to think that what the baby books tell you is evil?

[lowrib]

I'm a new mum. While feeding my 3mo DS he sometimes stops feeding, looks me in the eye and grins with delight. We beam at each other for a few minutes before he goes back to feeding. It is the loveliest thing ever.

But according to some books I've read I'm not meant to make eye contact at night feeds at all . So if I paid any attention to them, we'd either not experience this magic moment, or maybe I'd feel like I'd done something wrong.

Some of the baby books really leave me cold.
Is it just me or is a lot of the advice in them designed get in the way of instinct and the mother - baby bond (and the father-baby bond too) rather than reinforcing or encouraging natural instincts which IMO are most likely there for a reason? It all seems to about working against your instincts as a mother.

Am I being unduly cynical or is it true that a load of damaging rubbish being peddled to women at a time when they could actually do with some decent advice and support?

Thought you were talking about my armpits for a moment there

Pruners is more idealogically pure than me

Seriously though, it's interesting that so many of the things babies want (demand feeding, lots of cuddles, being physically close to parents) are turning out to be objectively better for them than the alternatives.

ie responsive parenting, unlike almost any other "method", seems to be objectively a Good Thing rather than yet another parenting fashion.

I think the tide will turn, now unemployment has gone through the roof I suspect attachment parenting will be back in fashion.

I have a "friend" who owns a chain of nurseries who thinks her business is bomb proof in a recession because the government pays some of the fees, which is all very well assuming both the parents have a job.

Message withdrawn

Well i have bought them all but definitely agree with the OP. I kind of read them and ignore 99% of what's in them. The odd thing kind of works. I feel cross that on occasions i have stopped feeding a hungry baby or left a baby to cry too long, just because the book said so, not because i wanted to.
My least favourite one of all was pooed on by DS when he was about 9 months old at nappy off time and had started to roll too far off the towel! (We have a chaotic house with books on the floor ). I took that as a sign to bin it.

imoscarsmum - interesting point about ancestors, they would have relied on their mums and sisters, etc for advice and support as everyone remained in their family groups in those days. An article I read recently claimed that our mothers are feeling left out because we don't want their advice about motherhood any more: books, TV and internet are supposedly doing that job for us.

Thinking about it I don't think I've asked my Mum for much baby advice.

lol at pooed on book!

Message withdrawn

It's true to an extent, my aunty told me of how in the 70's they were made to stay in hospital for 7 days after the birth, the baby was only brought to you once every 4 hours for a feed and nappy change and then whipped back to the nursery and some mums would be listening to their baby scream for a feed for 2 of those hours and not be allowed to go to them.
Even if you'd wanted to BF you wouldn't have much of a chance under those circumstances.
With the greatest of respect what advice could they give that would be of value ?

Yes I agree - not much help to us! And they weaned so early too then. My dh's mum showed us his baby book where she recorded everything and he was fed fish and chips at 12 weeks old! I was more fortunate as my mum was a midwife of the lentil weaving kind and was big believer in breastfeeding, close physical contact and so on. Even so, I probably don't ask her for advice because times have changed so much.

My mother is full of unsolicited, bad advice. It doesn't matter how much I don't ask her for it, I get it anyway. Not much danger of her feeling left out.

apologies if I repeat what has already been said, but was really refreshing reading the OP's first post.

Have always maintained that as babies can't read, then baby manuals are a complete waste of time.

It probably annoys me more than it should, but when I hear about a new mum being upset because she

a) can't meet friends for coffee
b) can't get to mother and baby groups
c) choose whatever you like

All due to the fact that she has read a certain type of baby book which tells her that her baby should be asleep at these times!!

Or the new parents implementing controlled crying on a 2 week old baby, all because the baby wanted to breast feed more often than they thought it should be!!!!!!!

I was told by a friend whose advice I have taken and asked for in the past, not to smile or make eye contact during night time feeds, I just couldn't do it.
If my baby smiled at me, I did smile back. Yes, I might have been tired and wish that I could have an undisturbed nights sleep, but this time doesn't last forever and looking back, it was actually really nice.

It took my youngest 16 months to sleep through the night, which isn't ideal and it's definitely not what the baby manuals would say to do.

But the couple doing the controlled crying on the newborn have given up breastfeeding and are now bottle feeding so they can now follow the routine that is dictated in the baby manual that they are choosing to follow.

Yes used to meet up with 4 friends from ante-natal classes when our first babies were newly born. One of them was following that same strict routine and the times and places we met were dictated by her telling us it had to fit with her dd's routine. She would text things like 'Has to be 12 as X takes a bottle at 11.30'. What did she think the rest of us did?

My favourite book about babies (The Poo Bomb) on books about babies:

The Thirty Year Rule

I have lots of parenting books, and they take great delight in telling me radically different things. You pick an opinion, and I got a book which says doing anything else will break my baby's brain.

I'm supposed to have weaned her off the pacifier by now. Or not. I'm supposed to make her a vegetarian. Or not. You have to breast feed her for years. Or not. I'm not supposed to let her sleep with an old, stuffed monkey. Or... No, that one's for sure.

Of course, there was much confusion. I grew weary, so I gave myself relief. This quiet week has given me the chance to ponder my number one rule for making all parenting decisions: "The Thirty Year Rule." it goes like this:

"If deciding something one way or the other doesn't have a clear, likely effect on what the kid will be like when she's thirty, I can do whatever I want."

So, for example, basic education. This makes a difference. No choice there. She has to learn to read. And we have to feed her. And, to give another example, circumcision has an actual effect on someone's life when they're thirty, so you have to think carefully about that decision. (Unless, of course, it's a girl. Not having to think about circumcision is one of the primary advantages of having a girl.)

