to wonder why Katie Hopkins had three children?

[ShuffleBallChange]

She went back to work three weeks after having her babies and thinks all women should. I was still bleeding heavily and surviving on about three hours sleep a night then!!!!!!

Oh my goodness null you really are rather biased and inflexible here! Just because you felt that way doesn't mean all children will. My parents both worked and I am glad it was that way. That doesn't mean I think it's what all children want or what all parents should do. You haven't offered any answers to some quite legitimate questions here.

I'd like to see some unbiased academic work about whether children fare better with a sahP (dad or mum), rather than it focussing on mothers in isolation.

Null I'll ask again as may have missed this question.

Can you explain what exactly is bad or wrong with both parents working full time, if they both want to, ignoring what their reasons for wanting to are? If the children are well cared for, looked after and have time with their parents?

Ok you want unbiase academic work?

Look up john bowlby attachment theory, look up freud, look up oliver james and read his book "they fuck you up"

It will quite clearly tell you that the mother is the best sole carer (or father)
UNLESS the parent is depressed or has PND
Or once parent returns to work, child is placed in consistent care, with one sole carer ideally a family member. In other words like a substitute mother. Nursery and day care is not adequate care to avoid attachment disorders.

Nullius, you forget social studies on the effects on women. Even if we acknowledge that there IS a development cost (to the child) where both parents work, nay, let's go further, when the woman works, you also have to consider those assertions alongside the studies re: segregation of labour, and how to put it in laymen's terms, women end up financially fucked because of it. And it also often has an affect regarding marital harmony. NI contributions, pensions in her name, too invested an emotional attachment to their children, alienated "weekend" fathers, men who don't respect their wives. I could go on but I'm slightly too busy today to get into it.

But I wanted to point out that viewing the "evidence" which favours mothers staying at home should not* be viewed in isolation.

• oliver james?! Not even going to go there. I just finished reading his Affluenza just because I was curious (in that I agree with him in theory but absolutely hate the way he frames arguments, uses evidence, etc. - I basically dislike that author, so I'm being a bit bias here now that you mention him)

Actully, off the top of my head, doesn't oliver james actually say that consistent, loving care from a stable carer is the best?

"It will quite clearly tell you that the mother is the best sole carer (or father)"

No, i'm pretty sure he says any caring, loving, stable person would do, e.g. a grandparent or well-qualified, invested nanny that stays with a family for 10 years.

I admit it's been a couple of months since I finished affluenza (his other book) - I surely can't have misunderstood a central point so sorely?

This "It will quite clearly tell you that the mother is the best sole carer (or father)" is such an odd statement.

The mother (or father) is more simply stated as "a parent" you've been expressly stalking about mothers

What I've just found on Bowlby states "parent" very clearly (I will look more later). I notice bowlbys work was some 30-40 years ago ... Perhaps I should have added "current".

Just because something is "the best" doesn't mean it's right or possible for everyone.

What you describe above is what kh has done ... Her own mother cares for her dc while she's at work.

You've now moved to an argument about day care, rather than mothers who "dump" their children on their grandparents?

"What you describe above is what kh has done" - Exactly, Oliver James would agree it's a perfectly acceptable setup, what KH has done

I still have the book from the library, actuallyl, i may go and look this up (DH stole it and is reading it now, extended on MY library card - the git! i keep reminding him to register himself rather than use one of my slots!)

Unbiased oliver james excuse me.... waahhhhhhhaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhaaaaaaaahahaaaaaaaa

Even if we were going to follow his theory (and that is what it is, a theory not evidence) then as others have said, it is the quality of the care giving that he focusses on, not whether both parents work. KH is following James' advice by having her mother care for her children while she works.

Oliver damns those who do, and those who don't (in a way I beleive to deliberately blame women) in a shameless attempt to investigate his own childhood and hangs ups that his has as a result of this. Because each family is unique it is impossible to follow the right path based on theory... also, the 3 you mentioned nulls are all male. None of them are mums.

There is no evidence that working parents damage their children.

While Bowlby's work on attachment theory has been extremely influential, we now know that he had it fundamentally wrong in that he stated a baby could only form a single bond with his/her mother and would be damaged if this bond was broken.
Babies can form multiple bonds with different carers and this doesn't affect the primay bond between mother and baby. This is why nurseries now operate the key-person system.
Bowlby's work was done retospectively, in that he studied criminals and looked for common features in their childhoods. When his work was published in the 1950s a lot of nurseries were closed down as women were now discouraged from going out to work because of the damage they were percieved to be doing to their children. This attitude still exists, despite new research pointing out thst it is the quality of the realationship between a baby and parent that really matters, not the quantity of time that they spend together.

