Gina Ford yay or nay?

[Tracy551162]

Just finished reading the Gina Ford Comtented Little Baby book and have to say that everything she says is very logical and makes full sense. She writes and explains everyhting in a very structured way and I found it is very easy to follow.

I am now looking at The Baby Whisperer by Tracy Hogg and I find that book so unstructured and random, but so far she is saying the same as Gina Ford bar the odd bit here and there.

I think I am going to try with the Gina Ford method, but obviously adapting for my and my baby's own needs, and without getting in a flap if I get behind schedule.

Has ayone else read these books or tried to work by them with their babies? Am I completely mad even mentioneing the name Gina Ford? I've had a lot of negative reactions from friends, who say she's a baby nazi - most of them haven't even read the book though.

Thanks.

I think people can afford to lighten up a bit - my experience is not the norm in that one of my sons is autistic and the other is not. A developmentally normal child will attach to the parent irrespective of any parental choices ( short of chaining them down in a cellar). I see developmentally normal children every day and there is no way of telling how they were fed or brought up in infancy. There is always a danger that a parent will choose a parenting method that appeals to the parental mindset or that is fashionable in their peer group - and this can be the case for routine based or non routine based theories. Of course parenting can make some difference to a child but I think it used to be more widely recognised that the wider society, family, religion etc all played their part in forming a child. Now a child is seen as a 'one woman project' and therefore the mother feels that she is the subject of a lot of scrutiny and judgement.

hmmm. re read tikTok's post - you see you've done it again - you've said that a style of parenting tht is unresponsive and damaging and thatf people might choose not to follow it as a result.

I do not believe that GF is either nresponsive or damaging. When I tell ym childnre one day (????) that I used a GF book when they were babies, and that as a result I was able to cope better, not walking around the house sobbing through lack of sleep, or thru baby's lack of sleep. That I felt more confident to deal with my baby, and respond to their needs, because I was confident they were well fed (both my babes are huge, but they always were), and then I could learn to judge the crying for what it was, and handle them clamly and lovingly. I was a damn sight less stressed once DS was ona the routine than I was before. That had to be good for our relationship.

It does not mean one size fits all. Some children thirve on no routine, and some do not. I come from a fmaily of engineery types, as does my DH, it is in our genes to like routine, and safety, and to know what is happening next. I found with both my children that they v quickly learnt to anticipate meals, and milk and did not feel the need to cry for food - they trusted me to bring it. This is not the same as creating comliant un fussing babies. They simply trusted me, and have continued to do so.

With regards to altering the routine, and going out, it was hard with DS, but to be honest, i was depressed, adn found my best excuse not to go out was that I mght miss some daytime tv programme!! I had to leanr to trust me, and my baby that we could go out and vary our day, and that he would survive - and he did. So it is not as restricting as epople think.

TikTok - sorry. it looks as though I'm jumping on your posts. i don't mean to.

Truce?

cyberseraphim, you say "There is always a danger that a parent will choose a parenting method that appeals to the parental mindset or that is fashionable in their peer group - and this can be the case for routine based or non routine based theories."

Absolutely - which is why the best 'method' is to enable parents to parent responsively and to enhance and enable their own 'good' parenting skills, getting over any bad experiences they might have had themselves. When they are enabled to do this, their babies will respond - as you say, they are 'programmed' to love their parents and to attach to them, and will work very hard to make themselves loved, given the chance!

Repeated ignoring of these loving overtures and expressions of need will make the baby switch this off - the baby protects himself from rejection, in favour of physical survival. This is easy to see in extreme cases of neglect or cruelty (like the locking in a cellar example you give), but not so easy to see in more subtle situations, and may not even be apparent in childhood. It may only emerge in adulthood, in agression, mental illness, depression and anxiety, obsessions, mild personality disorders - and in their own attitude to their own kids.

I am not equating a GF regime to any of this - in practice, most parents don't adhere to it, anyway, or at least not to the extent of ignoring their children's 'non-routine' needs.

I am talking about any 'method' (written in a book, passed on from granny, copied from the TV, pulled out from the parent's own beliefs, wherever) that does not support (or worse, sabotages) the parent and the baby's developing relationship.

