Thursday

Bench in Stuyvesant Square, NYC

Wednesday, October 11, 2006
This morning before the rain, well before lunch I was walking on Second between 15th and 17th and needed to sit down to take down some information from a call I was on. As I was winding up the call, I observed an overweight nanny plopped on a bench about three benches down. She was taking a break. She had her child's Graco stroller in front of her and was enaged with the child. I looked closer and observed on the nanny's lap a box of ho ho's. The nanny was eating one and the kid was eating one. The kid was like-well hard to say but under two. Looked like if she was out of the stroller she wouldn't walk easily. As I walked past the nanny, she was ripping open yet another plastic wrapper. Had she no shame? And with a 16 oz coca cola to wash it down, then yet. I did not see what the child was drinking. I may be neurotic but it pains me to see children eating like that. There is nothing NATURAL inside a ho ho! As hard as it is for a person like myself to see past a sugared blob of carcinogens-the nanny had -and this was apparent- such a way with that girl. That little girl adored her and that nanny had one of those big smiling faces. The kind where even when she stops smiling, her eyes still smile. The kind where I can't imagine she ever has a harsh word to say about anyone.

54 comments:

Anonymous said...

OMG! She is a wonderful loving nanny, BUT, she dared give the child a ho-ho and she is obese! let's blacklist her! I am sure if she was eating a ho-ho and DIDN'T give the child one then someone else would be complaining about that! This site is getting outrageous-it really is. Can we stick to true issues of neglect or endangerment?

Anonymous said...

so what if a nanny eats a ho ho because she is a nanny she can not eat junk food

Anonymous said...

I would have to say that as a parent I would rather my toddler share a ho ho and a smile with a loving kind person that eat fruit leather with a witchy nanny. A ho ho is SUCH a small part of the life of a child.
Have YOU no shame? Quit being so judgemental. I drink a Coke too, gasp, in FRONT of my kids. Wine too sometimes! I hope you're not watching!

Lynn said...

Really? We are reporting the consumption of Ho-Ho's now? Give me a break.

Anonymous said...

Huh? I thought it was a positive post. The good and the bad. If I was the mother and got that report, I would be very happy. Of course I still hunt for Ding Dongs on a regular basis. I see this as a positive post. Wake up other commentators.

Anonymous said...

I'm awake. Let's review all the positivity in the post: "overweight" "plopped on a bench" "ripping open yet another plastic wrapper" "had she no shame?" "and with a 16 oz cola to wash it down, then yet" "pains me" "hard . . . to see past a sugared blob of carcinogens." Really positive happy post!!

Anonymous said...

Gee, I don't see the problem here. Don't you think you're being overlycritical? The purpose of this blog is to report positive or negative situation involving the welfare of a child. You got way too much time on your hands!!

Anonymous said...

I have never, EVER in my life seen a person give their child all natural food their entire 18-20 years of raising them. Get real. You never know, that might had been the first one that child has ever had, it might had..omg...been approved by the parents for them to go out and share this snack just once. That child might not eat like that all the time.

Anonymous said...

I don't think a Ho Ho is an appropriate snack for a child under the age of two.

Nanny In New York said...

I agree with 90% of the posters here, this post was NOT positive. This site, if it wants to stay relevant, needs to have some kind of standards.

I can understand if you see abuses happening, that you would want to have somewhere to go to report them. But when you see a happy child attended by a smiling, engaged caregiver and you just happen to not agree with the food they are eating together, then what I think you should do is smile at them and go along your own way. To do otherwise (unless you have specific information about the dietary ideas of that particular family) is simply the act of a gratuitous busy body.

Anonymous said...

Geez, she may have have brought the Ho Hos from the child's home. Most nannies give snacks the parents provide, rather than spending their own money, and many parents provide a little junk.

Helen said...

