Is it so wrong for Rachida Dati to go back to work five days after having a baby?

French Justice Minister Rachida Dati’s new baby girl, were she conscious enough to notice, would feel like the most important infant in France. First there was the speculation as to who little Zohra’s father was, and now, amazement and scorn poured on her mother for her decision to return to work five days after her birth.

Under French law, Ms Dati would have been entitled to 16 weeks maternity leave but she decided to skip it to return to the office, prompting a flurry speculative articles on her reasoning.

But why is this personal choice so shocking to us? Would we be so interested if a male counterpart were to do the same thing? Why is it so terrifying for us that a woman could take her (very important) job so seriously?

Admittedly, a lot of women would rather saw their right arm off than leave their child five days after birth but no doubt, as a government minister, Ms Dati is capable of seeking out and paying for adequate childcare, while her colleagues will be sympathetic to her circumstances.

University of Kent Professor Frank Furedi, discussed this in an article about Sarah Palin, who chose to go back to work three days after the birth of her son Trig, saying: "When did the aspiration to combine motherhood with a successful career become a focus for the hatred of so-called progressives and feminists?"

Are public figures' maternity leave decisions fair game for comment? Should we care how long anyone takes off after giving birth? We would be interested to know your thoughts.

Posted by Corinne Abrams

Comments

[jac]

Diana
People are being invited to express views on Dati's return to work, therefore there will be those who regard this as a selfish and uncaring decision. Times online will be delighted by this debate because the more comments, the better the hits on the site and therefore the more potential ad revenues. That is why they have found another way to highlight this particularly active debate.

I just think society is being driven towards a situation where it is virtually impossible to stay at home if you are a parent. I agree with Don, that it is just fact that children - particularly infants - need their parents around them not 'cargivers' as 'caregivers' are not their parents. It seems weird to explain this in a civilised society. This does not mean there are not bad parents. But parents who disregard the emotional needs of the child (I get really depressed when I hear people constantly talk about Dati's 'rights' as if she were the child and not her baby (and goodness knows where the father is)) in order to return to work days after they have given birth are cold and uncaring.

We used to send children up chimneys and undoubtedlty people thought that was perfectly appropriate too. If children have no needs that differentiate them from adults, well why not send them to work as soon as they are walking?

[Diana]

5 days is too early. Most people will not care for a baby before 6wks. I know this b/c I looked into care for my first child. I could "hack it" in the working world but baby required unexpected surgery and was in the hospital for a month, on meds for 6 months. No question of what to do, I walked away from the career. I have since had another baby (healthy) and know from the vastly different experiences b/w them that those early weeks are important to bond with baby. To leave a baby at 5 days speaks volumes of where the mother's priorities are....not in the right place. She could stay with the baby longer and resume her career in a few short but very important weeks. The reason people don't say the same for men is b/c of simple biology. The woman carries the baby not the man. Look to animals in the wild. They don't leave their babies at 5 days old. By the way, being at home has been more difficult than negotiating contracts in my former career. I am proud to be a STAM but would never put those down who aren't. When one puts another down for their choices it tells those around you that YOU are the one with the problem not the one you judge.

[Ricky Dati]

Well I can confirm that Rachida Dati really is a MILF. But does that give her the right to stay off work for such a short time?

[Don]

//This blog seems to have become a place where people post comments solely to berate working mums.//

Nonsense! If you care to take more than a passing glance at the posts in this blog....you'll see that all manner of differing views are expressed.

[Don]

Excellent comments EXPAT. I agree entirely.

NB. As a general comment I would just add that this, as I understand, is NOT a debate about FTWM or SAHM. It is merely whether or not Ms Dati should go back to work so after 5 days.

Off course, she is free to do as she pleases in a free society. However in choosing to go back so early, I personally think she's bonkers....and therefore shouldn't.

[Nicola]

I am a University student studying early childhood studies, so this is very interesting. My mother finished work, and just looked after myself and my younger brother, and was very depressed. She had post natal depression, which never got fixed, and she then got clinical depression, which she still has, I am 30 and my brother is 29. When we were older, she did work for a time, but had to stop due to arthuritis. Working did not improve her depression. However, she did not want children in the first place, so it didn't really make an awful lot of difference to us wether she worked or not. My own personal view on this issue is that I think it is every woman's right to choose wether or not to work. I know some women don't have a choice, they have to go back to work, but I do think that going back to work after 5 days is ridiculous. Mum and baby need at least the first few months together to bond. When I have children (which I haven't yet) I would like to stay at home with them and possibly home school them too.These are my own opinions, and I respect the right of everyone to have an opinion, and to express it, even if I don't agree with it. Please be considerate and do the same with mine. Thank you!

