to wonder who Oliver James is? working mothers look away!

[Chulita]

Here Sorry if there's a thread on it already, I just read this and was a bit

I think we are beginning to get to the point of looking at the deeper issues here..

It struck me when reading:
"By no means cripple yourself financially for the early years only to find the cupboard is bare when you need it most. "
that pensions are also an issue. Taking five years out of the workforce, for all the it's-a-blip-in-your-lifetime arguments will substantially impact upon a pension (and before anyone says it, staying at home during these years does not guarantee your kids will make up the shortfall in gratitude!)

As Xenia says, there is also the feminist issue: about men talking due responsibility and the media and wider society recognising that headlines that say 'research shows children whose mothers work...' are misogynistic.

I don't agree that newspaper articles should be devoid of all objective reference to reality either - I think the broadsheets in particular should be reporting whether the risk is 1 in 1000 or 2 in 1000 vs making sweeping statements. You can do both but at least an educated readership can then be informed about their reaction to the piece rather than having to hoik out references from Jstor to make sense of it. Also, let's face it, OJ isn't the selling point of either the Times or the Guardian so a bit of sensible and objective reporting isn't going to lead to a great amount of papers sitting dustily on our corner shop shelves.

We know 1:1 parental care is the best but there is much work to be done to discover the next-best alternative, where parental care is not feasible or desirable to either party. A huge amount of people do not have a financial choice, really.

We should be campaigning (recession or not) for adequate financial protection for parents to be around in their children's early years if they would like to be rather than calling OJ a twunt.

Peppapig.. I can't find it now but am sure I came across a critique of the cortisol studies which said that personality was indeed a factor, with shy types showing greater stress in nursery settings (as might be expected)?

I think I remember reading something about it at the time. My critique was also the simplicity of the study - children in nursery have more cortisol. I cannot remember now whether they compared it to children at home - but in any stimulating situation cortisol will be raised. Cortisol is not necessarily bad - and is released in good stress situations too. It is the repeated and long term risk of it (when it doesnt dissipate) that causes problems).

I agree as well that we need to know 'how bad' (or how not bad) nursery care is so we can weigh up risks. In other areas of childcare (and I really dont want to bring up breastfeeding, weaning etc but they are the only example I can think of), we know specific odds risks ratios - parents can therefore make an informed choice based on the overall situation. Here it is all a bit anecdotal.

However I think at the end of the day parents know whether their children are happy or not in the care situation that they choose. I think research should go towards ensuring all children are as happy as they can be in the best possible childcare situation needed rather than idealising about what may be the best possible care.

I think that's what was insidious about the cortisol studies peppa.. my colleague at work mentioned them to me when her LO was very young and what horrified her was that in the Biddulph book, there is something said about how cortisol studies were raised even though the children appeared happy. The idea that her baby might be very stressed yet appear okay influenced her working choices heavily - yet the more I read about cortisol, the more it would appear that the child really was happy, perhaps engaging in more learning/stimulation/exercise in that setting? She and her husband split the childcare now but they do appear to be just scraping by, financially..

That was my thoughts too on the cortisol issue. We are built for fight and flight. Although I am sure most babies like mine want rather dull routines and sameness. They like security and same things happening every day in some ways and most of us achieve that for our chidlren whether we're male or female.

Security, dullness, routine, sameness - all achieved in caregiver settings

I also wondered what the difference in cortisol levels is when children start school - presumably it raises then too.

[Peppa hatches new research project to go round taking random samples of cortisol from children in weird and wonderful places including Sweden just because I want to go there]

Also joining this late, but as far as I'm aware OJ pretty much reflects current mainstream thinking on child development. Child psychologists/social workers I know or have worked with seem to broadly think the same about nurseries for under 3s.

Dismissing OJ as sexist/posh/old/male won't change the evidence, however uncomfortable it is. And actually I don't think he is particularly sexist, he often points out childcare is men's responsibililty too.

I work 3 days a week and DS is in nursery. Staying at home full time wasn't really an option financially. I accept we've got an imperfect childcare solution in an imperfect world - you can only do your best.

If he really thought childcare was so important for men to take part in, and if he thought it was criminal to miss out their most interesting period of development, then why would he (and he doesn't need the cash) spend 7 months abroad for his Affluenza book when his daughter was at this age?

i think what he wants to say is: don't let poor people have children

It seems that Denmark and Sweden have the right idea... Lots of outdoors, fresh air, exercise. It shows that nursery care can work.

effect does nursery care for under 5's have? Are there any longitudinal studies?

I agree with scottishmummy - I have worked since ds was 16 months old because I want to.

And as long as he continues to be a happy, healthy, confident boy in his great childcare with caring people then I will continue to do so, and I don't give a toss what some knobend journalist or other people think - every child and mother is different and this is what works for my family.

Everybody should be left to their own decision - sahm/wahm whatever, if it works for them then that is good - happy parent, whether staying at home or going to work, equals happy child generally in my book.

I have known some lovely children and some absolute horrors that have stayed at home until school age and the same with nursery-going children - every child is different (repeat ad nauseum and bang head against brick wall) and as soon as we stop judging other mothers for their decisions and start uniting against this sort of tripe the better.

Oh yes, and in my job it would be professional suicide if I "took a few years off" as one poster put it, and I suspect that is the same for a number of posters on here.

That man, grrrrr! Must stop reading his column and angsting for the rest of saturday. My 9 month old bebe is starting nursery next week and his last missive is riling me no end. How about he comments on daddies contributions for a change. And, oi Cameronclegg give parents a year (or better two) between them to share however they feel is best.

Unfortunately he has a column in the Guardian Family section.

peppapig - I don't disagree with anything you say really other than the idea that nobody was disputing that one-to-one being preferable - there seemed to be plenty, early on in the thread who didn't think the one-to-one thing was necessary of particular consideration or said that you never get that in other childcare options and therefore wasn't relevant but that aside, I agree with you.

I agree with what you say about families having to do what they have to do.

However, I don't think OJ is saying anything different either. Certainly not in the Guardian article. The Telegraph article was a bit rubbish but then that's wasn't written by OJ and so journo just picked the contenious bits which is probably why it was able to provoke this thread in the first place.

That said, articles like these are necessary to highlight the importance of good childcare, whatever form it takes. They create debate, bring the issues to the forefront. That is why all the name calling on this thread are a bit of a disappointment. They don't add anything to the debate at all.

To whoever called OJ something like a 'knobhead journalist' - can't find the quote again so don't know who it was but OJ is not a journalist, he is a clinical psychologist

peppapig - yes I have been in same room as my child before and I dont think its that difficult. When she was a baby we were in different rooms. She goes off with other members of staff whilst I do stuff with other children. I love all my key children like my own any way so it just feels like family to me as we all spend so much time together.

Niecie - yes we need to debate the issues and bring them to peoples attention so we can have the best possible care situations. However that is just want OJ is doing really - creating debate - as his opinion is rather one sided (or portrayed to be). He is a clinical psychologist yes but not one that is actually an expert in nursery care - he hasnt done any studies on this himself. I think he uses his professional background to portray his own opinions.

But yes - I think the question is not 'is nursery care bad' but ' how can we make it the best we can'

Doris 'If he really thought childcare was so important for men to take part in, and if he thought it was criminal to miss out their most interesting period of development, then why would he (and he doesn't need the cash) spend 7 months abroad for his Affluenza book when his daughter was at this age?' [Shock] - did he? The double standards on him...

Patsy 'Dismissing OJ as sexist/posh/old/male won't change the evidence, however uncomfortable it is' - but that is the point, there is not the good sound research data to back his statements up. They are cherry picked and he lumps all nursery care into one.

Wow - you have to admit - it's a pretty effective way of getting smart talented women off the career ladder - focus on the little innocent children - put in the bad dark nurseries...

Wow...finally got over to this thread. Never heard of this man before, but he sounds like a right d-bag.

I'm glad to hear that I'm not the only one who spends Sat afternoon ranting at the Guardian Family section

I wouldn't really care WHAT he says tbh, if he could just substitute the phrase 'working mother' with 'working parent' - very simple and removes the innate sexism in everything he comes out with.

My DD is 2, and not relying on me for breastmilk, therefore there is no earthly reason why she would be any better off with me than with my DH. But strangely no one ever asks my DH how he copes with balancing fulltime work and family. It sure does seem to come up a lot wrt to my decision to work fulltime though...

Still a long way to go fellow feminists

I think that sums it up really novicemama doesnt it.

I am the main wage earner and therefore it would be silly for me not to work. DH however brings in less per month than our nursery fees yet I respect his decision to keep working (he would not have the patience being a SAHD). However if the situation was reversed I can imagine the comments I would get. I feel that I am 'allowed' to work as it has a strong financial benefit. He automatically gets to work.

in my work everyone who had babies comes back.is the done thing.no one bats eyelid about it

I'm going on Women's Hour this am to discuss OJ's book with the man himself. Should be interesting .

I would love to ask him how ethical it is as a clinician to discuss the mental states of celebrities he's (presumably) never met (Michael Jackson, Princess Diana). For money, on SkyNews.

That's great, Justine. Looking forward to listening!

I think he speaketh mucho sense on the whole. But it makes uncomfortable listening.