'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 . . .

i personally find Xenia's contribution very useful at times. i run my own business but it cannot survive without me for long. so i will have to go back to work asap after birth (TTC at the moment), maybe 2 weeks.

she is the only person i can think of who gives a positive message for women returning to work early.

Don't we all prefer the views of those that chime with our own...?

it's preferable for a baby to be looked after by a parent because they are the ones most bonded to the baby.
My experience is that it's not always the case. For lots of different reasons, some parents can and do have problems bonding the child.

And not all parents are really longing to spend all their time with their little baby.

It's interesting though because I've always had the feeling that it's saying you don't really want to be with your baby all the time that is 'pooh-poohed' by society.

cailin - i dont think the research is anything like how you paint it. i think you are magnifying small risks into black and white.

also doesnt the research just say 'higher levels of cortisol'. i dont think a scientist would say we really understand the life long effects of higher levels of cortisol.

Cailin that's' the thing. Who says that to have an healthy attachment, the child has to spend all his bay and toddler years with a parent?

There are cases where the parent isn't bonded to the child, but I think most would agree that's not the norm. Perhaps in those cases, where the parents have no particular bond, being looked after by a nanny won't make much difference as the nanny will have the same or greater feelings towards the child as the parents. I'm not sure that's a great situation for the child though. I'm not saying a parent should want to spend all their time with their baby - I certainly don't. What I'm saying is that having had a baby most parents have an instinct to care for that baby, it's just a normal reaction. Denying that instinct can be difficult and upsetting.

I think the ideal scenario (from a biological point of view) is that the mother gives birth and then bf and then is the primary carter about of the baby/ toddler about for at least three years.

This (from nature's point of view is the Gold Standard) but it isn't always possible, nor do a lot of people want to do so, but it doesn't change the essential desirability of it (unless the mother is unfit) .

Wasabi, thanks. It certainly works for a good few women to go back to work early (and of course legions of men but no one ever subjects them to any angst because they have a penis and are above all that, being male Gods as it were).

I think we can pretty much ignore the housewives' views, we have had it ad nauseum and it is usually wrong on most things to do with work and women and it certainly does not achieve equality for women.

"Bonsoir and Xenia: it is all very well to say "you just have to get really really good at economic musical chairs, and encourage your children to do likewise" - but the nature of the game is there is always one fewer chair. Why can't we focus the conversation on putting more chairs out, rather than not being the one on your arse on the floor?"

The post above is at the heart of the division that there has balways been within feminism even in the 70s when I started in it as a teenager which was a very exciting time in the UK to be a feminist - we had just got the Equal Pay Act 1970 etc. So we want some wooly socialist nirvana which doesn't work in the real world where everyone earns the same and men and women work a few hours a day or do we accept humans are made as they are and some will be ambitious and some not and seek to ensure more women do better and more men help at home. I have always been of the latter school of thought but plenty want revolution, socialism and other unworkable solutions.

don't most parents want to be the ones to experience day to day life with their child, take them out and about, see them do their "firsts"?

I know I haven't no. I've never thought that being 'the one' who saw my dcs first steps was essential or that I was missing out if they did. I was most passionate about seeing them growing up, learning, getting independent and most of all being happy and balanced. First time aren't an all in all in my books.
I also never though that what I am doing is so special, perfect etc.. that no one else can do it.

I do think that developing an strong healthy attachment is important. Not just when they are little but all the way through childhood and until adulthood.

I suppose in that case, NotSure, it's all about different approaches to parenting. I don't really think too much about the long run, I just want to be with my son here and now as he is experiencing things. I want to live his life with him while he is young, before he becomes independent. I want to have the memory of being the one to look after him, the one to take him to toddler groups etc. And I do think no one else can do my job, and that I am doing something special - I'm his mum! I'm not just anybody. Do you not feel special to your DCs? Do you really feel a woman could step into your shoes tomorrow and "mum" and it would make no difference?

notsure seeing them growing up, learning, getting independent and most of all being happy and balanced

DP is a primary HT. he sees 'learned helplessness' where parents dont realise their DCs are growing up and arent helping them become independant. i dont think all 'strong attachments' are healthy.

Good post vezzie.

libelulle I think your post is unfair. You said yourself your dh earns a fantastic wage so you can afford to take time out. That's hardly a revolutionary position. You're right in that society should be restructured so we don't all have to continually choose between heart and purse and fight each other for employment.

cailin my friend in social work claims we are misunderstanding attachment theory when we apply it to childcare. My mum made my Ds giggle uncontrollably first whilst I was in the kitchen cooking her bloody dinner It made me realise that even if I spent 24 hours a day with Ds, he will have his firsts with other people too. Even if they don't love him like I do, they can take pleasure in his company and achievements.

wasabi you're right. I hadn't realised there were so few people speaking positively about going back to work early. I'm pretty sure your very successful business will have lots of positive outcomes for your dcs in the future.

