Taking the plunge into professional parenting

In my mother's (and grandmother's) day, the average woman's path through life was fairly clear cut:

1. you got some kind of education
2. you worked for a few years
3. you got married
4. you gave up your job to have babies (if you could).

Some women returned to work eventually, often part-time for "pin money" once the kids were all at school, but there was little expectation of pursuing a full, rounded career. Such a circumscribed route may not have been exciting, liberating or even remotely fair, but at least you knew where you stood.

These days, our path through life is less well defined. We expect more, and more is expected of us. For those who choose to have children, paid maternity leave has greatly reduced the necessity to give up work entirely, or conversely, to return to work too soon. Employers are more aware of the benefits of retaining valued female employees and flexible hours are now more common (in some industries at least). Shared parental leave and changing social expectations mean men are increasingly stepping in to share the burden too, all of which are helping more women than ever before to grasp the financial and personal benefits that come from remaining in the work force. Things aren't perfect, but horizons are broader.

So why, in 2018, would a woman still decide to become a Stay-At-Home-Mum (or 'Professional Parent' as a friend prefers to call it)? While I can't speak for every SAHM in this regard, I can speak for me, as I recently handed in my notice and will not be returning to my paid job at the end of my second spell of maternity leave. Giving up work to care for your kids is often portrayed as a "natural" or "obvious" choice for Mums who can afford it (particularly by those from earlier generations) but for me, it was far from a given. Making my decision involved a lot of thought, trade offs between multiple different factors and no certainty that I was necessarily even doing the right thing.

Money

Most contemporary articles about working mothers assume them to be middle class with grand "careers". After all, surely you would only consider leaving your darlings behind if you had a huge passion for your work and/or a strong desire to climb the career ladder? I suspect the main driver for most is more prosaic however - money. No matter your social class money is, more or less, the primary reason we all work. If you can't pay your rent / mortgage / castle upkeep, then there isn't much of a debate to be had. In my case, when we did the sums, we realised we could manage if I stayed at home. Not forever, but for a year or two if we spent conservatively.

Many will say, "what a luxury!", and yes, we are lucky that we had a choice (though I would argue full time baby wrangling is about as far from luxury as you can get). However, in some respects, it was an illusion of choice. Returning to work would have entailed two sets of childcare costs (even when Duckling's at school, I'd still have had to pay a childminder / after school club), plus London commuting fares. Basically, I would have been left with about £750 in my first year - a pitiful return on the time and effort invested. Yes, that £750 would have been mine, to spend as I pleased (mostly on my crazy obsession with kids' clothes and groceries...). I would have felt less patronised by having to accept "housekeeping" money from my husband too. But sometimes pride has to take a backseat to pragmatism. I am still "working" and effectively "being paid" - just not quite in the formal way I once was (and my husband is most definitely NOT my boss).

The Job

Not all jobs are created equal when it comes to kid compatibility. While it is possible to work full-time and even travel for work when you have children (men do it all the time), you do have to have someone else in your life to do all the nursery / school ferrying, tea times, haircuts, doctor visits, swimming lessons etc. And you have to be fine with that other person doing it all too - which, whether because of social conditioning, your child's expectations or the maternal bond, can be really hard as a Mum.

Then there's the issue of 'keeping your hand in'. For some people, it is very difficult to take a break and maintain the appropriate levels of training, skills and knowledge needed to succeed in their particular career - I know someone working in IT (where the pace of technological change is huge) who not only returned, but actively cut their mat leave short because of this. Even in more stable jobs, a break of more than a year can really knock your confidence in your own abilities. This is definitely my biggest concern about being a SAHM - will an employer ever want me again after so long away? For some, the risk is too high.

There is also the matter of job satisfaction. Do you WANT to go back? Many women hate their jobs, and having a baby offers an excellent excuse to escape. When I went on my second spell of maternity leave, I was in my ninth year at very parent-friendly charity. I personally loved my job and the wider organisation I worked for, but I hated the endless commuting and the increasingly vitriolic political infighting within the senior management team I supported - some days they were ruder than my delightful threenager back home. I survived by keeping my head down and refusing to take sides, but from the moment I announced my pregnancy, I was counting down the days until my exit. I hoped by the time I was due to return things would have changed, but by chatting to colleagues, it became clear they hadn't; if anything the atmosphere had grown worse. So I decided to quit.

If I'm being completely honest, I wasn't just pushed by my current work situation though; I was also pulled by my pie-in-the-sky ambitions to be a writer. It's such a cliché (EVERYONE has a novel in them, right?!) but I knew if I didn't take a break from my regular "career" now, I'd probably never get another legitimate excuse to test the freelance writing waters, or to finish the six novels I have on the go. (I might need to stop writing about myself and start churning out more saleable copy before that can happen though. A work in progress during nap times...)

The kids (and my relationship with them)

I love my kids: that is a given. I also know that they love me - Duckling, very sweetly, tells me so all the time (when he's not calling me a 'Rubbish Potty Head'). As a parent, you create your child's equilibrium and help them to find their way in the world. It is a reasonable assumption therefore that spending more time together should benefit them.

Yet I find it very difficult to say "I've given up work because it's much better for the kids". While my gut (and a reasonable body of research) tells me a consistent parental carer encourages security and stability, and that childcare settings can increase stress levels in children, which can in turn cause later poor behaviour, there is also evidence that mixing with other kids in a nursery-type setting improves social and linguistic skills, and that working mothers ultimately provide a better role model - particularly for girls.

On balance, it is probably better for younger children (particularly those under two) to have their Mum or Dad as the primary caregiver for the majority of the time. Particularly for more closely attached, needy kids. Like Duckling. Yet despite knowing this, I still went back to work the first time, albeit part time. So did many other of my Mum friends. To state "being a SAHM is better for the kids," therefore feels like a problematic admission. Did I get it wrong the first time? Did all my friends?

