Feed your family Fabulous fish cakes for a fiver. With our Fabulous fish cakes recipe you really can feed your whole family a delicious meal for less than a fiver. This is just one of five brand new purse-friendly recipes from Sainsbury’s. Take a look!
Yup. The baby is the boss and they will tell you what to do. You feed them when they cry, they'll sleep when they want, do what they want when they want to do it. If you want to experience true, pure and natural parenting then this is what you do.
No mention of the African tribes who tie crying babies to trees to discourage them from crying and giving their location away to enemy tribes. No mention of feeding on demand in Ethopia because you don't have enough milk to sustain a baby for 4 hourly feeds. No mention of carrying the baby on you at all times because there are no prams and therefore not a lot else to do. Noooooo, these third world mothers really know how to bring up baby naturally and that is the way forward!
No, I'm saying that all this "Baby-Led" fad is crap. Because these gurus take their inspirations from 'African tribes' and other third world tribes where parenting is said to be more natural. But this is very selective and they fail to say that the reason mothers carry their babies around with them everywhere is because they don't have any bloody choice! Same as sleeping with their children - they only have one bed ffs! In this day and age, in this civilised society, we have no need for all of that and this 'baby-led' crapness leads mothers pulling their hair out because they realise that at a year old their baby still won't sleep without mummy and daddy, will be clingy and demanding and have a poor routine.
I agree with you It's like my mum saying 'yes in my day it was fine to put the moses basket on the back seat' or leave the baby in the pram while I did the weekly shop... times have changed...
A mother carrying her baby everywhere because she can't afford a buggy isn't making any sort of choice.
But I've carried my babies everywhere and I could certainly afford a buggy. But I realised that mine were happy and settled when they were close to me. And at a year they were still happy and settled, and as they get older they're very confident and independent. It's worked very nicely for us.
I think the Western notion of trying to distance yourself from your tiny baby is weird - and I wouldn't be surprised if it weren't downright harmful for some babies.
erm bit lost there times might have changed but babies haven't evolved to keep up, they really need to grow wheels then we wouldn't need to bother with prams at all what's got your goat tonight then rhubarb?
Ah but Welliemum, would you write a book and encourage other mothers to do it because it worked for yours? Not only encourage them but put pressure upon them by saying things like "it's the natural way!" and anything else is "unnatural". And these people DO quote African nations and other third world countries because they countries somehow signify the most natural environment to bring up children, yet they conveniently miss out the starvation, disease and poverty issues.
totally agree Welliemum. I don't think parents co-sleep or carry their babies only because they have no other choice. Babies thrive on being close to mum in the early months, and are often more settled if held close. This is pretty much how we parented both our children. At 12m, dd is certainly not any more clingy or demanding than any other child, and the routine she has fallen into herself is great, although not set in stone. In any case, some degree of clinginess is normal at this age, it demonstrates the child has formed a healthy attachment.
But I'm never not in charge. The baby isn't ordering me about: it has needs, and I am meeting those needs to the best of my ability.
I think it's daft to regard a baby's sleeping and feeding patterns as a matter of parental discipline. And it would be just as daft for me to try and tell a baby when to be hungry and when to be tired. It's their body!
for the record, i've never seen anyone quote african tribes wrt baby led weaning in case you're thinking along those lines. isn't that natural tribal vibe more a continuum concept thing? (although not african).
imo any 'baby led' thing is always 'parent led' by definition, in the sense that the parent is the one making the decision to respond to their child or not, so there's not anything to get het up about unless you're just spoiling for a fight.
Maybe i'm missing the your point here Rhubard but how can responding to your baby's needs ever be a bad thing regardless of whether those ideas are taken from African tribes or Mrs Smith at no. 30.
Who is to say what is the 'right' way to parent and what is the 'wrong' way to parent. IMO we all need to find our own way to parent ...and i really can't see why following your babys cues is a bad way?
I loved carrying dd in a sling sometimes, at other times she was perfectly happy in her pram. I doubt either of us would have been happy if I'd had to carry her constantly.
