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

[Picante]

HERE.

What a mean-spirited thread. I think many of you are looking for an enemy to hate, if you choose GF to be that enemy, fine, so be it.

I won't even go into the whole discussion of her appearance. I won't even go into the whole discussion about her methods. Whether they're 'cruel' or not is open to debate, each of us can have completely different opinions on that, and I won't spend any time getting into that. The thing is, there are also as many ways to follow GFs methods as their are followers of GF, so it's simply silly to go into such discussions. Just a tiny note to agree with those who have pointed out that, eeerr, in her books she never advocates leaving a baby hungry. But anyway.

Just wanted to comment on something in particular. I've read her autobiographical book 'Good mother bad mother' & I thought it was well written, quite funny at parts. And the main thing: it paints a very rich, interesting, complex and very very loving relationship with her mum. A real relationship with its ups & downs. I think GF was kind of brave, to be honest, to write like that about her relationship with her mother especially when people have been saying all these things about her. Lots of people don't easily admit to flaws and difficulties AND the love that goes with all that.The idea that she's been 'abused' is just ludicrous. But then again 'abused' is a word that's very popular these days, & is so very often used completely out of context so often & sometimes with no sense of how 'heavy' a word it is.

The idea that she's (for that reason) presumably creating methods that show no compassion etc is also ridiculous. That's armchair psychotherapy of the worst kind, a mean psychologizing and interpreting things that we all have no idea about.

I can also only laugh at the idea that mothers are "biologically driven by love and a primitive desire to nurture their child". So what about all those mothers who remain detached, who (actually do) abuse their children, who see their children very very little etc etc ETC. I think there are fantastic, nurturing, wonderful nannies (or friends, or relatives or whatever) out there who love the children they look after to bits. They mother those children like the best of mothers out there. What an idea that a mother learns how to mother & nurture just because she biologically gave birth. It's a process we all hopefully can learn, but its not a given!! Certainly not based on biology. (What about adoptive mothers out there)?

And how horrible of you, Amulg, on using the expression 'that childless woman'.

I think you've got this the wrong way round. You have an author who proposes that babies should be ignored when they cry, if, in the author's opinion, there is no need that has to be satisfied (which is a bid of an odd proposition anyway, but whatever).

This isn't about whether someone can be a good adoptive mother, or whether a nanny or childminder can be caring. It's about a someone who claims some expertise but clearly does not have the emotional attachment to a newborn baby that the baby's mother would. (Or an adoptive mother, for that matter.)

Yes, of course nature isn't perfect and not all mothers are perfect. But it is undeniably true that in general biology does drive us to meet our babies' needs. Otherwise the human race would have died out long ago, given human babies are born uniquely helpless for mammals, let alone apes. (Because we stand upright and a baby that was full term for us as apes could not fit through the female human pelvis.)

Actually Edam GF does not say anywhere in her books that babies should be 'ignored when they cry' (need or no need). Basically, according to her (and you may agree or disagree, fair enough)if babies have good routines & their needs are met i.e. they're not hungry/tired, they're very unlikely to cry. IMO an overtired cry is very different from a hungry cry etc. In any case, speaking from my own experience, I created a routine for DS at about 4-5 months & his crying was much less than before. Anyway, but as I said that's beside the point, I realize routines don't work for everyone obviously!!

I'm just saying, her ideas are not rocket science, they're just common sense IMO, & I think lots of MNers have a VERY skewed idea of what they are. If you want to be against a very strict, harsh, restrictive parenting regime, fine, I'm with you! But Gina Ford' not your person.

'Nature' drives everyone who is very close to a young baby to look after & respond to this young baby. Its about how much time is spent with a baby. If a maternity nurse or nanny spend loads of time with a young baby, she will also have an intense emotional response to that baby. And from what I understand GF has spent lots & lots of time with babies.

Anyway, this is neither here nor there. I just mainly wanted to say that, first, I thought the blog article was mean & irrelevant (what was its main point in any case? It didn't discuss the routines) and second, I've read the book 'Good mother bad mother' and there's nothing there that's 'abusive' or otherwise about GFs childhood.

And by the way, what I most resent on MN is the idea that mothers who create a routine for their babies are somehow 'detached' and not driven by 'intense emotional responses'. Its insulting to be honest, and so caricaturish, it ends up being silly. If people want to believe that children that have been 'GFed'(the expression has unbelievably been used on MN) are somehow deprived, fine, believe it. But at least have the courtesy to have a conversation about what the whole thing involved with mothers who have actually done it & could give you their thoughts on it?

It's the notion that cuddling your child to sleep is a bad idea that makes me laugh. Why on earth wouldn't I want to cuddle my children as they fall asleep? I have a friend who wept on my shoulder one day because her DH and HV were making her feel guilty for letting her eight week old fall settle in her arms. Because of course we should ignore thousands of years of instinct.
I don't think GF is wicked, that would be ridiculous. I honestly think she believes her way is the best for mother and baby. But I agree with others that having not been a mother herself, biological or otherwise, she cannot possibly understand the emotions involved.
Incidentally it's utter tosh in my case that it makes a rod for your back as DD1 (2y9m), on the rare occassion we don't cuddle her to sleep, is perfectly capable of self settling and has been for some time.

