littleEDfamily

Just had a thought - what might ease the transition is if you start having playdates with one or two children also starting at the same place in September. I am sure you could find some kiddies due to start through the trusty forum or even the school itself.

Hmm.. I think just wait until she's going to the nursery she's going to be likely to stay at. I think the only way to get used to a place is to be at that place and go through the transition. I think it may also help to give her the impression nursery is not negotiable. Certainly mention it, as in 'when you're 3, you'll go to nursery: that's what big girls who are 3 do', and if she sounds interested, maybe hype it up a little, but if she seems negative about it, just change the subject. When my daughter started 5 mornings a week at age 3, there were some kids who howled every morning for about 2 weeks, and it is true these were mostly kids who weren't used to being left, but it all balanced out pretty quickly and those kids very quickly settled. And at the risk of sounding like a miserable Victorian mother, don't worry too much if she moans about it initially. Mine did this, and after trying to talk her round, I found it worked better when I didn't indulge her. At age 3 she didn't necessarily love nursery (but as she was getting on for 4 and could form closer ties to other kids, that changed), but I could tell she was getting lots out of it (exhausted by the end of day too, so expect some meltdowns!) As long as you are happy with the nursery you have chosen, just commit to it and don't fret if the first 6 months are less than hunkydory - you'll get there in the end xx

PS and to answer your original question, when I went back to work after no.1 initially, I really did enjoy (most of) the time away from baby and it was nice to just be 'me' (and not covered in vomit!). There will be enojyable aspects about going back to work and if you do so as close to 'your terms' as possible you'll minimise the trauma. But I think a bit of trauma is to be expected...

Firstly, I really feel for you. There is just nothing that can prepare you for how you will feel about everything (work, family, etc) when you have a baby. And, although I consider myself a feminist, I do believe there are biological reasons for women feeling so bereft at the prospect of having to leave their young child, so it's especially tough on you being the main financial contributor. Personally, I wouldn't think now is not a great time to go for a career change - too many other changes to adjust to. Is it possible for you to go back part-time; as few hours as you can afford? If you are working from home, this can help with being able to see more of your child, but you need to have proper childcare on those days too - childcare and a proper job definitely cannot be combined. Also, I would try not to think too far in the future - you will tie yourself up in knots, as for so many of us what we thought might be our futures doesn't materialise. Instead focus on figuring out what is the bare minimum you can do with financially, try to negotiate the optimum flexible work arrangement and getting the best childcare. Then, just put one foot in front of the other. If you would like more children, it will be an 'all change' scenario in the not too distant future and you'll have a new set of options to consider. Good luck and enjoy that baby!

I'm in a similar dilemma myself, as need to get some help with little one 1-2 days when she is around a year. With my first, a really high quality nursery (small) would have been my first choice. As it happened, there were none in ED with availability that I liked. So we tried a variety of other solutions. I'm trying to find a way to say this delicately..... I think a home environment (ie nanny or childminder) is probably better for baby, but you need to think about what suits your personality. I personally found having a nanny became something else to manage, and I was at the mercy of their moods, availability etc. Now, there are absolutely some fantastic nannies and childminders out there, but for me, I prefer the relationship you have with a nursery - I was more comfortable being clear about my requirements, speaking up when I was unhappy with something, and (I know this makes me sound like a nutter) but knowing that if they were having an 'off day' there were others to ensure that they didn't take it out on my child. I would say though, if you are planning on returning to work fulltime, a childminder/ nanny really probably is better. But I think 2-3 days in a nursery, provided it is a good one will do your child no harm at all (and actually 5 days probably won't either) and if your gut tells you that is what will work best for you, do whatever you can to get on the list of the best one you can find.

Spotify has made me giggle. I like his/her cold commercial take on it...

There is a lot of awareness of women and their 'level' in the workplace post-children, and although of course it is wrong to automatically demote any woman simply for having had kids, in some ways, I wish it were more acceptable for women (and men!) to take a temporarily 'lower' role while they still have small children. I know of course, financially, this is not an option for many for whom a different sort of job would mean a paycut they could not withstand, but in retrospect it might have been better for me to have taken a bit of a back step for a while and then ramped up when I felt I was ready. For most people (men and women) it's like career suicide if you admit to needing to take a step back or even just plateau for a while - it certainly was in the organisations I worked in, and I think it is the pressure to demonstrate that you can do it all that leads to a lot of additional stress in those early years. But then, on the other hand, sometimes I think we're all a pack of whinge-bags and we need to harden up!