But pacifiers? I can do what I want. Hey, maybe infant pacifier use will make some difference (who knows what?) down the road when Cordelia turns 30. But I doubt it. Attachment parenting? Co-sleeping? Organic baby food? Playing Mozart? These things might make a difference when the kid is 30. In an infinite universe, everything is possible. But the effect is neither "likely", nor "clear." So who gives a shit? The kid will sleep in a crib, eat Gerbers processed apple goo, listen to Led Zeppelin, and LIKE IT!

And I can guess what you're thinking now. Something along the lines of "Oh, that's reasonable advice. You can get away with all sorts of things. As long, of course, as you make sure to use cloth diapers/carry it around in a sling until it's 12/only dress it in clothes made of hemp/whatever stupid thing I've decided is the One True Secret of child-rearing, and makes the child healthy and a Mensa member and keeps away the SIDS."

New parents, myself included, are twitchy, freaked out souls with the tendency to make dysfunctional mountains out of developmental molehills. I say, fuck it. Feed the kid. Dress it. Bathe it. Hug it. Beyond that, dowhatchawant. All those extras may be as likely to harm as help in the long run, anyway.

www.ironycentral.com/babymain.html

Have just found copy of CCLB buried under bed while clearing out to fit cot back into bedroom (although if new baby anything like DD, cot may as well be left in garage,will end up with baby in bed with us for 8 mnths anyway!).

Thought would start to read to remind myself why I hate it so, so much. Patronising phrase 'my babies'...how many has she actually had? Oh yes, that's right, none . Would put it into the charity shop bag, but worry that someone else will then have to suffer reading it. Any suggestions??

"We don't want their advice because sadly, with some exceptions, they swallowed the line that good babies sleep through at 6 weeks when you fill them to the gunwhales with formula spiked with rusk, and leave them to cry if they're manipulating you. Or maybe that's just my mum"

No Pruners, bizarrely I was just moaning to DH about MY mum's crap advice as she keeps arsing on about giving 4mo DS Farex in his feed to make him sleep.

I'll bloody kill her if she feeds him anything other than EBM when I finally let her babysit.

As for the OP, for weeks I followed that book's advice about avoiding eye contact. It's a load of shash. How could ANYONE not return a baby's smile ffs?

whistlejacket that's so true about what you say re routine parents, there's no flexibility on their part, everyone else has to fit it around them, it's stifling and selfish.

And it continues a friend of mine is a GF/strict routine devotee even thoughher oldest is 3.5 yrs. The few times they've come to stay in OUR house we've had to go along with their bloody routine!! That means dd eats when he eats we only go out the times they want and bedtimes are cast in stone. Very controlling and obsessional and unfair too.

There's a world of difference between common sense and baby bootcamp. And the attachment research by eminent people such as Fonagy, et al does indicant a greater evidence base for more responsive, attachment type parenting whereas these "gurus" have nothing to back up their "theories".

It depends on what you as a parent are happy with too. My aunts and big sister were very influenced by attachment parenting (Three in a Bed etc) and my memories of them (I was in my late teens/early twenties when their children were tiny) was that they were always tired and cross. So I was much more influenced by my mother's more routine based approach, and that's what I mostly used when my two were tiny. As I breastfed (my mother didn't really manage to get bf established with us) it was a bit of a mixture, in that I demand fed and used a form of controlled crying. ds was a very routine baby (his doing - he did four hour feeds from birth - took me a day or two to realise he was so predictable) and as a result very easy for me. dd was not at all, and she would have loved to be attached to me all the time. Problem was that I absolutely hated that, felt completely overwhelmed and often very angry with her for not letting me have a moments peace. Not that a book would have helped! Just that both babies and mothers differ, and any approach that says this is the (only) right way is in my opinion very iffy.

I feel a bit lucky in that my Mum has been a really good source of advice. She never believed in leaving a baby to cry and was a big fan of play and cuddles.

Agree with OP. Had major stress when Penelope Leach said if my 12lb 3-week old ds was "starving" and needed solids if he fed more than 4x/day - he was feeding 2 hrly - luckily a BFC said, "pah!" at just the right moment.

Never got past Miriam Stoppard advising to install a sink in baby's room

Did ds on my own; will be interested to see what MiL and Mum come up with for dc2 now we live nearby

PMSL @ mooki's Thirty Year Rule post. Excellent stuff. I think baby books are a bit like religion really; if you find one you agree with and it works for you, the temptation is to preach that it's the One True - but ultimately it just means it fits you, doesn't necessarily mean it will fit others.

I ALWAYS go to my mum and MIL for advice, possibly because they're both of the camp that I'm doing a great job and whatever my instinct suggests is probably right. But I can see how a book to follow is very comforting to a new mother who doesn't have a lot of family support.

Peronsally I have found baby books useful & got some good tips from them, though I am a routine girl so that might be why, however I don't think any book should be used to dictate what you do & feel that every parent needs to find their own way.
Gina ford has been a god send to me but I dont do everything she says in her book, I lossely do her routines & have followed her weaning guide at the begining with both DS & DD but have then tweaked it to suit, that might be different even day to day say if were at home for the day the routine is probably a little tighter than if we are out and about iygwim.
A friend of mine is currently expecting her first & has asked me if I recommend GF & I have said to her that its worth a read but you have to find what suits you, we wouldnt do to all be the same.

@ typos

I have the same book as the OP, mine was bought for me as a gift by a friend (who has no children).

I couldn't get past the author's dictatorial tone to even consider anything she might be saying as sane - I'm pregnant with my first but I think I can safely guarantee I will be making eye contact with my baby during night feeds.

He/she won't be in their own room from Day 1 either.

Burn it.

This book is evil - YANBU.

Other baby books, some of them are probably useful.....