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.

Exotic what exactly is wrong with someone with am NVQ looking after a child , if that is the qualification they need and they care well for the children . Are women with degrees better mothers just because of their degrees? Snobbish nonsense.

Children can live non materialistic lives when women work full time (plenty of them do).
Mothers and fathers who work do see their children grow up. We don't dump them in a boarding school abroad aged 2 weeks and not see them until they are 18,. Most of what a working parent does is pretty similar to other parents at home.

All I want is for younger girls to see that you can like a man have a lovely family life and large family, earn a lot and work full time and that for many is a perfect life, even returning to work at 2 - 6 weeks works very well for many women so do consider that as an option if that works best for one's family. You rarely see that message - articles in the press about the advantages and possibilities of returning full time to work when babies are small and how well it can work. It isn't a message the sexist press likes to put out there - they only like tales of woe of mothers not coping when working or not coping at home.

Nothing at all Arisbottle except that I know full well that I can do it better.

Xenia has such a narrow view of 'success'.
My mother didn't have paid employment but she could do cryptic crosswords very quickly - I still can't. She is an excellent Bridge player - you can show intelligence in other ways.

If intelligence can show itself in different ways why be so hung up on mothers with degrees and childcare workers with an NVQ

Of course it is nonsense to say that they are the only options . My children are cared for by someone with a degree, although that is not why we chose her.

I don't care who the person is-I can do it better. (I'm sorry I mentioned NVQs)

There are good parents and crap parents. Whether you woh or sah has little bearing on that, imo. It comes down to the character of the parent.

Xenia, I do laugh at the idea that as a wohp you will have read more books than me.

I wanted my children to be cared for only by people who loved them, particularly in their early years. I returned to work when ds1 was about 8 weeks old and he was looked after by my mum. I didn't feel that I had to be the one doing the 'looking after', but it did have to be someone who was emotionally invested in his upbringing. That meant either me, dh or my parents. Other people don't see this as essential and feel that day to day looking after can be done perfectly well by paid child carers. I am not saying that my way is right, but it was important to me and doing what I valued cannot be wrong.

As for Amanda Holden - I question her motives for returning to work as early as she did, but it's her business. I'm sure her children will be just fine. She is not a 'bad' mother. I'm not sure I rate her highly as a person though.

The Tulisa thing was telling - she strikes me as not particularly kind, which is why I laugh at the irony of her writing a hateful piece (for the Mail of all places) about how hateful we all are.

I just didn't want to miss it-it was worth more than any money to me and is so short. There is the rest of your life to do other things.
I can quite understand why some women wouldn't want to do it and it would drive them up the wall.
We are all different-one size doesn't fit all-I am astounded that people think it should.

Still no references to newborns being better off left than beibg cared for by their parents then Xenia. What a surprise!

Thanks for the link but a) it doesn't talk about leaving newborns for 10 hours a day it is talking in much more general terms about older children b) it says mothers do what makes them and their families happy which for many is work part time or not at all and most importantly, c) it is just an articles not a research paper and therefore no more valid than your opinion or mine.

FWIW, I can't actually think of a worthwhile job that I would want to that would actually earn anything like 100k a year except perhaps a top of the payscale consultant or a criminal lawyer. I always find business just a little bit, well, pointless.

Amanda Holden probably thinks that the sun shine out of her YNW. She's in "show biz", you'd think she'd have a thick skin.

How lucky for those women who can choose for their children to be looked after by those who love them - the majority live in the real world where the are bills to be paid - and I say that as someone who could now afford to be a SAHM and recognize that is a rare privelige.

For what it is worth my children have someone who is paid to look after them who does certainly have affection for them. They do not need to be surrounded by those who love them 24 hours a day.

Hmmmmm it shouldn't be a rare privilege that is the whole point.Keeping young children and parents together in the early days if the parents want it,making the work/life balance better and more family/child friendly should be a priority.

Arisbottle - I am lucky to have had a mother who was able to help me with child care when I first had a baby.

Possibly children don't need to be surrounded by people who love them 24 hours a day, but it was something that I wanted for them and valued, especially when they were tiny. That doesn't mean that I don't live in the real world or that I had so much money, I didn't need to worry about paying the bills. Being a sahp has come with financial sacrifice, but like everyone else, I decided on my priorities and acted accordingly.

Bur the reality is that it is a rare privelige and therefore telling women who are just trying to put a meal on the table that they are giving their child second best is not particuarly helpful.

As I have said my maternity leave has ranged from weeks to years, I cannot see a consistent link between happiness of my children and my maternity leave .