I think it's partly the commercialism of it that it distasteful (he he). My grandmother and her sister in law were each other's kids wet nurses (when one had to go out, the other would make sure both kids were fed), but this is very different from a stranger being paid to give something to another adult who has no nutritional need for it. I don't think it is morally objectionable or anything just pointless, gimicky and, yep, I'll say it again, gross.

Well said, Saila.

Er, no, I think gross. I am a big breastfeeding supporter, but consuming a stranger's bodily fluids will never sit right with me.

He heh... no you've not wronged me, but, but I have on occasion disagreed with you. But I still like having you around... PS edited to add: it's painful to admit you've brought something on yourself is what I meant...

Wow, lucky you having a warm house! Our will happily go down to 12 degrees with no heating on. 20-24 degree room temp is lovely. At that temperature, I would say baby needs a long sleeve babygrow (no legs, or maybe a romper type thing) and a 1 tog sleeping bag. When cooler than 20 degrees, go up to a 2.5 tog bag and if it's getting closer to 16 degs, you need 2 layers on top, 1 on the bottom under the sleeping bag as well as mitts and maybe even a little hat and socks (not that it sounds like being too cold will be a problem). Good guideline is to feel baby's neck at the back (just below base of skull). If they feel hot to the touch, you need to do something to cool them down, such as removing layers.

RB, I understand you completely. You're not being offensive. I am lucky enough to have as close to the best of both worlds as a person could have. I hated my first maternity leave; I was so lonely at home and I felt so isolated and bored. I just couldn't do the talking about kids all day to other zombie mums (not their fault they were zombies, of course). And then when I went back to work, I was desperate to prove a point, got promoted in a couple of months but was a complete loose cannon - the childcare was never good enough, I never had enough time to devote work, I was convinced everyone thought I was a slacker and the pressure I used to thrive on made me aggressive. If I had been able to let go a little (and let hubby take more responsibility for things, Keef does have a point, much as it pains me to admit it), it may have worked out, but it didn't, so I left and started working for myself. It has meant very stressful times and I struggle to get things done from home, and there's still some isolation (hence my forum addition), but all in all, I shouldn't complain. PS Just to qualify my comment about 'not wanting to be 'just a mum' - I think it's a philosophical thing - I'm just not comfortable with the concept of someone's life just being for another person (or people), even temporarily. And I used to get so cross when kids would treat their mums (not always SAHMs) as if they were just their servants. I always wanted to do something professionally that would make my kids proud of me. I wish I could feel fulfilled by motherhood alone, but alas not...

I had exactly the same, supergolden. much better now I am not carrying baby in sling and not feeding as frequently. The chiropractor in Crystal Palace Rd did wonders for me. As did my husband giving me a quick, firm massage and pushing on the sore bits to try and release some of the pressure.

I have just outdone myself by crying to the opening sequence of 'One born every minute'...

I am a big fan of older women (a proper granny magnet, I am just drawn to the wisdom of age), and I love this quote from one of the random grannies I have met on my travels: "You can have it all, dear, just not all at the same time". Goodnight forum.

It is an interesting point, Saila. My mum was a teacher and saw herself as a professional (definitely not the 'get any old cash through the door' school of thought), and, although she worked, school teacher's hours (back in the 70s/ 80s anyway) meant she was always there for us as older children. As younger children, we were looked after by my grandparents and aunt a lot. In that respect, I can feel myself wanting to recreate what my parents had (ie being able to work knowing they had the best quality, loving, free childcare 5 minutes away). I desperately want to do more work, and I would definitely do so if I had the same level of family support, and, as my family lives overseas, I sometimes dream about my in laws saying 'why don't I have the kids a day or two a week'? Not going to happen, though and I get quite cross about it. If we had more help, the pressure on hubby and I to juggle it between ourselves would lessen enormously. But in it's absence, I know it's my job to do what Fuschia does while still pursuing my professional dreams. I can't bear the thought of my kids ever saying about me (as so many of my friends have said about their mums) 'she's just a mum'. I think, as well as the financial imperative, that's why so many of us women run ourselves ragged....

I'm nosey, Fuschia; why did you choose to go PT if you earned more? Was it a maternal thing?

The only possible reason I can think of for co-sleeping being a problem (assuming parents can sleep well with sprogs in their bed - personally I can't, but I am too knackered to get them out, so I just muddle along in my sleep deprived haze) is if the child doesn't sleep as well as they might in their bed. I think really good quality sleep is essential for kids to learn and behave at their best. I noticed when our pre-schooler started coming into our room more often in the night, she didn't seem as rested in the morning. But balancing that out, there is something quite beautiful about all 4 of us waking up all cosy in the same bed, and I am sure it has positive effects in terms of the kids feelings of security and belonging. I think co-sleeping with sick children is absolutely the right thing to do. The only time I insist my kids sleep alone and allow controlled crying is if they have a fever and I am worried about them overheating in our bed.

