Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Work

Chat with other users about all things related to working life on our Work forum.

Advantages of Going Back to Work Early

528 replies

Judy1234 · 17/11/2006 11:43

Coming out of several other threads this is interesting. As I said elsewhere with my first child I went back to work after 2 weeks. I always work up until I went into labour. I think the longest I took off was 5 week with any of the 5. You don't often get parents writing about returning to work quickly so I thought just setting out some of the advantages might be helpful for those who can't decide how much time to take off at home. I don't want this to be seen as me saying all parents should both be back at their desks within 2 weeks however; just food for thought particularly with the new paternity leave rights coming in next April.

  1. The baby does not have a huge wrench when you suddenly return at 6 months or a year. At 2 weeks she can get used to her good childcare from the father, relative, nanny or whatever so has continuity and no shock to the system of a later return.
  1. You don't have time to get out of the swing of work so it's all less disrupting to your life.
  1. You can establish a breastmilk expressing system early on without worrying about how to manage breastfeeding when going back at 3 months.
  1. Both parents are equally as involved with the children. The pattern at home isn't established that the mother does everything to do with the baby. The mother isn't better than the father at child things. You may get a more involved husband.
  1. You only lose 10% of pay in the few weeks you take off.
  1. You don't lose touch with work, lose promotion, position etc.
  1. If I'm allowed say it, being at home with babies can be boring (not for everyone, I know) so you can skip all that and concentrate on the fun cuddles bit.
  1. You inconvenience an employer or your customers less. No one will like me for saying this but in the real world fathers and mothers taking leave is hard to manage. I can say this having had to manage maternity leave for two of my nannies over the years.
  1. You may find the physical recovery from birth easier in an office than managing small children and domestic work at home with heavy lifting, toddlers who kick you, heavy rubbish to put out, floors to scrub etc.I certainly found sitting still at a desk, time to rest, relax, get drinks at my leisure helped me get back to normal. Dressing in office clothes too helps get you back to being your normal self. I loved leaving behind the clothes at home covered in baby sick etc.
  1. Sometimes it aids mental health particularly if you hate being home with a baby.
OP posts:
Thinkstoomuch · 21/11/2006 14:16

Cannot believe this thread is still rumbling on.

Whatever you think of Xenia one thing is clear - she has a massive ego. She's clearly enjoying posting over the top sentiments that set you all off while she sits at home enjoying the attention.

Telling us about her 'fabulous' life and all her wonderful possessions, her nannies, her money, her ISLAND, FFS!

She's divorced and possibly a bit lonely at the mo, but one MNer getting hundreds, if not thousands, of messages all about her is just crazy. You are all pandering to her.

Mog · 21/11/2006 14:35

That's not true generally peachy. By the time you have gone on maternity leave, in most jobs they will have employed someone on a 6 month+ contract. they would then have to employ 2 people.

pollypeachum · 21/11/2006 14:44

It depends on the job. I've agreed with my employers in advance what I was going to do re maternity leave. One job was very senior - thats the one where it would have been better for them if I went back after 2 weeks - and we got a locum. In another, not so senior role, I said I was going to take 12 months and they just left it unfilled. There was a pile of stuff waiting for me when I got back!!
But I take your point Mog!

pollypeachum · 21/11/2006 14:51

I don't think we're all messaging Xenia, its just an ongoing debate which has clearly touched a nerve with us all.
To be honest, I haven't taken exception to anything that Xenia has said so far (the comment about Oxbrige trophy wives made me blink a bit but then I'm one so at the same time as blinking I felt happy to be a trophy ).
What has taken me aback is the personal vitriol that has been poured on her. She has had the most awful insults aimed at her - "twat", a jibe about the fact that she's divorced, attacked on another thread and accused of being a troll, a man etc etc. I note that she hasn't descended to that level. I rather admire her for that. I would have had to be sedated if I'd had some of the insults aimed at me that she has had!!

Mog · 21/11/2006 16:17

Calling SAHM's prostitutes sounds like an insult to me, but then maybe I'm just old fashioned .

pollypeachum · 21/11/2006 16:42

I don't think she was saying we're scrubbers. Itook it as a comment on the economics of being a SAHM, one which I'd refute by pointing out the economic worth of SAHM.
But then I'm a logical sort.
not!

Judy1234 · 21/11/2006 17:30

Ah that was better - I wrote the replies elsewhere so here they all are. Must get back to work now.... crusts to earn..

Polyp, yes. I feel that I am so lucky to enjoy the work I do (and I work for myself so I don?t even have a boss driving me on at all) and the rewards intellectually and professionally and of course materially are so very huge that I would not have wanted to work fewer hours. In fact I?ve worked fewer since my divorce (and the virtually total absence from the children?s lives of their father) and would prefer not to have had to but like all parents you often put your children first because that?s the right thing to do. Many parents, male and female much prefer life at home. It?s great to pick work you love.

