'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 . . .

boffin its because the fathers get it soooo right... i mean they must do...they never get criticised like women...

as usual, wicked women. saviour men.......or maybe just a huge dollop of double standards????

Of course Superdad thinks the best model is for a sahw or a part time home because it makes things easier for him as well as the children aspect. However anyone who thinks high flying men want sahw for purely selfless reasons is deluded. I say this as someone who is with these types of men on 5 out of 7 days a week in the City and it is very clear what (generally) their views are on this.

Dh is the odd one out at his work because if say, either of our dcs are unwell, our nanny contacts us both. The deal is whoever is closest to home or is in the less important meeting drops what they're doing to go. (Before someone gets judgy, obviously if they're seriously unwell then we would leave immediately). Also, our PAs liaise on travel committments to avoid us being out of the country at the same time. The first time we had a clash, I offered to cancel but he insisted that mine meeting was more important so he cancelled. He is equal parent. They are fine when I travel and it is important to me that they see their dad is equal parent rather than the secondary parent which is what it seems like in the most traditional set ups. While people continue to think the traditional set up is the only and appropriate, I will continue to question whether a) those posters are really feminists and b) broadly, whether this is really where decades of feminism has got us.

To be fair to men following novice's comments a good few of the ones I meet want a woman with a similar successful career as most of their friends are husband and wife both in good jobs. There may be some for whom it is something to show off about that their wife does not work but not all are of that genre.

Most of us manage novice type marriages. It was the same with us - who is in the more important meeting does not cancel it (and obviously if the child is almost dying you both drop everything). It's just common sense.

Money does come into it - if your wife or husband earns hardly anything and the family needs the wage of the other then you cannot prioritise the pin money worker's job that much. I earned 10x my children's father so if push came to shove it would be fairly clear which career fed us most. Their father who worked 8 - 6 although usually 2 evenings a week and all day Saturday too, had trouble leaving early at work where it was assumed women have to rush off to relieve child carers but men not (and yet he did at that period - he had to leave on time to let our nanny go home) and was once told he couldn't have a pay rise as his wife earned too much.

So if we get most women earning 10x what their men earn I suspect we might well find that women lead companies and men do more cleaning of the loos at home. There are more and more women marrying someone who earns less so it will get better.

This is an important question:
"Is there any amount of time we can all agree is bad if both parents spend only that limited time with children?
Do we think you can still parent a child under 5 well as a mum or dad if you are both only there in their waking hours at weekends or every other weekend? Ie they see neither parent during the week because the parents are out 7-7+"

For many divorced fathers they are only allowed to see their chilren every other weekend , something I would hope most feminists would lobby against. It is wrong sexist and unfair. We relate to those who are with us. However family cultures differ on this and even classes in the UK. What in one culture is appalling (not looking after your elderly parents in your house say) or not sleeping with your baby is fine in another culture.

I don't think you need a blood tie to bond with and love a child. However no one will love you if they never see you - applies as much to married couples as to parent child relationships so yes there will be some minimum and of course it will vary over different stages. My eldest is 27 (years not months) so I doubt we would have the same answer for her as we might for our under 5s. Most children of 5 spend more time with their school teacher awake in the week than they do with their parents but we do not regard that as wrong or unbonding.

PAs liaising over travel arrangments with nanny holding the fort at home... get over it, that's yesterday's status symbol

The human race seems to have carried on fine without mum at home doing nowt but child care for all but the last, 30 years? 40 years? It's certainly a modern phenomenon, only possible with today's labour saving gadgets and supermarkets. Is it a coincidence that it has happened at the same time as women gaining lots of equality in the workplace?

The stay at home partner has to be subsidised by either the other partner or the state or have independent wealth. I don't see how this is a desirable proposition for all but the most wealthy as growing up poor is not fun.

maples - is there really no way that you couldn't work things so that one of you started later/worked later, the other started earlier/finished earlier?

I would imagine the huge benefit of a nanny is that s/he is there as and when things go pear shaped and you can't come home, or when dc need to stay home from school when they're sick - as opposed to a nursery where someone has to be there at 6pm regardless.

In RL the only people I know who have a nanny (although only a part time one) are S & BiL who are both doctors. They spend loads of time with their dcs - basically by not working quite full time + doing very long hours on different days - but the nanny (a) makes sure that everything runs smoothly and (b) is there to fill in the holes when shifts etc don't work out as planned. (I have to say I'm not sure how much they see each other some weeks, but that's a whole other thread!)