Noone else can be 'mum'. That's the strength of our attachment. But you don't need to look after them day in day out for that to happen. It is coming as a biological need from the child who, I think, has no other choice than to love his mum and dad. The role of the parent is to nurture it and develop it. That's what is making this attachment 'special'.

A lot of people can take them to toddler groups (where they run around wo a backward glance at me), make them eat, clean the mess, change nappies etc...!

looking on wiki about attachment thoery:

"an infant needs to develop a relationship with at least one primary caregiver for social and emotional development to occur normally"

"A primary caregiver is the person who takes primary responsibility for someone who cannot care fully for themselves. It may be a family member, a medical professional or another trained professional. Depending on culture there may be other members of the family engaged in care."

so a mother is no more important in attachement thoery than other care giver.

For a stable attachment to be built up though Wasabi, the caregiver has to be responsive. The most responsive caregivers are those who are intimately bonded with the child, usually a parent. If a carer isn't very responsive, as in, leaves the baby to cry or doesn't give a lot of eye contact then the child can fail to form an attachment. Evidence has shown that things like mirroring (where the caregiver copies the baby's facial expression) is a very important part of emotional development and that the person most likely to mirror is the mother. It's that responsive, interactive, loving care that is important, not just the day to day physical care.

When it comes down to it, the thing that stops me putting my son into childcare is the fact that I know I love him and that I am going to look after him to the best of my ability. If I give him to someone else I have to trust that they will look after him well but I don't know for sure.

If a carer isn't very responsive, as in, leaves the baby to cry or doesn't give a lot of eye contact then the child can fail to form an attachment

dont you think post parents might notice if their nanny was like this? its not just getting some random strange off the street.

How can the parents know if they're not there Wasabi?

I've seen the way the key worker and room leader interact with Ds. They don't leave babies crying. They do the same stuff that I do! Eye contact, facial expressions, cuddles etc. Obviously I can't watch them 24/7 but as Ds gets more confident in being away from me and dh and being in a new place the more I can relax and feel that he's enjoying it.

It's great that you feel confident about them handbag :)

Sorry cailin I was just trying to say that the childcare professionals I leave Ds with do look after him properly (so far, it's early days). I think I was trying to put your mind at rest but I don't know why I wanted to do that! Sorry again :)

No need to be sorry handbag, I thought your post was relevant.

Xenia: "So we want some wooly socialist nirvana which doesn't work in the real world where everyone earns the same and men and women work a few hours a day or do we accept humans are made as they are and some will be ambitious and some not and seek to ensure more women do better and more men help at home"

unfettered market capitalism doesn't work a. practically (relying on infinite expansion which is a logical impossibility long term on a finite earth) and b. more importantly right now, morally. In (relatively) recent years there have been checks placed on the market (taking kids out of the mills in Lancashire, imposing health and safety regulation on industrial practices) and this has saved lives. I am sure the mill owners and the factory owners moaned about it, but still I am very very sure it was the right thing to do.
Competition is all very well up to a point - if someone wants to work 20 hours a day and wins the huge purple velvet chair in Musical Chairs, let them. the others who might be slow, differently abled, interested in other things - if they "only" work 8 or 9 hours a day, do we accept that they just end up on the floor? I say not. There will always be someone who is not winning and I passionately believe that we shouldn't accept that their lives should just be shit.

CailinDana is saying that she doesn't enjoy being part of a society which places material well being above children's happiness and security. Well I don't like being part of a society which places more importance on very high stakes material competition - ie higher stakes up for grabs for those who are pretty sure they are going to win them - above anyone's happiness and security. Passionate, driven commercial activity should be an optional hobby for those who like it, which might win them increased wealth, rather than a sine qua non in order to have any bloody thing at all.

However I also don't enjoy being part of a society which is extremely suspicious and negative about women daring to take part in economic activity. Of course all these "Think of the CHULLDREN!" howls are placed with intent. Of course they are.

I mean it's all rubbish, the children will always be fine in the vast majority, as the vast majority of parents actually really do give a fuck and do their absolute best in whatever style they can. Some parents don't give a fuck and their children are in trouble, but there is nothing to be gained in their case by publishing articles about whether or not Cythia should hire a nanny and keep working as a solicitor, or whether she should resign and they can all manage on Edmund's salary.

I missed DS's first word and first crawl making a cup of tea

Just unlurking to say how much I'm enjoying an interesting and generally reasonable discussion.

It may be because I'm in lefty academia but now pretty much all the new fathers - inc my DH- have dropped or shifted hours some what. I would like to hink this is becoming the new standard :) I do four short days, one long, and evenings writing, and DH does three long one form home one off - basically we both work full time and are doing very well but mon- wed lunch are the only meals of the week DS doesn't eat with us.
Works brilliantly. We're very fortunate obviously, but I hope this sort of arrangement could spread.