why is the "success" of life with a baby always measured by how detached you get them to be?

[emkana]

You know - not held too often, sleeping in own bed/own room, not feeding too often...

case in point is my friend with six week old baby, she is desperately trying (and to be fair to her succeeding) to get him to sleep through the night and fall asleep by himself, and not to "give in " too much to him during the day either -

I don't get it! Don't get me wrong, I think she has to do what feels right for her but I question whether she is doing it because that's what she wants to do or because that's what her mother/her sister/society keep telling her she should be doing...

yanbu. In fact, I think people go even further and start labelling your baby 'good' or not depending upon their sleeping habits. I've often wondered why it is that a 'good' baby is one who sleeps the whole time? Surely sleeping the whole time is not the key skill you'd want to bestow on a grown-up?

But if your baby is a crap sleeper and you adopt the sling-wearing, co-sleeping approach, why must you then go about declaring that your child is not at all clingy and that you are fine actually thanks, and not sleep-deprived and that you are glad you didn't leave your DC to cry because that's cruel etc etc... It's all just so judgmental and defensive! My dd was a rubbish sleeper, I did the sling-wearing, co-sleeping thing, and you know what, she IS clingy and I WAS sleep-deprived and above all I remain confused about whether I did the right thing.

To those parents saying that well you just deal with the baby you've got and they are all different etc - I completely agree but I think you've got to be quite confident to do that and many first-time mums don't really know what to do and, like me, they turn to the baby books like contented baby etc and feel like a failure if they can't 'achieve' what the books say should/could be happening.

I suspect your friend with the 6-week-old would say that she is trying to foster independence, rather than promote detachment, which sounds less pejorative! I agree that it's a v cultural thing and that the prevailing culture supports what she is doing.. I read somewhere that the US/UK parenting approach is one where parents encourage their babies through a series of developmental milestones agreed by professionals (including milestones related to sitting, walking, sleeping through the night, weaning) whereas in other cultures that would be rather alien and in some cultures the focus is on trying to encourage dependence upon - rather than independence from - the community/family unit. I suspect it partly stems from what is valued/defined as successful in diferent cultures.

Ds1 slept through the night at 5 weeks, if you'd have fed him every three hours you'd have had to wake up a VERY angry baby.

So less of the "poor little thing" please. You don't have that baby, you don't know how it ticks.

Also agree about the idea of promoting independence at 6 weeks to be a bit odd, but I think this happens because so many of us are focussed on achieving the milestones and having an independent baby later down the line so you feel that you've got to start now or you'll be setting yourself up for failure later.

Also, I was a terrified ball of nerves with ds1 and he was like a little robot when it came to his self imposed routine.

People with clingy whiny babies can't comprehend sometimes that you can put a non clingy baby down and walk off and leave it to settle, and you don't have to have tortured it with inappropriate sleep training, or beaten it every time it cries, and that it's not detached or abandoned and given up - it's happy.

LOL colditz I can't remember when DS slept through the night. But I do know that I wasn't going to wake him up to feed him, guaranteed one pissed off baby! The boy likes to sleep. It is inherited.

Colditz - it was only when I joined mumsnet that I realised such babies as your DS1 existed! (My two are not like that and in fairness it does sound as though the baby the OP is talking about is not like that either - otherwise she would not be 'desperately trying' as described). But many of the baby books/HVs etc do not acknowledge these differences and push the idea of single approaches/goals.

Of course your baby's not my baby, colditz, and of course I don't know what makes it tick. I couldn't (and wouldn't) comment on whether your or anyone else's baby should be feeding through the night or not. The fact is that most 5 week old babies do physically need to be feed during the night. Mine certainly did and I would have had a very starving, angry baby if I did not.

That's not the point. The point - which I think was clear from my post and what this thread is about - is that the way we speak about babies and their habits is to suggest that "good" babies sleep through the night and "good" mothers achieve this. The language we use congratulates mothers who achieve this and encourages them to get to this stage asap even when that may not be realistic or even a goal they should be striving for.

"Poor little thing"?

how do you know it's a "Poor little thing"?

I could nitpick language with you from the same basis. YOu are implying that every baby sleeping though the night at 5 weeks has been somehow mistreated in order to make it do so. You are assuming that all babies need to be fed every three or fouor hours in order to be happy. This assumption is as wrong as an assumption that every baby needs to sleep through the night.

