'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 . . .

mini - you seem to argue women are different than men but more women having power would not change anything.

i dont see how the two statements can both be true. and your are only using 2 examples. Claire Short would be a better example?

Different people are suited to different jobs.
It is sad that if a DD wants to be a nurse someone will say 'couldn't she do better?' and yet a friend's DS is a nurse and he gets approval. It is a double standard. We also need good nurses. If I worked in medicine I would be interested in the caring side and not the medical problem. I can't understand why this is looked down on.
You get the same reaction with a DD being a reception teacher as if it is much better to teach A'level Physics and yet I know a DS reception teacher and this gets approval.
Only a few people are suited to positions of power, it is a lonely life at the top. I am not prepared to hire and fire and I hate wasting my time in meetings- I don't even want to be in an office. Why should we all want this?
Why can't people who garden go and do it? I know some women who set up their own gardening company- why is this not good enough if it is their passion? Why should they be aiming for some position of power when they would rather be creating something of beauty and getting paid for it.
I still haven't got over the earlier comment that my friend should have stayed in UK on her original career path rather than earn a living with her DH in a particularly beautiful part of the world- even when she loves it and wasn't happy in UK.
I am very thankful that everyone doesn't feel the same and they feel free to work the way they want.How sad to make someone who loves caring feel that it is worthless and they should be moving money around the money markets because it has a higher status. Lots of higher status jobs would be found deadly boring by many people- it is just as well someone wants to do them.

minimathsmouse

"When did Merkel and Le Garde last consider what could be done about poverty in developing countries?"

The IMF supports countries to develop and implement poverty reduction strategies as part of its loan conditions. That is what it does. Germany has a 6 billion Euro aid budget.

These women think seriously about what could be done about poverty in developing countries. You can disagree with their policies, but you can't say that they could be doing more for poverty in developing countries if they stayed home and made jam and volunteered in their local oxfam shop.

Oxfam shops are in every single town in the country and must raise an enormous amount of money, they couldn't operate without a vast army of volunteers, mainly women and the money would be lost. I think that they are doing far more than the average worker, on a huge salary, who doesn't give a thought, time or money to poverty in developing countries.

Many women are very good leaders. I am sure a lot of us are very pleased the Frenach now have a 50% female cabinet. Cameron has a long way to go. He is more likely to win female votes if he does that than offers free classes on how to bring up children as it is very very sexist to suggest women are after being told how to deal with a baby rather than being foreign secretary or in his job.

"you can't say that they could be doing more for poverty in developing countries if they stayed home and made jam and volunteered in their local oxfam shop."

this is so true. women are brought up to believe that being 'nice' makes them 'good', while not actually doing much beyond their own family, whereas most people who actually benefit others have to make tough decisions.

... so Merkel and Le Garde win every time over Mrs Hearing Reading at School 2 hours per Week.

the tradgey is that Mrs Hearing Reading at School 2 hours per Week has probably sacrificed lots of her own personal desires to 'help others' when actually quantitatively it doesnt amount to much. this is one of the many reasons why i want full equality between men and women. women being 'nice' is really about control.

oh Exotic & yes i would applaud a young man choosing to go into reception class, because that leads to a more equal society. Or a women choosing to be a firefighter. whats not to like about a more equal society?

exotic - your average worker is paying taxes that keep this country affloat. you are kiding yourself if you think 3hours on the till in oxfam is a greater contribution than that.

BawdyStrumpet post 21.04pThe majority is down to biology.And no amount of talking about it is going to change it.

You can help a lot more readers if you are Bill Gates or Elena Ambrosiadou. There is little women can do more to help others than making a fortune. They can do so much more good that way than washing the feet of those with dementia for £6 an hour.

Xenia, what do you define as "good"?

amillion - if women do 2/3 of the world's work, and primary childcare, what does, IYO, men's biology predispose them to?

maples - i think we have to be careful of women being encouraged to be 'good' in a very predefined way which mainly seems to mean 'women make all the sacrifices'.

i doubt the real value of some of the sacrifices women are encouraged to make. also it can lead to women shying way from tasks which they will get harshly judged for.

i think a lot of behaviours women are encouraged to display are fetishized to something 'good' when really it is more about the convenience of men.

but women have always worked. we do 2/3 of the world's work. so i think the reality of 'women's role' is very different from the distortion that is presented.

Woman as sactrificial lamb. Woman as servant at the feet of men. Women persuaded she is some kind of saint if she scrubs and cleans and cares, a major con to ensure she never reaches a position of power.

I would say the friend of Haughty is no different from most men so we should no more praise her than we praise a man who does the washing. That is what I call sexist gender praise.

Of course you do more good if you have a fortune to give out, than simply cuddling your own children. Women who make a lot of money or comprise 50% of the cabinet get the real power to effect change. We want the power. We want to ensure we never again are a power behind the throne. We want the throne itself.

I think women have to be far more supportive of each other. Too often we don't help each other out. I will never forget reading a letter from a Julie Kirkbride in the Times who complained that she didn't get help looking after her son which was why she used taxpayers money to fund the extension to provide a bedroom for him as her son and brother had been sharing a room.

I was dumbfounded that this MP didn't think beyond herself. If she was struggling to afford suitable care then she must have surely considered that many other families face the same problem. She was elected into a position of power and could have fought to change things and didn't.

Your taxes when working are not going to Oxfam.Oxfam shops raised £80million last year, only because of 'do gooders'. You can't tell me that if all the volunteers were in paid work they would be able to send that amount to Oxfam!
I would love to know what you are all doing personally to help women in developing countries.

Some of us do not want the throne itself- some of us would hate it, it would take over all the nice things that make life worthwhile.

Many men don't want power either and I sure wouldn't live with one, they would never have the most valuable quality- time.