'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 . . .

Being in a position of power would mean having to live somewhere I don't want for a start, you are not going to be able to do it from Falmouth, Ripon, Keswick etc- not if you want to be at home every night.

Just watching TV and it strikes me that anyone with a job with power is never off duty. If I go on holiday, I am on holiday- uncontactable and certainly not on call in a crisis. I would also refuse to be married to anyone whose work came first when they are in leave. Some people are suited to that sort of job- the majority (male or female) are not. I like working hard when there- but out of hours other things come first.

maples, i think we can all agree your colleagues need to step away work for a while....

but i really dont have a problem with a quick work call or email on holiday. i do a lot of sport, sleep well and can turn my brain off quickly and think it is only a drama if you make it into one. i do also take a certain pleasure describing my surrounding to clients, knowing that they are sitting at their desks...

I imagine like all newspaper articles the editor has had a bit of fun with it, so the truth probably lies somewhere in between. We have a full time childminder which I think equates to a nanny, and we have a lady who covers between 5 and 7.30 every night. I work long hours sometimes and most of our disposable income goes on childcare at the moment. We're by no means perfect but the kids are happy and articulate so I don't think they've been disadvantaged by the fact that mum is a so-called "high flier".

To be honest a lot of our friends who have nannies don't treat them very well ie they seem to think it is ok to underpay them and treat them like staff. I wouldn't expect the kids to thrive if the person charged with minding them isn't treated with respect.

One thing I do know, as women we are sure to feel guilty whether we are stay at home mums or trying to juggle full time work, kids and husband!

Power is a funny concept. I have what would be considered a powerful job and yes the blackberry follows me everywhere, I think though that most mums in my position are very good at managing their time very effectively and switch off when we need to. Horses for courses. I'd be pretty miserable being at home all day.

No, I think the inability to feel guilt (I don't feel guilt) is core to being a feminist and to ensuring men and women are equal. Ditch the guilt. WHy feel guilty if you are doing the best thing for your children? Why is woman whipping boy? Why in the garden of Eden is it Eve who causes the fall of man by temping Adam with the apple? Why are women blamed for everything? Why do they feel the guilt at all? Ditch it today. It's liberating.

I was interviewed once by someone who had done a series of interviews with successful women. She said one thing we all had in common was we thought we had done a good enough job, at home and at work and we would do the work and then do the children and not fuss or worry or be perfectionists and that we all had that personality in common. I think that is true.

I agree most people cannot be successful. The avergae IQ is only 100 for a start and plenty are lazy even if bright. Others just want to watch the daisies or drink or take cocaine all day or whatever. However there are plenty of women who want to be in those positions of power with men and can be. It is not a male thing to want power and money and success and to be amitious. Plenty of women want that too and we need to ensure they get a better chance of that.

Work can be very fulfilling and exciting and I certainly recommend women set up their own businesses as it is in ownership that real power lies.

Xenias post 10.59am
Do you agree with it, WasabiTillyMinto?

I must admit to finsing the idea of switching off from work a bit odd.
I'm a writer and am always working, in that I'm creating in my mind, or thinking up new ideas or writing little notes in my diary.

Hilary Mantel said in an interview that she writes more when she's on holiday.

Popele in business are often the same. Funnily though, they would be criticised...

Perhaps we could all play show at tell, what's yours? If I tell you my IQ, you can tell me yours. Then we could all get back to discussing the relative merits of full time work or full time mothering rather than listening to the one trick pony!

I would agree that you just have to be good enough- there is no need to be perfect at anything, if anyone could be.
You do seem hung up on IQ, I don't think that IQ, success and power necessarily go together.
I am with maples, I wouldn't care how important DHs job was- being at hospital while I was in labour comes ahead of everything with no excuses. Another reason for not wanting power.
I would think that the majority of people don't want power.
I wouldn't live in London, or commute.
I don't want to be recognised by the general public.
I don't want to be on TV for any reason.
I have been in the paper once and have resolved never to do it again, unless I write it.
I don't expect to be called outside work hours.
I think that rules everything out.

Exotic - Angela Merkel and Christine Lagarde are hardly your average person though.

I was just shocked that minimathsmouse could think that two of the worlds most powerful women whose jobs include major economic decisions and a focus on poverty, don't think about poverty. It's their job.

If you want to fight poverty in developing countries become an investment manager and invest ethically in emerging markets, become a scientist and research malaria, become a development specialist and work for Oxfam, don't become a housewife and donate a couple of hours of your devalued time to selling old clothes.

A question to some on here.You are assuming that if many more women got high powered jobs[not going to happen because they dont want them],that many more men would take over the womens work.Again not going to happen.have you noticed that eg in Africa, women do loads of work and the childcare.If those women did not do the childcare, the men still wouldnt do it.

Yes I stand by what I say about Rich nations and in particular Merkel and Le Garde.

Susan George the author of a "fate worse than debt" talking about the loan repayments from poor countries

She explains how the south is financing the north to the tune of $25,000 a minute or $2bn a year

In the full speech she explains how the IMF and WTO are instrumental in this.

Exactly - they are not your average person- your average person wants a life apart from work.
It may have escaped your notice but Oxfam couldn't afford development specialists if it wasn't for volunteers raising millions through the shops.
No one has said what they do personally to help women in developing countries.

