Anyone see Oliver James being a total F***wit on Newsnight last night?

[littleEDfamily]

I try to be open-minded about these things and have even read his 'How not to f*** them up' book, but having seen how he conducts himself and what a thoroughly unlikeable (maybe even slightly sinister) character he seems to be, I shan't be listening to any more of his hysterical, misogynistic lecturing for even one nano-second.

Phew, that felt good.

[plimsoul]

i have heard of this book and man but never bothered looking him up but now due to your post i'm going to. what horrid stuff was he saying? the mention of misogyny makes me think i'm going to hate him.

by the by, i love a great rant so i'm asking out of genuine curiosity...

[Otta]

What did he say? I can't find a clip.

I've always thought he came across as a very intellegent man, wth the right ideas.

[littleEDfamily]

His theories do bug me, mainly as, although he pretends to be pro-women, he clearly blames the mother for any slight psychological imperfection in children. He is hysterically 'child-focused' in my opinion (to an extent that can only be unrealistic for parents) and has some frankly proposterous ideas about childcare (like the government paying for families to all hire nannies as obviously the child will become a complete social outcast later in life if subjected to nursery).

Probably not the mosy accurate synopsis of the world according to Guru Oliver....

It just seemed to odd to me to hear someone bleating on about how children must be loved and nurtured etc etc who himself seemed so deeply unlikeable.....I found myself thinking, uurgh, I'm glad he's not my dad, horrible little man....

That felt good too....

[Otta]

Can't really coment on his politics, as not heard him talking about them.

My wife is a big fan of his "child-focused" style, and to me it seems to make perfect sense.

I saw him on another programme a while back, and they were clearly trying to get him to slag of Gina Ford. He didn't rise to it. He said he thought some of her techniques were awful, but he also said he had respect for her, and felt that writers should stik together more, rathr than being against each other.

Of course, he may have said that, because she tries to sue anyone who says anything mildly negative about her!

Like I say, not seen the item you're talking about, so can't comment, but overall, I think he seems a jolly decent sort of a chap.

My wife is a big feminist though, so will be interested to get her take on...

he pretends to be pro-women, he clearly blames the mother for any slight psychological imperfection in children.

[plimsoul]

i quite like the sound of a government policy that would allow for everyone to hire a nanny :)

[Otta]

Also worth pointing out that the "theories" are all backed up by research. I really don't see how you can discribe him as misogynistic either, but would be interested to hear what others think.

[mima08]

I watched the clip but thought there was no real debate, just a slagging match of who had read (or not read) what research. From this "debate" I could not really tell his position - other than he seems to think nursery care is evil and screws children up? He was also talking a lot about neglect (I guess we all agree that is a bad thing), but does he equate being placed in childcare is a form of neglect?

But then again, until relatively recently (in historical terms) nursery care was relatively rare, does that mean all previous generations, who were brought up by their parents/ wider family or nannies were happy & well-adjusted?

[littleEDfamily]

This particular rant was more about how he nastily he came across (to me) than his theories. I am sure there is research to back some of them up, but there is probably just as much research to contradict them.

I definitely agree with the woman he was 'debating' that there is way too much hysteria and over-analysing about the 'optimum' way to raise children nowadays. Not saying for a minute I don't have moments of hand wringing, and over zealous parenting, but personally I cannot see how the likes of OJ do anything to really improve the parenting experience or anyone's childhood.

To me, he makes everything seem soooooo serious and deeply significant. Obviously this has its place, but where is the fun? The more I do this parenting thing, the more I realise that what kids really appreciate is a fun and happy mummy. OJ just makes me feel all depressed. And I wouldn't let him within a mile of any of my children (mother's instinct: creep alert!!)

One more point I will make is that he seems to present nannies as being the 'cure all' for that certain kind of woman who wants to or needs to work. As someone who has had nannies in the past, I know for a fact that despite your best intentions and hard work during the recruitment process, nannies can be very disappointing and unreliable (I love the bit in his book where he says you must make sure you recruit a nanny who will be able to stay with the child from infancy until they are at least 3).

Edited to say - agree with previous poster who observed there was no real debate. He seemed to be, as you say, talking about the impact of proper neglect on kids (which is hardly worth debate as I think the consequences are pretty obvious) and the other lady was trying to draw attention to the fact that for most families the sort of thing that OJ was going about is simply not relevant and they are mostly doing a perfectly good job no matter what the parenting style of choice of childcare. It was quite uncomfortable to watch. She could have presented her side better too...

[plimsoul]

he hasn't come across or dismisses the research that indicates baby boys cared for by a female nanny are more likely to cheat on future partners...

needless to say my twin boys who had a nanny that they loved for over 2 years will not be able to stick a stable relationship.

personally 2 points stand out from above posts:

these days you can pretty much find any research or dig up a statistic to support a point of view.

parenthood is over analysed and over debated.

[CanelitaPR]

LittleEDfamily why Oliver James has upset you,haven't read his book but would like to know more if you don't mind. I wouldn't hire a nanny as I always prefer to looked after my kids.

[mima08]

plimsoul Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> needless to say my twin boys who had a nanny that

> they loved for over 2 years will not be able to

> stick a stable relationship.