I?m not unbalanced though, not a workaholic. I have loads of other things I do which I won?t post here because it?s boring. What is interesting in Polyp?s post is that statement that of course if this were a free press free world and non PC no one would be reluctant to express this point ? if you skive off from work how on earth is it fair to expect customers, colleagues and your boss to be delighted and promote you above all others. If you?re the best at the job you do then they may well be happy to let a man or woman take some months at home to be with their baby but we live in a real world where your worth at work is often your last deal and professional reputations are fairly nebulous.

Hw, sadly some of the SAHM mothers on here tend to be the ones who swear and use abusive language. It doesn?t enhance their reputation but I won?t tar them all with the same brush. Perhaps the Oxbridge educated ones aren?t like that?. Laughing as I type. I hope no one takes me too seriously. Yes, read the Telegraph or Times?. Regular articles on this topic ? man snares beautiful Oxbridge educated professional wife and then makes (or persuades) her to sacrifice it all to dote on his every word, collect his laundry and ensure his children succeed. Horrible little anti-feminist old fashioned unfair arrangement that it is and so so so many women accept it and bring up their daughters to accept and want it. I think Blair should be putting feminists into schools not get Creationists to fund them. Of course it?s virtually always the women who end up at home and a lot were conditioned as children to want that kind of subservience and service role whilst they exalt and bolster the male ego, man as provider. Of many men like it too. It?s a model which works for lots of families. I still think it?s insidious and I would legislate to make it harder to achieve by equalizing maternity and paternity rights, although Blair is already doing that to some extent. To be able to afford a non working wife when you have school fees and a big house to buy is surely a symbol, isn?t it? It?s like the car or yacht which is a penis extension..of course the real strong men aren?t threatened by working women and actively prefer those in work. It?s the ones who are really weaklings who need that external status of non working wife, look at me, I can support a whole family.

Ad, I don?t think mothers at home with babies are more likely to harm them. I really don?t. But I think it?s neutral, whether you go back at 2 weeks or 6 months or 5 years as long as the care is adequate as mozha and I both have with our 10 lovely children between us and interesting work. If you don?t? earn enough to arrange suitable childcare then your child is better off with a parent at home.

Mog is right, my work is brilliant, even today when I seem to have promised so much by ?today? and I feel pressured. We should try to ensure our children pick work they will feel passionate about if we can. May be a good duty as a parent to try to do that. My father did it with us. It?s nothing to do with the money you earn but loving the work. It needs to be balanced too and if you work full and have children particularly if you?re a single parent (with completely absent father) that?s hard to achieve, even for me but I do try.
I really really don?t want to criticise stay at home parents at all. I sometimes find them hard to understand because I would not enjoy it and they find me hard to understand because they can?t imagine someone leaving a child under 5 to work, although a lot will leave them to go to the gym or shop with friends around where I live and I can?t quite see the difference there?.

Think, you?re right.. if any of these various men work out then I am sure I shall disappear into the ether.

Important point on 2 week maternity leaves? the point is it doesn?t have to be leave, does it? I said I?m taking my two weeks annual holiday. I was 22. That?;s how I wanted to do it. I didn?t? believe in the principle that women should be different from men, that they should be allowed to inconvenience the employer or their clients, that maternity rights women but men don?t have ultimately damage women in the workplace because they result in women being off more so less attractive to employers, whereas if there are the same rights for men and women long term you actually benefit women in work and stop sexist patterns at home where it?s assumed because she is female she?s the only one who can fold the cloth nappies.

I wouldn't say I show off. I think sometimes it's good girls see that women can have large families and be successful which has been my motivation behind some of the publicity things I've done. Girls need role models sometimes.

OP posts:
hatwoman · 21/11/2006 18:06

ok last time but can't resist: "I didn?t? believe in the principle that women should be different from men" erm when does "should" come into it? in the real world women are different. Come back when men have wombs, when they end up with their bits stitched (or their abdomen) post-birth and when they can breast feed.

Mog · 21/11/2006 19:59

Xenia - please listen - this is why you put so many people's backs up. How would you have felt going back and putting a 2 week old baby in the baby room at a nursery? Because most people could not afford a nanny and that is what they would have to do. And you said your employers and your childcare arrangements helped you to breastfeed. Many people would not be in such a position. Part of the reason for the extention in maternity benefits is because the WHO recommends breastfeeding for 6+ months and the government couldn't advocate that and not offer adequate maternity provision.
Do you accept that people live in a world where their choices are much narrower than yours?

opinionsrus · 21/11/2006 20:47

Xenia, xenia, xenia.

Thats all we seem to hear.

Maybe this should be called www.xenianet.co.uk

If you haven't already got your own website Xenia, maybe that would be an idea for you?