That's why I dislike any 'how to' book of childcare that purports to be a one-size fits all. Buy a book that tells you how to wash matinee jackets, by all means, or gives you hints on safety, but not one that tells you stuff about when and how to respond to your baby. That happens, when you are supported to be your unique, loving, mothering self, and which allows space for your baby to be the same.

shrinking, you're putting words in my mouth. I was talking about 'any' parenting style that was unresponsive and damaging, not saying you or anyone else engaged in this style, and not linking it to any book or persnality.

You are clearly not an unresponsive or damaging parent

MabelMay etc, there are some babies who magically do sleep a lot from an early age with no "training" etc, the majority of them are formula fed, but some are breastfed. But, most babies don't, and artificially adjusting thier sleep/feeding habits and leaving them to cry is unnatural etc.

We would be far better to tell expectant/new parents to expect to be woken for months rather than weeks, this way they wouldn't feel like failures and resort to sleep "training" and routines.

Monkies

greenmonkies,

I totally agree that the sleep deprivation should be explained more, at least you could prepare for it psychologically, whereas I found it such a shock, just hadn't really realised I would be up every 3 hours for 3 months..

However, I must say a clear routine worked great for me and DS. It was GF, by the way. If he had cried or not wanted to go to sleep, I wouldn't have persevered with it, but she is quite good on the natural rhythms of most kids, and most of it is common sense, like teaching them that night time is for sleeping and they will get fed and looked after but it's not playtime or whatever.

Also not being selfish but to be a better mother I personally had to get a bit of sleep and have a strict routine to retain my sanity. DS didn't suffer and was very well fed (BF), the baby has a lot of needs but you have needs too in order to care for them...

Gina Ford? Nay for me although she came highly recommended by good friends of mine. Just goes to show how different we all are and that "one size fits all" is a fallacy.

Never felt like a failure when up all night just knackered, miserable and unable to physically cope the next day, grumpy mummy, wandering round like a zombie too dangerous to drive and care for 2 then 3 babies etc,etc,etc.

You'd have to be on another planet if you didn't expect to be woken by a newborn. I resorted to sleep training and GF to be a better mother during the day (and night) instead of a snivelling wreck. Didn't have the luxury of being able to sleep all day on the sofa, far too much to do(meals to make and eat, washing, fresh air to get, sanity to retrieve etc) babies had to fit into my life not me into theirs as we'd have all gone under pdq.

Gina was the thing I ever did, my babies learnt very quickly that night time is not the time for fun and games unless hungry, ill or wet, something all children have to learn at some stage. The alternative is to try and suddenly sleep train a toddler having being used to attention whenever requested. They thrived on it, were far more chilled,happy, contented and sociable less grissly as they were no longer sleep deprived and had more to give during the day.

As many others have said we're all different personalities with different babies and circumstances so have to do what works for us as individuals and our babies. One size does not fit all. Doing what makes us happy is important as is not condemning others for doing things differently.

"Gina was the [best?] thing I ever did, my babies learnt very quickly that night time is not the time for fun and games unless hungry, ill or wet, something all children have to learn at some stage. The alternative is to try and suddenly sleep train a toddler having being used to attention whenever requested. "

Since when did AP'd babies get played with in the night?? This is a common huge and extremely annoying misconception!! DD1 was a frequent night-waker, until I wised up and just put her in bed with us, but for 18 long months we suffered as we tried to do things the "conventional" way. DD2 is a fantastic sleeper, not quite a 7-7 baby but nowhere near as restless as DD1. Why? Because I didn't do things the "conventional" way, we gota 3-sided "bedside" cot and she slept beside me from the first night she was born. Guess what? She didn't get played with, no fun and games, she knew night time was for sleeping, even though she was fed on demand and not "trained" to sleep in any way. Who'd have thought it??

Mine is not a house of sleep deprivation and chaos, I know when my baby (now a toddler) needs a nap, it's roughly the same time each day but ultimately because I can see when she's getting tired, I read her cues and signs, not a timetable or the clock. The same is true of when to feed my kids etc. I know them, I understand thier habits, personalities and cues, and respond accordingly.