Relevance? Standards? You have to be kidding me. I live a macrobiotic based lifestyle. I work very hard to keep fresh food in the house at all times, to keep preservatives out of the house. This would be something I would fire a nanny over. As for standards or relevance, any thing posted here goes back to the whims of the parent. IS IT OKAY WITH THE PARENT? Maybe a parent would think it is good fun for a nanny to burst out laughing when one child punched the other in the head. I don't. All of these people bashing the person who posted this obviously have no appreciation for the serious committment some of us make to raising healthy children.
The issue isn't the ho ho, it is whether such foods are okay with a parent. And sorry to say, as for being a "busy body", being healthy, I always tune in to other people's food choices. At the deli, in the checkout line and everywhere around me. It is very relevant to me and I don't think I am alone. The posters above represent no doubt those responsible for the rampant obesity of a new generation of children. Busy yourselves with THAT!

Anonymous said...

Junk food is a negative situation. While a parent may not be able to give healthy food to a child for 18 years of life, such poor choices for a toddler is unforgivable whether it was a nanny, nun or mother.

Anonymous said...

I'm torn. Had I passed this on the street, I would look and judge harshly but I wouldn't sign on and post about it.

Anonymous said...

To the poster:

Give it a rest. This site is just too much

Anonymous said...

Anonymous above. Go take care of your own fat kids, tubby. Peace.

Anonymous said...

HEY! Why the name calling? I see no reason to make a comment like-"go take care of your own fat kids tubby". I am not the person who posted that-but, that is out of line! Just because someone eats 1 ho-ho does not mean they are fat and just because someone chooses to live a macro-biotic lifestyle does not give them the right to foist your beliefs on other people or judge them. This nanny was being loving and attentive to the little girl she was taking care of-people are blowing this way out of proportion.

Is there nothing a nanny can do right?

Anonymous said...

Jeeze, what do you care what they were eating? Mind your own beeswax.

TheSeventhBrady said...

I find it interesting that those who live allegedly healthy lifestyles -- such as macrobiotic, vegan, etc. -- not only "tune into other people's food choices," but do so in a clearly holier-than-thou manner. Meanwhile, those of us who consume foods not necessarily entirely found in nature, even being so irresponsible as to permit our children this indulgence -- probably aren't ones to peer over wrinkled up noses in judgement. We don't dress all in black to seem individualistic (just like all those other artistes dressed in black, negating the intended effect -- or more accurately, affect), we're of all shapes and sizes (even thin and fit!), and provided we don't smoke, have as good a chance of living just as long as any ho-ho disdainer.

The main thing is that this child is loved. To those food nazis who equate sugar and fat as abuse, stop taking yourselves so seriously. You're boring.

Anonymous said...

Dear Helen, I have a totally crazy idea, how about raising your nanny's salary to more than the going rate of $500/wk so that she can shop at Whole Foods too. This way you won't run the risk of her eating low class food in the presence of your children. But I guess it makes more sense to just fire her.

Helen said...

Going rate of $500 a week? Where do you live, Tulsa? My nanny makes $725 a week, NET on the books. We pay her taxes for her and gasp pay her insurance so she can have the benefit of continuous medical guidance. She is also a live in and we encourage her to participate in fitness activities along with our family and we take steps to encourage her to do so with the children. For example, last year we bought her a bike. You have no idea how far off base you are. Twenty years ago children weren't in carseats and never wore sunblock. In twenty more years, I guarantee you, there will be no such allowance for stuffing children full of preservatives and sugar.

Anonymous said...

Please I know a mother that gives her kid crap for breakfast soda and chocolate chip cookies, etc. Shoule we report her too???

Lets get real

Rockin' Bod Mom said...

The problem with nannies giving children junk is that I want to believe that the mothers who are handing their children off to strangers to RAISE them are at least doing so with a set of CONSCIENTIOUS instructions. If you are a mother feeding your child crap, know that I am judging you. If you are a friend or aquaintance of mine, you know I will not be silenced about this. I agree with one of the posters above. I am saddened to see that so many people underestimate the gravity of this situation. Not as a situation where the nanny is being abusive- as you are correct- the mother could have allowed for such poor food choices. But the proper RAISING of our children includes teaching them right from wrong. This includes making healthy food choices. A "ho ho" leaves no room for discussion. There is not a single justifiable need for the existence of the ho ho. I am just as concerned for the adult female eating such a grotesque food. To put such garbage in your body is horrible, but to make such horrible decisions for a child is unforgivable.

