Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Oliver James.in the Daily Fail on his and Justine's MNHQ womens hour interview

79 replies

JackBauerDeservedAHappyEnding · 13/06/2010 07:56

here says he was given a hard time by Jenni Murray.

Some choice exytacts

'Murray's and Roberts's conviction that I am hostile to mothers working was odd. I have neither said nor written anything of the sort.'

'Sadly, there is now overwhelming evidence that daycare is bad for the mental health of at least one-third of under-threes (the evidence is in the appendix of my book).'

According to the article he interviews 50 mothers for his book! Gosh, That's some impressive research base, isn't it?

OP posts:
BelleDameSansMerci · 13/06/2010 18:09

As someone...

ChuckBartowski · 13/06/2010 18:11

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

cory · 13/06/2010 18:41

one on one care isn't going to happen in most families I know for the simple reason that one-child families are still in a minority?

given the explanation of cortisol in the link provided above, I assume that the lowest levels of cortisol will be found in children whose mums sit around reading magazines while the child watches the telly for hour after hour. or better still, keeps them in bed all day

the kind of mother (and I was one) who takes them out to parks and parties and other cortisol-stimulating activities is clearly a Bad and Irresponsible mother and should not be allowed

HuggerMutha · 13/06/2010 18:46

What are the guidelines in nurseries? One carer to two under-twos would hardly be a problem, and as you say, BDSM, no different from a childminder. If staff turnover is v low, even better. And Montessori nurseries have a whole ethos driving them, so that again is different from a profit-driven business. Is it as cost-effective to use a childminder as a nursery?

TheFallenMadonna · 13/06/2010 18:50

Assuming his "overwhelming evidence" is just that (and I'd need to read more really to be convinced), that means for the majority of children (2/3), childcare is OK then? I wonder if he identifies anything about the differnce between the 2/3 and the 1/3. What are the risk factors for a bad outcome in childcare? Does anybody know what he says about thiis?

BelleDameSansMerci · 13/06/2010 18:54

HuggerMutha I think the recommendation is one carer to three under twos. I didn't really look into a childminder for DD as I have to work full time and I was concerned that if the childminder was ill, I'd be in a very difficult position. Also, once I'd visited that nursery I knew she wasn't going anywhere else (so long as I could afford it) even if it is about as far from my house as it could be and be in the same town!

HuggerMutha · 13/06/2010 19:24

I think the difference there is the question of whether the under-twos get an allocated carer, or whether it just means the nursery has got to have a certain number of staff per three babies.

I think where there are risk factors in babycare, it's better for everybody to be aware of them, and then make informed choices, not just pretend the risk doesn't exist. You can still choose a nursery, and take other measures to prevent your child being in the one third who will be adversely affected, as people seem to be saying.

TheShriekingHarpy · 14/06/2010 11:41

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

JackBauerDeservedAHappyEnding · 14/06/2010 14:00

That may well be but it just seems to me that he wants us to fall down and thank him for showing us how to parent.
And writing a pissy little poor me articla because he had a bad interview is pathetic. NO-one writes articles saying Paxman bullied them, and wasn't he mean

OP posts:
Ponders · 14/06/2010 14:04

Oh good lord, I just read the first few posts on here, & I was sure I was reading about Jamie Oliver until I went to the linked article.

Should I send for the men in white coats now?

JackBauerDeservedAHappyEnding · 14/06/2010 14:19

Only if they are an optician

OP posts:
sethstarkaddersmum · 14/06/2010 14:23

I love that he says he doesn't hate women but he starts his article calling the younger Jenni Murray 'shrill and stroppy' -

TheShriekingHarpy · 14/06/2010 14:43

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

sethstarkaddersmum · 14/06/2010 14:50

er, no we wouldn't

JackBauerDeservedAHappyEnding · 14/06/2010 14:56

Erm, no, I don't think he's a nobber because he's a man
I think he's a nobber because he's well, a nobber.

And frankly, if he publishes a book and articles about parenting and mothers and how what we do affects our children then he needs to expect robust criticism.

If he doesn't like it he should STFU and stop writing.

OP posts:
TheShriekingHarpy · 14/06/2010 15:03

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

bibbitybobbityhat · 14/06/2010 15:05

It was a terrible interview though. Jenny Murray really did balls it up.

JackBauerDeservedAHappyEnding · 14/06/2010 15:08

As far as I can tell that was one person TSH.

The interview may well ahve been terrible, but is he so blinkered that he can't see why they are upset by it.
It's not that he has opened our eyes and shown us the truth and they are upset because he has shown them how wrong they are.

This is why SWMNBN doesn't do interviews

OP posts:
HuggerMutha · 14/06/2010 15:20

As a radio interviewer, Jenni Murray isn't supposed to shout down people whose opinions she's personally upset by.

Some listeners might have been interested in actually listening to what he had to say. And all that shouting is really terrible, unlistenable radio.

LadyBlaBlah · 14/06/2010 15:22

Firstly, the picture made me laugh. That is about 10 years old - is that vainness from the man who professes to not care about western values like appearance?

The main problem I see with OJ is his massive generalisations to essentially justify his own experiences and own status and beliefs. 50 interviews is peanuts for a survey and the analysis is absolutely questionable, if there was any using any known technique other than waht is commonly termed 'cherry picking'.

He keeps referring to some research that proves that 1/3 of children under 3 are worse off in day care. I have not seen the research because he seems unable to reference it unless you buy the book, however it is irrelevant really. There is as much research that shows the opposite, that children benefit from day care (always on the proviso that it is quality day care that the parents are happy with).

He seems totally unable to grasp that he may not be right, and the reason why women react so passionately is that his research and thinking only really touches the tip of a very large iceberg. There are many many many factors at play when a women goes back to work, the wellbeing of the child is certainly one, but unfortunately it is not the only factor - financial position, marital status, family pressure, expectations from employers, expectations from colleagues, long term outlook for career, financial independence, pressure from partner etc etc. It is simply inexcusable to say it so simple - i.e. just don't have a career because your child will be likely harmed forever, and that the women who do go back to work are likely to be 'Type A' ( that term is so outdated I can't begin to tell you) - hello, Mr Stereotype - is there any evidence for this?

In summary, I understand he thinks he is helping women, and maybe therefore his intentions are good. But there is a saying which can be added onto Keep It Simple, Stupid, which is Don't Over Simplify, Stupid. OJ, it isn't as simple as you make out, and you don't have any substantial evidence that backs up your argument, so really...... just give it a rest.

bratnav · 14/06/2010 15:26

Oliver James, for example, is a twunt

HuggerMutha · 14/06/2010 15:29

In his book "They F* You Up" there are 20 pages of references and 29 pages of bibliography, as well as a load more references attached to each appendix.

I think his main argument is that the wellbeing of the child should be paramount.

If you do disagree with that, then you will disagree with him.

bratnav · 14/06/2010 15:29

Also, £17.99 for his book

Sakura · 14/06/2010 15:31

And to think I was defending him on that other thread!

NanKid · 14/06/2010 15:35

I really would like to shove that book of his up his smug jacksy, to be quite honest.

He is a Misogynistic Twat of epic proportions.