littleEDfamily

I agree with overserver mum and esme - esp for a girl, mixed for primary, single sex for secondary. Don't know about about boys as much, but my male friends who went to boys' schools def don't seem as 'balanced' about the opposite sex. From their tales boys' school can be quite intense and competitive places that could do with a bit of estrogen kicking about!!! I went to a girls school in secondary and, contrary to many people's experience, it wasn't bitchy and we did well academically (small school). The only downside was that in my gap year and at uni, I probably could have done with being a bit less excitable about boys (but at least I was getting up to mischief at 18 not 14 and I had had the benefit of a good education - not to say I wouldn't have had as good an education at a mixed school, but I definitely would have been more, shall we say 'distracted' during those critical years). If you have mixed sex children, I really can't see any downside to single sex education as they will get plenty of exposure to the opposite sex via siblings' friends. In the end though, I would choose what in my estimation was the better school available, and whether it were single or mixed sex would be the less important variable.

Really useful thread. Thank you.

DVO is naturally a slim lady, I reckon, so if she was careful not to get too big during her pregnancy, it's quite believable that she have bounced back without doing anything silly. I don't think going back to work at 8 weeks, especially if it's just for a stint and not full time is any biggie. I would have jumped at any chance to go and do something non-babyish that I enjoyed for money at that stage! It felt unnatural to me to have months and months off with baby and then get thrust back into full-on work. Where she is lucky (and I feel a bit envious) is not to have a 'standard' job that she can flit in and out of, and still get plenty of baby time in between - so much better than the 'all or nothing option' available to most women. I don't think she necessarily gets more help than any mere mortal. Lots of people get a ton of help from family and friends in those difficult first months, and may actually may be much better supported than celebs. Even if I had tons of cash I don't think I would hire a night nanny (but I would have someone clean my house for me and cook for me), but if my sister lived down the road, I would mercilessly exploit her to maximise any sleep opportunities. And probably try to make her cook and clean for me too. Not sure exactly what my point is, but I like DVO so thought would play devil's advocate.... good for her!!!

I think people get far too emotional about the whole breastfeeding thing. I fed my daughter for almost a year, and it was fine. Just fine. Not the most magical thing in the world. Not creepy (but, if I was still feeding her now, at 3.5 years old, I would find that creepy! Shoot me down if you must - we all have a time when we just don't feel it is still appropriate). Breastfeeding babies to me is natural, sensible, healthy, but having a toddler come up and try to help themselves to my boob would irritate me and freak me out a bit. Having said that, there are few aspects of parenting in which the benefits to baby of one option, as opposed to the others is clearly preferable (based on sound research), and it would seem breastfeeding, certainly for the first 6 months is one of those. I'm not exactly impressed by someone who blatantly puts their own, rather selfish needs to get boozed and try to preserve their boobs (they'll go south eventually anyway!) above their baby's health - and not even try it (totally different situation if they struggle and just can't quite ever get the hang of it), but to be honest there are so many aspects of parenting where I would probably disagree with other people's way of doing things, I find it hard to get my knickers in a twist about this someone saying breastfeeding creeps them out. I'm about to have my second, and if I think about it, the whole concept of breastfeeding again does seem a bit weird, but I'm sure it will be just fine again. What's-er-name was obviously trying to be a bit controversial and sound a bit cool and 'ladette-ish' - I don't think it's any more sinister than that. People that get all holier-than-thou about the effect that such comments may have on 'others' and their choices probably give her too much credit for influence - people are going to rationalise their choices no matter what, and if you're the sort of person prepared to blatantly ignore the evidence on breastfeeding, some glib little article is hardly going to make much difference.

By 'better', I mean 'safer'. And there are definitely safer places for teenagers.

Sarf London can be egdy. Much as I love it, it ain't the country's safest location. How much you tolerate in terms of latent threat to your safety and that of your kids is very personal. Having spent a good amount of time in an a country with a very rate high violent crime, as well as in so called 'safe' places, bottom line is, as much as I try to rationalise that anything can happen anywhere, I can't help but think I can do better for my children.

Must be quite scary being a teenager round here. I try to keep perspective on these things, but whenever I here things like this (the Camberwell article - yes, I know a little out of date), it makes a move to the country look oh so much more attractive. Quite a few teenagers seem quite resigned to getting mugged every so often....not nice. Or normal in my opinion.

Poppy is her (?) name - see pg one of this thread...

Just got round to catching up on this thread and reading your post, new mother. Still giggling about the Love Bombing quip....brilliant rant all round. I am still persevering with the Love Bombing, having decided there is a soppy new age mum (I'm becoming very 'attuned', you see) lurking beneath my stern Victorian mother routine! Quite far beneath, it must be said....

