Not sure where to ask about this awful terrible baby advice you have published?

Yeah because some mothers enjoy sleep deprivation.

The point is, it's not always a choice. It doesn't work for everyone. My first baby woke up every two hours for two years, regardless, and needed to be held and rocked. It is horrible to feel that people think this is happening because you're not getting the routine right. My second baby didn't need all this, and self-settled regardless of being held for naps, and would feed every 3 hours naturally. Mothers do not create these babies that the rules don't fit. You can't rock or hold or feed a baby that does not want it, they will let you know, the same way they will let you know the opposite.

The 3-4 hour thing needs to be balanced with advice that takes into account the reality of establishing breastfeeding - that there will be periods you need to feed much more often and you're not doing it wrong, or not making enough milk if you're pinned to the sofa. I know people who were walking around rocking their crying babies and at their wits end simply because "it's not time to feed them". There needs to be balance.

The way I see it, there is a ton of information out there that fits this mould, there are very few places to encounter advice and experience about cluster feeding, babies that can't be put down etc, and Mumsnet was always one of those places that represented the other side of the coin.

Meh, agree it reads as quite old fashioned advice, but it's not something I can get that frothy over. It's like anything relating to babies, you read and decide if it suits you/your baby/your lifestyle/parenting style and give it a try.

I pretty much did all of those things listed and my kids are 2 and 5. They both slept 7-7 (ish) from about 12 weeks, which was amazing for the whole family (I need my sleep or my mental health deteriorates).

But I am very routine orientated, not even everyone is.

Obviously the click bait title implies the only way but the actual article doesn't say it's the only way. It gives 9 steps to establish a routine. MN have advertised the article incorrectly.

I don't think anyone's denying the importance of a good night's sleep. But saying "and the only way to get that is to put your newborn on a strict feed schedule" is bad, bad advice.

Don't dismiss, for some mothers, the importance of a good night's sleep.

For me it radically changed my mood and my ability to be a good parent to my children and enjoy having them. Plus my relationship with my husband.

Wtf is happening to mn!?

I read down the first page of comments on this without reading the actual article thinking to myself, I bet it's not that bad and everyone's just jumping on a bandwagon. Then i read it... WTAF! Seriously MNHQ, take it down.

What a loud of shite, MN shame on you :( Utterly ridiculous advice!! Also, a baby cannot self settle to sleep, it's either CIO or you help them, and CIO really shouldn't be promoted!!

Nothing to add to what pp's have already said. Is the Author the robotic love child of she who must not be named?

It reminds me of the time my HV told me I needed to get DD dressed, as she wouldn't learn the difference between day and night if I left her in a sleep suit. Fortunately she wasn't my first DC, and I laughed. A lot.

Surely that can be said about any advice? I felt the same when I couldn't stop my child from screaming after we brought her home from hospital, where she had been bright and happy. The answer was to put a hat on, because she was cold. I felt stupid for not knowing that.

I felt the same when I was adviced to switch to feeding on demand and she then slept all day and was awake all night, I was the only one, all my friends children happily demand feed during the day and slept well, what was I doing so wrong?

Parents need to be given all the options. This article is badly written, should not be presented the way it has been, but for some babies the advice is valid, it is not dangerous, terrible and cruel.

How in any way is what we did bad

I have no idea NapQueen, nothing there is cruel, it just reads like gentle encouragement towards a semblance of a routine to me. I don't think it actually says you must feed on schedule, or your baby must sleep for this long otherwise you're doing it wrong.

Swaddling sucks as well. Neither of my two would countenance it

No it doesn't suck, some babies respond vey well to it and as long as they are not too hot it's fine to do it.

This was the advice given to me which I followed 13 years ago, was hard work ..... phew

God that those bloody Waddilove articles... PIL sent me it twice once from the Independent and from Daily Mail. Yes despite all the researched based evidence and against the advice of my own midwives I'm going to listen to some out of date midwife whose main concern seems to be getting a full nights sleep.Grrr.

My DS loved being swaddled. I pretty much stuck to the routine described although it was many years ago. He was a happy, contented baby. Slept and fed well. So it works for some and not others.

Perhaps it is old fashioned.

Just read that article in the Independent - the woman's a dinosaur!

Swaddling sucks as well. Neither of my two would countenance it.

Feeding to schedule can mess up breastfeeding, so that's the most concerning bit of 'wisdom'. It's just a very old fashioned approach from a time when breastfeeding was out of fashion. As it happens my ds had a four hourly feeding pattern from birth, oh and he liked being swaddled too, but dd hated it and fed pretty randomly.

Breastfed babies don't usually need winding, and insisting that every feed needs a nappy change is just a bit weird - why would you want an alert baby in the middle of the night? If they aren't hungry what do you do then?

Presumably 'snack feeding' refers to cluster feeding which is essential in breastfeeding to build supply, plus the implication is that you would have to ignore your babies hunger in order to keep to the required spacing.

Better to read the current NHS feeding guidelines (referenced in smaller print) than take the opinion of one individual as some sort of sure fire way - in fact the 'only way you ever get a good night's sleep again'.

Plus the pictures are a bit problematic too.

I don't understand the outrage.

I read each point and thought "yep did that". I've a 21mo and a nearing 5yo and whilst they both had vastly different temperaments and personalities they both responded to me and dh doing the stuff on that list (we didn't use the list I've only just read it now).

How in any way is what we did bad....?

Yep, because scientists are old men in white coats who make explosions and transfer chemicals into little test tubes. That's definitely how they find out about babies.

It's not like scientists and mothers could ever be the same people. Could they?!

So Mumsnet is advocating that new mothers follow the advice of someone who rejects evidence based guidance because scientists 'do experiments but know nothing about babies'. Not sure where the 'calm and reason' plays a part in her I know what's best approach.

I listened to my mother when my children were tiny babies, and she was actually helpful, shared her own experiences and provided loving support, like coming around and cooking for me. Not telling me what to do, especially where she could see that what worked for ds (who liked routine and swaddling) didn't work for dd (who would scream for hours if she wasn't held and jiggled about). Oh and trying to feed a baby who wants to be asleep or ignoring a baby who wants to be fed are in my experience sure fire ways to make all concerned distressed.

Very disappointing that Mumsnet has moved away from their old approach which was to share the advice and support from the boards, full of humour and acknowledging that there are many different approaches to try.

I honestly don't see the problem - pretty much how all my DCs were as babies - though I'd change a nappy before a feed not after

Oh goodness me, what a load of fuss!

I am astounded that this was on MN, because baby advice on here is frequently to clutch your baby to you at all times and who cares if you need sleep yourself, you're a mother now + added pseudoscience about if they cry for more than two seconds, they'll end up like a child in a Romanian orphanage.

She says twins "are often nicer"

Nicer?

I think she trained at the school of pulling facts out of your own arsehole.

I also notice MN left out that she advocates praying over the baby's cot in order to teach it that it is part of a "higher order"

Dear god.

The accompanying photos are very strange. A baby wearing a hat indoors? Water in a bottle for a small baby?

Surely you have people that advise you on these things before you publish them

I think this quote from the Independent article may tell us all we need to know about Rachel Waddilove:

"She was a natural choice for Iain Duncan Smith, who personally called on the grandmother of three to advise him when he was setting up the Centre for Social Justice think tank nine years ago."