Babies out of nappies at three months?

Lizzie Enfield describes her struggle to get her four-year-old son out of absorbent pull up pants in today's Body and Soul.

She also wonders whether the new elimination communication (EC) technique could have allowed her to potty train her boy earlier.

Advocates of the process claim babies can be potty-trained by three months using cues and close observation. Lizzie has found converts who say it transformed their relationship with their child.

So is the EC technique another sign of pushy parenthood, or a way of giving children some independence while helping the environment?

We'd love to know your thoughts.

Previously on Alpha Mummy:

A nappy free childhood?

Bedwetting, knicker flashing and expert help

Comments

[j]

OMG bagofbones is actually Zza-Zza Gabor..I thought lying about your age went out with the Stepford wives? :)

[Baggofbones]

Ah, but I am now Officially 25 Forever, J, so ageing will not affect me. One day, I will be younger than my own children. Tee hee.

[Annamac]

Oh well, bags 301, then! And actually I found being 42 infinitely more fun than being 24...

[J]

I get to make the 300th post... just you wait bagofbones :) it comes to us all.

[Baggofbones]

Oh dear ... I've made J feel bad about her age, and Jane has made me feel good about mine (physically, at any rate...)
Personally, I rather liked being 15. I do think ageing must be hideous if you don't have children to sweeten the pill!

[Jane]

The thing about ageing is that inside you keep improving, but outside you keep decaying! I'm loads and loads and LOADS happier now than I ever was in my 20s ... but, yes, sigh, it would be nice to have the body and skin of a 25 year old, hey ho (OK, I'd settle for 35 year old!). But inside my head, I'm SO much happier being middle aged.

[J]

Oh cheers, bagofbones!

[Baggofbones]

How on earth could there be anything nice about being in your 40s?!

[Stop Bed Wetting Now]

EC is a hugely important aspect and should be considered by all women. That's my thoughts at least! ;0)

[CV]

My daughter is 11 weeks old and using a potty about 5 times a day. Her cues are definitely becoming stronger. I had never heard of EC but she seemed to 'eliminate' on the changing mat all the time (before the nappy was open), so we were going through an enormous amount of kitchen roll in the clean up process! She took to the potty so easily. I still have her in the reusable nappies, which are fabulous - no leaks and no nappy rash. I am amazed that this has been so easy, however, I would never have tried this technique were it not for our daughter's natural instincts.

[supermother]

One of the many many very nice things about being in your 40s is that for many women you just aren't as worried about wearing the right thing, saying the wrong thing etc at work. You know you're good and you've nothing left to prove and that kind of frees you. You've also probably also had your children so it's all been there, done that, got the T shirt, now having fun.

It is also fascinating to have my oldest child starting work next year and remembering how it was for me at her age. Things are not too different except there are more women in those types of jobs although I think even my graduate intake year was 50/50 men and women in 1983. Even the pay/house price ratio is the same believe it or not in the area where I first lived anyway in outer London. In fact we must both write about it now that I think about it because it's such an interesting contrast or similarity.

[j]

LAZYmummy that sounds like hard work and reminds me of when I hit the sixth form at school and no longer needed to wear school uniform. Boy did I miss it!

Though here I think the suit is slightly out and a version of the same look without the stiffening of formal jackets and so on is in. Luckily, as if I pad out my shoulders with a male jacket cut I look like a bricklayer's mate. There is already more than enough bulk around my shoulder area.. They used to say that about working men in their best suits: suits were cut for deskbound men, not for men with big shoulder and leg muscles, hence why it fits so badly. Even the most brilliantly tailored suit has trouble with anything over a C cup (not that I have that issue, sigh).

[Lazy Mummy]

Agreed with J & SM on the looking good for work issue: it's inevitable that we get judged on our appearance, and whether we think that should be the case or not is, to some extent, irrelevant because if we want to make the appropriate impression, we have (to some extent) to just accept it & play the game.

Having said that, on the cleavage thing, I've noticed it tends to be the top-heavy women (like myself) who try hardest to hide it - probably because of the "stupid" stereotype associated with that figure. Being blonde, I've always felt hit with the double whammy and there have definitely been times (especially when I was still in my 20s and obviously more gorgeous) when people have automatically categorised me as blonde-boobs-bimbo (which is patently not the case). I've always tried to dress & act in ways to counteract the stereotype, though fortunately, with age & experience, this has become less of an issue.

In terms of what you wear for work, that really depends on the industry, country & culture. I actually found it much easier dressing for work in the UK in a "traditional" job where standard business dress was the order of the day than here on the West Coast of the US in a non-traditional industry. Here, it's Business Casual/Nerd Scruffy (depending on whether you're on the business side or the engineering side or what mood you're in) and there are fewer rules. Easier for men, who just wear chinos/blue shirts (BC) or jeans/tshirts/fleeces (NS); most of the women I work with opt for expensive designer jeans paired with slightly funky tops or cashmere/silk sweaters in winter. Heels are optional though I like them for the same reasons SM cites. In some ways, it's more comfortable & more an expression of who I am than the suit-cum-white-shirt combo, but it's also more of a pain & takes longer to think about.

[J]

Sm I think we do agree. One of the odd things about work is having to accept that people can see you, so you have to do something. I enjoyed my FTM years as I did have the option to be invisible and neutral if I felt like it. Oddly for an incurable bluestocking I have found I quite enjoy facials and posh shoes now that I have found a way to look good which doesn't have sexual implications and doesn't make me feel like something out of Mean Girls :)

I always enjoy watching House but cant get over Cuddy's look- of course she has a fab figure but would a real life senior manager go around with that much on show? I doubt it.

[supermother]

We probably don't disagree really but to some extent we do use looks because people recruit people who look better if they have two candidates who are otherwise equal. Women who wear make up earn more money for example. I wear high heels not so I look ridiculous but they do make me feel better and presumably a bit sexier than if I didn't but I wouldn't really say I was seducing men into giving me work but surely any reasonably attractive man and woman to an extent use their personality, charm, looks etc to get work as well as their experience and skills.

(Liking Rachel Johnson in today's Sunday Times saying "small children can be tiring, repetitive, isolating and incredibly dull" and I notice she mentions having 3 under 4 like us at one point. Perhaps that's the particularly difficult way to do it and those with just two under 2 don't find it so boring or hard."

[Jane]

"YOu cannot decide to be invisible but you can decide to send a message that says, I am friendly, I am nice, I may even be clever and interesting, but I am not going to cheat and waggle my cleavage at you so you cant concentrate, nor do you need to worry if I ask you for coffee.

Most decent people appreciate this, I find."

I agree. There's a difference between HAVING looks and USING them to 'get on' in your career. It's the latter that's inadmissable - the deliberate exploitation of your physical assets, as opposed to your mental ones.

[J]

YOu cannot decide to be invisible but you can decide to send a message that says, I am friendly, I am nice, I may even be clever and interesting, but I am not going to cheat and waggle my cleavage at you so you cant concentrate, nor do you need to worry if I ask you for coffee.

Most decent people appreciate this, I find.

[supermother]

Short of wearing a Burka ( or I suppose dungarees etc) surely everyone to some extent uses their looks because you cannot not have them if you see what I mean. It's why men might polish their shoes and choose their shirt and cufflinks with care to fit whatever environment they work in and make sure their hair is washed and they're clean etc. I don't think women dressing well is too different. Men and women are attracted to each other (and men to men and women to women in some cases too) and you cannot strip that entirely out of the business environment even if it's unspoken. If you're going to participate in Western capitalism and play the game rather than withdraw from it in leftist disgust then part of that is men and women to some extent using their sexuality at work and their personality too to win business, not just their ability. In a way that's part of the fun of it but obviously there's a line to be drawn I suppose in areas such as height of heels, shortness of shirt and depth of cleavage.... and some people never look sexy whatever they wear and some exude sexiness even if they're in the most sexless clothes imaginable. Even whether you're on the pill has an impact (I have never used it) in terms of your attractiveness and point you are in your cycle.

[Jane]

"is it fair to use your looks to get ahead?"

Short answer - No. Not unless you're a model.

Even if you DO try it on, it's a very dodgy strategy - the danger is that the men will think you're a tart, and the women will think, oh yes, you're a tart.

