Mothers should get back to work quickly if they want to be successful

Even if the law is your chosen profession it need not be as she says! It depends what you want from life. I have chosen a legal career and work for an advice charity which offers their services pro bono. I love my job and although the pay is not what you could command in private sector roles, my employers are flexible about working patterns and this allowed me to work part time when my DC were young and flexibly now that I have duties of child care for my 6 year old GS and his mother who suffers from poor health. I may not have been a high fligher in the earnings stake or be a big name but I still consider what I do to be beneficial to my community and thus count myself as a success!

What about the WHO recommendation that, ideally, babies should be breast-fed only for the first six months of their lives?
Perhaps she has plans to set up an agency for wet-nurses.

I agree PRINTMISS and I think there are many working mothers who wish they were at home with their small children.

Parents have to be earning quite a substantial sum to be able to pay for a nursery for just one child, let alone two or more, add in travel costs etc, the net salary has to be quite substantial to be able to afford all that; one wonders if there is much left over in some cases and it is more a case of staying 'on the ladder' at work.

I think this judge has a very narrow definition of success. All she is actually dealing with is success in a demanding profession.

There are many other ways to be successful. To bring up a family well and see them well launched in life is a success, or nurturing a member of the family born with disability or acquiring a degenerative disease, so that they have the best possible life is a success, other women work within their community or do voluntary work that helps others, then there are those who are creative and mix home and work.

How many female emtrepreneurs made there mark with a business started from home when they were caring for children.

Yes, if you want to be a high flying lawyer, limit maternity leave or do not have children. What a damming condemnation of the profession she has chosen. Other wise she is talking through her fundament, otherwise known as her ..............

I know, many of you are not going to agree with this, but what a pity it is that going back to work after having a baby is considered the norm these days. I so enjoyed my children's infancy, their learning stages, teaching them all the little things that matter. I know that these days learning to play together is important and nurseries play a big part in this, but would I want to go out to work in order to pay for nursery care? I don't think so. Yes, I know single parents are another matter, and I have nothing but admiration for their ability to juggle their lives.

Not sure about the WHO recommendation - I do not think it says "only" breast fed till 6 months, but simply that infants should be BF till 6 months and thereafter BF should continue to 2 years with other foods being introduced. The only makes it sound as if it is bad to continue after 6 months.

What about the WHO recommendation that, ideally, babies should be breast-fed only for the first six months of their lives?

Surely it would be more helpful and constructive for all parties if the expectations and practices of the workplace were reviewed and changed. They are still mostly geared to the anachronistic idea that working men are the sole breadwinners of a family.

That means the royal family and most aristocratic families must have attachment issues Penstemmon-well yes probably explains a lot!
HildaW If my GCs are taken ill my DS gets the call if DIL is working because he works in an office and she could be in the operating theatre.
It is women like Lady Barbara who set back the cause of equality with silly remarks like this. When most women struggle to afford the most time they can at home with their baby and then struggle to pay childcare costs, with GPs stepping in to help for free even the idea of a nanny is ludicrous. Women fought hard to get maternity leave, they and their children deserve it, and when they return to work they bring with them new skills and abilities.

There is an increase in children starting school with emotional difficulties and this is often put down to 'poor attachment'. ie child has not established a strong and loving relationship with a significant person.
This also happened to many children raised in Kibbutz and other commune living where the idea was the community could raise a child... which of course they can but the child first needs to feel loved and cared for and have developed a strong relationship with at least one parent/carer.

I am not saying all babies who are cared for by someone other that a parent after 12 weeks will develop emotional difficulties but it is easy to see that a series of carers is less helpful than 2 or 3 consistent carers... so again families that can afford to pay for a nanny able to commit to 2 years are at an advantage to those struggling to afford childcare, Day nurseries often have a high turnover of staff so if a child arrives at nursery before having established a strong bond with its parent it is more likely to be emotionally vulnerable.

Define successful.

I regard making a good job of taking care of one's children as being as good a definition of success as climbing the greasy pole.

I meant to ask "Be successful " at what? I would have thought that bringing up a family successfully was pretty important.

I think most mothers are still barely functioning as human beings when the baby is twelve weeks old - unless they have a nanny of course.
DD took 6 months off with both of hers and then gradually worked her way back to full time with no adverse effect on her career. Of course she was about the only person who could actually do her job and even when she was on maternity leave she was e mailing and writing reports from home.

My DD3 had no choice. Back to work when her DS2 was 3 months old. Why? Her idiot husband had cleared off leaving her penniless, and contributed nothing. I was her unpaid 'nanny'. Not all mums have the choice to be full time mummy.

She now runs her own successful business, but always feels guilty about not having enough time with her boys. We are still part time 'nannies', and her idiot ex husband still contributes not a penny ?

I like to think that my part-time, graduating to full-time, job made a difference even if I wasn't a High Court Judge. I also like to think that I was there for my DC when they were little and I think they appreciate that.
Of course, not all mums can achieve that especially if they are single mothers. But single mothers cannot usually afford nannies.

I agree, Jalima - a very snobbish, rude and presumptuous, remark.

I am one of those who still view being a full time Parent as a positive life choice if its at all possible.

All very well for those in high paid careers to bang on about their CVs and lack of promotion....but to many in middling to low paid jobs its always seemed to me to be a sad choice to HAVE to go back to work and pay someone to do the 'job' you would love to do yourself.

I may be a bit old fashioned here...or even ahead of my time....who knows.....but being a full time hands on Parent is a very important and difficult job and there are choices to be made. Perhaps the 'having it all' ideal that is talked about is a bit of a myth. I never wanted a full on career AND children, I made a choice and do not in anyway regret it.

Is true equality in the workplace even achievable? If a child is taken ill at school....who gets the phone call and has to drop everything? I have very close relatives who have chosen not to have children.....they have busy full lives with careers and many other responsibilities.....perhaps if we stop seeing that as unusual...perhaps more families will choose that direction.

Its all so complex and there are so many individual choices I think I come down on the side of there being as many options as possible but sometimes we, as individuals must accept that we cannot have it all.

I was Head of Languages from before the birth of my first child to after the birth of the second. There was no problem with keeping the job open, because I worked for a school, but I found it much more difficult to progress from there. The culture of schools is a long hours one. Managers are expected to attend meetings well into late evening and I found that childcare meant I had to make too many apologies for non-attendance. Even in schools, there are proportionately few women with children in senior management positions. The only ones I knew had husbands/partners with well-paid jobs, so they could afford nannies/au pairs or they were lucky enough to have parents who could help.

Was this the woman who said that mothers should only think about giving up work when their child became smarter than the nanny?

What a rude, patronising woman. Not all mothers are barristers, consultants, high court judges and it does not follow that nannies are more stupid than older children

Of course, if these mothers leave it until the child is 11 before they take a break, they may find the child rejects them in favour of their beloved nanny.

Maybe the difference is more public versus private sector?

I think there are a lot of women employed in teaching and education generally, and so presumably there would have to be more flexibility.

In other, more male-dominated, occupations the evidence suggests that women who have babies are at a disadvantage when applying for salary increases or promotion - or even retaining their previous roles when they return to work.

My sons partner took a year off to have her son then returned to her old job, applied for head of languages at her school and got the job. I think she intends on having another child pretty soon. As Jayh says it may depend on the attitude of the employer.

I know of more than one woman who was promoted to a senior position in education after taking two year long maternity leaves in quick succession. Their career prospects were not hampered in the long run. It clearly depends on the attitude of employers.