'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 . . .

libelulle

"that childcare is so dull and easy that any low-paid sap can do it. "

but isn't that the same argument the pro-SAHM side is making? That all it takes to be a good (or even the best) carer for a child is to have a womb? Womb-having is not a special skill, so if you claim that having grown it qualifies you to be the best possible carer, you are saying that anyone can do it.

I don't have a nanny, not only because we couldn't afford it but also because we prefer the group setting of nursery and I don't think of my children's nursery workers as lowly paid saps. They're doing a brilliant job, they've trained and qualified for, and my children strive in their care.

To me it seems more like it's the SAHM-side of the debate who are looking down on professional childcarers.

They have to justify their anti feminist position, their lack of pay and to justify their whole being as housewife. They always end up saying their childre are better brought up than by working mothers (never fathers of course as they worship the air on which their good provider wonderful men walk upon as their role is service and care).

Going back to the link in the OP - if I found someone who is looking after my children to be talking so disrespectfully and full of resentment about my choices - which actually provide them with employment, I think I'd be looking for somebody else pdq,

We dont justify it, some of us genuinely love it, so why on earth would we want to change.

...because we live in a society that treats women and men differently and as feminists we want greater quality.

quality = equality

If say 97% of society is happy with the status quo?

are you suggesting that 97% of women are happy to earn less than men and do most the housework & other crap that needs doing for little thanks?

if not, what are you suggesting? do you have a reference?

In RL, I have never had a conversation with anybody about feminist issues.Or even overheard one.So the 3% is being generous.

oh right so you are not a feminist?

Clearly not. The planet is covered in cultures where women cannot even vote and their husbands decide everything. They may be happy but the set up is wrong for them. If the changes make them less happy so be it. 80% of Somali girls have their clitoris removed and vaginal opening sewn up. Their mothers and grandmothers just about all want it. They are happy. That does not mean we cannot lobby against the practice. Women won 1% of the world's wealth and earn a third of its income.

I do not care if women in ignorance are happy in that state. If we have to drag them kicking and screaming out of their blissful ignorance and force the mops from their hands so be it.

Do you have a daughter, amillionyears?

wordfactory I had a sahd for financial reasons in the early 80s recession. He went back to work as soon as he could. No one gave up their career to bring me up and I'm ok .

Think it was boffinmum who posted the hours spent with kids for sahp and wohp. Feel a lot better after that. I'll easily spend 3 hours a day with Ds the vast majority of the time.

wasabi yy to the superdads stuff. It's tedious. My dh does as much as I do when he's here. I wouldn't expect anything less from an educated adult who has joint responsibility for a child.

Yes, none of us who are feminist expect anything less from a man. You are not wonderful if you look after your own children. yet sexist women and men are out there thinking because their man "helps" them that is somehow special.

amillionyears, I totally agree with you that these issues are rarely discussed but this doesn't mean that people and women in particular are happy with the situation as it is.
I am sure you have heard women moaning about their DH not sharing responsibilities in the house/childcare etc...
I am sure you have heard women being very worried because they suddenly need to work but can't find anything because they haven't worked for years.
I am sure you've heard about women at work having some problems because they have yet again to take some time off work to look after a sick child (but their DH isn't).

This is what we are talking about here. It might not be talked about as 'being a feminist' or 'wanting to discuss feminist issues' but I am sure all of these have been talked about.

Wwell amongst my friends these issues are discussed a lot.

We may not say 'Okay sisters, let's have a debate about feminism' but we often discuss how why and when we made the choices we did. How men don't seem to have to make the same choices. Those of us with daughters talk about the future for women all the time. How could we not?

amillion if you have never had any RL conversations about sexism/feminism with your friends I would suggest you get some more intelligent friends. Have you never had a conversation about racism, antisemitism or homophobia either?

Some people are very dull. Many are not very bright. The average IQ is 100. I was about to add they are all housewives talking about brands of soap powder but I will restrain myself. I certanily think whether men or women work or not it is whether their "chat" is fun and interesting is a huge part of whether we want to engage in conversation with them. I would have hoped most housewives ask themselves every day how they got saddled with dull domestic stuff for no pay whilst lover boy gets the best of everything.

