What do you think?
Rate this book
How Not to F*** Them Up: The First Three Years
Are you confused by parenting advice from experts who contradict each other? Concerned about the possible effects of being a working mother? Terrified of turning into your own parents? Parents today are overwhelmed with elaborate advice on how to raise babies. In How Not to F*** Them Up leading child psychologist Oliver James argues that it's not our children that must be trained ...it's us. Meticulously researched, inspiring and yet provocative, How Not to F*** Them Up raises important questions about the way in which we bring up our Do we, as a society, provide enough support for parents? How has the role of the father changed in recent years? Can a working mum ever reconcile her career with her family life? Drawing on extensive interviews, James identifies three basic types of the Hugger, the Organiser and the Fleximum. Outlining the benefits and pitfalls of each, James offers simple strategies to reconcile parents' personal ambition and desire for a career with the n
384 pages, Paperback
First published May 28, 2010
50 people are currently reading
331 people want to read
About the author
Oliver James
161 books149 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author by this name in the Goodreads database.
Oliver James is a clinical psychologist, writer, broadcaster, and television documentary producer. He frequently broadcasts on radio and acts as a pundit on television.
He is the author of several books, including Affluenza, which examines the role that consumerist aspirations play in making us miserable.
In 1997 he presented The Chair for BBC 2, a series that put celebrities on the psychologist's couch, and in which Peter Mandelson famously shed a tear.
Oliver has produced and presented several other television series about the issues surrounding mental illness, and various psychological aspects of British society. He also presented a series for This Morning on child development and is a regular contributor to several broadsheet newspapers.
He is a trustee of the Alzheimer's charity, SPECAL and lives in Oxfordshire with his wife and two small children.
Oliver James is a clinical psychologist, writer, broadcaster, and television documentary producer. He frequently broadcasts on radio and acts as a pundit on television.
He is the author of several books, including Affluenza, which examines the role that consumerist aspirations play in making us miserable.
In 1997 he presented The Chair for BBC 2, a series that put celebrities on the psychologist's couch, and in which Peter Mandelson famously shed a tear.
Oliver has produced and presented several other television series about the issues surrounding mental illness, and various psychological aspects of British society. He also presented a series for This Morning on child development and is a regular contributor to several broadsheet newspapers.
He is a trustee of the Alzheimer's charity, SPECAL and lives in Oxfordshire with his wife and two small children.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews
October 18, 2011
Don't get me wrong - there's a goodly scattering of interesting and sometimes worthwhile ideas in this book. But James knows dangerously little about birth or infant feeding... which are kind of relevant to infant existence... without seeming to realise. He does at least say up front that his book is not about working class child-rearing - on the grounds that such people have so little choice in how they rear their children that there's no point addressing them. Ahem.
He also borrows and reworks someone else's categorisation of types of mother (I don't know why he can't use more commonly used terms from the literature although I have some ideas). So we have the "Organiser', the 'Hugger' and the 'Fleximum', with examples from interviews which include far too many irrelevant details. His essential thesis appears to be 'mother know thyself' - if you think you 'need' to work, that is what you should do or you will become depressed and depressed mothers are number one bad news for children. The key thing is that to work without damaging your child you must not choose a day care nursery rather than a childminder, nanny or relative.
What perturbs me is that he appears to have no concept that unless you find childrearing or housework intrinsically fulfilling there could be any other route to mental health than paid work (it is *a* route of course). I am not sure he actually knows what people who are not gainfully employed even do with their days. This seems pretty weird for the man who wrote Affluenza.
He also seems to be sticking firmly to the line that what type of mother you are is determined by how you were cared for as a child yourself, and that should you experience emotional distress you must seek therapy that will focus on your own childhood experiences, nay traumas. Now, I am mighty fond myself of asking mothers to reflect on their own upbringing, and acutely sensitive to the limitations and potential abuses of cognitive behaviour therapy but James verges on the rabid.
