'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 . . .

Thread is here by the way if anyone is interested.

Much of this thread is utterly depressing and can't believe I am reading it in the Feminist section. Much of it appears to be projection and such bollocks that I am almost speechless.

Dh and I are both "highflyers" in the City. He had a sahm, I had a wohm and a nanny. My parents did not leave the educational development to either nanny or school and neither did his. We did similar gcses, the same four science a levels and similar degrees.

We have 2 dcs (preschooler and baby) and an English nanny. She lives in but is paid £27k, with perks and bonuses on top. I would call much of this thread an insult to her, her professionalism and her integrity. She adores my dcs and loves them but her role is to support dh and I. I am not expecting her to love our dcs as much as we do, and nor do I expect that of anyone else in their life except for dh.

Spending 10 hours a week with dcs? What rubbish. As Xenia said, the vast majority of parents I know that my level, go out of their way to maximise quality time with their dcs. That's why we have a cleaner, my ironing done, a gardener and a handyman. Its so that we spend quality time with the dcs. I have just had a grim grim working week. Including one night where I worked till 2am (most nights working to midnight). Yet on that day I still spent an hour with the dcs in the morning and in the evening. Kids are awake for 13 hours on Sat and Sunday, so I don't even know where the notion of only spending 10 hours a week in total with dcs, comes from, as a norm.

Oh and its perfectly possible to have a high flying career, breastfeed (I have for 2 out of the last 3 years) and a nanny. My kids will be fine thank you very much. As am I (with the wohm and nanny) and dh (who had the sahm). But no one bloody asks dh whether his kids will be fine because he has a high flying career do they?

Indeed novice.

All good fun. The housewives just find it makes them feel better that they can only cope with cleaning and childcare and cannot also work, if they denigrate women who work and suggest we "outsource care", that we don't bring up our own children, that we interact with them so little that they suffer. All working parents know that is utter rubbish. However if you have so little in your life and have failed to the extent that you are a glorified cleaner at home then of course you have to feel you have taken some psychological superior choice. If you have given up a career you might have had it must therefore be justified by your choice being the better one. The reality is that you have failed in feminist terms and what you might feel is a choice if actually being shacked to to a man, kitchen and child with no economic power. It is a choice which damages other women and your own daughters and ensure we will never have sufficient women in positions of power.

Indeed as novice says no one ever asks the men if their children will be all right. These debates show sexism to the core. If I ever write about going back to work quickly which was best for everyone I am criticised but a man never would be.

In fact the lower paid and lower class in the Uk tend not to breastfeed and middle class high earning women are more likely to breastfeed than most working class housewives at home statistically. If we think breastfeeding is good, which many of us do, then we might well find that high earning professional women have higher rates of breastfeeding than stay at home working class housewives. It would be a fun survey to do.

3 of my children have graduated. They like most children of working parents would say they had spent a lot of time with their working parents. I don't think I have missed once a parents' evening or concert at school in 20+ years. There seems to be a myth amongst women at home which I suppose they propagate because it makes them feel better that working women don't get involved with their children and hardly see them. I am lucky at this stage 29 years into my career that I am often here when the youngest at prep school get home even not that I think that's essential to being a good parent. I choose when I am here to walk them to school even though they are taller now than I am. I accompany their music practice nearly every day on the piano. I am very present. Technology also makes it easier for parents to be present these days too.

What we probably all agree on is that parents who are bad with their children whether they work or not are not a good idea, that you can be a bad parent whetehr you work or not although if you are bad with them and also have a husband and nanny spending time with them and then at 3 a nursery school half day etc then your badness is diluted which can be a good thing. Secondly we can agree that children need constancy and love and if they attach and then detach, sent to board at 3 (as one of my uncles apparently was in about 1918 - sems incredible now !), or moved from foster home to foster home or whatever with no stability in your life then you tend to suffer for it. Few working parents put their children in that position. Our first daily nanny stayed for 10 years even whislt eventually she had after her marriage her first 3 children. We helped ensured that continuity happened. She stuck around longer than some parents do.