Yes, look good (not sexy, just good!) if you want, but don't try and 'use your looks to get ahead'. If anything shoots women's journey out of the kitchen/nursery in the foot, trying to leverage your sexuality profesionally has to be it!

[Jane]

"I can even talk about football if there's enough money in it "

Oh, tsk, tsk - one minute you're saying SAH wives are legal prostitutes, the next you're advocating being a geisha girl!!

:)

[supermother]

That's a much more interesting point. Good looking well dressed people (even taller people actually) earn more. It is very unfair that the looks their genes God has given them has that effect.

I look at whom I will meet. If it's a woman then it generally pays to look worse than she does. If it's the born again Christian man you might want to make sure there aren't too many buttons undone (although may be all men are the same really). If you think they're hiring you because you're expensive and good then there may be some need to be better dressed than those you're going to see. Much the same for men too. I've sometimes given work to men on the basis of looks when all being equal their qualifications etc were identical to one who wasn't so chosen.....and personality too. We all want to work with people who are interesting and fun. I can even talk about football if there's enough money in it although that's really scraping the conversational barrel.

[j]

Bagofbones, we are not all fundamentalists, come back.

I am going to ignore SM's deliberate windups, but would like to pick up one of her ideas: in the office, how sexy do you go? How high the heels etc and is it fair to use your looks to get ahead?
Here are my thoughts: there are some professions (consultancy for example) where your professional relationship with clients is a bit of a series of one-night stands. If you breeze in looking fab and expensive and a bit foxy, thats probably all to the good. You remain a fantasy figure, they enjoy it and you get to charge premium rates for what might be quite ordinary work, blessed by a big Brand (cynical, moi? no, just done the job myself).

In the role I now have, I need long term relationships, so I tend to be more the big sister/headteacher/ hospital consultant figure- warm, a bit mumsy if iI'm not careful, but sexually unthreatening. I dont think people get a buzz from it longer term. Anyway, my colleagues are often hand-on daddies, married to people I've met and liked, or they are gay, or female, or indeed both. Plus I am surrounded by younger more gorgeous people anyway. So I buy cashmere and good shoes but I dont show my ageing cleavage any more. I think everyone is relieved.

What do you all do? apart from Annamac and her amazing furry dungarees (its OK, I know you were only partly serious). and how does it transfer to school gate politics?

[Baggofbones]

"I never get upset if someone (wrongly) says children need a mother at home. I just know they're wrong."

That's the problem with the way this thread has gone - once somebody knows they are 'right', there's no debate. What's the point?

I'm going back to my housewifely duties.

[supermother]

Anyone secure in their choices will not feel threatened when someone puts the opposite point of view. I never get upset if someone (wrongly) says children need a mother at home. I just know they're wrong.

I agree that ways of working have changed. Email has been one of the biggest changes. It's freed many men and women to work from wherever they choose. Although some people might resent the mobile/email contact whilst they're on holiday or away it does mean you are actually away and the people you're dealing with do not always know that. I'm going abroad next week and it won't require an announcement because no one will know. Of course not all jobs can be done in that way.

I think it's something I always want my children to consider - the three making career choices now at university stage. Pick a job which you will enjoy (most important factor) but ideally pick one where if you chose later you can set up on your own/run yourself so you have more choices (and usually more money) and pick one which isn't institutionally sexist (although morally we need people to break a path through sexist work places - I just don't want my children having the problems you get as trail blazers)

[Annamac]

Yes, there are definitely new ways of working these days. We don't have any clients in the UK - all of them are in Europe and we don't usually ever have to meet them. Thus, they don't care what we look like, or indeed what gender we are or how old we are. Suits me fine. I can do my work whilst wearing whatever I like and looking like Ken Dodd on a bad day and no one cares. Hooray! The clients just care that I/we produce a top quality product and get it to them on time. Plus, when I need a break, I just go out for a run with the dog in the beautiful countryside. Would I return to a conventional job where I had to conform with conventional expectations of how to dress etc? (I never wear heels, never did learn how not to walk like a duck whilst wearing them, and they seem an evil piece of nonsense to me). Nope, this is the life for me (smoothes down dungarees, fluffs up leg hair and signs off for the weekend).

[Melissaria]

You're all very funny.

277 comments from a post about early potty training, and mostly the usual bitching between the usual suspects about working and stay at home mothers.

Again.

The disinterested observer can only conclude that actually, you all love it!

[Jane]

Annamac - sounds like you've got a really good set up, all things considering. Beats commuting! (but most things do, whether you're a parent or not.)

Seems to me, if this blog is only for topics exclusive to not-paid-by-your-husband working mothers then someone ought to tell CM and co that, so they stop posting 'irrelevant rubbish' about cyberpenguins, head-lice, weird things you can buy from John Lewis, etc etc etc.

[Baggofbones]

Yes, Supermother, we know your feelings about women/mothers/work. Can't we talk about something else? Does everything always have to come back to women and work? Debate is great, but not if there's someone in the 'debate' who is not prepared to accept differences of personality, politics and opinions. I still think people like this site because they hope to have intelligent discussions and exchange their views - not to find that their views are mocked, discounted and crushed.

[supermother]

Yes, but it's not a God blog. It's working mother slot so mine might not be quite so off topic. As someone said below we cannot take the rights we have for granted as women and we might find in a ew years as so many women opt out employers stop hiring them (if they can get away with it) or just subcontract so we just need to be a bit careful in this 20 - 50 year coming period we don't lose the hard won gains by reverting to woman as housewife. Very dangerous ground. However I am encouraged - most women of under 5s work in the UK, many many more men clean the house, take an equitable part in being parent and indeed want to. So there is much to be hopeful over and as others have said new ways of working mean we can return to how work always was - something both parents did at home. I've always liked my children able to see us both working here at various times a bit like the farming couple based in the house or the doctor with surgery at home etc. or medieval households we had. Perhaps we only had a brief period of people actually going somewhere to work from the time of the industrial revolution. We will see.

[Annamac]

I'd like to apologise for my previous post - it was a joke. And I should know by now that my attempts at levity do not always go down well in cyberspace. No offence intended (just in case anyone thought I was being "bitchy", I wasn't at all, honestly). Anyway, I reckon I fall between 2 camps in the no-woman's land of the working from home mother. I'd just like to point out that this arrangement does not mean spending my days on the sofa with a laptop with the kiddiwinks amusing themselves around me. We have an entire floor of the house as dedicated office space. I only work when my children are out of the house or asleep (which means I actually work close to "full-time" in the lowly 9-5 sense). I use a mixture of childcare providers for my younger child: nursery, pre-school and granny. My husband also works in our home office. The door is sound-proofed, so that if either of us has to work when the children are around (i.e. weekends, which happens quite often), we are not disturbed.

[Kieransmum]

OK, Supermother, take your point about not wanting to cease from endless strife. I don't want to close down debate per se. But there is a law of diminishing returns.
It should be obvious to anyone on this blog that I'm a Christian and will talk about God till the cows come home BUT I try not to ram my faith down other people's throats, not just because its impolite but because it's unproductive. If I came on here and tried to turn every post into an argument for the existence of God I'd be being unfair to everyone else but I'd also do that cause more harm than good.

[Lisa]

Have been watching this thread and the vicious and bitchy comments that have been flying about. I think some of the posters should step back and have a serious look at themselves. You should be incredibly grateful that, to some extent, you have a choice as to whether or not you stay at home or go to work, who you marry or don't marry, how many children you have had or plan to have. Maybe take a moment and think about all the women in the world who do NOT have the luxury of such choices, like the girl in this article: http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3171311.ece

[Annamac]

As I am just about able to reach the keyboard from my position of being chained to the kitchen sink, barefoot and pregnant, I'd like to say that I second KM. (And personally I prefer Fairy, because Ariel brings my husband out in a rash).

[Emily]

The below post is so depressing - can't people in the 21st century just be allowed to do whatever makes them happy without someone telling them that they are dim idiots?

[supermother]

Well there is huge work to do be done to stamp out sexism in marriages and in the UK in general and one thing most working mothers can do is do their bit to ensure sexist stereotypes are removed and assumptions that just because you've got breasts you are the one who hires, finds and keeps the nanny and cleans the toilet. I shall not cease from endless strife until every stay at home mother knows what damages she is doing to women and her children....... particularly whilst the press continues to spew out sexist news items to suit stay at home daily mail readers such that they remain happy chained to their kitchen sinks.

