When children start school and their nanny is no longer needed, responsible parents often try to help their caregiver find new employment. This typically involves posting on community boards. A few years back, I began noticing a trend: parents frequently referred to their nannies as “exceptional”—for example, “our exceptional nanny is now available!”
A search of the discussion board reveals 519 instances of “exceptional nanny,” but not a single mention of terrific, remarkable, wonderful, or even decent nanny. If you Google “exceptional nanny,” you’ll find around 28,000 results, including a quote from a celebrity discussing her children’s caregiver, along with various job postings and agency listings. Basic qualities like reliability, punctuality, and kindness seem to pale in comparison. The term “exceptional nanny” serves as a collocation: a phrase where one word seems to call forth the other, akin to idioms and clichés. It also reflects inflationary language—using increasingly exaggerated terms to convey positive or negative sentiments. Just as a latte may be simply tasty, calling it awesome means you’re engaging in inflationary language.
So why is the phrase “exceptional nanny” popping up so often on job boards? I reached out to Dr. Emily Carter, a sociology professor and author of Raising Brooklyn, which focuses on Caribbean caregivers in New York. She responded, “While many genuinely feel their nanny is exceptional, it’s often a way for employers to ease their guilt about putting a low-wage worker in a precarious position. They know these workers have families depending on them, either here or abroad, and by labeling them as ‘exceptional,’ they hope to facilitate a quicker transition to another family, alleviating their own discomfort. They also want their former employees to see they made an effort to find them new opportunities, which helps lessen their guilt.”
Is there any aspect of parenting that isn’t fraught with anxiety and guilt? I was offered a full-time job last January, which I ultimately turned down due to these very feelings. I interviewed two nannies, both of whom I knew to be caring and attentive, but they were undocumented. I felt uncomfortable with the legal implications and the challenge of conducting background checks. I felt guilty about leaving my kids, for 50 hours a week, with someone who lacked formal training, oversight, and proper identification. I was also troubled by the power dynamics at play; I felt guilty that, even if we paid a competitive wage, we would be partaking in a system that is frequently unjust to immigrant women of color. I even questioned why I wasn’t completely satisfied as a full-time stay-at-home mom. And guilt, of course, brings along its companion: resentment. I felt frustrated that a fair wage would consume my entire paycheck—and then some.
Consequently, I declined the job offer, thanked the nannies, and continued juggling a chaotic schedule of working during late nights and naps while sharing childcare duties with my husband. This arrangement clearly didn’t benefit anyone—the nannies seeking employment, myself yearning for a full-time role, or my children being cared for by exhausted parents.
Interestingly, while parents often tout their nannies as “exceptional,” many conversations reveal complaints about them. In reality, they may not be “exceptional” at all—arriving late, being disengaged, or spending too much time on their phones, to name a few issues.
When I mentioned this to Dr. Carter, she chuckled. “Many parents exhibit a double standard when evaluating care. Just like fathers often undervalue the work of stay-at-home mothers, parents can overlook the challenges faced by caregivers.”
As a society, we don’t seem to value caregivers, who have historically been excluded from labor protections like minimum wage and overtime pay. A new rule aimed at securing these protections for home-care workers has been delayed. These jobs occur in private homes, without colleagues or oversight, making domestic workers susceptible to exploitation. Written agreements are rare, and even those who are compensated fairly may experience long gaps between jobs, making retirement savings difficult. Dr. Carter notes that employers frequently return late from work without compensating workers for their extra time or expect them to take on additional responsibilities that weren’t part of the original agreement, all without extra pay. Workers often comply to avoid losing their jobs.
Dr. Carter highlights a common discrepancy in expectations: “Parents are often on their phones too. Caring for children can be monotonous and isolating, and any parent would agree that even they can get distracted.”
If I had accepted that job and hired a nanny, I doubt I would have been a better employer than those Dr. Carter describes. My guilt and anxiety would likely have inflated my expectations. After all, we would have been paying her more than our rent—I would have scrutinized every late arrival and every moment she wasn’t cheerful. I might have even considered assigning her household chores because, after all, I manage to care for children and clean simultaneously. The expectation that nannies should be superhuman, while mothers are expected to be perfect, is a troubling notion that pervades our thinking.
These two significant issues—the cost of childcare and society’s perception of caregiving—are contributing to a broken system of parenting and caregiving in America. The high cost of hiring nannies or enrolling children in daycare can limit parents’ workforce participation or force them to write checks that resemble mortgage payments. Meanwhile, those doing the caregiving often remain underpaid, lacking benefits like health insurance or retirement plans, and facing long periods of unemployment. A national organizer for domestic workers candidly remarked, “There is no good situation for a nanny in retirement.”
No one benefits in a flawed system. The conclusion of the employer-nanny relationship often sees the employer advocating for the nanny on job boards, attempting to gloss over a shaky structure.
While we’re all feeling the weight of this reality, we must carve out space for meaningful structural changes—such as establishing a well-trained, well-compensated, regulated, and subsidized childcare workforce, along with pathways to citizenship for the women already performing these vital roles. We need to recognize childcare as a legitimate profession rather than a mere hobby for women. The argument that home-care workers should be denied wage protections because they are “companions” rather than “workers” is a misleading narrative that is frustrating to unpack.
The phrase “exceptional nanny,” suggesting superhuman abilities, feels out of place. When I read these ads, I think, Should I be amazed? Is it too much to ask for a reliable caregiver who won’t face financial ruin when my family no longer needs her services? Can I pursue my career without contributing to an exploitative system? Because that would truly be—well, really, really fantastic.
Summary
The article critiques the current child care system, highlighting the disconnect between the perception of nannies as “exceptional” and the realities of their working conditions. Parents often face guilt and anxiety about hiring caregivers, especially when considering the financial and ethical implications involved. The piece argues for much-needed structural changes to improve the working conditions of caregivers and to redefine childcare as a legitimate profession.
Keyphrase: child care system reform
Tags: home insemination kit, home insemination syringe, self insemination