[ExPat]

I disagree that all working mothers are being berated. I think it is the self-styled 'alpha' 'supermothers' on here with a superiority complex being rude to the women who chose to stay at home to care for their child by calling them 'beta' people who can't hack the workplace and would 'never have amounted to much'. That is not only untrue, it is an outstandingly rude and ghastly stereotype. If you accept this extreme stereotype, you have to accept the other, that all working mothers are hard-nosed, materialistic, responsibility-shirking, child neglecting shrills. Which of course isn't true.
Working mothers do provide an important role model to their children, but then conversely so do mothers who CHOOSE to stay at home. There are positives and negatives to both sides of childrearing. But no-one has the ability to say that women who chose to stay at home are somehow lesser characters or have less intelligence - they just chose a different path or a break in their career to take what they see as being (in their opinion) the best route to raise their child.
As a person who has worked to support working mothers and their children, I have formed my own opinions, but have the advantage of first hand knowledge of 'seeing the other side', which few people on here have as they did not work in childcare, caring for the children.
Incidently, I would not have allowed a 5 day old baby into my care, 3 months was the minimim age, as by this time I felt the baby had at least recognised it's mother and/or father as the the important foundation in their life.

[Sasha]

This blog seems to have become a place where people post comments solely to berate working mums.

[Jean Jones]

Brit in France - any Caesarean, elective or not, is a major abdominal operation. As someone who has given birth by the pushing method three times, I can assure you that even the first time, when you don't know what to expect and can lie around afterwards because you don't have other children needing attention, you are back on your feet within a day at most and within 2-3 days at worst. My third time, the baby arrived at 7am and at 8am I was sitting at the ward table having my breakfast - it didn't occur to anyone that I should be served it in bed. This myth that caesareans are somehow easier needs to be killed off, very firmly indeed. It just is not the case.

[Brit in France]

Perhaps it should be added to Miss Dati's defense that the rumour was in France that she was about to lose her job as Minister. She couldn't let them have the excuse of her staying at home. Sarkozy did manage to take advantage of her 5 day absence to make a vital announcement of change in the justice system. Perhaps we should also be attacking the father / sperm donor who is rumoured to be Aznar for the moment ? Also lucky rich Mums chose elective caesarians to get fit quicker.No pushing for them !

[Supermother]

Not sure our state laws do support that and labour is planning to pay £500 for training to single mothers on benefits... but most laws are nothing to do with individual rights but more about what business needs. We needed women in the work force so we changed the laws many decades ago to facilitate that etc.

Yes, I have never said children don't need contact with both parents. Obviously it's disgusting some men don't play a proper role and I suspect more men than women shirk that role and we should be concentrating our energies on ensuring fathers get home from work to spend time with chidlren after work as much as mothers do and castigatnig them in public for failure to bond with children. If there' s a problem area it's there not with most mothers. But even that is changing.

I have never said mothers and fathers should not spend time with children. I've always got home from work and enjoyed a lot of time with them but I don't agree they need a parent there all day. Plenty have their granny there and many others have a nanny and others. My younger children are very bonded with their older siblings.

Anyway at the moment women can return to work quickly if they choose - at 2 weeks for office workers unless the EU interferes in that which I hope we can all lobby against and those who are self employed as I am can do what we choose in a free society.

[Don]

//if you're deciding does Ms X who isn't very good should give up work or her husband Mr Y who is very good then the one who is going to make it will on economic grounds keep working if there has to be a choice or vice versa.//

You won't give this up will you?? The message deeply intertwined in your every post is that the career and the money comes absolutely A1 first and everything and anything else, even ones offspring, is relegated to a poor second place. Despite the overwhelming amount of factual evidence to support blood parents having a bond with their children that makes their relationship uniquely different, and thereby giving them a special role, you continue banging on about how much better it is to farm the infant of with someone else in order to quickly get them settled into a routine a few days after the birth....yadda yadda....as though anything more than a few days of post delivery direct one-to-one attention from the mother or father is in some way psychologically damaging to ones child!?