Just another observation... I have noticed that when the woman is a the higher earner and therefore works full time, it's a third party such as a nanny that picks up the slack, as opposed to the lower earning man sorting out flexible working. charlottep - your comment really resonated with me. When we moved house, I was struggling with a newborn baby, a challenging pre-schooler while trying to run two businesses, everyone seemed more concerned about my husband's commute and long hours and commenting on how AMAZING he was for still helping out around the house. People don't seem as comfortable seeing men struggling to do it all (so much for me not making this discussion personal!) Sometimes, I think the 'top job' in terms of managing the domestic setting does need to reside with one person. As much as my husband's uselessness at home frustrates me (he's not actually that useless, relatively speaking), and as difficult I find it to work and fit in all the kid and house stuff, I don't think I would relinquish control of the house to my hubby permanently, although he copes pretty well when left to his own devices. In a lot of ways, it works for him to defer to me on house/ kids stuff as there is no conflict. And actually, I don't think he's up to it. But of course, he could learn...

Smiler Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I also think that some men who say they can't > request flexible working 'cos this could damage > their career need to remember that women face this > issue too. If men don't even ask, how will > anything change? Agree, but I think the problem is that a significant number of women seem more prepared for their career to plateau or go backwards post-kids - I've heard once ambitious women state they have 'lost interest'. Conversely, I know quite a few men, who, once they have kids find they get even more motivated in their careers - partly because they have to be (as their partner's earnings have taken a hit, but also, I think the 'provider' mentality kicks in.

Starting new thread to (hopefully) carry on the discussions here: I agree with those who have said it needs to become more acceptable for men to adjust working hours, take care of kids when sick etc. But I do think we can't have our cake and eat it. Professionally and personally I have met so many women, who upon having children, undergo, at least temporarily, a huge and fundamental change in their attitude to work, going from being focussed on a career, to just wanting a 'job' that gets a little bit of money through the door. If that is the deal you cut with your partner (and your employer) you're always going to be the one running about while your partner's career carries on unchanged. Even where both parents work fulltime, it seems quite common for the couple themselves to place more value on the husband's career. By the way, I am not suggesting there is anything wrong with the set up I've just described, but when it is the default position for so many couples, it's unlikely much is going to change. I work in HR and can honestly say that in most of the environments I've worked in, men's applications to work part-time would have been approved just as readily as women in similar roles, and more managers would have been just as accommodating for childcare, but .....for whatever reason, the couple had decided that it was the wife to be the one 'putting family first'. The cold reality is that when you do overtly put yourself in the position where it is clear family is the priority (or that within your family, the lionshare of the responsbility falls to you), it DOES have an impact on career success. And I get the feeling that in some cases it's the women not prepared to let their men paint themselves in that light. So I don't think it is as simple as blaming men. And, although I am not for a minute suggesting that it is ok for women to kill themselves doing everything, I do think the primary reason the responsibilities are divided as they are is that most women after having children identify most strongly with their mother/ homemaker role, whereas most men's sense of self worth is most strongly tied up in their 'money-maker' role. PS Trying not to make this ia personal discussion or one about the many exceptions to my 'rule', but rather a discussion about why the norms seem to continue as they are.

Something I have thought about too, but not really an appropriate debate for this thread, in my opinion...reneet just needs a bit of tlc... koteczek Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > EDmummy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > > > Our feminist sisters of the 70s and 80s fought > the > > right fight for which I am eternally > > grateful...they just didn't tell us the whole > > story. > > > > when I read what I have been reading here I > really wonder why we should be eternally grateful > to our feminist sisters (and mothers). I think > women who really wanted to have always been able > to do interesting things. Is there any evidence > that we are a jot happier or that society is > better because of feminism?

Good luck on the public breastfeeding. You couldn't be in a better place than Dulwich to do it. I am really quite shameless nowadays. In fact if I think about it, it seems quite bizarre that I flop them out anywhere and everywhere. I'm more self conscious about getting a cold back and showing my muffin tops (but no need for that if you have good b/f tops). You are welcome to try my thrupenny bits breastfeeding pillow. I don't use it anymore, but found it very useful when baby was little (and therefore actually stayed where I put her and didn't thrash about). PM me if you want me to drop it round...

pebbles, you're so right. I am watching 'relocation' - can you get over here and shine my sink?