He seems at first superficially to prefer the 'Hugger' Mum style but hedges it about with suggestions of 'opting out' and a danger of being unable to cope with increasing independence in the child (fair enough, I thought, until I realised that he was suggesting that some women, enough to raise the issue, can't even cope with the idea that their baby of a few months is mobile) No, I think he is ultimately more comfortable with the 'sensible''realistic' Fleximum so long as she doesn't chop and change her child's carer too often or kid herself when she is making choices which only benefit her and not her child.
I often enjoy Oliver James so I was not expecting to come away from this book feeling that ultimately it is a piece of tat and best avoided.
He also borrows and reworks someone else's categorisation of types of mother (I don't know why he can't use more commonly used terms from the literature although I have some ideas). So we have the "Organiser', the 'Hugger' and the 'Fleximum', with examples from interviews which include far too many irrelevant details. His essential thesis appears to be 'mother know thyself' - if you think you 'need' to work, that is what you should do or you will become depressed and depressed mothers are number one bad news for children. The key thing is that to work without damaging your child you must not choose a day care nursery rather than a childminder, nanny or relative.
What perturbs me is that he appears to have no concept that unless you find childrearing or housework intrinsically fulfilling there could be any other route to mental health than paid work (it is *a* route of course). I am not sure he actually knows what people who are not gainfully employed even do with their days. This seems pretty weird for the man who wrote Affluenza.
He also seems to be sticking firmly to the line that what type of mother you are is determined by how you were cared for as a child yourself, and that should you experience emotional distress you must seek therapy that will focus on your own childhood experiences, nay traumas. Now, I am mighty fond myself of asking mothers to reflect on their own upbringing, and acutely sensitive to the limitations and potential abuses of cognitive behaviour therapy but James verges on the rabid.
He seems at first superficially to prefer the 'Hugger' Mum style but hedges it about with suggestions of 'opting out' and a danger of being unable to cope with increasing independence in the child (fair enough, I thought, until I realised that he was suggesting that some women, enough to raise the issue, can't even cope with the idea that their baby of a few months is mobile) No, I think he is ultimately more comfortable with the 'sensible''realistic' Fleximum so long as she doesn't chop and change her child's carer too often or kid herself when she is making choices which only benefit her and not her child.
I often enjoy Oliver James so I was not expecting to come away from this book feeling that ultimately it is a piece of tat and best avoided.
December 12, 2012
James's book is well written, with lots of evidence quoted to back up his view. I also found it really useful reading about the different types of mother and how your own childhood experience affects your parenting - not always in the ways you would predict! However, I did find that his attitude to class/income ("no-one on a low income will be reading this book anyway")really distasteful and I would have liked to have seen more on the ways you can mitigate the effects of day care or evaluate its quality. Unfortunately as a parent who can't afford a nanny and has no family members nearby, it's left me feeling very guilty about childcare plans - however at least I am informed, I guess!
June 29, 2013
I could rant about this book, but lets just keep it simple. They need to change the title of this book to: "i'm wealthy! heres my personal sob story of finding the right hired help while i return to work just for fun".
That is all.
That is all.
September 2, 2014
I'm SO glad I read this book! I had no idea I was doomed to be a crap parent because my parents, like all other parents, were crap too!
I further had no idea that it was obligatory to hire an Eastern European nanny and then hate yourself for doing so. AND the fact that I ate a mars bar when I was 7, finally explains why I keep punching people for no apparent reason!
I'm genuinely delighted that I spent my hard earned money* on buying this pish. I have flexibly organised this book into my huggable bucket.
*i say mine, it was obviously my wife's hard end money.
I further had no idea that it was obligatory to hire an Eastern European nanny and then hate yourself for doing so. AND the fact that I ate a mars bar when I was 7, finally explains why I keep punching people for no apparent reason!
I'm genuinely delighted that I spent my hard earned money* on buying this pish. I have flexibly organised this book into my huggable bucket.
*i say mine, it was obviously my wife's hard end money.
