'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 may be the case that more intelligent parents breed more intelligent children. I don't see how that's relevant in a discussion about parents working or staying at home. Can you explain that Xenia?

I was saying that the children of less intelligent housewives are less intelligent because of a combination of genes and their environment. I am sick to death of the press going on about damage done to children of women not working. Let us have more about the dire consequences of having a mother at home.

It's a politica issue maples. As longas women andn ot men opt out women never get power or money. Thus housewives damage women's prospects. It's very simple. The personal is political.

Yes, the personal is political - why is the standard model of a job 40 hours/5 days a week? That can only fit if someone else does the childcare, either the servant caste or the economically vital, financially dependant, sah wife and mother. Why not have 'job' defined as 25 hours a wk? Shared parenting?

Housewives don't damage women's prospects; a division of labour where paid employment relies on unpaid (wife) or lw paid (nanny)domestic labour and childcare does

Xenia how is the environment of a child who is cared for by a nanny different than the environment of a child cared for by a SAHM? Is the nanny automatically better than the SAHM?

I believe feminism to be about choice for women. You believe it to be about forcing women to leave their children with other people whether they want to or not.

I find it quite depressing, Xenia, that you see achievements are due to your good genetic inheritance and not your own hard work. You seem to be suggesting that having a high IQ is on par with having blue eyes or long legs - i.e. not any sort of achievement at all.

I could argue that nanny + WOHM is better for a child than SAHM, simply because it involves more variety for the child. The child benefits from a wider range of skills among his/her carers. For example the nanny may be great at crafty activities but rubbish at reading and the WOHM may be great at helping with reading but rubbish at crafty stuff.

Certainly this was my experience. But I wouldn't dare argue it applies across the board .

For me feminism is about equality between men and women.... If you are a working women, lots of men look at sahm and think you are not as capable at doing your job as a man.....

But lets remember, its sexism that is the enemy.

That's a valid point minipie, although my DS benefits from the skills of plenty of different people as his grandparents visit quite often, we go to a lot of toddler groups with different organised activities and he plays with lots of different children. Being a SAHM doesn't involve staying shut at home with no input from others. This way my DS gets the input of different people while at the same time being cared for by someone who really loves him as only a parent can love him :)

I've been thinking about this a lot recently in deciding whether to go back after maternity to full time, full time with promotion with more hours, ask for part time with demotion and retrain.

If I could afford a nanny how much easier it would be! Even if she did secretly judge me as a career bitch. As I paid her wages...

Each to their own but I think I would assert that a parent at home doing childcare as a vocation is a modern phenomenon and I do agree with Xenia that it doesn't help women as a group negotiate more in the world as it currently is if lots of educated middle class first world women opt out of the working sphere to raise children. It has lots of implications that aren't addressed by simply saying it's a choice IMHO.

So would you say that even if women want to stay at home with their children they shouldn't handbag? That in your ideal world women would leave their children with someone who according to Xenia is less intelligent and educated (ie the nanny) and go out to work regardless of their own feelings? To me that just seems like you're wanting women to emulate men no matter what the personal consequences. Is that the case?

minipie - your argument in favour of nannies (= broader exposure to skills the more carers a DC has) only works if nannies have a broad skill base. IME that is pretty rare, and only happens with the best paid, most expensive nannies. The majority of nannies that I see around me are pretty skilled at keeping DCs clean and safe, but that's as far as it goes.

Articles like the one in the OP imply children pay the price of feminism. I have never seen one that indicates the solution is for more sah dads.

This would also help workplace prejudice against working women. Which imo leads us back to inequality in ml v. Pl and salary inequality within couples leading the woman to be the sahp.

I agree that children often pay the price of feminism and that men have largely come off unscathed so far. I would even argue that the situation (collectively) for women and children has worsened, relative to men, in recent times as men have used women's increasing participation in the workforce to reduce their historic financial support for women, and divorce rates have soared.

I agree Bonsoir. When SAHMs are denigrated it seems to be because they're not doing their duty by emulating men as much as possible. Staying at home is seen as "setting a bad example" presumably because taking on a traditionally female role is A Bad Thing. Is that because anything associated with being female is bad?

Having a high IQ is on a par with being pretty or having sporting ability - it's a function of heredity. A lot of people with high IQs don't maximise their potential, perhaps because they are not interested, perhaps because they are not prepared to put the hard work in etc

Xenia does have a point in that working mothers can often only continue to work if they have jobs that are well-paid (or free childcare). Few women walk away from jobs that pay £100k+ a year after children. Lots of women walk away from minimum wage jobs where they can't afford childcare.

That's true hopefully but I don't see how it's relevant to this discussion. Women in higher paid jobs are more likely to use childcare - so what? Does that make it better, or worse?

The bottom line is as said above articles like this say children suffer because of feminism. Men are never blamed. I might argue chidlren don't suffer, they benefit and children of working mothers do much better and end up as feminist themselves and indeed may well be women leading Britain rather than washing some man's shirts; however the core issue in these articles is they are there to suggest women not men should not work. We have it all the time thrown at us.

It is very very sexist to say women emulate men if they work. People of both genders adore work. Many of them do,. Plenty of women are ambitious and want power and money. To suggest those attributes are only male is sexist in the extreme. Most feminists want many more women in power. We do not get that if they all go off track and stay at home washing and cleaning.

Not quite sure what some of this is on about: "You seem to be suggesting that having a high IQ is on par with having blue eyes or long legs - i.e. not any sort of achievement at all." It is. I earn what I do because of hard work but also a reasonably high IQ. Were I born with down's and an IQ of 80 no matter how good a stay at home mummy or nanny or daddy were nothing would change that IQ. What we inherit has a huge impact. I have non identical twins and 5 children brought up in pretty much the same way. They are very different.

I have always thought children were about 50% genes and 50% who we treat / love them etc.

Men and women taking their traditional roles, without other couples swapping the traditional roles, is bad.

Its not the role that's the problem. The problem is that its not both sexes doing it.

"A lot of people with high IQs don't maximise their potential, perhaps because they are not interested, perhaps because they are not prepared to put the hard work in etc"

Don't maximise their potential what? Earnings, power?

"washing some man's shirts"
"at home washing and cleaning"
Do you understand what a SAHM does Xenia? You don't include looking after children in your description at all. FWIW I don't wash any man's shirts nor do I do much washing and cleaning, I look after my son.

In the mid twentieth century the tradition was that women stayed at home, men went out to work, and women were often forced to conform to that. Feminism worked to change the attitude surrounding that tradition so that women now have the choice to either work or stay at home and that is definitely a positive thing. However, Xenia, you're taking it one step further in that you maintain a woman should be forced to take on the role that men traditionally had of going out to work - that is what I mean about "emulating men." I don't mean that women don't want to work, I mean that some women want to work and some women want to stay at home. I don't see how insulting the choice that some women make is helpful.

Children do suffer IMO if both parents work long hours and hardly see them. But I agree with you that the blame for this shouldn't be laid at the door of feminism or of women. It is the fault of our ultra-capitalist culture that values money and material success over simply spending time with your family. People, men and women alike, are expected to give up practically their entire adulthood to work and in the process their children grow up without them. That isn't a positive state of affairs at all IMO.

People, men and women alike, are expected to give up practically their entire adulthood to work and in the process their children grow up without them. That isn't a positive state of affairs at all IMO."

I agree very strongly with this.

Only if you see work as a negative.