Anyway this thread has established that the stay at homers have absolutely no interest in anything beyond the trivial, knickers, things do to with being home so that's great - they can go and talk about detergent elsewhere because they've no interest in working parents' issues.

On the other topic just raised - liking to be liked - it's one of the things we need to watch out with daughters. The pleasing. You see it in groups of stepford mothers too - trying to nice to everyone all the time. It's endlessly sickening, reach for the sick bowl stuff.... and it damages women at work. No you won't please everyone and if you do you're probably failing in your work. So toughen up.

[j]

with you all the way, KM

[mumoftwo]

As for public humiliation, I really have a fear of actual public humiliation, i.e. when presenting in public which outweighs my fear of doing badly in private or when writing. Recently, this has led me to not prioritise the work that really needed doing, but proiritising being over-prepared for presentations through fear of looking an idiot on a stage (letting them see the whites of my eyes). I was really cross at myself for doing this (and I knew I was doing it as well). Funnily enough, I was at a conference recently, and the women far outstripped the men in being well-prepared and entertaining, some of the men clearly didn't have my fear of being inept. It could have just been a coincidence, but perhaps it relates back to what J said (many posts ago) concerning women not letting it get to the crisis stage. The men I know are certainly more prepared to 'wing it' on occasion, whereas I've never 'winged it' in my life.

As for being liked, funnily enough I'd be more worried about being perceived as competent than popular, although I'm not senior enough to piss off whole swathes of employees by my decisions, just a few!

[mumoftwo]

Oh, Kieransmum, you are so sensible. Welcome back.

[Kieransmum]

Hmm. Have calmed down and read this thread through again.

1) All SM's suggestions as to what we could discuss are interesting and important and relevant to anyone who ever wants to work again, e.g. the target audience for this blog.

2) I think it is unacceptable for anyone to say "such-and-such a sort of person should not be posting on this." A blog like this is open access and no one has ownership, except the AM team I suppose.

3) A mixture of inanity and profundity is good fun. Too much either way is dreary.

4) This might read like a personal criticism of you Supermother, but it's actually about all of us. Remember when another poster continually turned every conversation into a defence of SAHMing? She stopped doing it and is now a valued member of the board.
Could we not as a group have an informal agreement amongst regular posters that we will keep the derogatory comments about SAHMS and WMs to discussions where it is relevant, and not rise to the bait if one or more of us continually seeks to stir up this fight?

Or am I being hopelessly naive and unrealistic?

[j]

How would I define failure?

Public humiliation, I think. Losing the respect of people whose judgment I value.

[j]

Bagofbones, I am not sure we do want to be liked by all, all of the time, but it rears its ugly head as you get more senior. I think what happens is eventually you get the top-ish job and inevitably you then have to sort all the horrible stuff where there is no right answer. Now I have noticed that some people just dont find this stressful at all, not all of them are men by any means, but there seems to be a bias that way. These people burn out less and get less upset, ergo they stick at tough jobs longer. I think. So I am interested in the tradeoff between this kind of thick skin, and better people skills on the other hand, when it comes to running stuff.
In other words, as well as time management and image management, we seem to need emotion management skills to survive a heavy job. I had a mentor who advised me to learn to roll with the punches, and I think thats what was meant.

[mumoftwo]

My suggestion is that we all email the 'tips' section today with our ideas for threads. Surely when the thread gets into the 200's and reverts back to an old debate, it's just a sign of things getting stale and frustrating for us, so copy and paste your ideas from the past few days and send them in. I think the post about the looming credit crunch and how this might affect us all, including job cuts/insecurity might be a great one to start, with a few frilly knicker threads thrown in:) I have emailed the site before and got a very immediate response and the change I asked for, so let mummy power rule!

[supermother]

People find different things interesting but my list was pretty core to many working mothers' concerns. People can stay off threads they find dull and obviously you need a balance between lighter and more serious topics. I am sure alpha mothers would also like to talk about clothes too - I find fascinating the issue to which I can use my looks and sexuality to get business for example and where you draw the line, how high should the heels be etc etc. It's a very fun light issue (with I suppose some femininist issues buried in there) so I'm certainly not against discussing clothes, although I don't think I've yet been stripped to my knickers in the eternal toil of seeking filthy lucre.

Effect of the credit crunch is also an issue too so yes redundancy is another good one. Stuff like what do you do with the nanny if you're on maternity leave or having a short period between jobs too and how to cope with getting under her feet or if you give up your child minder or whatever.

[Lazy Mummy]

Stressedmummy,

Don't know anything about your situation (if you want to share more, you might get more specific advice from people), but depending on how much you like your job, how long you've been doing it & your financial situation, you might find, in the long run, that this is a good thing. If you are at all unsure about what you want to do next and if you can afford it, I'd say take a month or two to figure out what you want. I did.

I was made redundant about 15 months ago - when the company I was working for blew its revenue projections (tech startups...a common experience). I knew it was coming about 3 days before (in the US, they tell you & then walk you out the door immediately, and now I've been on both sides of it) so we had time to do a quick financial analysis of and then I decided, stressed though I was about not earning, that I was going to do nothing for a month & think about things.

And it was really healthy for me, the best thing that could have happened, actually. Due to a change in childcare, I ended up being a SAHM for about 3 or 4 months, which was just long enough. I got the space I'd needed for a while to stop being burnt out and to realise that I needed a change of direction, and it was really good for my marriage & our family for one of us to slow down for a while. Good luck!

[Baggofbones]

J: now that is interesting. Do we really want to be liked by everyone? I certainly don't (though I did when I was at school!!)

Fear of failure is interesting as well. How would you (or anyone else) define failure (without it coming back to working/stay-at-home mothers)?

[stressedmummy]

Hi J - I'll be doing that as well, that'll cover the specifics. Wondered really whether anyone else had any general experiences to share!

[j]

Stressedmummy, sympathy but I would advise you to take advice relevant to your own skills and circumstances, which we dont know about. Is your employer offering any help with re-employment?

[j]

TS Mummy agree about louse thread, come on Caitlin I was thinking of something a lot more unsuitable.

If we want some more fun discussions then we really do have to stop attacking one another. Nobody is going to post anything at all personal or revealing in the current atmosphere. SM you could decide to help out here: you make good points and then you go and spoil it all by being deliberately simplistic and rude, it is such a pity.

I'd like a discussion on fear of failure and the desire to be liked by everyone and why we do it.

[stressedmummy]

Hi all, I am a FTWM (who has followed the whole thread, along with many others!) who is about to be made redundant, a victim of the credit crunch...any advice, anyone? There are a lot of good brains on this blog that I can see, and it feels like my own one is just not sufficient at the moment....this is not relevant to the original topic, and not to the discussion in hand, but not sure whether it's even possible to start a thread of my own...

[j]

Natasha, that wasnt me, I was quoting TS Mummy who has misread (as I thought) my reply to her post.

I never get to sit in Starbucks, I wish...

[Baggofbones]

I think the bashing works both ways. According to some people on this thread, I am - as a SAHM - thick, inane, dull, frivolous, a sexual play-thing (I ask you!!) and now a bully. Ho hum.

Why can't everyone just feel happy with their own choice (or resigned to the compromises they are forced to make - not every working mother wants to work, and not every SAHM wants to be a SAHM), rather than belittling others? I did find Supermother's list boring - but that's because this whole work/mummy discussion has become boring. A bit of humour really would not go amiss - and as I have said before, this blog is not just for working mothers: it is, it seems to me, for all mothers who are at least reasonably thoughtful and reasonably well educated. It doesn't have to be knickers that are up for discussion - it could be anything other than re-hashing the same old discussions/arguments that we'll never agree on anyway. If working mothers want a thread about asserting themselves, why not just start a separate one so they can advise one another? And no, I'm not getting at working mothers: if SAHMs want a thread in which they can tell one another how much happier they are as SAHMs than they were at work, then they could start one too. That way they could keep out of one another's hair, and we could all discuss something a bit more interesting. Potty training has come to seem like light relief compared to this worn-out discussion!

[Lazy Mummy]

One more thing I want to say. For me, every discussion doesn't have to be about work-life balance; that would be pointless too. I like the mix of some discussions being more focused on domestic issues (like potty training, which is where this one started & which was helpful to me, who has a nanny, but who chooses to work with my nanny rather than purely follow her lead on these issues) and some being more focused on work issues (though I think we could do with more real, meaty issues about work - like the salary questions & how to get equitable/better pay - rather than the moan-fest these things often, sadly, turn into).

