'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 . . .

Bonsoir, but dd always had a primary carer and continuity, it's just that the person that looked after her wasn't always me.

I think your situation is quite unusual Bonsoir in that there are so many corners of the day to spend with your DD. This might have scewed your view of whether it's okay for parents to work.

Here in the UK, if your DD went to a decent independent day school, she would be starting between 8-8.15. By 11 yrs if she is sporty or in the choir, she may have to go in even earlier some days. No chance of meeting at lunch. And school ends much later. And of course, a lot of extra curricular stuff takes place in school (unlike in France where you have to do it outside no?). My own DD often finishes at 6.30pm if she has had a match, an athlectics meet, or drama rehearsals, or choir practice.

Most parents can manage to work in those hours wihtout it making a blind bit of difference to the DC. I work from home, but if I didn't my DC wouldn't see any more of me IYSWIM.

Of course the holidays are to be considered...they are longer. I spend oodles of time with them then (somnetime I am ready to commit murder!!!!)

DCs don't require a primary carer's full focus all the time to be getting optimal care from them - you can have excellent, high quality interaction with DCs while you are getting on with chores and errands/they are doing their own activities. What matters is that you are around to answer their questions as they arise, to resolve small problems and chat about what you and they are doing.

Transitory babysitters and housekeepers hopefully keep DCs clean and safe. They may even entertain them. But they don't built a deep long-term bond that will last a lifetime and sustain DCs through the critical decisions of life.

Noone is talking about transitory babysitters though...

I'm amazed my children aren't psychopaths.

They've been looked after all sorts, depending on what was available at the time - extended family who had bizarre parenting practices, au pairs barely wearing anything who had been up until 3am clubbing, nurseries run by health and safety nuts who stopped them doing anything fun, parents who can't be arsed to wake up before 8am at the weekends if they can help it, and random nannies ranging from world class to rather rubbish. Amazingly enough, they're alive, normal and happy.

With all this stuff in newspapers, I say to myself "What's the evidence?" and the evidence is always that children need consistent care, a bit of personal attention from time to time, regular well-balanced meals, some time each day outside, and sensible bedtimes. However newspapers are happy to bastardise Bowlby and promote to the idea that there needs to be some sort of selfless Madonna figure providing all of this all of the time.

It's like feminism never happened, really.

wordfactory - I agree that, in Paris, home and work and school and activities intertwine in a way that doesn't happen as much in the UK. But I have plenty of friends and family in the UK who don't find that school hours (in private schools) cover the hours required by a professional career. At all.

I have always worked ft. I have "a deep long-term bond that will last a lifetime and sustain DCs through the critical decisions of life." Why would I not?

Boffin, I fear for the Belgians. They have 3 months ML, farm all their dc off to Maternelle aged 2.5, send them off the grandma at the coast for weeks in the summer, sign them up for scouts that lasts all day on a Sunday, have no private schools.....a nation of pyschos if ever I saw one .

Today I went out with dd and her school friend - it was lovely. No whinging, no squabbles, no axe murders. Just 2 lovely, polite children who had a fantastic day. These kids of WOHMs eh?

Bonsoir -

"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."

But thats the point!!!

Before you said men you know unanimously think children need a SAHP or a PT WOHP!.....Now you say they want them to have a SAHM....can you see there is a bit of sleight of hand going on there i.e. 'a SAHP, but just not me'

Once there are DCs in the mix, many workplaces assume that fathers will just continue to work in a 'normal' pattern - which requires either a serious amount of staff/boarding school etc... or a SAHP in the background to make sure that they never have to leave early, work flexibly, work PT or even just 9-5, be careful about scheduling travel ( in other words they need a wife...)

bonsoir I suppose it would depend what you did for living and where you lived.

Lots of people choose to move out of central London once they have DC and if they still have to commute, it can indeed elongate the day ridiculously. My friends who remained in town seem to manage to continue with their careers more easily.

Boffin, better book a place at the priory for your dcs. I will do the same for mine.

As a ft WOHM, I would of course like to spend more time with the dcs. Then again, when I was at home, I thought I spent far too much time with dcs, so the grass is never green enough.

I cannot really see what the fuss is all about with this primary carer fixation. I would have thought having a variety of carers from different walks of life part of the rich tapestry of experiences my dcs enjoy which dcs with constant Madonnas lack. My dcs' life is very stable, they tell me and dh things in the mornings, dinner and bedtime and have clear expectations from dh and I. Even in those limited times, they seem to spend quite a bit mucking about in my presence.

I wonder whether WOHMs (by choice) enjoy the stimulation of the working life and have by definition to roll with the punches at work and be organised at home outside of work. They are by character more resilient and able to live with things not being perfect. 'Good enough' must surely be a survival byword.

