I think you're right that he might be selective with the research he quotes - but then I suppose most authors are, and if he sat on the fence he wouldn't produce a very thought provoking book.
But I'm not sure I agree with that 'a child needs sole care' theme. Lots of people quote the Swedish example, don't they, where it's really common for children to go to kindergarten. Or the example of big families, where the littlest children are left to their own devices and seem perfectly happy and balanced. I guess the difference can be love though, can't it. Some nurseries have it in abundance, and others maybe not, even though they're safe and efficient.
There is a huge gulf between the kind of care provided in Swedish nurseries and the average UK nursery. In effect, most children here in the UK are looked after by poorly-qualified nursery nurses, which is not the case in Sweden, where nurseries are staffed by highly-qualified, highly-trained staff. I sometimes wonder if parents ever take the time to look at the people who will actually be rearing their children while they're at work - I pass nurseries every day in the summer where the children are looking after themselves while their young nursery nurses sit on a wall together, chatting. High quality care? Individual attention?
As for the "big families" scenario, the point is that those children are at home within their extended family, not parked in nurseries and cared for by strangers. If the main carer is temporarily absent, the child is still contained within a familiar routine, with familiar patterns of behaviour and standards.
We do have choices after all - we don't need to have children. And for those who advocate ignoring the uncomfortable challenges of a book such as this, I'd say - don't ignore them. Reflect on them. If it makes us angry or uncomfortable, we should ask ourselves why.
I read a summary of this book in a Guardian interview. It's a desperate attempt for publicity by James; he needs to find an alternative 'cause' to take the moral highground. His arguments aren't backed up with any facts and he throws in sweeping statements to scare parents. He includes statistics but they don't even correlate with his ponints of view. It would be best if we all just ignored him.
Replies
But I'm not sure I agree with that 'a child needs sole care' theme. Lots of people quote the Swedish example, don't they, where it's really common for children to go to kindergarten. Or the example of big families, where the littlest children are left to their own devices and seem perfectly happy and balanced. I guess the difference can be love though, can't it. Some nurseries have it in abundance, and others maybe not, even though they're safe and efficient.
As for the "big families" scenario, the point is that those children are at home within their extended family, not parked in nurseries and cared for by strangers. If the main carer is temporarily absent, the child is still contained within a familiar routine, with familiar patterns of behaviour and standards.
We do have choices after all - we don't need to have children. And for those who advocate ignoring the uncomfortable challenges of a book such as this, I'd say - don't ignore them. Reflect on them. If it makes us angry or uncomfortable, we should ask ourselves why.