Views on nannies

[AliasGrace47]

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

Ah, but at least some of the time it'll be me doing the interrogating! 🤣

I am GC which is taboo in my peer group. MN Feminism boards have taught me so much about various issues, and if I want to discuss an issue online, I find discourse quality much better here.

Why try to chase away young people! Isn't it a good thing if FWR influences younger people?

I'm also concerned about rising manosphere culture in my generation and find it helpful to come here to think of ways to deal with it.

The exploitation of women’s labour is an issue - within relationships/marriages even without children. I heard one woman theorising that men aren’t thriving as they used to and are angry about it because they no longer have the unpaid (and unmentioned, unappreciated, free) labour of women at home to rely on to the same extent.

It takes at least two people to have a child, although of course some children could instead be brought up by two dads, two mums, grandparents etc. Why is the premise of this argument that it’s only women who “exploit” the labour of other women? Why is it not that both parents are exploiting the nanny? Why is a man not exploiting a nanny when his wife is the higher earner? What is considered exploitative in terms of wages, T&Cs and what is not? I am very suspicious of “choice” feminism as no choices are made in a socioeconomic or cultural vacuum, but can a woman not choose to be a nanny? They are not all poor, vulnerable women without other opportunities, choices or support to change careers. Nannies also do have children of their own and take maternity leave, which is obviously protected in the UK though not in the USA.

DOI: We have a nanny who is paid more than I was 3 years into a graduate career. Her hours, duties etc are mutually agreed.

Good point. As I said I think in OP, I do think that it would be good if one wage could support a family (at the same time I think it's better for women's security to work if they can, even if their job isn't particularly interesting etc)

I think a lot of the well-intentioned writing on this topic (excluding the MRA types who want to bash 'girlbosses') seems to assume that nannies are being forced into an underpaid, exploitative job, cut off from their children's early years, etc. But as this thread has made clear, a lot are clearly not in that position. And I would also question the way that some people seem to equate childcare with checkout work, cleaning etc. I'm not saying this jobs are automatically miserable, boring etc, but I do think caring for children has more scope to be at least somewhat varied, rewarding intrinsically bc you're helping another human being develop, there's more potential for the unexpected etc This is shown by the fact that there's clearly women who DO want to do it, it's not like other jobs which people don't normally want to do if they have other options.

I’ve been a nanny for many years. I’m well educated and British born with the shires accent. I do get undercut by foreign born Nannie’s who will work for less money. There is a big problem with being forced to be self employed so no sick or holiday pay and no pension etc.

I absolutely love my job but it’s low pay. (I mostly childminder now since having my own children) I have a degree I could do something else but I love my work.

Parents tend not to hire a full time nanny with their own child, that’s more for after school nanny work. It doesn’t fit around your own children because your school runs for your children are rarely to the school in the affluent area. However if you have the baby while employed I’ve seen most Nannie’s keep their job then if they go back to work much sooner (which we have to do because it’s maternity allowance when self employed).

I won’t work for the really rich families anymore. They do tend to treat you like you are less. Same for live in jobs the kids don’t know you are off duty so unless you go out you will be on duty. Families in a 3 bed detached hiring a nanny because they have twins/weird hours/SEND child are absolutely the best families to work for as they have respect and gratitude. Single mums also brilliant.

I won’t work for single dads. In all but one job I’ve been hire by the mother interviewed and paid busy the mother and the dad stays away from the kid part of the house or is out working not around usually mum who comes home to take over. It’s eye opening where in interview the mum will praise her hands on equal husband but then the reality is mental load and childcare is on mum and the mum just can’t see it. never had anything inappropriate from the dads in the families I work for, I’ve had lots of issues in other jobs I’ve had with men. One job I didn’t take because I got creepy vibes off the dad when I did my trial. I’m not so poor I can’t insist on a trial and I never work for just one family so I have always had that option to quit if I ever did feel uncomfortable. I do know however it much easier for me to get work not having an accent and with childcare qualifications than it is for the cash in hand women. I also refuse to clean and won’t go on family holidays and am able to make that clear at interview because I have excellent references and much of my work came from word of mouth so the mums were prepared to flex to get someone they knew was good than trust someone they don’t know was good.

I don’t think this is a feminist issue. It’s no different to taking a minimum wage job to feed your family. There is definitely an issue with cash in had for immigrant women but not enough for me to say the whole industry is exploitation. I would say the women hired to clean these houses have it worse they often are less than minimum wage cash in hand and are spoken to and about like they are less than human, usually no contract so they get fired with no notice for minor stuff.

notland Nannie’s earn very well. But they work insane hours. I know of two who were hired by rich single dads and one I think was in a relationship but that’s an assumption I don’t actually know. the other intentionally looked for a single dad job to marry was open to her nanny friends and she got her wish.