Truth be told, I returned because I needed to. I was not one of those Mums weeping in the toilets on my first day back. Maybe because my darling son had broken me a little bit, I was actually quite elated to be free again, be earning my own money, and have the ability to eat lunch (and a NICE lunch, made by SOMEBODY ELSE), without having handfuls of food lobbed at me.

That doesn't mean I didn't feel guilty leaving Duckling. I was incredibly torn between what I needed (space, mental stimulation and adult company), and what he apparently needed (me, me and only me). I worried constantly that I was damaging him by sending him to a childminder. Even now, I still fret that his continued clinginess is because he can't forget that sense of abandonment when I left him for nine hours a day, three days a week from the age of 11 months to 3 years. Yet I think the space work gave me made me a better, kinder and more patient Mum, and after he'd got over the initial two weeks of sobbing (thankfully just in time to stop me caving in and quitting my job), it made him a little more resilient and sociable too. Today he speaks of his time there fondly, and insists on waving every time we pass the childminder's house, just in case she's looking.

Now Ducklingette is an entirely different kettle of fish. She is generally an easy-going and happy baby, who will potter about by herself for a whole hour without demanding much more than a quick cuddle. I don't love her any more than Duckling, but I do like myself better as a mother when I'm with her because she makes my job pretty straightforward. That will undoubtedly change as she grows up and discovers the word NO (she sort of already has), but the prospect of looking after her full time for another year doesn't make me worry that I will tumble into depression and burn-out. I'm actually quite looking forward to it.

As chilled as she is though, I still didn't want to hand Ducklingette over to someone else to look after when I didn't really need to. She is still very strongly attached to me, and in the middle of a separation anxiety phase that means I can't even pop to the toilet without tears. I know all babies have to learn to detach at some stage, and I feel awful I made Duckling do that before he was really ready, but does that mean I need to inflict the same on Ducklingette, just to be "fair"? That seems a little perverse. It's not like Duckling is now too old to benefit from me being around either - he's starting school in September, and I suspect the security of having me drop him off, pick him up and attend all his assemblies and concerts will help my somewhat sensitive little soul cope a little better with the unknown. So while I wish I could have had the mental strength to give it all up to be there for him 24/7 when he was small, it's still probably better late than never.

The other-half

If you don't have a partner, giving up work entirely is unlikely to be an option. If you do, then their salary is going to be a key factor in deciding how to balance things.

Stay-at-home Dads are everywhere round my way, and had the salary tables been turned in our relationship, my husband may well be looking after the kids as I type. But they aren't. In some ways, I am annoyed that there was so little debate to be had. Being a well-educated graduate and feminist, I felt on principle I should keep working full time, forging a career, insisting Drake scale back his long hours and crazy travel schedule to take on a more equal share of the childcare.

However, we wouldn't have been able to pay our mortgage had I done that. Nor does Drake have the equipment necessary for breastfeeding (and I'm damned if I'm going to give up early or faff about with breast pumps again like I did with Duckling.) I am also less wedded to my career than Drake is; as much as I would like to claim I was on a steady path to some director-level role, I would have needed to have ousted my boss, gained a tonne more financial and HR knowledge and gone full time to go anywhere in my last job, none of which were likely to happen anytime soon.

I also suspect, for all his protestations that he'd like to see more of the kids, Drake wouldn't really WANT to take on full time childcare, because, though he'd never give me the satisfaction of admitting it, he knows from my endless griping that it's bloody hard work. With all the meetings and travel, his job is hard too but I still maintain that a full day at the office is less physically draining and testing of patience than thirty minutes with the children. Which brings me neatly too...

Well-being and metal health

Is being at home with the kid(s) all day, every day, going to drive you crackers? Almost certainly, yes, it is, but do you have the social support and ability to carve out some non-kid time so you can put those crackers back in the packet occasionally?

I do know someone who didn't return to work because they absolutely LOVED being a Mum and couldn't think of anything they'd rather do - if that's you, I salute you. #notme. As noted above, I went back first time in part because I needed to regain a sense of autonomy and stability. With Drake away in Germany all week, I also dreaded becoming isolated. I'm naturally quite shy and a bit of an introvert and I find making friends hard. Nevertheless, I do NEED to get out, talk and socialise from time to time to stay sane. Having spent considerable energy convincing my new NCT acquaintances that I was pleasant, friendly and not too weird, I couldn't face having to do it all over again once they all went back to work. The ready-made social life of the office seemed like a preferable option.

This time around, I've been luckier - several friends have just gone on their second maternity leaves, so will be around for the next twelve months or so, and two others have just become SAHMs too. I still have to put in a conscious effort to organise meet ups and play dates, but it's easier than it was before. Drake is also travelling far less so I have company in the evenings, I get to chat to people at the nursery gate three times a week, plus I have a four-year-old who talks non-stop, and can be surprisingly good company when he's not pitching a fit about spinach or Thunderbirds. I am not lacking for social interaction.

Socially and personally, I am much more comfortable with my identity as a mother now too, and less wedded to that of a "professional". I'm no less tired and in need of personal space than I was first time - I'm just more used to the feeling and better able to cope because the memory of Life Before Children is now far more distant. My kids are my new normal, so accepting the temporary disappearance of paid employment is less of a wrench.

Childcare options

Are there grandparents or other relatives who are keen to look after the kiddo(s) for little or no pay? Can you afford a nanny? What about a good, local childminder or a day nursery?

For me, neither set of grandparents is in a position to be able to offer childcare. Day nurseries are also ultra pricey round my way, and I never felt entirely comfortable leaving Duckling in such a structured, busy environment at such a young age anyway. So for him, we opted for a childminder who cared for a few other kids, some of whom have gone on to be his best friends. I would have happily sent Ducklingette to the same childminder had I decided to return, but sadly she's about to retire. The thought of searching to find someone I liked and trusted as much in a similarly convenient location, who would happily do pick up and drop offs at Duckling's nursery school (he loves it and I don't want to move him) gave me palpitations. It was hard enough to find a suitable minder the first time, so this just added weight to the "stay at home" side of the scales.