Look, there is no doubt that if you are already established in a 'family' size home in the catchment for an exceptional state school, it's easy to feel self satisfied with your sitution and write off the need for private school. If you're in a small house in one of ED's primary school 'black holes', it's very understandable that people would want to explore private school options. Moving costs alone could easily add ?30,000 to the size of your mortgage. It makes no sense that there would be no differential between the cost of a house in an area, zoned for say, Hamlets, and one in ED where you were unlikely to even get your first 3 choices. There would have to be other variables which counteracted the schools issue for them to remain on par. If you have more than one child, there is little doubt that over an entire school career it works our cheaper and may therefore make more sense, to pay to get closer to a good state school than to pay for private (especially if a) you believe there are state schools which are as good as or better than private and b)if a house move will get you into great schools for primary AS WELL AS high school and c) are committed to staying in that area d) you can get the financing to move). BUT for some families, especially those who are dubious about non-private options after primary (which I think is definitely an issue round these parts), the option of significantly increasing your mortgage debt when your first child is 3 in order to get into a supposedly good state school, just isn't as attractive as staying put, selecting a private school of your choice, working to increase the equity in your existing home as much as possible and trying to improve your financial position gradually. In our case, the plan is to pay for private primary school education and then (assuming our children make the cut) send them to grammar schools or other excellent state secondary schools outside of London later on. It means we have none of the stress (and potentially poor outcomes) of the state primary school admissions process in ED, feel we are giving our kids the best early education available and aren't mortgaged to the hilt in the meantime. I know I am off track, yet again, so shall now bow out too (unless anyone cares enough to start a new thread in which I will happily rant on...hmmm... unlikely....).

Ps Sorry, snowboarder for going off on tangent.

For those of us without the means to have entered the property market until relatively recently and are in smaller houses or flats, the prospect of being able to live in a 4 or 5 bedroom house in East Dulwich or the Village is simply unrealistic. It is far more affordable to remain in our mini houses with our manageable mortgages and then pay for private schools for one or two children at the maximum (or of course go to whatever state school the children are accepted into) than spend money upgrading to a house closer to a school like Hamlets (I suppose, we could go like for like, but that seems pointless considering the cost of moving, and I would need some convincing Hamlets was worth it). Upgrading anywhere in the area is often not an option (a 4/5 bed house is just a ridiculous dream!). To make the leap from a (nice) 2 bed house to a (nice) 3 bed house in ED would in our case add ?180,000 to our mortgage - wham bam, plus interest accruing from day 1 - far more manageable to try to contain current housing costs and pay for private school (if not happy with the state school you are offered). If you don't have loads of children and leave a reasonable gap between them, you get s bit of a headstart with just one, and then it's a question of keeping fingers crossed that your careers go well and that your financial position improves as the children get older and school fees become more of a burden. If you are one of the big winners of the property market boom, and bought in ED (or elsewhere) when the market was affordable, then I can see the benefits of using that advantageous position to get your kids into a better state school by moving. If not, I stand by theory that in a lot of cases, the financials on private school make more sense for certain families.

I didn't realise the catchment area for Hamlets extended that far. I was thinking it was just the Village. In that case, maybe it is worth trying to get closer to a better state school......is Hamlets the only one with a proper catchment area? Is there a reasonable chance that you may go through the bother and expense of moving only to find you don't get in at all (as that seems to be the biggest risk of the state school system in ED). Is Hamlets that much better to justify the hassle (and potential for it to all be in vain?)

I suppose so, assuming you didn't drown in mortgage payments in the meantime (and they would give you one in the first place).

Yes, but DM, my rough maths suggests a 3 bed house in the Hamlets catchment would be at least ?300,000 more expensive than the equiv house in ED. And you are paying interest on that mortgage right from the start. At least with fees, it's pay as you go....

Morning - yes, as far as I know there is no way of getting out of being appraised while pregnant (but as already mentioned it should have happened at the time). The appraisal should however take account of your being pregnant - in general, it is risky to grade someone who was pregnant as 'below average' or 'poor', even if those ratings would have been justified for another employee - to do so safely, the company would be able to prove that the shortcomings were not in any way related to you being pregnant, which is all but impossible to do. Can you use another KIT day and get this appraisal over with?

Ha - Molly - classic 'fleximum' view. Don't you know you're kidding yourself???? (I'm kidding obviously!) One thing the book talks about a lot is the need for a mother who is 'completely attuned' to her baby, but in my view, he doesn't elaborate satisfactorily on what that is. I get visions of some neurotic person, constantly watching their baby for signs of distress with no healthy separation between self and offspring (and therefore potentially unable to get some decent perspective). That may not be what he means, but I would say that today's mums, more so than any previous generation, are 'attuned' - as another poster said, previous generations were more likely to have lots of small children, a backbreaking housekeeping routine, not to mention a much more 'matter of fact' attitude to childrearing. We may work more, but surely we are just as good at being mothers (Dads are definitely better) than previous generations - perhsps more so?

It does depend on the company, but I think in general, people are wrong in thinking HR is inclined to be sympathetic and helpful to the employee. Although on a personal level, we often side with the individual, we are paid by the company to manage their people risk. Yes, the organisation may have an expectation that we keep things fair and can help them to strive for 'best practices', and that we can be called upon to 'referee' where needed, but the bottom line is that HR is there to serve the company's best interests. Therefore, many HR people will not consent to have an 'off the record' chat, as they are going to be unwilling to offer any advice that will compromise the company or undermine the manager. Also, in most instances it is necessary for the chat to be 'on the record' in order to resolve whatever issue has arisen. HR will normally seem professional about it, and can be very useful in helping to address particular issues - just don't necessarily expect them to be on your side! PS. Obv my thoughts about are not relevant to ryedalemama's sitch, as there is no 'separate' HR dept. Just feel it is my duty to debunk some of the myths about HR being 'nice'!