Rigid routines are not the only way to achieve this! (which is essentially what the OP asked)

Monkies

No need to be so defensive, I'm not judging you. I said my babies were no longer sleep deprived not yours. Certainly never said your house was chaos either.

I have no interest in how other people parent(no idea what an AP'd baby is) unless it affects me. The op wanted to know people's experiences of GF. I replied.

It's all horses for courses.

Greenmonkies, you appear to begrudge other mums their good sleepers... especially if these have come about as the result of putting their babies in routines. I get the impression this is because you had 18 months of sleepless nights with your first DD. Poor you. But no need to take it out on the rest of us.

MilaMae, i think AP is Attachment Parenting.

MM.

Burn the GF book and use what you want from the others! The babies don't read or care what the books say. They just want an available mom.

Tracy if you're out there, trust your instinct. I really feel that people who have not had children of their own have an instinct with a child. You don't need a book you need to be in touch with your instinct. Deep down you know what your baby's needs are and how you should meet them. So please do not get caught up with routines. Trust your instinct and enjoy your time with your baby.

PS I am intrigued as to where you've gone, and hope you are a newbie whose question was genuine.

Tracy, I'd echo the last poster, but with an exception - follow your instinct, and if you want to use a book of any sorts, then go for it. Be preapred to change what you do if your baby really doesn't respond. Some babies love routine, and feel safe, and nurutred, and attached, and confident in those routines. Some babies want milk etc as and when, and need a different style of parenting. You won't know when your baby is born what type of little one you have, so you have to go with the flow for a bit.

Be preapred, as others have said, for those waking nights. No routine, even GF is a cure all for broken nights, it has to happen, for a little while at the very least, and sometimes for longer.

Listen to what others have to say, tkae on what you want to, or can, and leave the rest. smile politely and walk away from those whose methods you don't like.

I, personally, am not keen on co-sleeping, but for some its lovely.

Tracy, if you are still out there, do come back. You posted on a theme that ignites a lot of strong feeling, as is easy to see. It is not about you!!!

Just looked at Wikipedia and the "Rockets to Lebanon" comment is described as "Infamous". Am I allowed to ask who made that now internationally famous comment please? and are they still on here? Or is that not allowed?

Got it

So if your instinct tells you to follow a routine, you should ignore your instinct and not have a routine because half the research says it is wrong but if your instinct tells you to avoid routines, you should follow your instinct because half the research says this is right. Finally got it !

GF worked for me. I was able to enjoy the days more because I could sleep through the night. I found it easier to stick to the routines with the second child because I had more confidence in them and less time to wing it. I personally think it´s worth a go, even if you only manage to loosely follow the routines in the beginning, eventually both my babies seemed to slot into them and it suited them and me. I did hurl the book across the room with my first child at one time but she did seem to adapt to it after a short while and things did become much easier. Each to their own I say but if anything helps then it´s worth its weight...

I started using GF when dd was 4 months old as she was not feeding or sleeping well. That motherly instinct I was looking for did not emerge and I was clueless about how to tackle the problems. Within a week of following GF both dd and myself were transformed (IMO it should be renamed the contented little baby & mother book!) Dc 2 due in two weeks and CLBB is my current bedtime read. Can't wait to get going with it again. I'm convinced dd is a happier child because of the routines.
I just wish it had all come naturally to me in the first place - but it didn't and I was terrified.

Mabel and Mila, I'm not defensive or begrudging, but it does annoy me when people infer that the only way to avoid chaos and sleep deprivation is to put your baby in a routine.

If I were to keep a journal for several weeks I'm sure a "routine" would be obvious, but it's one that's evolved, not one set by someone else that we've followed, iyswim?

I am seriously confused by all the people who claim to be "Gina" fans but who also say the adapted the routine to suit thier child. If you read TCLBB you'll see that GF says over and over that you have to stick to the routines and that if your baby doesn't settle into them that it means you're not being strict enough.

And yes, AP is Attachment Parenting.

Monkies

Gina may say that but I know loads of people who have 'adapted' her routine (me included) and it has still worked fine.....I basically followed her routine as much as I could but did not stress if it wasn't going exactly to plan...and she herself says that if one day is different, not to worry, and to pick up again the next day.....