What on earth is wrong with Oliver James?

[SpeedyGonzalez]

I'm reading his latest book "How Not To F--- Them Up", and I think it's rather good.

(did my thread title fool you? )

So far I've not read anything I disagree with (am about 5 chapters in) and much of what he's said has been echoed on the pages of MN. So apart from the fact that he sometimes has a cack-handed way of talking to people, I think that what he says is generally sound.

Anyone else read this book?

I like a lot of what he says, but he gets up some people's noses on Mumsnet (and elsewhere) because of the emphasis on the need for the mother to be at home throughout early childhood. He takes studies that show some children find early daycare difficult, and extrapolates a conclusion that all mothers should stay at home, except for mothers who would find it too much of a strain on their mental health.

Nickname - from the book I'm reading he makes it clear at the beginning that he uses the word 'mother' because almost all childcare is done by women. Which is true. So if MNers who loathe him are using his new(ish) book as the cause of their ire, they can't have actually read it.

I also like the fact that he's not afraid to call a spade a spade (although sometimes this lands him in hot water - like when he was very offensive on Woman's Hour towards parents of kids with ADHD).

he is an alarmist preachy twat who paraphrases research, belittles working woman, and he is far from being echoed on mn.did a chat and got well pilloried.did wowans hour got pasting too

I read "They F**k You Up" and found it really interesting. I thought he was very supportive of women really and alot of what he said rang true to me. I think you're probably right and people don't read him, just the headlines and then take an immediate dislike. I don't remember him saying anything about early childcare except maybe that it didn't suit all and therefore he wouldn't recommend it. I'd be interested to read his latest.

Scottishmummy and Rhadegunde, have you read his work or just what he says in the papers?

"... it may help to explain why children who were in daycare when under three are so much more likely to be aggressive and disobedient. The definitive study of the subject showed that this was true of only 6% of children largely raised at home, rising steadily as the number of hours per week in non-maternal care increased, to 25% of children spending more than 45 hours a week away from mother.

Overall, there is just no reason to use daycare if you can possibly find an alternative. The evidence shows unmistakably that most parents would prefer a relative, and that it is indeed best if the substitute is one-on-one for an under-three, providing care at home. If that is unaffordable, a minder, preferably caring for only one other child who is older than your under-three, is best."

He also says that he's not attacking working mums. But that is precisely what he's doing.

And no, I haven't read his books. I've read enough of his articles to know that I don't want to read his books.

I find his column in the guardian galling enough that I would not wish to spend money on his book.

He's a cherry picker par excellence anyway. But people who share the same prejudices as he does, obviously don't mind...

Surely he's attacking parents if he's attacking anyone (and I say that as someone who goes to work and whose children go to a nursery).

LadyBiscuit, I fail to see how that is attacking working mums. Could you explain how you're interpreting that quote? and where you're quoting from? And...which of his books you've read and what you thought of them?

HappySeven - the number of families where there are SAHDs are very few in the grand scheme of things. And there are a lot more single mothers than single fathers, especially when it comes to caring for under 3s. He may try and weasel his way out by his caveats that when he says mother, he means parent, but it's not actually true. It's misogyny dressed up in psychobabble.

yes.are you evangelical based on newspapers or what you read

dont care for his lazy paraphrasing,spurious use of research,global generalisations and 2nd hand data

Rhadegund - I've paraphrased his reasons for using the word 'mothers' in my second post.

I don't believe he's attacking working parents at all...more like he's attacking daycare for under 3's. But I think it's easier to turn that into an attack on parents than to stop and ask ourselves whether our decisions to put our young children in nursery might not be best for them.

He is saying that daycare is not good for children and that children who are apart from their mothers for 45 hours plus a week are likely to be aggressive and disobedient. How is that not attaching WOHMs?

And no, I've already said I haven't read his books.

scotmum - ooh, do tell more about your statements about his use of research, etc. I hadn't got that impression from his books so am intrigued.

Speedy - this is quite a good article explaining why his research is a bit one sided.

I don't like a lot of what he says or how he says it.
But I know a number of early years child psychologists (through work) who agree with most of what he has to say.

I thought the upshot was that, yes children in daycare show slightly more aggression but also slightly more sophisticated social skills -and the effects are tiny.

I don't think it is at all helpful to present 'the research in the way he does. Women are not going to return home en masse and therefore we need to look at how daycare can be improved for young children.

I cross-posted with you earlier, LadyB.

Firstly, if daycare is not good for under 3s, that is an attack on daycare for under 3s, not on mothers or fathers.

Secondly, it is irritating that he uses the word 'mother', however, if (as you say!) this basically reflects the reality of childcare arrangements in our country then I don't understand why you find it offensive. He actually talks very positively of the childcare arrangements in Sweden, where it's 50-50 between men and women. He also praises countries whose cultural norms mean that childcare for young children is one-on-one - grandmothers/ childminders, etc. But this is all in one of his books, so it's a pity you're avoiding them.

Thanks for the link, Lady, I'll take a look at that.

Normantebbit - you know, even before reading his thoughts on childcare I could never understand why so many parents are vehemently against the idea of childminders without even trying it first. And so pro-nursery for babies/ young toddlers. I still don't understand it now, 4 years into parenthood. I've always found it bizarre - babies don't need activities; they just need cuddles and individual attention, IMO, which they sadly can't get at nurseries.

So IMO, your suggestion to improve daycare for young children is spot on, but it should be focused on more individual care.

Also - there is good daycare and bad daycare - surely the outcomes are different? Indifferent granny playing online Bingo all day vs. Child centred nusety environment where children encouraged yo climb trees, direct own play (state nursery where my sister works.)