To disagree with the argument from some recent feminists that having a nanny is automatically 'exploiting a poor woman's labour'?

[Carla786]

I've seen this point from several so-called 'reactionary feminists' recently (major ones are Mary Harrington, Louise Perry, Nina Power- basically former radical feminists who now keep some of their old ideas but argue that women need to return to traditional sexual, childcare etc norms at least to some extent), especially Mary Harrington.
I think it's over-simplistic and unhelpful on several counts. For one, an woman employed as a nanny isn't necessarily a low-income woman forced into it by economic necessity. Some, eg Norland Nannies enter it specifically because they're interested and are often from financially stable backgrounds with other options open. Obviously Norland Nannies aren't the typical nanny but it feels patronising for a supposed 'feminist' to ignore that some women do want to do this job.

There definitely is an issue with women being employed as nannies from poorer countries like the Philippines and exploited- paid unfair wages, sometimes physically abused even. I read Ben Judah's This Is London recently and he had a whole chapter of interviews with Filipina Nannies which was very eye-opening on this.
But I think it's more difficult to blanketly dismiss any poor woman working as an overseas nanny as being exploited by a middle-class woman. If a poor woman has few options where she lives, with little prospect of government improvement (which is the case in some places) and can make money to potentially give her children a better education/life etc by working as a nanny overseas, it's a terrible situation- but is she necessarily being exploited if her employer pays her fairly and treats her well?

Calling difficult choices wrong and unfair is one thing, but exploitation seems a bit strong to apply to all cases, and also in a sense patronising to women. If a poor man made difficult choices to try to improve his family's situation by working overseas, would an employer who treated him fairly be automatically termed exploitative?

I suppose maybe these women like Harrington (who herself says she uses childcare) are trying to make a more structural point that women's work often depends on poorer women needing to work as Nannies due to economic problems, even if the women individually treat their Nannies well generally. I'm still doubtful though as that ignores the large number of Nannies who aren't poor and/or overseas workers.

It’s only exploitation if you don’t pay them enough and make them work under shit conditions.

Exactly.

I suppose maybe these writers are thinking more about women who work as childcare workers in nurseries, who may be less likely to want to do the job from interest in childcare etc & more likely to do it due to lack of other options. But obviously this isn't true for a lot of nursery workers, and it still doesn't necessarily equal exploitation.

Nannies aren't badly paid - at least not in my area (leafy home counties)

If that were true, then surely anyone paying someone poorer than them to do a job would be exploiting them?

Its ridiculous. So are cleaners gardners or even going for a coffee. You could make it yourself.

It seems a bit of a weird take.

I mean, isn’t feminism all about getting back to work/having a career and not being tied to the home. In which case we need people who are willing to look after children for a living.

And if I was a nanny or nursery worker I wouldn’t take kindly to people thinking I was being exploited!

It sounds more like a poor start to a campaign to “prove” surrogacy as acceptable. Of course paying for childcare is not intrinsically exploitation.

Yes...I think with Mary Harrington, she's probably thinking about women who work as nannies overseas due to poverty at home, and it's part of an emotive narrative that 'middle class women in UK are neglecting their childcare duties to work while employing poor women for childcare who are unable to see their own children for months on end'. Which obviously chimes with her narrative that women need to return to traditional roles. But it's obviously flawed.

It could surely be argued from a feminist perspective that while it's horrible to have to work as an overseas nanny and not be able to see your kids, Western women not employing overseas nannies wouldn't fix the issue. And a beneficial side-effect of the situation could be that earning power & travel to England gives women from poor countries more independence than they might potentially have otherwise as Sahms.

How is that different from a man employing, say a gardener?

Pre Industrial Revolution, men largely worked the land around homes, they had often built themselves. During the IR there was a shift where a significant proportion of men (and women and children) worked away from their homes for money, which was then used to pay for commodities (food, fuel) that would previously have been the direct product of their own labour.

So when a man who works, employs a tradesman (a lower paid worker than himself, possibly of foreign extraction) to build an extension, fix the plumbing, paint, or dig his garden, is that also exploitative?

I’m not an MRA, but I can’t see what’s different when it’s women.

Incidentally I think the increase in parents of both sexes working from home is a really interesting socio cultural shift

I don't think feminism is about having a career.

I think it's about having choices, the same choices that a man has.

It's about choosing to be a parent or not choosing it - not having it forced upon you 'because that's womens' function'

I suppose it really depends whether the women you 'use' also have choices or whether they are being forced into situations.

If you have choices - including the choice to look after your own children and instead you use a woman who has fewer choices than you - is that a feminist act?

Tricky as every object we use/all our clothes and post of our food is produced by those poorer than us.

Can we be feminists if we are not actively trying to improve the lives of poorer women?

Mary Harrington, Perry & others are very anti surrogacy. They see it as trying to transcend biology in a way that harms women.
I agree that commercial surrogacy is harmful to women. I think they can take biology arguments too far though.