Anonymous said...

Twinkies gained notoriety in American jurisprudence in 1979 when the media widely misreported the claim that Dan White, on trial for shooting San Francisco mayor George Moscone and city supervisor Harvey Milk, asserted that his consumption of junk foods such as Twinkies "had left him with diminished capacity for reason.

Anonymous said...

There are way more worse situations with nannies than giving a ho-ho to a child. What is this nanny doing? She wasnt hurting or yelling at the child. And I see we are all mature adults here (note the sarcasm) especially when name calling.."Go take care of your own fat kids, tubby. Peace.".... Get real.

rt said...

I don't want to read about "way worse" situations. I am not pleased with your dismissive attitude. Just because "some nannies" hit the children in their care or scream at them, doesn't mean it is okay for someone to get away with shoveling poison down a child's throat. It isn't such a stretch of a hard thing to be kind to children and offer them healthy foods. At that age, the adults are making the decisions. You have a small window in which to positively affect their future eating habbits.

Anonymous said...

Right, its the adults making those decisions. So you dont know if even the parents gives that child unhealthy snacks.

Anonymous said...

"So you dont know if even the parents gives that child unhealthy snacks.". Why are we expecting the person to KNOW this? Giving the parent the benefit of the doubt, I am going to hop that she does not allow her child to each such junk. I like to do that, give these hands off parents the benefit of the doubt. Feeding a child like that, one day it will be criminal. One day!

Anonymous said...

It's just a post....people gettin all upset for nuttin.....it's not your kid gettin fed ho hos.......

Anonymous said...

Everyone gets to make their own decisions, obviously. I taught my children moderation as the highest ideal. Moderation means one can have a ho-ho every once and a while. I think teaching children extremes is so much more dangerous than a few grams of fat and some sugar.

Some of the commenters abover really frighten me. I know that I don't necessarily have all the right answers, but I truly believe that if you treat the subject of food with draconian hysteria in front of your children, they're much more likely to develop an eating disorder later in life.

It's much harder to eat judiciously and in a balanced way, but it will pay off in the long run. My kids went off to college and were able to make informed decisions about what they eat--whereas a great deal of their friends either went crazy for all the forbidden foods they'd never come in contact with at home and gained tons of weight, or went off to the other extreme and starved themselves. I blame both sets of reactions on unhealthy attitudes towards food, such as the ones being preached to us in the above comments.

Anonymous said...

I have tried to set good examples for my children and beyond that, I try not to make food an issue for them. We keep healthy foods in the house. If a child wants ice cream, we go get ice cream. But, I guarantee you we were not shoving ho hos down a child's throat when the child was too young to even ask for one! That is poor parenting, plain and simple! Poor nannying, possibly but definitely POOR, POOR disgusting parenting.

Anonymous said...

Giving a child a sugary treat constitutes neither abuse nor neglect. Being sanctimonious and obsessed about eating natural foods and judging other people by their weight does not make a person a better parent, a more loving human being or the possessor of a superior intellect or character.

A nanny and her charge clearly love each other dearly and were enjoying a moment that was sweet in more ways than one, and someone felt the need to go online and blather about it? And someone else felt the need to pile on? Let's bust Mary Poppins for the spoon full of sugar.

The FUTURE is coming said...

FAT and UNHEALTHY parents and PEOPLE don't get this. In 20 years, it damn sure will be considered abuse to give your child this kind of CRAP. Would you think of riding around in the car today, holding your infant on your lap in the front seat? No. Times have changed and WE KNOW BETTER. Some of us no better now. Ahead of having to be mandated by law to do this or not, but know this IT IS COMING.

Anonymous said...

Re "it damn sure will be considered abuse to give your child this kind of crap," what a twisted attitude.