Sometimes it's appropriate to focus one one type of issue rather than another, and while I appreciate & agree with many of SM's comments, it really isn't productive to always trot out "just delegate it to the nanny" since a) that's not the answer most people are looking for (even though, as someone who employs a nanny myself, I'm closer to that view than others) and b) it just turns everything into a pile-on instead of an intelligent conversation.

[Lazy Mummy]

I come to this blog to read & discuss issues about working, being a parent and things that affect how we bring up our children (and broader influences than just ourselves). Personally, I can't see the point of discussing knickers, unless it's in the context of "who are the freaks that encourage their 10-yr-old daughters to wear thongs and crop tops?" But I've always veered towards the serious, rather than the frivolous so I'm closer to TSM's views of where she wants to see the blog discussions go than to some other folks; it's also why I'm more inclined towards the "off-topic" discussions about politics or social issues rather than pubic hair or knickers or stupid, over-priced gear.

I liked SM's list of suggested blog topics & didn't think they'd all been done to death at all. We rarely discuss advising children on career choices, for instance, or how & when to start having "sex education" conversations with our children and issues like how to be assertive & ask for the appropriate pay rise or sell yourself if you're trying to make a career switch (industry or job type) or if you're coming back into the workforce after a break (especially as someone who's currently trying to make a career switch). All of these things would be interesting, productive, helpful discussions and would be far better than WM-vs-SAHM, especially since for most of us, as J & KM & others so presciently pointed out, the decision the stay home vs. work isn't a one-off one forever these days; it's constantly being revised.

TSM - I knew exactly what you meant about trying to work in the coffee shop; I sat outside gym class the other night trying to write a paper, only to be interrupted every 5 minutes with "Mummy I need help with the water fountain/my pants are falling down/did you see what I just did?". Somewhat productive, and some days, that's the best you can hope for.

[Emily]

SM and Theta Sigma - had you actually read my posts? I made very clear, and I quote, "different people make different choices and that if something works for them, than that's fine and not necessarily inferior to the way you choose to do it?" How you could possibly interpret that as working mum-bashing I don't know. SM - your comments are so cheap I don't know where to begin. Perhaps it is you who should stop being personally insulting. There was nothing wrong whatsoever with the list suggested by SM - in fact some were very interesting - but I was suggesting that we have a brief "brain in neutral" thread before getting onto meatier topics. And SM - some people don't classify work as the be all and end all. I've worked for an investment back (mergers and aquisitions), a laboratory working on an enzyme extracted from sea urchin eggs, at a magazine writing articles on travel, and finally the House of Commons. None of those jobs were anywhere near as interesting to me as my family, home and friends. We're different, but that doesn't mean that one of us is better, or more intelligent than the other.

[Theta Sigma Mummy]

Thanks for that Emily, you proved my point marvellously. I suggested downthread some of the issues that I as a working mother would really like to discuss on this site which was originally intended for working mothers. SM then added her own list, some of the things she suggested were interesting to me, some not (for a start I do not have never have had and never will have a nanny) - but these ideas were immediately shouted down as 'boring' (bagofbones obviously didn't take note of Dorothy Parker's well known saying which I quoted down thread - to SM, as it happens when she called being with children boring) and it was claimed we were 'all' fed up of anything that might possibly be of interest to full time working mothers.
As I said this blog is now full of bullies who want to restrict any and all discussion to either bashing SM (someone who I have actually disagreed with many times before and in this thread) or to in-the-home issues. Well, thats fine, a community is made up by the people in it and clearly the majority of people posting on this blog are only interested in bashing FTWM (and SM in particular) or in-the-home issues or the funny stuff. I don't think that was the original intention though and I'm not interested in reading it anymore because of this (well, and the bashing). I don't know if some of you make a habit of personally attacking people online but it's not something I want to read or participate in.

[supermother]

The topics I very helpfully mentioned are not boring at all if you're a working mother, far from it. Stay at home mothers who are sexy objects for their husbands obviously only get paid if they wear sexy knickers etc so I can see why that might be top of your list.

Perhaps people at home just get so dull - I have genuinely attended mothers' dinners of housewives where the conversation has literally been about washing powder. It's as if they enter a form of mental purdah with their boundaries limited by hearth and home which is may be why you need sites like this for working mothers and their concerns and then separates one for stay at home mothers or rather those whose interests have become purely domestic.

[Emily]

Theta Sigma the only smugness I've seen has been the snobbery of those such as SM who assume that all stay at home mothers are dim, boring and generally below the high-flyers who choose to work. The only reason I suggested a discussion on knickers was to try to calm the atmosphere - the main discussion for the past however-long has been very heated and I thought - apparently wrongly - that a frivolous discussion would be a nice change. Clearly my intellect does not match your own and I will now back away tugging on my forlock, ashamed at having had the temerity to have suggested such a thing.

[Theta Sigma Mummy]

They should rename it 'Alpha Mummy' the blog for stay at home mums who want to gang up on full time working mothers and reinforce their own sense of smug superiority while occasionally chatting about inanities. It would be a more truthful tagline for the way this blog has gone recently.

[Mary]

Well we all wear them don't we? Apart from those of us who have nannies to wear them for us of course.

[Emily]

Thank you Bagofbones - I was going to reply to ThetaSigma myself but gave up in a fit of depression over this whoe "alpha" thing!
Re knickers you can't go wrong with a good pair of lacy french knickers. Gives coverage whilst not revealing to the world your underwear choice through your skirt!

[Baggofbones]

So what did you think the point of Alpha Mummy was, theta sigma? Anything that's aimed at mothers who have, did have in the past, or might have jobs in the future is going to have very broad appeal - and why should that not include knickers? After all, this thread did start with Big Girl Knickers...

[Theta Sigma Mummy]

Natasha - nah, I was sitting with my lappy and a soya latte trying to prepare training material to an accompaniment of Bob Dylan in the coffee shop attached to our local arts cinema (which is currently showing I'm not there (or whatever it's called) )

I don't like Bob Dylan.

So, not my best couple of hours this week.

[natasha]

for a moment, J, I literally thought you had a job in the coffee shop and fitted it in around your children's hobbies!. family friendly employers Starbucks then?

" I have just spent two hours working in the coffee shop across the road from their theatre classes "

then i remembered this site was for "alpha" mummies, not those working mummies who really worked in coffee shops...

[Theta Sigma Mummy]

"How about - taking our lead from Caitlin's Sunday column - "Knickers - bigger is better - discuss"."

Sigh. You do that then. The whole point - well, what I thought was the whole point - of Alpha Mummy seems to have vanished.

[Baggofbones]

Emily - yes, yes, yes! Knickers is (are) great. And I'm definitely in the big brigade. There's nothing like a nice warm bottom in winter.

Supermother: that is just all the same old, boring old stuff that we're already fed up with. Sorry.

[Emily]

SM, people got into a tiz over this thread - how about something wonderfully frivolous for a change - instead of this terrible "alpha" mother nonsense. All mothers are wonderful in their own way, and are all doing the best they can, in the way they think fit. How about - taking our lead from Caitlin's Sunday column - "Knickers - bigger is better - discuss".

[supermother]

Change the topic of the louse thread then - we slightly got away on urine on this one reasonably successfully.
Issues relevant to alpha mothers (who hopefully have nannies who can delouse anyway)....

1. Business travel and managing a family
2. How much time children should have with one parent or the other (assuming there are two parents around) or neither.
3. Managing holidays and in particular things like childcare in holidays.
4. Managing alpha hours - 9 - 5 is not what a lot of alpha women work. Implications of bringing work home v presenteeism in the office, use of technologies to ensure you're always available 24/7 but can be in your house when that's more convenient.
5. Bit more on health, beauty, food (quick healthy food for busy alpha parents although a lot of women I know have a partner who cooks - seems to be a male trend to do all the cooking) sleep, exercise may be
6. How to help women (or indeed fathers with young children) in the office to get the right balance without imposing undue burdens on those who are childless by choice or even not choice.
7.Single parents of either sex
8. Advising children on careers and when to have their own children - okay probably only relevant to people like me with 3 at university but it will come up eventually for everyone.
9. How to be more assertive at work, how to get more pay, how to ask for more pay, how to shout about your worth and prove yourself in a way men tend to be better than women at (but not all - you can over generalise those things)
10. Hormones and work from babyhood to menopause, effect of testosterone, HRT etc... enjoying reading "The Female Brain" at the moment.

