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.

You can't? I wouldn't have gone back to work after 3 weeks too (i couldn't hav been able to sit for longer than 20 mins for starters) and I honestly couldn't care less about Amanda Holden, but there is nothing wrong in going back to work after a short time.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it, I said I couldn't understand it. I am open to enlightenment

Gawd it's all me,me,me.

Not being funny Xenia but do you think many women don't want to rush back to work ridiculously early because they put their baby first having chosen to have the child in the first place.

I hated the newborn stage but hand over my tiny bundles of vulnerability to somebody else not a chance.

Goodness the in famous Xenia.

AH sitting on a panel for three days is hardly leaning in to keep in work. Its nothing.

Going back to work FT after two weeks or even sooner you said Xenia, for pure material gain not necessity, does make one wonder why you had DC.

Oh well, on your death bed you will be saying to your DC " I gave you a good life, you never saw me but didn't you enjoy driving round in that super flash merc when you were two"

Lol, material gain or personal satisfaction is a no no on MN.
No, I wouldn't go back to work after for 2 weeks either. Actually, I haven't had a proper job for ages.
But I don't feel undermined by women who want to go back to work after 2, 3, 4 weeks whenever they want to.

fallon8

I am so sorry for your loss, how awful. I can see why you feel this way

x

This thread is very sexist. Is it wrong for men to go back quickly and if not why do you make that distinction? Why is it not putting a child first to ensure it has loving care whether that's your husband wife or nanny providing it and ensuring you can provide it with a wonderful life and both parents are happy in a non sexist marriage. if you want daughters who know they can be leading surgeons you don't stay home and model for them woman as unpaid servant doing dross cleaning all day whilst men earn. Women at home are not putting babies first. They are putting them second and arguably not providing for the child as they should.

You could just as equally say why did your husbands have children if they go back to work or argue that at 3 or 4 it is wrong not to be with the children 24/7 instead of farming it out to schools.

There is a very good case to be made that if you go back quickly your children benefits immensely but the sexist press just like to write about women with problems and woman as low earning or non earning virtual servant at home as that fits their sexist agenda.

It is but a short period of time,nobody has said dad or another parent can't do it.Sorry I don't buy that anybody's career can't wait 3 weeks,6 months,a year or even longer.

If this isn't the case perhaps we should be campaigning more for parents to have help/support/flexi time/job security when they have time off to be with babies and toddlers they choose to have.

Ignoring the needs of tiny babies,children and a lot of parents for some supposed feminist crusade gets my goat.

No, there is no such thing as a short period of time when it comes to having children. They are for life, and people should be free to provide for their well being as they see fit to.
Lots of people would choose not to have children if that meant the end of their careers.

Surely it shouldn't be such a stark choice.

Babies and young children need/want a parent above all else.Many mothers and fathers want to be with their children in the early years.

If being there during those early days is career suicide then really shouldn't we be campaigning to ensure this isn't so.

But many mothers and fathers want to go back to work when they see fit! (not me )

Yes but an awful lot want to be with their dc and not have to pay somebody else to do it.

We are going round in circles here .
Yes, indeed.
But here we are discussing AH. I still think she shouldn't be criticised for going back to work whenever she wanted to. Her choice doesn't undermine mine or any other's.
And anyone choice for having a longer maternity leave shouldn't undermine another person choice for going back to work after a short while.

Plenty of men are keen to get back to work. I don't think we need to be sexist about it. I just do worry that all these younger girls are being encouraged to "lean out", put career second, take the generaou 1 year leave the employer offers, that it becomes the done thing, that they copy their friends doing it, that they will regard it as very hard socially to take short periodsl; rather than they sit there with their husband deciding on a period right for their families.

I am not sure enough women like I am explain who it can be fine to go back quickly and there are lots of advantages to it, not least the 24/7 childcare can be prett boring, you get no thanks, no pay and can be more not less exhausting than paid work and that if I could work and breastfeed most women can too (obviously some types of work it might be harder but not many and anyway the UK has the worst breastfeeding rates in Europe so loads of housewives don't even breastfeed in the UK for very long).

I do not accept that babies suffer if both parents return to work quickly. Babies want loving good care. They want to bond with their mother and father and nanny or childminder or granny. They can do that loving bonding when a mother returns very quickly to work. Gosh I still had hours and hours with them all. My babies never slept. They would breastfeed at 6.30 when I walked in the door - I did not work late when I was breastfeeding except occasionally. They often fed all evenig and usually every few hours at nigth and then would be up at 5.30am and you are with them all weekends and holidays too - it amounts to hours and hours of skin on skin contact even if you're back working full time at 2 weeks. With the twins I worked for myself so no maternity rights at all of course and I could take calls the next day. i remember I bought a very very very long telephone extension lead up to th ebed room in case I was trapped up there unable to deal with work things and yet within 24 horus I felt perfectly okay to walk up and downstairs. Not everyone is sick when they have a baby. It is a very natural process and you do not have to take your bed for months and months unless you have some complications.

