Claudia Winkleman: Don't let your man near a nanny
Take It From Me: 'When Ethan Hawke considered having an affair, did he think of casting the net a little wider than his own kitchen?'
Wednesday, 23 July 2008
So Ethan Hawke has just married his children's ex-nanny. Nice. Classy one there, Ethan. You couldn't have left the building and gone to a bar to chat someone up? When you considered having an affair you didn't think of casting your net a little further? You know, wider than your kitchen?
You didn't think of asking your friends if they knew any nice women who would go out for a secret cocktail and a flirt? You couldn't have joined a dating website? But no, you saw a pretty girl in the hallway one day who occasionally sang "The Wheels on the Bus" to your kids and you thought: "Yup. OK. You'll fit." You didn't even have to buy her a drink; you could just meet at the fridge and, um, open a beer, while your wife was looking the other way.
The ex-nanny is now seemingly about five minutes away from having Ethan's baby, and they're hitched. The nanny is still, uh, looking after the children – but just now every other weekend instead of all the time. And I'm presuming he no longer pays her. Well, maybe just in Cartier watches.
I feel sorry for Uma. Now that, along with: "Gosh, if only there was more of Lionel Blair on television," is a sentence I never thought I'd utter.
But let's be clear. There's no one worse your husband could leave you for. I think if I found my husband in bed with my sister, it would be a little disconcerting – yes, I'd probably need a lot of therapy and I'd try to kill them both, but at some point I'd like to think I'd get through the pain and somehow forgive them. Finding him with my best friend would be no fun, but you know, they already really like each other, she's very cute, they get on well on holiday and these things happen... But the NANNY?
No. Just no. Not in my lifetime, baby. When you ask someone to come into your house to help look after (let's be honest – raise) your children, it's a BIG DEAL. You interview probably more than 900 candidates, you get references, you watch them closely with your kids before you officially employ them. I mean, if Jaws spooked people a little bit about getting into the ocean, The Hand That Rocks the Cradle terrified every mother on the face of the earth.
Hiring someone to look after your children is about the most important thing you will ever do in your life. And you can forgive them for sometimes giving your kid a "hush, hush, don't tell Mummy" Mini Milk, and you can let the odd extra In the Night Garden viewing go. But sleeping with your husband is pushing it too far.
And here's the rub. If you're a working mother, you already feel like you're hiring a "replacement you". You think: "Well, if I can't always be there to tuck them into bed at night, it's great that Samantha/Lucy/insert name here can."
While this might be OK some of the time, the rest of it you will probably be riddled with guilt. You will spend endless nights awake in bed justifying to yourself why it's perfectly all right that you don't take them to the park every day and that sometimes they call the nanny "mummy".
And you will toss and turn and wonder whether you have made the right decision. At moments such as these, you might make a list of reasons why it's good that you are continuing to work and have a nanny rather than staying at home with them.
The list might look something like this:
a) I can't stay at home all day because I might go mad.
b) I like using my brain/having my own life.
c) I need to be financially independent from my husband.
d) I don't want my child and I to get on top of each other and argue. We will get on better if we have quality time together.
And you can bet that the big reason – the pièce de résistance, the all-time most popular reason for going back to work and getting someone in to help you look after your children – is this one:
e) I will have a more successful relationship with my husband if he respects me and if I manage to stay interesting to him. I will manage this through keeping a career and by not turning into a jelly-brained bore who can only discuss why Ludo doesn't like dried apricots any more.
Well, guess what: Ethan goes and blows that theory. He shoots that shit straight out of the water. While his superstar drop-dead-gorgeous movie actress wife was filming with Quentin Tarantino, when she was picking up $15m a movie, and when she was coming home with seriously interesting stories from her day at work, it turns out all he wanted was the smiley girl who sang "The Wheels on the Bus".
Now that's even scarier than Rebecca De Mornay.
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited

Comments
35 Comments
I told all my friends on my computer science course from University what you said,m and they're still laughing too
You're seriously naive if you don't think you can be traced... If you don't believe everything you do goes through you ISP's server then you consider downloading less porn until you check that out. As Winkleman would say - 'Take it from me'.