January 6, 2012
I read this book whilst my wife was pregnant. We now have a happy 5 month old little man. In a nutshell there are two styles of parenting a baby: 1) the baby is made to adapt to the parents lifestyle; or 2) the parents adapt o the babies lifestyle. To let the baby cry or not let the baby cry: that is the question. The author sides with option 2, and I tend to agree. Babies know how to be babies, but first time parents have no idea how to be parents.
June 2, 2018
interesting in parts but overly simplistic and most case examples seemed to come from a very affluent, London centric bubble... tried to make me feel very bad about my choice (out of limited options) of nursery care for my children when they were younger... however according to him I am able to do the 'mental gymnastics' necessary to sleep at night - I think his view that the world is going to get better is hopelessly naive. Most mothers I have spoken to are more pragmatic - aware that there are limited choices and we just have to make the best we can out of these... Yes it would be fabulous if the working world were so arranged that I could be paid to take 3 years per child out of work and be guaranteed my job at the end of that plus enough of a pension at the end of my working life... but until that nirvana exists stop blaming individual women for the decisions they are forced to make in a world designed by men for (some) men.....
January 9, 2022
Efectiv m-am luptat sa citesc aceasta carte pana la sfarsit. Nu stiu daca asta se datoreaza faptului ca aveam asteptari mai mari de la ea, sau pentru ca am simtit pe tot parcursul cartii ca autorul judeca fiecare alegere pe care o iau mamele.
Spun mamele pentru ca de-a lungul cartii autorul parca uita ca un copil are doi parinti, ca deciziile cu privire la copil de obicei sunt luate de comun acord de ambii parinti. Autorul arunca aproape tot in carca mamei.
Nu mi-a placut ca autorul a specificat de la inceput ca volumul de fata nu se adreseaza familiilor cu venituri mici pentru ca oricum au putine optiuni, sustinand de-a lungul cartii ca doar in cazul copiilor din aceste familii cresele cu program prelungit pot avea un beneficiu. Din punctul meu de vedere nu conditiile sociale fac un parinte bun sau rau, si nu asta ii face sa inteleaga mai bine nevoile copiilor sub 3 ani si sa ia cele mai bune decizii pentru el.
Mi-a placut sa aflu ca defapt exista o categorisire a mamelor in functie de cum isi ingrijesc copiii in primii 3 ani de viata si m-am regasit in unele aspecte in descrierea facuta de autor.
Totusi, nici dupa ce am terminat cartea nh imi este foarte clar de ce o mama este fie organizatoare, fie idolatra. La fiecare am gasit acelas raspuns: copilaria mamai. Fie mamele lor fac parte din aceeasi categorie ca ele si vor sa le “ copieze”, fie fac parte din alta categorie si ele vor sa fie cu totul diferite de mamele lor. Ok, si diferenta de unde vine mai exact??( doar in cazul mamelor flexi am gasit ceva exemple mai concludente)
Autorul sustine ca daca o mama este depresiva si mersul la munca ar ajuta-o sa aiba o relatie mai buna cu bebesul si sa il inteleaga mai bine, atunci ar trebui sa mearga la munca. In acelas timp, am simtit ca de-a lungul cartii a judecat mamele ce au ales sa munceasca din diferite motive: depresive( putea urma terapie in loc de munca), financiare( putea sa se mulțumească cu o casa mai mica), placerea de a munci( cum sa iti faca mai multa placere sa muncesti decat sa stai cu bebelusul???).
Spun mamele pentru ca de-a lungul cartii autorul parca uita ca un copil are doi parinti, ca deciziile cu privire la copil de obicei sunt luate de comun acord de ambii parinti. Autorul arunca aproape tot in carca mamei.
Nu mi-a placut ca autorul a specificat de la inceput ca volumul de fata nu se adreseaza familiilor cu venituri mici pentru ca oricum au putine optiuni, sustinand de-a lungul cartii ca doar in cazul copiilor din aceste familii cresele cu program prelungit pot avea un beneficiu. Din punctul meu de vedere nu conditiile sociale fac un parinte bun sau rau, si nu asta ii face sa inteleaga mai bine nevoile copiilor sub 3 ani si sa ia cele mai bune decizii pentru el.