Her relationship with Clare Byam-Cook does her no favours either imho.

PuzzleRocks, again though, you're caricaturing the whole thing (which so often happens here on MN, I find, when it comes to GF). Obviously there's nothing wrong with cuddling your 8 week old to sleep. There's nothing wrong with cuddling children period! The problem becomes when after months & months of ONLY cuddling a child to sleep (and I'm not talking about 8 weeks old here, I'm also not talking about cuddling to sleep once in a while) what might happen- in some cases, not all- is these children might learn that they can only fall asleep when cuddled. In which case they might require cuddling to sleep for hours, or a parent next to them in order to fall asleep and stay asleep, which may create a problem. Its common sense really. If the cuddling to sleep is not creating any problem then I don't see why a parent would change it If the cuddling to sleep (or any other thing really) means that after months or even years the child can ONLY sleep that way which might mean the parent is sleep deprived, then GFs routines might help. That's it really.

Uh oh. How long before there are calls that the Daily Telegraph should be shut down?

Fair point Maria. I guess the problem I have witnessed with people is their thinking that, in order to work, her ideas must be rigidly adhered to.

Well yes obviously, if someone rigidly follows any parenting book & doesn't use their own mind then that's not the problem of the book, its the problem of the parent. I would say the same actually for strict adherence to anything. If someone follows attachment parenting (for example) & is collapsing from sleep deprivation (I'm not saying all APers are sleep deprived before someone jumps on me!!) then they too should be open to change something in their outlook.

By the way, I really don't get why Gina Ford's picture should be out there more etc. If she's a private person & doesn't want to do interviews, have pictures taken etc, what's the problem? Actually its kind of refreshing in our celebrity culture to have a well known person live differently & not buy into the whole celebrity thing, at least I think so. I don't see it as negative.

Can't argue with that.

But if you don't follow it to the letter, it's not really a routine is it?
I think that is why so many people baulk at the idea. She does advocate routine and in people's minds, rightly or wrongly, that is a rigid thing.
I willing to accept that perception of her may not be accurate. After all, I have never read her books myself. Just offering it as explanation for some of the negative feelings toward GF.

I'm

There is actually nine routines in the book, and within each routine GF gives advice on how to adjust the routines to meet the individual needs of each baby. She recognises that the sleeping and feeding needs will vary, and that some babies may need more sleep, or feed more often.
Contrary to what is often posted on Mumsnet, she does advise for babies to be left to cry.

What she does say about controlled crying, is that it should only ever be used with older babies,who have learned the wrong sleep assocations. Even then only on then advice of a GP or health visitor.
She believes that if you follow the routines pproperly and adjust them to suit your baby's needs that your baby should hardly ever cry.

She also makes it clear that she wrote the book for parents who wanted routines, so obviously it is written assuming that parents want some sort of routine.

What is particularly annoying is the implication that Gina Ford is forcing mother's to buy her books. She does not do television, radio and you rarely see giving interviews in the paper. Some people just can't seem to live with the fact that her books do work for many of us, and that we are not ruthless parents neglecting our babies needs.

As several other posters have said this is a particularly nasty thread, and what Highlander said about her childhood is disgusting.

Why is a routine a rigid thing?

I have a routine for my 17 month old DS & it doesn't stress me at all, nor is it rigid. If I have to change something I do, and I don't stress about it. I think tbh that we all have routines as adults, and some babies actually thrive on having a regular routine.

Obviously if a mother gets completely stressed if her baby wakes at 7.15 instead of 7.00 then that's taking the whole thing a bit too far IMO. But GF doesn't advocate doing things rigidly, she gives guidelines on how to build a routine, that's all. People take different things from her books, and use them in different ways.

IME all new mums can get stressed about all sorts of things, regardless of whether they follow this or that book (especially with a PFB). I followed no routine for the first 4 months of my DS's life & I was so stressed I couldn't think straight. So the idea that its routines that stress mothers out is wrong, I think its just early motherhood that's stressful anyway. Routines- for some mothers- actually help to make them feel less stressed. And I do think having a regular routine helps keeping the baby well fed & well rested, minimizes whingeing & overtired-crying (but that's just my opinion)

Also, the one thing I never have understood with these threads is why do people assume routines mean you don't have physical closeness with your children?

Lets take my own DS's routine: If I wake up at 8 (lets say), have breakfast soon after with my boy, then he plays until lunchtime, has lunch at 12, then a good nap between 1-3, then plays until his meal at 5.00 or so, then bedtime around 8.00, what, may I ask, stops me in having this sort of schedule from giving him endless cuddles & responding to him during the day? I really really don't get why people make these assumptions. If my child has his lunch at 12.00 or 1.00 or 2.00 what makes that more conducive to cuddles than if he has it around 12.00 every day?