I think that it is a good idea to think of babies as very prmitive beings who have very basic but intense needs and to try to parent them by workingout how to meet those needs in a wa=y that works for you but I agree that it is foolish to say "ooh but in ..insert choice of developing nation.. they all do this so it must be most natural and best.".
well that's true, WT. but then there are a lot of women who aren't really confident about their abilities to be mothers to their children, which is sad but in a way evidence of how far we have gone in other terms, like career etc. imo so many people work to targets nowadays and like a pass/fail system that it has undermined their confidence to go with the flow and trust their instincts.
Agree with morocco, babies don't know that society has changed do they? They have needs and those needs must be met, and I strongly believe that in the long run you will not raise a child who is extra-clingy, but one who is more independent because he/she feels totally secure.
Anyway the really prescriptive baby books I know are all about strict routines, the attachment parenting type books I know (and I've read a few) are not prescriptive and "you must" type at all. Which one do you mean?
I get a bit jaded with plummy-upper-middle-class-dickhead-who-hasn't-got-kids-but-did-early-childhood-studies-and-hotel-man agement-at-West-Sussex-and-wrote-a-very-silly-book -led parenting
but lovely though it is to see you Rhubarb I think I'm going to watch from the sidelines on this one
the best thing (IMO) is to respond to your baby. so if your baby is happy in a pram, put them in a pram. if your baby is happy in a sling, put them in a sling. if your baby is happy in both (as mine was for the first few weeks) then use both.
Africa is a very large continent with many countries, tribes and religions and their attitudes to puberty are distinctly disturbing in some areas and some will bring up babies in a nice way, and other have odd ideas (by our standards). I wonder how and where these gurus find these tribes? Not in Darfur or Nigeria I suspect.
I disagree. I've been doing baby-led parenting and it's going very well. I hadn't thought how I would parent before my dd came along but I found the best way was to fit in with her needs and it led to her finding her own routine very easily.
She refused to be put down so I carried her for the first 6 months. She breastfed on demand until she wanted to start solids at 13 months. We coslept until she got fidgity and didn't need me in the bed with her anymore, and now sleeps in her own bed right through the night. She's a very happy, content, calm almost-2-year old, and I believe this is because she has stayed so close to me and I have met all her needs.
I agree with welliemum about distancing yourself from your baby, babies need that closeness to form the best possible attachment to their parent(s).
I thought the continuum concept stuff evolved out of an anthropologist's observations of baby's in a South Ameican tribe - she noticed the differences between the children and those in the Sates and wrote about them.
I agree with rhubarb, I think to have any sort of semblance of normal life you have to guide them into doing what fits in with the rest of the family and its routines otherwise there's mayhem.
also - wrt Ethiopian mothers having to feed on demand because they can't make milk for 4 hourly feeds:
I don't know many women who can make milk adequately feeding on a strict 4 hourly schedule. In fact, the best way to establish a successful bresatfeeding relationship is to feed on demand.
Yes, possibly a side issue here, but "Africa" is not a country. There's no "African" method of parenting and I'd be very suprised if any book is suggesting that there is.
my problem with baby led parenting is that baby is in charge when parent should be, yes feed your baby when they want to but the whole smugness on baby led weaning is just bloody annoying. Get over yourselves and grow some balls. Make your parenting choices not the ones that you have read you should make.
We started off "baby-led" but it didn't work for us as DD had to be held ALL THE TIME and it meant I had no time for me, even when she was sleeping in the day she had to be held if you tried to put her down she woke up and screamed so it meant I never got to eat or relax. She also co-slept but fitfully, she'd kick the crap outta me during the night and I would hardly sleep. So I found myself getting pretty badly depressed until my HV snapped me out of it and said it wouldn't hurt her to sit in her bouncy chair for 10 mins a day and gradually she's learned that mum loves her but can't hold her all day everyday. Now she loves her chair. She also now has a routine that although isn't set in stone I try very hard to keep her to it and we are a much better team now.
