Unfortunately, although the modern economy is very much global, there are still those with a quite astounding lack of geographical knowledge of our global village, as seen in this video clip that’s been doing the rounds on YouTube for a long time now, but deserves another airing*. I love the kid sniggering as the contestant flails around in search of an answer:

* Sadly this ISN’T an April Fool’s joke.

A debate is currently raging across the British media concerning this news story, and the wider issue of new mums of all ages and social statuses who for whatever reason decide to return to work rather more quickly than is ‘normal’. Most new mums are entitled to at least 3 months’ leave following the birth of their child (except freelancers, of course – how long we choose to take it entirely at our own discretion, or rather, how long we can survive on the state Maternity Allowance).

The Guardian encouraged a debate on the issue, with numerous writers (all women, I might add) being very forthcoming with their views on Dati’s decision regarding her newborn. I began reading the comments with a fairly neutral attitude. But, as I read on, I found myself  forming a much stronger opinion…but not the one I expected.

Contrast this view of one writer:

Dati is someone who has a serious job to do and it really doesn’t matter whether she’s postnatally flabby or annoyingly thin when she does it. It’s not unsisterly to be slim and it doesn’t make you unfit for public service. As for the health consequences of going back to work so soon, it’s not as if she is a hod carrier, or a firefighter, or a teacher – she’s a government minister and if she feels up to sitting down at a desk and attending meetings shortly after giving birth, bonne chance to her

With this one:

Then there was the businesswoman who spent her labour on her Blackberry because she didn’t want to look like “a slacker”.  I’ve also spoken to despairing midwives who see women missing out on the vital, once-in-a lifetime experience of bonding with their newborn.

Machismo of this sort by women in prominent positions makes others feel guilty about exercising their rights. It also deters women from striving to reach the top. There are precious few women in leading business roles and many of them are single or childless. It is easy to understand why that is if they are expected to start working almost immediately after birth.[...]  As a society, we should encourage our leaders to show that it is possible to take proper maternity leave and hold down a high-profile job.

To my surprise, my major reaction was disappointment at some of the criticism levied at mothers. Although many of the responses made some very salient points, these points risked being lost amongst the emotionally charged tone of the writing. Why does this, as women, upset us  quite so much? Why are we still hounding each other for the decisions we take in motherhood? Why do we feel that motherhood is an issue where we are all entitled to pass judgement on each other?

Sure, there are things about the way some women choose to begin motherhood that would not work for everyone, but is it really fair to haul them over hot coals for deviating from what we perceive to be ‘normal’? This particular observation really stood out:

[...] you have to wonder where feminism has taken us when women are judged because they don’t conform to the current view of what a “good mother” looks like

France has excellent maternity provision, much more generous than the UK. But in France reactions have been even stronger, especially among women’s rights organisations. A spokeswoman for one of the major women’s rights organisations in France said ‘c’est un scandale‘. This is a somewhat  misplaced agenda for a women’s rights organisation, surely.

This is such a contentious issue and feelings clearly run very deep; there aren’t many things that offend humans more than when others take issue with their parenting style.  What saddens me is that people, especially women, are so very quick to pass judgement on how other women choose to return to work after having a baby. After all, I don’t think child neglect is an issue here – we can probably quite safely assume that Ms. Dati has employed a suitable-qualified nanny.

One of the most surprising things for me in this story was that I found myself agreeing with a columnist in The Times (!). Melanie McDonagh on Friday really hit the nail on the head for me when she said: ‘[...] real women are infinitely various, their circumstances even more so.’ The debate continued in The Sunday Times today, again with some pretty reasonable and pragmatic arguments put across. I still don’t have a very strong view for or against Ms. Dati’s decision. All I hope is that soon the day will come when the image of the ‘perfect mummy’ is no longer idealised and women do not vilify each other for not conforming to it.

It is debatable whether ‘Sarko’ had really intended the focus of his visit to be his new wife, Carla Bruni, but as far as our papers, particularly the tabloids, were concerned she was the main attraction. ‘Part Grace Kelly, part Jackie Kennedy, part Princess Diana’, the charmante Carla Bruni gracefully stepped into our green and pleasant land in her little black pumps and we found ourselves collectively seduced by her, rather than by the French President himself, as was perhaps intended.

Or was it?

Amanda Platell writing for Daily Mail praised Bruni’s choice of outfit and contrasted it to Camilla’s less than stylish look, which she jokingly referred to as ‘road-kill’. By the way, how many times in her life is that poor woman going to be compared to another, more conventionally beautiful woman? Nobody’d blame her for having a bit of an inferiority complex. But on this occasion the comparison was especially poignant in light of the French President’s apparent wish for his wife to be the ‘new Diana’. And so it was: The International Herald Tribune ran the headline ‘The New Diana? In Britain, Carla steals the show’ on Thursday.

However this bizarre Sarkozy’s aspiration may be, our reaction to this particular attractive woman dressed beautifully in designer clothing was much the same as it was for Diana; we can’t get enough. But how was our reaction seen in France? ‘Londres craque pour Carla’ (roughly translated as: ‘London goes nuts for Carla’) was the headline in Le Monde on Saturday. However, on the whole my brief scan of the French press today found few articles similar to our gushing praise of Mme. Sarkozy. Our excitement was acknowledged, but rather disdainfully, since the couple are not viewed quite so fondly in France; their whirlwind romance is seen by many as a distraction from the proper business of politics. The Nouvel Obs discussed Gordon Brown and Sarkozy’s plans to ‘change the world’ at length, with only a passing reference to Carla, mentioning that ‘the UK won’t be forgetting [the President's] wife Carla in a hurry’, that she was ‘watched constantly’.

Indeed, the French press seem to be concentrating more on the content and implications of Sarkozy’s speech and exchanges with Gordon Brown. I’m guessing that Sarkozy’s recent poor showing in French polls has been focussing French minds a little more, and on substance over style. Having enjoyed the luxuries of the royal palace, far from the scrutinies of his own press, I imagine it may be a rather bumpy return to earth on his return to France.