The closeness thing I guess stems from the suggestion that a baby should not co-sleep and should be in their own room as soon as possible.
(This is what I have heard, please correct me if i'm wrong).

But in answer to your second paragraph, I honestly don't know. I would say i'm more AP inclined and your day sounds pretty much like mine.
Aren't people talking about tiny babies though? I believe in breastfeeding on demand which doesn't work within a GF routine.

I hope you don't mind me asking all these questions? I am genuinely interested because my oldest girlfriend is pregnant. GF has been recommended to her by two women. My instinct was to tell her not to listen because I really don't think it's her thing. know it's not mine. But I realise I may not know enough to make that call so I appreciate this dialogue.

I read GF's book when ds was a baby and it was hugely prescriptive. 7am you and baby should be awake and feeding for 20 minutes, 7.38 you should be eating toast, 7.50 you should express 3oz of milk etc. etc. etc. It's all very well saying 'use your common sense' but GF is talking to parents of newborns who are inexperienced, sleep deprived and struggling to get to grips with an entirely new situation.

Maybe more recent editions are less barking, I dunno. But the edition I had contradicted SIDS advice and guidance on establishing breastfeeding. That was shocking from someone who sold herself as an expert.

How did the book contradict the SIDS advice ?

Maria and Pri well reasoned posts. Puzzle it's refreshing to see balanced and interested replies.

The other 2 ladies summed it all up far better than me but I just wanted to say a couple of things. We're not all programmed to mother in the same way. I'd honestly rather eat my own hair than co-sleep, bf on demand and rock babies to sleep. I had 3 under 18 months so it would have been impossible anyway. I was trying that way and it just wasn't me I was trying to fit a round peg in a square hole, I hated it.

The GF way was me. Instantly all 3 of us(my twins and I 1st) just relaxed. I need to know where I am and my boys are like that, even my hippy son. My daughter is the same. We all need regular food and sleep,none of us function well without it. If we get over hungry or tired none of us are good.

A lot of people say oh all babies follow the GF rhythm why can't you let them do it themselves. Mine couldn't they needed guidance,I needed advice as the 1st 2 newborns I'd held were my son followed by his twin 2 minutes later. Waiting for the 3 of us to find this rhythm was getting all 3 of us down, it was hell to be honest.

As Maria said the routines really aren't stressful for many,many mums that's why GF is so popular. The only extreme stress I felt as a mother of babies was pre-Gina.I found the co-sleeping, Bfing on demand and rocking to sleep extremely stressful, many other mothers don't though so I can't condemn it or their mothering skills. It suits them as they have different personalities and therefor need to mother differently.

Because I mother differently doesn't mean I'm not close to my kids. I gave up my career and my kids spent nearly every minute with me bar pre-school sessions after 3 when little. I was lucky, mentally and financially I could do that, not all women can or want to. Being at home just wouldn't work for many. Does that make them detached? Of coarse not, we all mother differently as we're different people with different needs.

To judge other mothers and hurl insults just because they parent differently is completely wrong and sad and that is why I comment on these threads 6 years down the line.

Thanks MilaMae. I appreciate the feedback. I suppose I have been guilty in the past of thinking that since my way works so beautifully for my family it must be the only way.
I really want to make the transition to motherhood as smooth as possible for my friend. I'm discovering that to do that I need to be more open to other parenting approaches. I would hate to think that she felt compelled copy my example if it was not suitable for her own family.

My own mother did things very differently to me and I think she did a fab job.

Yes, its refreshing that a calmer discussion is emerging as part of this thread (that was on a different topic, after all- it was about that horrid article...well horrid IMO). I agree wholeheartedly with what MilaMae says: co-sleeping, bf on demand, wearing a sling, having no routine: all these ways of parenting are not natural, or in any case they're as natural as anything else. AP does not suit everyone, its not helping new mothers who are stressed anyway to present AP as the 'natural' way & GF as the 'unnatural' way. What I think is useful (at least that's how I talk to friends who are about to become mothers) is- when they ask- to tell them there are different ways of parenting, different options you can try, depending on what suits you. Saying to them 'its normal' (as most people on MN usually do) when a completely sleep deprived mother says her 9 month old is waking 3 times a night is not being honest with that mother. Its normal or not, depending on your approach. Lots of children fall naturally into good sleep rhythms & good routines. Most do not & need a bit of help along the way. Its honest & helpful to say that to new mothers.

As for the way the GF books are written, I take the point that they're not everyone's cup of tea but at the end of the day, each person can take from them what they want.

I am not good at following orders so SWMNBNs books are garbage to me. They seem very old fashioned but I know mothers who like them (it is usually a good way of finding out if you are going to have anything in common with someone IMO).

Her attacks on mumsnet made me personally very angry and I am now fairly vitriolic on the subject if it ever comes up. I like Nick Clegg and I think her reaction to his comments was ill judged and did not show her in a flattering light.

However I think the article was mean spirited. Her looks are obviously not something she wants to share with the world so he should not have brought the subject up, it is irrelevant.

Bad lighting?