Your contributions to this thread have been nothing but snark at the OP, right from the start. You say you're not trying to chase her away. So what are you trying to achieve, exactly? Obviously not a constructive discussion of the subject of the thread.

Thank you! I don't know why this person is doing this. I've stated that I don't oppose hiring nannies, maybe I'll do that myself when I have kids.

Frankly I'm wondering if they should retreat back under their bridge, iykwim.

We've had a right funny lot on here lately. I suspect the nannies are incidental. Keep posting!

Burntt, thank you so much for posting this, really interesting & valuable . I was hoping a nanny would contribute!

Will reply properly tomorrow.

On here I have read a thread where someone was moving to the Middle East. They asked if they would need a housekeeper and a nanny or would the housekeeper look after the kids too. And people replied that it’s normal in that country to get the housekeeper to look after the kids! How colonial of them.
This housekeeper would basically be taking on two jobs. The OP is moving there as wages are higher but she will be employing a cheap worker and having a life style that she could never have in this country thanks to exploitation.

This is a fine opinion but two counter arguments.

If nannies were not available would women be able to do many of these jobs where female representation actually has a significant positive effect on multiple levels for the quality of life of all women. Or would women be confined to making a decision between children or career because men won't give up their careers.

What alternative jobs are there available for these nannies?

'I'd rather a nanny & her children starved than exploit her time away from them'
Doesn't seem practical.

My view is if the individual 'girl boss' concerned supports political parties whose policies effectively coerce women in poverty into making these choices via lack of social safety nets then the she's immoral & exploiting.

Sometimes all the choices we have are immoral one way or another so it's a matter of the lesser evil & whether you make an effort to change this that matters.

Well...I mean, if you only have 1 or 2 kids and are able to work around school hours, presumably you wouldn't need a nanny after the children are in school.

But obvs there are the preschool years. The options apart from nanny: stay at home and try to relaunch career after, have a SAH or working from home partner, grandparents care (if available & willing) or use daycare (obvs then similar potential ethical issues to nannies).

As to alternatives, I'd imagine that (unless they're total hypocrites) these people don't support other jobs that arguably exploit poor women who'd rather be SAHMs (supermarket work, waitresssing, catering,,cleaning, caring for elderly people, clerical work etc).

It's difficult : ofc it would be better if women had the option to stay at home with their children. Otoh who would do these jobs? I suppose they might bring in AI even 🤔... I know from experience w my gran that caring for the elderly, for one, is v physically and mentally demanding : and ofc the care sector had relied on underpaid (often immigrant) workers for a long time. Even if they raised wages and conditions I still can't imagine there would be a huge number of volunteers.

These are important issues for feminism...was reading an article recently which highlighted the extra danger working class people, including women, were in during the pandemic.

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/covid19/2020/11/12/are-we-all-in-this-together-working-class-women-are-carrying-the-work-burden-of-the-pandemic/

I suppose these people would say they're singling out nannies as an undervalued/underpaid/poor conditions job which feminists are relying on hypocritically. But as we've established, all these statements are contestable...

I think foreign countries and nannies are definitely a different aspect of the issue. A lot of foreign countries seem to have v exploitative conditions often. I would hope that's much less likely to be the case here, at least not to the same extent. Ofc Western women expats utilising the system would also be complicit.

Are you enjoying uni op? Happy? Enjoying the course? Made good group of friends?

Thanks for your post, @Burntt. Everything you’ve posted chimes with my experience as one of those 3-bed house families who hired live-out nannies 10 or so years ago, except for you being forced to be self-employed. How is that happening? When I had nannies we had to employ them properly - taxes, NI (employee & employer) holiday and sick pay, grievance procedure, the lot. We’d have been in a lot of trouble if we hadn’t done it that way, though paying all the NI out of our taxed income was hard and often a little frustrating for the nannies, some of whom wanted to negotiate net take-home pay rather than gross pay. There was always a LOT of effort up front - from the ad, to the interview, to the contract - to make sure we were being very clear and above board.

Anyway, boggles my mind to hear there are good nannies out there right now working self-employed.

YY to the after school pick up/ nanny bringing her own children conundrum. I hired a couple of nannies-with-babies for after school care, and it only worked for women who had one pre-school child.