And this is not the case, any more than it's mother is a 'good mother' for making it do so.

I think that you are reading too much into my post, colditz, but I understand what you are saying and I certainly didn't mean it that way.

Just to be clear then:

• I do not think that every baby needs to be fed 3/4 hours in order to be happy. I do think that most babies do.
• If a baby's natural rhythmns are such that it sleeps through the night from birth and it is well-fed and growing and happy then that is great (and one very lucky mum).
• But if a young baby needs to be fed in the night and is instead being left to cry then I do think that is a real shame and I do feel sorry for the child.

Despite how my post may have appeared I don't make assumptions that a child sleeping through the night falls into the latter camp - I was thinking of the OP's reference to the mum in question "desperately trying" and to RL conversations I have had with mums "training" their babies from very early ages when I wrote that but it is not my automatic reaction.

Getting back to the point, I do think there is a lot of pressure on mums to get their children to sleep through as quickly as possible and that this is perceived as a "success" when imo it isn't necessarily one or not one. If a baby sleeps through for all the good reasons in scenario one than that is just down to the baby and has nothing to do with perfect parenting and if the baby is sleeping through because of scenario two then (in my own highly subjective opinion) that is far from perfect parenting.

its not luck..i reckon a healthy term breastfed baby will generally start giving you long lengths of sleep (both mine did, 3/4 of my mums did) from about 6 weeks...

i agree that things like co-sleeping are often see as opposed to things that are not incompatible. I'd have quite liked it if my 'poor little thing' had gone to sleep off the boob instead of wailing disconsolately until i was out of the room....and if he had been up for going back to sleep with us after his morning feeds...

Yup, ds1 would never snuggle in with me in the mornings.Bed was for sleeping, the LIVING room was for being awake, and once he was awake God Himself could not have kept him happy in that bedroom.

In one way, a clingy baby is easier as they get older because all they seem to need to be happy is their mum. Ds1 ran me ragged. He didn't need me to be happy, he needed CONSTANT stimulation. Ds2, although a clingier baby, is still happier when I am around, hence my very presence can make him happy.

Bit of a nerve really to describe a baby as a poor little thing then say that the pressure put on mothers comes from use of language such as good baby etc.

Is language important or not, and whose language should we read stuff in to?

Perhaps you're reading too much into the term good baby?

how will you know if a baby sleeping through the night is just luck if you never try to make your own do it? I don't mean tinies, I mean 2 year olds who are still waking up at night because they've simply never been told/shown that it's not aacceptable to disturb everyone's sleep because you're bored?

"its not luck..i reckon a healthy term breastfed baby will generally start giving you long lengths of sleep (both mine did, 3/4 of my mums did) from about 6 weeks..."

Why just breastfed babies. Can the same not happen with a FF baby ??

Both of my boys were FF from day one, and DS1 slept through the night at 8 days old. DH & I stayed up all night watching him & waiting for him to wake up !!!

DS2 slept through the night at 4 weeks old.

I can't really remember with DS1, but DS2 fed every 2-3 hours through the day, so had obviously filled up enough to sleep through.

If a baby chooses to sleep right through the night, why are they "Poor Little Things" ? I would not have woken either of mine up for a feed, as others have said, they would have been pretty bloody miserable & I would have worried that I would not be able to get them back off again. On the odd occasion either of them have woken up in the night crying, I leave them for a couple of minutes to see if they settle themselves, then if not I will get them a bottle. I wouldn't leave them to scream the house down, as I'm sure, none of the other posters would either.

People will always ask if a baby is sleeping through the night or not, and I have always been happy to "brag" about the fact that mine do . Why shouldn't I ??!

I have a friend who has twins & she is always commenting on how lucky I am & how she wishes hers would sleep through. My SIL is the type of person who won't put her baby down, carries him around everywhere, panders to every whimper, and constantly moans about how tired she is because he doesn't sleep through. So, not all people who choose to remain firmly attached to their babies actually enjoy it, and would actually much rather be able to put them down & be able to do something for themselves for a little while.

