steve biddulph - misogynist bully?

[workstostaysane]

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

i have read 'Raising Boys'. What Biddulph is good at is being child centred and focussed around the needs of the child, and he doesn't shy away from stating parental responsibilities, if you get it wrong you may screw up your kid; man or woman, I don't think he cares, he just has a child centred view.

He's great at stressing the importance of mothers AND fathers to children.

Cristina - 'basing your assumptions on what studies have shown'? That doesn't actually seem an unreasonable thing to do. It is the basis of most research surely?

I actually agree with you that all children are individuals, and the average results from a population may not necessarily hold true for your child, but they make a good starting point from which to assess things I think.

hmmm, no replies. i'm going to take that as general agreement on SB as smug patronising bully.

WTSS - I do agree with you that to simply condemn childcare but not show how you can limit any potential damage can be scaremongering and unhelpful.

But I disagree that he is being misogynistic for reasons others have mentioned - he believes in strong parenting. Mothers just happen to be the main early years care-givers. This is not patronising, but fact.

I believe he strongly advocates what he believes is best for children, which is where you maybe reading into it that he says you are a 'crap parent' if you don't adhere to his theory.
But I think any parent who feels they are being told they aren't doing the right thing, on any issue, may feel they are being patronised.

I just don't find his approch smug or bullying at all.

agree with hippmummy

actually, I think that you are grossly misrepresenting or at least fundamentally misunderstanding what he has to say, having just re-read some bits of his books I have on my shelf.
that's your prerogative of course

"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."

WTSS - I'd say that the existence of nervous women unsure of their choices is simply an unfortunate fact rather than bullying. He uses anecdotal and research evidence to support his argument NOT to to make women feel bad - that is your negative assumption tainting the evidence!

Research psychologist thinks to herself "shall I publish my study on attachment/development/childcare correlations? Oooh! better not in case their are some unfortunate indecisive mothers out there..."

Ridiculous.

Beckybrastraps - I'm all for science and research! See my postings about (against) homeopathy. But I won't believe everything I read because I know that none of those authors have met me, my child, my family etc (I think in other sciences it's called ecological fallacy). As I said, I didn't feel particularly got at by SB's one book I read, but then it was all blanditudes.

Newlifenewname - I think it's ridiculous to use emotive language ("slamming" children in daycare) but that's what sells books, sadly. A journal wouldn't have accepted such language. Different audience.

Well quite Cristina. I think we actually agree on this one. I don't buy the books either. Was lent this by an enthusiastic friend. I read it while ds was at nursery. Wasn't tempted to rush and get him...

I don't think he's a misogynist. I don't think he has it in for women. I think he has it in for people who disagree with him.

And actually I think that assuming that criticisms of childcare choice are levelled at women rather than parents is actually pretty sexist.

Rather a lot of actuallys there. Oops.

That's fair CTA - I can agree with that.

Is he deliberately emotive in his phraseology in order to bully or just crap when it comes to scientific rigour?

I like that that he acknowledges the fact that bringing up boys is different from bringing up girld. And before I had a boy I would have gone to the stake for the theory that they are the same, it's what you do with them that makes them different. 6 years down the line, I accept that boys and girls are different - they need different parenting and schooling and there isn't enough discussion about this. Biddulph certainly made mr think about this, even if I don't agree with everything he says

Lord Steve of the Biddulf. You're having a larf.

LOL at blanditudes

I was reading in The Times that Nick Cave (one of my favourite singers, my username is after one of his songs) likes Supernanny. I was very disappointed.

Nick Cave likes Supernanny
that is the most surreal thing I ever heard

God I think it's time to go to bed.

Nick Cave... Supernanny...

I like him.

I think, as with all of them, you take the bits that work for you. I don't take any of them as a personal slight on my parenting skills but I do like reading other ways of doing things... particularly if it improves the way I am with my children and them with me.

Folks and strokes... just like with SWMNBN. Some like, some don't!

Re Nick Cave: it was an interview in The Times last week (or the week before). I understand he mentioned it in passing and asked the interviewer not to make a big deal of it. He's got twin boys, who knows, maybe he should give his fellow-countryman a try. My Dh was disappointed too, although he didn't know who Supernanny was until then.

oh Mars, the voice of blardy reason

Nick Cave and Supernanny

Um, he's not litigious, is he?

His tips on bullying (my synosis)- "love them and build their ego and they will be okay"

My tip - If you had cut your hair into a slightly more fashionable style you wouldn't have been bullied in the first place.

No view on whether he is a bully.

'But I think any parent who feels they are being told they aren't doing the right thing, on any issue, may feel they are being patronised.' if you state as SB (and every single study) does, that childcare will not harm the child unless the attachment is weak in the first place, then you write a whole book saying that all childcare is bad, you MUST assume that the attachment is weak. this is a no brainer....???!!! if you think all childcare is bad, you must assume the primary care giver is not doing a good job.
i really don't understand how you can deny that this is SBs assumption in writing this book.

'I'd say that the existence of nervous women unsure of their choices is simply an unfortunate fact rather than bullying. He uses anecdotal and research evidence to support his argument NOT to to make women feel bad' every anecdote in 'raising babies' is a horrifying account of any type of childcare. to propagate the fanstasy that all childcare is disatrous is bullying to make your point and untrue.

LOL TP. off to get a better haircut.