Anyone seen todays Times about Gina Ford's new book?!!!!!

[louby78]

OMFG is all I can say. Anyone who doesn't like her will now see their hatred excel to a new level.

Apparently new mums should go on a date night with their husbands 4-6 weeks after the birth of their new baby and have sex even if they don't feel like it. Other mums share their tips and one woman actually says...."you may have to grin and bear it"!! EXCUSE ME?!

When her mums are feeling down she tells them to have a bath, shave their legs and paint their nails!!!! Not sure about anyone else but when my children were babies I could just about manage to brush my teeth! And as for sex...... well sleep would be my priority but I guess if I'd listened to her my babies would be sleeping through from 6 weeks after I put them in their own room and left them to cry until they got the message.

All this from someone who has never even had a baby. If she too had pushed out a baby bigger than a melon, had to be cut and then stitched together again (not to mention the bruises which made it hard to sit down for a week), then she maybe qualified to offer new mums advice. Until that day she should just keep stum.

It's like reading something from the 1940s. Silly cow.

GF took aim at MN in order to make an example of it. And also because obviously the people talking about her were people who were parents, and not some lads forum where the size of her boobs, etc., could be discussed in probably egregiously offensive terms. I agree with Edam here.

There was equal heat generated by the Ferber book in the 90s, just as much of a brouhaha and as much questioning of his character, his experience and credentials, lots of personal attacks, etc. But no threats to sue that I am aware of...

Just like GF, later editions of his book pretty much retracted a lot of the guns blazing approach he advocated in the first edition. People who saw all of that back then took heart that in the end sensible parents saw the light. Or they realised that babies all eventually sleep.

If GF couldn't defend her position without abusing the court system (because threatening libel is like guaranteeing yourself a hefty cheque), it doesn't fill me with confidence, etc...

O I see. So people were equally vile to someone else. That's all ok then.

I appreciate that parents have things to do and places to go. I have five DCs and after the first it was all systems go, all the time, every day, all week, for years and years for me; toddlers, time and tide wait for no mum.

Life in the 21st century has moved on obviously, but babies are still the creatures they were back when life had a slower pace. Solutions to the conundrum of how to get the baby to fit into a busy life are hard to come by without some element of pushing the square peg through the round hole.

The problem is a so-called problem because it is one that was made in the days before mothers were allowed into the workforce; the sleeping or non-sleeping of the baby are only a problem when the nature of the baby comes bang up against the demands of the workforce or whatever other claims to a mother's time make it impossible for her to get enough rest. Yes, still a practical problem, but it is a pity that it is the baby who has to change.

The other people didn't respond the same way. She could have come out looking a lot better personally even though her ideas are highly questionable. From a PR pov the decision to threaten legal action didn't help her and actually added to the criticism of her ideas, because no matter how much anyone claims to have science or experience on their side, books of this nature do reflect the personality, cultural bias, personal preferences and maybe even aspects of someone's upbringing that they might not perhaps be aware of. The heavy handed approach of her legal advisers seemed par for the course for a method that approaches babyhood as an unruly episode in the life of a family that demands the imposition of order.

I look back at the early days of ds's life and . I knew nada, read no books and just thought I would wing it, seemed to work in all other areas of my life...until I was taken in hand by a new friend, an ex nanny. She almost moved in, and was forever banging on about going out on a date with my dh to 'keep the magic alive'. I felt I'd been magical enough by delivering a handsome, healthy son but what did I know.

I was breast feeding every half hour, day and night and using the breast pump for hours to leave enough milk for ds whilst on my 'date'. Dh was totally bemused by the date, we talked of the baby and the sleep deprived madness and rushed home early to check he was still breathing. Then we did the deed, as I'd been harrangued by nanny friend this was the done thing, to get back in the saddle, putting it off would make it worse. It was horrific. I couldn't stand dh near ds's my breasts, the stitches were agony, the piles, the ventouse bruising. Hideous. The next day friend tripped and fell down my stairs, wearing stillettos and carrying my precious boy and I finally saw the light. She had to go. The pile of books she foisted on me were given to the charity shop and I went back to listening to my instincts.

I can't even talk about the hour of 'controlled' crying she made me endure. I still feel guilt over that. It went against every natural mothering instinct in my body.

I would be quite concerned if a baby slept for a very long period of the night at 16 days. I though the frequent wakenings were one of the reasons bf seems to reduce incidence of SIDS, so I would not want my baby to be in a very deep sleep for hours on end. I figure the disturbance caused to me (which I am not underestinating!) is why I have maternity leave.

Yes, the 'problem' of babies not sleeping isn't the baby's problem, it's the parents'. The baby's quite happily doing what it's doing. Framing it as something the baby's getting wrong and needs to be taught to do differently (or 'better') is purely a parental perspective.

Ok. So you appear to be saying that working mothers shouldn't dare try to get a full nights sleep as this is entirely 'our' problem. Or should we just stick with the paid employment and not even think of breeding, cold hearted cows that we are.

Why can't there be a middle way? What is wrong with at least trying to encourage a baby to sleep as long as possible through the night? Bcause a frazzled despairing mother is no good for a baby.

I am all for a middle way. Extremes are rarely helpful, and that goes for GF and her bashers equally.

