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

Marantha, you are obsessed! You only even surface on these marriage/wohm mother debates, always with the same agenda.

Whats all this 1;1 care about? I've got 3 small children, are they doomed because they have the same care ratio as a nursery? Or are they doomed because I'm pretty shit at being a SAHM?

I know jellybeans, it is always the same on here. Very little intelligent debate and lots of 'he is a twunt' type posts

what a dickhead - tis only advertising for his shitty book!

I am sure he is as unpleasant in RL as he reads in the Torygraph.

If there was evidence that showed that group childcare is more likely to negatively effect children than one to one care would people here want to know? It sound like you wouldn't which I find strange. Oliver James is summarising in newspapers etc he is not writing for a journal so it is not surprising he doesnt reference all research. That does not mean it's wrong. Research that shows correlations between one thing and another does not mean that in ALL instances there will be the same result. The fact that more insecure attachment for example may be found in babies in daycare does not mean all babies in daycare will have insecure attachment obviously. There are allkinds of additional variables that can impact or buffer effects.
But I find the complete inability to even think about this by so many here rather depressing.Of course we don't want to feel guilty or worried but perhaps we have to get over that to think about what is really best for children.

Just using an example, mrsruffallo. I work with families who are mainly on benefits and see the same range of, for want of a better phrase, behavioural difference amongst people with broadly similar incomes so understand that these are just stereotypes. Even if you drill down further and look within a very small, tight-knit community, even one extended family, you will find all sorts of levels of difference in parenting. Which is why I find some of the science on daycare very dubious as well as the insistence that parental care is always 100% better. Depends on the home.

Financially too, staying at home makes more sense for some people depending on individual circumstances, which may or may not equate to the mother's salary. 4 x 4's don't come into it for the vast majority of people so 'selfish' is a stupid word to use in relation to the 'choice'.

Jellybeans et al, am with you. I don't think he's particularly controversial ( although the link to the cortisol study was very interesting) in what he says and actually what he's saying in the article about satisfaction with your choices is interesting in respect of some of tje defensiveness here.

I returned to full time work after 6 months with Ds and 9 months with dd, my choice (economic and for my sanity) and I feel absolutely fine about it. Dh did the 'day shift' and I did the rest. I still think it would have been best the other way round, but life is a series of choosing the least worst option most of the time!

I never got the impression that OJ was whining that that his parents were responsible for our adult lives, but that damage often comes from our experience of being parented and that it is our responsibility to ensure that we don't pass this along to our children. Sounds reasonable to me. My parents are lovely, but they still got stuff wrong- they're human-dh and I will do tje same with our children despite our best efforts and therapy, but we'll be conscious and mindful of our behaviour as much as we can be.

ra29etc - if there was proper evidence I'd be happy to look at it. But I haven't seen any yet that wasn't flawed.

WidowWadman I did not say that nursery workers do NOT physically care for the needs of their charges and provide them with affection, I said that this affection was no way as good as the love and affection of their mothers. You are deluded if you think otherwise.

As to the argument that women need to work to protect themselves FINANCIALLY? Er, my initial disclaimer in my first post here was that I agreed with women working out of financial necessity.

runnybottom I don't care for marriage. I am neutral towards it. If you'd read my posts, you'd realise that I believe it is necessary for those who wish to make it clear to those who WISH to be seen as a couple to marry PURELY so that we don't get lumbered with idiotic, authoritarian "cohabitee rights" that will make cohabitees married against their will. Simply put, as a person who believes in freedom of choice, I do not wish to be deemed to be tied to a man JUST because I've shacked up with him for a while. So don't go thinking that my views on marriage are about seem 50s ideal- they ain't- they're about making your position known so that cohabitees aren't "married" against their will.

i was really stressed for my second child's pregnancy, and he was going on about increased cortisol levels which can damage the baby. my son on the spectrum. so did my stress cause that?!

Magalyz, I really doubt it. I was off the charts stressed during ds's pregnancy- he's fine. I think there's more at work than maternal stress. I hope you dint feel responsible in any way.

WW which studies are you referring to that are flawed??

Belsky comes to mind as a study that linked attachment style to childcare type but I have read more recent ones but can not remember who by.

It's hardly surprising is it? Just like it'snot surprising that there are correlations between maternal mental health and child development. This clearly does not mean that all mothers with mental health problems will have unhappy children.

Childrens stress levels being higher in nursery is worth knowing and thinking about. It does not mean we have to slate all wohms but we do need to think about it.

There is a link between stress in pregnancy and difficulties in subsequent child development. BUT it is just a correlation it does not mean that all stressed mothers will have kids with adhd etc nor does it mean that all kids with adhd had mumswho were stressed in pregnancy. But the research evidenceis interesting and important to know about.Surely we can study these things and discuss them without thinking they are just there to make us feel attacked.

I ask this question time and time again on these threads - could someone please link to this hard evidence that good quality nursery care is detrimental to the child please.

I actually give a lecture on this very subject every year to my students and am yet to find reliable, high standard, causational evidence suggesting that high quality nursery care is bad for the child. And I'm not just a crap lecturer who gives non evidence based lectures

Of course attachment to the primary caregiver is important - crucial perhaps - but that doesn't mean it is absent for working mother - infant dyads.