Mi-a placut sa aflu ca defapt exista o categorisire a mamelor in functie de cum isi ingrijesc copiii in primii 3 ani de viata si m-am regasit in unele aspecte in descrierea facuta de autor.
Totusi, nici dupa ce am terminat cartea nh imi este foarte clar de ce o mama este fie organizatoare, fie idolatra. La fiecare am gasit acelas raspuns: copilaria mamai. Fie mamele lor fac parte din aceeasi categorie ca ele si vor sa le “ copieze”, fie fac parte din alta categorie si ele vor sa fie cu totul diferite de mamele lor. Ok, si diferenta de unde vine mai exact??( doar in cazul mamelor flexi am gasit ceva exemple mai concludente)
Autorul sustine ca daca o mama este depresiva si mersul la munca ar ajuta-o sa aiba o relatie mai buna cu bebesul si sa il inteleaga mai bine, atunci ar trebui sa mearga la munca. In acelas timp, am simtit ca de-a lungul cartii a judecat mamele ce au ales sa munceasca din diferite motive: depresive( putea urma terapie in loc de munca), financiare( putea sa se mulțumească cu o casa mai mica), placerea de a munci( cum sa iti faca mai multa placere sa muncesti decat sa stai cu bebelusul???).
July 1, 2011
This is an interesting expansion of his earlier work, 'Affluenza' (which I love), and most likely 'They F*** You Up' (which I haven't read).
Oliver James presents readers with three types of mother: the Hugger, the Organiser and the Fleximum. To over-simplify and summarise, the Hugger is a stay-at-home Earth Mother, the Organiser is a career-oriented user of substitute care and the Flexi changes approach as and when required. James makes no bones about his bias towards the Hugger approach, but examines each thoroughly looking at the pros and cons of each.
My main drawbacks with it are that:
1) James repeats himself constantly. Perhaps this is because he expects his readers not to read it from cover to cover and to just dip-in to the sections of the book that are pertinent to them, (an approach that he suggests is a wrong one. Oliver James suggests that the reader read the whole thing.)
2), I would prefer that he uses footnotes at the foot of the page, rather than an asterisk and reference at the back of the book. Despite acknowledging that his readership is most likely to be educated middle-class women, he 'saves' us from learned interruptions of references.
3) James keeps repeating that nothing is as bad as a child staying at home with a depressed mother, but doesn't explicitly say why. I know that there is nothing wrong with the premise, but I would like to know what all the fuss is about.
Not surprisingly, he slates CBT and the perceived importance of genes to behaviour, and also the Labour government's sinking of millions of pounds into Surestart (parent-infant therapy would have been a sounder investment apparently). He also promotes malleable (as opposed to fixed) notions of intelligence and talent.
A good way of focussing my mind on issues of motherhood and making me feel good about it to boot.
Oliver James presents readers with three types of mother: the Hugger, the Organiser and the Fleximum. To over-simplify and summarise, the Hugger is a stay-at-home Earth Mother, the Organiser is a career-oriented user of substitute care and the Flexi changes approach as and when required. James makes no bones about his bias towards the Hugger approach, but examines each thoroughly looking at the pros and cons of each.
My main drawbacks with it are that:
1) James repeats himself constantly. Perhaps this is because he expects his readers not to read it from cover to cover and to just dip-in to the sections of the book that are pertinent to them, (an approach that he suggests is a wrong one. Oliver James suggests that the reader read the whole thing.)
2), I would prefer that he uses footnotes at the foot of the page, rather than an asterisk and reference at the back of the book. Despite acknowledging that his readership is most likely to be educated middle-class women, he 'saves' us from learned interruptions of references.
