to think the book how not to f*** them up is awful

A child needs one or more main carer/s and to be able to form strong and healthy attachment/s to them. That is what is necessary to form the basis for good mental health. It is not necessary for the main carer to be with the child 24/7 in order for this attachment to be formed and to be healthy. It is not necessary for a 'surrogate mother' (WTF?) figure to care for the child one-to-one when the main carer is at work. Attachments aren't transferred like that, it's now how it works. I'm surprised (if that is really what he believes) that a supposed expert on attachment believes that, TBH.

And minxofmancunia - you say there is "very very little scientific evidence to back it up" Yet you work in mental health.

Mental illness is objective and itself is not based totally on science. There is no blood test for mental illness.

Agreed Sybil, the government themselves used it to justify women not working at one point, and I do think that alot of his work is biased, as I said. But it doesnt make it wrong it just makes it his opinion. People are too quick to scream "mysoginist" at any man who dares comment on women or children. Im a feminist and what ive read of his books I do not find offensive. And yes im sure he has got issues of his own, most people who go into psychology have issues I find, thats what interests them in the subject to begin with.

I think people often build on Bowlby and attachment theory to suit their own agendas and give scientific respectability to them, just like people did with Freud in the mid 20th c.

Glad to see this OP - I remember buying this book when ds was little hoping for insight and support and just gettng guilt.
Then I realised some of what he said was clearly rubbish so I got over it.

Glad to see this OP - I remember buying this book when ds was little hoping for insight and support and just gettng guilt.
Then I realised some of what he said was clearly rubbish so I got over it.

He's creepy and narcissistic and the claptrap he regularly spouts on childhood and mothering says nothing to me about my life or that of my son. "Hell for toddlers is other people", yeah yeah OJ, that's why only 2 weeks into the summer holidays my 2yo son asked me when he was going back to school to see his friends. And it's not like he was bored, we were attending a summer scheme.

Some kids love being around other kids, but OJ isn't interested in them as they don't suit his agenda.

I will happily stay at home with DS if OJ wants to feed and clothe us / pay my half of the mortgage / demonstrate a good example of work ethics / provide a secure future for him. No? Back to work for me, then!

ha ha ha! his parents were psychoanalysts so he would know what he's talking about I think that says it all, psychodynamic psychoanalysis has very very little in the way of scientific evidence to back it up, it doesn't believe in outcomes and it can go on for years and years....nice little earner me thinks

I work in child mental health, he's not well thought of at all, mysogynistic, one sided, narcissictic, and surely any sane person would question the viewpoint of a psychologist so eager to be a media monkey? It does seem to be a quirk peculiar to psychologists amongst mental health professionals the need to become "celebrities" and ingratiate themselves in popular culture..

i read the book, it's all we know really, not new to me anyhow..
it is quite an old book.

Ok I agree he shouldnt use that word, I have never heard him use it ive only read the books. But it doesnt change that alot of what he says is based on pivotal research that is respected and alot of it makes sense.

He does actually say, that if you get depressed by staying at home then you are better off working, its not like he says once you have a child you should stay indoors till they are 21. His main points are around having one good carer, a "surrogate" mother basically, if you work, and that is all based on Bowlby and attachment theory.

Only an idiot uses the word retard. He should choose his words carefully before he publishes in a national paper.

Nullius
He is an idiot. He ignores all the evidence. He ignores (or denigrates) years wnd years of twin studies. He does not back his ideas up with sound, peer reviewed evidence. His parents were fucking psychoanalysts, FFS.

And I say all that as a SAHM who won't put my DC into a local bursery thing which is available a few hours a week because I want to look after my DC myself.

Doesn't stop him being an idiot.

The fact is alot of mental health issues originate in troubled childhoods.

Whilst I dont believe that things such as ADHD are "caused" by bad parenting, I also dont buy that every single mental illness is a chemical inbalance of the brain, that can be convienently fixed by some lovely pills, which in turn make drug companies a fortune.

Sorry can't work out how to link on my phone.

Just because you dont like it or do not agree with it does not make it idiocy.

Infact he is quoting other research and the british psychological society.

www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/may/29/oliver-james-child-behaviour-genetics

It's now been edited as it says at the end of the page as I believe the Guardian received complaints. Still used it though, before lots inc on mumsnet complained. Nice.

if you do a thread titles search for Oliver James you will find quite a few lovely long and ranty threads.

I've just remembered what it was that made me think he was daft - he actually said in an interview (which I listened to 3 times to make sure I'd heard him right) toddlers should be cared for one-to-one.

Given how happy my toddler is milling around with his siblings and amusing himself most of the time I think this shows he doesn't know much about kids.

See here for evidence of James' idiocy.

The former, I'm on my phone but I'll try to look it up, he was challenged about it on has webchat and he apologised for not proof reading his article.

I think Oliver James gets an unfair bashing on here actually.

Hes a qualified child psychologist and both of his parents were psychoanalysts if I rememeber rightly, including working with Anna Freud, so I think he is qualified to write his books.

So you dont agree with him, doesnt mean he cant have an opinion.

For what its worth, alot of what he writes is based on attachment theory (Bowlby) which is widely respected. The difference is James adds alot of his own persoanl opinion into the books, so its true to say they are not unbiased.

Personally, I hardly think its radical to suggest that a mother looking after her own baby is a good thing.

Did he use the word retarded as a pejorative term for someone with mental disabilities, or did he just use the English word "retarded" as it is properly understood?

He used the word retarded in one of his Observer columns and he thinks ADHD and other similar conditions are caused by bad parenting. That's enough for me to think he's a twat.

I am in the same situation, itisnotacompetition.. and I am no great fan of the fact my child is in a nursery (not my first choice of care yada yada) but OJ lays culpability for a lot at the door of the mother in a way that is, really, quite sexist. He could make similar points in a less inflammatory "my mummy didn't love me!" way and I would have a great deal more respect for him. More importantly, he wouldn't use his profession to publish poor science as fact.

I would really find it easier to read books that say what he was saying by women who had made the choice to stay at home. It's very difficult to see OJ and Biddulph's work as non-sexist when it is essentially commenting on what women should do from a male perspective.