Also some women would be find but they like to milk it as much as they can. Not surprisingly they earn little and end up not much admired. There is a lot to be said for stoicism and grit.

Pmsl that we shouldn't be encouraging girls to take a year off after a baby.Really!

Oh and sorry Xenia you didn't have hours and hours with your babies if you got home at 6.30.Most young children I know are in bed by 7. You were happy being away from your babies and young children fine but sorry the fact remains the over riding thoughts your dc would have been thinking all day are when are mummy or daddy coming home.

The vast maj of mothers wouldn't be happy with half an hour a day and would like to be enabled to have more time.You were lucky enough to have a nanny.Most children aren't so lucky and will be in nursery and longing to be at home.

AH didn't have to return to work and her wp experience is nothing like the maj experience.AH returned at 3 weeks because she wanted to and work meant more to her than being with her baby which is fine but she needs to own it. Her preference doesn't speak for all working mothers or make it the best choice for her baby.

oh please she's not real just posts to windup and only on one subject, Im begining to think she's a spambot

A 2 eek old baby unless it is a very very very strange one isnothing like a 3 year old with a 7pm bed time. It does not yet know the difference betweejn night and day and breastfeeds for hours and hours. Baby number `1 indeed had evening colinc and was literally awake every single evening for her first 3 months until very late. In fact I would feed her at 10pm and go to sleep myself and her father woudl do the shift from 10pm to mid night (we both worked full time) and then |I would feed her again at mid night.

So the 6.30pm to 10pm most of it spent with the baby plugged on the breast ( I adore breastfeeding) is true and then every 2 or 3 hours all night and then up at 6am and leave for work at 8am. It was all lovely and I do wish women realised it was an option. If they follow my opath they might even fund 5 children at private school and through university and buy their own Pacific island. Follow my suggestions and huge happiness and al ovely life can follow. Rely on male earnings and screw your career to pieces and you will regret it later in life when you're on credit crunch threads about Lidl and your daughters believe women are all housewives with no money.

It is terribly sexist to say if a woman returns to work with a baby then her baby means less to her than her work. It is totally yunfair and we need to stamp it out. We don'ty say the husbands of the housewives on this thread think their work means more than their babies and they are damaging their children if they work. These threads are sexist to the core. Working mothers adore their babies and are often much better at child care as they tend to be the more intelligent women who know psychology better than housewives in fact. on the whole the full time working mother does a much better job as a mother than women with no career.

Look, I really couldn't care less about AH. Actually, I think she does one of those jobs where she can take baby along.
I find the hole rethorc about poor childrenin nursery longing to be home a bit ott.
Lots of parents go back to work after 4,5 months. It's hard, it's an organizatinal nightmare, but those I know manage to have a normal relationship with thir children.

The business of motherhood is sexist though, Xenia.
On account of the fact that women get pregnant, give birth, breastfeed and do maternity leave. Women are always always always going to feel a stronger pull to being with their babies/kids. It's basic biology.
If Mumsnet still exists in 200 years, we'll all be sat here having the same conversation. So you might as well stop banging the drum, because many women prefer to be the figure their child bonds with, not the nanny.

"Working mothers are better at childcare" what utter,utter tosh!

How exactly?

They're not there to gain all this experience in psychology,and how exactly are they better mothers just how?

Oh and we're not housewives.

Some of us aren't married and do buggar all housework!

the problem with our society is not that more women arn't out working full time leaving their kids in daycare from the early weeks. The problem with our society is that more women arn't helped to stay at home longer, to be offered more flexible working, better daycare etc. etc

Exactly Step oh and add now thanks to this government made to feel crap if they want to be with their babies.

You rarely see parents brave enough to say that working parents are better for children so people seem surprised when the arguments showing returning to work full time when the baby is 2 weeks are best for children and families but they are very convincing arguments.

On the whole women who work tend to be the better educated ones with the higher IQ. If you earn £100k you are not likely to give up work to stay home and change nappies. So already the working mothers tend to have the advantage. Also they are usually happier so they are better with their children. They also provide much more income and that means the children get things like private schools. They probably afford a cleaner too so time with the children is fun and reading and music practice whereas lower income housewives have to clean whilst minding the children. The working mothers understand child psychology better and have probably read more books about it. Hence the conclusion working mothers tend to be better with their children than mothers at home.

What a load of shit

What Bella said- with bells on.

Oh and you've kind of forgotten that in real life and not LaLa land most working mothers don't earn anything like 100k and along with their partner have a shed load of stress and chores,limited time with their dc for not a lot of gain.

Many would prefer to have help to enable more time with their dc.

Oh and an awful lot of SAHM have degrees,will probably have saved,worked and earned a fair wage to facilitate a spell at home.