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

Don't worry, I am! I'll reply as & when possible, this is an interesting discussion.

<Delicate cough>

My working class grandmothers both worked. They didn’t have careers, but their families needed all hands on deck to make ends meet. My grandfather even worked as a child after school and in the summer to chip into the family’s income.

The idea that work is an option for women is quite class-driven. It says a lot about people’s blind spots that they manage to forget that work has been NORMAL for most mothers for a very long time.

That's a great point, I'm sorry I overlooked that. Married working-class women have often had to work in the past, that obvs wasn't caused by second-wave feminism.

This.

I know of no working class women in my family who didn't work. Both men and women had no employment protection and could be hired or fired on a daily basis. It was impossible to rely on one male person's wage. Women in Lancashire worked eg in mines, textile factories or at piece work at home etc. as a seamstress, tailoress etc. In the country men, women, children were all working often at subsistence farming. Babies were strapped on their mother's backs. Until the late 19th century of course most children didn't go to school.

Going back to the 16th century on my father's side the men were weavers, the women spinners. Children ( we forget ) often didn't need child care because they too would be working from a very young age ( 5/6 ) as eg scavengers in the mills like my great, great aunts in 19th century Manchester.

We forget the appalling conditions most working people had to endure, witness the WW1 Manchester 'bantam' battalions ( for men under 5"3 - due to the endemic starvation in the working class.)

Even lower middle class women often worked as shopkeepers, ran cafes, living above the shop so the children were around and helping out from a very young age.

If we go back as far as peasant societies where men, women, and children worked, it's not that comparable, they all worked together.

But the fact that there were mothers had to work in the post-industrial revolution is not an argument that contradicts the way feminism jumped on this, it is exactly the opposite. It's a huge part of the reason that this wasn't a particularly woman centred social change for wc women.

A very significant element of the Labour movement, meant to improve the lives of workers, was wages and supports that would mean women and children would not be driven out to work. Particularly factory work. Including the idea of mother's allowance which would mean mother's would have an income separate from their husband's wage packet.

That approach was abandoned for the women will work too approach, which was a liberation for women from the middle classes, but same old same old for many wc women. And ultimately has meant that it's not really possible for any but very high earners to manage on one wage, and especially it's difficult to buy a house with one wage. PMC families may manage to do so if they live as if they were lower earners, which gives them some flexibility if needed, but it leaves few choices for those on lower wages.

Yes, I was going to say this. The 'maternalist' US feminist strain around the New Deal era had people like Jane Addams, Eleanor Roosevelt, Frances Perkins, & quite a few others doing important work w women & children. Many argued (some Victorian UK feminists did similar) that as you say, working class women needed to be able to stay at home so financial support was essential. Also for hour restrictions on women's work
(. I would agree for physical jobs that's needed, but other jobs not. I understand this wasn't just about physical strain, but also being at home w kids..)

Interestingly I've read about the anger some men felt towards the mother's allowance, that it was taking away their power/status as sole provider.

It's worth noting that Eleanor Roosevelt and Frances Perkins had multiple kids themselves, tho not sure if they relied on nannies/childcare or not.

I agree about the single income economy being better. I want women to have equal pay for equal work & to be able to achieve anything career-wise that they work for, without the sense that women should only be at home. But that shouldn't necessitate single-income families being impossible.

I am grimly amused to discover that my grandmothers’ need for money is an entirely different and non-comparable need to mine. I have been “tainted” by feminism and had educational opportunities they didn’t, so therefore my materialism, child raising and efforts to balance both is suspect in a way that theirs’ wasn’t.

Do tell.

I don't think TempestTost meant it like that.

I DO think that the 'care feminists' & feminist-ambivalent/outright antifeminist male pundits I've read are often quite narrow in their view of working class women

On MN, and in a lot of other places, I've read a lot of accounts of bright working class girls encouraged to take their education further by teachers, and their mothers sharply telling them that they should stick to housework & childcare.I feel that the views of the antifeminists male pundits and care feminists are similar.

They're not interested in nurturing the talent of working class women writers like Shelagh Delaney or Kay Mellor or Sarah Waters, or to give a US example, Dorothy Allison, or actresses like Samantha Morton or Julie Walters, or anything else, as far as I can see.

They want to support the working class women who want to be SAHMs, which is great. But I don't think they have much interest in or desire to support those who want something else.

What are you talking about?

I think bc you said the situations weren't comparable. But clearly she's interpreted what you wrote to be much more harsh than you meant, it's clear you didn't mean it that way. You're not saying it's bad for MC women to have a career, are you, just saying it's had knock-on effects for many working class women.

The exploitation that MH describes happens everywhere in the US, where the labour market for childcare is in effect totally unregulated. Many professional women hire nannies from Central & South America - often undocumented - who work for poverty wages.

It is very typical of MH to pin the problem on women, rather than on lawmakers. Someone on Twitter described her as having "the mind of a 14-year-old boy", which just about nails it. Wowed at all the clever words she can use, lacking in maturity, and desperate to fit in with the cool kids.

In London being a nanny is a fairly well paid job. I paid the agency £22/hrs and I think she got around £17 plus pension/holiday etc. And my kids were at school so most of the time she was making dinner/doing kids laundry/tidying.