For all who want GF banned from MN - so does she!!

[mummygow]

As you are all prob aware I follow the Gf routine and am also on her website and this was posted for us to see.

Dear Members,

In response to your emails regarding the statement in The Times Newspaper on 9th May 2006. We would like to confirm that neither Gina or her lawyers have put pressure on Mumsnet regarding the criticism that her methods receive on their forums. Gina was forced to seek legal
advice regarding other very serious issues with Mumsnet, and we will in the near future make a public statement as to her reasons for this. It would appear that some Mumsnet members are demanding a ban of the
Gina Ford name on the site. Gina herself would welcome this, as her forthcoming statement will confirm, she has for very valid reasons, no wish to be associated with the Mumsnet site.

i agree that the bizarre nature of how this thread arose could only really be met with light hearted- ness. And also agree however you choose to bring up your child someone is going to make you feel wrong/small at some point. But one should always [as has been done here by chapsmum, jimjams, GC et al] consider scientific research.

I read that book when I was pregnant.
It scared the crap out of me and I don't own a watch so I lobbed it away.
I survived.

no swearing on here please ladies (see below)

the book is fantastic for short people when they want to reach a tin of beans on the top shelf.

It must the book lobbed most by pregnant women, I did exactly the same as Rowlers

OK what's happened, who's flounced, what's the story?

i have no idea - and can't be arsed.

however i hear its also good if you have a wobbly table

I have kept out of all this, but I have to say, I am so so so so so so so so so so so so so S. O. sick of hearing about gina bloody ford. sick. sick sick sick sick sick.
good bad right wrong dont care fed up. i never ever ever want to hear or see the words gina ford again. i may scream.

arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh

shes my bestest mate that GF

well its being childish or taking her and ann clough seriously.

not a hard choice, really.

btw I am always interested to hear the views of people who have met Gina Ford to get another perspective.
my judgment of her is based on her books (and particularly the case studies in those books, like the one describing leaving the baby to cry for three hours at a time), the advice she gives about feeding, the interviews I have read with her and of course her actions vis a vis mumsnet
this isn't prejudice or snap judgment - it is reasoned and carefully considered and I stand by it.
simply calling this debate "childish" doesn't escape the genuine issues raised on this thread and others about her methods.
as someone who meets new parents professionally, her books are very powerful and her methodology is becoming the norm for many people. the issue is much wider and more important than individuals being made to "feel small"

ruty I didn't mean for it to be bizzare, when I read my e-mail I thought about all the mnetters that would like GF's name to be banned and thought well so does GF so everyone will be pleased, so as I said I thought it would just be a list of posts saying, good!!

aww come on this was light hearted. Personally I have not truck with GF or her methods if people find them useful. Have even been known to give a top up bottle at night with all 3 of mine (made no difference to supply for ds1, did for ds2 and ds3). I just don't like threats of litigation, especially when mumsnet towers have deleted the personally offensive posts (as they have). Not sure what more they could do really. If it goes to court I'm assuming mumsnet will shut down because of the costs involved in defence.

light hearted - ness? a hyphen worthy of Ann Clough. Well, it was late.

Mummygow, sorry, i was really referring to AC's post as bizarre, not yours.

Agree with HC about the summing up.

i meant

harpsichordcarrier bloss is a sworn again gf you must have read her posts and seen the threads? Bloss has sworn off these threads though it seems and can understand that.

A good mate of mine uses gf, after 5 children though loosely. But it will get them to sleep if they accept it quicker. and they are lovely kids. But I still would not use it. Like you said Chapman it thwarts intuition. Love and intuition are something scientific research has a hard time really defining.

Yes Paps. it does seem in this case that research might support intuition though.

it is the introduction of law into the situation which has dictated my view now, especially as as far as i understand there was an escalation due to some satirical and very lighthearted banter.

I have no particular strong views on Gina Ford or didn't have until lawyers entered into discussions.

I find it interesting that there's a definite trend towards conservative thinkers liking Gina Ford's methods and liberal thinkers NOT liking them. As a very generalised example, I've read sevearl articles praising her in the Telegraph and whenever she is mentioned in the Guardian it is in a very negative light. I suppose that's logical especially with the previous thoughts about the nature of a child being inherently 'evil' and needing correction which is a conservative point of view.

Agree with controlfreaky2 - there is a definite unfair "bullying" going on here by someone with a lot of power (in terms of legal threats / financial power / market power) and that is very distasteful. And therefore language that would not be appropriate for someone with less power is acceptable.

Harpsicordcarrier is also right that GF methods have a lot of swap - I have been told by several health visitors that I should use controlled crying for example - and the acceptance of those methods is largely due to Gina Ford's theories of childcare. She is therefore setting herself up as a scientific guru about child development - which she has absolutely no qualifications to do. There are lots of people who think her methods are harmful to children - including health professionals and psychologists - and parents. That needs to be said.

If we cannot have an open debate about what might harm the development of our children, then what is the point of having a parenting site in the first place?

a lot of swap = a lot of sway

I actually though there was some fascinating stuff on this thread (some really eloquent stuff from chapsmum and that article drawing the analogy with religious views about sin/human nature) and - in the circumstances - very little that was personal
somw things juat cry out for mockery. and that post from annclough WAS YELLING for it
imho

And I also think that Gina Ford's current reactions to criticism smack strongly of someone who is not entirely sure that she is right.

And when her methods are being used to raise and develop the minds of thousands of children, that, in itself, is extremely disturbing.

i remember feeling like a freak when i refused to try controlled crying with my ds - i was made to feel foolish and weak by my HV. Why have they taken on GF's methods so wholesale?

This may all be wrong so apologies in advance if it is!!!

But from my own experience I thought "controlled crying" became more widely used in the early eighties as a result of the Great Ormond Street Sleep Clinic and a psychologist(?)who ran it.

Babies/toddlers were referred through HVs or GPs for intractable sleep problems which were affecting the health of abies/toddlers/children and their families.

Dd1 was referred in 1984 to an outreach clinic from Great Ormond Street where we had a consultation which was very thorough and included medical check ups. We were asked to keep a sleep and food diary and write down dd1's activities in other words just about everything daily. This was I think for 2 weeks. Then we were advised on a method of controlled crying for night time sleep. This was putting to bed and returning consistently at five or ten minute intervals, laying her down again and saying a few words and a gentle pat. The essentials were to be totally consistent. It did work. But we did this for intractable problems which were having other health side effects for me and her and we did it under medical advice.

A version of this was then introduced to the general public (can't remember the author/psychologist)and it was then more commonly used as time went on.

But using it for young babies and leaving babies in distress is something entirely different.

i'm too sweary for the ford
too sweary for the ford
fuck bollocks bugger

It's interesting mp what you say about these methods having been 'accepted' into the mainstream - it wouldn't have occurred to me that the form of controlled crying we used was anything other than the norm.

I think there are two influences at play: one is that our parents and possibly the trainers of today's HVs largely came from the "stick 'em' under a tree in all weathers and let them exercise their lungs, don't feed 'em a minute before schedule" generations - hence a lot of Truby King style advice is being handed down as some sort of norm.

And secondly, our lives tend to be very organised. Most new mothers will have worked, and had a schedule to keep to five days a week. Suddenly there's an organisational void that they need to fill. You don't go from having two-thirds of your day decided for you and the other third largely predictable, to no time constraints and few appointments, without finding it hard to adjust. CLBB is quite attractive from that point of view (notwithstanding the fact that your baby probably won't fit the pattern and you'll die of boredom).