yep, so that can't be what rhubarb's talking about presumably, yurt. has anyone read that book? apparently it hardly mentions childcare at all, it's a chapter at the most, but it really chimed with people at the time. my baby was a sweetheart, really easy to deal with and a good sleeper so it was a genuine pleasure to follow what she wanted to do. i suppose if she'd been a nightmare i might have had to draw a line somewhere for my sanity, but it doesn't seem to me sensible to approach being a mother as a problem to solve or a person to defeat, iykwim? my male pal told me before dd was born that i should just try to 'enjoy it all' and that i shouldn't assume it was going to be hard. fortunately it wasn't, for us.
Human babies were being born for many thousands of years before prams and cots were invented. That is the environment in which they evolved, and it may be in some ways similar to some developing world lifestyles - but not necessarily since the developing world has actually moved on too.
Babies that didn't mind being left in a dark cave to sleep alone probably tended to become extinct. Babies that demanded constant care and frequent feeding probably got better care and more milk. So babies probably feel those things as genuine needs. It's not rocket science.
We are all free to adapt our parenting to modern life - but that's not the world a baby is adapted to be born into and it's useful to think about that.
So clueless, you're saying that as well as all the other parenting decisions I have to make, I should also take charge of my child's digestive system and dictate to them what and when they're permitted to eat?
I couldn't disagree more. In fact, to me, teaching a child to eat in order to please their parents sounds like a recipe for developing an unhealthy relationship with food.
I think another big problem is an inability to accept that what's right for one family is wrong for another.
Attachment parenting is not for everyone and anyone who thinks it is probably has a limited experience of children. Some people are into the GF rigid routine type parenting and it works for them.
The problem is judging, which I never do, because people who judge are all mental.
"I think another big problem is an inability to accept that what's right for one family is wrong for another."
exactly, WT. what's the big deal here? and what is this book? which is the african tribe? or is this just a hit and run OP designed to get us all arguing?
I browsed (rather than read properly) the continuum concept. years ago, but you're right it didn't tell you what to do, just told you what happened there and the effect that had on children's development.
I vaguely remember something about hammocks as well. Perhaps that was somewhere else. Anyway took me until baby number 3 to get the Amby and boy I wish I;d bought it earlier!
yep, wellie. the only people being dictatorial about how other people should behave are the ones who don't want to be led by their babies (gawd, that's such a naff term but ykwim). i don't really get the motivation for the OP, or at least i hope i don't.
Some babies just thrive on strict routines and only settle in their own cots though. If you have such a baby, then surely its also baby-led parenting as you are responding to your baby's need.
I can well see where Rhubarb is coming from (despite being a full on lentil weaver meself.)
On a more general note I do find it intriguing the way Western liberal wring their hands over 21C change coming to and spolingfarflung parts of 'Africa' (it seems to be viewed as a country rather than a continent which is also incredibly annoying).
On the other hand,it seems just fine for them to enjoy and embrace change and progress.
If I woke up in the middle of the night crying for some reason I didn't understand, I sincerely hope DH wouldn't say 'too bad for you, you've got to learn to fit in with me. It's not convenient for me to give you a hug right now' Why would I say that to my baby? Meeting their needs is what baby-led means I think.
^For me^ the whole 'get them into a routine' stuff is crap. Why would a baby's needs be the same as mine? Why would I bother trying to get someone to sleep when they weren't tired? What would be the point? I loved carrying our boy around in the wrap until he could crawl and decided he'd had enough. But I don't need routines/schedules myself so maybe that's why it works for us.
Good point FM. After ds2 (who was in our bed for years- and really liked it there) it took me a while to realise that ds3 preferred to be in his own cot. I remember the first time I asked him when he'd woken up one night 'do you want to go back to your cot?' and he said yes I was staggered! So I always ask him now (not that he comes in all that often) and it's about 50:50.
agree, jaynz, if dh and i had to institute a routine in our household it would cripple us, it's not the way we live and work at home, we need to be responsive in our jobs and need to be flexible. but for others it's spot-on.
not all babies are the same, nor are their parents.
