Baby boys who have a nanny turn into womanisers

[tummytime]

whereas baby girls spend the rest of their lives with a 'vacuum of need' inside them which they try to fill in a variety of harmful ways - here

Personally am very unconvinced. The whole thing seems a post rationalisation of the habits of some very odd people by blaming their mothers (naturally).

What utter bullshit.
Oh and no actual evidence to back it up what a surprise.

Oh good, mothers need something else to feel guilty about.

Hahahaha what a load of crap!
Like having a nanny as an infant does any kind of psychological damamge.

I thought this was very funny. I wish someone paid me to come up with this kind of thing.

That said, I think it's absolutely right that babies have a right to a mother who's '100 percent connected'.

I thought the whole thing seemed very odd really. Surely if the is true it can't just apply to nannies but also nurseries - would a keyworker relationship not be worse?

I do think its a shame that this is being given such uncritical prominence on a national paper, even if it is the DT.

What bullshit. This guy so clearly has an agenda. His quote on women feeling they have a right to a life as well as brining up a baby but actually the baby having a right to a mother who is 100% connected really exposes him; where do fathers feature in his analysis? What of their responsibilities to the child? What if they are (shock, horror) the primary care givers, does that create the same situation as he describes with a nanny?

Such a load of old tosh.

I never cease to be amazed at the rubbish people come up with-I am even more amazed that they, presumably, get paid for it!

love it. Don't overlook the journalist's "said Dr Friedman who is 85"

Smithy, no point in 'brickbatting' "100% connected", it's a soundbite, nobody's going to disagree, they just have different interpretations of what that means, some legitimate, some not. Apologies if that's a disappointingly bland response.

Ha ha ha! He obviously hasn't met my ds - a 19 year old geek. A bit of serial womanising from him would be a relief to be honest. Maybe I should have made my nannies wear uniform or something?

Although a series of nannies and au pairs has certainly left both my dcs with the belief that housework is done by the Housework Fairies.

I read this and thought it was hysterical

what I want to know, is what changes at age1 when they are 'allowed' a nanny? Has the concept of the Older Woman gone in their minds by then? I think there might be a few teenagers who'd disagree with that concept

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Sorry, but what a load of balls. Spot the short news day.

Incidentally, my Dad's last girlfriend worked in the events and marketing section of the telegraph, and she was pretty scathing of the paper - she never read it, and worked there for the free ballet tickets (and other such perks) she occasionally got.

I love how they advertise that they're the ones publishing the book at the end by the way. What a joke.

So if you have a male nanny, what happens then to baby boys and baby girls? They end up with a sugar daddy complex?? What utter tosh.

what a load of bollocks

I have never had a Nanny but.... what a load of old rubbish.

What I always think utterly bizarre about these articles is that it was standard practice for nannies to raise the ruling classes until about the middle of the 20th century which is always conveniently overlooked. And they weren't all womanisers or suffering from attachment disorder or incapable of happiness or whatever this week's stick to beat mothers with is.

I don't think this is quite true, but there are bound to be some consequences of a baby being cared for in a nursery, or by an employee such as a nanny.

You are seriously kidding yourself if you believe nursery is better or as good for your child than being cared for by it's own mother.

Thanks for that onebadbaby. I do looooove the superior SAHM on a Sunday morning

Utter tosh.

And I think it's telling that the byline is just "Daily Telegraph Reporter" rather than a named person. The article's probably written by the book author's publicist.

How bizarre! Surely a nursery is even worse then, as it introduces boys to the idea that there are loads of women (and even some men) out there for them

I think Dr Friedman misunderstands the relationship between the baby, mother and nanny too - however much a baby loves his nanny he always wants his mum more. I think there's very rarely confusion about who the primary attachment is with.

Not superior, LadyB, just true.

I've seen young men and women going totally off the rails when they perceive their parents don't care about them about them as people or love them.

Maybe that ties in a little? I've had friends who had nannies etc and in some cases this was because the parents simply didn't want their lives inconvenienced by the needs of children right from the start. One of my good friends saw her mother at her boarding school only when her mother's diary allowed or there was some real issue.

So perhaps it depends on whether the nanny is employed as a substitute mother on every level or not?

Smithy that really depends on how good a mother your children judge you to be in the future.

I think it's fair to say parental care is better than paid care, especially for babies. But so long as paid care is good enough, there are other factors to take into account - the need for parents to earn money, to have time away from their children for their own mental health etc.