Exactly. There is a lot of focus put on those 50 hours a week (down to 20 once the child starts school) that the children of a non working mother has with their parent over children of non working mums...

A close friend of mine who doesnt work says I put her to shame with the equality of care I give my children. And I work A LOT.

Nullius - I have a PhD in developmental Psychology. I am an academic teaching developmental psychology specialising in infancy and early parent - child interactions. I have several publications in the area and have unsurprisingly read the odd bit of Bowlby and Ainsworth.

Oliver James is an idiot. Unbiased - ha ha. At least you made me laugh out loud this afternoon. He has a huge agenda based on his own fucked up relationships with his mother. As a man in his 60's (?) he is still stropping about her leaving him in the garden at nap time. Get over it. Luckily for him his wife stayed home with the DC's whislt he trotted all over the world - fine for me you see. In fact I think I will write my own book on, oooh, what now. Why women need to eat chocolate twice a day. Endorsed by Dr. Peppa with cherry picking a plenty.

Fact is that there is no decent evidence either way as to whether a mother returning to work affects her child in any way. Mothers paying their children this amount of attention (and being concerned about being a good mother) is a modern idea. Also contrary to what you say there is plenty of evidence that good consistent childcare poses no risk - the studies which are negative look at crap childcare (and there is plenty of decent care out there).

My over researched opinion? Do whatever make you and your family happiest.

And in case you didnt get it - my question to my son was tongue in cheek and he found it funny. Odd that because he must have an attachment disorder due to having gone to nursery from 6 months old...

I imagine that there would be an awful lot of unhappy parents and children if parents were forced to stay at home and look after their children.
I work with children all day anyway, so it would not be that different for me. But, it was my choice to go out to work when I did, when my youngest started school. I am so glad that I didn't have to work when they were babies as I could n't have left them with anyone else except family. But I have every respect for parents who use nurseries for tiny babies - I have seen mothers sobbing their hearts out as they leave them. But, I realise that not everybody feels as I do. At least we have the chance to weigh up the options and make considered choices. There is no right or wrong, but we have to do the best that we can, with waht we have.

I think it is all individual really purepurple based on so many factors. How happy you are to go back is going to be based on how much you need to, whether you like your job, whether your children are happy being left, how much you rate the carers and so on.

I was lucky in that although I needed to go back so no real choice, my DC's were the type who didnt seem bothered to be left (no tears, big smiles at carers), I really enjoyed my job and it paid well and I am very lucky with my nursery (they genuinely appear to care and are very good with the children - always a spare pair of hands for a cuddle).

If I had hated my job, hated the nursery, the DC's were upset ... then I might have not gone back and somehow got a job working nights, or persuaded DH to stop work or we could have moved to a much worse area or something. But overall, me working was the best situation for us based on the combination of those factors. That is why no one can say one option or the other is best for everyone.

By the way I am agreeing with you - my first sentence sounds like I am disagreeing!

yanbu, she probably only had kids to tick it off the to do list

once she got them thought, no can't be arsed

I work, have two children and dh stays at home. I didn't start my family in order to spend time with babies (I'm not very keen on babies, prefer children any day). We were lucky in mostly finding very good childcare when both of us were working, and to be able to give them lots of support now when they are entering their teens. Personally I think that babies need consistent care from a small amount of people who really enjoy them, but older children need a lot more, and we got less happy with childcare options once our children started school. I've never felt huge angst about my choices, except when things weren't working well, and then my worries were about the arrangements, not about my role.

I find KH really quite repellent. I watched the Apprentice when she was on it, and found her very unimpressive, all 'look at me' with no substance. There seemed to be a lot of the playground bully to her, and the sucking up to men and bitching about women she displayed was really unpleasant. Of course there are many people like KH, my concern is more about why she is appearing on TV, and the frankly stupid things she says when she is given a soapbox. Given that she doesn't appear to have done anything of any importance or to have anything to say of any great interest I imagine that she is given air time because TV execs either think,
great here's a bit of controversy, or perhaps
here's a woman who says things we think but can't say because we are men, or maybe
here's someone who demonstrates how women should behave or maybe even
here's a woman who shows how unpleasant women really are.