Thats the point.The lover boys that I know, work extremely hard, very long hours, unsociable hours, out in all weathers, sometimes or often dirty backbreaking jobs.

Ya. And come home home and have their dinner on the table and a wife that sleeps on the couch so he doesn't get disturbed by his offspring during his precious sleep. Because he works so hard.... And goes off to the pub for a few hours because he deserves a break.

A 12 hour shift is a lot different to a 24 hour one, however backbreaking.

Sorry Takver, just realised I have gone way off post.Will stop now.As you were.

My DP goes out on his own in the evening less than I do (and I do it pretty rarely) and nobody sleeps on the sofa. Why not have dinner on the table? I'm absolutely dying for my dinner when DP (and the children) get home. I cannot see there is anything to be resentful about. We share the clearing up after dinner and share whatever jobs need to be done afterwards, within the realms of our skills sets (he is better at Physics in French than me, I'm a lot better at English and grammar of all sorts).

Bonsoir you do realize that you and your DP are NOT average and that your arrangement is NOT average either.

Because I actually do agree with quite a bit with your way of organizing life and sharing responsabilities. But you also need to recognize that this is NOT the norm and many many women are stuck in a system where SAHM=woman kept in a place where she has no ower, no decision power, no financial power, all of which are important within the wide society and within the couple to ensure real equality.
Of course, if you have in front of you a man who really believes that men and women are equal then you can be a SAHM wo any issue within your couple. Unfortunately, this isn't the case for most women and they do need the power that gives earning a decent wage to 'get' that equality both in and outside the home.

This of course does not mean you have to work. Just that it is certainly something to think about before taking the decision to be a SAHP.

Just catching up with the thread.

maples your position interests me as it's where I expect to be in a year or two. I am currently pg with DC1, DH and I are both in careers with long/unpredictable hours. Xenia's experience of usually finishing at 6.30 belongs to a different era I think. novice's lifestyle of endless staff to orchestrate two full on careers and family life doesn't appeal - I am in awe but just don't think I have the stamina to do it.

So, like you, I don't think that both of us continuing in our current jobs is feasible, or at least it's not desirable.

May I ask - did you consider the option of both you and DH taking a step back career wise (so that, say, you both move to full time jobs with more regular hours) rather than DH carrying on as is and you moving to a much more part time job and taking on the bulk of childcare? I ask because in an ideal world I would prefer the former option. But I don't think such "regular hours" jobs exist - at least not in the areas DH and I work in.

I work for myself so I decide the hours. I've been at my desk all day today but I don't have little children any more and it has not just been work all day. I certainly recommend my children of all genders go into careers where you have capacity to be your own boss and build up your own business. I am sure I like many men and women made career compromises by leaving work at reasonable hours although I certainly remember a few nights when I was the only person just about left in the building and was told to go home.

I remember a meeting of 30 men when I was 24 years old when I made us end at 9 as I needed to get home to breastfeed. As for some bizarre reason I was in charge of it I managed to achieve that.

As Not says a lot of women who give up work are not in a position of equality in their relationships and leave themselves economically vulnerable and indeed impose a bigger burden on their other half and perhaps even an unfair burden on him (or her if she is in a gay relationship).

I think the common ground for the dual career couples who make it work is where both of them work around the children, perhaps alternate who gets home first. We certainly found having a nanny made working late easier and we alternated the weekends so that I would look after the children all day on Saturday and he would on Sundays in various combinations over time depending on who was working when.

The main thing is babies soon grow up. My oldest are enormously old things in their 20s and those very very very few years which are so key to a stellar career fly by and if you choose not to cope with work and family beiong hard for a bit and jack it all in and then lose the chance to earn £1m a year for 20 years then that tends to be a silly decision you rregret later when the husband disappears abroad with all the money and leaves you only able to get teaching assistant jobs on the minimm wage because as ever you a woman sacrificed your career on the altar of male superiority.

Are you trying to protect women because you are afraid the husbands will up and leave them destitute.