>

>

Oh dear, that is terrible news.... is the same true for au pairs ;-)

Definitely agree about the point research/statistics - especially as too much is used out of context.

I do welcome a healthy debate, however cannot stand the approach that says "your children are doomed unless you follow xyz ....". And too much government intervention gives me the creeps.

[plimsoul]

it's apparently due to loving another woman at an early age.

to help keep me sane during the early years my mum came up with this line regarding parenthood guilt of f**king kids up: "no one is perfect, the idea that anyone is will drive a person mad. the role of the parent is to remind children of this human fallibility" :)

[buggie]

I saw Oliver James on something a few months ago (think it was The Wright Stuff) claiming that Surestart should have it's funding cut as "it's just providing the middle classes with cheap daycare" While being open that he'd never visited any Surestart projects so actually had no idea what they offered/support they provided but that "babies under 18mths don't need social interaction with other children" & the final classic which really made me laugh "stay-at-home Mum's want to stay at home so why do they need groups to go outside of the home"... hubbie changed the channel at that point (Less than 5mins in) concerned by the steam emitted from my ears!

Needless to say I really don't rate him very highly.

[redjam]

littleEDfamily I am sooo with you on this re Oliver James. Ditto plimsoul re parenting being over-analysed and over-debated.

[littleEDfamily]

CanelitaPR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> LittleEDfamily why Oliver James has upset

> you,haven't read his book but would like to know

> more if you don't mind. I wouldn't hire a nanny

> as I always prefer to looked after my kids.

I can lend you his book if you would like (I bought it in a weak, hysterical moment of wanting to be perfect). I wish I was blessed with your conviction that I wanted to care for my children fulltime myself. The road has been a little less 'linear' shall we say in my case.....

Whether it is relevant or not, I wanted to mention that we had an au pair to help me (I work mostly from home in a self employed capacity) over the summer to help me get my work done without going mad and also to allow my hubby and I to have a glimmer of social life, and although I don't think I would have one on an ongoing basis (like my house to myself, basically), she was THE BEST childcare solution ever. She ADORED our children, was wonderful with them and cried buckets when she left. Maybe we were just very lucky, but was 100 times better than any super-dooper qualified nanny or nursery nurse I've ever come across. Yet more pointless ranting from me.... I'll put myself to bed now....

[Otta]

OJ according to Buggie

"it' s just providing the middle classes with cheap daycare"

Whilst I agree that it is a nonsense to suggest surestart should have funding cut, there is some truth to the above statement, and I think perhaps some sort of means testing could have been put in place.

Of course, ideally there would be free provision for all, but the reality is that lots of provision has now been closed, leaving those with little money to do without, whilst those who could have contributed will simply move on to other groups.

Anyway, off topic sorry.

[Otta]

So are there no mums in Dulwich who like him?

[Belle]

I don't dislike all that he says Otta - have read and found interesting the book in question (How not to f*** them up) - don't agree with everything he says but do think that it's easy to paint him in one way, when in fact there is more scope for grey areas in his book than perhaps people allow. I found it did make me reflect a bit on my parenting style (but not necessarily feel guilty about it). For e.g. he says staying at home looking after children is not necessarily the right route for every mother or indeed parent (and in hindsight I've often wondered if I did the right thing by staying at home).

I think he is v much a media shrink though, and as such he is bound to come out with inflammatory soundbites on TV and in national newspapers, whereas the actual detail in his book (have only read the one so cannot comment on the others) is more subtle.

[Otta]

Agreed Belle, think you have the right of it there.

I also don't think he puts as much emphasis on the mother, as some people seem to think. He just accepts that in reality, it is more likely to be the mother who will be the parent with most contact.

[njc97]

Interesting. Belle (and others) have you also read this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Selfish-Reasons-Have-More-Kids/dp/046501867X ?

Interesting in that it (using research) argues that, short of abuse, how you bring your kids up doesn't really matter.

[Otta]

To be totally honest, I think people will basically go for books that best fit in to how they feel they want to parent. Not so much reading for advise, but rather for reassurance.

At the end of the day none of it probably makes much difference in the long term.

[Belle]

I'm reading 'The complete secrets of happy children' by steve and sharron biddulph, after it was recommended on here. It's v good and common sense really, more thought provoking than prescriptive, and I find it non-judgemental in style. Whilst there are bits where I've thought 'oh no, I'm guilty of that', there are also bits where I've been reassured there are 'good' things I'm already doing.

[mockney piers]

I refuse to read any books and we are just bumbling along like parents have for the last half a million years or so, occasionally asking our parents' advice and listening to my gut instinct and what feels right for the mocklet, who has the biggest say in most things frankly.

Kids are all so different I can't see how anY set of theories can encompass the vast array of unique personalities that is the human race.

I'll find out how well or badly we did in about twenty years time I guess.

[ClareC]

We bumble along too, thought we were the only one's :)-D

Mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I refuse to read any books and we are just

> bumbling along like parents have for the last half

> a million years or so, occasionally asking our

> parents' advice and listening to my gut instinct

> and what feels right for the mocklet, who has the

> biggest say in most things frankly.

>

> Kids are all so different I can't see how anY set

> of theories can encompass the vast array of unique

> personalities that is the human race.

>

> I'll find out how well or badly we did in about

> twenty years time I guess.