a resort that costs a billion dollars a night? and that's exactly how much the hotel costs, from what i recall of the article.
Well, I've only just heard of her, and I haven't read all this stuff, but Flanagan seems to have generated not a little controversy.
I always get confused by Caitlin Flanagan, because I went to school with a girl named Caitlin Finnegan.
Is there a glossary of unfogged terms? I'd very much appreciate definitions of a few. w-lfs-n as a verb would be a good start. Then someone could follow up with Holbonian and Holbovian.
I think that part of Olen's problem (and this shows my true colors as a snob) is that she doesn't know how to have help/ servants. I bet that you could get someone who didn't have a life, but you'd have to pay that person a lot of money. Alice (of the Brady Bunch) would probably cost $80-$100K plus health benefits. I think that there are British nurse services that will place them, but in that situation you have to be clear about your expectations, and Olen wasn't. It's pretty clear that part of what Olen wanted was a hip, young thing whom she could resent for being hip and young. Why didn't Olen just hire a grandmotherly sort of nanny?
To w-lfs-n someone is to confront her with her errors: whether of substance or of form, whether grand or petty, whether incidental or essential—in short, after the fashion of a little bitch.
she doesn't know how to have help/ servants.
This, I just don't get. I am not from a family that ever had servants, so I don't have any access to the secret upperclass knowledge of how to treat the help. Still, I have a full-time nanny, and it's not rocket science -- we pay her decently and on the books, and don't worry about what she does on her own time. She's not a member of the family, she's just doing a job. The only right I have to supervise her or worry about what what she's doing is when she's with my kids. Other than that, her life is her business. What makes this so hard to figure out?
Now, this is fairly easy for me because Nancy is, herself, very professional about things, and very easy to get along with. The kids love her, I'm sure she loves them, we get along fine, and she and my husband (who works at home) are buddies. Still, she works for us, and so we're responsible for maintaining boundaries -- we've bought her time between 9 and 6, and outside those hours her life is her own. This should not be that hard to figure out, even if you don't have experience with having servants.
(w-lfs-n: to correct one's grammar in a nitpicking fashion.
Holbovian: long, as applied to a blog post. From John Holbo, who blogs at John and Belle Have A Blog, Crooked Timber, and The Valve.)
LB--We didn't when I was growing up either, but my grandmother did as a girl (3-5 for their houses in DC and Canada), and there was a nurse, later house keeper for my Mom as a girl.
I guess what I was trying to say is that a lot of people aren't comfortable dealing with people as employees in their home. So they try to make it about being friends or they contract out to agencies where they don't have to acknowledge the person who will actually be scrubbing their floors. They try to blur boundaries in inappropriate ways.
Now it does get tricky, if you're a famous person, I think that you then have a right to demand a certain amount of discretion, maybe even a lack of ambition in yje nanny/ help, but then you have to compensate the person accordingly/
And LB is totally right, when you're talking about someone outside of the home, but if the person lives on your house, then the rules change. It should be noted that Tessa did NOT live with the Olens, but a lot of people have assumed that she did, and I think that that very confusion is a reflection of Olen's own confusion about the sort of nanny/help/servant she wanted.
I guess that I also think that there are situations in which paternalism might be warranted, and sometimes a nanny does become part of the family over many years. I think that Prince Charles still keeps up with one of his nurses, but she was taken care of even after he was grown up. I think she got a cottage on an estate or something, but in that sort of situation, you need to be clear about the terms of the K. I realize that I'm not being terribly clear. (I've got a bad head ache.)
I don't disagree with you -- I was more griping at Olen. How to interact with servants may be mysterious, but everyone has had a boss, and figuring out how to be an acceptable boss is just not that hard.
wow bostonian, i'm not from a family who ever has had servants -- in fact, i'm from the other end of the pole, as several of my friends growing up had parents who worked as housekeepers/maids/housecleaners, etc. -- but i have a hard time imagining how much you'd have to compensate a person in exchange for "the right to demand" that they have no ambition.
perhaps you're right that olen was confused about the "sort" of domestic help she wanted, but i'm not sure of the sorts available either: do you really propose to divide them into those who are potentially upwardly mobile (e.g., Tessa), and the hopeless underclasses?
Hey nameless, you could make up a name, so we can at least know if nameless 1 and nameless 2 are the same person.
Oh, come on, there's nothing wrong with wanting to hire someone who will stay in a job long-term if you're willing and able to pay for it. Not everyone has to be ambitious.
sorry. comments 14, 21, 26, and 35 (which was probably unwarrantedly bitchy -- sorry bostonian) were from me.
and the hopeless underclasses?
I wouldn't call $100K a year a hopeless underclass. The distinction is more between servants whose entire ambition is to in service, and those who are interested in other careers.
Taking it a step further than Heidegger, I not only draw a strike through the verb "to be" in the above, but after that I omitted it entirely.
Evenyone who is all up in arms about this please read! I used to live with this blogger. Yes, the boss is a bitch, but the nanny is a psycho. A psycho that killed her cat and who has major major problems. Yes, killed her cat. This girl has problems. I moved out very early on the request of my friends and family who were afraid for my safety. This girl did not give her boss her blog address out of stupidity or just so she could read a little poem about kids. She wanted to be caught. She loves that becuase it makes her feel important. Most of the things on her blog are false except for watching Gilmore Girls. She has supposed relationships with men, who in reality she was stalking and it got very bad and they have cut off all contact with her. This girl is well educated and may sound intelligent, and she is, but she is also very very deeply troubled. Perhaps the bitch boss picked up on this but is too full of her own craziness to see the situations for what it is. This is not about sex or liberalism or classism. It is about a sad sick dillutional girl and her bitchy boss. I'm sad it has gone this far.