MN on Oliver James - on Woman's Hour now

[Isaidheyhoney]

Jenni Murray has just announced it - have a listen...

Edgar I liked your post of 21.13 very much, though I would like to point out that we don't know Justine didn't hit him. I reckon she biffed him over the head with a laptop at the end and they edited that bit out.

i am a big fan of 'the continuum concept' incidentally - most pertinent about it is that mothers in tribes don't spend time alone with their babies - they spend huge anmount of time with other family and normally a large group of kids & mums...
the whole idea of 'one on one' time is not one you will find pushed by any approach looking at the social evolution of human beings. Travlling round poorer counties, you see children running about carrying babies with them, whilst mothers get on with the grind of subsistence farming, cooking and washing. 'One-on-one' is not a natural phenmonenon any more than nursery is.

This Oliver James bloke is making money out of his book, calling him a twat ultimately only makes me feel marginally better about the fact he is making money out of his views and gets to spout on radio and television - in reality the laugh is very much on me - I am just a random contributor to a website who gets no pay for her words whether drivel or pure gold! My comment is not cheap: it is free.

And if he was so nice, he'd have let someone else talk without making it a battle.

I will listen later. Can't now as I'm in work and swearing is discouraged in the work place.

Jenny Murray didn't try very hard to disguise her dislike of him!

Nodaftnickname is clearly a mate of his. This is her only post on MN.

I have never met Oliver James or had any contact with him.

Had to switch it off when the shouting got too much. Jenni Murray made an absolute dogs dinner of that interview; she didn't handle him at all well. She let her personal prejudices shine through as well.

Am not an Oliver James fan myself.

The whole of the Internet (Every social networking site except those which are heavily moderated) is highly offensive and shallow, get over it .

Question for anyone who has read OJ's books (as opposed to merely heard a soundbite pressure interview):

Does he claim that there is no genetic influence whatsoever to ADHD?

See, I'm wondering if James actually says something more nuanced when he he has time, like "Whatever the genetic risk factors might be, our best strategy for dealing with this is to focus on ensuring high quality parenting" or something like that... something more helpful and constructive than he ever seems to say in press/broadcast media.

This is the only live OJ thread I could find, although there seem to be several at the mo. I came back to say that, although he has frequently annoyed the hell out of me, and I have some serious doubts about bits and pieces of the cortisol studies usually cited, I think that in essence he is saying something important and right.

The question is, why isn't his column on the economics pages of the newspaper, where it needs to be if we are seriously going to consider the impact of paying for home-based childcare for all children whose parents work, rather than in the family section where it exists to make so many of us feel deeply miserable about our choices?

I would note that at least one cortisol study that i read about in 'Why Love Matters' jumped from saying that cortisol was raised for longer in children in nursery as opposed to children with their mothers, to saying that home-based childcare was better, without apparently taking the trifling interim step of measuring cortisol in children in home-based childcare. Or in children in larger families who have a greater than 1:3 adult:child ratio. This was quite kind of them, because if the conclusion had been that home-based childcare and large families are just as developmentally bad as nursery, we really WOULD have to say that at least one parent shoudl not take on paid work except when their child is asleep for at least 3 years. And that would be a tough one.

erm, sorry, and to finish off my para, the conclusion would also have to be that parents should only have 2 children. At which point we would probably all come to our senses and realise that life is not about creating an optimum but about doing the best you can, possibly.

sorry again, i seem to have attempted to argue back round against OJ's approach, even though I came here to support at least some of what he says...

Nodaftnickname - in that case your assertion that he is sincere, caring and modest is clearly based on not very much.

It's also about effects. Studies show parental long term illness or divorce have a greater effect on behavioural outcome than attachment problems. Growing up in an area where nobody works, alcoholism, depression is endemic, children caring for parents and siblings- these things have far greater effect in the long term. Surely working to avoid these things is better?

It's absolutely right that a whole raft of long-term influences play a massive role. There's lots of research-based evidence that divorce is damaging -- which is another guilty truth that a lot of people in today's me-centred Britain won't face up to.. People who point out this inconvenient truth tend to get the same aggression meted out to them as Oliver James received yesterday.

To the person who says the whole of the Internet is offensive and shallow, get over it well, some people may want to use the anonymity of the Web to be spiteful and stupid, but it doesn't mean everyone has to. I have a friend whose 12 year-old daughter is being bullied at her comp because she doesn't dress in short skirts and wear makeup and pretend to be fascinated by pop music and soap operas. So she should accept that the offensive shallow girls bullying her are the norm, and "get over it" just try to be more like them?

