'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 . . .

We are going around and around in circles! For the last time I put them first because I want to! One person works, DH can't say 'I can't go to Norway next week, Daniel is in a nativity play'. Luckily he isn't fighting me to stay at home. I stayed at home because I wanted DCs and I wanted to look after them myself, not go to an office and leave someone else the fun!
I keep saying it. Power doesn't interest me, a high flying career doesn't interest me. I love my life- I am not going to be on my death bed saying 'I wish I had spent more time in the office!' I can see it would be easy to say ' I wish I had spent more time with my DCs.'

You only need enough money to be comfortable. I don't want school fees, flash cars etc. What would be the point. Enjoy life with an interesting career that pays less.

I think whether you stay home or work, you want your child to grow up and "set the world alight" with their wit, their brilliance and their fab career, you also want them to be well rounded, have empathy, care for others and have a sense of responsibility towards those less fortunate etc,,,

The problem is, when you expend all your energy creating wealth your child is very likely to see value in only that. Wealth or power is going to be the yard stick by which they measure their own and others worth.

But your men are doing exactly that - neglecting (in your terms as you don't like parents to "delegate") their children to fly off to Norway. How come it's fine for them but not for women?

He wants to go to Norway- he has a job I would hate. We are all different. What is the earthly point in me missing my DCs to go to some boring meeting in Norway about something that I have no interest in when he loves it and wouldn't enjoy being at home? I f we were the other way around we would do it- we are not. It would be fine if it was what we we both wanted.

I am asking why time after time it is women giving up good careers and not men. It cannot be purely chance so it must be sexism.

This is a good question. But I don't think the answer is as simple as "it cannot be purely chance so it must be sexism".

I think the answer is principally that more women than men want to give up demanding careers to spend more time with their children. It may be that they only make this choice and have this desire due to sexist conditioning (eg all those bloody ads which show mummy doing the laundry while daddy is nowhere to be seen). But we can't get away from the fact that it is what these women (including me) want.

We need to attack the conditioning, so that we can be sure both genders' choices are real and not conditioned, rather than expecting women to do something which is not what they want.

I grew up in a male environment and live in one now. I have always been pleased I was born female. There seems to be the view that traditional male roles/interests are better and you can't enjoy traditional female ones. I don't have to do it, but I love knitting, sewing, flower arranging, cooking, looking after children. I can also put oil in the car, put up shelves, ski to a high standard, go running. I don't see why one has to be superior to another.

I am attaching the conditioning on the thread and saying perhaps explore why you think you want it and think carefully, think about the 20 years of non career after when perhaps the man will have 20 wonderful high paid years and the woman cannot get back to work, is menopausal and the man is off with his young secretary and the woman bitterly regrets those few years at home which did so much damage to her future life.

Plenty of women find chidlcare and house cleaning dull for more than a few hours a day. Some men and women don't. Lots of women give up work because their men earn a lot and they don't.

I have enough power and work for myself anyway that I have been able for at least 10 - 15 years to say I cannot do something that a thing relating to children interferes with. I am only in that positon of power because of what I earn and how I work. if I were a teacher in a class room or lucky to have a minimum wage job I would have no such power at all.

We also need to attack stereotypes which say women want to be home an dnot working very long hours. Plentyo f women love a busy job and busy life and want to get to the top and outearn every man. It's fun (and have a lovely family too).

I certainly support a 30% board quota of women because of discrimination against women even though in general most of us are against positive discrimniation. I think it is Norway and Spain which already have that and it works very well.

I have just been reading about Lewis Henry Morgan's study of the Iroquois Indians. He found that their was a clear and distinct division of labour between men and women but total equality.

"Morgan?s careful study of the Iroquois showed two things: 1) that Iroquois women and men had a rigid division of labor between the sexes; but 2) that women were the equals of men, with complete autonomy over their own responsibilities and decision-making power within society as a whole.

But why do we not have the same respect and why do we (even as feminists) believe that only through work can we actualise freedom and power. Private property-money. That's all it is.

The conditioning is not the problem, once you know what causes it. The means of production especially in western society and the consumerist culture in which we live are at the root of the conditioning.

What is attaching conditioning?

Morgan?s careful study of the Iroquois showed two things: 1) that Iroquois women and men had a rigid division of labor between the sexes; but 2) that women were the equals of men, with complete autonomy over their own responsibilities and decision-making power within society as a whole.

The potential problem with that system is that it assumes (or doesn't care) whether or not each individual has the will/desire/talent/ability etc. to carry out the tasks that have been prescribed for their sex. For those whose talents/desire lies in activities delegated to the other sex, life must be a total pain in the arse. Life is too short to spend doing something you hate or are not good at. That's a lose-lose scenario.

