steve biddulph - misogynist bully?

[workstostaysane]

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

I have a lot of time for him personally. I have 2 very young dses and I like what he says.

It makes a change to find a childcare "guru" who actually says something I like and agree with. At least he has kids.

Ok, WTSS, maybe he does conclude that if you send your child to nursery before 3 you are not doing the best for your child. I accept that. I don't even know enough about the subject to say how far I agree with him or not.

All I'm saying is that this is his theory that he has chosen to research and write on.
I just don't believe that having that opinion and writing about it makes him smug patronising or a bully.

Look at it this way - I stopped breastfeeding my babies at around 6 months. All the research and literature around tells you it's best for your baby if you continue until they are at least one or preferably two. I did what was best for me and my children.
I didn't then assume the research is accusing me of being a 'crap parent', is patronising or is bullying me because I went against it.
Do whats best for you and your kids and don't take it personally.

BTW - in SB's 'Raising Boys' book he writes a whole section on teaching boys to respect women. He talks a lot about the important of boys to be able to show feelings and mothers are important role-models in building boys' self esteem.
For me, this kind of approach to parenting just doesn't sit with your description of a smug patronising bully.

Agree, hippmummy. I think he is genuine. Perhaps one reason IL like him is b/c my own mother headed off to the office when I was a small baby. Fact is, there were times when I needed her and she wasn't there, right through my childhood and into my teens. My other main people (my nan and dad) were around a lot, but I wanted my mum and she wasn't. Perhaps that's why I relate to his message.

I usually like his approach about boys.

I sort of know what you mean about some parenting gurus.... they sometimes leave you feeling talked down to. Maybe that's inevitable.
Also they always seek to homogenise human experience, wheras we're just left with living in the exceptions to rules.

However rules do help me however general.

I agree with whoever said you just pick and choose the bits that work for you. I loathe the 'naughty step' and time-out but think that both Supernanny and Tanya Byron have other things to say worth listening to. I love Penelope Leach but find her too vague on sleep issues, and too involved for dh to get into. Elizabeth Pantley is good but you have to get used to her very American style. The Sears are okay to dip into but a bit fanatical. And so on...

I agree with nearlythree - pick the bits that work for you and your family.
I've never found Steve Biddulph all that helpful to be honest - but then ds is not a particularly typical boy and a lot of the issues Biddulph aims to help tackle just don't arise for us.
I would like to point out that in lots of areas of the UK, though, good childminders are not easily available. So "choosing" daycare is not actually a real choice at all. The only decent one in my area 1) only moved here when dd was 2 2) doesn't do pick-ups from her nursery school 3) has a year long waiting list despite many others having vacancies.
She is lovely. The ones I contacted when pregnant with dd, weren't, frankly.

But has Biddulph ever done a period of extended childcare on his own - really?
I mean I think loads of his theories are great. But there's nothing like the the knowledge of someone who's really been there in those endless hours of mindnumbing mental challenge that is full-time childcare (whether that's a week-end or a week)

Isn't it Biddulph who says he gave his in-laws (or maybe his own parents?) a rocket for saying he was 'baby-sitting' when looking after his own kids?

'they always seek to homogenise human experience' i guess thats my complaint really. and SB is no different from any other nob who writes in generalised terms about how you should bring up your child.
however, he does always (in Raising babies anyway) talk about the mother as the primary care giver and predicts some really horrible outcomes if she should entertain the idea of childcare

'All I'm saying is that this is his theory that he has chosen to research and write on.'
what i'm saying is that, in spite of the evidence of all studies that if you are attached to your child, childcare will do them no harm, SB has chosen to write about the harm that COULD happen IF you are not sufficiently attached. its like the media portraying all of south london as riddled with gun toting teenagers, when the fact is, you are highly unlikely to get shot if you visit mcdonalds in brixton a couple of times a week.

finally,
have just returned from playgroup where i sat with 3 young women from eastern europe, each with sole charge of one or 2 children. they were loving, caring and attached to these kids. the kids ran to them when they were upset and when they wanted to show them something new. all 3 worked part time (so the mums were obviously at home doing their bit for most of the week). SB could tell a nice little anecdote about this kind of childcare. instead he wails, 'the better a nanny is for your children, the more she will replace you. Is this what you really want?' he really really does not want women to feel good about having help. OF COURSE you want the best nanny for your kids. is he mad? and are women such fragile creatures that they will crumble at the thought that a child could form a strong attachment to anyone other than themselves. oh dear, i'm convincing myself again that he really does dislike and mistrust women

I've always felt, instinctively, that we're probably as a species supposed to raise children in large extended family groups, once women, now whoever. As long as there's security children seem to thrive. I actually think being with your children full time isn't necessarily best for all mothers or all children given our society.
tbh the happiest mothers I've met seem to have been, almost without exception in one or both of the following categories
1] Mothers who work 2 or 3 days a week with whatever childcare
2] Mothers who work part-time or full time with family childcare

i agree ipanemagirl - those are the women who seem the least anxious, unhappy or resentful. have to go visit a sick grandma now. back later

My mum deliberately chose an old woman to look after me so she wouldn't get jealous.

my ds (6) was at a soft play place yesterday and I noticed he ran to where I was sitting about 10 times (or more) over 2 hours and just snuggled into me for a moment and was off again. I think that's a microcosm of what they need over time. Someone to reassure them as often as they need it as they go off and explore, learn, play, study. I don't think it matters who does that as long as they really care about that child and can show it. Not enough to care and be unable to show it! Hugs cuddles positive encouragement - you need to be a loving person to do that not a rocket scientist or a biological parent!

Hi, WTSS - I'm bowing out as it's going in circles for me!

TBH, I don't really disagree with any of the points about having a balance of childcare.
I don't believe all mothers should be the sole carer for their under-3's if it doesn't suit them.
I do agree with you (as I've already said)that SB hasn't provided a particularly balanced opinion, (because he has strong views on it), and that this can lead to scaremongering.
All I've disagreed with is that he is a misogynist, smug, patronising, bully and I still haven't seen anything that backs this up. That's your opinion of him, to which you are entitled, but you did ask for other peoples views.

agree with caligula and sophable. Ds is 2.5 and i get weird looks from other mothers all the blardy time when i tell them he is not in nursery. And this is from mothers who do not work. Therer is definitely this idea that nursery is good for them and helps them be sociable. I know i will get shot down in flames for this, but in my experience the opposite is true - the boys under three that we know in full time nursery, and a couple of the girls [as opposed to part time and with individual child carers]are more aggressive and much less interested in interacting. This is only IME, and won't be true of all children in full time nursery, but i do think a lot of what Biddulph is saying is quite brave in today's environment, and very necessary.

Ruty ? your experience is yours and how can anyone counter that? I?d wonder though if you had already made up your mind that those children were aggressive rather than high-spirited and if you judge the same way children whose parents have similar views to yours. I think subjectivity and preconceived ideas are potential flaws in social science research, let alone our own, very limited observations.

It may be brave, but it's pointless for people who don't have the choice. What effect does it have, other than making people feel bad?

i don't think i had made up my mind before actually Christina. I hadn't read any books when i got into this parenting madness! I am genuinely going on my personal experiences. As I said, they may be worthless, and I have already been careful not to generalize]but it would be disingenuous of me [and i think of anyone else] say that personal experiences didn't affect their opinions. I don't think you can make that call about me tbh.

that is ridiculous UnquietDad. So if the research proves that full time nursery care for under threes is damaging no one should publish it for fear of upsetting parents who work full time? Of course working parents should be given more work choices and nursery care should be vastly improved. But just not to mention it is barking.

If the research is good I don?t think it?s pointless putting it across. The same way you?d still want to read about gene therapy or whatever even if it?s not immediately available to you.

As I understood it, we all agree that the research is there and possibly shows what SB says it does, the question was whether he puts his point across in an unbiased and useful way (or misogynistic and bullying). It can?t be unbiased because he fails to recount all the studies he?d quoted earlier that had supported his theory that good nursery care is in fact good. He conveniently chose to ignore this research now or find flaws in it. I think it takes strength to say you were wrong before, forget all I said, I was a fool or whatever. The question is what if he?s blinded by his new theory and will finds faults in it in another 5 years? time? Oh, I forgot, write another book.

anyway sorry if i am adding fuel to the fire. Will bog off now.

Don?t feel offended, Ruty, it?s not meant as an insult. You don?t want to generalise but you?ve already done so in your own mind, which is why you think this is a relevant experience and that it further proves the point here.

i see your point. My point was really that i meet with so many generalized opinions about why my son should be going to nursery [even when taking out the SAHM factor]that i think his stance [though it may well have flaws] is an important one. I found it interesting that i only found out about his research after I had started to form opinions about the effects of full time nursery on children i know. I do think it is a bit facetious to say on MN that sharing personal experiences is irrelevant though.

I have a difference experience. I noticed that the "propaganda" in the uk is largely against nurseries. I always find I need to justify myself at great length for having chosen to send my children (part time - as I'm more or less a sahm) to nursery.

maybe it depends where you live. I know very few children who don't go to nursery at all. [not saying this is preferable btw]