Our nannies were great and we’re still in touch with them, but I was glad when the kids were old enough not to need childcare anymore. It’s an expensive business, and it’s emotionally quite a thing to have someone working in your house with vulnerable people. (This is not confined to childcare. Elder and disability care has similar stresses and costs, but no-one goes after women for that, do they…?)

OP, I’m not sure you really understand the cost of living, the cost of bringing up children or how nannies are employed or paid in the UK.

This

So many good points here. I have work to do but I want to try to respond to some now...

I’ve been a nanny for 23 of the past 27 years. The other 4 I worked in a nursery to gain childcare qualifications through part time study. I worked in a nursery and baby sat part time when I was at school too because I knew it was what I wanted to do as a career.

I am now a single mother to a 10 year old. I get very little child support from her dad, but can provide a reasonable quality of life for her on my above minimum wage salary. All my jobs since she was born have allowed me to have her at work as often as I like. As parents my employers have been understanding of my wish to take time off for school events and parents evenings, etc when possible, I am equally flexible to meet the needs of their families. I work hard but have never felt exploited, and have always had proper contracts. In fact I generally feel very appreciated and valued which is reflected in the fact most of my work has come through word of mouth. I would much rather be a nanny than an office or shop worker but certainly don’t look down on those that are the way you seem to view nannies.

All of this business about nannies could equally apply to childcare workers in institutions, and in fact I think many of the issues are more obvious there.

What this is really about is the fact that having a career is billed by many as a major win of feminism, and so there is also a lot of political support for things like access to childcare and so on, and this is presented as being for women.

But this model really speaks most to women in professional types of career, they usually find their careers satisfying, they earn a worthwhile amount on money that materially affects their lifestyle, and it usually gives them some kind of positive social or professional feedback.

it's less clearly a win for women in "jobs" including childcare jobs. There is likely not the kind of career ambitious progression, there may be none at all. Some of these jobs can actually be fairly unpleasant. Society looks down on some of them and sees people in these jobs as lame, not achieving much. And most importantly, they don't earn as much money or benefits that professional jobs do.

What this means is that for quite a lot of the women in the latter group, working less, or not at all, and spending time caring for their own kids, rather than other people's, is far more appealing. Going to work in a nursery doesn't represent a new freedom any more than being a cafeteria worker or receptionist.

For women like that, the old socialist idea that a factory worker's salary should support him and his wife (or perhaps the other way round) was much more appealing. That represents a freedom to pursue the very important end of family life which tends to be much more important in working class culture.

It seems from that point of view that the final decision of feminism was to support the idea of work for everyone being the model for women's liberation. And wc women's interests were sacrificed in order to provide the childcare that is required to make that model work. (And it is a rather a choice. It's not easy, policy wise, to have both models side by side.)

Focus on your uni work OP. Much more important than mumsnetting

That's good that you enjoy it, and have other options, but the self-employed element does sound difficult. ..

And ofc this would be an extra difficulty for women who were doing cash-in-hand etc
However, re pensions, I thought that self-employed people are still entitled to state pension as long as paying national insurance contributions? Or was that a mistake?

I can see live-in jobs would be tough. Ditto rich families : I went to private school (I was there on financial support as were some others but most people were well-off) and knew some people who definitely seemed to have a horrible attitude to nannies/household helps etc, who were often immigrants from countries like the Phillipines. Most people weren't like that, but some certainly were.

Which reminds me: I was reading Ben Judah's v good book This Is London recently, about immigration. There was a very sad chapter about Filipina women being exploited- generally this didn't seem to be as nannies but as general household servants, often for Arabs, or as hotel workers. The consensus was apparently that they were 'either treated as family members or as slaves' ☹️ Some were nannies tho, and Making the break seemed extra hard bc most of these women had left their families behind or didn't yet have one. Quite a few had been cheated etc by their employers

Are live-in jobs that common? I would have thought not, but maybe I'm wrong..

Good that you are able to set boundaries and not bothered by dads etc Interesting re the mental load..

I suppose the feminist argument (tho I've seen a lot of this from both male and female anti-feminists) is that it's hypocritical for a woman to use an exploited woman's labour. These arguments focus a lot on the cash-in-hand women you describe. That situation is obvs v bad but as you say, they're not the majority. I think the arguments probs do have some weight when saying that feminism inadvertently raised prices so made it harder for a single person to support a family. But that argument would apply to many women who work, not only nannies. And as pps have pointed out, the COL crisis and other financial issues which might & have pushed others into work aren't caused by feminism.