Minimathmouse - it's really not as simple as "Poor countries are poor because they are exploited by the rich" ... If it were Somalia and North Korea would be thriving as they have such low levels of connection to global markets. China would have been getting poorer since WTO accession, which opened the way to low wage exports (and wages now rising in China).

Read Paul Collier's The Bottom Billion for a good discussion of the some of the issues.

I agree that your average person wants a life apart from work. I am one of those people. But this is the FWR corner. Here it shouldn't be about what you or I want personally, but what needs to happen IN GENERAL to ensure that women have equal access to everything. The OP is about whether dcs cared for by nannies do worse than those cared for by "mothers", as let's face it, no-one meant fathers, did they?

From all I can see from responses to this thread, it makes not a happorth worse of difference.

So a dc born today to 2 lawyers, who hire a nanny and research the best schools, will most likely do well (and will be tutored extensively if struggling) and get a RG Uni place, and will have their place in society mostly mapped out. Compared to a dc born today in an average house with a SAHM who can entirely devote her attention but cannot afford extra stuff. Statistics say that privately educated dcs get a high proportion of the top uni places.

I really don't think it is the SAHM that makes a difference. Money is what makes a difference to a child's upbringing these days. Extra curricular activities, music lessons, tutoring etc. Social mobility is getting more and more limited.

Bawdy A family able to afford for the mother stay home is most probably in a high income bracket anyway. I could stay home on DH's salary and we could still afford the 4DC's that I want, private schools, private college here in the US, summer camp in Denmark every year and a home big enough for us all.

I work because I want to have a career and my DH supports me working because he said he would probably find me very boring if I didn't have a career. I think social mobility is getting more and more limited but I think that is because the way society is structured. From what I can tell the very poor and very rich are the only ones able to reproduce and households with more than 2 children are much more common. Anyone in the middle can't afford to support more than 1 or 2 children. In my opinion this one of the reason for social mobility decreasing.

I would say that it is the personality of the mother that counts and is nothing to do with whether she works or not.
We seem to have two very stereotypical example. A lawyer who comes home and still has the energy to do a lot and be stimulating- and doesn't have to spend her evening cooking, ironing etc because someone has done it all for her and a stay at home mother who spends her entire day cleaning and never goes out and so is boring.
Most women are somewhere in between.
I can't think of a single SAHM who does it for longer than a few years, without going back at least part time. When I was SAHM we were hardly ever actually at home and I took on lots of things.
It is money and the personality of the DC that counts. If they come from a wealthy background they are going to have all the advantages. They can look at the parents and think, they got that through ambition, hard work and power and I want it, or equally I don't want it.
Very often the DCs of the powerful are not very successful themselves.
Social mobility is decreasing because more and more parents are pushing for what they want for their DCs and there is less space for the disadvantaged who don't push. I am very thankful that mine were the pushy sort and I have been the same. It has not so much to do with money as attitude.
I will assume, since no one answered, that you are not doing anything personally for women in developing countries.

exotic there is no eveidence whatsoever that successful parents have unsuccesssful children. I really don't know where you've extrapoltaed that from. I'd be interested to see.
Anecdotally there may be a few examples, but all the studies show that social mobility is at a very low point ie DC follow their parents.

As for wealth have little bearing on outcome...sorry but again all the evidence shows that this is not the case. It's comforting of course to believe that poor DC don't do well because they have a poor attitude, but the reality is far more slippery.

Access to a good education is very dependent on wealth in this country. The pupils in indepenedent schools typically punch way over their weight statistically. Then grammar schools which are populated by the middle classes (DC on free school meals being shockingly absent). Then good comprehensives in leafy areas where houses cost a fortune.

Then there are all the extras: music lessons, dance lessons, dpsorts lessons, language lessons, books, trips to the theatre, tutoring, good food, internet access, access to sports facilities and clubs. All cost.

Then university fees. Perhaps a further degree of prof training (no decent loans for those).Then parents supporting internships. Then parents helping DC get on the property ladder.

An engaged, well educated, happy SAHP is a wonderful thing for a DC to have but it's the things mentiuoned above that really seal the deal sadly.

Good question re what women here do for women in developing countries. I do microfinancing. Lend small amounts of money to business women in Africa. I help about 50 women a year. The loans have interest on them but I have a "fund" so don't withdraw the money but recirculate it.ie I don't do it to make money. Anyone can do it and can lend as little as £5 or as much as they want but there are a lot of critics of microfinancing so its not for everyone and I am sure some idiot will roll along soon and ask why there is interest on the loan.

My sibs and I have formed a charity where we pick one girl each year and sponsor their education through to the end of school. If we didn't that girl would probably have to stop school as her family couldn't afford it. We have also donated our old books, computers (amazingly difficult to give away in this country) to the school and repainted it so it was a nicer environment.

absolutely wonderful noviceoftheday

Exotic - Oxfam raise about 900 million Euro a year for it's work. Of this 18m comes from the trading income of shops - or about 2% - the rest comes from the UK government, EU and institutions like the world bank (aka taxpayers money one way or another) and from corporate and personal donations.

It is simply not true to say that Oxfam couldn't afford to employ development specialists if it wasn't for volunteers.

They have 35,000 shop volunteers - so it works out that each volunteer is responsible for around 500 euro of funding each year - about 8 pounds a week. I don't know the average hours of a volunteer - but say it is one afternoon per week, that works out at 2 pounds an hour.

I donate 30/month to Oxfam plus the giftaid - it doesn't take me 1/2 a day to earn.