Social expectations

Now, I could write a whole separate post on this one - and perhaps one day I will. But essentially, as a woman with children, you feel judged no matter what choice you make.

Going back to work? "Your poor children - they should be with their mother," or "Why would you have kids when you're not prepared to look after them yourself?" or "What kind of woman wouldn't want to spend all her time with her beautiful offspring?" or "Paid employment is a man's domain! We need your unpaid labour to sustain our patriarchal social structures! Get back to the kitchen, skivvy!"

Staying at home? "Cop-out! What a waste of a good education!" or "It's all right for some, with their rich husbands and posh houses, isn't it?!" or "Why aren't you 'leaning in' like women are supposed to these days?" or "Paid employment and ambition are the only recognised markers of success and value in our culture! Women's work is menial, worthless and piss-easy! You should be ashamed! Get back to a desk, layabout!"

Fretting about making a choice and being judged? "You're being stupid - you have to make the right choice for YOU and your kids. Stop worrying about what anyone else thinks you silly woman!"

But I do worry. Not so much because people are "judging me" (they can't judge me any more than I already judge myself) but because I want to do right by society and raise decent, productive members of the human race. That is, after all, the wider aim of reproduction - to keep our species alive and preferably refine it a bit in the process. The problem is that society does not entirely agree how we should do this and what it thus wants of us women. What degree of childhood security and stability are we willing to forgo in the name or female empowerment, personal fulfilment and economic productivity? Is it OK to assume that a mother's care for her child holds no advantage or benefits over, say, a father or nanny's care and rearrange our social structures accordingly? Should we celebrate a mother's role and the sacrifices she makes to ensure her child's welfare or encourage her to sacrifice less and be her own person first and foremost? Tough questions to which I have no clear answers. Society is really no frigging help at all.

Effort and Practicality

Which brings me to the final, rather more mundane, but no less important consideration. Practicality. When you weigh up all of the factors above, is the effort of returning to work actually worth it?

I spent a ridiculous amount of time "working from home" with a feverish, wheezing toddler on my lap during my first year back at work. I felt like a crap employee every time, but I knew I'd feel like an even crapper Mum had I let anyone else look after him (which, even if I'd had someone to help, he'd never have allowed anyway). Given Duckling's continued susceptibility to chest infections, and the recently added issue of a sister who has so far caught everything he's had and more, I KNEW a return to work would mean a return to panicking as I tried to manage 'unforeseen but painfully familiar circumstances' week in, week out. The fact both of them came down with an uber-cold a few days before I had to make my decision probably didn't help either...

The truth is, while it's seen as a virtue to try to 'have it all', it's really fucking hard work: you need a top notch support network, a good dose of luck, masses of energy, exceptional mental stamina and an understanding that there are no guarantees anyone will actually come out of it happier and more fulfilled - not you, nor your kids, nor your partner. In the end, even though I completely recognise there is potentially a huge amount to be gained from staying at work, I just couldn't face the complexity and effort when it wasn't 100% necessary. Perhaps that makes me lazy. I prefer to think it makes me realistic. There is no honour in running yourself into the ground. I WILL go back to work in some capacity - probably when Duckling is at school and Ducklingette starts at nursery, if we don't run out of money before that. I need to do something beyond finger painting and packed-lunch making to prevent total brain / bank-balance atrophy. But for now I am "just a Mum". I don't always feel comfortable admitting it, but you know what? I think it was the right decision. Weirdly, despite the drudgery, bodily fluids and requirement to answer eight hundred baffling questions a day ("Mummy, why is the carpet big?") I'm actually kind of enjoying it. Long may it last.

Never just 'a cold'.

How would you describe 'a cold'? The NHS website infoms me that it is "a mild viral infection of the nose, throat, sinuses and upper airways. It's very common and usually clears up on its own within a week or two." So far, so obvious.

Except the colds that we get in the Duck household often don't fit this definition. Sure, they include your basic snot and cough, but also deliver a host of other fun symptoms that seem to play out over a month or more.

Take the current 'cold' that has just swept through the family. Duckling is on antibiotics after developing a suspected secondary bacterial chest infection three weeks into an otherwise standard snotty cough, just as I thought he'd recovered. This resulted in a 40° temperature for 3 days, a tummy ache and puking incident, and a cough so incessant that I had to use his asthma inhaler round the clock just so he could go longer than 20 seconds between coughing fits. Drake was, and still is, afflicted by very painful sinuses and a snot cascade of Niagra proportions. I meanwhile had minimal snot, and no sore throat but ran a high temperature for five days along with chest issues, shivers, viral conjunctivitis in both eyes and a total loss of my sense of smell and taste for a fortnight. Excellent for the diet at least. Ducklingette was a bit snotty and had a good wheezy chest rattle going on for a week, but avoided the high temperature everyone else had. Until this evening at least... Which suggests that she's either having a relapse, she too has a bacterial infection or she's caught another cold off someone. Given that the symptoms so far are very similar to Duckling's alleged 'secondary infection', I suspect the last one. 

Nearly four weeks all this stuff has been plaguing us. A whole bloody month. I'm knackered and struggling to see any light at the end of this mucous-flooded tunnel. It's not flu - I've had flu and that is AWFUL. But nor is it "just a cold" as most people - and the NHS - would define it. It's more a Cold Plus, or a Cold 2.0 if you will. These uber colds seem to hit at least once each winter. So is this normal? Do we, as a family, just have crappy (for failing to defeat them quickly) / overly enthusiastic (for causing so many crazy symptoms) immune systems? Is it genetics (Duckling almost certainly has the Drake's dodgy lung genes)? Are we all lacking decent nutrition? Are colds evolving to be more virulent than they once were? If so, is it global warming? Or am I just massive hyperchondriac making a big song and dance about perfectly normal, if slightly drawn out illnesses? I mean, we always get better eventually, and Duckling only got hospitalised the once...