Ah well <crashing into thread> I am in the throws of having a 4 month old who co-sleeps, breast feeds when he wants (not on demand cos imo I dont see it as a demand but a need) and hey ho I am going the BLW route. Am not first timer, am making my choices becauise they feel right. The ideas given by BLW make sense to me, nothing to do with not having balls. Quite the opposite in fact as it feels that i am having to justify why i am doing this, as well as why i am bfeeding, co-sleeping etc etc .
Well we have a baby here who rarely crys, is content and happy and a relatively stress free mummy (although ds2 has just been through a lovely wek of feeding loads, he has settled). If this all means my baby is my boss i am happy with that. Better that than having a miserable baby and following some stupid routine for risk of 'spoiling' baby and making rod for own back.
Ds1 (now 8) has turned out fab imo and eats well, plays well, sleeps well.
Ooh yes Moondog, I really hate that patronising assumption that change and progress is fine for us, but other people shouldn't want it.
IME what "exotic" and "unspoiled" places generally have in common is grinding poverty and need, appalling maternal and child mortality, and people of all ages dying needlessly and in horrible pain.
It seems to me that there is as much history of cruel child raising techniques as 'natural' cuddly ones. And often even cultures that were/are kind to babies were horrible to older children or other parts of their communities. But that doesn't mean that we can't choose to parent in a kinder, more responsive way. Personally I found it much easier when I followed ds's lead, rather than fighting with him to try to force him into a routine.
sorry welliemum, you have me all wrong. I have no problem with how you wish to raise your child, what I have a problem with is how some mums boast about how they raise their child properly,as opposed to others. Your baby cant actually choose what they want to eat without you introducing foods to them,so yes I do think you should choose what they eat, if they chose to eat chocolate every night would that be ok.
Dd1 was weaned at a time, when HVs would ask you to do it at 4 months, I made the choice to wean my child as I saw fit not how I was told to.
And I do think baby led parenting is wooly, but that is my opinion. i have seen so many spoilt kids who are the centre of their parents universe who crumble when they have to fit into the real world.
It's not just African tribes. You are right Rhubarb, it is nit necessarily more 'natural'. All human cultures are not completely 'natural' as say animals are.
BUT it is only recently we have decided that every person in the family should be in a separate room, except the grown-ups who get to sleep next to someone at night - why is that better??
My parents were bf, never slept on their own (too many brothers and sisters), were carried a lot and walked from an early stage. Not saying it's better, just that what we do now is a very, very recent development and I have not found that it suits my babies.
I co-sleep, bf, carry, because I love it and it makes the babies cry less - that simple.
Oh and I started a thread today about how my sil is sticking to a four hour ff schedule and is adding rusks to her 8 week old baby's bottle, because she's scared if it has too much milk it will get fat - all thanks to her hv. Great modern parenting techniques...
Sorry, I started this and then wandered off due to kids getting up and needing Calpol, then I forgot all about it!
Now then, what was I wittering on about? Ah yes, the guru's who think baby knows best and it's welfare is above and beyond the welfare of the parents. But common sense shows that unless the parents are cared for, then they are unable to adequately care for the baby.
Pressurising young, first-time mums to do things the "natural way" is just shit. A baby is a helpless, totally dependant little squidge. It knows nothing of routine or natural cycles. It doesn't know whether it's supposed to stay tied to it's mother all day or not. It gets hungry, tired, bored and windy. But of course, if you tie your baby to you all day, then after a while that is what baby expects. A baby will pretty much fit into any routine you care to give it after a while. So fit it into one that is best for you. Because if you are not happy, if you feel stressed, then so will your baby.
But what if you ARE happy doing it that way? Surely people pick the method that suits them best in the end - regardless if it's following an african tribe or a man in a white coat.
ROFL at 'let it sleep when it wants' Yeh, wake the baby up, it needs to go to work....
