to feel sorry for Amanda Holden re her article about Mumsnet

[GrowSomeCress]

www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2305111/Why-I-hate-negative-judgmental-Mumsnet--Amanda-Holden-Britains-Got-Talent-star-accuses-site-fuelling-mothers-guilt.html

Seems to be newly posted.

I think sometimes it's forgotten that famous people are actually real people with genuine feelings.

Don't agree with her about mumsnet just being negative and judgemental all the time though, really excellent support available on here.

I have four children and my maternity leave has ranged from weeks to years and all the children are equally bonded to me .

But Xenia you appear to worship at the altar of Higher Powered Job a zillion hours a week so I find it incomprehensible that you have done more hands-on (ie you not your nanny) childcare than any other poster on Mumsmnet.

Not sure many mothers would be physically up to going back to work or able to funciton effectively after two weeks....

I'd only just recovered the ability to sit down on both bum cheeks at the same time by 2 weeks with DS1. No way was my under carriage capable of sustained office chair sitting.

It's not particularly about bonding it's about daily quality of life and ensuring kids aren't tired,feel secure,have time to do the things they need to do(homework, free play,exercise,relaxing,just being etc),aren't continuously battling for attention or time alone etc.It's about minimising stress and enjoying time as a family that isn't just expensive days out.

The fact is working life is a whole world away from the ideal Xenia bangs on about.It involves stress,zero time,no private school,no nannies,no cleaners,exhaustion etc,etc and more importantly parents missing their kids/kids missing their parents.

However hard you work the fact remains the vast maj of us won't be on 100k but a lot less.

Helping parents to take time off if they want it should be encouraged as should the provision of flexitime,reduced hours when they return.

But if you needed to go back at two weeks the ability would probably be there . I wasn't back at 2 weeks but as I said it was 2 weeks. Would I have liked longer? Yes because I fundamentally a bit lazy and am not someone who loves to work but it was not a choice I had at that time .

Oh and as a country we should be looking at childcare provision.

Having had experience in most sectors I wouldn't touch nurseries but would opt for a nanny or childminder however these can vary.I know somebody on their 6th nanny having had some shocking ones,my sister paid a fortune in agency fees for a top notch part time nanny and had only one who has been great

The fact remains mediocre,ok or even worse poor childcare is not a patch on a parent caring for their child and will actually be a negative experience for children.Good childcare isn't a patch on a caring parent happy to be at home with their dc.We can pretend this isn't so to make ourselves feel better but it is what it is-at best a lesser substitute,at worse a poor substitute.

Squarepebbles, you're right. I think all things being equal it is better for the child to be cared for by his/her parents, people who are invested in them, in their futures.

Besides which, lots of parents are kind of attached to their offspring and love being with them. The kind of system that we need in this country is one that recognises that and offers flexible working arrangements. Then we wouldn't have this massive divide between SAHMs and WMs. And more dads would be able to get involved, thus increasing women's presence and promotion in the workplace.

But I'm dreaming I know....

Exactly Less

My sister did it brilliantly.Both she and her dh dropped a day each,think bil dropped 2) and my sister worked from home a day a week(she travels in her job)so the dc had 2/3 days a week with a really good nanny they shared with another family.The kids had zero stress as in their own home,local toddler groups,dsis had less stress as no drop off etc.

Dsis company has even let her do flexi time this year so she can settle them into school.She is the main bread winner and would rather be at home full time but had to compromise.

She is highly thought of in her field,top of the game,has written books etc.They obviously want to keep her however with flexibility on all sides they have got a good compromise for all.

xenia I bet you don't have a job at all. Well, not one that requires you to put together a cogent argument, anyway, you obviously can't do that. It's probably something menial and you come on mn to fantasise about a more glamorous life and spout complete bollocks.

I think I might know you, anyway. Do you live in Pinnar?

I am still puzzled over why a SAHM needs to spend more time in the kitchen than a WOHM. I was going to say that perhaps it was the fact you needed to get lunch, but then many WOHM have had to go in to make a packed one before they leave.

And what if the WOHM is a chef? Or are we back to thinking good mothers earn over £100k a year?

Women who like cooking spend more time in the kitchen than those who don't. You still need to eat, do the washing, ironing etc whether you work in paid employment or not. It takes the same time. Maybe you have a cleaner, someone to do the ironing etc but SAHM can have cleaners etc too. I really can't see what difference it makes to time in the kitchen whether you are in paid employment or not.

I think housework and cooking can fill the time you have available . When I was lucky enough to be a SAHM I spent far more time cooking and running the house than I do now .

Xenia I don't think you can tell for years how well attached a child has been - it tends to show itself when they are forming other meaningful relationships in later life ... or not. It also tends to matter in those very early weeks that you are there when they need you, not when it is convenient to you. I'm not being sexist or old fashioned here - I think most psychologists would agree that it is a fact.

'I have spent more hours caring for children presumably than any mother on the thread surely - if you add the hours up of 5 children over so far nearly 30 years - no one will have done as much childcare as I have so I am probably the best qualified person to write on this topic and I have the proofs of the pudding - ie some of the children are adult' - admittedly I have only three children, but mine tend to sleep largely between the hours of 8pm and 6am, so I'm not quite sure what sort of experience we are talking about here.

BigBoobiedBertha (love the name btw!) 'Would you seriously accept an opinion that is not backed up by evidence in the course of your work? I don't think so' EXACTLY. I find it astonishing that often intelligent and capable women can profess to ignorance about these sorts of issues. You would read around your professional subject, so why wouldn't you read around something as important as the welfare and future mental health of your children?