3) James keeps repeating that nothing is as bad as a child staying at home with a depressed mother, but doesn't explicitly say why. I know that there is nothing wrong with the premise, but I would like to know what all the fuss is about.
Not surprisingly, he slates CBT and the perceived importance of genes to behaviour, and also the Labour government's sinking of millions of pounds into Surestart (parent-infant therapy would have been a sounder investment apparently). He also promotes malleable (as opposed to fixed) notions of intelligence and talent.
A good way of focussing my mind on issues of motherhood and making me feel good about it to boot.
May 1, 2018
This book is going to be upsetting for some because of the authors comments about day care and working mums.
....howevveeerrr as a work from home "hugger" style mum I found his confirmation that I am doing the right thing and advice about how to ignore the (frequent) critique I get from "organiser" style mums, very affirming and positive. It's given me an insight into organiser style mums and helped me to realise that both parenting styles are valid depending on your personality type and childhood.
if you're unable to leave your baby with a relative or friend while you work and have no option but to put your baby into day care then this book will probably upset you, and I would recommend that you avoid it, or at least take it with a pinch of salt.
....howevveeerrr as a work from home "hugger" style mum I found his confirmation that I am doing the right thing and advice about how to ignore the (frequent) critique I get from "organiser" style mums, very affirming and positive. It's given me an insight into organiser style mums and helped me to realise that both parenting styles are valid depending on your personality type and childhood.
if you're unable to leave your baby with a relative or friend while you work and have no option but to put your baby into day care then this book will probably upset you, and I would recommend that you avoid it, or at least take it with a pinch of salt.
April 22, 2012
If I could have given a 2 & a half I would have. I found this book interesting and do agree with some of his theories if not all, however I thought it was badly written and felt like it had been rushed and not edited properly. There's quite a lot of repetition and occasionally I could see what he was trying to say but the way he put it could make it easily misconstrued and possibly taken badly.
Not as good as his previous books.
Not as good as his previous books.
August 26, 2019
What a horrible book. An upper-middle class white man telling upper-middle class white women how to parent? To the explicit exclusion of working class parents? With barely a paragraph of recognition of the fact most children have two parents? No thanks.
I could go on, but I've wasted too much of my time on this book already.
I could go on, but I've wasted too much of my time on this book already.
December 21, 2020
If I could I would have given the book 2.5.
The title indicated to me that this would be a lighthearted book about parenting - it is not. The author is very blunt about what he believes is the best parenting style and especially how and by who a child should be cared for during its first few years. I can appreciate the straightforwardness and definitely found parts of the book useful and interesting. However, in the end I couldn’t get over the fact that the advice in this book about parenting is solely directed at the mother and the author is himself a man... he is also pretty classist stating that the book is directed at middle-income women as low-income women are unlikely to spend money on parenting books. That just didn’t sit right with me.
The title indicated to me that this would be a lighthearted book about parenting - it is not. The author is very blunt about what he believes is the best parenting style and especially how and by who a child should be cared for during its first few years. I can appreciate the straightforwardness and definitely found parts of the book useful and interesting. However, in the end I couldn’t get over the fact that the advice in this book about parenting is solely directed at the mother and the author is himself a man... he is also pretty classist stating that the book is directed at middle-income women as low-income women are unlikely to spend money on parenting books. That just didn’t sit right with me.
August 10, 2016
Mixed feelings towards this book. An interesting and insightful perspective on child-rearing, based on your own personality. I found the language and message a bit clunky. Eg harsh at times harsh (eg, if your toddler is having a meltdown, then it is definitely your fault because you didn't pre-empt his needs). Ouch. But then at other times it was very supportive. As a nerd I loved all the science/studies references.
I really liked his view of really thinking hard about your needs versus the child's needs, and sometimes this involves paying more for good caring arrangements, indeed sacrificing some of your own disposable income, or affluent lifestyle, for the sake of the child.
Finally, a bugbear of mine is when people refer to babies/children as 'it', which is throughout this book.