"So fit it into one that is best for you. Because if you are not happy, if you feel stressed, then so will your baby."
why are you assuming that responding to your child's needs as and when is stress-inducing? it's been the opposite ime. horses for courses and all that but there's no reason to operate on the basis that as parents we all thrive on our own routines. i don't. i'd absolutely hate it, actually.
Janni, that's my philosophy too. I give them choice, but I'm always in charge of the options.
So, for example with BLW, mine could never have chosen chocolate when they were babies because I never offered it.
IME, the more confident I am on an issue, the more flexible I am. If I find myself laying down the law and being rigid, that's usually a sign that I'm not really confident about what I'm doing. So I don't buy the idea that responding to a baby is weak parenting.
Why are you ranting about this? Babywearing is not exactly the standard advice from HV's is it? Actually I was so happy when I discovered books on attachment parenting when I had my first babies. They were babies who needed to be carried by me all day and sleep with me all night. LOL at anyone trying to get them into any other kind of routine. I knew what they needed, but felt so different from everyone else until I discovered there were others who did like me. I think baby-gurus or at least books has its place. I know lots of parents who have literaly saved their sanity after rading a GF-book for example. Its whatever suits you and your baby. You are being just as dogmatic in your posts as the people you are moaning about.
I remember the day my mum and I had a go at Gina-ing dd1 when she was a newborn. It lasted until about 9.30am. Then we had a good laugh and put the book away. Yet for others, as FairyMum says, it's sanity-saving.
Seriously, it was a real lightbulb moment when I realised that dd1 needed to feed little and often and this wasn't something wrong and it wasn't a problem - she was telling me very clearly what she needed and all I had to do was respond.
My stress levels plummeted from that moment. I only wish I'd read an attachment parenting book, because that might had saved me several days of uselessly trying to space out feeds.
Aitch, to be told you have to do a certain thing with your baby at a certain time or else your baby will grow up to be a psychopath is surely wrong?
First time mums are very impressionable - I was. If someone says that you must breastfeed your baby for 20 minutes every 2 hours, then when your baby pulls off after 10 you spend the next 2 hours worrying about whether you need to give it 30 minutes at the next feed. You are so paranoid that you are going to get it wrong that you forget to enjoy the whole experience, if the word enjoy is right here, perhaps endure would be better.
Sure, if you like it that way, if you want your life to revolve around baby then that's fine. Some people are naturally maternal and love the whole baby thing. Others are not so and they put more faith into these gurus than I think the gurus realise.
These books, these gurus, they are advisers only. But the way they go on about how you are potentially wrecking your baby's life if you fail to do it their way is damaging.
Parents need to find their own way of bringing up baby. Advice is all very well, but it is not meant to be pressurised advice. That isn't advice at all.
Rhubarb and pressuring first time mums to do CC, get baby on to solids, feed only at certain times isnt going to make it hard??
Surely it would be better to be supportive and listen to first time parents and encourage them to trust their instincts. My friend who has a a 10 month old (first baby) has frequently said she wishes she could have done things similarly to how i am doing them (4 month old) as I am so relaxed and ds2 is so content. NOt smug here but following his cues certainly works for us here.
Oh and clueless - so it is ok for you to disagree with the 'wooly' way i choose to parent but it is not ok for me feel proud (perhaps boastful) of the fact that i have to very happy ds's one aged 8 who is super confident and not clingy etc and a baby. Both of who have been raised by a lentil weaving mummy.
Baby-led weaning for instance. Apparently it's not 'natural' for babies to eat pureed food from a spoon. Really? It's not natural to put plastic padded bags on their bottoms to catch their poo either but we do it. Why? Because it's convenient and makes our lives as parents a little more bearable. If buying pureed food in a jar makes for a better day for mum then all well and good. If you want to peel organic carrots and bananas for your baby to stick into your hair then all very well too. But don't sell it as the ONLY way to feed the baby.
