'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 . . .

I think that the point is that it is really hard to recruit HTs.

Maples, mostly that there are no applicants. eg- our local "outstanding" primary school recently advertised for a HT. There were two applicants- the deputy head and a person from about 400 miles away who then didn't attend the interview. If you can't even get any applicants for a highly regarded school I can imagine a more challenging one would be very difficult.

I certaily prefer working for myself and the ownership of business more than being a hired worker. I would recommend women seek to own and build not work for pay whenever they can although in most industries you tend to need first to build up experience as a worker before buying or setting up a business.

I am reading a book about "Red Indians", can't remember the name and I am afraid they were pretty dreadful to women a lot of the time. I am not sure they were some wonderful nirvana we should seek to emulate, brute strength often applied and those they captured as slaves they abused pretty badly and lots of deliberate torture, scarring, ears cut off, absolutely horrible. Also if people suggest women stay home and men work and that's wonderful and men and women differe we are back to the Victorian age when women were told their brains were too small to become doctors. Instead we need to be sayign women actually are pretty much better than mken at most work things and that housework and childcare is as dull as ditch water after a few hours and only a moron with half a brain wants to spend their days minding 3 children under 5 unless there is little else they can do.

That is different from the issue of whether all humans will seek a life of idleness if they get the choice. The state - state benefits allow it so that those of us who work hard can support those who never choose to work a day in their lives. Other women decide to live on male earnings, some even have clearners and they often don't even work when children are at school or retire at 50 or do very little. Plenty of men would like a life of idleness too. That presumably is part of human nature.

"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?" IF we talked about that we would derail the thread. It is not sexist to refuse to support the idle. If women want state benefits they should work for them.

They don't get many applicants for primary schools- people want a life!
I have no experience of secondary except that you can't be a Head of a failing school that you are turning around by being part time- you have to be an active presence full time. You might manage it if it was up and running and successful.

You do talk rot for an intelligent woman, Xenia.

That is because she isn't intelligent, either that or there is something else?

"childcare is as dull as ditch water after a few hours and only a moron with half a brain wants to spend their days minding 3 children under 5 unless there is little else they can do"

Well we all know where we stand why would any women, let alone one who claims to be a feminist try to infer that other women are morons.

For the record, the research was carried out with "Iroquois" not just any old Indians, maybe your Indians are morons?

I actually know who Xenia is. I will not out her. I will simply say that she is successful and prominent in her field (which is related to, though not the same as, my own).

Disagree with her, by all means. Stupid, however, she certainly ain't.

"If women want state benefits they should work for them."

Prey do tell, does that include women who have a low IQ due to genetic birth defects and learning disability, women who have mental health problems, women with personality disorders because they were raped as children, women who are victims of domestic violence, too afraid to leave the house with bruising, does that include women who wear the Bhurka, some of whom have to through force, women who are imprisoned for petty crimes, women who have been denied an educayion, women who have been trafficked, under age girls who have been forced into the sex industry, should they too pay taxes?

The only person I can think of that she reminds me of is Theresa May.

maplesSat 12-May-12 21:43:38
Why? No applicants or all unsuitable?

not enough quality applicants but that just an example.

i am a female business owner that supplies City firms. anyone wants to tell me how i make all jobs PT? do i get PT time as well or just staff?

The field she is in is one in which it is not possible to be successful without having intelligence well above average.
I would also say that she argues her viewpoint, which I do not share, in a manner which is entirely logical and coherent, which is more than 99% of posters on here can say. What you mean is you disagree with her and you find her manner blunt and insensitive. It may very well be, but that does not justify calling her stupid. Frankly, resorting to those sort of insults demonstrates total incapability to take her on and beat her at her own game.

ReactionaryFish, I too know who she is.I found out about a month ago.She knows I know.I am well aware she isnt stupid.I told her I knew on a thread about 1 month ago.I too decided not to out her.
Her reply to me was it didnt matter that I knew who she was.
I am on another thread at present.

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?

i think women 'having the choice' is sexist - people should have the choice, if they can do so without relying on state support.

I too decided not to out her. good, because that would make you a shit.

"Emotional intelligence" my arse. Xenia has intelligence in buckets, and she uses it making points people are not comfortable with, and she knows perfectly bloody well what she is doing. And each time the lot of you take the bait. How dumb is that?

I know who she is too- but it wouldn't be fair to say. She is highly intelligent, but she doesn't argue well. I am quite pleased that she argues in a similar way to me and gets stung into making rather stupid statements- someone good at debate, who just sticks to the logical, would tie her in knots.

"Instead we need to be sayign women actually are pretty much better than mken at most work things"

Apart from the obvious spelling and grammar, in what way is this sensible or coherent?

What are work things? Firstly we need to decide what the term work things means? It may mean different things to different people or nothing at all.

The only thing I can with all probability assume is Zenia is having a little trouble with the idea of equality. This seems to be a common theme in all of her arguments.

Don't have DCs making assumptions- talk about it before you get married or live with someone. Make sure you think the same way.

i think Xenia bangs her drum loudly because lots of people dont want change & without change, women will remain second class citizens.