'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 . . .

Whoever suggested that children shouldn't have time to themselves? They should, but they need constructive things to play with and at. Children with low skill levels quickly lose the ability to play without getting into trouble.

I'm exceedingly good at entertaining myself (as is my DD)! That is because I was taught plenty of skills with which to entertain myself and develop my interests and talents

Boredom is a powerful anaesthetic

What do you class as "constructive"? My dd will have hours of fun with a box and some pens, for example.

I wasn't suggesting shutting dcs in the shed or anything. Just not laying on activities all the time. I am very aware that when I grew up we could roam quite safely. My dd does not have that option as we live in a cul-de-sac, but one surrounded by major roads. I let her play out as much as the weather allows. The neighbour children are in and out of the different houses. I give her as much freedom as I consider safe.

But I find it sad that she cannot go off to the swings, build a camp, go blackberry picking etc without a grown up. I did all those things at 8 yo. It is just not feasible for her. I love the story in "My Naughty Little Sister" where they go the river and the toddler falls in. And the big worry is about getting her clothes dry. I am sure more children died in accidents in those days - not a good thing - but on the other hand so many freedoms are lost.

As a child I adored the Swallows and Amazons books. Was it "better drowned than duffers"? The very idea of sending your kids off with a tent, a boat and a box of ginger beer! I am not sure if this was ever a reality for anyone, but I would have so loved to have done it.

My DD is lucky for a city child, in that her school is on a park (Parc Monceau) and the children do get to run around and play in the bushes, climb trees etc without undue supervision (given that there are lots of parents and DCs around in a general sort of way). Obviously she cannot just get on her bicycle and ride around the village, as I could as a child, but I think she and her friends get a lot of space to free play outside.

By constructive activities, I just mean that children need to build their skills in multiple ways through instruction and then they need the time, space and materials to be creative with those skills on their own terms. Eg DD does cross stitch as an after school activity. At first she couldn't do much at all without help and supervision from the teacher, but she can now both get a simple embroidery kit and do it on her own with minimal help from me, or draw her own little design and transfer it and cross stitch it. Keep her quiet busy for hours. Same with drawing - she has done after school art class for three years and can now keep herself busy drawing really quite nicely, with some degree of skill, using techniques she has learned.

But I am talking about activity WITHOUT instruction. With no adult input. To me this a vital thing.

I think my dd is much the same age as yours. She can draw pictures without going to art class. She can sew and knit with a bit of cack handed instruction from me. She can get on with stuff if there is noone to play with and we are busy.

In many ways classes are a way for parents to keep their dc's busy and out of their hair.

Porto - we like the My Naughty Little Sister story when she finds the workmen's lunches under a bush and eats them - it is another one with MNLS & BH roaming free

To be honest I think the question of whether it is better for the DCs to have one full-time parent at home is a bit of a dead end for feminism.

Clearly children can be successfully brought up in all kinds of families. What if the evidence shows that they do marginally better (say in GCSE results etc..) if they have a SAHP? I don't think it's worth it. That sounds a really harsh thing for a mum to say, but it's what dads say all the time, implicitly.

I am sure my DCs would be happier if I would stop work at 3:30 everyday and go jump on the trampoline. My son would probably do better in school if I made him do supervised homework every night. I'm sure it would be healthier if I baked my own bread and cooked everyhing from scratch. Buy they don't suffer terribly because I don't do those things.

I really don't think these arguments cut it unless you think that it is strange that men are not scuttling their careers in droves to get their kids a few extra ucas points.

I agree Himalaya - the same goes for other parenting decisions where the benefits are marginal e.g. breastfeeding.

It is taboo for a mother to admit that she might be making choices which are in the interest of a family as a whole rather than purely about the dc.

Himalaya Holey I think that you are right. So much of this is marginal. The questions of, eg whether a parent should stay at home or breastfeed for a year are never balanced against potential upsides or the effect on the family as a whole. it makes better-selling journalism just to find more things for women to feel guilty about

HG, this the point about the child as God, the little Emperor. In fact you do a better service to the child if you help it learn to realise the world does not revolve around it. That gives it the skills for life where it will compete for jobs etc.

As for child freedom each parent makes their own decisions. Mine certainly camp in the garden whenever they like. There was a rather large fire last month but they built it on a hard standing area so I did not intervene. We have a wood opposite. One at age 10 learned he could obtain a free travel pass and as he is a bit nerdy when on bus websites to look at routes and took off on some buses but only about a mile. I think that was very useful for him. i want them to learn the skills of how to avoid people who may be dangerous. At one point they were the only children walking how from school alone.