Who knows, but in my mind these are all bad reasons and I'd rather she disappeared back into obscurity.

From a judgy front let's just say I hope that her parents are lovely.

'I didn't start my family in order to spend time with babies (I'm not very keen on babies, prefer children any day). We were lucky in mostly finding very good childcare when both of us were working, and to be able to give them lots of support now when they are entering their teens. Personally I think that babies need consistent care from a small amount of people who really enjoy them, but older children need a lot more, and we got less happy with childcare options once our children started school.'

Very well said. There is a lot of emphasis on the very early years but personally I think my DS now needs more time than the little ones - and in different ways.

I cannot stand KH. However carrie - in what way can't she be arsed? Apart from going back to work?

Blimey women can be unpleasant.

KH has every right to have children. Those children will not feel any less loved and cherished than those of SAHM (mine included).

Yes, she has some pretty comedic opinions, but that is her role on TV. That is why she gets airtime. If you went for a middle ground between her at one extreme, and the other end of the spectrum (demonstrated by some on here) you would find the norm, she is just there to give one end, one idea.

She is anti-feminist in my view, if you want to be respected or treated with respect then act like a man seems to be her viewpoint.

I think that blaming the victims of dicrimination for their discrimination instead of the perpetrators is odd, but there you go.

But she isn't the anti-Christ. I bet she would be quite entertaining in person, even if our ideas and viewpoints are complete poles apart.

Have your babies, love them, raise them how you will (with love and their best interests at heart obviously) and let others do the same.

Apologies if this is a little disjointed and kumbaya, I have been at the local food festival drinking great, strong farm grown cider all afternoon.

Hic.

Oh my goodness did you not read the last part of my post? That is exactly what I said, substitue care must be consistent from one sole carer ect I pretty much quoted it word for bloody word.

As it happens I have also read the Ainsworth strange situation and I think that is more unreliable, for instance how do you know the small child does not have other conditions such as autism, which would influence the outcome of the experiment and would be undiagnosed in children of that age. It also doesnt take into account many parents who may be separated from their child for reasons outside their control, e.g. baby ill in SCBU, and is of course all about the relationship with the mother.

Oliver James actually quotes alot of Bowlby in his books, it was just a more "user friendly" way of reading it I wanted to suggest, if people did not want to read whole research papers. You dont like him, fair enough.

Im not going to argue this point anymore as clearly, my posts are not actually being read in entirety. I know a Katie Hopkins when I see one, and as I said before it is her attitude to her children and responsibilities that is my issue, not soley the fact that she works.

Dont judge me on my personal opinion, then call me judgemental.

"Oh my goodness did you not read the last part of my post? That is exactly what I said, substitue care must be consistent from one sole carer ect I pretty much quoted it word for bloody word."

Which is exactly what you've been slagging kh off for upthread!

I for one have not judged you. I have argued a point with you and I have asked som questions about the viewpoints you've expressed and you've chosen not to answer some of them.

No judging here.

Well, judging of Oliver James but that's fair enough. He is an author cherry picking other people's research to create his opinion piece.

You do however say 'Nursery and day care is not adequate care to avoid attachment disorders.' So nursery and day care is associated with attachment disorders? Give me one credible (e.g. not opinion piece) showing that.

You sound like you went to an odd school. I went to a childminders and no one ever taunted me for it . Children boast about going to after school club here!

No, I chose not to answer the same bloody question over and over again, after I stated very very clearly my point about her over and over again, and you continued to just pick out bits of my post and twist them to make it look like I said "working mothers are evil bitches".

And I dont intend to answer any more of those questions.

peppa - the children at my school said those things, because they picked up on something. That my parents actually didnt put me first, and quite possibly didnt love me.
Kids can be cruel. They can also be very perceptive.

And that is the point I have tried, very hard to make, without giving my whole life story away. Children of working mothers, they wont hate you, they wont be damaged, as long as you really do love them and they know that.
Some parents use work as a excuse, because actually, theri children are not really wanted. Money and their life really does come first. The children of those parents will pick up on that and they will have a very lonely old age. This is what I beleive, yes I probably am biased, but you wont change my opinion.

Well if that is what you mean, of course I agree! Just as for some staying at home will have a worse effect than anything as the child knows the mother resents being there.