Awen, have I not just said that whatever makes it easier for you is great? But my point is that this method should not be sold as the BEST and ONLY true way to bring up the baby. Everyone is different. Yes I do think advice is great, then parents can pick and choose. But the problem is that this isn't advice, this is pushy gurus.
"to be told you have to do a certain thing with your baby at a certain time or else your baby will grow up to be a psychopath is surely wrong?" jeeeeesus, rhubarb, which guru is saying that?
and i don't really think you've got the idea of BLW straight tbh. it's just letting them get on with it and letting them have fun. the idea is that parents feel less stress, not more. and for those people who do like to follow rules and regs and who would worry about amounts (as you said you did with bfing), well, it's just not a method they'd choose tbh as the whole point of it is not to worry about those things.
rhubarb i think you're getting marketing mixed up with mothering here tbh. although i can't think which publisher has marketed its author's method as 'the only way' tbh.
I also think we need some specific info here. The names of the gurus you're talking about, and direct quotes from their books or websites. Then we can discuss what they've said.
I really think the baby is the main guru. I did BLW with ds2. I had no choice. He wasn't going to have any bloody puree. I don;t think I have even once been able to put a spoon in his stubborn little mouth......You should have seen the look on his face when faced with a glass of puree...LOL
yeah, it is all a bit vague at the moment imo. i don't think anyone on the thread would approve of a guru who claimed that unless you followed her routines your child would grow up to be a sociopath... what's prompted this, rhubarb?
"Gill Rapley, a health visitor for 25 years and now deputy programme director of UNICEF UK's Baby Friendly Initiative, has a personal interest in baby led weaning. She believes that babies who are allowed to feed themselves by being offered a selection of nutritious finger foods can easily join in with family meals from the start, and are less likely to refuse foods or become fussy eaters as they grow older. She considers that many childhood feeding problems stem from a child's unwillingness or inability to accept foods which require chewing, and that these problems become apparent when babies move from purées to "second-stage" foods which contain lumps. She also suggests that the baby food industry puts unnecessary pressure on parents to introduce puréed foods into their babies' diets at an early age."
From the babycentre website. So basically if you are a first time mum reading this you are thinking that pureeing food for your baby will led to a fussy eater who may turn out to have a childhood eating problem when older. How about the negatives of blw? Like the fact that you can't buy the food in jars from a supermarket shelf? Why not just give plain and simple facts and let parents themselves decide.
And Aitch, of course I am being deliberately exaggerative in my comments and I think only Sarah Buckley might say that your child may become a psychopath if you fail to follow her wonderful advice.
Its a long time ago since I read dr sears on attachment parenting. Is it dr. sears or is that cat in the hat? anyway, i think he said he had several babies who pretty much responded to normal routine and then he had what i think he called high-need baby and realised babies had different needs and responded accordingly. am i right? read it so long ago......
i'm still a bit puzzled about all this tbh, I don't usually fall over people ramming attachment parenting techniques down your neck, more the opposite tbh, ''rod for your own back, carry them all day and you'll spoil them, they're going to choke to death on that carrot stick etc.'' and the gurus who seemed the most dogmatic were pretty much the routine led ones, cos then there is a right and wrong way to do things (if it's past 7am and you're still in bed, naughty you) give us some examples of these radical ap gurus pls rhubarb
you can buy a banana in any supermarket and hand it over. or carrot sticks, or a bread roll. you're not going to get far on that score if that's your negative. a better neg is that some people who like knowing amounts etc are not suited to it, which is fine.
and that babycentre page also suggests mashing up food at the beginning of BLW so that your child doesn't miss out on nutrients... so i wouldn't automatically assume that babycentre has interpreted Gill's thinking in a way that would thrill her.
where are the african tribes, btw? this doesn't seem very related to the OP.
That's my point though, every baby has differing needs. So whilst one may respond really well to GF, another might want the "tie me to mummy all day!" approach.
