'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 . . .

the problem is, if only a few women compete with men, we become honorary men, in mens eyes. i get told 'you are not like other women'. on the basis i have only worked with men and seen many men, who arent 'Sexists of the classic variety', but still regard women as less in many areas of life, i hope future women feel differently.

it was meant as a compliment but I found it very

ditto.

Still pondering why you aren't engaging with any of the bits of the argument that actually matter, xenia? Apparently she is using "polemic", I would say it was being lazy brained. I was expecting my arguments to surgically pulled apart by our resident legal phenomena

I have been told I have a male brain, what ever that is.

Actually all these labour saving devices(DP is great at using them too) are brilliant as is all the time I have available to read and to study. When I worked I earnt more than DP but it was stressful, no fixed hrs, bringing work and sometimes even staff home with me, taking calls at 6am, incl weekends and not having the time to study and read what I was really interested in.

Now I have a great micro business run from home, two happy children, a DP who helps with everything but is happy to support us and I have taken the time to reflect & advance my study and skills, something I could never have done whilst working full time. So I think being at home can be personally and perhaps even professionally (eventually for me) very good for some women. I have certainly found that I can more than just function at the level that was required in my previous role when I was working.

Going back to earlier, I am pleased with my personal circumstances but what I really don't understand is why any woman marries or has DC with a man if they are not going to agree. You simply don't need to the days.
You can live together first, why would you put up with someone who is sexist, who doesn't think the same way? You have ample time to see his parents and the influences he had, to find out if he does his share of the housework, can cook, iron etc.
DH and I are about as different as you can get but we had a very similar upbringing, our attitudes are the same. We are not in competition, it is team work and we both get to do what we like best.
I would rather have remained single than have the set up that some people seem to have where they are deeply resentful of their partner and think they have the better deal. We both have what we think the best deal- but we did discuss it first and not leave to chance.

Exotic -of course people should try to marry someone they like and generally have a shared outlook with.

Lots of people do that, but still end up in traditional mum and dad roles even though that is not what either of them wanted, because of the economic pressures which mean that if one parent gets 10% more satisfaction from being at home than the other and the other parent gets 10% more satisfaction from being at work they often still end up in a situation where one does 80% of the domestic stuff and the other does 80% of the work, and unable to switch back.

I get it that you are happy being a housewife. But still can you not see that it is a problem that many women are push/trapped into this role.

If you look at a group of school kids where the girls are just as smart as the boys, just as creative, just as talented why is it ok that the boys will get to pursue careers in the things they are good at and will have a good chance to get to the top, even if they have children, but many of the girls will end up with careers cut short by parenthood.

minimathsmouse -

I really don't get this whole baby-out-with-the-bathwater thing of wealth, capitalism, entrepreneurialism etc... being bad for women.

People used to be more equal, because they were more equally poor. Introduce agriculture, technology etc... and people live better but some people get richer than others.

As more people get access to capital and technology it can also help to close the gap.

Yes society places value on wealth and power. Who wants poverty and powerless?

Investment, innovation, technology and enterprise have proved themselves to be an amazing powerful way of feeding billions of people.

They still don't have to put up with it Himalaya. At the very worst they could say, 'I will go at a lower gear for 5 years and then mine comes first for 5 years and you go at a lower gear'.
Half the time they fall into it. My DS is renting a flat, he got a flat mate who drove him crazy, he was so messy and my DS was irritated that he had to do something as simple as tell him to empty the rubbish. He heaved a sigh of relief when he left to move in with his girlfriend. I would imagine the poor deluded girl is in love and doing the lot! He assumes it. If they have DCs no doubt he will assume he carries on as normal and she is the carer. She will probably then be on here moaning about sexism and men not doing anything. The writing was in the wall from day one and she ought to have given the ultimatum ' you clean toilets, wash, cook etc etc or you move straight out'. Equally she should not have any DCs unless they have a mutual agreement to suit them both. I doubt she will do either unless she sensible enough to ditch him now, while very young.

Himalaya - "I get it that you are happy being a housewife. But still can you not see that it is a problem that many women are push/trapped into this role."

I know far far more women pushed/trapped into working FT when they would rather work PT or be SAHMs than I do women pushed/trapped into being SAHMs.

Himilaya, I am not putting forward a simple argument that capitalism is bad for women. What I am trying to express (and in the process learn more about) is how economics shapes peoples lives. Throughout the course of history people have been shaped by the society in which they live. I believe the forces of economics are far greater than say politics. I have also said that technology is a very positive thing and I believe capitalism is very creative but it is also has a lot of in built contradictions, unintended consequences and the way in which we relate to each other be it class or sex is very much dictated by this.

I know Los of women who are trapped into working to pay the mortgage and they would love to be part time workers. It does work both ways. I think we should stop worrying about others and assuming they want the same. We should let them sort it out themselves. No one, men or women, have to get married or have children these days - both are optional.

Capitalism is better than the alternative. Communism is wonderful in theory but doesn't work in practice. The child care on the kibbutz didn't work. Can anyone say what would work to everyone's advantage, children included?

Sorry -alternatives.

Why didn't childcare on the Kibbutz work? Just out of interest, I haven't read much about this. The only thing I am aware of is that some children raised in this way have spoken out against it, others have spoken favourably.

