'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 . . .

Xenia I think you are absolutely right in cases where the woman loves her demanding high flying job (as you clearly did and still do) and finds it "superlatively interesting". In those cases of course she should stick with her career and if necessary ask her DH/DP to scale his down instead.

The thing is, I don't love my demanding job. I don't even like it a lot of the time. And I suspect there are lots of women out there who feel the same. In our position, why struggle to juggle home life and demanding career, when we could be just as happy/fulfilled/interested (and a lot less stressed) doing something less demanding?

You are also right about cases where the high flying woman earns a lot and is the main breadwinner, so her career makes the difference between Aldi sliced white and BMWs as you say. Again, though, I am not in that position. And again, I suspect that most women aren't either.

Xenia,you do realise you are wearing yourself out attaining your riches,dont you?

Maybe maples is like me and thrilled that her DH is the one willing not to put his career on a lower track. It is up to the couple, Xenia seems to be saying that it has to be the man who does the lower track - whereas I would expect it to be the man in only 50% of cases. I have been 50 and am entirely happy at where I was and at 60 I know that I will still be pleased that I had the wonderful time with my DCs, that no money can buy. I will also, despite Xenia's doom and gloom, be fine financially- it is all sorted and we have been to a solicitor.
Each to their own, I don't expect everyone to feel the same. If you are ambitious and want power and influence then go for Xenia's way- just don't imagine that it is something that all women desire.

Exotic - but it isn't the man in 50% of the cases. Maybe 10% is my guess - so just saying 'each to their own' doesn't explain why, or why it should be ok.

It all depends on whether the couple are happy. I would have been deeply unhappy to go to work and leave DH at home - it would be different if I was depressed at being at home.
You can't put quotas on it. Discuss it before you have DCs. I don't think that I would have had more if I had to go out to work- I would have stuck with one, who was already 8yrs.

Xenia has said that she doesnt care whether the women are happy when they go out to work.Or that is how I interpreted it

Xenia has said that only a woman with half a brain would want to stay at home with DCs! (not sure why she wants to employ such a woman as a nanny)
Xenia could be an excellent ambassador for working mothers if stuck to the positive and kept off what she perceived to be the negative.

I agree exotic. There is so much value in having positive role models for working mothers. If I'm honest, I'm struggling with being a full-time SAHM right now for all sorts of reasons, and I'm desperate to regain a foothold in the adult world. So I love to read about successful examples of combining work and bringing up small children - but for me Xenia isn't one of them. Working 60 hours a week and employing a full-time nanny is about a million miles away from the model I'm looking for. Like exotic, I also wonder about how I'd be happy in Xenia's position leaving my kids with someone I had so little respect for, since apparently anyone wanting to look small kids full-time must be devoid of both intellect and ambition.

In general, her characterisation of SAHMs as half-brained dullards is frankly odd, because by her own account, the very reason many women do end up staying at home longer than anticipated is because they find their career in tatters after stepping off the ladder. In other words, women who had a professional career in the first place and the education to match. For someone who keeps talking about how clever she is, she spouts some remarkably badly-thought-out claptrap.

The problem with these discussions is that they focus on the extremes or on people who form such a microcosm of our society.

Libelulle I agree about your point of having positive role models for working mothers, as a SAHM I feel it's important not only for me, but for my daughters too - I want them to be able to see the evidence of the different choices available to them, not just my choice.

Not that Zenia needs anyone to defend her - I'm sure she'd laugh at the thought, but her stance on SAHMs always strikes me as someone who has had to be on the defensive for large parts of her working life, I presume in a male-dominated sector, and has been on the receiving end of criticism for her parenting choices from both men and women alike. A situation I find incredibly misogynistic and unfair. SAHMs can be equally misguided in their attacks on mothers with demanding careers.

Having said that, I really don't understand Zenia's obsession with IQ and this almost two- tier approach to mothers - those above 100 and below. I find that incredibly offensive and not at all helpful. We should be supporting each other in our choices, but also recognising that for some women due to poverty, lack of opportunities and education the playing-field is not level and there really aren't any choices for them - being forced into unfulfilling, low paid work or staying at home because they can't afford Childcare are not real choices.

It seems to me that people who are highly motivated and driven, are incredibly focused.The are like highly trained racehorses, that are blinkered to everything around them, except what they can see and what has happened to them in their very immediate vicinity.
I dont know if you saw Rupert Murdoch at the leverson enquiry this week.He was sorry for the impact of what his newspaper had done.But it was in respect of what had actually happened to his employees.He could see the impact that the phone hacking had had on the working and personal lives of some of his employees.And he seemed genuinely sorry.
But because he could not see the impact of what had happened to all those people who had been phone hacked, he just did not seem able to grasp this at all.It had not literally happened in front of his eyes, so to him, the problem just didnt seem to exist.

I want to know why the person above proposing to go part time is doing that and not her husband. I want to get into the reasons - conditioning, or because she married a higher earner, or because he's a sexist pig or because she belives only mothers shoudl be home not fathers or what? Why time and again is the women on here making the career sacrifice. Surely it is not just that luck means it is always the woman.