It is a very simple point. It is not a battle of the sexes. It is not about misogynism or sexism (all smokescreens to the real issue IMO - and by the way misandry is just as deeply unattractive, which also comes across in our posts!). It is NOT about how much cash one has. These are all completely sideline issues. It is simply that the more time the PARENT devotes to childrearing, the better on average that childs chance of future success (I am not for a minute suggesting Ms Dati will have no further contact with her child after 5 days however it is at this time that the child really needs the mother more than anyone else. We have also discussed the health implications to the mother, all of which you have pretty well ignored). Time immemorial has proved this true and everything and anything you might try to say different will never change this simple truism. Even our state laws on the matter of PARENTAL childcare support recognise this!!!

Please - sigh!!!

[LM]

I think there's a myth that many people believe in, that all mothers must be the first person to see their child do everything. Personally, I never felt the need to be the first one to see mine walk/talk/eat solids etc. These are all rites of passage, sure, but we can overdo these things. They are, after all, only babies and small children and every single one of them will master these skills (some exceptions due to disability, sadly) and if you miss the first step or word, there will be many more to appreciate (you'll be begging them to shut up after a while) and soon you'll probably forget the circumstances surrounding the first at all.

First day of school, OTOH, is a big deal, and I wouldn't have delegated that (even to my husband) for anything.

[Supermother]

And of course it surely is true that plenty of housewives (and some househusbands) are at home becuse they couldn't hack it in the work plaec and would never have amounted to much and if you're deciding does Ms X who isn't very good should give up work or her husband Mr Y who is very good then the one who is going to make it will on economic grounds keep working if there has to be a choice or vice versa. Ms Dati has done well and is a good example to other women.

[Supermother]

A lot of working men and women do the best for their children though by working hard for them. I don't think children need the blood parent there in the first year at all. I agree they shouldn't have a change of carer or a father or mother who leaves or dies. We had our first nanny for ten years but they do bond with the people who care for them which is mostly the father, mother and primary carer. I've never been very keen on nurseries as it's harder as a parent to control them and there may be different carers there whereas nanny at home is probably a better bond.

Anyway we can all disagree but I certainly think it can be better for families if women go back to work quickly and it's a pity the media doesn't very often set out all the advantages there are with that including to the psychological health of the child in having a routine established early on.

[ExPat]

<'You can bond better and still work. It's just that some misogynist men who are more than happy to outsource their childcare to women who could never have had much of a career anyway and are really just domestic servants ie. housewive wives feel threatened by women who work and take a view that fine for men to work and leave the children with someone else but not fine for a woman to do that.'>

Supermother, you really seem to be full of hot air and yawning stereotypes. I am one of those women who you indicate could never have had 'much of a career anyway'. Apart from that being an incredible and unecessary insult, I would like to point out that I worked as a child carer and nursery teacher for ten years, I have a first class degree in engineering, a post graduate degree, first aid and many childcare qualifications - oh yes, and a second degree in psychology. Then there is the teaching qualification. I speak three different languages, and built up a childcare business following a decision to change to a career that made a little more difference in the world and provided more job satisfaction. It is also not uncommon now to find other childcarers with many qualifications.
After ten years of running highly regarded small home based childcare settings, I can say that I was very happy to support women returning to work - often some were very upset about this as they had to return due to financial reasons, prefering to stay at home, others because they didn't want to stay at home. I have been the 'substitute mother' many times, and built up great lasting relationships with the children and the parents.
But the fact still remains, childcare is not the ideal scenario for any child under one, no matter how good that childcare is. Particularly if there are changes in the carer, which is very common, either with nannies or nurseries. I can assume from your derogatory remarks, you have never worked in childcare, so you have never been on the side having to wipe away the tears, deal with behaviour and upset caused by 'mummy going to work'. I have had to explain to children 'no, you shouldn't call me mummy', and had to pretend I wasn't the first to see the children's first milestones (first tooth, first word, first step), so the parents got to have that special moment.
I really enjoyed my job, but when I had my own children, I think it is very telling that I have become a SAHM myself, because I have first hand knowledge of what childcare - even excellent childcare - can make a young child feel like, and secondly because I didn't want anyone else taking responsibiltiy or care for my child. When they are at school, I will be straight back to work, despite not needing to, and hopefully they will look back when they are older and be grateful I thought them important enough to take a break and spend time with.