I believe capitalism is just like any other social/economic system, many advantages, many flaws (esp free market economics, adam smith et al) but I think it is just a stage in our evolutionary process. Things will change, they are beginning to as we realise that the unintended consequences of such a system are starting now to outweigh the benefits. It's a funny thing when we have politicians having G8 summits on world poverty and hunger whilst they can not get to grips with/manage the market in futures investments in food. Obviously politicians are like the firefighters putting out fires but never wrestling the matches away from the fire starter. :)

I don't believe in big state communism (just in case anyone thinks I do!) Google Noam Chomsky for an excellent analysis on capitalism creating the need for large dictatorial and imperialistic states.

I believe that the system that benefits the largest proportion of people in a society is tempered capitalism- ie a system in which individual endeavour and motivation are encouraged, but that acknowledges that there will always be people who end up falling foul of the system and need a helping hand, a system in which those are coping with the system hep out those who aren't.

Exotic -"At the very worst they could say, 'I will go at a lower gear for 5 years and then mine comes first for 5 years and you go at a lower gear" ...I agree it would be great if this was the situation. But it isn't. In practice there are so many threads on MN with women saying I have been out the workplace for 5 years and I now realise that their qualifications and previous experience are worthless, there is no way for me to get back in. And/or their husbands earns so much more than they could after a few years of him getting promotions and her changing nappies that the idea of him cutting back on work so that she can restart her career is not financially viable.

I think it is dangerous myth-making to tell women that the 'very worst' that can happen is that they painlessly get their career back in five years.

I'm with maples, why are women being denied access to their jobs, work they were trained to do.

I am in slightly different group though. Having worked my way up without qualifications, I found I couldn't go any further without taking time out of full time employment. Giving up a job I enjoyed but essentially wasn't going to see me rise any further up the ladder, has allowed me time to reflect and start to think about what I really want to do next. I won't be going back to a dead end, I certainly could but having spent 10 years away from it, I would probably have to start again near the bottom. Which is what works against women taking time out in the first place. Just as maples points out.

Very much agree Himalaya and maples. Careers last 30, 40 years. Why should, say, 5 years away ruin the chances of ever getting back in at a decent level? Yet it does seem to.

Exotic you were able to get back into work after SAHM years but not to your previous job and not in (from what I understand) a particularly well paid or high flying post. That happens to suit you, but we are talking about women who want to spend some time at a lower gear and then return to their previous high flying career path.

Maples - I agree with you.

I think there is an institutional/employer aspect to that and a domestic one.

Part of what makes it hard for women to go back is employers attitudes. But part of it is domestic practicalities. After 5+ years of having a full time parent at home the other parent (..dad..) can be domestically deskilled to the point where they don't know their children's friends, don't have a network of other parents to hang out with, don't know what to buy at the supermarket, don't know about dentists and drs etc...so that when they do childcare it feels like 'babysitting'.

Meanwhile their wages have gone up, and their employer has got used to them working in a particular way - they know that they are a dad but don't expect it to impact on their ability to work late, travel etc...

So when the woman goes back to work if this means that the dad has to do some more pick-ups/drop-offs, sick days this seems like a concession to his wife, rather than part and parcel of being a dad. And meanwhile she carries on with most of the mental work of parenting, even if he 'babysits' a bit more.

I think we have to start from the principle that both parents change their life from day 1, and that they both expect to be able to continue their career (although perhaps not at exactly the speed it would have gone before kids) and that if you take time of to be a SAHP you do it with a plan for how to get back, not just the vague hope that you can.

Most men would not take 5 years out of work because they know that they would be shooting themselves in the foot professionally. But somehow we all play along with the fiction that women can and it will be ok.

I don't think you can expect employers to make it painless to go back after 5 years completely out, but I would like to see more ways for people to work 1,2,3 days a week for a time and then be able to reaccelerate their careers later.

minimathsmouse

I agree with you economics is hugely important in shaping our lives. but I think that the idea that it is built 'by men for men' is too simplistic. It is influenced by decisions taken by people - men and women.

I also think that the framing of the problem in terms of 'why can't we feed starving women and children in Africa' is wrong and casts Africa as a perpetual basket case whose image is one of famine relief appeals. Africa has some of the world's fastest growing economies. It makes more sense to ask what has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in recent years?....and then what prevents the 'bottom billion' being part of this.

The answer is not that they are being exploited by the global economy. Often the answer is that they are unable to be part of the global economy, but are kept isolated by insecurity and big man politics that would rather keep people impoverished and dependent than enable economic growth.

You're pretty useless in terms of your business following and your skills if you stop doing the work for 5 years in many many areas of work. There's nothing sexist about that. it's common sense.

there are two people going for a job. one has just had a 5 yr break, the other is currently working in a similar role. Who are you going to hire?

My DP's business hires returners all the time. It really depends what industry you are in and what skills you are after. In his business a certain set of employees is required to have a particular professional qualification; however, they don't need the skill set they acquired with that professional qualification "on the ground". People who have had a career break have often, perversely, got better management skills (which are necessary on the ground) than those who only have a professional qualification and have followed a linear career path.

I don't know why the kibbutz system didn't work, but if it worked they would still be doing it.
I didn't say that I couldn't get back to my previous level, minipie- I could if I had wanted to. I have 3 close friends who had 5 years or more off and became Head teachers afterwards. The Head I worked with last didn't even become a teacher until her youngest started school and she quickly fast tracked to Head.
It is something the couple have to work out, either one or both do less or they do the same and employ help, I can't see another way.
Children do change your life- fact.