A bit 'too' analyse-y at times, but overall I enjoyed it. Very keen to read Affluenza
I really liked his view of really thinking hard about your needs versus the child's needs, and sometimes this involves paying more for good caring arrangements, indeed sacrificing some of your own disposable income, or affluent lifestyle, for the sake of the child.
Finally, a bugbear of mine is when people refer to babies/children as 'it', which is throughout this book.
A bit 'too' analyse-y at times, but overall I enjoyed it. Very keen to read Affluenza
October 21, 2021
The good: author gives in-depth analyses on parenting styles for under-threes, with concrete examples and real people, and includes the pluses and minuses of each type. He is definitely a proponent of the "stay-at-home-mom", but unlike the strident folks, he doesn't think it needs to be mom. It could be dad, grandma, an aunt or even a paid sitter, as long as they can provide the security and attention that under-threes need for all 3 years.
The bad: constant references to his other books, his own terminology gets confusing, and he is incredibly critical of anyone who puts themselves first, particularly in the form of WOHMs who do it to maintain a certain lifestyle.
The bad: constant references to his other books, his own terminology gets confusing, and he is incredibly critical of anyone who puts themselves first, particularly in the form of WOHMs who do it to maintain a certain lifestyle.
February 11, 2012
Some was good: explanation of underlying theories.
More was bad. The rest was nothing new except the 'hugger' and the 'organiser', and while this viewpoint can help us understand common traits in ourselves as parents, Oliver is trying to get square pegs into round holes - you simply cannot class all activities as a parent into these two poles, or put them on a continuum between. So the concept comes across as a little confused sometimes.
This book is also rather smug and preachy, particularly when wrong.
As a pre-baby book, probably quite good if you are similar to one of the two 'types' described, but if you've read other books, you might see this in a similar light to me.
More was bad. The rest was nothing new except the 'hugger' and the 'organiser', and while this viewpoint can help us understand common traits in ourselves as parents, Oliver is trying to get square pegs into round holes - you simply cannot class all activities as a parent into these two poles, or put them on a continuum between. So the concept comes across as a little confused sometimes.
This book is also rather smug and preachy, particularly when wrong.
As a pre-baby book, probably quite good if you are similar to one of the two 'types' described, but if you've read other books, you might see this in a similar light to me.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 23, 2017
Quite an interesting thought, that genes don't have an influence on babies and toddlers'behaviours, but the way we are parenting them. Whilst I am not sure I agree 100% with the theory, James makes some very valid points and it makes you think about the way your upbringing influences your actions.
Overall I enjoyed reading this book as it tacklea an issue I am struggling with. I do agree that James refers to those more fortunate mums who have options, but I think he makes it quite clear in the introduction that he does refer to those cases only.
Overall I enjoyed reading this book as it tacklea an issue I am struggling with. I do agree that James refers to those more fortunate mums who have options, but I think he makes it quite clear in the introduction that he does refer to those cases only.
June 20, 2013
Makes some good points, but I think is excessively polarised towards 'nurture' in the nature-nurture debate. The implication that you'll 'f*** up' your children if you don't mother 'well' in the first three years has the potential to cause a lot of guilt and angst in well-meaning, loving mothers. Still, James presents his opinions well (and he is entitled to them) and gives plenty of references for further reading.
April 14, 2011
Great book. It really helped me put into perspective the relationships I have with my family. I particularly enjoyed the section about the 'family script' and was blown away by the concept that you DON'T have to become like your parents, it is possible to consciously choose NOT to be them. A revelation for me!!
June 9, 2020
Did not like this book. Not for me at all. There is no concept of what most families look like. I read it feeling like I was going to f*** my kid up if I don’t stay at home with them for the first three years of their life. Like working mothers need more guilt trips.
Not for me sorry. Could not recommend this at all
Not for me sorry. Could not recommend this at all
September 20, 2011
Important. Well written and argued.
June 27, 2012
Title is bit confusing but it's really good book for mums to let them know who they really are and how to be better and understand her child.