[Supermother]

I would not be down on Dati like a ton of bricks if she were a single mother and went back to work immediately. I would suspect most of us would be down on her like a ton of bricks for living off our very very high taxes on state benefits and praising her to the hilt for getting back to work.

"This is a fascinating blog populated by many people who really believe that children are somehow damaged by a close connection with their parents." No, that's not the point. We think children of working parents can have a very close connection with their parents.

Some parents at home don't interact with their children and some do. I have know loads of full time working parents over 24 years of being a mother in the City and elsewhere. I don't really know any who don't make an effort to be home to their children, who don't haev a rota with their other half to ensure most days one of them is there after school or by 6 and until bed time. I don't know any where both paretns aer not there any evening in the week. Also middle class mothers are more likely to breastfeed and thus bond better than many stay at homers who are working class. You can bond better and still work. It's just that some misogynist men who are more than happy to outsource their childcare to women who could never have had much of a career anyway and are really just domestic servants ie. housewive wives feel threatened by women who work and take a view that fine for men to work and leave the children with someone else but not fine for a woman to do that.

I do think girls need to know that you don't have to take a year off if you have a baby and you aren't necessarily going to be ill and that families have a choice over those matters, those who can afford the choice. And that plenty of us work to the day we go in labour and feel find shortly after.

Also going back soon if you choose to have a partner means there is less chance of entrenching sexism in the home. If mummy is back at work in 2 weeks then daddy is as likely to be finding the nanny and rushing home to let her get home and changing nappies as the mother as there hasn't been a long period of mother at home and assumption because someone is male they can't do nappy changing. So it is generally better for relationships too.

[jac]

Yes - this is exactly what I mean. As long as you have MONEY, you are a great parent. Money is all that matters apparently. Behaving irresponsibly and having a child you don't want to look after emotionally is ok if you have big salary.

This is a blog that often sneers at the Daily Mail reader, but takes the view that all that matters is the size of your bank balance.

Girls on housing estates who get pregnant young are often ignorant and educationally and emotionally deprived themselves.
Dati was a deprived child - maybe that is why for all her cash she is an emotionally neglectful parent.

I have now picked my jaw up off the floor andn accepted that many posters here think parenting is popping in at the end of the day for 'quality time' with their children whatever that is.

My mother suffered from depression as a consequence of neglectful parenting by wealthy parents. But she was a great parent herself to myself and my severely disabled sister who she looked after pretty much full-time (yes we got a small allowance for that so guess she was a scrounger, though my father worked) for 40 years.

My mother didn't bake cakes with me or have 'quality time' with me. She just thought I and my sister mattered. She was there for us. And she wasn't ignorant or stupid. She was a highly intelligent woman and I admire her and I got a great deal of my confidence from her. The idea that I could have been shunted off to a stream of nannies and thence to boarding school like she was makes me shudder.

I don't think women should give up work forever and jettison their ambitions. I am very very much a feminist and I believe women should be professionally and intellectually fulfilled. I just think MEN and WOMEN should be realistic about the fact that a child is a human being with complex needs (not a baby doll that is ok wherever) and face the fact they mightnot be suited to parenthood.

But if 'feminisim' is about denying the uniqueness of the bond of parent and child (ie it's not important who's doing the job between 9-6), then the whole movement is still in the dark ages.

[Hol]

"If Dati were a single mother on a housing estate - the alphamothers and fathers as they self-aggrandizingly call themselves on this blog - would be down on her like a ton of bricks for being irresponsible."

Funny... I'd say a single mother on a housing estate being of obviously limited means and the sole financial provider (rather than being in Mlle Dati's wealthier position) would have even more reason to want to get back to work asap. If you're in an unsalaried job where you are only paid for the hours you work and don't receive sick pay and the like (for example, temping) then if you're not at work you don't get paid. Children are expensive things to have.

Of course first they have to be able to afford child care, which is hard on a single wage. It's no wonder people choose to scrounge on benefits, it's often far more profitable than struggling to run the house and pay for childcare on a small income.

