My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

For free parenting resources please check out the Early Years Alliance's Family Corner.

Parenting

Why Love Matters

29 replies

monkeytrousers · 14/06/2005 18:47

Anyone read this?

OP posts:
Report
acnebride · 14/06/2005 19:26

Yes.

Report
peckarollover · 14/06/2005 19:29

No, is it good?

Report
acnebride · 14/06/2005 19:31

Sorry! Very mixed feelings about it. I found it quite frightening and as a direct result of reading it changed the childcare setting I was about to put my ds into. But I felt that the author tended to do this:

Theory. Illustration using major celebrity, with which she had not been involved. Tendentious conclusion based on this one 'case'.

Final conclusion suddenly introducing a notional mother 'who finished her coffee before going to her crying baby'. Never in the rest of the book was this minor level of unresponsiveness used as an example - always major levels of neglect or very unusual circumstances used instead.

Report
monkeytrousers · 14/06/2005 20:51

I found it really fascinating. I'm not sure what you mean about the conclusion being based on the one case. There were many case studies in the book. Which one are you talking about? Didnt take the comment of the mum 'finishing her coffee..' the same way aswell. It was a broad illustration.

I took her thesis to be based on evidence saying that controlled crying (or more specifically leaving baies to 'cry it out') before a certain age may have serious consequences for your baby's long term emotional development. I found the evidence compelling.

What did you change you childcare setting to and from, if you dont mind me asking?

OP posts:
Report
Feffi · 14/06/2005 22:03

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

monkeytrousers · 15/06/2005 07:28

Its been a while since I read it but I'm sure she says that the stress response is 'set' by six months, but that other parts of the brain concerning social and emotional skills are developing and forming pathways up to at least 2. Obviously, they go on doing this but I think her point is that this time is particularly crucial.

Didn't you find that in her descriptions of some pathology?s that you recognised practically everyone you know, with a few uncomfortable moments when you recognised yourself, to varying degrees? I thought it was very strong on its argument about the growing epidemic of depression, especially PND with the culture of parental isolation.

OP posts:
Report
gothicmama · 15/06/2005 07:54

sounds interesting where can I get a copy from - TIA

Report
jambo1707 · 15/06/2005 08:08

Interested now, where can I get a copy?

Report
monkeytrousers · 15/06/2005 08:36

You can get it anywhere, Waterstones, Amazon. It's Why Love Matter's by Sue Gerhardt. We should have a natter about it when you've all finished. I'll pick it up again. Any takers??

OP posts:
Report
Feffi · 15/06/2005 19:57

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

monkeytrousers · 15/06/2005 20:21

I know what you mean about re-reading pages although it did get easier - almost compulsive. Aren?t some of the case histories utterly tragic though? I know I'm full of BF hormones but I could hardly bear it. Made me think about adopting!

I think you're right about the length of exposure. Consistency was a key facet. We all know babies thrive on routines and this is just the logical extension of that. That's what I actually found most compelling about the whole book, it's common sense. It may be hard reading for some and they may take it as criticism but
she did make a point of mentioning that babies who cry alot (maybe those with colic) aren't so much at risk if parents react positively and consistently.

The problem with depression is it makes the sufferer the centre of his or her own universe and that narcissism has to be it's most corrosive symptom, certainly in this context. My mother was depressed also but wasn't a good mother. It has repercussions down the generations.

OP posts:
Report
Feffi · 15/06/2005 20:36

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Blu · 15/06/2005 20:54

what is it/ is there a link?

Report
monkeytrousers · 15/06/2005 21:25

Here's a couple of links

books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,1262302,00.html


www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1268161,00.html

Think you may have to paste them into your search engine direct as they're too long to click direct.

OP posts:
Report
monkeytrousers · 15/06/2005 21:28

Know what you mean too Feffi. My LO is 8 and a half months old and I've only just gotten to the stage where I leave him with his granny when we go to Tesco's. He doesnt even notice we're gone, of course!

