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?

Yes it was. Attachment theory itself is a useful and valid theory but it has been applied and used politically in the context you describe.

Yes it was exactly that kickassangel. A piece of misogynist social engineering that begat the middle classes proper

The theory itself wasn't. Just the way it was used and manipulated. It's actually an essentially valid and helpful approach not only to childhood development but adult relationships.

Just a shame it was hijacked a bit in the 1950s but it has moved on since then - though James might want to think about that!

I did not hear the radio programme but some parts of the article I agreed with and some I didnt.

I didnt think the 'shrill and stroppy' comment was not necessary and should have been edited out. I can see why that annoys people.

Interviewing 50 mothers is perfectly acceptable for academic sociologocal research though. It takes a lot of time, effort and money to conduct panel interviews. He could perhaps have used a questionnaire but in depth interviews sometimes work better fo rsome types of research.

The Type A personality discussion was interesting and I feel fits me and DW. We mix WAHD/SAHD/WAHM/SAHM and use out of home childcare too. We have to do that for practical reasosn as we could not work at all with children at home all day. What he said about that seems sensible from a psychological point of view too. Like any job, for someone who really wants to be a full time SAHD/SAHM it is wonderfully rewarding. For other people, it is deadly dull and they resent it and will tend to do it badly.

I know neither me nor DW could just be happy only looking after children. We love our children and spend a huge amount of time thinking about their welfare, happiness, education and their future. When we are with them we focus only on them.

Where I part with Oliver James though is that I genuinely believe our children are more independent, confident and secure having been in nursery/school for almost their whole life than many children of friends who have not. I think the key is not whether a child has been in a nursery but whether the child feels secure that there is always a carer who they know will always be there for them. The most insecure and badly behaved children we know have either had a constant stream of different nannies or au pairs and parents who came in and out at odd times. Another set of children we know are at home all day with a mother who really just wanted to go back to work - she resented it and the children are insecure and badly behaved as a result.

A bit of me though thinks that some of the comments on the thread are critical because some women feel that they are the only 'natural parent' at least for the early years and 'what would/could a man know about it?'.

There is no 'right answer' but more tolerance of open debate and research would be a good thing.