Maples - I think it is a myth that this dilemma only or mainly relates to under 5s. Actually childcare at this age is relatively easy, and other competent, caring adults can substitute pretty well for a parent-hours.

It is in the homework/social life/rebellion years that it becomes harder.

The thing is I think that lots of women are sold the myth that it is just-five-years -but this extends to 7-8 with two or three rounds of maternity leave and early years, and by the time they and their parntner realise that childcare for school age children is harder her career is so crippled and his so accelerated that they have little alternative but to continue in those roles.

I do think something like Novice describes, or both work part time equally, or any other equal or alternating arrangement is much better
than one where one does all/most of the care and one earns most of the wages over the 20 year period of raising a family.

So how much time do children need with a parent?
Maples said "For me personally, I feel a child under 5 should have more than weekend parenting, particularly if mum and dad are both at work throughout the child's week day waking hours and one or other of them are likely to work say 1 weekend in 4. If my DH and I both continue in our current jobs my 9 month old would only see us in the weekends and not all weekends at that."

As a feminist then if you think that then it is absolutely esssential your husband is the one who shoots his career to pieces and you keep on working otherwise women will never achieve anything. Make that your starting point.

Leaving that aside when our youngest were little I was usually home by about 6.30 or 7. Occasionally I would stay later. As they got bigger and I wasn't breastfeeding I might more often stay later and their father was home at 6. That seemed to work quite well for us. One or two nights a week he was out for work and he worked on Saturdays. It varied over time (these are our first 3 children who have now graduated and are huge now, a finished product as it were). They had a daily nanny and as they got bigger she brought one and then 2 of her babies to work.

I think it is under 5s we are really talking about here. Also people do not always consider the impcat of lots of siblings. One reason second and third chidlren fit in so well and in my view benefit is that they get a bit less attention and have to fit into the routine. I regard that as good for them not a bad thing. They learn to share. They learn they are not a God around which the planet circulates but that they are part of a famil which has various obligations not just relating to children.Selfish takers, little emperors are more likely to be created by parents with too much time on their hands, trying to suggest looking after children is some kind of career - making to parent a verb which it never has been in English. It is merely a noun.

My own view is that 2 or 3 hours a day is fine with under 5s for a parent and remember every one of my chidlren never once slept through teh night until at least 1 - 3 years old so we are talking about 365 nights a year breastfeeding, not just you go to bed at 7 and then your parent leaves at 7am. I am talking about normal babies who you want to have asleeop at 7 but it can take you 2 hours to ge them off and then they are up between 12 and 2am on and off feeding and screaming and then up finally at 5am full of beans when you have another 3 hours before you get to work. That is more normal than a baby who sleeps 7 - 7 and is not awake until the parent leaves.

These article in the Telegraph is interesting:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8408503/Working-mothers-spend-81-minutes-a-day-looking-after-their-children.html

"Now, a new study has disclosed that in Britain, those who work outside the home spend on average one hour 21 minutes a day looking after their families - including meal times.

Stay-at-home mothers managed almost twice as much time directly caring for their children, with 2 hours 35 minutes dedicated to activities like meals, bathtime and playing games, according to the research by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development"

"Family campaign groups said the emotional development of children was being damaged, because too many women felt under pressure to work long hours, while others prioritised careers over time at home.

But psychologists said it was more important how the time caring for children was used, and that less time than 81 minutes could be enough if it included fun activities which were sufficiently bonding."

Bonsoir those men pretty much unanimously think children need a SAHP or a PT WOHP!.
Well it suits them isn't it? dad can do whatever he likes, be sure he has a nice successful career but to do that he needs to be enabled by his wife s, of course, it is much better for the dcs if she stays at home! At the same time, he ensure that he can come back home to a meal that has already been prepared, the house tidy etc...

maples, I am not sure that one having a nanny automatically means that the dcs will only see their parents during the week end.
First, when they are small, you have all the night waking.
Also, some people will organize themselves to work 2 or 3 long days so that they then have more time at home the rest of the week.
It all depends of the sort of job you are doing and I doubt that most people are in a situation where both partners have a career that involves both parents coming home late, working extremely long hours and/or travelling.

