littleEDfamily

A bit of humour in whatever publicity you choose to do is in my opinion good! Too often I think the whole breastfeeding debate becomes too militant for my tastes, which I think can make people more 'prudish' or make them feel even more pressured. In terms of support, there just is no substitute for someone literally shoving your boob into baby's mouth in the right way. For me, the hands on approach meant I only had to be shown once and was away. But I am sure other mums (and Dads) have different needs and preferences. Just out of interest, what does one do at a breastfeeding support group? Good luck with it all!

Phew, Smiler - thanks for the link, I will certainly make some attempts to read through the detail. Like with many ill conceived schemes, it does seem that SureStart has tried to cast its net too wide, and that the scope needs fundamental review and consolidation. Personally I can only reiterate that while I enjoy the facilities, and it has helped me out at times, for people like me and I suspect most of those who make use of the schemes, SureStart is not life changing. I fall into the category of being a foreigner with no family support nearby, but in essence I am a capable person who will find the support that I need from wherever to ensure I don't completely fall apart (this Forum is a great example of peoples resourcefulness and ability to create 'community' without state intervention). In view of this I just cannot argue that I have a legitimate need for these public funds. I feel the same about the ?250 they give you when you have a child. It's nice to have, but it's not going to change lives, yet the scheme costs millions. Pointless gimmick in my opinion. What I find very depressing is that having talked to people who work directly with the kind of 'target groups' already mentioned - including speech therapists and social workers in Southwark - they report that even with the help of outreach workers they struggle achieve decent levels of utilisation. It seems sometimes those most in need reject help, and I am not sure an army of well meaning bureaucrats has the power to change that.

I don't think SureStart has been successful in terms of what I thought it was meant to achieve (ie better opportunities for under-privileged kids). Although, I do get confused as Labour also seems to want us to believe it is 'for all'. My experience of SureStart has been very positive (it's great and free, after all), but I cannot hand on heart say, unless it has been proven to tackle serious and complex parenting/social problems (which I don't believe it can) that it ought to be prioritised above various other more (in my mind) important concerns (more resources for Kings College Hospital for a start!), esp with public finances in the state they are in. I suspect the scheme, like many public initiatives, is probably grossly inefficient and crawling with bureaucrats who add little value. As much as I will selfishly continue to enjoy initiatives like Leapers as long as they are around, I don't think the demise of SureStart is something I would necessarily actively campaign against.

Intriguing...

Smiler Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Should I feel guilty for not feeling guilty?! Yes, you are a bad, bad, bad mother.;-)

I would think carefully about hiring a nanny yourself at this point - it's such a big responsibility with all the contracts and tax etc. If you are a nanny 'virgin' see if you can join as established share - that way you get someone already vetted and you probably won't need to take primary responsibility for all the admin etc. If you can find a family with a child a similar age, it can work beautifully as they grow up together. A really great childminder is another good option and definitely one I would prefer over nursery for this age. For nannyshare and childminders, I think it works out as between ?55 - ?70 a day,

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am so so peeved about the new advice that NO > ALCOHOL WHATSOEVER is safe during pregnancy > > A doctor friend told us that this advise is given > because they expect people to break the rules. If > they say "you're alright having 2 or 3 a week", > they think people will think they can push that > and have 5 or 6. So, in saying you can have none, > they think people will have a couple. > > Like I say, it's only what a friend told us, but > it seems to make sense. Yes, I heard that was the reason also, but it makes me even more peeved - it assumes we are all morons who can't interpret official guidelines properly. If there is no evidence that one unit once a week is in any way harmful to the baby, why not just say that? I don't want 5 or 6 (well, deep down, yes probably I do.....), but I suspect anyone who really wants that much would probably do so regardless of the advice.

Mr Larkin is a right old ray of sunshine, isn't he?

R&A - you should read Mothering Madness (I think that's what it's called, and sorry can't remember the author). You'd find it very refreshing! I did... For me, the 'oppression' is not so much around the mechanics of motherhood, but the fact that psychologically we do seem to be, as you say R&A, dominated - 'defined' even - by our children, and I agree, there aint much 'feminism' in that. Having said that, I breastfed for a long time because I found it easy and convenient (and it kept the weight off) - not because I felt any pressure to, and I am a passionate advocate for natural childbirth wherever possible, primarily as I think there is compelling evidence to suggest it is in the mother and baby's better interests (less chance of intervention etc etc), not because I believe mums should be made to suffer in the best interests of their baby. So I guess the point I am trying to make is that some the overt symptoms of 'child obsession' that people often reference(attachment parenting type stuff) I think are far less insidious than the often negative psychological state that seems to now come along modern motherhood - the constant fretting about them, the inability to stop talking about boring baby stuff, the loss of interest in things you used to love (like going out on a school night for several pints and a really good chat with mates) - the guilt!!!!!! And I know there are some practical reasons why these changes are bound to occur to come extent, but I think some of that change can be resisted, and, as this French women suggests most of us can do far better at preserving and developing ourselves and our non-child related interests, even if it's sometimes at the expense of our perfect mummy personas.

