'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 . . .

It doesn't matter how little, if we took it away it would make a difference. It is sad if we are put off doing something because it is a 'drop in the ocean'. If everyone did it we would notice a difference.
Like novice of the day I have sponsored DCs in developing countries, I have always had girls because I think they get the rougher deal. I have been doing it for just over 30years, and while I appreciate this is nothing in the grand scheme of things it does at least keep a few girls in education and I correspond with them so it gives a broader outlook. If everyone did the same, it would make a huge difference. That is why I keep asking all these people who actually want to help women in the third world, what they actually do.

Sorry noviceoftheday- my IPad will leave gaps.

well done to you too ,exoticfruits

It does at least show that 30 years ago I was worried about the plight of women. I still am.

I also think that Oxfam would be a bit annoyed with the message- stop volunteering - it is peanuts and we don't need it!

Thanks million.

I think that both money and time are important. I usually see on mumsnet that time is regarded as more important and there being a bit of a snobbishness about those who give money, but as exotic demonstrates well, money is more important in a lot of cases but that doesn't take away from the importance of people volunteering. For people like me that have no time, money is the only way to still have a social conscience so good on those who do volunteer time.

This country would fall apart without volunteers- they are propping it up one way or another.
Firstly, if they tried to get jobs they wouldn't be able to in the present economic climate, secondly taxes don't keep all the charities supplied with money and thirdly many people are not giving a regular donation, of significance, every month, fourthly charities like Oxfam do not want people belittling volunteers or telling little Johnny that there is no point in having a cake stall, they want and need every penny they can get and as much free help as they can get.
My son finishes university within weeks, he is not kidding himself that he will walk into a job!

exotic the last line of your last post ties in what word said earlier, don't you think? The one thing I have noticed over the last 2 years is how much parents have really made the most of their connections in the City to get graduate children internships.

Unfortunately it boils down to who you know, but it only works if your DC is going in for the same line. If you are a lawyer and your DC is coming out as a vet it isn't a lot of help.
Believe you me,I am networking wherever I can! I am a pushy mother!

Not being confined to a narrow field helps.

From what I know about this, and it is little, is that people do swaps with this type of thing.i will have your DC working in my office as a journalist or whatever, and you can have mine in eg fashion.

I don't think that this applies to DS and his subject. I can see it is one place where it might be helpful, but in our case not, or DH could do it just as well as me. It is another thing that isn't as easy in the present economic climate.

million is right. That's exactly what's happening. So by the time people apply for jobs, they have done a summer all over the City, a week here, 2 weeks there etc etc, so they can put all those down in their experience box which means more likely to get that first interview. It's not quite the same as actually getting the kids a job but it helps! It means they can say that they have been in a work environment. I can see how this has become an extremely valuable thing for a "high flyer" mother to be able to do for their dcs.

I will admit that this is the first time that I can see a very valuable reason for having a high flying career!
Unfortunately my father used to be of the view that it was unfair and you had to do it all on your own merits, but if he was alive today he might have changed his mind.
I think that it is a great shame that it is down to 'who you know', I much preferred my father's philosophy, but it is undoubtedly true.

million is correct about swaps. And of course there is also the issue of favours.
For example, my publisher and my agent would, I am sure offer an internship to my DC if I asked as a favour. Similarly DH and I will do favours where we can.
Most people want to help young people if they can.

But, and it's a big but, many young people can't afford to work for nothing. Working actually costs money (clothes, travel etc), then of course you have to live somewhere and eat!

Internships and their ilk (low paid stepping stone jobs) are a big barrier to many young people. I hate them. But it is what it is, I guess.

million is right. That's exactly what's happening. So by the time people apply for jobs, they have done a summer all over the City, a week here, 2 weeks there etc etc, so they can put all those down in their experience box which means more likely to get that first interview. It's not quite the same as actually getting the kids a job but it helps! It means they can say that they have been in a work environment. I can see how this has become an extremely valuable thing for a "high flyer" mother to be able to do for their dcs.

Weird double post!

Again, I agree with word. What quietly troubles me is that I know that there is no way that I would have been able to do one of these internships when I was at university or just graduated because I would desperately have needed the money to live and didn't have mummy or daddy with the financial backing for me to be able to do unpaid work. My observation from the people I see on a day to day basis, who have made it to the tops of their fields so MDs in banks, partners in professional services firms and the C-suite in the FS industry, is that most of them actually didn't get these leg ups into the City, and that one of the reasons they had a burning desire to suceed was that they thought it was a meritocracy and that they had a fair crack at the whip. Without the fire in your belly of wanting to "better your life" people aren't always as motivated.