We're not talking about feeding children a steady diet of sugar. As one of the healthy-sounding posters on this thread said, all things in moderation.

Anyone who would deny a healthy child a treat because of an obsession about food has disordered thinking that may well result in a child with an eating disorder, among other neuroses.

You do know that humans are supposed to enjoy food, as well has consume it for their health and sustenance.

ng disorder.

Anonymous said...

The poster(s) who warn that giving a child a sweet snack will one day become a criminal act are more likely to see doctors' and therapists' office crowded with those who have developed eating disorders and other neuroses as a result of their parents' warped obsessions about food.

Anonymous said...

All you people defending not just sugar but "food" that is nothing more than chemicals and preservatives? I would really like to know what the average IQ is of these sugar pushers?

Anonymous said...

HO HO's ??????
And a COKE ????
What is the world coming to?
The problem here is someone who would actually take the time to tattle on someone for this....go back to the playground, or grow up and realize that there are real problems out there thast need to be addressed. Stop wasting everyone's time with this!

Anonymous said...

A woman eats a HoHo and even her eyes smile.

Others condemn HoHos and become harsh, self-righteous scolds.

Hmmmm.

kh said...

wasting everyone's time? my time isn't being wasted. I make time to give my children 100 percent healthy option. They are free to choose for themselves now as they are older but when they were strapped in strollers and dependant on me, I provided them healthy food. I put a jacket on them while they were warm. Who uses the term "tattling". You sound like the same person who was defending the daycare watcher for allowing the children to be in the water without supervision.
I cannot imagine what life is like for the children in your life, except that it must be sad and wrought with abuse, danger and fatty foods.

Anonymous said...

wow- so this is the kind of socialization I have to look forward to as a mom? I'll never visit this site again. Too bad, but I saw it coming the second I read the name. All you ladies need to realize that everyone was brought up differently, on different diets, with different values, and just because you value your own does not mean you have any right to bash others, unless it acctually is abuse. Get lives!

Anonymous said...

To: "wow- so this is the kind of socialization", first of all, why are you here? You don't have a nanny. You don't even have a kid. Secondly, it doesn't matter how people were brought up. Parents who are bringing their kids up on sugar and chemicals are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. So before you have your little ditty, go to the library and check out some books on nutrition as in "The Essentials Of".

jean said...

I wasn't sure what to make of this post. I think the poster is trying to say, "this isn't one of the horrible posts - she was loving" but at the same time "her choices for nutrition (ha) for this small toddler leave something to be desired". I view this as a pro-con post, so she's trying to tell the parents to watch what their nanny feeds their child but at least the nanny is loving.

Personally, I'd really want to know if our sitter was giving our child ho-ho's - that would really bother me. But I'd be happy to know that she wasn't one of the abusive nannies - sugar doesn't equal abuse, but some parents (like me) would definitely consider this type of snack-sharing a problem.

jean said...

I think this person was trying to warn the parents that, while a loving nanny, this nanny's nutrition choices leave something to be desired. Hey, I'd want to know if our child was getting ho-ho's during the day. Not a fire-able offense but not ok either. It's good the nanny is loving - that's most important - but it's up to the parents to decide whether this nanny's behavior was unimportant, not other people.

Anonymous said...

As a Nanny, you are setting an example to the children, you are in charge of, just as you would be if they were your own.
I don't believe there is anything wrong with allowing the child a treat, now and then. But, if you as the Nanny are constantly stuffing yourself in front of the child, the child will follow that example. If you love your child charge (and you do, if you are in the right profession for yourself)You will desire for them to grow up happy AND healthy, and try to set a good example, now while they are young and vulnerable.
As for the post, I feel that it is good & well meaning. Intended so that Parents might pay close attention, and may help their Nannies to understand that the health of their children is verry important to them, and so is the love and kindness shown to the child, by anyone they leave in charge of their precious child.
And as a parent, I applaud the good effort, put forward here. We need more people who are concerned for our children, and for their futures.

macrobiotic eating disorders said...

Ah, the infamous "saw fat nanny eating ho-ho's" post.

