How far should we "Lean In?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny how mum many posters are staying on the "leaning in" potential of their nannies!

My nanny has no leaning in potential. She was lucky to graduate from high school. Who cares?

I hope sincerely you do not consider yourself a feminist.

Not to mention she "was lucky" and "barely" graduated from high school, yet that's the person she's outsourcing the large portion of her kids' waking hours to. Wow. Even if it's true, I can't imagine speaking that way about someone I'd hired to be such a big influence on my kids.

Well, maybe the expectation is that the nanny will just keep the child safe and fed, and there will not be any abuse. Maybe there is not really a whole lot of expectation of any positive and enriching influence on the child from someone who is barely graduated from high school? Maybe they do not care what the influence on the early years are? Who knows!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny how mum many posters are staying on the "leaning in" potential of their nannies!

My nanny has no leaning in potential. She was lucky to graduate from high school. Who cares?

I hope sincerely you do not consider yourself a feminist.

Not to mention she "was lucky" and "barely" graduated from high school, yet that's the person she's outsourcing the large portion of her kids' waking hours to. Wow. Even if it's true, I can't imagine speaking that way about someone I'd hired to be such a big influence on my kids.

Well, maybe the expectation is that the nanny will just keep the child safe and fed, and there will not be any abuse. Maybe there is not really a whole lot of expectation of any positive and enriching influence on the child from someone who is barely graduated from high school? Maybe they do not care what the influence on the early years are? Who knows!

How unfortunate for the poor child. I've heard it described as custodial-care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
It's a debate that only the well-educated can afford to have.

While professional women engage in hand-wringing about whether they're "leaning in" enough, they don't stop to consider that for the nanny they employ, no amount of leaning in on her behalf will ever lead to a discernible increase in her salary/ benefits/ prestige.

Leaning in only considers the concerns of the professional class.


Truth.

I also agree. It's part of the "feminist" mantra: I want MY rights on the job, but the hell with my domestic workers hidden behind my closed doors.


Right. Equal rights for all - who think and look like us. The undereducated, immigrant women we rely upon so that we and our husbands may "lean in" need not apply.


I don't understand. Do you think nannies should make what doctors and lawyers make? What point are you trying to make?


That different standards seem to apply to different (types of) women. And why shouldn't a nanny make as much as a doctor or a lawyer? Unless, of course, you consider her contribution to society to be less valuable than that of doctors and lawyers.

Objectively speaking, yes, a nanny's contribution is less valuable to society than the contributions of a lawyer or a doctor.

Lawyers and doctors are required to invest a great deal in specific knowledge to advance their fields for a large number of people.

Nannies have no specific subject matter expertise, no barrier to entry in the profession, and impact a very small segment of society, namely, the few families they work for.

Anyone can be a nanny. Not everyone can be a doctor or a lawyer.

Is this seriously a surprising concept for you?

[Anonymous]

If that's what you need to say to justify your life and choices, good luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
It's a debate that only the well-educated can afford to have.

While professional women engage in hand-wringing about whether they're "leaning in" enough, they don't stop to consider that for the nanny they employ, no amount of leaning in on her behalf will ever lead to a discernible increase in her salary/ benefits/ prestige.

Leaning in only considers the concerns of the professional class.


Truth.

I also agree. It's part of the "feminist" mantra: I want MY rights on the job, but the hell with my domestic workers hidden behind my closed doors.


Right. Equal rights for all - who think and look like us. The undereducated, immigrant women we rely upon so that we and our husbands may "lean in" need not apply.


I don't understand. Do you think nannies should make what doctors and lawyers make? What point are you trying to make?


That different standards seem to apply to different (types of) women. And why shouldn't a nanny make as much as a doctor or a lawyer? Unless, of course, you consider her contribution to society to be less valuable than that of doctors and lawyers.

Objectively speaking, yes, a nanny's contribution is less valuable to society than the contributions of a lawyer or a doctor.

Lawyers and doctors are required to invest a great deal in specific knowledge to advance their fields for a large number of people.

Nannies have no specific subject matter expertise, no barrier to entry in the profession, and impact a very small segment of society, namely, the few families they work for.

Anyone can be a nanny. Not everyone can be a doctor or a lawyer.

Is this seriously a surprising concept for you?

Ouch. How shitty. Me thinks you think a sitter is a nanny.

You should really educate yourself a bit.

