steve biddulph - misogynist bully?

[workstostaysane]

half way through 'raising babies' he seems to be a big fat bully to me.
anyone else??

his views are misogynist because he assumes that any woman who uses nursery care cannnot have a strong emotional attachement to her child. assuming all women (who use nursery care or are thinking of it) to have failed in this area is, on some level, to deeply hate women.

his way of expressing his opinions is bullying because there will be some women who are nervous about what they are doing and he uses emotive stories based only on his own experience (alongside the countless studies) to make them feel bad about their choices.

Sophable - I don't think attachment theory goes so far as stating what kind of care, how many hours, the relationship with the child, the proximity to home (why is a childminder infinitely and always preferable to a nanny, for example?). No study ever is going to predict perfectly how a mother bonds with her child. Which is the main bloody thing. So making general statements about what kind of care is always infinitely preferable to another is just simplistic. That's all I said.

whats SWMNBN?

SORRY. don't answer that!!!!

"She who must not be named"
Although I like sophable's description too!

actually attachment theory research is VERY clear.

until the age of 36 months optimally children need one consistent caregiver that is 'good enough'.

childminders and nannies by virtue of what they are fulfill this better than daycare does.

If he's right about the emotional bond, which as greeny says seems obvious, then isn't the rest of it hugely variable and dependent on individual cases?

We had a choice of childminder or nursery - the best available childminder in our area looked after up to 5 charges, in her own home, which was nice yes but quite cramped. Plus it's not unheard of for people to change childminders or mix childminder with one or two grandparents doing a day here and there (in fact it's common) - so in what way does using a childminder ensure continuity of primary carer?

We chose our nursery because there is a ratio of 1 carer to 3 children, special dedicated rooms and toys for each age group, keyworkers who give DS a strong, loving and continuous emotional bond, a loving and happy atmosphere and on top of that, the fact that there are multiple staff means there is always someone available to cuddle or comfort DS if he needs it - whereas a childminder working alone must needs sometimes neglect children if one of them is in particular need.

It is massively oversimplistic to say just because a childminder is one person in their own home, that means there's necessarily more love or a better bond or better care.

Also agree that just because someone finds that one-to-one parental care is best for children, that doesn't mean they're somehow incapable of being misogynist.

Someone who would assume that a mother who works doesn't form a strong emotional attachement to her child, would indeed be a mysogynist, but does he really say or imply that?

hi calig - sorry to bang on, but that is exactly what he says. he writes a whole book entitled 'should under 3s go to nursery?'.
and he concludes an emphatic no because he assumes that no mother who would do such a thing could ever have an attachment strong enough to her child to cope with the separation.
btw, thanks for your post edam..

I actually thought he was pretty firm with working fathers, or at least those who work long hours. I borrowed 'raising boys' so I can't quote, but it eas something along the lines of 'if you work long hours and never see your son, he will be messed up and it will be all your fault.'

Is he talking about full time nursery, or any nursery time at all?

Because there's a hell of a difference.

Even if it's full time though, it's obviously wrong to say that a mother with a proper emotional bond wouldn't be able to bear the separation. If it's separation he's worried about, as opposed to childcare method, then the "bearing" would be the same, whether the baby is with a nursery or a childminder. And obviously it doesn't take into account all those women who have no choice about whether to bear it or not.

which is fair enough, but does mr biddulph give a list of jobs which will guarantee to be home by 5 o' clock every day?

I still don't see how having strong views on attachment theory in infants makes him a misogynist.
Maybe he is unrealistic in his expectations, or has oversimplified the reality of all children having one-on-one care.
What I've read by him has been extremely child-centred but I don't think that makes him a woman hater.

no nursery time at all is acceptable. he does go as far as to say 'a little is better than a lot', but stresses that there is no good in any nursery ever. any time spent in one is damaging and the more time spent there, the worse your child will be. (the assumtion being that you are unfit to care for them properly in the first place or some such)

Well tbh I think we need people like him to balance the propaganda that nurseries are good for babies.

I had a friend who 5 years ago, sent her 3 month old baby to a nursery "because it's good for him". She didn't really want to, but had been convinced by everything she read, that she'd be short-changing him by looking after him herself.

If it had been because she wanted a break, fair enough. But because "it's good for him" at 12 weeks, she'd obviously been overwhelmed with a whole load of literature that made her feel she had to send him, for his own good, even though she wasn't all that keen.

Madniss, as Supernanny would say.

I agree with Caligula and Sophable.

hi hippmummy,

'I still don't see how having strong views on attachment theory in infants makes him a misogynist.'
he did not choose to write a book developing or advocating attachment theory. he chose to write a book (not even just a few articles - a whole flipping book!) condemning the choices that some women make. and he repeats ad nauseum in that book that if you chose nursery care then you cannot possibly have a strong attachment to your child. not a case of favouring attachment theory - a case of saying 'you can only practice attachment theory my way' or you're crap.

As I have highlighted, he has also condemned the choices that some men make.

Condemning the choices some women make does not make you a misogynist.

Or this site would have to be renamed...

Is the choice of SAHM, childminder, nursery, etc. the sole preserve of the mother? Are these decisions not made by both parents? They are made by both me and dh in our family.

In which case, condemning a decision to place a child in a nursery is not misogynistic as it is condemning both parents equally.

wtss
I think you are reading alot of assumption into his work that isn't there.
He believes nurseries are bad for babies. This doesn't make him a misogynist or a bully. It's an opinion.

He doesn't say he believes women who send their babies to nurseries are unfit to care for them....You said that.

I think he believes the ideal would be for babies to have one-to-one care for the first 3 years. Lots of people believe this, including many mothers. It's just often not particularly practical or realistic to achieve in modern society.

why is it a choice that 'women' make. why not a choice that parents make.

"Condemning the choices some women make does not make you a misogynist." But you may well come across as one if you make blanket generalisations and base your assertions on what the theory says or what studies have shown rather than the woman you're condemning with your opinion.

"I think he believes the ideal would be for babies to have one-to-one care for the first 3 years. Lots of people believe this, including many mothers. It's just often not particularly practical or realistic to achieve in modern society." Spot on. I don't think it's this bit there's a disagreement about, it's how you put across that p.o.v.

I read only one of his books and read the intro and bits & bobs from another. I didn't dislike it, the one I read was quite old by now and I think lots of what he said have become common knowledge meanwhile.

hi HP
SB says all studies emphasize that for the child to be damaged by nursery care, the attachment between child and primary care giver must be weak and vulnerable. SB writes a book saying all nursery care is bad. SB does not say, if you choose nursery care, work really hard at these things while you do it to protect your relationship with your child. i think one must conclude that SB thinks all primary care givers who choose nursery care for their children are a bit crap at parenting in the first place.

he views sound misogynist to me because he does not talk about families making these decisions, SB talks of women staying home to care for children. dad just has to tip up at 5. but i haven't read 'raising boys' so have to accept that he may be just as patronising towards men as well. in which case i would change the OP to
'SB -patronizing smug bully?'

maybe he isn't great with advice for under 3's but i found his advice really helpful for me and my son.