The medical policy book lost out (which is a pity, because it was good in a slogging sort of way) to a new arrival: _The Unnatural History of the Nanny_ by Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy (published in the UK originally as _The Rise and Fall of the British Nanny_). There are some expectable problems with it, notably some of what Gathorne-Hardy has to say on the subject of breastfeeding/weaning and the nature of the evidence he rallies. Creepily delicious however!
And while we are on the subject of the nanny:
Lack of historical context mars the title, but the article itself rings pretty true.
And of course the NYC posting to craigslist that seems to be making the rounds. I haven't found the original; this is coverage/commentary:
ETA: Can I read? Apparently not. There's a .pdf of the original craigslist post referenced by the article so you can read it in all its glory. I also found it copied verbatim in some really vicious (and stupid) blogs by people who think it is quite amazing that someone who works from home might need help with the kiddies (do they _have_ children?) and might describe their children as a pain in the ass (no, they clearly do _not_ have children). The hours are amazing: 1.5 in the a.m. with help from mum; 6 in the p.m. The rest of hours respected with optional overtime. The pay is hard to calculate since there's an apartment included so you'd have to figure that. All in all, I'm not at _all_ surprised she got a bunch of legit applicants and was able to find someone quickly. As for people mocking her for having so many nannies over the years, all I have to say is, do you _know_ what the turnover is in group care? Seriously. Why would you expect in-home care to be appreciably different?
I would buy any book the author of that post wrote. I would certainly hope that it saw more copy-editing than that post, but even if it didn't, that is some awesomely good voice and some really actually very kind and compassionate realism, particularly the bits about smoking and alcohol and job searches.