'High fliers' and nannies

[Takver]

I've seen in several places recently (including in threads on here, and for example in this article in last Saturday's Guardian) an assumption that if you are a wealthy and successful family where a nanny provides most of your childcare this is likely to result in your children being less 'stimulated' / likely to become highfliers themselves / otherwise missing out.

Typical quote from the piece linked to: "You assume they'll be intelligent, but you've never wondered how this will come about: when they try to interact with you, you're too busy."

Now maybe I'm overthinking this, but it seems to me that if we go back 40 or 50 years, it would have been the absolute accepted norm in a wealthy family for nannies / other staff to do the vast majority of childcare, and indeed for boys at least to then be sent off to boarding school from age 7 onwards. I can't imagine that anyone would have dreamed that this would in someway disadvantage their children or result in them being less successful themselves when they grew up. Of course back then the women of the family wouldn't have had the option to have top jobs themselves, they would have been occupied with their social functions.

Yet now - when women are able to access high flying jobs - we are told that this pattern of purchased childcare is going to disadvantage the children. And of course the corollary of this assumption is almost invariably that it is the mother - never the father - who is in some way being selfish by devoting their time to work and not childrearing.

I should say that I don't have any direct interest here myself - I am absolutely Ms-hippy-nature-walks-and-crafty-shit-mother but it just seems to me like another cunning way to stick women right back where they belong . . .

Yes, I think you have a point.

I've always found it peculiar that often in the same newspaper (once even on consecutive pages I recall!) you'll often get one article citing "evidence" of the dangers of mothers going back to work/having a career for their children (and 101 other things,) then another condemning feckless, lazy single mothers who look after their children "on the state."

Irony? Much?

I'd strongly suggest there is an agenda behind the articles you've cited. The authors are hoping no one will notice what you've just rumbled.

Interesting point - I'd never thought of it like that but it's a convincing argument.

Most of the hugely-advantaged-by-birth didn't just have nannies, they were sent off to boarding school at the age of about 6. Doesn't seem to have stopped a lot of them running the fucking country, does it?

Takver - I think the idea of high fliers/meritocracy is quite a recent one. The kind of old school ruling classes you describe held their position through inheritance not good grades.

I think there are pay offs to being a tiger mother in a highly competitive society where people have few children, whereas in a highly stratified society where people had many children (and some usually died) it wasn't such a good 'investment'.

....not that we have a nanny, or practice Tiger parenting, more of a lazy muddler through myself.

Only in a society where the measure of a person's worth, health and happiness is the job they do or the amount of money they earn would it be considered ok for parents to hardly know their children. This isn't about women at all, it's about children, who are in fact real people of their own accord and are not just there to make women feel guilty.

isnt it just another way of critising women's choices?

i had various nannies/childminders from babyhood and i remember enjoying going out and meeting lots of nice people. i remember being 3 and starting kindergarten and thinking i got that being with people other than mummy was ok/fun more than my peers.

i have never wished my parents did anything different than what they did.

another part of my family is Indian & the extented family raises a child. the British style nuclear set up must look very isolated to them.

It's funny how men are never critised for employing nannies or cleaners. It's almost as if these jobs are considered the sole responsibility of women and subcontracting them out is in some way a bad thing

This article only mentions parents, it doesn't say the word "mother" at all!

surely being good at interacting with DC is the primary qualification for a nanny.

I saw this article and it annoyed me quite a lot. I don't have a nanny but if I did, the person writing this piece is definitely not the kind of nanny I would want looking after my children. If the nanny truly believes that what she does is important, then she shouldnt' be giving the parents a hard time for employing her. If DH and I had a nanny we'd see her as a partner in raising our children and certainly, the nanny I had to help me a few hours a week when DS was small was amazing because she would offer me ideas and suggestions that I was just too inexperienced/overwhelmed/knackered to think of on my own.

I do think there's a theme, aimed mainly at women, of making them feel inadequate in their child rearing choices. And I'm starting to wonder if there's some subtle insidisousness to this that is based around the idea that if you can get women questioning themselves in how they raise their children, you're more likely to be able to keep them "down" whether they're in the workplace or at home. It's like society doesn't like women to stand up and say they want more than just to be mummy whether they're a SAHM or a WOHM.

And it's everywhere.

It's pure sexism which sells papers. Woman as whipping boy, curse of all from the garden of Eden to today.

Our had a nanny as I went back to work from choice both on feminist grounds and for other reasons at 2 weeks. One reason they appear to be doing quite well (3 have graduated) is because of those choices and that the older 2 girls saw a successful mother who loved her career.

Very few working parents of either gender that I know in the City over 20 years have not interacted with their chidlren. Most of us try to maximise time with our children.

I have three finished products - the older 3. I really do not think they are less clever because they had a mother, father and nanny looking after them rather than just a mother. On the whole women who stay home are those who never earned much and are not very bright (not all but on the whole) therefore the children of housewives tend to be less clever both because they have worse genes passed to them and second because the mother is not using as many words as she knows fewer than women on say £100k a year who are successful. Working mothers produce better not worse children.