Perhaps WOHM's offspring are similarly adaptable and resilient. It is a genetic trait. Hence SAHMs and WOHMs talking at cross purposes? I am not looking to be the perfect parent. Nor am I looking for differences between dcs of SAHMs and WOHMs. I'm puzzled to think that my dcs' will not be alright because I was not there every hour they were not at school. On the contrary, they have a very enviable life, the perfect platform to realise their potential.

I feel like I am missing something when I read some of the posts on this thread.

I am sure I will end up in the Priory before they do - until I was 7 my mum was a SAHM and I have to say I don't think she did the best of jobs, if I am honest. She was so utterly stressed all the time. I used to hide in my bedroom a lot.

I've just spent far too much time skimming this thread, and I think that Oliver James style cod psychology has a lot to answer for. Cherrypicking research to support prejudice adds heat to the debate but not much light. It makes some feel self righteous and others guilty.

Engaged parents do their best for their dc, however they go about it.

Fully agree with Boffin.

The evidence is lacking to say that children are at a disadvantage if they don't have a SAHP.

I have notice though that people who are defending the line 'children should have a SAHP' haven't answered some of my remarks up thread.

What happens if you divorce and you haven't worked for 10 years and can't have anything else than a low paid job?
What happens if your partner has an accident and dies/is unable to work any more?
These things happen quite regularly unfortunately. Children are then living with a much lesser amount of money available with all the issues that comes with it. The mother will end up working full time which means even less time for a parent to be with the child.
Is it not better if the mum has always worked and is financially independent? Has a job that is fulfilling for her and is allowing her to look after her dcs too? So that if the worse happens, she can carry on wo as many disruptions to the children lifes?

As I said above they want contented parents and most full time working parents do try to get home at a reasonable hour whatever their gender or alternate with the father. Both my oparents did bed times stories. Both my children' father and I did too. Children and their needs also change as time goes on. I do find my children have more competence because their parents work,. They all cook. They didn't seem to have the concerns some of their peers had in leaving home for university. Theyh have learned how to cope getting night buswes across London int he night as they know being one of a lot and with parents who are busy they either get home them selves or they arwe stuck - there is no one (except in extremis_) who is likely to want to get out of bed at 1am or stay up late to drive them home so they have skills which in a sense are survival skils - how to keep yourself safe which mollycoddled chidlren don't.

Of course some non working parents give chidlren that too but if your be all and end all is being a Perfect Mother at home and yuou have made being a parent into some kind of career (it is not) then you have to justify that by making jobs for yourself.

I suspect the good enough parent, non perfectionism of parents whether working or not working parents is the better way to be and being a parent is about compromise, tolerance and love. It is not a job for perfectionists.

I don't believe a 'perfect parent' should be there all the time anyway. Children need space to organize themselves and learn to be themselves. They also need time to learn by their own mistakes (which isn't going to happen if there is always a well meaning parent to protect them).

I am really wondering what people like Bonsoir think they do that WOHP parents don't? Because when I look at my dcs and what they want to do (at a similar age that her dd), what they want isn't to spend time talking/playing/doing things with me. They want to go out and play, they want time to draw, invent stories or games. They want to time to chill out in front of a DVD. Not to have 'mummy' with them.
I can see how with a single child, it might feel like they do need someone to spend time with them, but mines are perfectly able to keep themselves occupied wo me!

And by experience (as I work 2 longer days when they are with a carer until at least 6.00pm and not working for the others), they don't seem to be talking to me more on the days when I pick them up. When I am at home, they are away like a shot lol.

I do see on here evidence that some children have their whole lives arranged for them, that they are central to everything, rather than having to fit in. Playdates, parties where everyone has to be invited, extra curricular stuff every night, parents choosing GSCE subjects, extreme tutoring, parents attending Uni interviews etc....

This is SO different from my upbringing, that I can't get my head round it at all. And I am fine. I have an education, a good job, a nice life. I did it, not my parents(or gps in my case). They were there to feed me and love me and teach me right from wrong. I never kept a tally on how many hours they interacted with me - not that many probably. I have always been quite independant, working PT from aged 16.

I want the same for my dd. I don't want to spoonfeed her life. I want her to get out there and learn how to get on with people.

