'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 the example of the Iroquois was given because I feel that past history tells us, how we got here. What we do now we are here, will shape where we will be in the future.

"However, I think she is right in saying that power is financial power" (xenia)

Which makes sense of my point about history. Money and the way we trade with each other has shaped the way in which we live and think. We are here because we were once there. Previous peoples have also been shaped by this, look at the the way in which the nuclear family came to be the excepted norm within society. Why were women consigned to the home to breed children? What financial forces made that happen? Women were not always confined to the home and they were not always prevented from having influence in the public domain.

Our present culture and social relations are shaped by our relationship to money as a means of exchange and power over others.

A radical feminist would say that men wield financial power over women because of the original violence. A socialist feminist will tell you that the relationship between men and women has been shaped by our relationship to money.

We equate financial power with all other forms of social power, not just because we want to but because the whole history of capitalism, the way in which it effects culture and media acts as powerful reinforcer to that.

i am much more interested in changes that can happen in the next year or so (shared PL) that completely changing the world which wont happen in the next year or so.

Minimathmouse - our societies are also shaped by technologies. People have invented things so we don't have to spend hours feeding horses, chopping wood, ploughing and weeding etc... These were the things that confined most people to spending most of their time surviving (not just women, most men). As you need less people to do a job it can be better rewarded.

Childrearing isn't subject to the same kind of technological progress or economies of scale. It isnt rewarded in the same way. Great parents don't get paid more, or have more children.

t there is no reason why being a parent should proclude people from being part of the productive economy

Preclude

No reason why carrying babies, giving birth or feeding children should prevent women from participating in society or within the field of work in any way.

The advancement of technologies has largely been in response to the ways in which we relate to money & the means of production of commodities, since we became settled upon the land and developed money as a means of exchange.

Initially humans developed skills first in relation to our immediate needs, to overcome specific problems. As those problems are over come we develop yet more skills.

In recent times we develop technologies at a faster rate because we also meet with more obstacles not less to the advancement of skills and our management of earth, resources and peoples.

The biggest advancements have happened because of our relationship to money and power. Now we not only perceive need but we have whole industries engaged in shaping human needs. We create products for this generation that several generations ago we never knew we needed, because we simply didn't need them. If we are not told what we need, we will not consume! It's economics shaping the way we relate to each other, ourselves and the social culture we live in. We both shape it and we are shaped by it.

Xenias argument about IQ and some of her points about genetics are quite interesting and need a lot of examination. Her argument rests on whether women are competitive and genetically driven because she keeps coming back to IQ and whether that is predetermined partly by biology.

So only people from poor genetic stock would find childcare interesting. I draw attention to this:
""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"

Which is incoherent for many reasons which need to be picked apart. If we look at biology and genetics and accept the premise that IQ is even partly biologically predetermined we must also accept that women may be to some extent also biologically predetermined through some mechanism to want to nurture children.

1. Why are women "much better than mken at most work things"

2. If something innate about women makes them "better at most work things" is that biology or is it socially conditioned?

3. If women who chose to stay home are doing so because they are "a moron with half a brain" is she right and if so is that genetics? biology or social conditioning?

4. If women are women because of some biological determinate, which is obvious, why do we not also give weight to the fact that we also a complex imperative partly socially conditioned but also biologically, determined to want to nurture children?

5. If we accept the social conditioning model of women's oppression we must therefore accept the socially conditioned model of childcare.

6. If we accept the biological theory we define peoples need and abilities by a very blunt tool.

7. Is biology is shaped by social relations just as social relations are shaped by biology?

8. Our present conditions are only ever an incomplete phase of civilisation and it is likely that other forms of social relations will change us in ways we can not determine yet.

9. It is not proven that women nurture children through social conditioning just as it is unproven that we do so "just because" of biology. As I said earlier history shows that women did nurture children but because we didn't have a money economy we didn't lose power within the public sphere or even within the home.