Novice - I wonder about your computer giving -

There is a reason why second hand computers are hard to donate and have low resale value. it is because the cost of the expertise needed to get them functional and keep them functional (particularly in a school or other institution where you don't just want random computers that kind of work, but a set of computers that work together) is more than the money you save by using second hand equipment vs buying new, from supplier with a local support network.

If it did make financial sense, my guess is that individual entrepreneurs and/or development agencies would be buying up/seeking donations of old computers and shipping them to poor countries.

Although I at last see some point in a high flying career I am still not willing to have 20 years or so in a career that I would hate just to help them out! We are realistic enough to realise he might have to start with experience and no pay,but I still think it exploitation and sad that it rules a lot of people out. It shouldn't be based on who your parents know and whether they can continue to support you.

Himalaya, we initially tried to give them away here but couldn't give it away to most charities. From memory, there was a charity in North London (this is about 10 years ago when we first looked into it) that would take it, but by then we had hit upon sending it overseas.

Anyway, the computers went to a village, which to put in context only got electricity about 20 years ago. A set of computers that work together is beyond luxury. However, we were able to set it up there and pay for someone who knew enough to reconnect it there. I think we have replaced them twice since (and never bothered looking at the UK charity again). Dh and my brothers have a thing about having the latest wizadry so the computers aren't knackered, they're just not the latest.

Charities here won't take clothes here unless they are in perfect condition, whereas the reality is that in these small villages they couldn't careless. We also do an annual thing in our family where we all shake out our clothes from our wardrobes and ship them over to another village. We get friends we know to donate as well and collectively as a family we pay the shipping costs. From what I understand, if they cant be sold, sometimes clothes can end up being dumped which is crazy when people in developing countries are desperate for clothes. I am sure it makes sense to those who better know the charity sector!

Novice

As you say there is a snobbishness about giving money rather than giving time or stuff.

But actually giving money is almost always better because local people have their own priorities and know best what they need, which may not match up with what you have to offer.

If they do want your second hand stuff/volunteer they would be willing to pay for it, given free money.

With second hand clothes people are willing to pay for them so there is a market which is fairly sophisticated. Clothes are graded for summer and winter and by gender and age and sold to merchants in developing countries and Eastern Europe who sell them on. Clothes that are of poor quality and can't be sold here or for export are shredded for rags. I guess this is what you mean by dumped. If the clothes you donate are decent then you can be confident that if you put them into any donation/recycling bin they will get to people who need them fairly efficiently. There is no need to pay the shipping costs.

If you give people money in all but the most dysfunctional/emergency situations they can usually go and buy second hand clothes if that is what they want ( and the trade creates quite a lot of local jobs).

With computers there isn't a market because the costs vs value doesn't work out. If you total up the cost of shipping, installation, support including your time etc plus the money you would have got just selling the computers on eBay ...and offered that as a lump sum to the Head Teacher would they have said don't give me the money, give me the second hand computer or would they have said 'thanks I know what I want to spend that on'?.

You have to ask yourself why professional charities that do these kinds of benefit/cost analyses and have close relationships with local institutions have decided its not worthwhile to subsidise distribution of second hand goods as aid.

(if you interested to read more from aid experts on this question search for SWEDOW "stuff we don't want")

Exotic - sure, every little helps if it is managed well but the statement that "Oxfam couldn't afford development specialists if it wasn't for volunteers raising millions through the shops" is simply false. Oxfam gets 98% of its funding from other sources.

The fact is that when women who put aside their careers to live out traditional male/female family roles the benefits are not "for the DCs" (who do fine in all kinds of situations), it is not "for the greater good" (Volunteering etc..which is marginal). The main beneficiary is the husbands career (and with it the wife's income if it all works out well).

You can defend it if you think that a "woman's place is in the home" and a man's career is more important. But all the rest - volunteering, benefits to the DCs is handwaving since there is no particular reason why women are needed to deliver on these more than men.

Of course there is no reason why men shouldn't do it too. The important thing is that everyone should be able to volunteer.
Anyone's job, man or woman should leave them time to put something back and if they can't do time they should do money IMO.

Himalaya, that makes sense.

Also, I agree with you when you say "The fact is that when women who put aside their careers to live out traditional male/female family roles the benefits are not "for the DCs" (who do fine in all kinds of situations), it is not "for the greater good" (Volunteering etc..which is marginal). The main beneficiary is the husbands career (and with it the wife's income if it all works out well)."

From my point of view the main beneficiary was me, I got the freedom to do what I wanted to do.