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

[JackBauerDeservedAHappyEnding]

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?

Hugger - wouldn't it be great if we could all only do what is the very best for our children - all of them at the very best schools, the very best food eaten at all times, the very best emotional support given every day all day to counsellor standards, and then also none of us needing to work to sustain any of this either so we can simply concentrate on the child until they are 3 and totally fulfilled in every way......................would be brilliant

But really..............?

And has it ever been so?

Gosh he's a mysogynist isn't he? Bloody hell....

I know several experienced CAMHS professionals who think he spouts c**p.

Good to see he got a bit of CBT bashing in there as well as a load of inaccuracies about it. Might as well flush my Post grad in CBT down the toilet then .

When my first dc was born 18 years ago it was common knowledge that a nursery was the least good option for childcare for babies - and that's what OJ is talking about. Babies are extremely vulnerable, and it's a vital stage of their lives, which might go on for 80 years. If you have no option but to use a nursery, then you need to be aware of the possible effect on your baby, and mitigate the risks as much as you can. But you can't just ignore the risks and shout abuse at anyone who mentions them. And I don't think using a childminder needs to be any more expensive than using a nursery, so why not choose that option instead?

I'm appalled that this is even a debate these days - what has changed? Certainly there were plenty of writers around twenty years ago putting similar points to OJ - iirc, Penelope Leach, for example. But also, I would argue, the nursery question is common sense.

what has changed - the quality of the nurseries and the quality of the evidence, to name but two things.

huggermutha I can see your point and I thought long and hard about childcare for dd when i went back to work. The nursery I chose is rated as outstanding but ofsted has a 2 year waiting list (we sneaked our way in) and is used by many child health professionals including child psychologists and psychiatrist to care for their children as it's so good.

The one half a mile down the road has a v bad rep and many parents have taken their dcs out of that one because of worrying experiences there. It's so so variable. i know the care dd recieved at her nursery from 7 months was better than the care she was getting from me as I had PND and just wasn't responding to her emotionally (although i was doing all the practical things) as she needed. i was crying, constantly.

I've met several childminders professionally and personally and no way would I want one caring for either of my dcs, they have some quite odd ideas TBH. Again not saying they're all like this but that's just my experience. DS is going to the same nursery when he's 1 part time and I'm happy with that decision.

BY ofsted

The thing with "the research" is that there have been hundreds of studies into the effects of daycare on the under-3s all over the world - and no consensus as to the results at all. Choose any ten studies and you'll find at least 3 contradictory views. There are so many different factors at play that it's impossible to make sweeping statements about nursery care being good or bad.

However, there is definitely good nursery care and bad nursery care. I think there has been quite a bit of agreement that high quality nursery care - ratios of 1 adult to 3 babies or less, groups sizes no bigger than 6-8, high levels of staff qualifications and low turnover - have no negative impact. Unfortunately, too large a number of private nurseries, especially in London, are shit.

Minx, I think you were absolutely right in your choice, and I agree wholeheartedly that not all nurseries are the same. I think awareness that there CAN be problems helps prompt people into really thinking about their own individual choice, including WHICH nursery, not just whether a nursery or not.

I agree with your point, Missus84, that some London nurseries are shit. I have certainly seen plenty of staff motivated principally by money who are just looking to get through their shift with as little trouble as possible. And it's common sense that nursery staff will devote more time to demanding toddlers than to babies who only have to be kept clean and safe.

"I agree with your point, Missus84, that some London nurseries are shit. I have certainly seen plenty of staff motivated principally by money who are just looking to get through their shift with as little trouble as possible. And it's common sense that nursery staff will devote more time to demanding toddlers than to babies who only have to be kept clean and safe. "

Motivated by money? Somehow I doubt it - pay for nursery workers is outrageously low. This is one reason why I think there should be a much bigger state sector in nursery care, Children's Centres pay much higher wages than private nurseries and therefore can attract and keep better qualified staff.

I don't know what you mean by common sense either - most nurseries have separate baby and toddler rooms, so staff are only caring for one age group and not having to juggle the demands of differing age groups.

Well, I can only speak from experience - that staff do the minimum necessary with babies. Motivated by money in that they have a job to do, and do what they have to in order to complete a shift successfully. Why would they feel any commitment to any individual baby? Whereas childminders (some of them at least) clearly do dote on babies and do the work because they love cuddling babies.

hugger - when was the last time you were a nursery customer for a baby? (not an attack - just curious as i note your eldest dc is now an adult).

we move frequently and have used a number of nurseries - most of the staff fight to be in the baby room as they want to cuddle babies all day . my kids used to come home smelling like the keyworker's perfume lol.

the pay is so poor i can't believe anyone thinks that money is a motivation.

What exactly is your experience HuggerMutha? Do you use or work in a nursery?

You can equally say, well childminders just do the job so they can afford to stay at home with their own children - so why would they feel a commitment to anyone else's baby?

I think Hugger is entitled not to like mass nurseries, I don't like them either. It is an opinion after all.

I've seen what goes on inside some nurseries. Then again as someone pointed out there are crap childminders as well. You have to be of the right frame of mind to work with children of any age.

Actually I disagree with Hugga about childminders. I mentioned on another thread that I went to one myself....bad things happened.
A daycare is a public space and adults are far more likely to regulate each other's behaviour towards the children. Plus the staff are 'in work' with all the positive social aspects that come with that: chatting to other adults, etc. Daycares are designed for children; staff aren't worried about them breaking or spilling anything. they are often bright and sunny places.
CHildminders are in their own home usually.