I do not think I am a bad parent, or cold or hard because I will let my lo cry for a few minutes when I put him to bed awake (), it has actually worked for me. But I also do not think that my friend or SIL are bad parents either because they won't do what I do. All I will say is I know who has the happier baby & even happier mummy!

i put it that way chunky, because people often imply that BF = no sleep. crap.

same for co-sleeping. i found i got lots of sleep.

neither means you don't sleep if you ff/ have baby in diff room.

As I said before in my first post, I really do believe that it is each to their own. Whatever works for one, doesn't necessarily work for another, so it's all about trial & error until you, as the mother, find the best way for you and your baby.

Your baby = your choice

Who is anyone else to say what's right or what's wrong ?!

Colditz, I agree that there is a big difference between young babies and older children. There will come a point when every child crosses a line to a place when he no longer needs to wake up in the middle of the night and it is more a case of habit. His needs change. And then I think he does need help to try to learn to sleep through the night. For each child that point will come at a different time and each parent will have different views on how that is best achieved.

I was told that once a baby was on solids at 6 months that they should be sleeping through but that wasn't true of DS. But there did come a point - when he was nearly 1 and waking once a night fairly regularly - when it was clear that this was purely a habit and that I needed to be more proactive in helping him sleep through. I suspect I missed the boat by a couple of months and if I was the perfect parent I might have taken that iniative earlier on but it was working for us and so I didn't bother. If I had left it forever though he might still be waking up and I agree that wouldn't have been "bad luck".

@chunkymonkey

Unbearably smug emoticon here too<

though i think behaviour like the OP's friend exhibits is typical first parent angst - they worry if they don't start out like that it'll never happen. once you have a couple more, you worry about that less (and worry about other things instead)

Why do people say "oh yes, bf babies are always clingier than bottle fed" when I make mention that bf DD (4 months old!)is hard to settle if I'm not there (tbh, she's not been great lately even when I am there!) - 'clingy' being one of the worst things a baby could be apparently!

Why does nobody ever comment instead on what a strong bond there is between the two of us that she is more upset if I'm not there to comfort her? (And no, I'm not suggesting for a minute FF babies don't bond with their mothers as successfully, it's just that 'clinginess'[heaven forbid!]is felt to be more a bf baby trait by people I know. And universally felt to be baaaaaaad at 18 weeks old and younger!)

And why is sleeping through the night (or not)is taken as a direct reflection of your parenting skills as opposed to the luck of the draw??!

It is possible to be a parent who
doesn't want a baby in the bed
makes some effort to get the baby sleeping through by 6-9 months
doesn't want to be tied to breastfeeding after 6 months

and who is still a good parent

Well said pointyhat

well of course it is pointy hat, but since pretty much the whole of society, "common wisdom", the media and the overwhelming sensibility backs up that kind of parenting, whereas those the op is talking about are mainly derided and stereotyped, I'm not sure I understand why you feel the need to make that point?

I agree with nooka. I wish we could get away from xxx is best for all babies. My midwife said that all babies liked being swaddled. I knew from the womb that mine didn't, he moved his hands continually, I tried telling her but -no 'all babies liked being swadded'. I watched and he struggled and struggled and got his hands free-I though it was wonderful, he was one day old with a mind of his own! DS1 and DS2 were cuddly babies-DS3 wasn't he wanted to be down and on his own! He is the most like me and I really don't think that I would have wanted co sleeping as a baby (I can't say that for sure of course!). I never know why touchy-feely should be superior-some of us just aren't particularly. I did cuddle my children a lot-but with the population at large I would rather keep my distance-unless they are in need of a hug. People who are close and cuddly always seem to think this is best and the rest of us are lacking-we are not!
Pointyhat has it exactly right! Most people choose a middle ground, some go to both extremes, all that matters is that it suits them! A lot of nonsense is talked, and people are made to feel guilty if they are either attached to their baby at all times or too detached. You are the best mother for your baby and should be free to do it your way without criticism. Mine are older now and I have 3 lovely sons who like my company and like to spend time with me. They are emotionally stable and happy-I don't think you can ask for more! If babies get warmth, food,sleep, attention, cuddles and their needs met, with a happy, relaxed mother they are fine.

Pointyhat makes a very good point and that point needs to be made on a thread like this. To get a balanced view at least.