I've noticed quite a lot of this kind of discourse being reiterated recently on SM, Substack and other places. Sometimes from anti-feminist men and women, sometimes from women (often but not always some flavour of right-wing) who support some aspects of feminism but not others (think Mary Harrington 'care feminism' types, who do say a lot of valuable things imo, tho I also disagree personally w quite a lot).
Anyway, the point they all make in different ways is essentially: 'Rich, selfish girlbosses (a lot of this talk is US, which explains somewhat) exploit the labour of poor women as nannies in order to achieve their career dreams. One wage can no longer support a family, so these poor nannies have to care for other people's children rather than be with their own.'
Now, to be clear, that is NOT my view of women who employ nannies. I have worked as a childminder briefly myself in sixth form holidays, and I know several friends who have done similar, or longer-term au pair work in France or similar. All of us were fine, we didn't do it out of financial necessity, but bc we like children and thought it would be useful to gain experience generally and of childcare specifically (most of us want kids ourselves one day).
But obvs most nannies are in a different situation. And I know very well that some are exploited, or even if treated ok are from families that can't survive on one wage, so have to work as nannies when they'd rather be with their own children. And obvs it has hazards: potentially very demanding esp if living with the family, risk of low pay, potential sexual harassment, the list goes on. The risk would intensify if they are from a poor country and working abroad.
But the kind of black-and-white discourse I outlined above is obvs flawed. For one thing, as I outlined, some nannies/au pairs etc are comfortably-off girls doing it for extra cash - hard to argue they are being exploited (I know this is not most, I'm just arguing the picture is more complex)
Second, are rich girlbosses or rich families, period, necessarily exploiting poor women as nannies always? Norland Nannies, for one, which is obvs popular w the wealthy, apparently recruits mainly from middle class young women.
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2020/oct/23/modern-mary-poppins-inside-the-elites-nanny-college-photo-essay
Obvs wealthy families, and families generally, will employ from a variety of sources,,but this shows again that the picture is a bit more complex.
If a young woman chooses to be a nanny because she wants to, (as presumably a lot of Norland etc types do), and has other options, then that's very different from a poor woman who would much rather be with her own children but takes a nanny job bc of the one-wage system no longer working (which I agree is bad) or bc she's a single parent.
I do feel the 'care feminists' argument does take away from women's agency somewhat. They talk about how wonderful caring for children is (which I agree!) but then talk as if caring for children who aren't your own is so terrible that women would only do it bc of poverty.
However, I agree the situation of poor women who feel compelled to work as nannies and others is a crucial feminist issue, which needs much more attention.
I just feel that care feminists' (as well as the MRA types who also argue this) attitude is much too Manichaen, which this issue doesn't warrant (unlike stuff like sex work and surrogacy).
Disclaimer : This is partly me sorting out my thoughts...I want to research this issue more,so apologies for any errors I have made...
Also to be clear, I don't think it's wrong to employ a nanny. I think it's better for both parents to be around the child as much as possible, esp in preschool years, but I know that life often doesn't allow for that. My mother was a single parent, and the only reason she didn't need a nanny was bc we lived w my grandmother who was happy to help, obvs this isn't possible for a lot of people for many reasons