(pls accept the spelling in quotation marks is incorrect because it was a cut and paste from Xenia's)

Indeed, rosinanthe, I suppose that is what I do.I would certainly hope my daughters enjoy their careers - they are both in first jobs now and seem to be. As most of the 5 children spend a lot of time ignoring my advice I cannot imagine they will do what I advise..... laughing as I type...but they certainly know I have fun and am happy and have adored the privilege of having so many children over such a long period as well as my career which is a daily joy too.

I don't really have time to go through all mini's points (I suspect was can realise that my "mekn" was a typo not a spelling error)... What I meant by women being better at work was that in many of the industries where women work these days they tend to have better skills of the kind that are needed - essentially ability to talk. I suppose I was getting at the landscape of the poor where you might have vast swathes of working class girls who cannot see much piont in marrying a man at all as most men where they live never work and are a drain and if you eschew the live in husband the state rewards you in cash terms when you have your children and/or if you choose to work the jobs are there for you which the incoherent 18 year old male youth cannot secure - the call centre and the like. Whereas if brute strength were the primary currency of the work our hapless youth might have a better chance.

What I have always wanted is fairness. Plenty of women end up with pretty awful lives, no ability to earn and abandoned by men. They oput their hopes into a male basket, droppedo ut of their degree, moved countries for a man and all in the expectation he might stand by them and instead he doesn't always. Or he does but they realise there is more to life than washing his underpants and being Hilary Clinton for example or Angela Merkel or whatever might be more fun than scratching a living behind the meat counter at the local Tesco or being one of the 200 applicants for the £6 an hour minimum wage job in the local school.

The point about technology is interesting. I am old enough, just, to remember I think it was Harold Wilson talking about how the white heat of technology would free the working man from the grind of 10 hour physical working days and indeed more people today so have physically nicer jobs (although sadly the result has been they are fat and die younger than their parents of diabetes etc so perhaps the demise of those physical jobs has not made people happier, healthier or fitter). Yet we have taken a 1960s standard of living and reduced working hours to live on very little whilst spending not much at all. We have wanted more and more from Central heating to new clothes even before the others have holes in them. We are an acquisitive species. I mentioned elsewhere that I think my hourly earnings are about a week's minimum wage. So I could say right we will live on £13k (£240 a week) or whatever it is and do that hour's work and then lotus eat (or whatever those who do not work do, get fat on cupcakes or elongated on pilates or have 6 lovers or whatever floats their boat). However I don't. The reason I don't is in large part because I love what I do.

And I love what I do- I fail to see why we need to be the same.
I was told at school ( being older than Xenia) that we would all have far more leisure time in the future and the challenge woulld be how to use it- laughable now when everyone is highly pressured, working long hours and stressed!

I fail to see why we need to be the same. we dont all need to be the same. but as feminists equality is important.

i dont think it is realistic that women and men can have different role in society and women be considered men's equal.

i dont think it is realistic that women and men can have different role in society and women be considered men's equal under a system where we only value waged labour, because we only value wealth creation

I am so disappointed that Xenia will not address the points I have made. I really hoped that someone (with a stupendously high IQ) could help me see the light, put an end to my moronic way of life and show me how to get back on the hamster wheel of wealth.

Xenia, I forgot to mention, I am very glad you enjoy what you do but what you have to try to get to grips with now, is that other women enjoy what they do too, even when that is childcare.

We can be equal in all sorts of ways- paid employment isn't the purpose of life! It is the means for you to have a life. I would work even if I won the lottery, because as part of my life I enjoy it. I now go into schools on a voluntary basis for a charity, we all tend to be ex teachers who all say the same 'loved the classroom- hate the job it is today.

Any one would think that people had to get married or live with a man or had to have DCs, a lot if women are, sensibly, coming out and saying they don't want DCs. Whatever class or intelligence you are you have choice. Women should be able to work out what they want and not put up with less.

The whole working practice needs a rethink.

mini - i dont think it is realistic that women and men can have different role in society and women be considered men's equal under any political system.

exotic - paid employment isn't the purpose of life how can anyone survive without paying the bills?

You need to pay bills, but you shouldn't lose sight of the fact that you work to live and not live to work. The purpose of paid employment is to pay for your life outside it. Some people find it important to have money and power and influence, some people just want enough to get by reasonably comfortably and beyond that are not bothered. We are all different- one way is not 'right'-just 'right' for you.