Call me juvenile, but I found the idea of my child being a 'bast*rd' quite hysterically funny. It's such a load of tosh that old fashioned stuff. Makes me want to rebel! It still makes my blood boil when my father in law sends Christmas cards made out to Mr & Mrs Joe Bloggs, even when he knows I have kept my last name (and what sort of loser would stand to be called by their husband's first name!!). I also love it when people who have met me first assume my husband has the same last name as me and automatically call him by my name. But I am now way off track.....

Ooh, you've just made me remember the only comment that actually really offended me.... when I told people at work I was pregnant, seriously about 5 people asked "Was it planned?". I wish I had countered with some gruesome tale I had made up about the condom breaking or something even grosser to make them feel maximally uncomfortable. I was a 30 something at the time, had been living with my boyf-now-husband for years and we had just bought a house. It wasn't as if I was the single, promiscuous office bike! (and even if I was, that comment would have been out of order).

Like smiler, my profession is HR, and I tended to get involved in a lot of employee relations type stuff (from the 'other' side). On the plus side, you are essentially a 'protected species' while pregnant and on maternity leave, but equally in your 'return to work' phase. Your employer has a legal responsibility to take a reasonable view, and make appropriate adjustments to take account of particular challenges you might face at work that are directly or indirectly related to your maternity. There are several aspects of your treatment that concern me: 1. The fact that they are bringing up alleged instances of poor performance in the context of a return to work. These should have been dealt with at the time, and ideally addressed in a performance appraisal before you went on leave - effectively wrapping things up. In practice, these appraisals often don't happen, and in the employer's favour, often with reasonable justification as the maternity leaver starts to mentally 'check out', and it just doesn't seem appropraite to do it then. 2. I'm not convinced your KIT days are an appropriate time to make ominous comments about forthcoming (poor) appraisals. The focus should be on keeping you abreast of any changes to the org that have happenened while you have been off and giving you an opportunity to understand more about the role you are coming back to and expectations relating to it. On that last aspect (expectations relating to your role), there may be some justification for her to diplomatically and gently reference past issues, but this should be a supportive, constructive manner - not threatening. From what I have read so far, I think you would have a reasonably good case for a bullying grievance. BUT!! Once you go down that road, in my opinion, there is no going back to a happy, productive working relationship with your boss. It's a one way ticket to you either resigning if the stress gets too much or some sort of pay off (which not all organisations are prepared to do even when they are clearly at fault). So, assuming that approach is not for you, I think your only option is to take it on the chin (even the unfair bits), steel yourself to this not-very-nice-sounding woman and prove them wrong (easier said than done, I know, esp as it's a massive adjustment to go back to work, even where your employer is supportive). If that doesn't work, you can always then reexplore the need to raise a formal grievance, and in the meantime, keep very good records of exactly what has been going on. I hope that it helpful. My post has come out quite harsh, but I do really empathise. This nasty stuff goes on all the time, in spite of all the legislation.

You can borrow mine!!! I'll PM you! amydown Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Having read this thread, I am now intrigued and > want to read this book. Does anyone want to sell > theirs if finished with it?

2) I don't think your baby is bored of you (I truly believed this too!). No need from his perspective for Sing and Sign or similar 'stimulation' as I am sure you do a great job yourself, but it can be an enjoyable thing to do together nonetheless - just don't feel you should have to do things like that. I liked Whippersnappers and Tin Pan Annie, though (gets expensive though). 1) If I were you, I would go planned C section for the next one and be done with it. As one of my best friends said when I light heartedly suggested having a C section (after a first natural birth) - "you don't want to be messed up at both ends". That said, I'm not meaning to be flippant about the risks of C-section and I whole heartedly admire and support women who strive for a VBAC, but you asked what we would personally do! Good luck it all!

I would agree with sglanzer - if you think you may need to go the nanny share route (for financial reasons) or it is your preference reasonably soon, I would start off finding a family to share with once you know what days you are doing. 6-8 weeks should be plenty of time once you know what you are offering. If you decide to employ the nanny yourselves only initially, I would suggest making sure you know what the nanny would be after pay-wise and condition-wise once the role becomes a share (eg how much more money they would want, whether they would expect to be paid by (and have a contract with) each of you, or to have one "main" employer and a secondary one, how they would propose to manage the often differing expectations of each family in regards to a routine, how it would work with holidays, what age of child they would be comfortable with etc etc). I have heard of very few people finding good nannies through agencies, and personally I think the way to find a good nanny is through mummy networks, especially mums with slightly older children - this forum could probably offer some good recommendations for nannies who are soon to be looking for new roles as their charges move onto nursery/ school...

Since I started this thread and therefore feel a heightened sense of ownership of it, I am (nervously)appointing myself as referee. Can we please stick to either dissing OJ, standing up for him or some balanced, constructive position in between rather than getting all snarky and sarcastic with each other, WMTD?