To think that our expectations of babies behaviour in this country are too high?

[Tryharder]

There seems to have been a lot of threads around at the moment along the lines of "my baby is 5 weeks old and still won't sleep through the night" and "my baby won't go 4 hours between feeds, is she just greedy" or "my baby wants to be picked up a lot - is she just manipulative?" You get the picture....

Have just read a post about someone who left a very young baby to cry it out (don't ask me to link) and they are all smug about it because "it worked".

It makes me so cross and sad for the babies concerned who are subject to draconian regimes. Why are we so negative about babies in this country and so determined from Day one to impose on them a routine that makes our lives convenient, not theirs.

I know I will be flamed .

mum295, sorry what does age of the parent have to do with routines? And travelling and career? That's a new one.

Personally I'm eager for my child to have some sort of routine so that she gets enough sleep and therefore is a happier baby. I didn't realise it was because I'm a younger mother who doesn't have time or patience for my child. But thanks for psychoanalysing me.

Sorry haven't time to read whole thread on my lunchbreak, but there is a big difference between tiny newborns and the 10 or 15 month olds some people have been referring to here. I would expect them to have some routine, albeit flexible, by those ages, but would not have dreamt of leaving a baby to cry under 8 or 9 months when I started cc. Routines can be so restrictive, too, if you can't go out between certain times because baby has to have its nap in a cot rather than buggy or car, etc.

Agree with Londonlottie's post.

Also I had 3 under 18 months(twins) and believe me all 3 of mine had to cry at some point as they were not immediately picked up every single time due to having to share their mummmy. All 3 are loving well balanced kids.

If you go by some of the ridiculous claims on here multiple babies or babies born into hectic busy families where mum simply can't ignore all other children,housework,partners and bog off on a babymoon tending to the slightest baby whimper are going to be damaged. Ridiculous claims.

Also I've read far more information on the damage that lack of sleep can do and seen the results when teaching.Never once have I tried to push my style of parenting onto anybody making false allegations citing this that and the other so could those of you coming out with these rediculous anti sleep training claims keep them to yourself? We all have different styles,give other mothers the respect you expect for yourself.

I'm not sure why some people have responded to the OP in such a defensive way - there was no criticism there of routines in general, just of 'draconian regimes' - which I read as forcing a very young baby to feed and sleep at prescribed times. We're not talking about the gentle guidance of an older baby into a bedtime routine, or similar. I don't think anyone has any problem with that.

There is a myth that we're sold about even tiny babies only needing to feed every 3-4 hours, and that they should be falling asleep on their own and sleeping through the night from a very young age. And I agree with the OP that these unrealistic expectations are unfair, not just on the baby but also on the stressed parents who think they are doing something wrong because their baby doesn't fall into this pattern. I spoke to a friend last week, she was worried because her 2.5 week old is waking every 3 hours at night and taking an hour to feed, and also in the daytimes won't be put down to sleep. She was amazed when I told her that sounded totally normal - she really thought there was something wrong (either with her or the baby) because she felt like she spent the whole day glued to the sofa.I know its blooming hard, and I was full of sympathy for her, but I think that if as a society we were more accepting of what babies are actually like then new parents would have a slightly more realistic idea of what to expect.

I was given a heap of unasked for 'advice' on how to get my babies (all 3 of them were 'bad sleepers!) to sleep through. Generally this involved letting them cry in one form or another. It annoyed me that I felt I had to say "me and DH are wimps, we can't leave our babies to cry" as a way of justifying our co-sleeping, feeding at night approach. The fact was we made a conscious decision to parent this way. I understand that not everyone wants to do it this way, but I have always found that the strict GF-style parents are the most vociferous in terms of telling others how they should be doing things.

Mila Mae, when you say things like 'I've read far more information on the damage lack of sleep can do' don't you see that you yourself are potentially making a whole load of parents whose children do not sleep for 12 hours a night feel as though they are damaging their child - that would seem like a false allegation to me, which is what you are accusing others of doing.

But londonlottie I do follow routines, most parents do, whether its a full on, set in concrete schedule or just a 'keep the room a bit darker for nighttime feeds' type. No one here has posted anything anti-routine from what I can see. The OP was talking about the unrealistic expectations people have about tiny babies having to sleep through the night or feed to a regular pattern, or to not want to be picked up.

By the way, none of this is to make me feel better about my succession of 'bad' sleepers . They are now all sleeping fine (well, i am hoping DD follows the examples of her brothers here). I also don't really believe that a stricter approach would have made much difference, apart from making me (and DH) enjoy those early weeks/months/years much less than we did.