From my experience, spending 1 hour in the am and then 2~3 hours in pm with your dcs (as one parent is present) is already plenty as long as:
1- your dcs are left with primary carer during the day that is worth their salt.
2- the time you spend with them at that time is free of stress. For me it means some sort of routine so they know what is going to happen (with under 5's but also with older dcs, eg who is doing the pick up at school, who is going to be home that night etc...).

And to be fair, this is probably what is happening anyway with primary school children even with a SAHP. Pick up from school with mum, watch TV, play on the XBox, or go to do an after school activity Go back home to an evening meal, tidy up, have shower, go to bed.
The real input from the parent isn't that big.

Also parents today interact with children much more than parents in the 70s even if they have a housewife mother at home and had then. I am not saying that is better. I think children who learn how to entertain themselves do well too. You get the balance that suits you best. Also some children are more in need than others. One of my non identical twins as a crawler would crawl for ages on his own (very physical boy). His twin brother wanted to be sitting on your knee gabbling away - he has remained the talker and chatterer whilst his twin remains the superb kicker of balls and the like.

Another factor we felt very pressured with 3 under 4 and working full time (and it would have been harder had one of us not worked) as that is always a hard stage and the more help we got the better the interaction with the children and of course when they start to sleep your life totally changes and all is well. I remember with the later chidlren we found someone for Saturday and Sunday mornings and how much more interaction they then got. It sounds bizarre but knowing those mornings were free of toddlers so that either we could interact with the teenagers or work or just read the newspapers meant at 1pm you couild give unadulterated twin attention having got all your washing done, all the admin and post dealt with etc When I had the first few chidlren I would never have considered even had we been able to afford it getting help at the weekends but over the fist 15 years of being a parent I realised that wasn't breacho f some major shibboleth and could in fact enhance things. Of course the twins adored someone looking after them, adoring teenagers or whatever who had nothing better ot do than play with cute babies for 4 hours and then hand them back. I don't feel they therefore had a massive deprivation of parental attention for those 8 hours at the weekend on two mornings. I feel they massively gained from it. I don't think I would have been brave enough when I had the first children to hire any weekend childcare.

Yes being there with them in the same room or the same house isn't the same as being fully present with undivided attention.
And, even if we were able to give children our full undivided attention all day long, I don't think it would be the best for the child. They need space to grow, learn, play on their own.

However, I would not let anyone else than me or my partner put the dcs in bed because it is the ONE time of the day where they will talk about their problems etc... It is also prob the best time to establish connexion.

but that is true whether you are a SAHP or a WOHP, whether you have a nanny, a childminder or not.

81 minutes a day with mother (quite probably shared between several DCs) is an extraordinarily small amount of time. And bedtimes are not the crucial moment, IMO - the moment when DCs most consistently spill the beans is at the school gate in the afternoon. I actually would worry a lot about DCs who were talking about problems at bedtime, which ought to be a moment of peace, tranquillity and evasion from the world in order to ensure a good night's sleep.

It is very wrong to think that fathers who want their DCs to have a SAHM actually want to have a SAHW. That is not my experience at all, around me - no men want a SAHW if there are no DCs in the mix.

2 hours 35 minutes that SAHMs spend with their DC according to the survey is not a massive amount of time either. Especially considering that they are, well, SAHM.

I agree, HazleNutt - but it's still a hell of a lot more than 81 minutes!

Interesting on average there is only an hours difference, I am quite surprised by this actually. Well that certainly blows a lot of myths out of the water.

On a school day, my DD spends one hour with me in the morning (up at 8am, school starts at 9am and we walk or take the bus to school, so talk all the time), one and a half hours with me at lunchtime (she might play with a friend for some of that, but she might not, and we do things like reading) and then is FT with us once school and activities are finished - at least 4 hours. She probably occupies herself for two of those.

Obviously, on non school days, you can add on another 6 hours (give or take a few activities/friends).

I would be curious to know how much quality time children in childcare and school get from their carers. It would be quite a revelation if children who are in childcare end up getting more quality time due to having more carers.

Why? Why would 5 hours with a carer be better than 1 hour with a parent?

Bonsoir the article says on average there is an hour's difference between the amount of time SAHM and WOHM spend with their dc. If a child is getting the same amount of attention but from more people (assuming that the child has bonded with their carer) then what is the problem?

Because what matters is attention from primary carers with whom a child is bonded and with whom their is life continuity and intellectual and emotional engagement.

Why would it not? If the carer was fully focussed on interacting with the child, and not hoovering, washing, doing a supermarket run and all the other million things you do at home?