Has nobody mentioned this yet? ((WARNING: Contains graphic images of SHE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED))

[Picante]

HERE.

I think you're all treading on dangerous ground now...

my doctrine is dont listen to any guru,esp self appointed guru's

I don't really see why it matters what she looks like but I would also like to be crossed off her list of 2 million followers having consigned her book to the dustbin.

I'm sure the routines work for some babies but the problem is, you don't know if you have one of those babies or not until you try them - by which point, if you have a baby who doesn't suit her routines, you become a guilt ridden failure.

I don't like her advice but I think it's completely irrelevant that she's called "chubby".

Typical 'criticisms' reserved for a woman - too fat, unattractive. How on earth can she be taken seriously then?

It's her ridiculous, uneducated doctrines that make her unable to be taken seriously, not her appearance.

'In the pictures Ford is noticeably chubby ? one wonders just how chubby. Yet, none of the interviews I?ve read mentions anything about her appearance.'

As much as I don't like Gina Ford's methods, I don't think her appearance and weight are relevant. That comment just seems nasty.

I agee, her looks should have no part in any of this.

The Guardian comments about her too

She said the Lib dems should get a new leader as he spoke out aginast her . Lib Dem now have a host of new voters

I was listening to a radio talk tiem about her yesterday, couldnt help but giggle when the radio presenter suggested that babies are not robots amongst other things

...still roffling at Shirley Ghostman

I don't think it's a good or fair article. If they want to criticise her then criticise her for her methods / job / what she says she is (I'm not saying here that I think she needs criticising for this, merely that if one were to criticise this should be the target). It strikes me as poor writing to look at her past and try to armchair psychoanalyse someone from a few choice facts. My inner femenist also pokes her head out to comment on the fact that her looks are considered important - she's a writer not a model! It's undermining women as people if we judge them as their body rather than their substance. Grrr.

I agree that her appearance shouldn't be an issue but not offended enough not to suggest this lookalike

Message deleted, retyped and deleted again.

some being v petty.gf's an author not a speak your weight schleb.doesnt matter what she looks like

on that basis do you appraise other females in media on basis of looks?

germaine greer eugh nah she got wrinkles
melinda messenger oh yes face smooth a as baby arse
natasha kaplinsky frothy and oh so incisive

I agree about the appearence thingy...if I didn't I'd mention the likeness between her and the lady Justin plays in Gigglebiz

I so want to comment.

I am definetely not a GF fan but I do feel sorry for her after that article. I also seem to remember that she only recommends controlled crying as an absolute last resort, although I may be remembering wrong. I actually find some of her devotees far more repugnant than her. It is their smugness and assumption that other mums have only themselves to blame when their baby doesn't sleep that leads to such hatred towards her book. Although GF does have that attitude herself and now I am contradicting myself.

I'm no fan of her methods, but I must say that article is cruel.

I might have felt sorry for her after the article. Then again, how can you feel sorry for someone who genuinely believes that people will choose which party to vote for according to whether its leader likes a certain childcare guru or not? Are not delusions of grandeur to some extent their own compensation?