And p.s. buying and selling things on Ebay is not an internet based company.
Take your own advice and don't stretch your brain power by replying.
I'm off to get on with my life, au reviour...
Posted by Sara | 26.07.08, 16:09 GMT
Didn't read anything you wrote there, still laughing at 'computer number'...
Posted by Sara | 25.07.08, 22:31 GMT
An interesting psychological experiment showed that, when women were asked to rate the facial attractiveness of photos of men, they consciously or subconscuiously selected the men of higher status as the most attractive (their jobs/professions were written underneath). Then the photos were swapped around so, for example, the man who'd been unemployed was now a doctor or a businessman - and guess what? The next group of women AGAIN selected the most high-status men as the most attractive - the same men that had been seen as the least attractive when labelled with a low status jobs.
Interestingly, for men it was the EXACT OPPOSITE with men always selecting lower status women as the most attractive however one swapped around their job titles.
This has nothing to do with threat or insecurity - it is pure evolution: women go for and stay with men with status; when men lose this women leave or get pregnant by other men. And marriages where the man has higher status last too! FACT.
Posted by BimboBasher | 25.07.08, 17:28 GMT
"PENIS ENVY"
envy of the male sex organ; believed by FREUD to be universal in women, to be responsible for womens CASTRATION COMPLEX, and to be central to the psychology of women
Gender-feminist* dogma:
1. "Gender is not innate; it is merely assigned by society, like a mere role in a play.
Women are ABSOLUTELY equal to men, in EVERY way, and vice-versa."
2. "Women are victims, oppresed and held-back by men."
3. "Patriarchy must be destroyed from within, because it is responsible for the suffering of women."
4. "All men are prone to evil and violence against women, because of male socialisation within The Patriarchy."
PUT 2 and 2 TOGETHER.
* - gender-feminism is the kind of feminism most often courted by the politically-correct (mainstream) media. The other type, less extreme and devoid of common sense, is EQUITY-feminism.
Posted by Ivan | 24.07.08, 22:45 GMT
Men don't want bright women. They want the simplicity of a earlier time. Intelligence and assertion is something men put up with from their own gender every day. A woman who competes on the male playing field risks becoming repulsive to real men. Men and women have different brains with very different ideas about the world in which they find themselves. This is why revolution is coming, the women men want as partners are being suppressed by intelligent women intent on 'having it all' at the expense of their own simpler kinds in their own gender. Equality of intellect is the absence of diversity and the convergence of genetic traits; not good, for instance there is a link between geek parents and autistic spectrum children in silicon valley...lack of intellectual diversity is not good.
Posted by kevin | 24.07.08, 19:20 GMT
Oh dear. You don't know very much about men. He went off with the nanny because they got to know each other. And what better way to get to know someone than to share the same house as them.
Put simply then, if you want to keep an eye on your husband, the woman to watch out for is the woman that your husband gets on really well with (regardless of looks).
Posted by rob | 24.07.08, 17:48 GMT
Are you telling me you'd really prefer it if your husband slept with your sister rather than your nanny? Although both situations would be awful, I do think Ms Winkleman needs to get her priorities straight.
Posted by Amazed of Middlesex | 24.07.08, 17:23 GMT
They have to put dross like this, and that silly American Catherine girlie column, in newspapers in order to attract a female readership! No matter what women say, most of them them love this kind of drivel - which is the journalistic equivalent of the colour pink. Ever seen the daily mail? Full of this piffle. Looked at TV lately? Full of similar nonsense. Why? It's gets the female audience. Personally I'd sack all silly twits like these dizzy bimbo columnists and cleanse TV of bimbo soapy girly nonsense - but a lot of women love it and so it gets readers/viewers and we all have to suffer because of the female audience. YAWN. No wonder I don't (and won't) pay my licence fee... and I only resd newspapers online these days too... which cheers me up immensely as I am no longer paying for this pap : ))
Posted by BimboButcherBanner | 24.07.08, 17:18 GMT
Arrogant tosh.
Posted by Dave McDonald | 24.07.08, 13:17 GMT
Blatent sexism here. Why does the author assume all nannies must be female?
Posted by Ian | 24.07.08, 13:01 GMT
35 Comments