I think we really do need to think twice about where our babies go. It's common sense to me that it matters who is looking after your baby and how many other babies that person has to look after. It honestly does matter.

DS just turned one and I put him in daycare two mornings a week so I can work from home. The staff there use slings on their back to carry the babies about.

Belledamesmerce, I thought the daycare you described sounded absolutely brilliant. If daycare could be like that I don't think anyone could say anything negative about it.

hugga, i think you're out of date in your knowledge. for several years, nurseries have had to provide a key worker for each child - one person who is the main carer, contacts families, keeps records etc. there may be nurseries where this is a fairly arbitrary role, but certainly the nursery that dd went to it was taken v seriously - her first key worker was pretty mucha family friend & we still have contact with another one, cos they love the kids so much that they remember them all & know them all. even when we bumped into some of the staff at weekends (even just the cook) they appeared to be delighted to see dd, chatted to her etc/

i have yet to see good research which does a comparison of nurseries, childminders, parents and extended family, and come up with a % which shows how many of each are 'good' or 'bad' carers. anyone can become a parent, there are checks in place to keep an eye on professionals.

and none of this answers the question of why it is the woman that criticism is aimed at - no-one ever questioned dh's decision to return to work, and he cleared off back to the office when dd was less than a week old, the uncaring bastard. (in fact, he was at the office when she was conceived AND for a couple of days whilst I was in labour.

"in fact, he was at the office when she was conceived"

Ah, the old 'over the desk' approach?

more under the (operating) knife - assisted fertility - from licensed doctors, not down the pub and one drink too many.

Oh.

Well that's not nearly as much fun. I was imagining him on a business call; just bend over there, love, I have to wind this conversation up but no reason to delay, eh?

Please don't shoot me down in flames, but... I heard the edited version of OJ's interview with Justine & JM, and he didn't sound at all unreasonable in there.

So, um, can someone please link me to an article where he says really insane stupid things about working mums? When he says antiDs rules out breastfeeding, and the criticisms about study on cortisol levels in nursery children -- those types of things, but also what he says in conclusion, I'm looking for more like that.

Cuz at the moment I'm struggling to understand what he's said (as opposed to what's been said about him) that's so damnable, but am open-minded.

(I was working PT until DC3 was 1yo, btw, and have no guilt about it, so have no agenda!)
TIA.

When I first read this latest stuff by Oliver James it made me angry; and then I realised it was partly because I employ a nanny and feel a bit guilty about it sometimes.

Isn't part of the reason mothers have some respect for the views and work of psychologists (people do, after all, keep citing the importance of decently done research) and let them wind them up when they say something challenging that it is not always easy to gauge what is best for a child? Especially if you are away from them all day? If a wide range of experts say nurseries are not the ideal environment to place a young baby then I would tend to respect that. Babies adjust to situations to cope with them - that doesn't mean they are getting the care they deserve.

If you have no choice that is tough, literally, but it doesn't change the truth of what experts say or make them chauvenists. I'm talking about young babies and I know nurseries vary a lot.

Oliver James seems to want a world of one on one care by mothers or if not, childminders. However he appears to have a hazy view of history. This notion of women staying at home to care for kids just hasn't been viable since the bloody industrial revolution for some women!

Working class women have always worked and relied on friends/neighbours/family to care for their kids - often circulating them between all 3. I can't imagine that has always had the best impact on mental health.

Richer women used nannies.

He is mired in the 1950s world of studies into maternal deprivation. I don't know enough about the Cortisol argument to really get into the science of it but there are so many other variables to take into account in terms of childcare then really it all needs to be qualified.

I too would love to see a bad science approach to his work.

And wailing to the DM - just makes me hate him more.

That is the key - he is mired in the 1950s attachment theory studies. He is literally rehashing Attachment Theory for 2010.

fifitot, just because babies haven't had one to one care in the past doesn't mean we can use that as a justification.
When we were all living in rainforests, the baby would have had one to one care, not necessarily by the mother, nOt necessarily by one person even, because the father and extended family would have been around. But it's unreasonable to say "well in the past babies were in slings all day and so should they be now".

So we have to do the best by babies with what we have. We can't just say the care they receive literally does not matter. It does. Saying it does is not anti-woman; it only is if you perceive it that way.

but wasn't a lot of 1950s 'research' into mums looking after kids a desperate political piece of misogynism? after WW2 the govt was embarrassed that there weren't enough jobs for the 'heros' to return to. after years of govt adverts 'encouraging' women into the workplace during the war, suddenly it was 'discovered' that women going out to work damaged the children & they should all return home to care for the darlings, thereby creating jobs for the men to go to.

there had always been women who stayed home, but generally those who didn't work could afford staff and it was considered quite a dangerous experiment to try raising your darlings yourselves, much better left to the professionals. (nancy mitford worded it well). with more gadgets (twin tubs, vacuums) making housework less of a chore, it suddenly became necessary to convince these women that they didn't have time/the right to work. so they were guilted into staying home & being the perfect mum.

of course, it made bugger all difference to the working classes, who always had, and continued to work. it just became another thing to look down on them for.

at least, that's my version of history. (i think my history teacher in 6th form may have been a bit of a feminist)