Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Other subjects

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Flip

1 2 ··· 26 27 28 ··· 34 35

Original poster

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

857 replies

mummygow · 11/05/2006 18:41

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.

OP posts:

WWWontSlagOffAnyone · 13/05/2006 09:55

I agree with morningpaper and Harpsi.

If I were Gina Ford I would be issuing a statement pronto withdrawing all threats of legal action against mumsnet and recognising that people are free to disagree with her and debate her methods. Especially on a parenting site. Where's the newsworthiness of that? There is none and the whole thing would go away. If she does take action it's newsworthy, quite rightly, and the ensuing debate (and possible closure of mumsnet) will be thorough and potentially damaging to all concerned. And lawyers in general will accept payment to act in almost any matter, as someone said earlier. They're hardly likely to say "oh no, you might not win, we won't take it, it won't be pretty, spend your money elsewhere' are they? And the PR effect of using the law doesn't bother them, why would it?

I agree with zippi and others: I didn't particularly care one way or the other about GF before this tbh. And so if there is a 'serious issue' which will cause GF to sue we should hear it so we can ALL decide if it is serious or not. I suspect, in the grand scheme of things, not. But time will tell. If it's about matters which are 2 years old, goodness, that's erm, a long memory!

Papillon · 13/05/2006 09:57

I am sure there are many people though who just leave their child to cry to sleep as well though. I know kids like that and they look and feel loved. It is one aspect of parenting. The traditions of King and Ford are still in our society. And it would be extremely sad if the internet was that moderated for MN to be warned off and Gina Ford to be banned.

I am abit jealous really, if I flounced I would not get that level of attention. There have been plenty of celebs that have been tallked about on MN, are they going to sue also!

WWWontSlagOffAnyone · 13/05/2006 09:57

lol enid!

harpsichordcarrier · 13/05/2006 09:58

enid

Pruni · 13/05/2006 09:58

(The CC we did was exactly like ztt describes and lasted one night. DS was 6.5 months and has slept through since. I don't know how I feel about it now - not entirely comfortable. But not sad either.)

hunkermunker · 13/05/2006 09:59

So I'm interested - is GF just asking that all swearing be stopped on MN and the legal threat will go away?

WWWontSlagOffAnyone · 13/05/2006 10:00

I wonder Hunker. I guess we won't know unless Ms Ford or her representatives choose to enlighten us.

hunkermunker · 13/05/2006 10:02

Because I'd have to fuck off too if that was the case, I'm afraid

zippitippitoes · 13/05/2006 10:04

I'd be able to stay..not sure if that is good or bad! I always feel totally self conscious if I swear unless really really angry

Papillon · 13/05/2006 10:06

Enid and I thought I was freak here - you are most welcome at the yurt

gf threads did tone down for awhile here so nice to have one to read and post on. What would we talk about otherwise on a parenting site!

JoolsToo · 13/05/2006 10:09

controlled crying was around in the 70's

mp - I really don't think politics comes into it!

ruty · 13/05/2006 10:10

ah well i apologise to GF for wrongly attributing to her my HV's bloody mindedness!

zippitippitoes · 13/05/2006 10:10

Looking back, there probably was an implication at the time that i was advised to do controlled crying with DD1 who was also a faddy eater extremis and very underweight that I was too child centred (I followed Penelope Leach's Baby and Child..as I knew absolutely nothing about babies and I don't think I'd ever really seen one before!)..but I was too preoccupied with her and my pregnancy at the time to notice!

tamum · 13/05/2006 10:49

Completely agree with morningpaper, harpsi et al. I think the political argument is very interesting, and the need for a structure when you have come from a tough career and so on. Again, like many of you I just found her methods not to my liking (although I hadn't read those quotes about the mother reluctantly giving a top-up bottle, and the baby left to cry for 3 hours ) but the moment all this legal action stuff started then I feel much more strongly. That sentence originally said how I feel and why but of course it would have been libellous, so I have cut it.

For me, this is not about controlled cyring- it's not something I particularly associate with GF, it was around years before she came on the scene, and I have absolutely no issues with people doing it in older babies.

Freckle · 13/05/2006 10:53

For someone who professes to be deeply concerned about new mothers who have little or no support, etc., how would she like to be labelled as the person who was instrumental in the closure of a parenting site which provides often essential support to new mothers??

If she were to do something like that, I think the general view would be that she is more concerned with her own pocket than with supporting new mothers.

FrannyandZooey · 13/05/2006 10:55

Of course it's political - you can't get much more political than controlling mothers and babies.

Jimjamskeepingoffvaxthreads · 13/05/2006 10:56

well exactly tamum.

harpsichordcarrier · 13/05/2006 11:01

no. I think the issue is not really to do with cc (which I have done too btw, with older babies).
It is about the assumptions about the "right" way to look after babies that are becoming the norm with new parents - well the ones who attend antenatal classes anyway
that it is OK to leave a baby to cry for long periods
that it is desirable/essential that babies learn to be independent from a very early age
that babies should only be played with and cuddled or given comfort at certain times
that demand feeding leads to all sorts of problems with supply, with your baby and even with sibling rivalry
and that it is crucial that babies sleep through at an early age and that if your baby doesn't then this is a failure on your part

imo and ime these ideas have seeped into the cukture at a certain level.
and to say in this breezy fashion - oh well anyone can pick and choose from her books - is an oversimplification of the way in which influential expetrs can affect all sorts of parernts expectations, and also a misunderstanding of the dreadful way many new parents feel in the post natal period. confident, experienced parents can pick and choose and ignore - but by no means are all parents like that.

Jimjamskeepingoffvaxthreads · 13/05/2006 11:04

yes you're probably right hcc.

harpsichordcarrier · 13/05/2006 11:05

am I?
oh how marvellous
mwahmwah to jimjams

sfxmum · 13/05/2006 11:15

well put hcc
i think also it provides a rationalisation for a way of dealing with infants, which imo, is not desirable as i think it does not come from a good knowledge of child development, but rather from a problem solving perspective.
and problem solving is what a new parent often wants. it is however a short term solution for what should really be the start of a long term way of relating to the child

Pruni · 13/05/2006 11:22

HC you're right
The New Parent is commonly thought of as an adult capable of making the same cool and rational decisions they made before having a newborn. "I will choose this car/house/career because it fits with my lifestyle/image/politics/aspirations" etc. Fuck me, nothing could have been further from the truth when I'd just had a child, was being tortured by sleep deprivation etc - but crucially I was desperate to see myself as the same person I had been and so was quite happy to play along witht he notion that I was a reasonable adult faced with a set of problems which could be reduced to a few simple, clear rules.

tamum · 13/05/2006 11:28

Very well put harpsi. Pruni, that makes perfect sense- I realise how very lucky I am that ds was born pre-GF and that it was only just starting when I had dd (at which point I didn't "use" anything but common sense and instinct). I never heard anyone suggest that controlling little babies was possible, and everyone I knew fed on demand. Lucky me, with hindsight.

JoolsToo · 13/05/2006 12:27

ditto tamum which begs the question why are people so quick to reach for a book instead of using "common sense and instinct" these days?

zippitippitoes · 13/05/2006 12:30

How can you have common sense or instinct about something you know nothing of though...if i hadn't gone to ante natal classes or read books I wouldn't have known anything at all about babies

Flip

1 2 ··· 26 27 28 ··· 34 35