Bought She Magazine today. An interview with Denise Van Outen is advertised on the cover with the words Back at Work after 2 Weeks printed under it.
I would just like to say one thing 'Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhh!'
Why, oh why, when things settle down do the media have to jump right back in and stir things up again?
'Should mothers stay at home?'
'Mothers that work damage their children'
'I gave up breastfeeding after a week!'
These and many more headlines scream out at us from the covers of magazines and newspapers every week. Why? Because they want you to buy their offering either in a huff of indignation or feeling of self- righteousness and read all about it.
If the two sides of the argument start throwing facts and figures, beliefs and insults about - even better! The more controversy, the higher the sales.
Just because it is written in black and white, however, doesn't make it black and white. They just want you to believe it is because then you will be encouraged to weigh in on the debate, talk about it with your friends, buy a copy of their latest issue. I mean, think about it, have you ever read an article on mums and working, breastfeeding etc. that discussed all facets of an issue and didn't just divide mums everywhere by making out there were only two sides - and one had to be the right?
Now She Magazine will argue that if you read the article it actually presents Denise going back to work in a good light (and it does). But I have to query if this is the case, why the heading on the front page is in black capital letters with two weeks underlined? I know why - and I'm not falling for it anymore.
yes! I agree!! How does she do that though?? really???? I am struggling to get back into work and baby is 15 months!! It is a shocking headline that has nothing to do with the article, cause really the article could be used to encourage those struggling to get back into work, but the heading just makes others feel 'failed' cause we couldn't do it at 2 weeks, or chose NOT to.
ReplyDeleteIt's definitely not black and white!
ReplyDeleteDoes it say whether she went back part-time/full-time? I bet it wasn't 9-5 five days a week! It's the people that go back full-time that amaze me. I think it's important to spend time as much time as possible with your new born, rather them farming off to a nanny/granny/nursery all day every day.
Many mums, especially those that have their own business start doing a bit of work soon after they give birth. It's great because they can be much more flexible.
I had no desire to return to work until my daughter was nearly a year old, even then I only did 3 days a week. But then I decided I wanted to spend more time with my daughter so quit my job to be self-employed and now only work 2 days a week.
Great post.
ReplyDeleteI have two businesses and so not working was not going to be an option for me when I had my son. I was lucky in that I worked from home for the first 7 months of my son's life - but since then have had a wonderful nanny who takes care of him when I am at the office(4 days a week). My little one and I are together every morning until 10, spend lunchtimes together, and I am home by 430 every day - yet I constantly get disapproving looks from some s.a.h mums that I meet when I share this. I admire s.a.h mums to the utmost - and also support mums who make the choice to go back to work. Being mothers we are always going to feel guilty (am I giving them enough love? Entertaining enough? Feeding them properly, etc, etc) - the list is endless. We should be a source of support for one another and try to expose ourselves to as many schools of thought as we can.
With such feelings of support out there from all mums for all mums - working, working part time, staying at home or otherwise - it's a shame the media keeps insisting on trying to create a divide. Thanks for all your posts ladies, congrats on maintaining your generosity and not giving into the headlines!
ReplyDelete