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.

Do men have a choice though?

The idea of "it's about women having choices like men" sounds correct but while women are now free to choose - more or less - whether to be in employmeng or a SAHM, or work part-time, men are still generally expected to work. What other choices do they have which would be deemed honourable? To be be a kept man with a rich wife? To be a stay at home dad? These are choices but not many men freely go for them.

Depends which section of it. Nannies on average are probably better paid than nursery workers.

Good point.

Otoh I don't sadly think men in these roles is the solution. I used the support it but after the rash of recent abuse cases and reading up on the issue further, I think men caring for toddlers is simply not worth the risk of predators taking advantage of that.

I think men working with older children who can speak out more easily is different though. One of my secondary school friends had a 'manny', she was fond of him & he seemed to do a good job.

It is an issue in the US - a huge issue. I do not see an issue in the UK.

Lol. I paid my nanny £50k pa.

Mary Harrington is a bit of a wolf imo. She herself says she uses childcare & she's certainly active in her career, giving lectures abroad & being lauded in 'heterodox' spheres.

I will try & find the articles of hers (and the other writers I mentioned) addressing this. Her big idea is that women are forced to work now two incomes are required & this is exploitative, so I suppose her stance on nannies etc flows from that. Otoh her ideas often seem quite unrealistic. She has an idealised view of pre-Industrial Revolution medieval life where men & women might have run brewing etc businesses at home together. Yes, that was good in some ways, but hardly blissful Happy Families : children had to work too, lives were much harder in general. And while the Industrial Revolution definitely had bad consequences, it wouldn't be desirable OR realistic to go back to medieval-style life.

This is often the case for nursery workers unfortunately. I worked in early years for many years and those employed as a nanny were usually treated very well by their employer. Well paid with extra allowances, good amount of holiday etc. Working in a nursery is often brutal with very long hours, forced over time, low pay, bullying from managers. If feminists want to focus on an area of childcare that is perhaps exploitive to it's workers, I would be taking a look at nurseries not those employing a nanny.

If that's exploitation, sounds good to me...

Of course there are other types of exploitation, but financially it clearly isn't.

Its easy to convince yourself of anything if you try hard enough

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with the OP? Sorry, not quite clear...

We have an after school nanny and she earns more per hour than me and is treated with utmost respect. It suits her as her older kids don’t get home until she finishes work but she still has time to support them. I am definitely not exploiting her. Isn’t it just like any other job, it can become exploitative if you treat people poorly?

I do agree though that families/parents are economically required to work too many hours in order to keep the lights. This isn’t good for children (and I say this as a FT working mum). I know my family life would run smoother if DH and I could each drop a day.

Here's some articles by her which have this argument.

https://unherd.com/2020/04/carers-deserve-more-than-claps

"Women’s liberation has, so far, turned out to be mostly for the middle and upper classes: we went from half the human population performing caring roles, regardless of class, to a large proportion of the middle and upper classes outsourcing care to poorer women, migrants and other groups perceived as lower status."

https://unherd.com/2020/03/why-arent-women-having-more-babies
"Today, the messy stuff either still gets dumped on women as a ‘second shift’ or outsourced to — you guessed it — poorer women."

https://unherd.com/2021/01/for-clinton-feminists-not-all-women-are-equal
"This minority of women have comprehensively liberated themselves from the constraints of female biology – whether it women’s relative physical weakness or the time constraints imposed by motherhood – and have achieved this at least in part on the backs of poorer women."

https://culturico.com/2021/09/17/how-ancient-greece-prefigured-our-cultural-crisis
"The liberation of women from caring is in effect a kind of Ponzi scheme, where richer women outsource care-related work to poorer women."

I think there’s nuance but essentially women are just outsourcing to other women. Nothing is actually changing men are not picking up the slack and taking on their responsibilities in the home.

and most importantly when struggling rather than force the issue with their DHs the solution is to get a woman to do it

I agree with this to some extent, but that doesn't make the outsourcing automatically exploitative of poorer women. It's still an issue though.

We are pretty much all forced into work by economic necessity.

No one ever questions men hiring other men to clean the windows, fix their car, whatever else.

Women pay for childcare or a cleaner and it’s some huge betrayal.

Men aren’t worrying themselves about this kind of stuff - either themselves or questioning others.

If anything it reflects on those critiquing the women who use this help - as they obviously see these jobs as being unworthy or undignified in some way.

I personally think Harrington sees history in a rose tinted way. Poorer women were exploited by other women before feminism and working women en masse. Nannies are not a modern invention and probably better treated often than in past. Wet nurses would literally use their body (sometimes after losing their own baby) to feed a child. This is not asked of modern day nannies.

I'm not sure that's what she's advocating for exactly, but she is trawling through history to try and find ways forward, things are not great as they are, have we taken wrong turns?

I don't think cleaning windows, fixing cars etc is comparable to the care of a human?

But I certainly agree that it you are going to argue about the ethics of outsourcing the care of children then the spotlight should also be on fathers.

But these arguments aren’t about the ethics of the child’s experience - it’s about the ethics of paying another person to do your domestic work so you are freed up to do other more ‘valuable’ things ie able to pursue a degree of self-actualisation / independence etc not available within traditional gender roles.

Yes I think nannies are a bit of a red herring, the majority of childcare is not nannies.

My take is it’s a mix of capitalism and patriarchy which means domestic and caring roles are highly under-valued.

Why is it that it has been women fighting to get into the workplace rather than men fighting to bring up the children? Because socially and economically we don’t value “women’s work”.

I’m guessing this Mary Harrington has a book she’s currently touting? 😂

Ah yes ok. I see what you mean.

"Women’s liberation has, so far, turned out to be mostly for the middle and upper classes: we went from half the human population performing caring roles, regardless of class, to a large proportion of the middle and upper classes outsourcing care to poorer women, migrants and other groups perceived as lower status."

That's genuinely batshit.

She'll get a fecking shock if she learns about actual female servants, either daily ones or those living in their master's house, for the entire of history up till, erm, well about the time of women's liberation.

Childcare and other forms of care were high on the list of tasks the master and mistress outsourced to their servants, that's for sure. That's why there are actual job titles of nanny and nursemaid.

Yes exactly.

Not just rose-tinted, but complete fantasy. She's had to invent her own history from scratch to make her argument.

She erases an enormous class of women from existence.