Judy1234 · 21/11/2006 21:39

Yes, Mog I accept they do. My employers didnt' know I was expressing milk by the way. I found a clean fairly private toilet and went and did it but it was a nice office environment so that was easier. It's something you need to talk to your daughters about, all of us, how our career choices will affect the rest of our lives including the childbearing years and which jobs have most sexism in them.

I found it much harder at 22 with a first baby returning to work and breastfeeding than when I was 36 with twins and was in charge of my work. It's that power/control issue. Even so I'm glad I didn't wait until I was 36 to start a family.

OP posts:
pollypeachum · 21/11/2006 21:39

Well Xenia dear you have slightly misquoted me but I don't disagree with the misquote.

Ladies, there is nothing in her post that I take issue with. I am ducking as I type.

A key question is this: what are we going to tell our daughters about what we think they should aspire to? SAHM? WOHM? If the latter, to aspire only to a certain level of seniority because motherhood and career success are incompatible?

expatinscotland · 21/11/2006 21:43

'what are we going to tell our daughters about what we think they should aspire to? '

How about telling her nothing? How about teaching her respect for herself, self-esteem and self-contentment and how real happiness comes from w/i? How about showing her how to think for herself so she can make her own decision, using her own judgement and conscience, about how to run her life, knowing that you, her mother, will always be behind her, supporting her, b/c you love her.

What's so bad about that?

Why does it have to be a power thing or about money?

And Xenia, how about joining us on some of the other threads?

That's an invitation, btw.

pollypeachum · 21/11/2006 21:46

sigh - so why can't "telling" be shorthand for all of that and a lot more.
as i've said before, i believe that no one on here is doing anything less than their absolute best for their children.

expatinscotland · 21/11/2006 21:49

If bringing them up to see others, particularly their own wife and the mother of their children, as a status symbols or a game of one-upmanship is what they believe is best, well, hey, hopefully by doing my best my daughters won't fall into the hands of persons of such ilk.

pollypeachum · 21/11/2006 21:49

i got lost in that double negative. trust you all know what i meant!

expatinscotland · 21/11/2006 21:49

Or bringing up their daughters to see SAHM as 'glorified prostitutes' for that matter.

pollypeachum · 21/11/2006 21:53

I think the whole prostitutes/status symbols thing is an academic argument based on economic and socio political standpoints. I truely do not think that I have been called a slag in the course of this thread. I do of course have an ironclad sense of self worth and beleive myself to be the best mother in the universe....

pollypeachum · 21/11/2006 21:53

if a bad speller

expatinscotland · 21/11/2006 21:56

Hardly academic. She said that's her brother and his ilk who feel that way.

Unless it's a wind up.

It made me rather sick to read that, tbh.

pollypeachum · 21/11/2006 22:00

But Xenia has made her way in a mans world. She is the mother of daughters. From her posts she clearly feels very strongly about what a woman can and should be able to do in the workplace.
Clearly she doesn't accept that women should simply be educated for education's sake.
She herself gives the lie to the opinion in her post. Thats why I don't take all she says at face value!

expatinscotland · 21/11/2006 22:01

But those who don't really give a toss about 'the workplace' are glorified prostitutes.

pollypeachum · 21/11/2006 22:11

On one construction you can see why someone (not Xenia, its not an original thought, my guess is its a feminist theory thought - I bet it wasn't a man who said it at any rate) might have posited the idea of SAHM as a prostitue. You trade sex for money.
I don't find it insulting, its just a name, a theory, an socio-economic feminist analysis. I disagree with it but can't be bothered to type out the reasons why. Honestly, don't let it get to you.

Judy1234 · 21/11/2006 22:27

Well there definitely is a difference in dynamic within a couple where both earn the same or the woman more and those where the woman has an economic dependence on the man, has a concern that if he left she may not be self supporting. It's proven in fact. More women of means divorce than those who haven't the means (because most single mothers rely on state benefits and many men disappear after divorce). The theory is that women with no money are trapped in unhappy marriages whereas give women money and power and they can take more control over their lives and personal happiness. I think there is some truth in that.

I do buy in to our capitalist society in the UK. It could have been otherwise. When I was 15 I was corresponding with John Seymour who offered me a "flop on the floor" as he put it (he had a thing for younger women so I probably wouldn't have been very sexually safe). The correspondence was interesting. My thoughts then were do I escape to till the land (which I was toying with) or get enmeshed in our capitalist culture. I chose the latter. I was at that stage one of the first members of the Ecology (now Green) Party. I don't regret the decision to go after the filthy lucre because it enables me to buy tracts of land and indeed to preserve them. Money can give you power and choice and ability to change the world more than perhaps you can do in the way you simply bring up one family.

OP posts:
fortyplus · 21/11/2006 23:34

That's ANOTHER name drop, Xenia - you need counselling!

Swipe left for the next trending thread