Xenia's deliberately inflammatory post aside, I agree with te last few posts. Why is bonsoir's DH a Superdad for seeing his children less
Than I do but as a working mother my children will apparently be noticeably different at age 7

Anyway. I've had rather a lot of wine.

I am pondering. DH and I had both very happy childhoods. My mum stayed at home till 1 was 8 and DH's went back to her business at 2 weeks, but we had loving supportive families. Do you think that is a factor in our decisions? Ie people who had less happy times wanting to create a
Happier childhood for their children?

Scuse typos.

If you are a 'high flyer' in city does it make you better than the woman who looks after your children whilst you do this? Does it make you better than the woman who cares for your dying mother because you can't?
No it doesn't.
Just be bloody thankful that some of us were born to care rather than to make money.
One day it will be one of those much maligned housewives who will be changing your nappy as you lay dying.
Just a thought.

I'm not quite sure what motivated that, Mary - the point of what Novice was saying was that she respects her nanny and pays her well.
And you should be thankful that some people are born to make money. who do you think is generating the cash to pay the bum wipers?

It wasn't directed at Novice.

bigkids - if you're still conscious "Do you think that is a factor in our decisions? Ie people who had less happy times wanting to create a Happier childhood for their children?"

Absolutely yes for me, having had a, let's say preoccupied dm, I sure as hell want to be with my dcs till they're 2/3 to give them them a secure base. I'm also strongly influenced by having studied child psychology so I'm doing it as a safety measure in case the attachment stuff I read is true.

And I can't wait to get back to work! But I feel my first duty is to my dcs. Having forced them into existence I can at least spare them a couple of years of my undivided attention (of course I'm very lucky to be able to).

I'm not sure "undivided attention" is a good thing for any child. Divided attention infinitely preferable, it seems to me. This notion that once you have children your life should be all about them is relatively new, and I am not convinced from my own observation that it is healthy. certainly examples of it I have come across have not been.
It's so earth-shatteringly obvious I'm amazed it needs to be said, but children can develop a sense of security and of being loved without mummy hanging over them every minute of the day.

Who would I divide it with? Dh is at work. We go out every single morning and afternoon (ds gets cabin fever at home), so he mixes with an enormous number of other adults and dcs. Then sees dh in the evening and at weekends.

My life is only all about him for a few years, and even now I fit in plenty of socialising, reading, exercise, and work from home half a day a week. Then it'll be more balanced again.

I like to see it as being there when he looks for me, rather than "hanging over" (though considering the dimensions of my tummy at the mo... )

But you don't have to do it like that to have a happy, secure child. What you're really saying is that you want to. Fine - others don't, it doesn't mean their children will suffer.

I'm actually worried, as I mentioned re child psychology. I'm probably being over-anxious, but if, just if, having me there for a couple of years might benefit him for life... I'm just being influenced by what I've read.

In a way I want to be with him, but in another way I'd like to be free at work. It just feels like a risk. Blame the psychologists and my nervousness!

I think the issue is perhaps more complicated than the textbooks might suggest. I can see very clearly that there have been specific benefits for my ds in having his infancy overseen first by me, then his father, then a nanny as his successive main carers. he has ASD and very often children in his position will bond with their main carer - usually mum - and be unable to bond with or even acknowledge their other parent. This has not been a problem with ds - he is open to new relationships to an extent which is remarkable in a child with ASD. He has not developed that exclusive dependence on me to fulfil his need for social contact.

Yes it does occur to me that there might be a hidden motive behind the attachment stuff, to do with keeping women at home. Also the whole thing's pretty untestable.

I sometimes see ds playing with other dcs when he doesn't know I'm watching and he sort-of acts more "grown up" somehow (he's 19mo). Then he spots me and rushes over for cuddles and goes all babyish. Which is fine, but I can really see the benefit of him spending time without me. However, I reckon that's quite a recent thing.

I also just wanted to say that I honestly never judge other parents' decisions. Loads of people have no choice but to work, have careers that mean more to them/they've invested a lot in, or would be very unhappy at home, or just don't feel like it.

fotheringhay Well can I say about child psychology? I've had PND, I didn't bond with dc1 for a few years.
I was also working () which was actually much better for him as I was unable to care for him in an appropriate way.