You need to pay bills...so if you dont work, someone else is working to paying them for you.

A SAHM is looking after her own children is not 'working', even if that saves on childcare. Any more than doing housework is (thus saving having to shell out for cleaner).

I work for a technology company. The split is 70% male/30% female. We have a diversity policy, and my personal experience is that it is very unsexist. The problem seems to lie with women not doing the ict type degrees, or not wanting a job that involves going to someone's house to set up their wifi/digital tv.

Why?

blueshoes, I would comsder looking after a couple of under 4 yos as work!

Porto, I was addressing Wasabi's point below about if a person does not work, someone else is 'working' to pay the bills for them.

Whilst childcare of under 4s is hard work, no doubt about it, a SAHM staying at home to do it does not confer economic value on anyone other than that family who chose to have them. In that case, her partner is the one 'working' to pay the bills or the state if they claim benefits.

People keep ignoring my fact that if I was at home with small children and I dropped dead my DH couldn't do his job; he couldn't be out from 7 to 7 with trips away. He would immediately have to give it up and get something local with less money and more family friendly hours (if he could). The only way he could continue on his career path would be to have a live in housekeeper/nanny and not only would it be too expensive, it wouldn't be good to never see his bereaved DCs during the week. Therefore of course I am earning the money, of course I am paying the bills.
People will act as if it is a competition instead of a team. Each couple need to work it to suit them. The problem comes when they can't agree. People want children for different reasons. I longed for DCs and I wanted to be hands on and with them. Everyone is different, I adore the baby, preschool age - other people don't like it - they prefer older.
If it comes to power and influence or being with my own small DCs then I will choose my DCs any day- however it is easy for me - I wouldn't want power and influence even if I was single and free of responsibilities. It doesn't interest me.

Exotic so you are happy with your personal circumstances. Lots of women aren't happy with their personal circumstances, due to us living in a sexist society.

we either leave power with men, which does not work for women and hasn't, globally, for all time, with may be a few exceptions, or we need more power as a sex.

My personal life is good. I dont need any societical change to benefit me, but other women do. And isn't that why we are feminists?

Adoring babies and pre-schoolers is not mutually exclusive with wanting and having a demanding career. I have all three. A baby, a pre-schooler and a demanding job. Yes its physically demanding right now (having spent most of the last year being up 3 times a night and gone to work on 2 hours sleep) but I love all three. Before the haters come out in force, I don't love my career more than my children but it is part of who I am. Men don't have to make a choice or defend a choice and neither should women.

Yes, the work of most h ousewives is about the average pay of the average man. That is why a 50./50 split on divorce is fairly often perfectly fair. It ends up not being fair if the wife or husband earned huge sums much in excess of what the value of the housekeeping skills were and the non earning spouse could never have earned those large sums.

However as Wasabi says many many women (and men for that matter) adore babies and they work. It is the combination whcih long term does them and certainliy other women and women's rights the most favours. In a sense it is a politically wrong self indulgent thing to be at home as a woman as you damage the progress of women so much by doing that particularly if you might have been one of those women to rise to the top.

"In a sense it is a politically wrong self indulgent thing to be at home as a woman as you damage the progress of women so much by doing that particularly if you might have been one of those women to rise to the top"

But only under an economic system that places money at the centre of all other social relations.

If we value all forms of work (first we would have to establish what constitutes work) and we look closely not at politics but at the means of work, production, exchange and the value in what we produce, we could put forward a different theory all together.

In very simplistic terms, we could say that real value is not to be found in looking after children (xenias theory) or we could alter the dialectic between wealth & power which would allow a much better dialogue about the REAL value of child care.

By unpicking labour value and understanding in great detail, the real value in producing well rounded, happy, empathic, sharing, kind, children who go into the world and make a difference in ways other than just creating personal wealth may actually have long term value.

We have many billions of people starving in this world, every 6 minutes a child dies of starvation or disease in developing countries, not because some western women choose to stay at home but because the theory of labour value and the global economic situation is at fault.

Under capitalism a persons value is denoted only by the wealth they create. In my view that is wrong.