to think that not everything is a matter of opinion and.

[seeker]

.."you know your baby best" is absolute claptrap. As is 'happy mother=happy baby"

hmm well a mother probably does know their baby better than anyone else - doesn't mean they are always right though of course!

And quite often having a happy baby does make the mother happier

I think that mothers probably do know their babies best, but it doesn't mean that they always know what's best FOR them, IYSWIM?

'Happy mother = happy baby' makes a bit more sense, but if injecting heroin makes the mother happy, the baby will probably not be so happy. If it's a case of stopping co-sleeping or night weaning or something like that then generally it does work out that way, I think.

most things are a matter of opinion, most parents know their babies best and a happy mother usually does does a happy baby. This is the thing about cliches they are usually true, doesn't stop them being annoying though.

I dont really understand what your mean but yes if mums happy then a baby will probably be a bit happier , a hyped up mum can often mean a stressy baby ,

Most things are a matter of opinion, as anyone with a gap of more than about 10 years between children can tell you. The advice and "this is what you MUST do or your baby will be harmed" type advice changes completely to be the opposite of what it was over time - I have 16 yrs between pfb and my youngest and practially everything changed in that time. Surprisingly, all my children are so far still alive and well and thriving in spite of the health care professionals best efforts...

I don't agree with the happy mother = happy baby thing. I think that it's too often an excuse used by selfish mothers that don't want to put in the work.

But I do think that most mothers do know their babies best. The problem comes when someone, often a doctor, has to work out if a particular mother does really know her baby best of if she just has her own issues, anxieties and worries that are nothing to do with the baby.

I think most parents do know their babies best tbh

I'm not saying 'knowing your baby best' should mean going against medical advice or anything...but quite often it can mean insisting people listen to you when you're sure there's something wrong with your child.

Unless that's not what the OP means...in which case ignore my wafflings

Babies need warmth, adequate nutrition, stimulation and caring human contact. How parents go about meeting these needs is up to them. If any of those needs isn't being met then the baby will be harmed, there's no matter of opinion about that.

I don't know many happy DC whose mummy is stressed out, anxious and sleep deprived but I know the whole happy mummy = happy baby can be used as an excuse. As with everything there are only shades of grey.

Aren't most things parent related matters of opinion? And choice?

There are a few bits scientifically proven to be more beneficial for baby - BF for eg - but that's not the same as FF being a bad or damaging option IYSWIM?

I tend to disagree. Dh and I know our children better than anyone else. "Happy mum - happy baby" is usually true in my case and works vice versa.

i agree with happy mther means a happy baby

Hey, can you tell that to my youngest please?

He seems to think that everything is negotiable atm including the colour of f*cking BLACK!

No - you are wrong. Both those statements have a strong element of truth.

EXCEPT

sometimes when "you know your baby best" is used to justify weaning choices. I think in these instances you have to combine a mum's knowledge of her baby with a basic knowledge of normal physiological development to provide a sort of framework. So that you don't interpret a 7 year old waking up more often at night and watching you eat as a sign that they're ready to start on turkey dinners.

Also - am sick to death of hearing 'happy mum, happy baby' being trotted out as a 'catch all' response to someone stopping breastfeeding. Because frankly, mum being happier not to breastfeed won't provide some sort of magic protection against infection for her baby which will stand in for the protection they no longer have from breastfeeding.

Of course it may be that a mum is SO unhappy about breastfeeding that it's impacting on her ability to bond with her baby, in which case it makes sense for her to stop. But this doesn't mean that the disadvantages for her baby of not being breastfed are somehow negated.

Chuckling at thought of 7 year old waking through the night in desperate need of turkey ....

Ooops!

YABU.... Short of actual neglect or some other kind of physical/mental harm, there's not much a normal, intelligent parent can do wrong with the child they love. Kind reassurance and confidence-boosting is worth far more than a thousand bullying 'how to be the perfect parent' manuals - which many find bewildering and undermining. So 'you know best' is often the case... as is the very commonsense idea that a relaxed, happy home is a good environment for a baby.

I really needed the laugh :-)

Both are true, within reason as noted above. The big thing to keep in mind is that the risks to babies in 21st century Western countries are minimal vs anywhere/anytime else.

I agree with the OP. Both these things annoy me, as does "Follow your instincts." All three statements imply that an anything goes approach is just fine, whereas in fact there are some things that really are better for babies than others. So feeding chocolate biscuits to a four-month old isn't acceptable and neither is giving your 18-month old coca-cola in a bottle, regardless of whether it's your instinct to do it, it makes you happy or you know your own child better than anyone else.

I'm extremely sceptical about the "happy mum" mantra because it sounds like a way of justifying extremely crap parenting choices.

Happy mother = happy baby is just an excuse to put parents needs/wants above kid, imo

Well it depends. I've known babies become ill because they were weaned on to solids at two months. I've known babies experience preventable pain and suffering because doctors refused to believe what the mothers were telling them.

With regards to BF, yes it is very much the mothers choice, and one that should be made without the "oh your baby is getting not getting all that protection and will suffer guilt trip."

In the developed world, the outcomes for breast fed and bottle fed children are pretty identical. Fact. Latest research indicates that the medical benefits of BF in the developed world have been over stated. The immunological protection conferred is limited and transient. I worked in the field for a long time. For every intestinal upset mentioned caused by badly prepared formula, I can quote hospital readmission stats for malnourished or dehydrated breast fed infants. Over a life time however,the child mortality stats for both are pretty much the same.

And There are no studies that I have seen showing that breast fed babies grow up to be captains of industry whilst formula babies go on to be looters. Again, outcomes the same.

Thats completely separate to the bonding stuff and if it makes a mother feel better for breast feeding and she feels closer to her child, fire ahead and breast feed to your hearts content. But STF up about it and dont judge other people whose choices are different.

Add message | Report | Message poster slavetofilofax Fri 30-Dec-11 11:11:12
I don't agree with the happy mother = happy baby thing. I think that it's too often an excuse used by selfish mothers that don't want to put in the work.

But I do think that most mothers do know their babies best. The problem comes when someone, often a doctor, has to work out if a particular mother does really know her baby best of if she just has her own issues, anxieties and worries that are nothing to do with the baby.

Agreed - Filofax has said it perfectly
Happy mum claptrap is often used to justify lazy, half-arsed parenting

What a load of rubbish montysma - breastmilk is far superior to formula, it is laughable that you are saying they are the same

What an idiotic post