Portofino - I hate to disappoint you, but humans all learn from other humans... obviously we then practice on our own and develop our skills and intertwine them in creative ways if we really get somewhere.

Himalaya and Holey - if the benefit of many decisions are only marginal to the DCs, I agree the parent should do what is best for the family as a whole, or even what is simply best for her ( a less stressed parent is a better parent.)
After 18 years of being a SAHM, ( much longer than I ever anticipated when I made the decision in the early years of their childhood) I do think the cost to me personally has been great. Some of this is because of our own unique circumstances, ( ASD and GAD in 1 DC, Home-ed because of illness for another DC), but taking that aside, if it had been possible to work I think both myself and the children would have benefitted.

I feel like I've constantly put them first and every decision has always been in their best interests not mine, in what I now consider a misguided attempt to turn motherhood into a perfect career. I'm worn out.
I have 4 great kids, the eldest has amazed us, his AS has not held him back- he's off to uni in September and has a great circle of friends. The other 3 are doing well and I'm really proud of them all as individuals, but it's so hard to know how much is down to what I now see as a massive sacrifice on my part and how much would have been their natural outcomes whether a parent was home with them or not.
I have friends who work in some really interesting jobs, they are great parents and their children seem as well rounded and as happy as mine. I really don't know.
Anyway on a more positive not I'm not yet forty and I will, over the next year or so, become free to make decisions that are really only about me.

Emphatic, all you can do is what feels best at the time. I never think regrets are worth it (although I have never once wished I had stayed at home with the children, even in fhe hard bits when you have a toddler attached to your leg and you prise it off to be able to leave).

Also some women had low paid jobs and by taking time off to bring up chidlren can found a new business and make a fortune, whereas had they stayed on the factory production line for 40 years they might not have had the chance. Although I accept that most women who take time out from a good profession find it much harder to get back to the same levels so it is not always that easy to get back into things.

Thanks Xenia - I agree my decisions seemed right at the time and there is little point regreting them on a personal level, but I hope sharing my thoughts may be helpful to other women when considering putting the needs of their DCs above their own for long periods.

Definitely. It's the only reason I have gone about for 20 years how wonderful it is to have a high paid career and large family because you so very rarely see women who are happy in the press. It's not because I would want to show off about anything. It is simply as an example to others. It is important women and their daughters know that there are a lot of us out there who are happy, have large families and well paid careers we like.

Which is a good thing to show Xenia, of course they can. You can also be equally happy taking time off and doing part time work. There is no one way, do what suits you.

but there are so few women like Xenia, which i why i think it is important that she keeps on with her message of 'you can have it all'.

after all, its only what most men have, without a second thought.

hear hear. (or is it "here here"? I never know).

I do think it's vitally important to hear from women who love work, don't like looking after small children for more than a couple of hours a day, and have managed to have happy children and a successful career. There are so many stories about full time working mothers who are burned out, guilt wracked, and/or have dysfunctional children (funnily enough we never hear these stories about working fathers ) that it's very important to have some balance.

maples, I may have missed something but I think the worst that Xenia says about women who keep working but choose less demanding roles is that they are not helping fight the cause of equality. Which is kind of true of course.

(her real denigration is saved for SAHMs )

I expect my choice will be the same as yours. Someone else will have to fight the feminist battle for partnership/CEO etc. I simply don't have the energy (mind you at 10 weeks pg I don't have the energy for anything ).

I don't denigrate anyone.As we know the average IQ is only 100 and plenty of people are below that and even those brighter than that often have no work ethic at all and want to sit around not doing much. I do not say X is worse thann Y because she's got a low IQ or that Z is an awful person because she or he wants to live on benefits for life.

However the bottom line is that because maples not her husband is putting her career on to a lower track - and why it is she not her husband anyway? and countless other women women will never do that well.

minipie, that is why I go on about it. Of course with children as old as 13 everything is dead easy now but I can still remember how hard it was having young children,. Ut always is whetehr you are at home or not but if you can just hold on to your horses (career) once the difficult baby stage is over you have 30 years of superlatively interesting well paid career ahead of you. If instead you go part time or give up work usually those 30 years are spent (if there are no male earnings to live off) in relative povery instead and with its being virtually impossible to retrie ve the career (not always but often).

So I want women to think right - where do I want to be at 50, how do I see life at 60. Do you want to be deciding which white sliced loaf is the only one you can afford as you walk down to Aldi or do you want to be choosing your new BMW or funding your chidlren through university or hiring your new workers whilst expanding your business into China?