MN on Oliver James - on Woman's Hour now

[Isaidheyhoney]

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

Big fan of Jane Garvey here too. I used to love her on R5 Drive.

Daisyjg, I agree with a lot of what you said. I put my ds in a nursery for three days a week when he was three, which in theory was old enough to be OK, but it was too tiring for him - just too much. I still regret it.

At least we should be able to talk about these things, not bung them under the carpet.

Daisy, you don't think the Bridget Jones comment was really quite low and patronising?

I think it shows a low opinion of women in general.

I think OJ is better than that daft BJ comment. Apart from anything else it's unbelievably dated. Haven't we stopped going on about women hoarding their shrivelling old eggs and actively refusing to have children with the crowds of eager men all dying to reproduce that they are fighting off? I thought we were going on about, erm, obesity or something this year? (really MUST read more shite journalism, am not up on this year's lazy shorthand for gyno-social problems)

I can't remember much about Bridget Jones, but I do think it's not v healthy if women are encouraged to identify with the Sex and the City quartet. Personally. Anyway all the celeb mags want us to identify with the likes of Kerry Katona, Katie Price, etc, god help us. So insofar as Oliver James is calling for women to see ourselves as having more dignity than that lot, then he is right.

I'm still wondering how OJ knows he was left in his pram to cry at the bottom of the garden at 6 months (iirc).

I'm guessing this is part of his rather obvious resentment towards women.

What I got from that interview was OJ saying that the trouble with mothers and mothering is that it's done by women, and you're just rubbish at it, aren't you?

And those of you who are single mothers who work, well you're truely failing your children and setting them up to be mal-adjusted scum bags of the future.

Btw, I am a single, (full-time) working parent whose dd is in full-time nursery and has been since 2.6.

If I ever meet OJ, god help his smug, shit-for-brains, inexperienced, arrogant, twatness. How dare he get paid large sums of money to spout such damaging solution-free ignorant drivel. I will very happily shove his ugly head even further up his rectum and turn him inside out.

PS - thank you Justine for remaining calm, making some very good points (cortisol levels are also raised by exercise), and just letting OJ dig his own grave.

A cousin told him later, JuJusDad.

I think I heard a different interview.

Justine and J Murray joined forces in a bit of unedifying bullying. Whatever their views on him ( and J Murray is meant to represent impartiality ) he was not treated with respect and the interview was all the poorer for that.

Asking a question and then shouting down the response before it is even finished is not a grown up way to proceed.

Nor is gratuitous abuse.

my husband just listened to it, and he thought OJ was being the extremist (with his extrapolation from a couple of studies and a bit of his own experiene) being balanced by two moderate opinions, and what was really needed was someone (i'm imagining Xenia here) who thought childcare was great!

the guy would have spoken for ten minutes solid if he'd ben allowed to.

i didn't hear anything positive about women in that at all, on the second listen, no recognition of the dificulties you igh face as a parent..

if this isn't a good representation of his views - maybe he should think about what he is going to say better in advance.

FWIW - Bridget Jones is a really sweet, loving person in the books.

If he'd been allowed to talk about the book and its contents instead of having to defend himself after half a sentence, I might feel more enlightened.

What was extremist?

Oliver James is as media savvy as you can get. He knew he was in a 10 minutes slot (at the end of the programme, no less, little room for manoeuvre). And he thought he could railroad Jenni Murray into letting him spout forth uninterrupted, despite the fact that he knew it was a two-way discussion with JM chairing. He was wrong about that.

"If he'd been allowed to talk about the book and its contents instead of having to defend himself after half a sentence, I might feel more enlightened."

Listen to the programme again, campion. When asked a question, OJ's answer is full of 'umm's until JM decides that's he's had enough airtime and it is the other side's turn. It's only when JM tries to shut him up that he suddenly gets gets insistent and fluent.

I remember hearing an interview, years ago, with Edwina Currie when she was a Minister. She was asked a question and launched into a non-stop two-minute answer. I then heard her, years later, admit that it was a purposeful tactic to not allow her interviewer to get another word in, knowing that her reply would use up all the allotted time. She was very full of herself and thought that her ploy was very clever. I think we were supposed to be impressed.
I knew the game she was playing at the time (it didn't take that much working out) and was not impressed: I would have been more impressed if she had answered the question instead of playing silly power games with the interviewer.

Same with OJ: I would be more impressed if he could respond to criticisms of his theories instead of pretending that he was being interrupted just as he was about to make a really important point. He knows that time is short in radio-land and should, accordingly, be concise in his answers.
(oops this isn't a very concise post!)

Quite

eh? Have you not read the other threads which comment on how OJ is quite good at cherrypicking data which he then manipulates to back up his (crackpot IMHO) theories. If what he is suggesting is as scientific as he tries to make out then it should be able to withstand a bit of enquiry from Jenni/Justine (hardly experts in the field).

I did ROFL when he ridiculed his mother for trusting theory/books instead of instinct. This from a man who wants us to misbelieve our own instinct and follow his theory/book.

Calling him a twat is like sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalalala

listening to his points, and then pointing out the (very glaring) flaws in them is...?

Quick reply to lljjk re OJ and ADHD/ genetics: his general view on mental health issues is that society plays a larger role than genetics. So I imagine he'd give little credence to a genetic viewpoint.

I like Oliver James very much and have been to a talk he has given on his excellent book Affluenza. He is well qualified. I think if we could all read this latest book it would help as in fact he doesnt say its just the mother who has to look after the child (much as I would like that argument myself !), but in fact he is stressing the importance of one to one care or at least care by one main carer. Reason - the child is so important and early years are so important for their development. there is an old saying that "give me a child for the first seven years and I will give you the man".

I tend not to agree with anything woman's hour say - they are voicing the opinions of women who work in the media - unfortunately all women who work in the media (including mumsnet !) tend to promote their own views (high flying career women with interesting jobs and power) not the diverse and varying views of all women - the majority of ordinary women, many working part time or looking after kids (working from home) majority

Jenny, aren't you promoting your own view in that post? What's wrong with presenting one's own viewpoint - that's the whole point of MN!

You are relying totally on sweeping generalisations and stereotypes in your last para, rather than on reality. I assure you that the majority of the women I've worked alongside in the past 10 years of my media career do not fit your stereotype (including me - non-high-flying p/t media woman - what pigeonhole would you like to squeeze me into? ). 'High flyers' are always at the upper reaches of the career tree, and therefore there are fewer of them. Most of us are the 'ordinary' women who you think have no place in the media.

It's also a gross oversimplification to assume that having a successful career means you're out of touch with normality; being a career woman doesn't mean you lose your individuality and become part of an amorphous mass of bleating careerist sheep.

I was extremely unimpressed by Affluenza. I thought it was shockingly ill-researched and badly written, really to the point at which it's difficult to argue with his points, as there is no framework to justify them in the first place It's merely a string of anecdotes, selected to fit a theory, loosely tied together. I'm afraid that based on that alone, Oliver James appears to have rather a weak intellect.