TBH, there was a lot of conditions there that would have been ideal to create some attachment problem. I was (am?) convinced that he has been displaying sign of insecure attachment when he was little.
The reality is ... 10 years on, he is bright, balanced and happy. He is also very securely attached to me.
Children are very resilient. To really have a child with some insecure attachment issues, you do need some major problems that are left unlooked at and unresolved.

You will be OK and I doubt that you will ever have any issue with attachment to your children.

Bonsoir you've lost me. If your DH can be a WOHP and be present for his dcs then surely a mum who is a WOHP can also be there for her dcs and they will turn out well.
Or are you saying that it's only possible if you have a PA a partner with you to organize everything? And that partner also has to be a SAHP for it to work?

Actually I believe it is much healthier for both parents to work, whatever your position is re feminism.

You just have to look at the relationships threads. How many marriages end up in divorce? How many women stay with their partners because they are afraid to go alone, all because they have no financial independence?
I certainly know a few women around me who clearly state they have an unhappy marriage but will not move out because of the financial implications.
After a few years out of work, her skills are less desirable. Add to that the worry that the woman will take some time of work because one of the dcs is ill... and you end up with lots of women in low paid jobs even when they actually have very valuable qualifications and experience (Just look at the number of graduates, women with a PhD working in call centres).
But it could also be that her partner has an accident and can not work anymore. He might die too. And then? how is the SAHP suppose to ensure the survival of his family?
I also remember a thread a few years ago about a woman who was terminally ill. She had 2 very young dcs. Her DH was working and could not take more time off. She was a SAHP. What did it mean? That even though she was terminally ill, even though the one thing she needed was rest, she still had to look after her 2 dcs. No money for childcare. No family to take over. Some more money (because she had been working and be entitled to some cover) would have helped her to have a much easier life at a time where surely this is what you need/deserve?

I really believe that the implications of having just one working parent is overlooked when you look at the impact of childcare on the dcs.

And most importantly, it isn't just 'high flyers' and 'nannies'. It's about deciding what is the best for the family in the long term, taking into account all the risks rather than just 'what one so called research has said'

notsure interesting posts. I agree with you about earning and relationship breakdowns. It's terrifying reading how many women are trapped in terrible marriages because they can't see a way out when they don't have a job.

I dunno, women collectively have fought so hard for the right to be independent, to not be in thrall to no one (bar the capitalist system) and yet as soon as some women achieve that we have things like attachment disorder thrown at us as to why we should stay at home. The guilt when it comes to child rearing is Ime immense. It's such an easy soft spot to pick at. If I ever hear a man say he had given up work for three years and the possibility of a future career in order that his children have secure attachments based on some social sciences research then I will believe we have true equality!

I am a medical student. During one surgical placement I was told off by a registrar for even being there, apparently I should have been at home with my dd, his wife was at home with his dcs "like a good mother". I should point out that my dd was 8months at this stage, I was still bfing her, and we had a very good childminder who she only went to in the mornings as my dp was home from work by lunchtime. I pointed this out to him, and he said it was not the same as kids need their mum. Never mind that he in fact was a foreign doctor on placement so had in fact uprooted his entire family half way across europe for the sake of his career. In the same week, a consultant had just signed us off on friday evening and he said we could go hone, but was also hinting that we should go with him to see an interesting patient. I declined and said that whilst I would love to, I might be able to catch my daughter before she went to bed (I had not been home before bedtime all week, as we had been made to stay late for the sake of it, even if there was nothing valuable for us to do, it was just part of the culture that you stay late, regardless of whether it was necessary). The consultant simply said "well welcome to medicine". Which is utter bollocks. Yes I know I will have to work long hours, but it is not always necessary especially at the student stage. It is just a misogynist culture that needs to be challenged, in most other placements the hours have been fine. So in the same week I was wrong for being there, yet also wrong for daring to want to go home at a reasonable hour.

