I think it will happen very soon, however, with regards to your comments on her book, it is a case of supply and demand.
If there weren't the mums-to-be out there prepared to part with the best part of £20 just to find out how someone with a famous face had a baby, then it wouldn't get written in the first place.
I'm sure there are already plans for her to do a fitness DVD saying how she got her figure back etc.
It's a shame that motherhood isn't enough for her (and the tonnes of other "celebrity mothers") as she could quite easily stay at home with her child rather than go back to work.
I find always find it odd (as a bloke) that women with plenty of cash can't get back to work quick enough after having a kid. Makes one wonder why they have children in the first place.
Originally posted by rothgar: Hey, steady on Occ Viz, you're going in the direction of "barefoot, pregnant, in the kitchen" We've moved on since then.
Not at all, I'm just thinking of the women I know with kids who would love to be able to spend more time at home, but can't afford too. Therefore seeing people with plenty of money leaving their child with a nanny while they rush back to work just doesn't make sense.
I think Myleene and the gang are scared stiff that if they took a few years off, we wouldn't have a clue who they were when they returned.
I would not be so presumptuous or impertinent to know or tell a new mother what she should or should not do. If she has choice, it's entirely up to her. The fact that some mothers may feel the need to return to work purely for financial reasons begs many questions. But is no reason to deny the choice to others. Have you swallowed a colander this morning, Occ Viz?
I'm not a huge fan of Mylene although everyone else seems to be, as for her book, well thank goodness she thought of it, after all there is hardly anything ever written about pregnancy is there??!!
Originally posted by Occasional Visitor: I think it will happen very soon, however, with regards to your comments on her book, it is a case of supply and demand.
If there weren't the mums-to-be out there prepared to part with the best part of £20 just to find out how someone with a famous face had a baby, then it wouldn't get written in the first place.
I'm sure there are already plans for her to do a fitness DVD saying how she got her figure back etc.
It's a shame that motherhood isn't enough for her (and the tonnes of other "celebrity mothers") as she could quite easily stay at home with her child rather than go back to work.
I find always find it odd (as a bloke) that women with plenty of cash can't get back to work quick enough after having a kid. Makes one wonder why they have children in the first place.
Although I'm female OC, I actually agree with you. After I had my children, I stayed at home until they started school as I didn't want to miss their first few years - they seem to grow up so quickly! Also, I don't think it's fair to have a baby and automatically assume that the grandparents will look after it while you go back to work. Waiting for feedback on this one!
I do agree with you, I have no children but remember very well my childhood and my mum being there with something warm and homely for us after school, or with some trip or other planned, a priceless childhood. My neice has just had a baby and has decided not to go back to work and we are all delighted. I know that people will say they can't afford to stay home but I know some who pay out almost what their salary is in day care, so where is the logic in that? Some things in life are worth making sacrifices for and investment in and I would think your children would be high on that list.
The upper middle classes used to send their sons to a boarding prep school at 7 years of age. That, to me, seemed quite callous. But times change for the better, there isn't such a brutal physical separation now.
Originally posted by rothgar: I would not be so presumptuous or impertinent to know or tell a new mother what she should or should not do. If she has choice, it's entirely up to her. The fact that some mothers may feel the need to return to work purely for financial reasons begs many questions. But is no reason to deny the choice to others. Have you swallowed a colander this morning, Occ Viz?
I'm just passing comment that's all and it makes no difference to me whether or not Myleene Klass goes back to "work".
All I am saying is that this business of celebs having kids and writing the book about pregnancy that goes where no other book about pregnancy has gone before just seems so predictable.
To me it gives the impression of people who see having children as just another "deal" similar the contract with their agent. I find it depressing that no one ever questions them about this when they go on TV to plug their books and DVDs.
No one ever points out that hardly any of these women are married to the fathers or asks them what sort of an impression does this fact give to "their fans". No one ever points out that this time last year many of these people were probably all in relationships with someone else.
In short, no one ever points out that many of these celebrities are appalling role models, setting really bad examples to people who seem to look up to them.
Blimey, you're now into being "born out of wedlock"!!!
Of course they set bad examples, but, perhaps, many other people do, in fact, realize this. I would be reluctant to assume that I was the only person capable of not following their bad example.
The 'baby' book is just a sad indictment of the publishing world. No one has a memory that stretches back more than ten years at most. So instead of imagining that someone might actually go to a library, or...a bookshop, and instead of a publisher re-issuing a decent 'old' book, they comission a new one. At least some comic or other said as much: 'Ah yes, a book on having babies - about time, as people have been having babies for, oh, at least since the 1990s!' But I agree Klaas is a twit. She's devoid of self-awareness. I saw her the other day complaining about women who prance about in bikinis! What did she do a year or so ago??
I saw that DD; it was Simon Amstel on Never Mind the Buzzcocks, he is quite deadly to the unwary celeb, he looks so inocuous but can be quite acid. Preston from the Ordinary Boys walked off on the show he was on because Simon was taking the rise out of his wife? ex wife? wife? (Sorry can't keep up) Chantelles' book. (another literary giant)
Kerry Katona has, I think, also written a book. Her forthcoming TV programme received the Richard and Judy seal of approval. That's where this role-modelling lark is being peddled (and elsewhere).
Originally posted by amanda5653: I saw that DD; it was Simon Amstel on Never Mind the Buzzcocks, he is quite deadly to the unwary celeb, he looks so inocuous but can be quite acid. Preston from the Ordinary Boys walked off on the show he was on because Simon was taking the rise out of his wife? ex wife? wife? (Sorry can't keep up) Chantelles' book. (another literary giant)
That's the one, thank you - Simon Anstell. Very sharp.
Originally posted by rothgar: Blimey, you're now into being "born out of wedlock"!!!
Of course they set bad examples, but, perhaps, many other people do, in fact, realize this. I would be reluctant to assume that I was the only person capable of not following their bad example.
I would settle for them having been together for a good three or four years before having kids together, although I don't think that there is anything wrong (even in this crazy day and age) to think that a couple may actually get married before having a family.
Nothing wrong in a bit of old fashioned commitment.
Originally posted by rothgar: Double Blimey!! Even the Archbishop would not insist on four years before procreation. ...and he's toying with the idea of Sharia Law!!
Don't be so daft, I'm not "insisting" on anything. I just think that people should think a lot more about the implications before they have children. Just because they can have them, doesn't mean they should.
These days everything portrayed in the media about relationships seems so temporary. Celebs get together, they have kids, they break up, they get together with someone else, have more kids, they break up. Back in the real world, people do exactly the same, but without the healthy bank balance and magazine deal to help see them through.
I know people have choices and no one makes anyone do anything, but when people "off the telly" come across as living their lives without hardly any kind of moral code, we can't be too surprised when society starts coming apart at the seems.
Originally posted by Occasional Visitor: I would settle for them having been together for a good three or four years before having kids together, although I don't think that there is anything wrong (even in this crazy day and age) to think that a couple may actually get married before having a family.
"Settle for" means much the same as "insist" in my World. Perhaps your use of language is a bit skew wiff.
I have just read this topic with interest and I would like to say that I agree with everything you have written Occ.Visitor.
Also,in my opinion, "celebrities" think that they are the only people to have given birth so this is why they jump on the bandwagon of writing books, or should I say, putting their name
Although I'm female OC, I actually agree with you. After I had my children, I stayed at home until they started school as I didn't want to miss their first few years - they seem to grow up so quickly! Also, I don't think it's fair to have a baby and automatically assume that the grandparents will look after it while you go back to work. Waiting for feedback on this one!
