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

[tvmum1976]

I'm sure that this has been discussed a lot in the past (I am pretty new to motherhood and mumsnet...) but have just read this book and find it unbelievably judgemental, sexist, and full of rubbish.
Sorry, had to vent.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Oliver James is a succesful psychologist and media pundit, therefore by his own theories he is 'selfish'- ie he should be at home looking after his children rather than having such a busy working life. Oh wait! it's only mothers who are selfish for wanting a career as well.

Yes, sorry of course it makes perfect sense to have several different people looking after your child all at different times, why not just pass them from pillar to post aswell, might build their "social skills".

Why is everything turned into a working moms vs SAHM fight?

Its simple really, if you dont like the books dont read them and dont watch him when he is on TV. Watch something else that says that a mothers relationship with their child has no bearing on life whatsoever and to suggest such must be sexist.

From a comment earlier up - so while mummy is carefully looking after her toddler on a 1-1 basis, who looks after the baby?

As I understand it the problem with OJ is not so much what he says, but the fact he always talks about mothers rather than parents. From the points on here eg "maybe you should just acknowledge you are being a bit selfish by wanting a career..." where are the FATHERS in all of this? Or are they totally irrelevant? It's all mummy's fault.

I have heard him interviewed on the telly and radio and he is always having a go at women, men are rarely mentioned.

Sardine:
EXACTLY!

Sardine I agree with you that fathers need to be involved more and I havent read this "selfish career" comment.

But what I agree with is Bowlbys theory, not so much James's version of the theory and that is one main career, even though the research often says mother, im pretty sure he pointed out it was mother figure. So basically, if dad decided to look after the baby, and mom worked, that would be fine.

im pretty sure he pointed out it was mother figure. So basically, if dad decided to look after the baby, and mom worked, that would be fine.

yes- he does say that. The point is, when both parents work (which is the case in most homes now) it is the mother who gets blamed by OJ for working and not being home with the children, rather than the father. Nobody ever addresses 'selfish' comments to fathers. It hasn't even occurred to him for instance that he too might be being selfish to want to have a successful career.

The thing is that I think his "disclaimer" - Oh well when I say woman I mean man too, when I say mother I mean father too - is not actually true. I think he does mean, mothers, and women, and he puts the disclaimer in to try to stop sounding totally unreasonable.

If he genuinely meant parent, it's not hard to write parent. Or primary carer - could just write carer. There is no reason he needs to use mother if that is not what he means. I think it is what he means.

I didn't like Kate Figes book, it seemed to me she was peddling fear.

I stopped reading this when he discussed the couple who both worked even though the mother was a Hugger (you may infer an eyeroll here), and said something like "to my surprise, even after questioning the couple extensively, it turned out that they were right and they actually did need to both work in order to make ends meet". As opposed to most of those career-obsessed selfish harpies who just say they have to work but actually if they gave up their latte and handbag habits, could stay home and nurture their children correctly. Because women, and he does mean women, are not only selfish but also liars or self-deluded.

FFS.

What EricNorthman said.

I've not read his books though; having read his column in the Observer it was apparent to me that the man is an arse.

I blame his mother, tbh.

I hadn't heard of him, probably as my dss are 10 and 13, but have just ordered the book from the library for 30p as am now curious. Didn't want to buy it in case I agree with the majority on here?

Awful book. Read it cover to cover. Guilt peddler.

tvmum1976

Perhaps OJ doesn't aim his comments at fathers because men aren't giving themselves the guilt trip over childrearing. Male maxim is "Good enough", the female's is "Never good enough". Women do like to beat themselves and each other up, IMO.

OJ is just a man who wrote a book. I prefer to read Naomi Stadlen's book "What Mother's do - especially when it looks like nothing" Its empowering which is the opposite of OJ's book.

"Perhaps OJ doesn't aim his comments at fathers because men aren't giving themselves the guilt trip over childrearing. Male maxim is "Good enough", the female's is "Never good enough". Women do like to beat themselves and each other up, IMO. "

Definitely true- and it's a vicious circle. We beat ourselves up, partly because society (perpetuated by people like OJ) keeps telling us how guilty we need to feel about everything...

I have read How not to F* them up, and although it's never going to be the be all and end all of parenting books, I don't think it deserves the bashing it gets here (I've not read any of his other stuff so I can't comment on that).

I thought it approached different parenting styles in a pretty sympathetic and balanced way, although the working mum section is the last, so maybe people got cross and threw it across the room before they got to that. Overall the message I got was that children need to be cared for by happy, responsive, caring people, and it's OK if that isn't the mother (there is loads of stuff about how to choose good daycare).

Like all parenting books it needs to be taken with a pinch of salt and the caveat that nobody has all the right answers for every parenting relationship. Read this stuff for interest if you like, but parent your children as works best for you and them.

Mine is on order as our little library only stocks so many. On the list of libraries that have it is Frankland prison Not sure where it'll come from? Can't imagine it'd be top of the borrowing list in there

He sounds very much like someone who needs to believe that mothers and the early years are responsible for everything. From accounts of what he himself was like as a teenager, I think I can understand where that is coming from. The alternative would be to say "yes I made some seriously bad choices in those days and I can understand that people must have been terrified of me, I accept responsibility for that".

Disclaimer: I'm a feminist, maternal AF father, so that's going to invalidate what I have to say (a little bit). I quit my job for my daughter's pre-school (kindergarten in Queensland, Australia) year (so she was turning 4 in May) and was her full-time (weekday) caregiver (and I loved it). I read this book around that time. It resonated with me.

Fast forward, that beautiful young woman is now a GAD+ADHD diagnosed (and medicated) 15 year old and doing okay, all things considered. I'm now full-time studying psychological science and counselling, so it's interesting how some things loop. I was recommending this book to a fellow student and new mother and went rummaging for online opinions about it, and here I am.

I get the sense there's an element of "shooting the messenger", which is easy to do when it's a man, and he's saying something, as has been pointed out elsewhere here, that perhaps some people don't want to hear...

I agree, that once a child gets to toddlerdom, the physical dependency on the mother (as opposed to the father, in a heteronormative relationship) wanes, and it's the perfect opportunity for some gender equity. I'm grateful for the role I was able to play in my daughter's formative years. I'm also glad I was able to do it free of the demands of work for a year.

I loved the book, it resonated with me, made sense, and I don't think there needs to be any shame in putting your own oxygen mask on first and choosing your own sanity and well-being. If that means returning to work, so be it. Ideally your child's primary caregiver could then be the father, or a grandparent, or some other stable, nurturing adult. I do think depending on the choice of long day care, this comes at some developmental tradeoffs, that don't necessarily rear their heads until later.

Terrible advice!

Agree with the Naomi Sadler book recommendation - boosts your confidence rather than undermines it.

I read the OJ book when I was pregnant. I didn't hate it, although I knew I'd be going back to work quickly. Baby is now 18 and seems to have survived it and is excited about her own professional future.

You know this is a 15 year old discussion right?