I've only barely had time to keep up with this thread, but from what I can see the most unfeminist sentiment here is the belittling and sneering at other women's choices - or indeed lack of them. Xenia's talk of stupid little housewives is the worst of it, but it pervades the thread. I don't doubt that working women do fine by their kids. I bloody hope so as I'm going back to work this autumn. But how dare people look down on women who haven't had the luck, education and right year of birth to be able to make a choice. House and care work has enormous value, and if we as a society recognised that more then we'd all be the richer. Those of us not able to afford nannies wouldn't have to entrust our kids to 18yos on the minimum wage, for a start. Telling sahms that they are doing nothing of value is absolutely as antifeminist as telling wohms they are damaging their kids by using childcare. Generations of women have found meaning and value in bringing up kids and managing households - you sneer at that, then you buy into the whole patriarchal idea that the realm of the home is devoid of value, and is the refuge of the poor and ignorant. Many pioneering early feministwombat be spinning in their graves at some of the comments on this thread.

Wombat?! Bloody iPhone certainly knows how to take the wind out of an argument.

The point is that women who are able to work and earn a lot tend also to be very competent at choosing non sexist husbands and managing and running and house and bringing up their children in an equal partnership. Therefore we do just about everything the housewife does plus we work and earn. In other words we are saying we do nothing less. We may do a few hours a day scrubbing floors and wiping babies' bottoms less but only that kind of thing.
We need many many more women at work and rising to the top to stamp out sexism at home. we want to come back to MN in 10 years and find as many men as women at home and 50% of the cabinet and all boards female and there never being an assumption in a single marriage that because you are female your career comes second to a man's.

Going back to PF's point - yes I agree. What parents (whether at home or not) can give to their children is the gift of not being over organised and the freedom to be bored in a sense. I did not look at a single piece of GCSE course work ever of my older children and they have all graduated fine. My younger children do not hav single out of school activity. They ave happy, sort out how they play themselves (they are at the end of prep school so obviously need less immediate care than a 2y ear old of course) and are quite mature and organised. As no one has invented/pretended being their oparent is some kind of job they have hugely gained from that.

It all goes back to the view that if you read the 'right' books and parent in a certain way you can't go wrong and will turn out successful, emotionally stable and well rounded adults! Wouldn't it be simple if life was like that?!!
We are all different and so are our DCs and there is no magic formula that we can get 'right' and guarantee success.
The best way to succeed as a parent is to be happy in what you do and not think the grass is greener........
Xenia's lifestyle would make me deeply depressed but mine would have the same effect on her. Why should we want the same? Why should one be better?
If you love being at home with preschool DCs then do it, if you would hate it then don't- one thing is for sure - your DCs will pick up on how you really feel.
There is just no need to belittle other's choices. I would find being a lawyer deadly boring, not everyone feels the same, there are equally lots of other careers that I would hate. I find child development fascinating- it would surprise me greatly it everyone did.
There is no such thing as 'the perfect mother' and IMO if there was such a person she would be hell to live with! Also one person's view of the perfect mother would be the exact opposite of someone else's.
I think that whether your mother works or not, having one 'devoted' to you would be like a millstone and I always cringe when I hear it. DCs need the village...........Even if you are at home you need to loosen the reins, let them stay with grandparents, have babysitters and go out etc.
Parenting is giving them roots and wings. How you give the roots is up to you.

Where I get fed up is the view that feminism means that all women want a high flying career - to me it is choice and I never wanted a high flying career even before DCs, I wanted an interesting one with variety and a good work/home balance. You can be a feminist and still enjoy traditional female occupations. I like knitting but I expect it is frowned on as if you can't be the head of a company and knit!
Do what suits you and don't assume it suits everyone - or that you have found 'THE' way.

I would agree that all DCs need benign neglect. The greatest favour you can do is let them have time to be bored. I suspect that my parenting is not that different from Xenia's- despite a completely different way of going about it!

I agree with your aim Xenia and it ain't going to happen as long as you imagine sahps just wipe bottoms and clean floors, and do nothing else of value. If staying at home with kids had status, more men would want to do it. If it's meaningless grunt work that any low-paid sap can do, then it will remain women's work, because that's how sexism rolls. Your ideal world as things stand relies on armies of low-paid (female) labour to sustain the high-paid women at the top- hardly a feminist utopia. In my ideal world, bringing up kids is valuable enough that we want to pay parents to take time out of the labour market to do it. For child care to be valued enough that a career in it not be seen as the lowest of the low. For work cultures to change such that being home at a reasonable hour to see your kids not be the mark of the low-paid and poorly qualified. In sum, for it to be a realistic economic and social option for there to be an equal partnership between mothers and fathers, whatever their socioeconomic background, rather than relying on all women to want or need to be obscenely paid bankers. I think I need to move to scandinavia...

It takes no longer to wash a floor or wipe a bottom as a SAHM as a WOHM and then the rest of your time is free for more exciting things!