As to the person who says I can't claim that Ol. James is sincere etc because I've never met him -- well, I've read him and I've heard him interviewed. That's the beauty of language.

v. There's lots of research-based evidence that divorce is damaging

i very much doubt it is more damaging than parents staying togther when they no longer love each other.

good to see you still about bibbety - though don't you think it's hard to produce a great interview if someone refuses to stop talking in order to bring the other person in? thinking of the great interviewing debacles of history, most invoved people that were v. difficult to nterview

i think poss, she could have moved way from guilt-feeding and into a bit more of a questioning of the evidence (which is far from 'overwhelming')

but i often feel on womans hour that they take on really big issues in ten-minute slots, so you aren't going to get a proper treatment of the subject matter.

and i think Bridget Jones would make a very good mummy

Eggy - I do agree that they always shoehorn these potentially interesting guests into too short slots. Its so frustrating, cos they stop the expert interviewee and then go on to texts and emails from the blardy plebian listeners! Aaaaarrrrrgggghhhh. (Radio 5 are TERRIBLE for this.)

But JM was literally shouting at him "stop, no, no, no!" which, frankly, I could have done better. The earlier part of the interview was unbalanced because she should have intervened sooner. What's wrong with saying "we have time restraints so need to get a view from our other guest" - OJ knows why he is there.

But, also, her hostility was transparent. Not good enough from the BBC.

i have alot more sympathy for her being a bit sharp wih him than with some people she interviews (normally v. negative to women who come to talk about BFing - who are not making money out of what they do, usually.)

I know nothing of this 'Radio 5' of which you speak.

Well you is lucky then Eggy cos you (presumably) are not married to a sports journalist who tunes every radio in the house to Five Live whenever he goes in to a room - even just to make a cup of tea ffs - when he know his dw actually prefers R4 and R2.

Don't get me started on the car ...

safe assumption bib, mine is a mere fan of F1, football and cricket...
This kind of marital situation always reminds me of a wonderful quote

'October is a sad month. It is when the hardcore cricket fan notices that his wife left him in May.'

yes, it was on Radio 4...

The Bridget Jones comment was so dismissive and patronising, I can't take anything he says seriously.

(oh that and his lack of acknowledgement to the genetic component to any of the mental health issues he discusses in his Guardian column)

Jeez, I get that Bibbity, and he's not even a sports journo.

Re OJ's books, they are certainly nuanced and I expect that's why he finds shallow shouty media "interviews" pretty frustrating. He should really have (better?) PR advice about which interviews he agrees to do - the Woman's Hour one was clearly disastrous all round, as someone above said, not good listening, I hate it when they all shout over each other, bit like the blardy Today Programme. I can't stand JM anyway, she has probably done more harm to feminism by claiming to be a feminist than anyone else in the BBC. I luuuurve Jane Garvey though.

It's honestly worth reading Oliver James' books; they are quite academic, but fascinating. I think his problem is that he can't see a political solution; IMO the affluenza stuff lacks a solid political base, to say the least.

I love love LOVE Jane Garvey too.

I am certain she would have done a better interview.

I agree that Jenni Murray didn't let Oliver James make the points he wanted to make. I honestly don't think he was criticising mothers but simply talking about babies and toddlers needs. As a working mum myself I used various forms of childcare for my son - but if I could have that time back I would have stayed at home with him. I also think Oliver James was making a plea for us to listen to our deepest instincts with our children. He was trying to ask how as a society we could make it easier for parents (not just mothers) to be with their young children. We all feel under an incredible amount of pressure to have things that money can buy and yet the best thing we can give our children is our love, time and attention. Many mums feel isolated at home and that is a problem but maybe we should address thatrather than seek fulfilment away from our children. Maybe we should question how much is expected from us as women, being a good mother and having a job is surely too much for anyone and yet we seem accustomed to that. In some ways Oliver James wasn't against mothers speaking for them and the incredibly important work they do. Whether it is a mother or father or combination of both. children deserve to be parented and not put inthe care of others. I feel hypocritical because I worked for most of my son's childhood and he has grown into a lovely adult but I can't say he didn't suffer and I think I was in denial about that at the time. They grow so quickly and then childhood is gone and we have all the time in the world to seek fulfilment in our own lives. I think Oliver James was standing up for children and as women and mothers we should respect that even if we don't agree with him.