I honestly have no clear answer to any of these questions and it annoys me because when you don't know why you're spending weeks at a time being unable to smell a reeking nappy (great for me, less great for Ducklingette) there's nothing much you can do about it. At the very least, it would be good to know the exact virus we all have so I can get a better handle on what to expect in terms of symptoms, severity, duration and treatment, and an idea of what we are all now immune to. For not all cold viruses are created equal - there are over 200 of them, with more emerging all the time, each one has a slightly different profile. It would be great to blot a few off the giant cold bug bingo board.

I thus find it odd that in the modern age nobody has decided it might be helpful to be more precise, and produced a quick test that enables doctors to say (e.g.) "Ah yes, you have Human Rhinovirus C. This one last ages and is likely to cause wheezing, pneumonia and hallucinations of purple rhinos, so do watch out..."  But no such luck.  Why so vague?

Of course I know the answer - a system that identified viral species in every coughing person in the doctor's waiting room would be prohibitively expensive - I'm no biologist but I imagine it is neither a quick nor easy task, for all my wishful thinking. Beyond basic curiosity and my pedantic need for precision, there is not an awful lot of epidemiological use in tracking bugs that rarely cause much damage beyond a crusty nose either.

What would have more value, as I have argued before, would be a Viral v Bacterial test. Doctors often can't reliably diferentiate between colds - caused by viruses - and bacterial infections (though pharmacies were trialling such a thing for sore throats).  For this reason, we have on more than one occasion now had to force antibiotics down Duckling without knowing if they're strictly necessary. This week is a case in point - Ducklingette appears to have caught her new bug off Duckling (same symptoms, just less melodramatic), implying his was viral not bacterial all along. Having had an argument over every single dose of the stupid bloody banana gloop, this is a tad frustrating.

As it is, we, as parents, just have to live with the unpredictability and rely on conversations at the school / nursery gate and Facebook parenting groups to reassure us that six weeks of coughing is absolutely de rigueur for those with the current lurgy du jour.  Because even if we knew what the kids had, the solution will, nine times out of ten, be the standard coldathon drill anyway - be liberal with the cuddles, trust your instincts and try to ignore the urge to shout "really, how are we still in the middle of this?!" every ten minutes. Which is parenthood in a nutshell really, isn't it?

A morning (with children).

Awake to the sound of a six-month-old farting. She has been in your bed since 3am following her third wake of the night - later than the night before but not as late as the one before that. The farter is goldfish-mouthing for a nipple but is nowhere near and latches onto your elbow instead. Redirect her and wonder why she always snorts and gulps as though she's chugging a beer when she breastfeeds. So bloody noisy. Try to keep your eyes closed and will her fall back asleep, while she finishes guzzling her breakfast pint. No chance - she starts to burble and squirm, a sure sign she's ready for the day. Sit her up and give her a hairbrush to play with while you bury your head back in the pillow. Husband is in the shower which must mean it's 06.40. Sleep laps at the outer shores of your brain, before rapidly receding as you hear the wail of "Mummy, come and seeeeee meeeeee!" from son's room. Surround daughter with pillows to prevent a bed-to-floor tumble and drag your knackered corpse in to collect son from bunk bed that he still can't safely exit solo. Bring son back into your bed and inform him that it's very early so he should go back to the land of nod. For a brief, tantalising moment, as you crawl back under the covers, you think he might comply, but no, he's sits bolt upright again and the peanut butter toast demands begin. There's no going back now. The day has begun.

Husband emerges from shower, gets dressed and engages son in loud, animated discussion about underpants, before taking him downstairs for the inexplicable morning ritual of placing a banana in a laptop bag. Briefly check weather and headlines on phone before son is back, jumping on the bed and trying to steal daughter's hairbrush to vigourously brush her bald pate. Daughter wails and the first "gentle please!" of the day is issued. 

You re-exit the bed, trip over various pillows, toys and clothes and locate a dressing gown. It needs a wash as the single marmite stain has now spawned three more, but your other one hasn't yet graced the washing machine after a tea disaster, so marmite robe it is. 

Wave husband off out the window and perilously carry both kids down the stairs, because one can't walk and the other refuses to. Hope today is not the day that you slip and drop them both. Locate the remote, tap in 614 for CBeebies, and stick the baby in her cardboard box playpen while toast is prepared. Wonder, as you have every day for the past fortnight, whether today is the day to start giving the baby something other than boob for breakfast, but decide, once again, that you don't have the time or energy right now. Maybe when more stuff goes in her mouth than on the floor...?

Dole out toast and water and answer son's question of "What we doing today Mummy?" for the third time. Today is a nursery day. Still. Shovel own toast into mouth and down juice while checking Facebook before embarking on some washing up. But wait, what's that smell? Daughter has pooped up her back! Oh happy day. 

Deal with the poomageddon, noting that the box of used Cheeky Wipes still needs to be washed and you still don't have time right now to do it, and throw poopy babygrow into the "to soak in stain remover" bucket by the washing machine. Return to find large puddle in the middle of the kitchen thanks to an upended cup incident. Spend five minutes persuading son to wipe it up, which he does, but so incompetently that you have to complete the job yourself. Do a little jig to the Hey Duggee theme tune and get momentarily distracted by its zany charm. Glance at clock. 07.45. Right, operation Get Dressed must begin. The washing up can wait.