Harrington's big thing is that the Pill was the start of a wave of 'transhumanist technologies' which harm women. The Pill does have issues which should be discussed, but it's easy to damn it so strongly when you're post-menopause and have one child with support (as Harrington does..) She also seems anti contraception generally which is odd when there are other methods obviously.

You don't sound like an MRA to me, your arguments make perfect sense. Arguing this kind of stuff about childcare workers isn't feminist imo.

Where I live, nannies are paid in the region of £40-50k and good ones get away with calling the shots because they are so heavily relied upon and the family want to keep them happy.

It’s more those who work in some of the nurseries with poorer reputations that I think are underpaid and work in poor conditions.

I agree re choices.

Re this : I suppose it really depends whether the women you 'use' also have choices or whether they are being forced into situations.
If you have choices - including the choice to look after your own children and instead you use a woman who has fewer choices than you - is that a feminist act?

• This is complex. The poorer woman may not have many options in her home country and see working as an overseas nanny as the best of a bad lot of options. I don't think employing someone who's making the best of a bad lot of choices is automatically unfeminist or wrong.

Otoh I agree feminists should work to improve the lives of poorer women here & abroad, so that situations back home improve & it's not normalised that women must leave their kids to improve their lives by earning more money.

Yes, I think if I had a nanny (I don't have a kid yet) I would probably end up being the one bossed about 🤣

Agree strongly re nurseries. The issue of people working there due to lack of options rather than drive to do so, low wages etc affects workers & obviously also the children there.

But in that case are you saying that the only choices are not having children or being a sahm if you want to be a true feminist?

Because that doesn’t seem very sisterly or supportive of women to me.

If employing a childminder is being unfeminist (sic?) then neither is doing anything that involves paying a woman to do something who earns less than you!

Shall we all grow our own food so we don’t have to pay women to work in supermarkets? 😂

Incidentally, I read the Mona Simpson book My Hollywood recently, narrated by a Filipina nanny who goes to work in California. The author wrote this article around the time she published it : different context as US but still interesting.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/magazine/nannies-love-money-and-other-peoples-children.html#commentsContainer

I don't think feminism is about being 'sisterly' or 'supporting other women' - that's not what I said feminism was for me.

I don't have to agree with the choices that other women make to be feminist - I just have to agree that they can make those choices - even if I don't like them.

I said it was about choices - and so I would need to facilitate other women to have choices in the same way I do.

The difficulty comes in how free our choices are - do we in fact have any choices or are we forced by our society to act in a certain way?

I can see the point though.

The childcare industry depends on a lower class of women looking after the children of richer women otherwise it’s not economically viable.

It’s not even about necessarily exploitation or childcare specifically (it applies to adult care as well). We expect care to be cheap so that other people can go to do work that society deems more valuable.

However I think we need to see children as a net gain for society and so the costs of children should not be beared solely by parents (largely women). That means paying far more for childcare but it should be paid by society.

We dont need to exploit them or pay them badly.We could encourage men into these roles too.

I dont think its a feminism thing. More a capitalism thing.i just think feminism voice has been shaped by middle class experience. You could equally say men can only be city lawyers because some other man is a drain cleaner and without a good sewer system we all get dysentery.

Otoh I agree feminists should work to improve the lives of poorer women here & abroad, so that situations back home improve & it's not normalised that women must leave their kids to improve their lives by earning more money.

In principle absolutely, but how does this translate meaningfully into everyday life? If you pay a nanny well, provide decent working conditions, you’re indirectly encouraging other women to leave their dc and travel abroad. If you exploit your low paid worker, treat her badly, underpay her, are you actually encouraging her fellow compatriots to decide that living in poverty with their own dc is a better option? Is that supposed to be true feminism?

I think it’s a twisted argument. She’s focusing on the idea of forced separation from dc, ignoring the fact that for the vast majority of working women in the uk, it’s not a free choice when two incomes are necessary to stay above the poverty line. Or to put it another way, that working to keep a roof over your dc’s heads and give them a decent standard of living, is a choice many women make, same as men do. Both the wicked western career gal and the exploited nanny are making the same choice.

To say that women shouldn’t be facilitated to choose to better their dc’s lives by working outside their home, strikes me as profoundly anti feminist.

I don’t think fathers should be actively discouraged from working outside their home either.

The phrase wolf in sheep’s clothing comes to mind, but I haven’t read the original so I’ll reserve judgement.

Every job depends on another job. Being a waiter depends on people wanting to eat out. Being a lawyer depends on people wanting legal advice (I'm a solicitor and I promise you I do not make as much money as my clients).

I have a nanny. She gets paid very well, much much higher than minimum wage. It's a career for her. She loves children. She is not exploited in the slightest!

A nanny in central london will often have no degree and yet earn the same/more than a junior doctor with 10 years work experience and a doctorate, and work in better conditions. I am am struggling to understand how that is exploitation.

Its not very feminist to blame a woman for the fact that a man and a woman are employing a woman to take care of their children. Why is a feminist not criticising the father for not staying home with his children?
While I think its important to acknowledge the role WC women play in facilitating the success of their MC sisters, its certainly not feminism to weaponise the disadvantage of WC women to shame women back to hearth and home.