Karma for most mothers the priority is being able to put food on the table and kee a roof over their head.

To go back to the original point we are talking about a women leaving her child for a few hours to sit in a chair and press a buzzer - hardly slogging any for hours. I am sure she could also afford quality childcare or had living relatives to help, or heaven forbid her husband.

Of course putting food on the table comes first.

But there are plenty of people whose family income means they don't need both parents to work full time. For those people, they are making choices about what is most important to them and are acting accordingly.

I never said that they are giving their children second best. I said that I made choices for my children based on the things that I valued. Other people, who think differently to me, or value other things more, will make different choices.

In the end, we don't all raise our children in exactly the same way.

And there have been people on this thread who have said that I am giving my children second second best by being a sahm.

Don't worry. It's not second best. I is better than mother at home - see all my convincing arguments above. So if you want to return at 2 weeks whether you are male and female do it and you probably will ensure your child has a better life and upbringing too.

I am not sure how this people who love them point works. Lots of housewives around here have full time nannies. Others leave children in a creche whilst they are at a gym. Others leave them with a spouse - husband or wife - who may not be keen on children - just because you love a child does not mean you treat it right. Our first nanny stayed 10 years which is longer than plenty of men stay around. Also even housewives often have children at age 3 or even 2 in nursery schools and I am not sure those carers love the child but the child often does better for being there than just in a 1 - 1 relationship with one adult only. I think my children are better for having secure care bonds with several people.

In fact in our family with a big age gap between oldest and youngest there are sibling bonds too which are interesting.

The bottom line is that many mothers do best for their new babies if they get back to work quickly and the more women realise that being persuaded it is better at home is by and large a male conspiracy to keep women tied to hearth and home the better. If being home is so great for children why aren't men queuing up to do it? Because most people find 24/7 childcare without a break and no cleaning help pretty dull which it is .

It was said on here, not by you, that WOHP were giving their children second best. There was also the claim that by choosing a life of less money by being a SAHM her children were gaining a non materialistic life, as if the rest of us are out earning so we can give our children designer trainers and gadgets. As someone who grew up poor with a mother at home , poverty was shit and not something I would ever deliberately inflict on my children .

In reality there is no objective best, we do what out circumstances will allow at the time. Tbh when I have been a stay at home mum it has been driven by a desire to put my feet up for a bit rather than work long days. So in my case being a SAHM was not a great ethical decision for the greater good for my children or society.

Right now I do not need to work, we don't need the money. So should I be at home,am in selfish woman for wanting a career? Am I putting my love of travel and nice shoes above my children?

arisbottle you are missing the point of the discussion, which was centred around xenia's point that being a sahm is giving your children second best. Although having had to work part time for a while rather than being a sahm, I am now a sahm but will be working full time when the next school term starts. I do think being a working parent is giving your kids second best but as you say, unfortunately, there isn't always a choice.

Yes

I must let my children know that the travel, activities and never having to worry about bills must be sacrificed so that I can sit at home whilst they are at school.

No I have not missed the point at all, I was just making the point that whist Xenia's views may be extreme that being the child of a working mother need not be a poor choice and for most women it is not a choice.

When I married my husband I knew that I wanted a large family, he already had a son and ex wife to support so I understood that if I wanted to start a family when my dss mother was not ready to return to work I would be choosing to have a short maternity leave. At that time I had two choices - no child or a short maternity leave, Luckily for my son I chose to have him.

I disagree so we'll have to agree to disagree.

There are a few issues to this:

(i) love, attention, bonding - plenty of studies find no problems for children of working mothers. You only have to look at my children to see mother working has not meant we detest each other or lack closeness or lack love. If you work you don't never see children. You bond. You breastfeed. You're close.

(ii) money - the 8% at private schools get half the best university places, life chances are hugely improved, money is one of the biggest determinants of child outcomes. Where women work money tends to be more plentiful at home, even if insufficient to pay school fees

(iii) feminimt issues - if you want daughters to feel women work rather than clean and serve men at home then it certainly helps if daughters can see women working full time and loving it.

I can think of many other reasons as to why working mothers are better for children too.

So yes stay at home at husband's expenses or on your own resources (but not the state's expense) but never because you think it is better for the children - it rarely is. It is neutral at best.

It is all personal choice. If (and I am speaking very personally here and don't expect it to suit others) I was going to have to work full time at a high powered job then I wouldn't have children. I could cope with part time. As it was I was very lucky and able to have a few years off. I feel I gave them the best. And the best is to have a mother who is happy in what she is doing, if you would hate to be at home then it isn't the best for you or your child.