I am so relieved to see at least a few sensible replies to this post, namely the ones posted at 7:31 PM and 12:34 AM. Yes, I'd rather have a loving woman feed my child the occasional ho-ho without my explicit pre-authorization and set the xample for her of how to smile, relax and enjoy life and the company of other human beings than have a judgemental, humorless anal retentive shrew set the example for her of pointing and screaming at everything that makes her angry and that she thinks ought to be made illegal, and how to obsess neurotically and counterproductively about food until she makes herself and everyone arouund her miserable with her utter lack of capacity for enjoyment of anything ingestible.

It's attitudes like those that contribute to all kinds of childhood issues, not limited to obesity or other eating disorders.

I'm willing to bet that contrary to their desires, in 20 years they will (still) NOT be recognized as the designated voice of authority for all hmankind with the capacity to outlaw any behaviors that they personally do not approve of or enjoy. And you know that possibility really pisses them off!

KP said...

you are right, because it will be more like 10 years before the government disallows such things as ho hos to even be on the shelves. wake up sister betcha, it's a big, wide world out there & it's a changin'.

good laugh said...

Yeah right. ROFLMAO!

black market twinkies said...

An interesting visual here. Instead of the police and the feds busting drug dealers, they will turn their attention to the ho-ho dealers that will congregate on street corners and prey on our children. Instead of crack houses we'll have ho-ho houses. Scary times ahead!

Rockin Bod Mom said...

The war on fat is the latest manifestation of a collectivist philosophy. The government has a duty to protect "public health" by discouraging behavior that might lead to disease or injury. It also reflects an anti-capitalist perspective that views people as helpless automatons manipulated into consuming whatever big corporations choose to produce. The anti-fat crusaders, such as myself- would welcome the chance to manipulate you too, but for your own good. In the end you will thank me for this.

Anonymous said...

If my nanny is going to stuff ho ho's down my child, then yes I prefer her to be a fatty. The alternate is some thin bimbess shoveling ho hos down her mouth and stopping at the corner of 93rd and vine to upchuck the entire comments of her stomach into a garbage bin while my daughter watches and wonders why. Fat people eating bad food. That's real. That is a Brady Bunch story played out in one scene. The moral of the story is in the act of the deed.

a mommy said...

Rockin Bod Mom said...(and with s straight face, I'll bet!)

"The war on fat is the latest manifestation of a collectivist philosophy. The government has a duty to protect "public health" by discouraging behavior that might lead to disease or injury. It also reflects an anti-capitalist perspective that views people as helpless automatons manipulated into consuming whatever big corporations choose to produce. The anti-fat crusaders, such as myself- would welcome the chance to manipulate you too, but for your own good. In the end you will thank me for this. "

ROFLMAO honey, wtf? Been up to smokin something with your nanny?

Anonymous said...

I am a Nanny and indeed a woman with a degree in Nutrition. Yes I would give a child sugary foods on occasion because it is necessary so to do - everyting in moderation. My niece grew up sugar and soda deprived and now she is in her teens she takes 4 tsp sugar in her tea, drinks soda like water etc. It's no good being neurotic over food. That causes problems. It is find for a nanny to give whatever snacks Mom approves of. And yes I am 5ft 5 and 130 lb and yes my diet is not perfect but I am healthy. Relax there is so much real abuse to worry about

Anonymous said...

I watch a little girl and she comes in at least 2times a week with dunkin donuts! She's 15mos. old!! I call her mom Pop a Top b/c that's all she eats - anything that the top can be popped off of!

Anonymous said...

I think the poster of this blog doesn't like fat people. She should own up to it.
I don't like fat people myself. Let's all just admit it.
However, I wouldn't have a problem with my nanny giving my kid a ho ho or two: if they are denied all the time, they will only grow to be fat themselves.
My husband and I don't approve of fast food and we never take our daughter to McDonalds or Wendy's etc. yet my sister takes her kids all the time so we know when our daughter is with auntie she may very well go to McDonalds and that's ok with us.
Anything in moderation...