OP posts:
Report
monkeytrousers · 15/06/2005 21:31

I meant paste them into internet explorer - sorry

OP posts:
Report
monkeytrousers · 17/06/2005 13:26

Just another thought about consistency and responsiveness Feffi. Was talking about this last night with my dp as he's just finished it and re-read this thread after. The debate about controlled crying is tricky, as it tends to mean different things to different people. One or two nights for a few minutes each time I don't imagine is going to do any harm, provided normally parents respond positively and constantly normally. Leaving a baby to 'cry it out' is defiantly a no-no though. Or persisting when it doesn?t seem to be working. It's so difficult to do anyway, isn't it?? Consistent inconstancy (if you know what I mean) too is obviously confusing for anyone trying to make sense of the world around them and how difficult is it to be consistant when you're depressed..?

I don?t know where you are in the book though, so maybe I'll just wait till you've finished!

OP posts:
Report
Rarrie · 17/06/2005 13:51

I haven't read it for a long time, but when I did, I seem to remember that what she said was consistent with the research I had already read on infant cortisel at nursery (stress) etc... and it seemed to be a fair representation - unlike other books of that ilk (like Dr Sears) who blatantly twists the research to fit his ends.
Basically, to me it seemed a 'dumbed down' version of what is already known and accepted but what is largely unaccessible to the general public (because it is often so very complex). So the dumbing down, whilst does miss some of the subtelties at times, is on the whole, a fair representation!

As a parent, I'd say its a compulsive read, although unnerving at times!

Report
monkeytrousers · 17/06/2005 13:59

I agree. It was accessible in that way without being compromised.

OP posts:
Report
Feffi · 17/06/2005 20:28

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Rarrie · 18/06/2005 18:38

Sorry, I've no longer got the articles. Threw them out last year, once I had decided child care and was having a big clear out. Sorry!

The main points I seem to remember were to try and keep institutionalised child care ideally to a maximum of 12 hours a week, and stress levels tend to rise particularly in the afternoons, particularly in boys. This is for children under 2.

HTH

Report
monkeytrousers · 19/06/2005 15:45

Feffi, I found this. There're a few other links on the page itself. www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1256288,00.html

OP posts:
Report

Don’t want to miss threads like this?

Weekly

Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!

Log in to update your newsletter preferences.

You've subscribed!

Feffi · 19/06/2005 21:50

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

tiktok · 20/06/2005 15:15

I really liked this book. It is a difficult subject to make clear to the layperson, but she manages to do it.

Parents are supported and understood, all the way through, and the baby is treated with respect as a human being who deserves to have his needs met.

Feffi, good, responsive childcare 3 days a week, from a nursery with excellent staff who are stable and expecting to make a consistent relationship with your child, is not harmful, from what I understand. But very few settings are as good as this.

Report
edam · 20/06/2005 15:42

Tiktok, what's the evidence that very few nurseries 'are as good as this'? Not having a go, but surprised at the strength of your opinion and wonder what it's based on?

Feffi, want to reassure you that I've had a very positive experience of nursery. My ds has been in nursery pretty much full time since 7 months (is now nearly 2). He's a happy, secure, confident (even bossy!) and funny little boy. The staff are really warm and caring (and turnover is low so he's had consistent relationships - the agency staff they do use are regulars as well rather than different person every time). He's doing really well developmentally in physical, verbal and numerical skills.

I have now dropped him down to 3 days a week, but that's because I was missing out too much, not because I had any concerns at all about his welfare and development. When I told the manager her face dropped and she said how much they'd miss him even in just those two days - and kept calling over other members of staff to tell them, whose faces also dropped because they'd miss him so much! Very warm, loving environment that is supportive of children and parents.

Balls to anyone who tries to frighten people away from nurseries especially given acnebride's description of "Theory. Illustration using major celebrity, with which she had not been involved. Tendentious conclusion based on this one 'case'."

I've seen too much of that lazy excuse for research masquerading as evidence in my own professional field. It's rubbish and it leads to stupid, irrelevant and unreliable conclusions.

Not that I've read the book in question of course! But I'm not claiming I have incontrovertible research that reading it will damage parents and babies... just saying that from what I've read on this thread, it fits a recognised pattern of exaggerated claims.

Report
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.