I don't think I particularly have IQ points to make. I suspect the thread had gone - housewives getting all defensive and making untrue comments that only mother knows best, that childre are better with mother at home and all the stuff they have been hynotised into believing is fact in order to keep women down.

Working mothers then not surprisingly put the opposite case - that children of working mosthers do better so if you're sitting at home because you think you're some kind of martry to the cause of bonding you're wrong and it's been a total waste of your time. Then we probably got on to what sort of women give up work - obviously the lower earners who tends to be those who did not pass so many exams (on the whole, not exclusively of course). Also probably the point was made that if you are fairly bright and well educated you tend to make a better parent and those ones tend to work and carry on working.

The main piont is sexism, isn't it - sunny Jim Sauntering off to an office whilst someone clean his underpants at home, thinking he is God, and keeping his wife in return for house services, sex and cleaning and how to ensure as often as not it might be Sunny Jemima.

My reason is that I love it. Give me a choice of lawyer or nanny and I would be a nanny as a career. This isn't conditioning- I find children, refreshing, fascinating and never boring (although they can be exasperating)

You would do so much for the cause of working women Xenia if you didn't spout utter tosh like that last sentence! Which irritates me to death. I would hate a job in an office, my DH can operate a washing machine, he isn't keeping me, we are a team he would have to give up his job if I dropped dead and wasn't there. He doesn't - and never has thought he is God, everything is joint decisions and I actually enjoy sex! It isn't a duty. I married him because I love him, he is my best friend and we wanted DCs- I wanted to be at home with them.

I am asking the housewives why they think time after time it is women giving up good careers and not men. It cannot be purely chance so it must be sexism. How did these couples reach their decisions or was it kind of known because they come from sexist backgrounds where women do not work after chidlren and where women's careers play second fiddle to men's that of course when it came to it the woman who give way and be home.

"It cannot be purely chance so it must be sexism." That's a bit reductionist, Xenia .

Everyone is different. Perhaps a lot are like me and having a home and family is way more important than a career. I don't come from a sexist background, there was no difference between my upbringing and my brothers. DH's mother always worked.
If DH1 had lived I would have had to work, couldn't have lived without. He died before my maternity leave was up and my very first decision was not to go back. I didn't go back until he was 5 yrs. With DH2 I had the choice and so I did what I wanted to do and went back when the youngest was 5yrs. I have never regretted it and feel very lucky to have managed it.
DH would have been just as happy for me to work. He couldn't stay at home- it would drive him crazy. I can't see the point of us both being miserable to fill a quota.

Xenia, you so obviously have an axe to grind about IQ, it's boring. Is it possible to have a very high IQ and still have difficulty with spelling? Is it possible to be stunningly clever and not have empathy? Is it also possible that some very successful, highly qualified and clever women chose to stay home and that others should respect that choice because it is VALID?

Some of my very best friends have opted to give up careers which they didn't enjoy but were none the less clever enough to do, one a doctor, one a researcher and one a teacher. They didn't just chose to stay home because of their children, clearly having children was a timely event but none the less they are happy at home. In my case I have made sacrifices because I chose to have children. I am what some might call a rather "career mummy" a "helicopter mum" a "pushy mum" but I love my children, I love their company and I want my ultimate achievement to be two well rounded and clever children, who grow up to be the very best they can be. It is my job, it is one I enjoy, not something I am inclined to sub-contract out and I believe it is the most important job I will ever do.

I am studying part-time and ultimately wish to do a post-grad in political philosophy or economics. Important, life changing and very satisfying for me but never would I have had children if I though I couldn't when necessary put them first. If you can work and juggle your child's needs, that's fine and I respect and support that. I just feel that increasingly "motherhood" is being denigrated and devalued by some people.

Maybe she is not actually that interested in women working, but in men not working.

I think actually, I dont care.

My feeling minimathsmouse. I don't at all mind people having different priorities but I wouldn't have had DCs if they didn't come first when necessary, e.g. I would never want to be too busy to see them in a play, or be able to drop everything to take them to A&E etc. There are lots of interesting voluntary jobs you can do where you use your skills and intelligence- you just don't get paid. I don't want to miss things- time is so short looking back- before you know it they are grown up.

I equally don't think that she would respect a man who stayed at home and put his career second fiddle.

WHy is it not putting children first if you happen to be female but that is not said abotu a man. Do you despite your husband because he "doesn't put his children first" (as he works)? This is all sexist to the core. he works. He puts his chlldren second. If you think parents should be home why don't you force him to be home? Or is all this really about keeping women down so men retain their positions of power?

There are less Xenias in the world than sahms so I think it's great that she speaks up and shows it can be done.

I'd rather women be encouraged to be rich high flyers than the wives of rich high flyers.

No, that's the problem for very strong women, if you dominate your partner, you lose respect for them. How many men have no respect or try to dominate either through wealth or just through sheer force of personality. it needs to be a partnership with respect and co-operation.

I sometimes think all people work too many hours. Money isn't everything. What's more if we had a different type of economics and a different work culture generally even father's could spend more time with their children.

We are very lucky, DP works 3 days (full time compacted hrs) and I work from home. (which is what I am meant to be doing now) so we virtually share parenting and domestic work but I do Home-ed with Dcs on the days he is at work.

It is possible to enjoy life without chasing pots of gold.