Corral children up the stairs, repeatedly instructing son NOT to drop plate of half-eaten toast, before picking up dropped toast six steps from the top. Stick son in front of laptop and fight with Amazon Prime website and crap broadband speed until Paw Patrol reluctantly agrees to play. Install daughter on a mat on bathroom floor with a random collection of bath toys and empty shampoo bottles.  Collect son's nursery outfit from his bedroom, plonk it on bed next to him with instructions to put it on while you are in shower, then strip off clothes, have a quick wee while daughter attempts to gum your toe and jump in.

Zoom through shampoo and conditioner, washing body with shampoo as you still haven't remembered to buy more soap, and step out into a puddle of milky baby sick which daughter is merrily swishing around the tiles with her pudgy little hands. Bite back a swear word, pick her up, rinse her off under the tap and stick her on the floor in the bedroom. Rinse foot, dry foot, dry everything else, wrap hair in towel, then streak down the hallway to the airing cupboard to collect a flannel, hoping the neighbours don't see your naked wobbly bits through the landing window. Wipe up sick with flannel and start brushing teeth. Continue brushing while attempting to rescue daughter, who has reversed herself under the bed, and put Paw Patrol back on for son, who has somehow opened an Excel spreadsheet and is busy populating every column with the letter k. Complete toothbrushing, moisturise and deodorise, then wipe up random toothpaste dribbles on duvet and daughter's head with the baby sick flannel.

Note that son has not yet even removed pyjamas. Gently encourage son to do so by slamming lid of laptop shut and stating there will be no more Paw Patrol until he is dressed. Brush hair and drown out whining with hair dryer, then tie hair up to keep it out the way of sticky baby gecko hands. Rummage in wardrobe for outfit that fits and doesn't have any major holes, then get dressed while simultaneously putting on son's socks. Leave him to complete dressing while daughter is wrestled into clothes, generating customary screaming fit. Return to bedroom where son has still not donned his trousers, but has made a den out of the bedclothes, in which he is now sitting, building a road out of husband's cufflinks and loose change. Instruct him in no uncertain terms that his trousers must go on NOW, and that the cufflinks and change must go back in the cupboard before you count to 10. Count to 7 quickly and loudly while son provides full range of reasons why he should not comply (but the road isn't finished and his invisible friends won't be able to get to nursery without it!), then 8..... 9.... 9 and a quarter..... 9 and a half.... 9 and three quarters.... Son madly scrambles to find his trousers and return all items to husband's wardrobe. 10!

Usher son into bathroom for toothbrushing, and precariously balance daughter on knee while attacking son's teeth with brush. Tell son to "open wide, look at me, stop talking" at least five times, then get him to rinse and spit, which he does, half in the sink and half down his t-shirt. Towel him down then return to bedroom to collect phone and put on socks. Note baby is yawning and check time. 8.35. Ten minutes to exit house. Go to find son who has gone very quiet. Discover him on toilet, singing. Curse too loudly. Pooping takes ten minutes minimum. Wait outside bathroom on son's insistence while he rattles through all the kid's TV theme tune classics - Paw Patrol, Peppa Pig, Go Jetters, Octonauts - asking him of he's finished every 30 seconds. Briefly feed baby who is now due a nap and is grizzling and check Facebook again. FFS what is he doing? Poke head round door and note unravelled toilet roll pooled on floor. Deliver usual lecture on waste while rolling it back up, then wipe bottom and wash hands, before beginning another countdown to get son to pull trousers back up.

Wonder what happened to your life as you chase son downstairs. Grab pushchair and strap in tired and howling baby, then grab nursery bag and instruct son to put on shoes. No, not those shoes, those are Mummy's. Not the wellies either. Where ARE your shoes? Hunt for shoes and discover them in plant pot. Ram shoes on son's feet and throw coat at him. Shush baby while pulling on own boots and bump pushchair over discarded wellies and out front door. Return for coat. Return for keys. Return for son who is brandishing a pair of kitchen tongs that he wants to take to nursery. Return kitchen tongs.

Haul pouting son onto buggy board and gently jog down road. Three minutes to get to nursery. It can be done in three minutes, can't it?  Breathlessly discuss son's invisible friends LeafHead and CutterHedge who are apparently going to be doing some tree felling at nursery today, say hello to some cats, have a dispute over who should open the park gate, underline that there really are NO MORE BLACKBERRIES on the brambles because it's November now, then run across park, sending wet grass clippings flying everywhere as son yells "faster, faster!" followed by "Why we going so fast Mummy? Are we late?" 

Arrive at nursery a hot sweaty mess and ring the Buzzer of Shame because the teacher on gate duty has already gone back inside. Apologise for tardiness as teacher writes 09.05 on sign in sheet, and hurry son into building, brushing wet grass off both of you as you go. Give son a hug and a kiss as he merrily tells teacher he is late because he had to do a big poo, then push daughter back out of the gate and across the park. Watch as she slowly nods off and breathe in the fresh air and silence. Walk rest of way home listening to tunes from your youth and wondering where that person went and whether she ever realised just how free she was, how unencumbered, how energetic, how untested in the patience department. Curse her naivety for thinking children would be a brilliant idea, then look at beautiful sleeping daughter and thank her to the stars and back. You wouldn't have it any other way. Mostly.

Slumps in self-esteem

How's your self-esteem? It has come to my attention recently that mine is not especially great. I do have days where I like myself; where I've managed to put together a reasonably flattering outfit, kept control of the daily toy explosion in the house, have said something vaguely intelligent or have earned a B+ or above at parenting.

Then there are the days where I feel USELESS. Stupid, incompetent, forgetful, socially awkward and clutzy. Fat, frumpy and old.  On an OK day, I'll forget what it feels like to have a self-esteem slump. I'll laugh at my crisis over a thoughtlessly missed birthday the week before. Catch me in a crap mood though, particularly during a hormone storm or after drinking gin or wine, and the slightest little thing can make me dissolve into a frothing pool of self-loathing.