[Anonymous]

Man that's cold, 19:08. May you someday find yourself ranked "objectively" lower in the world than you think you deserve.

-an underemployed mom with more years of education than a lawyer

[Anonymous]

Why would I spend the money to go to college and law school if I could just have been a nanny? You don't think it's right that higher education = more money? Huh? Are you a capitalist, at all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a debate that only the well-educated can afford to have.

While professional women engage in hand-wringing about whether they're "leaning in" enough, they don't stop to consider that for the nanny they employ, no amount of leaning in on her behalf will ever lead to a discernible increase in her salary/ benefits/ prestige.

Leaning in only considers the concerns of the professional class.

Truth.

I also agree. It's part of the "feminist" mantra: I want MY rights on the job, but the hell with my domestic workers hidden behind my closed doors.

Right. Equal rights for all - who think and look like us. The undereducated, immigrant women we rely upon so that we and our husbands may "lean in" need not apply.

I don't understand. Do you think nannies should make what doctors and lawyers make? What point are you trying to make?

That different standards seem to apply to different (types of) women. And why shouldn't a nanny make as much as a doctor or a lawyer? Unless, of course, you consider her contribution to society to be less valuable than that of doctors and lawyers.

Do you or your husband have college or graduate degrees? Are you US born? Do you understand why nannies make $20 an hour, and lawyers make $100 a hour? I don't even know how to address this other than by saying, salary is not correlated to the amount of respect a person deserves. How the heck could anyone pay nannies $250,000 a year - there would be no employers, or very few. What???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny how mum many posters are staying on the "leaning in" potential of their nannies!

My nanny has no leaning in potential. She was lucky to graduate from high school. Who cares?

I hope sincerely you do not consider yourself a feminist.

Of course I'm a feminist. But I acknowledge that this is a classist society, too. A person born into a poor family is more likely to settle for a nanny's wage than to go on to medical school. It's not fair, but it is what it is. If you are functionally literate at the 10th grade level, pray tell how you should lean in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny how mum many posters are staying on the "leaning in" potential of their nannies!

My nanny has no leaning in potential. She was lucky to graduate from high school. Who cares?

I hope sincerely you do not consider yourself a feminist.

Of course I'm a feminist. But I acknowledge that this is a classist society, too. A person born into a poor family is more likely to settle for a nanny's wage than to go on to medical school. It's not fair, but it is what it is. If you are functionally literate at the 10th grade level, pray tell how you should lean in?

Acknowledge....and accept.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would I spend the money to go to college and law school if I could just have been a nanny? You don't think it's right that higher education = more money? Huh? Are you a capitalist, at all?

So you value the ability to lean in, but not the person who enables you to do so.

Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would I spend the money to go to college and law school if I could just have been a nanny? You don't think it's right that higher education = more money? Huh? Are you a capitalist, at all?

So you value the ability to lean in, but not the person who enables you to do so.

Got it.

These posts make very clear the vitriol and condescension regarding SAHPs correlates directly with the fact that child-rearing - no matter who's doing it - is seen by many as unimportant work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would I spend the money to go to college and law school if I could just have been a nanny? You don't think it's right that higher education = more money? Huh? Are you a capitalist, at all?

So you value the ability to lean in, but not the person who enables you to do so.

Got it.

Of course I value her. Do you think all families should have a SAHP who has a graduate degree?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would I spend the money to go to college and law school if I could just have been a nanny? You don't think it's right that higher education = more money? Huh? Are you a capitalist, at all?

So you value the ability to lean in, but not the person who enables you to do so.

Got it.

These posts make very clear the vitriol and condescension regarding SAHPs correlates directly with the fact that child-rearing - no matter who's doing it - is seen by many as unimportant work.

You're missing that fact that importance of work doesn't correlate to salary. Teachers are quite important, yet their salaries are paid from taxes, so are unlikely to ever be high. Two different concepts. Professional athletes are not at all important, yet they make millions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would I spend the money to go to college and law school if I could just have been a nanny? You don't think it's right that higher education = more money? Huh? Are you a capitalist, at all?

So you value the ability to lean in, but not the person who enables you to do so.

Got it.

These posts make very clear the vitriol and condescension regarding SAHPs correlates directly with the fact that child-rearing - no matter who's doing it - is seen by many as unimportant work.

Very true and SO pathetic.
What kind of future do little children have, when they're being denied a wonderful early childhood and cared for by people who love them?