Xenia I am not talking about no career, I am talking about having a part time or less demanding career. I don't want no career and I don't want the very demanding career. I want something in between - if I can possibly find it.

We also need to attack stereotypes which say women want to be home an dnot working very long hours. Plenty of women love a busy job and busy life and want to get to the top and outearn every man. I don't agree. A few women want this but not many, from what I have seen.

I could also add, there is a different outcome of this conditioning, that is, that in a consumerist society which relies on two wages to pay huge mortgages, buy holidays and cars, fridges and all the latest gizmos, a women's natural desire to raise her children is being subsumed by the prevailing culture and demeaned of value. For every women who believes in the "wealth is power" mantra there is another who quite unwillingly has to give her labour to her employer for a pittance and would rather be with her children.

An example of this is seen with changes to benefits for single mothers. Some single mothers might like to stay at home but whether they have the skills, interests, or even desire to work is ignored.

So whilst some women, usually higher up the socio-economic scale play pick and chose, women of lower economic means and privilege are coerced and bullied into work.

In that case, we are telling mothers, you only have a choice over work/full time motherhood, if you have a man. That is sexist. But that is institutional sexism, do we ignore it?

After being a SAHM for a couple of years, years I loved, I have gone back to work full time with a nanny to care for my DS. It was hard to find work and the right person to care for him, but I think I have been lucky to have the opportunity to do this. I would like to thank those on MN who have posted opposing views on the virtues of being a SAHM as it has really made me think hard about the decisions I made about my career and the implications of giving it all up. What most concerned me about being a SAHM was the sense that over time, I was becoming unemployable. An unemployable parent is no good for a child.

we are telling mothers, you only have a choice over work/full time motherhood, if you have a man. That is sexist.

I don't quite follow this. All mothers "have a man" in the sense that all babies have a father. If the fathers were bearing their fair share of childcare/funding responsibilities, single mothers would have more options.

Yes I agree, mini, which is perhaps why government policy needs to be revisited and we need to make men more accountable and more responsible. At the moment though the Government focus seems to be, how can we deny single mothers a choice?

Yes, I agree there is never enough focus on the father's responsibilities.

Like maples said, let's turn the focus on the guys.

"I am attaching the conditioning on the thread and saying perhaps explore why you think you want it and think carefully".

I agree that the reason why it is women who are the ones who take the career hit and move part time is because we still live in a fundamentally sexist society. But the solution is not for women to go out and work all hours precisely as men do now. That's no solution - in that scenario men will have to take the career cut instead (since most people can't afford nannies, so something has to give). How likely is that to happen? About as likely as xenia giving up her job to bake cupcakes. So the solution is for society to adapt so that it is seen as socially acceptable for men and women take time off from their jobs as necessary, and work flexibly, in order to care for young children. As noted above, most of scandinavia manages it - why can't we?!

Since I went back to work with ease, most of our money is in my name and DH isn't going to run off with his secretary- I am really not bothered. I work because I enjoy it, I couldn't give a stuff about power and influence and I wouldn't if I was single without DCs - it just has no appeal.
It is personality not conditioning. One of my nephews is going to work with horses, he will never earn much but he is going to do what he loves. The other is at art college, he will do something creative-it won't give power and influence.
I do think that it is weird that we are all supposed to want the same and that if we refuse it it is all down to conditioning.
I really don't see how I can have conditioned my DSs - one is the scientist- doesn't earn a lot but has great job satisfaction, one wants power and influence and money and one is artistic and is never going to earn much either. They were brought up the same. Who us to say what they might think in 10yrs time?

surely there are many different equal solutions - both work FT, both work PT, sharing SAHparenting.....

..... but reading down this thread, the number of times women say they dont like work.

Why do so many women prefer to be at home rather than work, compared with men? i suspect the answer lies within the modern working environment.

"So the solution is for society to adapt so that it is seen as socially acceptable for men and women take time off from their jobs as necessary, and work flexibly, in order to care for young children"

I agree but I would go much further and say that we need a social and economic shift which will end this need to work every hour of every day. Why do we all have to work 40 plus hours a week? I would say it is because living costs are too high or wages have stagnated over the last 30 years.

But also because we want a high standard of living. And will the shift you describe mini be enforced? Or can we still choose?

Also, DP turns around failing schools. Hands up who want the part time HT working to improve your DCs school in twice the time it takes already? And you cannot say hire two HT, as it took the latest one 2 yrs to find him.

a lot of people like their jobs and society benefits from them.