PS Reren - couldn't agree more about how much men have changed. My dad seems very confused by how much my hubby helps out (and seems to do it because he wants to - all very bizarre to him, but he's very impressed). Don't get me wrong there are certainly some men out there who have successfully swerved emancipation (that's what I like to call it as I think men have been also been suffocated by traditional roles) and persist with their neanderthal ways, but as long as men are evolving too, there's hope for a more balanced future of motherhood.

I agree with a lot of it. I love the French take on many things - a wonderful antidote to the (mostly conservative American) 'cult' of the 'Supermom', or what I like to call (must have got it from somewhere), the 'martyr complex'. Many of our mummy obsessions (of which I have many) are causing a sort of self-imposed tyranny that I can completely relate to. I am so so peeved about the new advice that NO ALCOHOL WHATSOEVER is safe during pregnancy, as it seems there is zero evidence that light consumption has any proven adverse effects. I appreciate the ethical complexities of doing decent research on pregnant populations, but I do think that sort of approach is less than helpful (and fairly insulting). That all said, I am preggers and just cannot bring myself to enjoy a nice glass of wine with dinner. Case in point.

Yep - agree with Moos and Fuschia. Check your contract and any other documentation (e.g. maternity policy/ employee handbook) that is relevant to your leave. Unless there is something specific relating to repayment of discretionary maternity pay, you should be good to keep it all!! Def won't need to pay back SMP.

I think thou doth protest too much! Fuschia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That my fondness for Mr Tumble is entirely > platonic! > > I feel I am being unfairly accused of deviant > practices!!! :))

Our girls must all be so confused by the lack of consistency! Loving the 'vulva' rhyme in all its silliness. That was the word the scanning man used to confirm the sex of our daughter at the 17 week scan. "I am sure its a girl: that's a vulva". We were both a bit taken aback. Not sure why exactly, but probably not as taken aback as we would have been had he come out with 'fanny fanackers'.

The other adult part of littleEDfamily says: 1. a 'fruity night in' (sicko) 2. lack of lay in at weekends 3. both equally mean and horrible

Thanks all - we went to the Garrison. Lovely setting, good coffee and delicious juice. I love that part of town; it makes me feel young and cool again....!

just "bits".....

OK, I know this post doesn't strictly belong in the family room discussion, but any suggestions on where to go for a hearty brunch near London Bridge? Want somewhere cool and buzzy... we're going CHILD FREE, so no need for high chairs, balloons or patient serving staff!

I agree with whomever says they found it easier to bond with their babies once they knew the sex. We tried, and failed miserably to hold out both times. We're the sort of people who used to feel their Christmas presents under the tree until they figured out what they were - no tolerance for surprises. And on a purely practical level, you're so much better prepared if you know.

An Aussie brand called 'Jason's' Lavender all over moisturiser (they do other 'flavours' too), stocked at Health Matters. Smells nice and absorbs nicely. Not too expensive.

There go my illusions shattered! Thanks Alice :-S

I keep trying to go to bed, but the Family Room is making me laugh too much today. And for the record, I once saw Little Cook (who is v tall) in Somerfields. He gave me the creeps, even without his wooden spoon (but I am sure is actually a very nice man - if you're reading Little Cook: love your work!)

Tee hee... this thread has made me think that cbeebies could do with some genuine eye-candy for mums! When I first met my husband my group of friends used to call him the CTVP (Children's TV presenter), as he was so smiley (yet handsome!), but now I see how horribly insulting that really was. Surely they can find a few men nice men to present who are non-threatening and talented but also HOT (to the over 30s)!!! Right, off to bed for me as I am now sounding like a wrong 'un!

Still feeling slightly nauseous about you Mr Tumble pervs out there! Wrong, wrong, wrong!

I have often told myself this in moments of desperation...I think brighter kids can be more 'challenging', but I don't think intelligence can explain away 'proper' bad behaviour in most cases. What age are we talking about?