steve biddulph - misogynist bully?

I still don't see how having strong views on attachment theory in infants makes him a misogynist.
Maybe he is unrealistic in his expectations, or has oversimplified the reality of all children having one-on-one care.
What I've read by him has been extremely child-centred but I don't think that makes him a woman hater.

which is fair enough, but does mr biddulph give a list of jobs which will guarantee to be home by 5 o' clock every day?

Is he talking about full time nursery, or any nursery time at all?

Because there's a hell of a difference.

Even if it's full time though, it's obviously wrong to say that a mother with a proper emotional bond wouldn't be able to bear the separation. If it's separation he's worried about, as opposed to childcare method, then the "bearing" would be the same, whether the baby is with a nursery or a childminder. And obviously it doesn't take into account all those women who have no choice about whether to bear it or not.

I actually thought he was pretty firm with working fathers, or at least those who work long hours. I borrowed 'raising boys' so I can't quote, but it eas something along the lines of 'if you work long hours and never see your son, he will be messed up and it will be all your fault.'

Someone who would assume that a mother who works doesn't form a strong emotional attachement to her child, would indeed be a mysogynist, but does he really say or imply that?

If he's right about the emotional bond, which as greeny says seems obvious, then isn't the rest of it hugely variable and dependent on individual cases?

We had a choice of childminder or nursery - the best available childminder in our area looked after up to 5 charges, in her own home, which was nice yes but quite cramped. Plus it's not unheard of for people to change childminders or mix childminder with one or two grandparents doing a day here and there (in fact it's common) - so in what way does using a childminder ensure continuity of primary carer?

We chose our nursery because there is a ratio of 1 carer to 3 children, special dedicated rooms and toys for each age group, keyworkers who give DS a strong, loving and continuous emotional bond, a loving and happy atmosphere and on top of that, the fact that there are multiple staff means there is always someone available to cuddle or comfort DS if he needs it - whereas a childminder working alone must needs sometimes neglect children if one of them is in particular need.

It is massively oversimplistic to say just because a childminder is one person in their own home, that means there's necessarily more love or a better bond or better care.

Also agree that just because someone finds that one-to-one parental care is best for children, that doesn't mean they're somehow incapable of being misogynist.

actually attachment theory research is VERY clear.

until the age of 36 months optimally children need one consistent caregiver that is 'good enough'.

childminders and nannies by virtue of what they are fulfill this better than daycare does.

"She who must not be named"
Although I like sophable's description too!

Sophable - I don't think attachment theory goes so far as stating what kind of care, how many hours, the relationship with the child, the proximity to home (why is a childminder infinitely and always preferable to a nanny, for example?). No study ever is going to predict perfectly how a mother bonds with her child. Which is the main bloody thing. So making general statements about what kind of care is always infinitely preferable to another is just simplistic. That's all I said.

calig is that she who mums net banned now?

i'm wondering about SWMNBN as an acronym

Aren't all parenting "gurus" preying on parents' insecurities and fears? Otherwise there'd be no need for them.

I have read SB's books and been to one of his talks. He comes across as very child-centred and genuine. He was very aware of the stark choices which face women and I would in no way label him as misogynistic. I think his primary concern is the way in which boys seem to be marginalised in society - as education systems seem geared to the way girls learn, rather than boys; how many boys are without male role models because of the breakdown of family life (as there are more absent fathers than there are absent mothers); how natural male tendencies in children (learning through rough play, etc.) are no longer acceptable, etc.

He has a boy and a girl of his own (adults now I would imagine), so I don't think his views are falsely skewed towards boys because of his own children.

I didn't think he came across as a bully. But it's a long time since I read any of his stuff.

As for his writing approach, if you want something sober, academic, etc., that's out there. He's selling books. If you don't like the way he writes, don't buy him, buy someone who is saying something similar (like Leach) and writes it in a different style, or someone who says something completely different, like SWMNBN and also sells a lot of books.

"all the studies he quotes say that the strength of the mother and child attachment is the single most important element for the healthy (whatever that is) development of the child."

Well, I think it would be quite difficult to disprove that. It's a no-brainer, surely?

cristina...why is it not a choice?

i don't understand why it is wrong to submit that one on one (or one on 3 care...basically total consistency of care among a very small group) is better than group care with changing primary carers.

i am absolutely certain that one is better than the other.

so what? i'm to be condemned as awful for that?

the research is there to read and frankly, any knowledge of attachment theory backs it up in common sense terms.

I am not condemning mothers that have opted for daycare...i'm defending someone that backs one on one care, against accusations of misogeny

Sophable - how simple your world is! Why don't you write a book too if you just KNOW that a good childminder is infinitely preferable to nursery. Let me tell you, though, you wouldn't get my money.

but cristina, most women do have a choice...a good childminder is infinitely preferable to daycare....and accesible financially too.

but cristina, most women do have a choice...a good childminder is infinitely preferable to daycare....and accesible financially too.

Sophable - if you read closely, I think WTSS said similar things. However, you can be right but still come across as a bully. I don't see the contradiction here and it's this bit of her statement that hasn't been corrected yet.

oh deal with it!

the studies he quotes are wide ranging and continuing.

the primary attachment relationship (biddulph is wrong to characterise it exclusively as mother-child, could just as well be father-child/granny-chid/nanny child etc) IS massively important and has huge impact on adult mental health.

group daycare before the age of around 3 is not the best way to go according to countless studies.

the fact that he is right about that does not make him a mysoginist bully ffs.

I liked Raising Boys(esp that testosterone surge at 4 thing, which he says blocks up their ear canals which is why they go 'deaf' for a while) but I did get v frustrated with Raising Boys - think it's been propping up a wobbly cot for over a year which has been far more useful

The reason i disagree with this man is not because he's too 'unfashionable' to appeal to me. It's because he argues his case in a horrible dumbed down, opinion (rather than research) based, emotional way that i find objectionable.
There's no pragmatism, such as you find in penelope leach, no flexibility or room for real life testimony from parents struggling with difficult circumstances which might not lend themselves to his blueprint.
As for 'sticking his head over the parapet', he's been bombarded with book sales, multi-media interviews and more publicity than you can shake a stick at. so yes, well done him for doing a u-turn and making loads of money by contradicting himself.