[wonderwench]

Surely, the decision around if or when to return to work after having a child is purely personal one. Clearly, Ms Dati feels well enough to return to work and has made provision for the care of her daughter (quite why you’d actually want to be back at work 5 days after a c-section, elective or not, is way beyond my comprehension).

However, for every family, the decision for the Mother (or Father) to return to work full time, part time or not at all is purely down to personal circumstances, what is best for the unit (not just financially but psychologically and other considerations) – a clear case of “horses for courses”

What is worth celebrating, rather than everyone defending their own position, is how in the UK there is a [legally protected] choice for most women as to what basis they return to work, should they want/need to and a tax credit system which helps most families. In my opinion, one of the successes of feminism over the last 30+ years is that we now have a choice, a rather different situation to my Mother’s generation where a return to work was just not an option

[jac]

So you are a professional in the field Rebecca? If these are the views of the childcare profession, it's pretty alarming - ever read Brave New World?

Don and I have both talked about people we have met (and there are many) who felt that a few hours at the end of the day from their tired and overworked parents were (unsuprisingly) not enough. A baby of 5 days old being shunted off to a stranger is pretty ghastly. Sorry, but this is wholly dysfunctional.
Why did this couple couple - Dati and her partner/sperm donor want a child? They have no interest in the girl, it seems, except as an acquisition and a pleasing toy to give them love whenever they can 'fit the child in'.

If Dati were a single mother on a housing estate - the alphamothers and fathers as they self-aggrandizingly call themselves on this blog - would be down on her like a ton of bricks for being irresponsible. But havinga few quid and an 'important' career validates neglect apparently. If you look after your children (my husband and split the job) you will KNOW that childcare for a 5-day baby is totally inappropriate and callous - however nice the stranger who gets the cash for the job.

If you want to have children, I think mature, intelligent adults should examine their motives. It's not an imperative after all and if your career is fulfilling and that is what you want to prioritise then what's the problem? Do the career.

But people want children for status and what they know is unconditional love - a love they simply cannot return, as they find the infancy of their offsrping so dull they can't even comit to the paltry 5 years out of their own lives (what 50-60 years?) to put a bit of time and love into them.

A few snatched hours at the beginning and the end of the day and then sundry childminders is pretty lame - however rich and important you are. Stick to what you do well in life.

[rebecca]

This long list of emotional reasoning sums up the ignorance most people have when it comes to parenting. Children do not know anything different from what we teach them - if you have a parent/s working 12 hours a day who have 2 hours with their child, but during that time bond with the child, then that is adequate. It is about the quality of the bond no the amount of time a parent is simply around. As a professional in the field I see numerous examples of 'responsible parenting' (not) where parents assume that as they work from home and are in the vacinity of their children, they are providing adequate care and bonding. In actual fact, those kids would be better of in a childcare setting where they would get more attention, interaction and caregiving than with their t home parents.

Lets start focussing on how we interact with our kid - not argue over how much time we are within a few meters of them.

[Ken]

This is the modern woman. And what a disgrace she is. The only unusual part about this story is that the 'career woman' with her 'important job' didn't kill the baby quietly in an abortion clinic with a vacuum cleaner ripping its limbs apart.

[Ken]

This is the modern woman. And what a disgrace she is. The only unusual part about this story is that the 'career woman' with her 'important job' didn't kill the baby quietly in an abortion clinic with a vacuum cleaner ripping its limbs apart.

[MDIF]

I think most of the posts completely forget one point: there is surely a lot of middle ground between taking 5 days off and staying at home full time to raise the child???
Not sure what Ms Dati is trying to prove, but if you were French, you'd know the French Government is in the middle of some major changes and so she is probably simply concerned about losing her job!! And may think that foregoing a maternity break will save her (which it will not, it never does...)
I personally think she could have given a better example and taken 2 weeks off (the legal French paternity - with a P - leave). But if she wants to go back and prove to the world she is SuperWoman, fine with me.
BTW I have three children (all born in public French hospitals, very well thank you -> Helene) and have ALWAYS worked full time, just taking the "normal" 3 months off. Neither my children nor my career suffered from that. In fact, I was hired for one of my jobs at 6 months pregnancy and was promoted after the birth of my 1st and 2nd child...