I was lucky enough to be a SAHM but I think that I was in the kitchen less, on the whole. The only difference that I can see was that I have to be more organised when working and the other advantage is that as the DCs get older they can do more. Now DH works from home lot of the time and so he is able to do a lot more. It is all to do with natural changes and altitudes more than whether you have paid employment. You can be just as busy, and out and about just as much, with unpaid employment.
Xenia appears to have the view that SAHM means that you literally stay in the home and you have no interests, no hobbies, no business opportunities, no artistic talents, nothing to do in the community, no friends and you are left with housework and daytime TV and are brain dead!

I have had a lot of children over almost 30 years and counting and spread hugely spread so that some just left prep school and one is getting married. Also if you breastfeed you tend to leave work on the dot to get home for the next feed. I did not work late. I always try to work smart which can work well. I own, nowadays rather than am someone's employee. My number of contact hours with children probaby is more than most housewives who have 2 children within 2 years and are at home with them until school age even if they do not use any kind of nursery before age 5.

I think some housewives think working mothers and fathers never see their children. I suspect it's because they are married to sexist men who do that thin of pretending they are working late to avoid a nagging wife and bed time so the housewives assume work is like that but it is just a spouse avoiding duties at home because he is a pretty sexist person in many cases.

I think the main thing is never stay home for ths ake of your child. If you can find a man to pay you to stay home or you h ave saved up enough cash to do it otherwise than at tax payer expense then in a liberal democracy by all means do it = but do it knowing you are unlikely to do your child much good. It is certainly not the case that if you take children of working mothers and children of non working mothers in their 20s or in their 30s that the working mothers' children are crying into pillows or unable to love and be loved. It is not the same as losing a parent. You h ave lots of contact all the time and there really is no difference at all except the working mother children have more money and do better and have had a better example of working womanhood at home.

There are loads of studies showing things like children benefiting from nursery, meeting others and the like. As there are so many hidden agendas here - from misogynist men and sexist women to those wanting women to work for feminist or political grounds you can almost take your pick with studies. Here is one I found on first search just now - www.psychologytoday.com/blog/owning-pink/201111/do-working-moms-raise-healthier-kids

There is another study I remember which said if parents are happy children are and I think that is very important too. Some parents are as miserable as sin whatever they do. They moan, shout, nag, lose their temper. That is never good for children and it is unrelated to work or otherwise in most cases. Children often mirror your mood so my Sunday message is whether you work or not be happy as life is good.

Yes Xenia and an awful lot of women are unhappy when they are away from their children so really the workplace should facilitate women or men to have a break if they or their children need it.Miserable parents,or miserable children unhappy in childcare(which can happen) on top of 2 parents working does not a happy environment make.

The only research I'm aware of re benefits of childcare is for those few children from dysfunctional /low literate families.There has been a shed load highlighting the negs which I'm sure Big would be better placed than me to comment on.

Oh and you're still talking uttter,utter tosh re your contact compared to sahp. Compare like with like and a 2 child parent only seeing their children for half an hour a day is nowhere near the same as a parent there all day.

I seriously hope you're not suggesting you kept children up for your benefit because that would be selfish in the extreme.It has been widely documented how damaging lack of sleep can be regarding development,mental well being,achievement etc.

Oh and re walking out the door on the dot,most parents in the real world wouldn't have jobs for long if they did that.It simply isn't possible.

I think housewife is a term dead and buried in 1950s. I was a SAHM and a widow- how could I possibly be a wife of any sort?

Exactly Exotic some real sexist connotations regarding sahp.

For a start I know many male sahp,many couples aren't married these days and the vast maj of sahp have very happy,full lives.

Xenia - I agree with all that, but I thought we were discussing taking tiny, two week old babies from their parents, not mothers working in general.

This from xenia is complete bollocks

I think the main thing is never stay home for ths ake of your child. If you can find a man to pay you to stay home or you h ave saved up enough cash to do it otherwise than at tax payer expense then in a liberal democracy by all means do it = but do it knowing you are unlikely to do your child much good

I had trouble reading it, Bessie. I take it that she means that you are free to stay at home if, as a family unit, you can afford it- but that you should understand that you are not doing your child any good.

I fail to see how it is better to leave your DC with a teenager with a NQV3 (if that is what they have-I am not well up on childcare qualifications) than with a mature mother educated to degree level.

What Xenia fails to realise is that many mothers wait until they are much older -if you have your DCs in your early 20s of course you don't want to get off the ladder when you have just got on! If you have been on the ladder for 15yrs or so you might welcome a change.
I was talking to a woman yesterday -quite young but no children yet-and she has had a very interesting career path-started in engineering which is what her degree is in and has been an accountant and is now doing something very creative. It doesn't pay as much but she loves it-I got the impression she may change again. Many people don't want to plough a straight path.

Sorry-looking at it must be NVQ

Me too.I had my dc late(first at 35),had saved for and bought property beforehand.

15 years teaching now looking to change.

You only live once.Teaching and seeing my kids grow were two things on my bucket list.

I've worked since I was 13,even all through uni.At 42 sorry but I've paid a shed load of tax over the years and dp on one income is paying more than 2 x incomes that make his equivalent.I've only had 5 years ever not working.

Having said that I don't think being a sahp should just be an entitlement for the rich.Parents who want a break should be helped,it benefits many families and children.You are broke when you have a sahp however money isn't everything and my dc living their non materialistic lives have gained massively.

I can't find the thread AH started, can someone link please?