Good post pinkpip

"If you go by some of the ridiculous claims on here multiple babies or babies born into hectic busy families where mum simply can't ignore all other children,housework,partners and bog off on a babymoon tending to the slightest baby whimper are going to be damaged."

I don't think anyone has said that every whimper should be responded to and that not doing it will damage a child. I think the argument here is about routinely ignoring a baby's distress as a strategy for changing their behaviour.

Re: meeting the needs of tiny babies - isn't it possible generally to do this while also meeting the needs of your other children? Most babies only want cuddling and feeding, not hard to do and still attend to your other kids.

"Most babies only want cuddling and feeding,not hard to do and still attend to your other kids"

Err yes it is.Try cuddling/ feeding a newborn and cuddling 1X 15 month old whilst trying to stop the other from falling off a chair. All 3 need their mummy and not one is more deserving so I' afraid plenty of babies have to wait and it does them no harm being perfectly normal family life.

Re the op as I said before plenty of mothers "impose" some kind of a routine because they can't cope with waking up endlessly,they want some kind of order. All routines aren't draconian and plenty benefit both baby and mum.

There is no "should",it's how plenty of parents "want" to parent.

One size does not fit all and most parents I know parent exactly how they "want" to.

But Mila Mae, no one has suggested that all routines are draconian. But I don't actually agree that it is all about what parents 'want' to do. What about what the baby needs? I didn't want to get up twice last night to check on ds2 who has a high temperature, but he needed me to. I know that's a rubbish example, I'm sure someone else can come up with a much better one..

Who said anything about leaving a high temp? I followed a routine and did 3 nights cc so the rare times I'm woken up is for said high temperatures.

My kids sleep blissfully happy all night 7-7 and have done from a very young age,nobody is left to cry,ever.

This wouldn't be everybody's bag.I'd rather eat my own hair than co-sleep,plenty would rather eat their own hair than do cc. Fine they're happy,I'm happy,both sets of babies are happy so enough with these threads

I totally agree, have never seen any posts like those mentioned in the original OP

I haven't read them. But I do know that plenty of friends/colleagues/relatives that have babies have an unrealistic expectation about how those babies will behave in the early weeks/months.I did. And I've thought for a while that it would help if before having a baby we were told that they may well feed every hour (or more) in the early days, may well only cat nap rather than having long sleeps, may well want to be held all the time, may well still wake to feed at night at 4/5/6/7/8/9/10months(or whenever), may well not like sitting in a bouncy chair/lying on a play mat....you get the idea. A lot of new parents are totally shocked by these realities and struggle even more because of that. And then maybe feel a pressure to make their baby 'conform' to those unrealistic expectations by letting them cry, trying to go longer between feeds etc - often even when this goes against their instincts.

milamae I admitted that was a bad example, and wasn't suggesting anyone would leave a child with a fever. It was about what we want compared to what our children need. Like I said, bad example.

How happy were your children when you were leaving them to cry milamae?

Londonlottie, what do you mean by no routine? My children have never had a routine forced on them by leaving them to cry etc but they sleep well, eat well and are happy children. I'm not really sure how anecdotes are going to add any weight to this argument tbh.

Hi lottie, I know you from the multiples thread (namechanged several times since then). I don't want to fall out with you, but you are coming across as rather smug and very patronising.

And, for the record, I didn't follow a routine, have twins who at 16 months are happy, were ebf on demand, and have been sleeping through the night for months.

Though it certainly seems you'd like to pat yourself on the back for your marvellous mothering skills, It's more to do with luck than parenting, (within a wide range of ok parenting).

But londonlottie that is ridiculous, I was talking about newborn babies.Unless you were piping Gina Ford into your uterus I cannot see how your choice of routine can have any influence over your newborn baby's sleeping and feeding habits.

And as with *bubbleymummy', my 3 children are also happy, well-slept and well-fed. And were as babies, but didn't sleep throught the night until 2 ish. Which incidentally didn't send me demented through stress. I was fine with it.

Fine. So you do what works for your girls. But don't try to insinuate that there is one best way. Because every baby is different, and it isn't helpful to suggest that one way is better than another - what works brilliantly for one child might be absolutely not what another child needs.

Add help and guidance is fine, of course, as long as it is taken with a great pinch of salt because nobody has written a book about your baby (yet).

What worked for you wouldn't work for everyone. And though you claim there was no crying, ever, that often isn't the case. When babies and mothers try to force themselves into routines that don't suit either of them, there are plenty of tears on both sides, I'm sure.

I think if there's a message from this thread, it is to do what works for your baby.

It's not helpful, as others have said, to judge and criticise others' methods of parenting.