Just a few random ideas.

[Theta Sigma Mummy]

Have you seen the latest thread on delousing? Not really what I was hoping for.

[mumoftwo]

I also think it reflects a lack of juicy posts to post on, familiarity breeding contempt and all that. New threads, which prompt us all to start another debate afresh would help!

[WendyV]

Point taken. Let's move on. But what's encouraging is that when I first came across this blog back in the spring, discussion was pretty much dominated by Supermother and Jane, with little else between. I'd have a look from time to time, scratch my head at the rather extreme views, and go away again. It's good that there's a broader range of opinions now. I don't feel so lonely in being a "moderate"!

[Baggofbones]

Annamac: same here. It's like being run over by a steamroller.

I give up.

[Mary]

Oh yes please, I second that. This is so boring. Debate/discussion yes absolutely, but this constant dragging of topics back to "My way is right, your way is wrong" is unbearable.

[Emily]

People are really getting very het up about this! Can't we all agree that different people make different choices and that if something works for them, than that's fine and not necessarily inferior to the way you choose to do it?

[Annamac]

OK, Supermother, you have managed to convince me that there is no point whatsoever in my contributions to this site. You wilfully read sexist content into my posts where there is none. Perhaps this is my fault for not prefacing my every statement with a great long spiel about my background and exact circumstances, but actually, I think you do everybody a disservice in constantly assuming that noone knows how to run their life along non-sexist lines except you. I know that there are lesbian couples with children where one woman is a sight more gifted at sewing and arts and crafts than the other. And one is better at using power tools than the other. So do you force the one who is not very good with an electric drill to put up shelves, just to prove a point? For goodness sake, stop reducing every last damn thing to a gender issue. It might be true in your life, but it certainly isn't in mine.

[supermother]

Men are as good as women at drumming up costumes if allowed to do it without derision. There is a huge issue in some homes over women enjoying telling men they are incompetent at things even nappy changing which results in a blow to women in a sense because if he's derided he's not going to feel confident in his competence.

On schools, the boys prep school model is the pre-prep bit and then you turn 7 and go into the juniors it or whatever they call it and then up to the "senior" bit of the prep school to age 12/13. I know my ex hsuband who teaches in that sector like that - boys mature later than girls and to be a 12 or 13 year old boy and important in the top class is actually great for their self confidnece rather than being a tiny new young minion of 10 or 11 in a huge new secondary school. Then you change schools at 13. I like that system for boys.

Girls ours went to schools that ran from 5/7 up to 18 with moving to the senior part at 11.

[j]

we had three tier which changed just after my eldest went up. It was great for him as he was ready at 9, but I was very glad my younger ones didnt need to leave their cosy nest until 11. Transition seems to be hardest though, as little first schools have to adapt to becoming full primaries and handling the Y5 and Y6 kids. Only downside was that the middle school was great of its type, but unable to handle a very precocious scientist geek 9 year old, as the science teachers werent as qualified as they might have been if they had to do 6th form as well.

[Kieransmum]

OK J and others, you're quite right, I'll ignore this thread and come and post on the saucy cake thread!

[Wendy V]

Sorry for the repeat post, and just seen your other comment about 3-tier Annamac. We moved into a 3-tier system when my daughters were 11 - we'd had enough of London and felt they'd be swamped in a big London comp. It suited them to be at middle school till 13 and they loved high school. I just don't know if that will suit my son. With changes afoot I might not have a choice, anyway.

[Wendy V]

Annamac, we have a 3-tier system, currently under threat. Not sure what I think about that, having seen the pros and cons of both 2- and 3-tier at various times and in various places. Do you have a preference? Thinking back, my daughters changed schools 5 times (including nursery school) due to moves, school reorganisations etc, and did very well regardless. But I'd like my son (at primary, due to switch at 9) to have more continuity. But really, I just want good, happy schools, of whatever type.

I agree about the time-tabling thing. When I was a governor at a London primary we asked for the annual calendar to be set at the start of the school year and it was welcomed by everyone. But at my son's school there's not that much notice. Lots of teachers are also parents, and must know how irritating it is to have key dates sprung on them last minute. I'm also critical of "sharing assemblies" that go on for hours. Limit it to 30 minutes for heaven's sake! We all have lives! And if it's tedious for me, how is it for the kids getting numb behinds from the hard floor.

As for the blog generally, I don't like the label "alpha" anything, but am nonetheless glad to see articulate debate among women on just about any subject, parenting included. It's a cut above what I've found elsewhere in cyberspace, and I'm glad more women are finding it and putting in their two-penn'orth.

[Wendy V]

Annamac, we have a 3-tier system, currently under threat. Not sure what I think about that, having seen the pros and cons of both 2- and 3-tier at various times and in various places. Do you have a preference? Thinking back, my daughters changed schools 5 times (including nursery school) due to moves, school reorganisations etc, and did very well regardless. But I'd like my son (at primary, due to switch at 9) to have more continuity. But really, I just want good, happy schools, of whatever type.

I agree about the time-tabling thing. When I was a governor at a London primary we asked for the annual calendar to be set at the start of the school year and it was welcomed by everyone. But at my son's school there's not that much notice. Lots of teachers are also parents, and must know how irritating it is to have key dates sprung on them last minute. I'm also critical of "sharing assemblies" that go on for hours. Limit it to 30 minutes for heaven's sake! We all have lives! And if it's tedious for me, how is it for the kids getting numb behinds from the hard floor.

As for the blog generally, I don't like the label "alpha" anything, but am nonetheless glad to see articulate debate among women on just about any subject, parenting included. It's a cut above what I've found elsewhere in cyberspace, and I'm glad more women are finding it and putting in their two-penn'orth.

[Annamac]

SM, I am already chortling at the thought of the costume my husband and son will come up with for "Disney character day" (no, I don't know what is educational about it either). J, I was merely wondering how common the first/middle/upper school system is around the UK. I have found it to be a great boon for my daughter to change schools after year 4, as she is rising to the challenge of a more "grown-up" environment at middle school (and the school is also more organised - no more last-minute arrangements) and is suddenly enthusiastic about school. I am so glad she did not have to stay in a primary school until year 6.

[supermother]

And these must never be women's issues. It was always as likely that my children's father made the roman costume out the bin bag (or raided his school's collection of clothes) for something. Equality in all things particularly the small things. In fact perhaps the best advice is have a late "meeting" (i.e. reading a novel in the office) the night before complex costumes are due so the father and child can bond over that particular kind of stress.

[J]

asked my childminder about this tonight- she's been a classroom assistant for 20 years and is now a governor.

She says there is no good reason and it drives the staff crackers as well.

Annamac, yes, did 3-tier with my eldest- why?

[Annamac]

When my older child was at first school (anybody else here with children going through a 3-tier system??), I was amazed at how much time other parents (yes, usually mothers) spent in school. In fact, I had to put up with a fair bit of whinging from my daughter about how I was a rubbish mother because I didn't come into school every week to help with reading, craft activities etc. I just kept explaining that I worked during school hours and that other mothers didn't (or had more understanding employers - I'm my own employer and not very understanding at all :-)). I put in a fair amount of time taking my children to swimming and music lessons and various clubs and encouraging them in various ways. I sometimes got the feeling that the school's expectations of how much spare time parents have far exceeded most people's reality. Bit odd, really.

[J]

"on costumes my approach is to recognise that my kids will need some support in their hobbies"

I do support my children in their hobbies. I have just spent two hours working in the coffee shop across the road from their theatre classes - well, a bit of working (in the hour in the middle that all 3 of them were in classes and a bit of mummy time (in the half hours at the beginning and end where the classes didn't overlap). I also spend a lot of time on my oldest daughter's music. The costumes I was talking about are the ones for 'history' days or similar where they are told at very short notice to turn up at school looking like an ancient greek or a victorian or somesuch."

Thetathingy, but we agree. What I said was, if she really cares about it, OK, Otherwise stuff it.

Mystified - did you not read to the end or something?