I remember thinking I felt sorry for their wives and kids and incidentally I found out later that all the consultants were either divorced or in the process if getting divorced, so I wonder how "there" for their children they are? But I bet they don't get judged or criticised to a fraction of the extent I was in just one week!

well, I am only responding to the first page, not the other 12 ( which I have not read) but one poster refers to the practice of upper class parents having their children raised by staff and boarding schools, and says it never did them any harm, in fact this practice leads to a RAD, and many of the people "running the country" last century feature as case studies in text books on AD, and were unable to build successful personal lives, and often then raised their children the same way. The poster seems to think that if they were running the country they must have been happy and successful people, not at all.

Indeed real although I think that is changing. Yesterday for the first time ever I spoke to a male lawyer on a work matter who job shares half the week with another man, not that I am saying job sharing is good. I think there is nothing wrong with parents working full time as I have always done but I think sexist attitudes at work are fewer so it's better. I mention it only because it is unusual still. Yet there is no reason men as much as women cannot work part time nless they marry gold digger wives who want to be kept and not work. Plenty of youngish professional men who marry in their 30s find if they suggested to their wife the man might take 5 years off whilst she keeps them whilst they have babies she might well not head down the altar with him. Women as much as men can be sexist. Plenty of women want a man to keep them. It is not just male pressure.

What fothering is saying is that she has been in a sense conditioned and almost hypnotised by those around her, famioyl or work or what she has read to believe a myth that her children do better if she is there undivided attention for 2 or 3 years. This myth keeps women chained at home. It makes them think they are making some sacrific e for benefit of chidlren whereas all it really does is stop them moving up to poistions of power so any earnings they ever make are pin money to their almighty husband's much bigger wage. Thankfully most women are realising the myth is a load of rubbish as this thread has shown .

So the point is by all means stay at home if you want although realise you damage other women in the process and that that helps ensure women will never be the majority of board directors etc but do not stay at home because you believe it is better for the chidlren as your belief is wrong.

So many of the sexist comments are never applied to men and their choices.

Anyway I am optimisit. Most women work today and always have. Most couples negotiate a fairly equal sharing of domestic tasks at home.

Someone mentioned children needing happy parents. I agree with that. There was a survey last year which found that. The arrangement could be all sorts, lesbian parents, single parents, commune or whatever and if the people around were happy the children were. If your houseparent orfull time working parent when they see you are moan moan moan then the children are not happy. That is why I think parents need to have an element of selfishess almost for the good of the child. Probably all of us have got up night after night to feed a small baby, no choice over selfishness there. However I did find over time that making some time for things I needed, even if just 2 hours on holiday to read a book made me a nicer parent for the rest of the time.

newmoontonight - I don't think that anyone suggests that full time nannies + sending children to boarding school age 7 is a good idea in terms of their general emotional/social development.

The point was that there has been a very specific criticism that using a nanny is likely to result in children not reaching their intellectual potential, and therefore being less likely to succeed in life than their parents. Hence the counter example of the very large number of those in the past who had nannies/went to boarding school and yet were very successful in later life.

(Later on down the first page another poster made the very good point that in practice 50/60 years ago the class system was such that children from this class were almost guaranteed to succeed & become the future leading politicians etc, and therefore this isn't a good comparison.)

Looking at the Wikipedia on attachment and comparing it with how it is interpreted, shows the sexist pressure we are put under.

Attachment theory says nothing about the mother or father having to care ft. It says you need one or more primary carers. Yet this gets translated into ft mum is best. And if you dont do that you are damaging your children....

It is not worse for a child if a mother to stay at home though. Providing she wants to and enjoys it.
It is just a different choice.

Not everyone is a high flyer and not everybody wants to be.

I understand why the article would upset you if you are a high flyer and employ a nanny. But why rubbish lower class women's lives and try to make them feel shit.

My husband earns just a tad more than what someone pays their nanny down thread and I was on a few grand less in my old job. Ridiculous to assume that everyone could afford a Nanny or childcare.

You clearly have no clue about the real world and ordinary wage levels. A little bit like the politicians.

Most people aren't making a stance when they choose to stay home they are doing what is the best option for their family.