Holidays seem to bring out the worst of my self-confidence issues, probably because of the heady mix of alcohol-induced emotional hangovers and the need to wear revealing swimwear. And Drake's requirement that we play crazy golf. I am not good at crazy golf. And I am not good at not being good at things. It was the crazy golf ("Not CRAZY golf; MINI golf" Drake would be huffing were he to read this) on our current holiday that started my latest bout of hand-wringing. Objectively, I'm probably not terrible. But out there, facing down the mini windmills, little orange club in hand, I feel like an uncoordinated chimpanzee. So I just whack the ball willy nilly, figuring I'll be less disappointed in myself if I don't even try. And lo, I go ten over par every time. Or whatever the correct terminology is. Drake thinks my subsequent strops are funny at first. Then he gets annoyed because I'm sucking all the fun out of a game he loves. Which just makes me feel worse because I'm ruining it for him and making everyone else feel uncomfortable and why can't I just a) laugh it off or b) just be bloody better??? Drake is of course very good at mini golf so has no idea why I hate it. But then he doesn't understand why I beat myself up about anything really. Like map reading. Or social interaction with vineyard owners. Or map reading. Or tumble drying plastic undersheets (turns out you really shouldn't). Or buying dinner in sufficient quantities (more chicken needed! Why didn't I trust my instinct and buy more chicken?!). Or map reading. Have I mentioned the map reading?

To be honest, I've kind of had enough of feeling like a failure, because I know I'm not. I have a masters degree, a good job, two lovely kids, a great husband and an understanding if occasionally disfunctional family. I'm a great swimmer and singer and a reasonable dancer, writer, public speaker, cook and runner. I think I'm doing OK at the Mum thing. I speak French and some Spanish. I can still touch my toes. Heck, I could definitely be fatter and uglier - but I also know looks should not define a woman's worth so I actively strive not to care. And given the state of my nails and eyebrows I'm doing pretty well at that.

The fact is, I'm just fine and my occasional faux pas do not define me. I forget this for many reasons (comparison to my very competent, self-assured and even-keeled husband; a history with bitchy classmates and university friends; a sensitive personality and tendency to dwell on the negative; a personal expectation of perfection left over from my over-achieving school days; sleep deprivation; time deprevation; the discovery that I own the same coat as my mother-in-law; poor short term memory; a tendency to leave the car keys on the roof of the car overnight etc. etc...). But I am fine. One might even say, hopefully, maybe, quite nice and sort of funny. But shh, don't tell anyone I said that. I don't want to sound big-headed. Oh God, do I sound big-headed?!  Someone shoot me now.

Threenagers - where did the innocence go?

I knew it would come some time... That point at which your wide-eyed, chubby-cheeked toddler turns into a knowing, precocious preschooler. When people stop being reliably amused at their funny exploits and outbursts, and start giving them, and you, rather less of the benefit of doubt if they act up. A threenager is well and truly among us.

This loss of innocence really hit home the first time Duckling genuinely embarrassed me in public a couple of weeks back. He's generally a pretty good kid when we're out, if a little selectively deaf and exuberant at times (when he's not being painfully shy). So as we entered the National Trust property we were visiting that day for a picnic, I didn't think twice about taking five minutes to fill in an membership form (#middleagedandproud). I quickly realised my mistake as Duckling rolled his eyes at me and huffily declared he didn't WANT to sit down, he wanted to go and have the picnic NOW. I informed him that demanding was never the right way to get anything, and he would have to wait. I sat him beside me as an NT volunteer started to take me through the form. 

My friend's little boy came to sit with us. Duckling took exception to this and tried to shove him off the bench they were both on. Stern words got a petulant look and had little impact so I took Duckling onto my lap where he wriggled about in irritation. The valiant volunteer tried to give him an activity sheet to distract him. Duckling threw it on the floor in disgust, shouting "I don't want that!". He then tried to grab my friend's son's sheet too, in which, unlike Duckling, he was quietly and politely showing great interest. I died a little inside, but with the volunteer still patiently completing the form - "and could you spell that for me please?" - I had no choice but to sit there, restraining a struggling Duckling, and issuing "I know you're hungry but we DO NOT do that!" and "we are going to have WORDS about this in a minute young man," threats under my breath. At last we escaped, but not before the volunteer - who had clearly not learnt his lesson - tried to proffer another leaflet Duckling's way, only to have it derisively thrown back in his face. Profuse apologies and a serious talk with Duckling predictably followed.

He's only three, I know. It feels like an excuse but he truly doesn't yet understand that good manners should apply in ALL situations. He is prone to melodrama, eye-rolling and like all three-year-olds, he's also a bit of a narcissist who doesn't fully get empathy yet, as much as I might like him to. He also has a great love of biscuits, and for him, eating the shortbread we'd bought was the primary purpose of our whole expedition. I know all this, yet I can't help taking this sort of behaviour very personally. I am excessively English. I hate rudeness, awkwardness, or for anyone to think badly of me or my offspring. For my son to behave like such a spoilt brat was mortifying. How could a child of mine act so entitled? Am I an awful parent? Everyone must have thought he was vile! And at a National Trust property of all places! The middle-class SHAME of it!

There have been other incidents since, all underlining that my son has left his two-year-old innocence well behind. He's still enthusiastic, bubbly and full of fun, imagination and giggles, but also moody, bossy, egocentric and very dismissive of anyone "silly" (which seems to be largely everyone at the moment). He's also particularly articulate, which I think is what makes this new phase so fraught with potential humiliation. He is totally honest. Whereas before he just yelled and cried, now he can explain (or shout) exactly what he thinks and feels - but with few filters and some obvious impulse control issues, it's not always what people want to hear.