[Kim]

I'm fairly lucky in that my daughter's school does tend to give reasonable notice of events, gives you a choice of afternoon or evening for the parents' consultation, and has very low expectations of what parents can do in terms of costumes. We are very rarely asked to provide our own costumes - usually the school provides them. The last time we had to do anything was come dressed as a character for World Book Day, which wasn't too onerous.

I have friends whose kid go to schools that are a bit more demanding in terms of costumes, and the top tip from them is simply to borrow a costume from someone whose kid did the Victorian Day or whatever the year before. If you're organised enough, you can create a pool of costumes for repeated use.

[Jane]

"the ones for 'history' days or similar where they are told at very short notice to turn up at school looking like an ancient greek or a victorian or somesuch."

Have you noticed they always seem to be in winter? Makes it even trickier. It's essential to have some good charity shops at close hand - amazing what you can find there for instant costumes!

O - yup, nothing like a bunch of women for having a bitch-fest whenever we hit each other's 'bottom lines'! If anyone ever bothers to archive this blog, it will provide fascinating source material for a future thesis on 'Childcare in the Noughties'

[supermother]

I suspect when you get to child 5 like me you're a bit less bothered about whether their costume is the best in the class or not than if they're the first precious little darling. However what matters is what is important to the child. Mine have very low expectations of what they'll get from me in terms of sewing but we can usually rustle something up out of a black sack.

The comment below about primary and secondary schools is right - I found it much easier at secondary level for the older 3 as by then a lot more mother work or parents have split up. Even now if I can't do a parents' evening slot they give me another one - I always say why - I'm flying to XYZ or whatever because I think it's important they know women work and it's not that I'm out getting my nails done. A good few of their prep school teachers if they are the older ones are mothers who work anyway so they know how it is.

Issues on work and home are very relevant to a working mothers discussion area. Also single parent issues - I know a good few single parents of either sex, some widowed and some divorced in reasonably alpha jobs who work full time - that itself brings it's own special issues particularly if it is 100% single. My sister chose to have her children without a man (IVF) and she works.

[Theta Sigma Mummy]

"on costumes my approach is to recognise that my kids will need some support in their hobbies"

I do support my children in their hobbies. I have just spent two hours working in the coffee shop across the road from their theatre classes - well, a bit of working (in the hour in the middle that all 3 of them were in classes and a bit of mummy time (in the half hours at the beginning and end where the classes didn't overlap). I also spend a lot of time on my oldest daughter's music. The costumes I was talking about are the ones for 'history' days or similar where they are told at very short notice to turn up at school looking like an ancient greek or a victorian or somesuch.

[O]

Whoa! Just read this thread. I thought the blog name "Alpha Mummy" was intended to be ironic not a springboard for testy debate on what constitutes "Alpha Status".

[j]

on costumes my approach is to recognise that my kids will need some support in their hobbies- I cant always refuse to take them to lessons, introduce them to new activities, etc. So if acting really matters to your kid, that's where some of that commitment would go. if not, then they get to wear a pair of tights knotted round a teatowel and be a shepherd, as I had to at their age (FTM but didnt do costumes either). My kids' primary took a mercifully sloppy attitude to the standard of costumes, thankfully. Poorer kids may (or may not) have more mummy time at home but they dont have cash for material or space for sewing rooms, so competitive costuming was never on the cards.

[j]

Thetasigmamummy,

What I do know is that all three secondary schools my kids attend publish a diary for a full year in advance.

The primary school struggled to know what they were doing the following week.

There seems to be no essential difference in planning for big kids and planning for little ones, so it must be possible. So perhaps the thing is to get a sensible governor to deal with it for you. My tip would be the staff governor, not the parent governor, as s/he presumably works and is a bit less smug, plus I assume it is just as annoying for the staff to have this kind of last-minute disruption. Either that, or bring it up in the OFSTED inspection feedback questionnaire.

On parents' "evenings" at 10am, I ask for a separate appointment and I always get one if I ask nicely- I pick a day when I can be there at 8.30am or something. Again, secondary schools are more clued up and offer evening slots anyway.

[Tamsin]

I find that reading the discussions on AlphaMummy helps me to be more well balanced in the real world.

I'm better able to put into words why I choose to work and I also am better able to understand those who don't. Its like a virtual therapy session of sorts. The extremes of views (and really we're not too far apart generally) are the best bit, they test my own views and mean that I feel that I have discussed the issues in some way. I don't want to argue/discuss with my girlfriends (who are definately of the Dirty Mummy variety), I want to get drunk and have a laugh with them.

When the younger girls at work ask what it is like to get married (how do you know he's the one?), get pregnant (what does it feel like?), get into work at 7am (how do you do it?), how you juggle your family life? (and this is the best from a 22 year old office temp - 'but when I get home from work I am so tired that I don't have the energy to apply for any permanent jobs so I don't think I will be extending my contract'!!!!!) I hope that I am able to provide them a more balanced view as a result of the discussion here.

[mumoftwo]

I would also welcome some more threads on the challenges of combining motherhood and working (in whatever form people choose to understand working, from courses, to writing books, to running businesses from home, to corporate jobs):for example, lots of people here work from home, perhaps having done the commuting thing and find home-working much more family friendly. However, I am absolutely rubbish at working from home, I associate home with relaxation and tend to be less switched on if I do work from home, plus I'm terrible at not intefering when screams erupt from downstairs...it would be great to discuss how people manage/what people prefer. I totally agree about the costume thing, schools sometimes don't make being a working parent easy (e.g. my daughter brought home a note on a Friday saying her slot to discuss her progress was 11.30am the following Monday and there were no slots prior to 9 or after midday! So in other words, take a morning off at short notice to hear how your child is doing or else!) Basically the school policy on costumes amounts to carry a fairy outfit at all times or your child will be a social reject. Another interesting topic might be about how you do present years off/time off having kids if you want to re-enter the workplace, are you upfront or do you just mumble in the interview? I love Caitlin's stuff and the fun stuff, I just would like more stuff about, you know, working!

[supermother]

I suppose the freedom of internet probably means you could take any topic and then divert it to those we think more appropriate to alpha mothers....

On the subject of dates my life is similar. Once a work date is in the diary I wouldn't change it. I've things book in December 2008 for example. But I delight in never making a school costume. Some alpha mothers really go to town on those things and feel they have to be uber at everything. I prefer to let others show off their dressmaking talents.

[Annamac]

Theta Sigma Mummy - quite agree. Despite the fact that I work for myself, sometimes when deadlines for clients are looming I absolutely can't take time off to go and source the bits for a Celtic warrior's costume at short notice. What really cheesed me off was that they set that one as the homework for a class of 8 and 9 year olds. Yeah, right.

[Jane]

I'm feeling excessively smug.I've just discovered who SM really is - and without googling a thing.

She is DEFINITELY Carol Sarler!

"Babies, infants and toddlers create unbearably hard work - far harder than, say, taking executive decisions in air-conditioned offices - and nobody in their right mind would opt to do it."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3155569.ece

[Theta Sigma Mummy]

SM said: "perhaps we could do with a few more which are about alpha mother issues like choosing schools, choosing men even..., career advancement, setting up businesses whilst having children"

I totally agree. It was what I thought it 'said on the tine' when Alpha Mummy began. I'm more than happy to read Caitlin's tales of the Dirty Mummies though - in fact, they are definitely the best bit of the blog. I'm sure there are similar groups of women at my childrens' school too - but sadly I wouldn't be cool enough to join. Hence my vicarious enjoyment reading Caitlin's posts.

I'd also welcome threads on things like business travel - how do you cope when you are in Luxembourg (as I was recently) and the school office phones you on your mobile to tell you your child is sick and they can't reach your husband/partner on his mobile?

Or - and this is a particular bug bear of mine - when the school gives you only a couple of week's notice of a concert/swimming gala/sports day/play/parents' evening? I don't know about the other working mothers here but my schedule is already filling up for next June. Now - I'm a director. I decide my own appointmets within reason - I have to go to Prague for a couple of days in June, and the date is my choice - the other participants in the meeting will have to fit in with me, that's how it works. But, once that date is set (by me) it's set. so if the school decides to plonk a sports day on the date I picked, or a concert or something, then I'm stuffed. I have raised this issue with the school several times, with varying levels of relaxedness/annoyance - after all, is it totally beyond their wit to determine a programme at the start of the year and then stick with it?! When I raised the issue with the mother of my daughter's best friend, who was at that time the parent governor, I was told 'well, you choose to work'. I nearly punched her. The same attitude prevails with class projects - particularly if they involve buying/making a costume of some kind. They tell you on a Monday when it needs to be in school by the Thursday. What's that all about? Do these people not realise that people have jobs which can preclude them shopping for costume essentials during the working week?