Bling surely a situation where the parents hardly know their children and feed them chocolate biscuits at 7 am isn't ideal? Or should the wellbeing of children be ignored for fear of seeming critical of mothers? BTW the article talks about both parents, not just the mother.

And I'm sure if the article was about a working class mother feeding her children chocolate biscuits for breakfast and working all day to afford expensive things, resulting in her hardly knowing her children, then no comment would be passed or in fact the mother would be villified. But because the parents in this piece are wealthy and can afford a nanny the fact that they choose to work rather than spend time with their children is seen as fine.

The article is very judgy and I don't think accurately reflects the way most families with nannies operate. Clearly, this nannyhas no respect for the people she works for. Perhaps they are not genuinely that bad. Or perhaps she's judging them unfairly.

I know lots of people who employ nannies. And all of them, assuming they have a good nanny, are grateful for the excellent job she (normally a woman) is doing and loves the way their children learn and grow and take pride in learning what the child has been learning when they see their children in the evening or on the weekend.

Let's unpick the article itself:

"I try not to judge you, the parents, but I can't help it" - well, that tells us where she's coming from right from the start.

"You talked about how you and partner like the children to eat healthily. Arriving at work, I find them eating chocolate biscuits at 7 am.... with you begging them unsuccessfully to finish their cereal" - Perhaps the parent is trying to fit a treat AND breakfast into the very short time they have before leaving for work? For so many parents, having balance home and work, things that should take an hour have to be done in just a few minutes.

"Your children are bright, funny and articulate but you don't even know it" - what makes the nanny think this? My SIL is so proud of how bright and articulate her children are and she's grateful that the nanny engages with them.

"When they try to interact with you, you're too busy" - I assume the nanny is around 24/7 then? Or do you really think that being a little busy first thing in the morning while trying to organise DC, greet nanny, prepare for work and get to the office on time makes you a bad parent?

"... to someone you pay less per hour than the cleaner." - clearly she should get a new job if that's the case. Although, my cleaner is pretty well paid per hour, that's true. But then, she only works 3 hours a week for me, she has no protection, doesn't pay tax and certainly doesn't get food, drinks or other benefits like paid leave thrown in.

"You look down on me..." - I repeat, get a new job. I don't know a single parent with a nanny who looks down on that person. Without fail they are in awe of the nanny's willingness and ability to deal with the children, keep them entertained, feed them and do it with a smile and cheerful hug.

"No one is forcing you to drive a new BMW or... it's all about priorities and you have made yours clear". BS. I work hard, earn good money but I don't drive a BMW or do it for the "things". Many of us with those careers do it because its intellectually stimulating and interesting. And I can assure you, that for most of us, finding lower paid, less high flying work is surprisingly difficult because no one wants to hire you if you're overqualified.

So really, this article is a load of bollocks and yet again tries to makes parents, but mostly women, feel like they're doing something wrong. At the end of the day, if the nanny doesn't think children should be looked after by someone other than the parent, she should change her career.

So you're assuming that the nanny is in the wrong and the parents are fine? Why is that?

No, I'm not. But I am giving the parents the benefit of the doubt based on experience and the tone of this article. The writer is extraordinarily judgemental and apparently sees no good in the parents at all. I'm also suggesting that even if the writer is 100% right about this family, it is not typical of a family that employs a nanny.

But surely a normal intelligent person can be relied upon to write accurately about their own experience? The nanny admits she shouldn't judge but she can't help it. In her position I would feel the same way I think. I would want to look after the children for their good, but I wouldn't necessarily have any respect for the parents.

I think it is more about the nanny than the parents.

Doesn't she say she has a masters etc? I think she doesn't like the status of the job, but won't be honest so turns it into her being noble and the parents being bad.

So if someone complains about aspects of their job, do you always assume there's something wrong with the person rather than the job? I don't know why people are automatically assuming the nanny is lying or exaggerating.

No, it was just the feeling I got from this particular one!

Maybe it was just a bit too pat. I imagine they are all written by work experience kids anyway.

Fair enough. I would assume it's true but I suppose it might not be. But assuming it is true, then I don't see any reason to think the parents are above reproach while the nanny is lying. It seems a bizarre thing to think, as there is no evidence for that. Or is it the case that if parents have a good job then it doesn't matter if they don't spend much time with their children and rely on a nanny to fulfil their role?

I don't know...

In many cultures, as we know, kids are sent to live with other family members, or brought up by gps as the parents HAVE to work etc. I don't suppose there is a difference in the affect on the kids brought about by the specifics of the parents' job (except they may enjoy a higher material standard of living).

I suppose that if the child is truly loved and cared for, it doesn't matter enormously if it is the parents that bring them up or not? I wonder if being paid to love and care makes a difference?

Plenty of parents that do bring up their own kids are rubbish.

Im of the view that all the "What Im really thinking" is all written by the guardian reporters. They are meant to be controversial.

The truth is that if your parents are wealthy and high-flying (including your mother), the chances are you will be as well. The wealthy have a lot of safety nets available to them and their children.