In some ways I long for the largely mute innocence his four-month-old sister still displays.  Yet I know there's no going back. So as humiliating as National Trustgate was, it was also a wake up call. I realised that my parenting methods may need a bit of a polish. I simply cannot rely on him being guileless and cute in social situations anymore. I need to more actively teach politeness and self-control and help him to understand why he can't just yell whatever he's thinking, even if he is hungry and bored. Modern parenting manuals all laud "modelling" as the best way to teach manners - well I'm sure it does play a role, but I know I am always unfailingly polite in public (I'm fairly sure I've never thrown a major strop at an Edwardian country retreat before for instance) so I think its powers are possibly overrated. Boundaries and consequences seem to work better for us.

In an odd way, I'm quite looking forward to helping Duckling through this next stage. He's (mostly) mastered the basics of life - how to walk, how to eat independently, how to use the toilet, how to talk... Now we get to teach him how to be a decent, thoughtful and sociable little person. I hope I'm up to the challenge. Though I fear I may need to toughen up (or avoid National Trust properties) while he gets there.

"There's a Fire at London..."

Duckling, like many three-year-olds is completely obsessed by fire engines, police cars and all things "memergency". I have lost count of the number of times I've been pulled into his emergency rescue games with cries of "Quick Mummy, there's a fire at London!" (I think this is his interpretation of Fireman Sam's catchphrase "Great Fires of London").

It is a very hard thing to explain to a three-year-old that fires are more than just 'exciting'. I tried a few months ago, when some neighbours down the road had a minor issue with a singed bedroom carpet, prompting the arrival of two fire engines in our street. He sort of understood, but mostly he just wanted to wave to the fire fighters.

Yesterday, the explanation of what had happened at Grenfell Tower was infinitely harder. He saw the pictures on TV as I watched the news. "Wow Mummy! That's a big building on fire! And lots of fire engines!" I explained that this was a genuine 'Fire at London', and after some confusion about it being in the building where I worked (London and my office seem to be largely synonymous in Duckling's mind) he grasped the concept that this was a building where people lived. He wanted to see more pictures. He wanted to see the fire and the fire fighters and the sad people. I showed him some pictures on my phone, then told him I couldn't show him any more as I was very sad too. He asked me why.

What I wanted to say was I was sad because so many people had died in the most horrific circumstances imaginable, leaving behind desperate parents, children, siblings and friends. I was sad that mothers had been compelled to throw their babies out of windows, or had faced the agony of losing their children in the choking smoke as they ran for their lives. That those who survived had just had all their earthly possessions taken from them, and would never, ever be able to return to their homes. And above all, I was sad that this tragedy had happened, today, in 2017, in a wealthy developed nation, not because of an unpredictable freak event, but because the prescient concerns of residents were ignored and safety was forgone for the sake of a few thousand pounds. That this whole awful, horrible disaster was so fucking avoidable.

You can't say all that to a three-year-old though. So I just explained that people's homes had burnt down, and some had lost their friends and family and that made me very sad because I could imagine how scared and upset they must be. "Oh." he said. "What if our house goes on fire? Would we be burned and trapped like the people?" I reassured him that our house was very unlikely to burn down, but if it did catch on fire, we could escape out of a window or down the stairs. "No Mummy. I would put out the fire with my fire stingsquisher! Ne naw ne naw!" he cried and zoomed off to build a towerblock and a fire station out of Duplo.

Three is hard. Old enough to understand and be scared, but not yet quite able to fully empathise and grasp the gravity of what a fire - particularly one on the scale of Grenfell Tower - really means. In a year, he will get it. Right now, I'm kind of glad that he doesn't.

Things to remember when parenting articles make you feel crap

I read one of those articles today that begins, "There is a silent tragedy occurring amongst... our children," and proceeds to explain how an ever increasing number of kids are growing up with terrible mental health issues, unable to cope with life's challenges because their parents are basically rubbish.

I'm sure you recognise the type. They are the bread and butter of many websites and publications aimed at parents, and while they may make very salient points, and in some cases be based on good evidence (of the problem, if not always the cause or the solution) they can also make perfectly decent parents feel like crap for occasionally looking at Facebook rather than actively engaging in little Calendula's colouring in sessions. I know, I've beaten myself up more times than I care to mention for similar crimes.

As I've become more au fait with motherhood however, and particularly since I've had my second child, the levels of guilt I feel after reading these articles have lessened. I still have moments of regret when Paw Patrol or Pom Bears have featured too heavily in Duckling's day, but the feeling that "I'm obviously just not doing this right" has definitely declined. Why? Partly my confidence has grown, but also, I have come to realise a number of important things about articles that critique "parents" en masse:

1) Generalisations about modern parenting habits are just that: generalisations. They are not directly targeted at you or your child, even if it sometimes feels like it. For example, many articles bemoan digital distraction, and parents who look at their phone while in the company of their kids. I am guilty of this. I am thus, apparently, contributing to the downfall of the next generation. Except I don't think I am. I'm an intelligent adult and like most other Mums I know, I understand the concept of balance. I use my phone, of course, just not all the time (mainly because I'm forever losing it). Phones are banned at meal times, while we're out and about, and when I'm actively playing with Duckling. And if he's playing on his own and I am looking at Twitter, he just has to ask and I will put my phone down and speak to him. You know, like our parents would have done while reading the newspaper, or a book, or watching TV. If we were lucky...

Many generalisations assume us all to be extreme in our behaviours: permanently glued to our phones, never setting boundaries, only ever giving our children beige freezer tapas and Haribos... If you are on the extreme end of the spectrum about anything then sure, you probably are going to 'ruin' your kids a little bit, and potentially muck up relationships with partners, friends and family too. Most of us are kind of in the middle though, adapting our approach to suit our kids' needs and personalities (and just as importantly, our own).