I appreciate that the vast majority of posters here probably don't have issues like this because they work either part time or for themselves but these are real issues for many working mothers and I think they are the sort of issues we should be looking at here.

[Jane]

"that fake kind of smarmy deceptive female way avoiding all aggression"

Phew, none of that around here, is there?!

[supermother]

Obviously I agree with mumof2.
Find me another place on line where women work full time in normal proper jobs like many women do and where others accept that can be best for the children, better than a stay at home parent. There aren't such places but this could be it. On the other hand I would hate a place where people felt unable to give contrary views. But there are a huge load of successful professional women on this planet who like mumof2 and I do enjoy and want to work and don't think our working is bad for the child or second best in terms of parenting in any way. And indeed as the views are so often given I think it's always a good idea to post all the advantages of women working to their children rather than the negatives the sexist press spews out day after day presumably because that keeps their non working mother readership happy.

In fact most threads are nothing to do with this - they're about other issues alpha mothers have - although perhaps we could do with a few more which are about alpha mother issues like choosing schools, choosing men even..., career advancement, setting up businesses whilst having children, how to pick the best nanny, how to keep staff.

Women should not be frightened of debate. I cannot stand that breed of pathetic creature who wants everyone to be nice as pie and says to her best friends (lying through her teeth) how lovely she looks, how good everything is in that fake kind of smarmy deceptive female way avoiding all aggression or assertion at all times. We certainly don't want a cosy club of people patting each other on the back all the time saying aren't you doing well.

To end... I am delighted my nanny did the potty training and I followed her plans and lead for the weekends and holidays. Both nannies who did it did it very well and I don't feel I missed all those 9 - 5 occasions when I might have had the privilege to wipe up urine believe it or not...

[Mary]

"Alpha Mummy is the new blog for mums who work, used to work, or want to go back to work one day"

A blog for mums who work apart from their childcare? Where did that come from?

I really liked the idea of Alpha Mummy because it sounded like it would be intelligent, thought provoking, maybe amusing and, er, friendly. What I didn't expect was endless bashing of SAH mothers by 'career women' or the reverse, nor endless discussion on the meaning of 'Alpha', nor suggestions that people who aren't currently earning money (or much money) shouldn't be on the blog.

It seems as though virtually everybody on here has some sort of flexible arrangement (apart from SM obviously, but I'm convinced that she doesn't really exist). This 'discussion' just seems a bit 1980s. Is there a blog for women who don't want to spend their time scoring points off each other? Maybe I'm just feeling jaded today; I'm off to play Club Penguin.

[mumoftwo]

Kieransmum, I know how you feel. You come on here because this is a blog for mums who work apart from their childcare (Yes, Jane, we know child-care is work, but this isn't a stay-at-home 24/7 blog) precisely because you don't want to have to constantly justify being a working mum and (hush, hush) you probably like working and like hanging out with other people who do to!

Personally, I often agree with a lot of what SM is saying, if not her manner. Women's presence in the visible, top-tier workforce is a political issue; as Hillary Clinton says, she didn't get where she is by baking cookies and who's to say her daughter is more or less well-adjusted than any other child you care to mention. I also agree with her about questioning some of the assumptions that I myself had when I was a SAHM, it's a horrible shock to learn that you are actually not the centre of your child's existence (they like other people too) and that they do just fine with a combination of stable, loving carers (whether this be a great nanny or an extended family) and you there for a good proportion of the time. I also agree with her questioning the role of men in our society; things are far from equal when it comes to who is handing out the housework and the caring responsibilities for elderly parents/going to the dentist/ all those myriad of little things which have to be done but mysteriously many men would never dream of doing it. Sometimes on here I feel like we are reliving the 70's with SM as Germaine Greer with a chorus shouting 'no, I really do like dusting' on the sidelines.

I actually like working, I don't just do it for economic reasons, I do it precisely because I am highly-educated, and whilst I enjoyed staying at home for a while, I enjoy being out in the work-place more and using my intelligence and people skills in that capacity. I actually think it would be a waste, for both me personally, and for the taxpayer to have funded my extensive higher education not to use it directly. I also enjoy setting an example to my children in showing them different ways of being a mum, I adore my time with them (which, if you count up the hours is pretty much the same as the 9-5, so it's a 50%/50% split of my time) but see that what they lose with not having me home all day, they gain in other ways (they have a much stronger relationship with their dad, their granny than if I was constantly present). I do question her devotion to money and the need to define what is alpha, but that is par for the course in a discussion blog.

Anyway, Kieransmum, do what I do when I'm fed up here, have some fun on the other posts, leave the blog for a week, do something else, then come back when you are in the mood and the topic has changed!

[Lazy Mummy]

Ah, well, it would be nice if we could switch sometime because I'm interrupted the second I try to play the piano by my little helper (and only allowed to play Wheels on the Bus). Though in the long run, I'm hoping it'll be worth it as it indicates she may have inherited the family trait for being musical.

SM makes another good point - I only have one running around and now I think of how much more chaotic it gets as soon as there's one extra child here to play, I realise I'm forgetting that many people have that noise level all day.

[Baggofbones]

Lazy Mummy: tragically, I didn't make it up.

But you are right: it's not all panic, panic, panic. My children are now well trained enough not to disturb while I'm playing the piano - just not well trained enough to let me ring anyone up. But hey, I'd rather play the piano than make phone calls!

[Jane]

"It's time to call for flexible, civilised hours & options for MEN as well as women, otherwise you're being unreconstructedly sexist and have no right to call for flexible hours and support for family life at all."

Yes, I've said this repeatedly in a variety of posts here. And, to her credit, SM reminds us too that children have two parents.

[supermother]

They often stay at home because they could never cut it at work anyway so of course they aren't as good at home or at organising things at home as a working mother would be thus they have less time and it's more frantic might be one line of argument.

But a more honest answer is it depends on the child and its age. When we had 3 under 4 it was very hard looking after them at weekends particularly when one of us only was on hand. One child is completely different.

It';s this time issue which is fascinating because clearly there does need to be some limit. If I had 24/7 nannies and sent them to board at age 7 then I agree that is not much parent/child interaction and most parents would not want that. Or even 24/7 father child contact but mother always away. I don't think it matters hugely to the child who is doing the care as long as it is known loving adults and there is a pattern to it. Children hate change. All parents work out there own balance but I think most of us probably want at least one parent to be around most evenings because children are fun anyway so you find most couples where both work keen to be back from work at a reasonable hour. I don't think I would have liked us both say to work away in the week every week and just see them at weekends (I liked breastfeeding too much to do that). So where do I draw my own line? I certainly left on time when I didn't work for myself and I had small children at home, most days in most weeks. So that must be where I drew the line and their father would be home in the evening most days too or if he was out I was in. That's fairly standard. The nanny goes at her set hour of 6 or 6.30 and then the parents take over and if you have non sleepers like we did that probably means you're up to 10 or later with the baby/toddler etc. Never mind breastfeeding every few hours all night. So I would feel I had been in fairly continuous physical contact with the children for a large part of every day except the hours I was out at work.

But some parents will have a different threshold - they want mother and baby touching 24/7. My sister slept with hers. She would be appalled at people even stay at home mothers who have a forcible and unnatural separation during 12 hours of a night. People think that alone can be seriously damaging.

[Jane]

Can we just sort out a definition please. The only non-working mother is one who stays at home AND has a full time nanny/nannies to do the childcare while she shops and lunches.

Otherwise, a SAHM raising her own children is a working mother - she just happens to be paid by her husband/children's father, that's all. Her WORK is childraising and housekeeping.

Now, some will say that such work is demeaning, boring and unworthy of her skills, and should best be left to someone who either doesn't find it boring or is in no financial position to care that it is demeaning and unworthy. But that is not to say that child-raising and house-keeping is not work.

Let's just keep this in mind, shall we?

[Lazy Mummy]

One more thing and then I'll shut up.