August 14, 2012
Tõlge on ikka väga kohmakas :(
Raamat ise ... Sissejuhatus päris huvitav, nn ematüüpide lahtikirjtamine kipub venma ja läheb juba hirmsaks nämmutamiseks ja kordamiseks. Jätkan.
Raamat ise ... Sissejuhatus päris huvitav, nn ematüüpide lahtikirjtamine kipub venma ja läheb juba hirmsaks nämmutamiseks ja kordamiseks. Jätkan.
March 11, 2014
Odloženo, nějak mě to nebavilo, napsané příliš podrobně, chlapsky, vědecky, nevím, prostě nějak moc informací v ne až tak čtivé formě, jak jsem čekala.
January 5, 2014
Hated it.
May 17, 2017
Roky jsem asi měla příliš velká očekávání :D Nakonec jsem si z knihy zas tak moc neodnesla.
January 5, 2020
Reading the intro the book seems to have a good approach to parenting. It talks about 3 styles of mothering and gives the impression that it depends on mom's character which one is the best approach. However, as you read on the author very clearly takes side, making the working /organiser mothers look bad for child's development. It also takes a very clear stance against nursery saying it causes violence in children to the extent of linking it to high violence in the nation. It reports correlation between child's violence and high cortisol levels and nursery however it fails to look deeper as these may be caused by many other factors such as the way parents approach to the child in the time outside of nursery. It reports so many issues and negative consequences on organiser moms' children and almost comes to the point that organiser mom's kids will be poorly raised and huggers are the best.
I find the book highly biased with a one sided, superficial research. The author seems to have looked for evidence of what he believed rather than being objective.
I find the book highly biased with a one sided, superficial research. The author seems to have looked for evidence of what he believed rather than being objective.
November 3, 2021
I've been going back and forth for years on whether I should have kids or not, and this book has really raised my confidence that I can do it and actually be a good parent. I love James's writing, his honesty, his passion for psychology, nurture over nature, and helping people to understand what is truly best for their children. It really challenges what we've been taught to believe, particularly about nurseries. I will live by this book when I have my own kids. I just wish it (or a sequel) could go into how not to f*** them up beyond the age of three! I'd also be extremely interested in James's thoughts and research about homeschooling, which he mentions once in passing in this book.
August 1, 2023
I don’t know what to say about this book. It’s made me think hard about my choices but it puts huge responsibility and guilt on mothers. The fact it’s a man doing this too… hmm.
It was repetitive, felt simplistic, and I didn’t trust it fully because he is so dogmatic and convinced everything backs up his view. There was something wrong with the tone. It was forceful rather than genuine.
It also felt very dated in its assumptions that women will/can/should give up work, that most middle class families can afford this (can we? Are mortgage repayments higher now?), and there was no consideration of factors such as women’s financial independence, impact on her career, impact on pension etc.
And as other reviewers have said, he casually disregards ‘working class’ mums - it feels like he is writing in a very wealthy, closed minded bubble.
It was repetitive, felt simplistic, and I didn’t trust it fully because he is so dogmatic and convinced everything backs up his view. There was something wrong with the tone. It was forceful rather than genuine.
It also felt very dated in its assumptions that women will/can/should give up work, that most middle class families can afford this (can we? Are mortgage repayments higher now?), and there was no consideration of factors such as women’s financial independence, impact on her career, impact on pension etc.
And as other reviewers have said, he casually disregards ‘working class’ mums - it feels like he is writing in a very wealthy, closed minded bubble.
February 15, 2021
Quite disappointing. In the end, the conclusion was that under-threes need to have their "needs" constantly met and there is not a middle scenario where being a mom and working woman can be combined... Written by a man?...
May 10, 2020
Určitě není na škodu si tuto knihu v těhotenství přečíst, pro ČR ale nejsou tyto výzkumy až tak směrodatné. Kniha by šla zkrátit třeba i o půlku, témata se hodně opakují.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews