My final response:
"Below is a link that suggests children suffer no ill effects from having a mother who works, and in fact may benefit:
www.esrc.ac.uk/news-and-events/press-releases/16143/working-mothers-and-the-effects-on-children.aspx?
Haven't read the book obviously, but have had a good google, and from what I can gather Michel Odent looks mainly at the birth experience (which unfortunately women cannot always control) and very early interaction and bonding i.e within the first few months, so this wouldn't be relevant to your argument at all for a mother who takes reasonable maternity leave. Therefore not sure if his work is an argument for women to sacrifice what could be a life-long career. I am also a bit suspicious of a man who has never given birth telling women what their birth should be like, and that taking painkillers or having a caesarean can damage their bond with their babies, only confounding the guilt and sadness many women feel if their birth experience doesn't go to plan for any reason, more often than not beyond their control. It also seems that he has received a lot of criticism. According to Dr Amy Teuter, "“Pseudoscience appeals to false authority, to emotion, sentiment, or distrust of established fact... Marsden Wagner is a pediatrician and Michel Odent is a general surgeon, yet they are touted as experts on birth even though obstetricians disagree with them.?" Link here
I suspect that his writings come from quite low down on the "hierarchy of evidence"(that we were discussing earlier), and probably constitute personal opinion, or at the most observation, which of course can be influenced by a lot of cofounding factors and can be subject to bias, so as evidence, it could be argued to be quite weak and only suggesting an association rather than causality. Not sure if it is robust enough to exclude half the population from having the career of their choice.
Attachment theory, which is a bit more widely accepted?, says that children need at least one (not necessarily ^just^ one) consistent primary care-giver for the first two years for normal development. Going out to work does not make a mother an inconsistent care-giver, especially of she shares the childcare with another consistent care-giver, such as a father or trusted childminder. A big disruption such as a death or true seperation/estrangement may have an effect, such as evacuation during WWII. I have also spoken to numerous people, including child psychiatrists (on CAMHS placement), who have told me that attachment disorders only occur in children who suffer quite significant sutained abuse or neglect, not sure if this really applies to children of working mothers, who probably still have very strong bonds with their mothers, and also with other caregivers such as their fathers or grandparents? ?
Let's not forget that the fact is, it is actually against the law to discriminate against anyone on the basis of their gender or family circumstances when employing someone, just as it is illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, sexuality or disability; so whilst everyone is entitled to their opinion, one has to be careful where they chose to express it, or allow it to influence their behaviour, in a professional setting.
As for the TED talk, it is interesting, but again it doesn't address the argument that actually working mothers still manage to bond very successfully with their babies in their early months/weeks, and I'm sorry, but I'm not going to form my opinions on how human beings should interact with one another from studies performed on rats!"
He loves studies on rats and mice btw.