J - spot on as usual, and you just earned my undying respect by your use of one of my favourite words, "minions" (insert "BWAHAHAHA" here).

[Lazy Mummy]

Sorry - instead of saying "some of the SAHMs" what I meant was "some of the people when talking about being at home with the children" because we all have those moments at home and while there are the times when kids destroy everything, I don't think they're incessant. Or maybe I just got lucky?

[Lazy Mummy]

Bagofbones, I think you made up that last comment!

There's one other thing that's bugging me about this discussion; it's the way some of the SAHMs talk about being home like it's all crisis, crisis, crisis, you don't get a moment to yourself. Well, when I was between jobs and home with the little one last year for a while, I didn't have that experience. Sure, there were harried moments with incessant demands, but there were also lots of periods of calm, quiet, etc, and I certainly had enough time to not only talk to friends on the phone, but also my mother, and do job interviews. We do ourselves a disservice when we go on about how difficult it is to manage all the time - even in jest! We're (mostly) not that crap but if we say we are, it'll become a self-perpetuating myth.

[Baggofbones]

As our family earnings evidently disqualify us from Alpha status, I shall go with the tights idea. Why have I never thought of it?

It does remind me that I went out for a pizza at Christmas with the children and my parents. My mother complimented me on my lovely dotty scarf - which was in fact my daughter's spare tights which wouldn't fit into my pocket. As I say, definitely not Alpha!

[Annamac]

Or the cut-price hands-free approach, which is wearing a pair of the baby's tights on your head to hold the cordless phone in place.

[J]

"(Attempted) telephone conversations are an automatic cue for a bottom that needs wiping, or for one sibling to thump another. "

Bagofbones, that is why they created bluetooth handsfree sets for your mobile. Forget driving, it is for staying sane :)

[Baggofbones]

What SAHM ever gets to chat to a friend on the phone?! (Attempted) telephone conversations are an automatic cue for a bottom that needs wiping, or for one sibling to thump another. Has Supermother's nanny not told her that?

[supermother]

There are a bit too many comments to answer there but the essential difference bteween some of us seems to be some working parents, male and female think they can be good loving involved parents who take seriously the role of brining up a child and work full time. And others presumably mostly stay at home mothers think that that is not proper parenting and that a mother usually (you rarely see any criticism of fathers who work full time on here because these mothers are so inherently sexist) should be at home.

The joke over what is an alpha male or woman in 2008 is not a serious thing but obviously it means the man and woman earn a lot and have children ideally and an interesting life and reasonably high profile. Clearly most people won't be alpha because they won't have the IQ, looks and all the other rubbish that makes you so.

Yes, this was for working mothers unlike many other places on line where women who believe women can and should work and their children do as well if not better than if the mother was there 24/7 with the under 5s.

But the important point isn't the alpha one - it's whether a parent, male or female is not doing a proper job as a parent if they don't give up work or rather (as many wives of rich men give up work and have nannies etc) I mean give up work and do a certain number of hours of childcare a day to meet the stay at home mothers' threshold for timing their box as proper parent. I suppose you'd need a video cam on them too because I was reading about Ms Spears, sadly in the US, and the observations on her one to one parenting don't involve that much child interaction. You can be with a child but hardly give it a second glance as you chat to your friend on the phone. So to test the amount of time to be spent to qualify for your certificate as proper parent I suppose we'd need cameras trained on them..... which shows it's a pretty silly argument. Fathers and mothers who work also devote a lot of time and love to their children and most parents of under 5s choose to work in the UK anyway and their children are fine.

[J]

At the end of 15 years of complicated parenting of 3 kids I have done it all- 7 years FTM, years with a nanny, years flexibly at home, years commuting to London some days and at home others, years using nurseries. Now finally full time at work locally with both of us 10 minutes walk from work, sharing child illness, holiday etc and a wonderful classroom assistant working as my out of hours childcare at my house till I get in at 6pm.

Guess what? It all worked in its own way and it all had pros and cons. And despite SM's fears, I still have a scary senior job with lots of minions to oppress. I am about 10 years older in this job than I would have been if I'd gone straight at it with no kids- which means I am 10 years more sensible at it. Big deal, I enjoyed the last 15 years and I'm not dead yet.

Guys, relax, in my book an alpha mummy is someone who cares deeply about being a good mother, and we all find our own way there.

[Eleanor]

I didn't mean to disparage all nannies, I know there are some who really are good, I was jaded by my experiences as an agency nanny , both of the agency and the expectations of the parents - as in 'deal with the child, it's mucky/upset/I'm tired' and parents of large families who mostly wanted to only eat dinner with the kids.

It was a massive generalisation, so I hope no one holds it against me.

[Lazy Mummy]

Noooo! KM, please don't go!!! I second what J says (the cake is unbelievable).

I'm tired of this same old argument too, but I've always valued your comments & perspective and will be sad if you leave.

(Eleanor, fwiw, I'm about 10 yrs older than you and my husband & I share all childrearing responsibilities equally, as do all our friends - but we're in the US where these things are more equal among professionals than they are in the UK, it seems. It's possible to do it; you just have to a) be strong and b) make sure you choose a partner with the right values).

[Annamac]

I think I posted something along these lines earlier in this thread: "Flexible working will have to become commonplace if people are to retain their sanity." That was in amongst a pile of other gubbins about my personal situation, but _people_, pls. note, not _women_. Frankly, I think people here are on a bit of a hiding to nothing trying to force their attitudes about work, parenting, whatever onto other people. I personally do what I do because it works for me and my family. I know that my system/attitudes/way of life just won't work for lots of other people - but that really doesn't bother me a jot. Live and let live - as long as we all have relative freedom to choose how we do things, why get so hot under the collar about it? I just like sharing ideas and finding out about other people, that's why I'm reading this site. I wouldn't want - at the moment - to be doing anything other than working from home. Technology has made it possible for me (and many, if not most, other people who work in the same field) to work from wherever we want to, whenever we want to. It's creative, intellectually demanding work. My husband does the same job and we share most stuff, workwise and and on the domestic front, except for the cooking (because he has certain, er, limitations in that area). This arrangement suits us whilst we still have a pre-schooler, but I intend to do (another) postgraduate qualification over the next couple of years and go back to working outside the home in my mid or late 40s (having given him some cookery lessons and a really loud alarm clock). This assumes that we don't experience any "life events" that put a spanner in the works. If we do, I'll change my working arrangements to suit (go back to one of the other jobs I'm qualified for, maybe). I try to be flexible in my approach to work, I find it causes me less stress. But then I work to live, not to prove a point - or to prove myself. My particular circumstances allow me to do what I do - change one or two variables and I would have to do things a whole different way. I feel that life is too short to beat myself (or anyone else) up about my/their career choices.

[Lazy Mummy]

Eleanor,

Great comments. I applaud you for deciding to have children sooner rather than later (wish I'd done that, in retrospect).

But you are being a bit snobbish about nannies. I've hired two, both incredibly intelligent, educated & professional; one with decades of experience (had run daycares & preschools); the other a recent college grad who wants to be a teacher but wanted to get experience with a different age group first.

In my experience, you can find brilliant, dedicated nannies if you know what you want & interview well. A nanny-parent relationship is a partnership, you want reciprocal views, and frankly, it's good for children to get different perspectives, not be with one parent all the time (and it's good for the parent too, it's isolating to be home with a child all the time). Even if you decide to be a SAHM while the kids are little, you might want a part-time nanny to give you some freedom (or a creche or something).

[J]

Hey KM you cant sign off just as we are starting to build a community. I was so touched by your comments and the others about what a nice group this has been.

Its only a SM supernova moment, they come and go.

Let's all go and post rude things on the cake thread instead. Come on Caitlin, post us something saucy, we need a break.

[Eleanor]

Also re Theta Sigma mummy, I feel that couples my age generally do want to share child rearing, and applaud those men willing to push for their right to family life.

It's all about the personal choice! Surely those of us who come on this blog should be supporting the views of other intelligent women, who actually give thought to child rearing?

Theta Sigma Mummy, I share your frustration about the dogmatic dominant discourse in play here. and I would like to apologise if my light-hearted comment about leisure to play on the Internet made you angry or suggested to you that I am smug.

I am not, and actually I suspect very few SAHMs are. We have too much difficulty with other stuff, like retaining our self-