2) Many articles are riddled with contradictions. Either they contradict other articles, or there are contradictions in the article itself. So, you can never really be 100% sure what you're doing right is actually right, or what you're doing wrong is actually wrong. For instance, you must engage with your child at all times. But also step back and give them space to discover the world themselves and "be bored". Breast is allegedly best. Unless it makes you feel bad about not having breastfed in which case it's not. Because actually the evidence of benefit is overstated. Although it's also considered by many to be overwhelming and irrefutable. So you should breastfeed for at least 6 months. Or better still two years! But not more than three because that's just weird and there's no proof it's useful. Or maybe there is? You get the idea.

3) A lot of articles are written by child psychologists, pediatricians or similar professionals. Who do they see day in, day out? Children with physical or mental health issues. They see where parents are going 'wrong' (according to their particular pet theories). But they don't necessarily see all the parents who are getting it more or less right.

Claims about negative trends in childhood behaviour and experiences thus need to be carefully assessed. Is there longterm, objective evidence of a problem? The recent dramatic increase in autism diagnoses for example is most likely down to a change in how we diagnose the condition rather than environmental factors, or anything that we are doing differently as parents. In the case of childhood obesity, or anxiety and depression, there is however clear evidence of increase, as diagnosic criteria have remained identical for many years. What is less certain is exactly how we, as parents, are contributing to these issues beyond the obvious (feeding our children too much of the wrong thing, putting unreasonable amounts of pressure on them, or neglecting them). The problem is invariably more complex than some claim, and involves an interplay between shifting societal norms, current affairs, our children's innate personalities, their relationships with peers and our own relationships, parenting style, interactions and expectations. There is no one clear reason for rising mental and physical health issues, so no one clear solution - though having some common sense as parents and avoiding obviously damaging behaviour is a good start.

4) If the guilt trip article isn't written by a professional, it's probably written by a reformed "bad parent"; i.e.: "I used to shout at my kids all the time - then I discovered how to parent while sitting in the lotus position chanting 'ohm' and eating braised tofu. Now I'm practically perfect in every way!" Never trust anyone who claims to have all the answers. Their solution may suit them. It doesn't mean it will suit you.

5) There is always a cognitive bias towards both negativity and nostalgia, and many articles reflect this. I often pick up an underlying theme of "women have lost the basic skills of motherhood. They used to be better at it." Really? People used to routinely wallop their kids. Surely things are better now most don't? What about the modern children who are now benefiting from contemporary research findings relating to stress, love, nutrition, infant sleeping positions...?

6) Negative cognitive bias affects us as readers too. Parenthood is a thankless task, and praise is a rare commodity. It is easy to hear and dwell on criticism (even from generalised articles) and assume you're doing a terrible job because you once let your child watch twelve episodes of Peppa Pig in a row. Plus nobody ever says, "Wow, that was some awesome supermarket tantrum taming you did there!" or "Ha! Your Gruffalo voice is HILARIOUS!" so you often ignore all the times you got parenting right. If you love your kids and are thoughtful in the way you raise them (i.e. thoughtful enough to be reading parenting articles), you're probably doing just fine.

7) Many articles forget that we are human and our kids need to see us as such too. We should of course try keep our less desirable traits (short temper, bitchiness, nose picking etc.) in check, as kids are little spongey mirrors (and I know that's not a thing...) who both absorb and reflect. But children also need to see what to do when someone messes up - i.e. apologise and make things right.

8) In a similar vein, I am now wary of any article that suggests I entirely overhaul the way I speak to my kids. You know the sort: "Frangipane, I can see you are very upset with your sister. I understand you are feeling very angry but shall we think of better way to express that anger than ramming cheesy puffs in her ear?" The sentiment is great, but by the time you've got through that all, poor little Frangipane's sister has probably had a cheesy puff lobotomy.

I read an article about evaluative praise a while back, that suggested saying things like "Good Boy/Girl" and "Well Done" was actually terribly detrimental to our children as it cuts off further discussion and makes us, as adults, the determiners of their worth, rather than the child having an innate sense of where they'd got things right, tried hard or done well. I understood the point and tried not to 'praise' for a few weeks. I changed my speech patterns, and the things I said. I got the concept, but it just felt wrong, and Duckling (and Drake) kept looking at me like I was a bit bonkers every time I squeezed out an awkward "Gosh, that scribble is very, um, wiggly and, um, blue. You must have thought really hard about how to hold that crayon," rather than "What a great picture! What's this bit meant to be?". Sometimes I had to try so hard not to "pass judgement", I found I couldn't say anything at all, which is surely worse? I'm all for speaking to your children at an appropriate level for their understanding, remaining authoritative and reigning in the criticism, but I wonder how beneficial it is to constantly converse like an awkward robot stuck on "linguistic programming" mode. Your child will likely notice that you're not being genuine, and besides, second guessing and censoring everything you say sucks much of the joy out of the simple act of chatting with your child; and the fact you're communicating is almost as important as what you actually say sometimes.

___________

The purpose of this minor rant is not to pretend all parents are brilliant and free of blame or to excuse us from any sense of responsibility for helping our kids to be kind, happy and healthy individuals. This is surely our most important job as Mums and Dads, and we should always strive to hone our technique and scale the inevitable obstacles we encounter along the way as our children develop and change. Whether it's discipline, healthy eating, confidence building or potty training, by all means identify the issue, search out good advice - even professional help - and make some consistent, realistic changes. Just don't feel guilty about getting it 'wrong' previously. Furthermore, any changes you make should be based on what will benefit you and your child at the present moment, and not on a sense that you need to fix every long term trend, societal problem or 'behavioural issue of the month' that you read about. It's only by recognising this that I have at last learned not to worry about the baggage I have saddled Duckling (and now Ducklingette) with due to my ignorance of a problem I only learned about five minutes previously on HuffPost Parents. I have enough issues to address - I definitely don't need to imagine new ones...