Of course neglect and abuse and a lack of a loving environment for a child is going to increase the outcome of negative effects for that child - but where is the evidence that good quality nursery care causes this?

Of course one year old children don't need socialisation in a nursery setting every day but that doesn't mean it is bad for them.

In my nursery the staff ratio for the babies is 1:3. I don't think I have ever gone in and seen this to be an issue so that a child isn't getting the attention it needs. They also have students in there (don't count to ratio), babies are off sick (meaning fewer babies to booked in staff) and at any one time some are asleep, some are playing happily. I have never seen a child crying and not being cared for. My daughter (although a bit of a madam who makes sure she gets what she wants ) is usually on a nursery workers lap smiling away (and no they don't just see me coming). The staff genuinely care - they will notice the slightest hair cut or new clothing. They even noticed the other day that she had new shoes when they were exactly the same as the last pair but in a bigger size.

My DC's went to nursery from six months. Based on the evidence that I have read I cannot see a negative effect for this for good quality nurseries. I would actually agree that perhaps the best situation would be for them to be home all day with me but I don't think they are being affected negatively by this situation at all and genuinely love it there.

So anyway if anyone can link this negative evidence I would be most grateful

It's not like you can go back in time and remove the stress you felt anyway, which in my case was caused by baby's father being so cruel to me. He's OFF the hook though in Oliver James' book.

YOu never see it given and wonder if it's part of some misogynist plot. I particularly dislike the misuse of bowlby. He studied small children taken away frmo their parents, a bit like Romanian orphanaged and extrapolated that to chldren whose paretns were away from them just in the day would suffer the same. That's very different. If you know at 6pm daddy collects you or mummy does you have stabiliy routine and certainty which is what little children thrive upon.

I preferred a daily nanny ath ome for 3 childern udner 5 and it can be cheaper than 3 nursery places and I liked the children abel to have colds etc and still we could work rather than childcare panics and I like to feel in charge telling a nnany what to do not at the hands of a nursery. I also did want them to be with similar people in a house, our nice house not a different setting when they were little but that was just my choice and I could make it because of what I earn.

Some studies quote increase in cortisol if you're stressed but I'm not sure the link between more cortisol and a problem is shown even if children in nurseries have more cortisol. It might even be good for you.

I think his studies assume that all parenting from a primary carer is perfect and all care from a nursery is poor. That is the basis for all of his findings and it's really very far off the mark.

www.jstor.org/pss/1130397

www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/belsky2001.pdf

sohpable, you summed up what I think, thank you.

Magaly,
He doesn't assume that all parenting from a primary carer is perfect. He explicitly states that if a mother is depressed by being at home with her child then she should go out to work.
He also doesn't say it has to be mother with the child. IN Affluenza he dedicates an entire section to mothers and fathers, and says that if you are the kind of woman who is likely to not want to stay with the babies, then you 'd better find a nurturing-type man who will do it for you if you decide to have kids- not an alpha male type who will leave you holding the baby. He calls it a 'mothering game plan' and I think its a good idea.

As I say, he puts in some twuntish, sexist things in his book, (and I'm fascinated that he brushes people off in social settings but then smarmys up to them when they cold shoulder him) but I can't write him off completely

"f you are the kind of woman who is likely to not want to stay with the babies, then you 'd better find a nurturing-type man who will do it for you if you decide to have kids- not an alpha male type who will leave you holding the baby. He calls it a 'mothering game plan' and I think its a good idea."

So if I don't believe that being a home-maker is all there is to life, I'm best off finding someone who believes the opposite? Rather than someone who shares my outlook on life?
Twaddle.

Olive James is simply reporting, as a scientist, what research shows. Yes, mummy being away from baby isn't good for baby's emotional development. Why shoot the messenger? He's not argueing whether mums working is a financial necessity.

I found his chapters on different parenting styles very revealing, you don't read stuff like that from the nannie-types (Gina Ford et al), whose only concern is short-term (they haven't got a clue how babie's brains work).

Onestonetogo

And this:
"f you are the kind of woman who is likely to not want to stay with the babies, then you 'd better find a nurturing-type man who will do it for you if you decide to have kids- not an alpha male type who will leave you holding the baby. He calls it a 'mothering game plan' and I think its a good idea."

how is this based on research? His take on the research is anything but objective. He is not simply summarising he has a very particular agenda here!

I agree with him. Read his chapters on mothering styles; better one warm and nurturing father (or grandmother) than a distant/cold mother. By distant and cold he doesn't mean a working mother, btw!

I thought there was research to show that fathers as primary caregivers did a good job, there were some differences in terms of impact on sons and daughters, but nothing alarming.

This is in line with OJ's views about fathers sharing responsibility for childcare. There's too much focus on mothers letting men off tje hook IMO.

ra29youreallydoneedabetternameasIhadtoscrolltofinditandcutandpaste :
the Belsky lecture you linked to is interesting.. and more measured than others I've read..

I wonder.. if the research says that negative effects of childcare are related to dosage as well as quality of childcare,
would it be better to go back to work five mornings a week than three whole days.

I'm not finding anything in what he writes that says that nannies/childminders are better.. it seems to be about the average amount of time spent in daycare over the first 54 months of life.