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.

whatevs xenia whatevs

why is not being with its mother best for a newborn baby?

When you balance all the other factors out it can be best because if you go back to work when the baby is 9 months it has a massive shock - it's 24/7 with mummy is totally destroyed. IT is a huge change. If from week 2 mummy and daddy are with you at X hours and your nanny or whatever at others you have total continuity and love. Also income is one of the biggest predictors of child outcomes so perhaps the best thing a mother can do for her children is give them a feminist example of full time work, no sexism at home and earn a fortune. Little does babies more good longer term.Short maternity breaks rule.

why are people upset at my comments...

this is the most trashiest, chaviest, troll infested, nastiest, bitchiest forum I've been on...

I quite like it...no wonder dave cameron always comes on here for advice :)

would you prefer I kept quiet?

I can't help but think that if she coincidentally found a MN thread (over a year old) about herself just as she was "writing" this article, someone must have been googling themselves...

She didn't write it - it was an interview and she doesn't say she just stumbled across it either.

Did you write it Nancy?

Related question - have you ever spotted a MN thread about one of your articles?

Nope, by Jane Gordon who isn't me....

And, yes, there was one but i'd only rate the vitriol directed at me at about a 6 out of 10 - nowhere near Liz Jones or Brick proportions.

Ah, shame nancy66 you'll have to try a bit harder

I,simply, never found the time to work outside the home when bringing up my three...I don't know you all manage,probably you don't,something must have to give,,,but I wouldn't change my choice ,if given the same option again..I don't really admire those who work outside the home,I feel rather sorry for you,but it's good we can have a choice.

No, husband isn't loaded,no, I don't have staff,,we just managed accordingly

I pitied her actually. after a stillborth, then a near death borth experience.....

How on earth people manage to work with a newborn I cannot even fathom. I was absaloutely car crashed for 6 weeks!

My first child died at the age of two weeks it was dreadful..some choice comments I got included "never mind,you can always have another". It took me a good eighteen months to settle after the birth of my second child

def must try harder!

I do worry though that women who choose and want to go back to work very early as I did are regarded as wrong. It is not fair. Men are not subject to the same public opprobrium. Look at the examples - that Alaskan politican, Dati French politician etc etc. You never get someone saying Cameron went back after 2 weeks how dreadful but yo do get comments against womne who do when in fact returning can be much easier thanminding 3 under 5s so returning to work can be best for your health, much much more relaxing. Secondly as I say above it tends to ensure less sexism in relationships and better relationships and thirdly money - very important for chidlren longer term. If you work until you go in to labour as I did and return at 2 weeks full time (or indeed earlier with my youngest children) they benefit so very very much.

Lean in and all will be well. Lean out and you will be an impoverished virtual servant in a sexist marriage without income or status and everyone in your family will in a sense be damaged by that.

There endeth the Xenia campaign for women to take 2 weeks of annual leave in which to have their babies.

true laqueen, true

she did a series of interviews to promote a new series - it's pretty standard play

Amanda Holden is in the very priveleged position of being able to get her opinions published in the DM just because her line of work makes her a celebrity. Who else here can say that?

Thanks to the internet, we don't have to rely on the press/media for news and views, we have Mumsnet because it is available to all. Yes, sometimes people say things that are harsh, or even wrong, but I would rather read MN than DM any day!

soevery, I don't disagree but it is a fascinating issue. It is not always right to take 9 months off and I think women (and indeed men) in some (not all) careers do need to realise that you can lean in or out and that just as if you don't have babies and find a spouse young enough you may never manage it and just do career or if you take ages off work there may well be consequences however unfair that might be and that it can be an easier and much nicer life, financially better too and better for marriages and your baby can benefit, not suffer, if you bite the bullet and go back to work quickly, that in some careers leaning out and taking ages off work is not the best decision even for the baby.

So the more people in public life and like I am who go on about consider a very short break the better in my view as the press gives such a constant picture that every woman takes 6 - 12 months off and if that becomes the norm we might well find a generation of women who lose their chances to achieve what they want in career terms and do no benefit their babies either and end up with a husband who thinks the woman is better than he is at everything baby related so she ends up being a drudge at home for life whilst earning pin money.

There is a myth peddled on mumsnet that you are some kind of ill fragile creature 2 weeks after you give birth. Yet plenty of women are fit and strong and find it much much easier to sit on a train and then at a desk all day even if they have to break off to express milk as I and many others do/did than to be home with a baby, 1 and 3 yera old which is very hard work and means you have much less time to rest and recover. Also some people just succumb, don't they? They indulge themselves, make a massive fuss over being pregnant whic his not an illness and if you've stayed slim and fit and eat well is not a sickness. It's what you're built for. Obviously a few women have C sections or have some complications butnot most and indeed doctors recommend you do not lie still for 2 or 3 weeks. It is better for your health to get up on your feet and move.

Xenia my initial reaction to seeing your posts is to wonder why you had children, if you don't want to spend any time with them. Not trying to be rude, a genuine question.

Bessie it drives me mad when people say "ooh why have children if you don't want to spend time with them". Most people who have children deliberately don't do so because they are desperate to play endless games of peepo, ride the potty-training rollercoaster and read the same story over. and over. and over. again. There's so much more to it thatn that - it's a lifelong thing. I think some (many) people find the early years to be more a necessary evil than anything else, something to slog through in order to get to the good bits. If what you actually want to do with your life is spend time with small children, it makes more sense to stay childless and pursue a career in childcare!

I don't know, holla I love doing all that stuff with my own children but I mostly find other people's kids tedious. I love all the early years stuff. Well, I could probably have done with slightly less age 4-5 behaviour but my kids need me and really appreciate having time with me. I just genuinely can't understand why a new mother wouldn't want to spend as much time as possible with her baby. I really am not a fluffy, baby dust sort of person but it is how I feel about it.