What I also disagree with is the bandying about of the word "natural" in parenting these days. This society couldn't be less natural if it tried. To expect mothers to go back to how stone-age mothers brought up their babies is a tad unrealistic. Today we have many conveniences that have made our lives easier, so we no longer have to wash our clothes in the river, or forage for food, or give birth without painkillers. And mothers shouldn't be made to feel like failures for wanting to hold onto those conveniences. Yet even Mumsnet has this smugness about it that "natural is best". In some instances it is, but in others it's not, for instance you'd still get your baby vaccinated, right?
just read that article, it looks fine to me. are you saying that it shouldn't exist on an obscure Australian website in case it makes a GFer feel bad? i'm really not getting this...
Gill Rapley said "She considers that many childhood feeding problems stem from a child's unwillingness or inability to accept foods which require chewing, and that these problems become apparent when babies move from purées to "second-stage" foods which contain lumps." so is this just her opinion? Or is it a fact? There is nothing wrong with harping on about the benefits of something, and if you have evidence, sure by all means tell us the downsides. But implying that many childhood feeding problems stems from being weaned on pureed foods is just balls.
I am sorry, but I really don't understand why you are so angry rhubarb.Were you made to feel bad because you couldn't breast feed or because you were a GF mother or what?
It's very simple Aitch, I'm having a rant. Not just about natural parenting gurus but about all gurus and those people who think they know best, regardless as to whether they have kids themselves. Because all of these people, no matter what they say, fail to recognise the needs of the parent and the fact that every baby is different, so no one parenting technique will work on 2 different babies.
However, instead of coming together in harmony and giving out lots of good advice on different parenting techiques, they all banter and argue as to which technique is the best and which is more likely to turn your kids into sociopaths. This confuses parents and more and more first time mothers are being diagnosed with depression than ever before. At the same time more and more parenting books are being sold. Coincidence?
Actually tiredlady, my firstborn was a routine baby through and through, hospital birth, epidural, b/f for 3 months, weaned at 3 months and onto formula.
Second was home birth, b/f for 8 months, weaned at 6 months and would not settle into any kind of routine at all.
Oh and this ain't me with my knickers in a twist cause I ain't swearing. This is just me having a bit of a go at parenting books. All of them. Am I allowed to do that?
Original Post - By Rhubarb on Mon 05-May-08 21:40:43 Yup. The baby is the boss and they will tell you what to do. You feed them when they cry, they'll sleep when they want, do what they want when they want to do it. If you want to experience true, pure and natural parenting then this is what you do.
No mention of the African tribes who tie crying babies to trees to discourage them from crying and giving their location away to enemy tribes. No mention of feeding on demand in Ethopia because you don't have enough milk to sustain a baby for 4 hourly feeds. No mention of carrying the baby on you at all times because there are no prams and therefore not a lot else to do. Noooooo, these third world mothers really know how to bring up baby naturally and that is the way forward!
'they banter and argue about which parenting technique is best' weeeeell, more often i see people saying 'this worked for me' tbh. so, no books, no techniques, no advice if you're arguing the point with someone else (presumably on MN?)... and this would make parenting easier?
perhaps for you, but not for others. because while 'every baby is different, so no one parenting technique will work on 2 different babies', the same can be said of parents. seems to me you're the one being dogmatic tbh.
I am still not getting this. You ARE ranting at natural parenting gurus but not at GF type gurus.I also don't quite get your PND and parenting book link. Books cause PND? Mums with PND turn to books but they aren't helpful? What?
Sure I slated baby-led parenting. Now I'm slating all types of parenting books and gurus. I'm allowed, it's my thread. I think they are all bollocks. They should all co-operate and put out ONE general book with all the different types in it so people can pick and choose. And no bragging about which one is best.
But sure, all these "natural" gurus do get my goat more than the others.
Feed your family Fabulous fish cakes for a fiver. With our Fabulous fish cakes recipe you really can feed your whole family a delicious meal for less than a fiver. This is just one of five brand new purse-friendly recipes from Sainsbury’s. Take a look!
the poor baby... her HV should be sacked! 
Yeh, wake the baby up, it needs to go to work.... 
