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

what Sophable said can't put it any better

I fully understand why mothers who HAVE to work send their children to nurseries when they are babies/toddlers, but the ones for whom it is not necessary to work? Well they may as well get a pet dog.

Does anyone in their right mind think that a nursery worker will provide the same level of attention as a loving parent? Of course not.
Someone on minimum wage is really going to give your child as much attention to your child isn't she? (Not).

A child needs a loving mother to be close to during its formative first years.
I feel sad for those women who HAVE to work to put food on the table, but the ones who don't?

What excuse is there other than good-old fashioned "Me" syndrome?
Must have a shiny 4x4 so never mind the kid's development.

Just because you don't like what Oliver James is saying doesn't mean to say he is wrong. Oh and those pointless comments on him being a "shagger". So what if he is/was?
Just because a person is flawed in one area doesn't mean to say they're wrong on everything.

marantha: mother OR father, or grandparent or other loving caregiver.

it isn't and shouldn't ALL be down to the mum.

edam, my sister and I were raised by a nanny who is still a part of our family, my parents were working and we were shipped off to the country for better part of the year throughout my childhood.
We had the most wonderful, love filled childhood imaginable and both my sister and I have a very close relationship with our parents and each other.
However, my parents had that choice, they knew that children will be happy and secure; the nanny was an old friend of our family and she loved us as if we were her own children. She stayed with us til we were in late teens and is still living very close, she's my nan and always will be.
However, I still believe that care of the parent is best for child, nothing, however wonderful, replaces that entirely.

Maranatha how do you feel about selfish scummy dads who insist on working outside of the home

talk about me me me

I'd love to hear your thoughts about them, don't they understand that children need fathers, sheesh, why no get a dog?

Ah, so actually you don't agree with your own first post slamming people who object to OJ's simplistic 'arguments' (not really worthy of the term)?

Btw, I had a nanny for ds for 18 months or so, when I could afford it. She was lovely, if a little too keen on taking a day off when she had a cold. And is still in touch with ds four years after she left - occasionally takes him out for the day to be thoroughly spoilt. Agree good nannies are probably best - although there are lazy nannies and nannies who just aren't very nice to their charges.

(But obviously most people can't afford nannies - with base salary, tax and NI I reckon you have to earn at least £40k just to have a few pennies left over after paying the nanny.)

My mum and dad raised 6 children and not once did they expect the Government to be accountable.

My mum worked in a time when it was usual for most mums to be SAHMs.

We didn't have any extras but just a bloody good education so that we could choose either to work or be a SAHM.

She also drummed into us that we were not to ask or take from anyone. Especially the Government.

chibi How do I feel about dads working outside the home? Er, great actually. SOMEONE has to go out to work to provide for the family financially.

Truth is, mother looking after child when their babies are small and dad going out to work is generally a good idea.
Just because this does not fit in with the greed and aspirations of certain females who "want it all" does NOT make it less true.

I wouldn't mind if these women were honest and said, "Well actually I don't give a shit about the truth because I'm selfish and put myself first", but, of course, they don't.

That is, I wouldn't mind SO much.

Sorry, I haven't the time read all the thread as I'm to busy arranging a Teddy Bears Picnic for my ds & his mate because I'm such a bad working Mum. I agree with all that say the following...... "it has to be the dads fault as sahm get naughty children, working mothers get naughty children - therefore the only logical explanation is that the dads are doing something not right and it is making children naughty.
SO HEY! WHEN ARE WE GOING TO CAMPAIGN THAT ITS THE ALL DAD'S FAULT!!!!!
N.B.I must add that my DH and the father of my son is a fab Dad

Marantha, you are assuming selfishness: women who stay at home and give up independent fincancial stability are in a precarious position if said father-who-has-to-work buggers off with his unmarried secretary (given that's the place of women in the world you describe). Similarly, in this current economic climate, choosing not to return to work places considerable strain on the partner who must provide. This is not the 50's and a job is not for life: many people go through periods of unemployment which may be sustainable in a double income household but have disastrous consequences in a single income one.

I will continue to work while my child is young because I won't risk a life of poverty or homelessness for my children. I trust my dh as it happens.. but I know that things can change and I want the security of knowing I can provide for my children if my judgement proves wrong (my mother learned this lesson the hard way). I don't trust his employer.

OJ's particular argument is designed to provoke guilt in working mothers, the vast majority of whom don't really have a choice in today's economic climate.

It's staggering that so many newspapers have paid Mr James to spout his strange opinions all over the place. Ahhh, it's the newspaper industry wanting to sell papers! What's this nutter got to say for himself now? We read it so we can rail against it. I think the human condition is imperfect and we all muddle along somehow, usually trying our best, however crap it may be.

Mr James likes the idea that EVERYONE should be in therapy before they have kids so they don't mess them up. It would be like living in Stepford FGS! Nobody would ever have to come into contact with weirdos with strange ideas ever again. Apparently OJ was a horrible child. Plus ca change.

I agree with Sophable. You can't just deny all the arguments in favour of a parent being at home full time for the first two or three years as mysoginistic claptrap.
Most, if not all, child psychologists (and at least half of the mothers on MN) agree that this is an ideal, so OJ's stance is hardly controversial.

The problem is the headlines which the press use about this implying mothers not fathers must be responsible for children. If OJ is happy women work then that's fine but he doesn't seem to live in 2010 and understand plenty of couples already share these things.

soph, post is fine. Most working parents know their babies need to bond with the loving adults in their lives. It is indeed the case as I said above that studies show if the parents are content whether they work or don't the children are happy in the main barring neglect

By mrsbean78 Sun 23-May-10 11:10:40
Marantha, you are assuming selfishness: women who stay at home and give up independent fincancial stability are in a precarious position if said father-who-has-to-work buggers off with his unmarried secretary (given that's the place of women in the world you describe).

That's the worst reason to work that I have ever heard. What a cynical and insecure place to come from.I am a sahm and the decision for me to stay at home was a joint one-not me sending him out to work with a rolling pin under my arm.

mrsbean78 So true. OJ an has made a career out of F U normal peoples thinking. DH and myself come from a long line of children from working mothers. Bravo to my mother & mother-in-law and our grandparents. IT'S takes a village to bring up a child. & that means the freedom to help your family out. Some women & men around the world do not have that freedom. I don't our parents had the time to read this crap. I'm really pleased my Mum watched 'Crossroads Motel' with a cuppa & a cake when she took time out.

marantha - please do fuck off. Yes, nursery workers are normally not paid a lot, to imply that because of that they don't do their job well is plain stupid and rude. I guess your views prejudices are based more on assumption than actually having seen any nursery care setting for yourself.

Also, it's not a fact that it's better if mummy stays at home and daddy goes to work, that's just outdated opinion. Which is not only misogynist, but also misanndrist (is that a word or have I made it up?) as it implies that men would not be able to provide good childcare.

Mrsruffallo, that's a bit disingenuous to be fair.

I work closely with child psychologists and am a speech and language therapist. I don't deny any of the arguments and I think some certainly have validity. The idea of leaving my child in formal daycare (regardless of type or quality) is very distressing to me yet for me - as for many others - paying the mortgage (on my modest 2-bed ex council house) means I really do need to return to work.

I can see both sides of this argument but I disagree with research being poorly summarised and allowing for the extrapolation of Grand Arguments. There isn't a sufficient body of evidence regarding, say, so-called "dosage" of daycare.

I personally feel, probably, full-time daycare away from both parents (and I stress parents here, vs mothers) for perhaps 50 hours a week might in daycare of questionable quality is probably going to have a negative impact. Yet no distinction is made between this pattern of daycare attendance and say, mornings only/four mornings a week/2 days a week etc etc, or between the SAHM stressed and in poverty with 2-3 kids under 3 vs the part-time working mother with one child in a secure home environment who is financially stable etc etc. The variables are endless and unaccounted for in the research, as yet.

The 'SAHM is best' argument seems to ignore the obvious: for every yummy SAHM living in a leafy suburban area taking Junior to the Mums and Toddlers at the local church and feeding the ducks at the park on endless sunny afternoons, there is a SAHM living in an unstable and chaotic home where interaction involves them cutting the off 'shut up', 'give it a rest' etc on a more or less constant basis, saying no to everything they ask, leaving them strapped in a buggy with a dummy in their mouth in front of the TV.

This is a feminist issue and a class issue combined, let's face it.

RE: "That's the worst reason to work that I have ever heard. What a cynical and insecure place to come from.I am a sahm and the decision for me to stay at home was a joint one-not me sending him out to work with a rolling pin under my arm."

You say cynicism, I say realism. Have a jaunt over to the lone parents threads and ask them how they feel about blithely assuming that you will always be provided for by a spouse. Check out threads where one partner has lost their income and see how they feel about putting all your financial eggs into one basket.

You are clearly financially stable enough not to need to consider these things. Good for you. A great deal of child poverty is caused by marital breakdown and/or family unemployment. That's a fact, not particularly something telling about my family situation.

sophable - can you link to the evidence that young children do need peers, please?

don't need peers I mean.

I know what you mean about the vast range of sahm and working parents. I am sure that their are middle class parents who sit their children in front of the TV and feed them crap. And their are working parents who find it very hard to deal with their children for a whole weekend.
It is a class issue but I find the assumption that the middle class mother in the leafy suburbs is a better mother than me (council house, not much spare money, no garden, inner city)just because she is middle class and I am working class.
There are lots of rather wonderful working class parents it isn't just the preserve of the comfortably ff middle class.

I have read some OJ stuff (not his latest book though yet) and never got the impression he is blaming working mothers. he often states that there should be more shared leave so that both parents can work/raise kids. I enjoyed his books and think he makes some very good points re society.

Every time somebody like Biddulph or James mentions anything at all about alot of childcare not being great (and I believe they have a point) then you get working mums up in arms about them and them being nut jobs etc. Usually they haven't even read the book but instead read a newspaper account which has been heavily biased.

I have worked and put DD1 in fulltime nursery and am now a SAHM. It doesn't bother me at all what others choose to do, there should be a choice.