People aren't saying that, they are saying it's a whole lot more complicated than GF admits and her quick-fix solutions are far from ideal.

I think, also, that babies don't know day from night, they don't know when to have a longer sleep and when to cat nap. As parents, we should be teaching them. Why can't that teaching start form day dot?

from

Babies do not need to be taught night from day. Humans are naturally diurnal. Circadian rhythm. Tiny babies do nap during the day and go through phases where they are awake more at night. But it is just a phase and they do not need to be 'taught' that night time is for sleeping.

Does anyone else await all the future "Contended Little X" books by GF? For fathers, big brothers, little sisters, grannies, aunties, teachers, police officers, prime ministers, etc.?

Should be good for laughs, that's for sure.

I dont do routines and am a go with the flow mum but I dont think there is anything wrong with having date nights and continuing as normal at 6 weeks. You can still go places and do stuff babies are pretty portable and just go with the flow. I dont advocate having sex if it hurts or you dont want to but by 6 weeks most people I know were back to sex. In my work I have known a fair few over the years who were pregnant again by 6 and 8 weeks!

I thought Octavia was saying quite clearly that if a baby doesn't sleep it is the parents' problem, not the baby's.

It seems to me that it is potentially a problem for the FAMILY as a whole. I don't think it is very useful to make sleep deprived parents feel even more shit because they are dealing with only a 'so called' problem.

I didn't have the luxury of years of maternity leave. If my baby hadn't learned the difference between night and day fairly early on it would have been very, very difficult for both me and my baby.

I do get a bit irritated with the view that you can't possibly impose anything upon a baby, it has all got to come naturally and be led by the baby. Bollocks to that. My daughter had a whole variety of entirely 'natural' reactions and desires which, if I had left unchecked, would have caused her quite a lot of harm. Such as her 'natural' desire to explore dangerous situations.

Isn't parenting rather a dynamic relationship between parent and child? Not simply a pyramid with the baby on top.

I am confused Spero. Are you irritated with the view that you can't possibly impose anything upon a baby, or irritated that you were apparently forced into a situation where you were unable to be led by your baby due to a lack of maternity leave?

I really do get that women go back to work, either through choice or necessity. I work full time, my DS is 15 mo and i saved money mercilessly from the time we started TTC to enable me to take 10 months off for precisely this reason - i needed to feel that both my DS and I were ready for me to return to work. And that did afford me the 'luxury' (wholly earned on my part i might add) to take a good amount of time off. But we are talking about very young babies in many cases (according to GF, the moment they pop out) being put into a routine, which i just don't believe is natural or right. I totally understand that when they get older and are at an age to understand you help give them checks and balances to curb their 'natural' reactions - that is parenthood after all. But, a newborn ffs?

Molly, I don't think pregnant again by 6 or 8 weeks could be considered a good thing by any stretch of the imagination. That was another thing that had me puzzled about the GF book. You can get pregnant after childbirth without ever having a period and it is not good for the mother.

Igggi you are absolutely right about what research is finding out the more frequent waking (that often comes with breastfeeding) is important when it comes to SIDS. MadameChinLegs, here is what is wrong with 'training' babies from the getgo: Newborn Sleep Patterns

'...newborn sleep isn?t completely divorced from the natural rhythms of the 24-hour day. Studies show that circadian rhythms begin developing in the first days after birth. For example, a German study reported that 2-day-old babies were more wakeful and slept for shorter periods during the daytime (Freudigman and Thoman 1998).

Another German study showed that during the second week postpartum, babies slept more at night than they did during the day (Korte 2004). And, in Japan, Matsuoka and colleagues (1991) reported that 1-week old infants slept more often after feedings that occurred between midnight and 4am than after feedings at any other time of day. By the second week, infants slept more frequently between midnight and 8 am than they slept at other times (Matsuoka et al 1991). This was true even though infants continued to receive night time feedings.

This doesn?t mean that your newborn?s sleep schedule will resemble yours any time soon. It takes about 12 weeks for infants to show day-night rhythms in the production of melatonin, the ?sleep hormone? (Rivkees 2003). And circadian changes in cortisol?a hormone that regulates waking?may take even longer to emerge (Rivkees 2003).

Overall, babies may take 3-5 months before they ?settle? at night?meaning that they sleep for more than 5 hours at a stretch (Jenni et al 2006; Pinilla and Birch 1993)....

...When a newborn first falls asleep, she enters into immediately into ?active sleep.? This rather restless sleep state is the newborn-equivalent of REM (rapid eye movement) sleep in adults. Just as adults are more likely to awaken during REM, newborns are more likely to awaken during active sleep (Anders 1979; McNamara et al 2002).

Newborns remain in active sleep for about 25 minutes, after which they slip into a deeper sleep state known as ?quiet sleep.? Compared to active sleep, quiet sleep is characterized by slower, more rhythmic breathing, little movement, and no eyelid fluttering. Babies are less likely to awaken during quiet sleep, but this situation doesn?t last long. After another 25 minutes or so, the sleep cycle ends. Newborns then either awaken or begin another 25 minute stretch of active sleep (Anders 1979; McNamara et al 2002).

So newborn sleep is different in several important ways. For one thing, newborns spend much more time in active sleep than adults spend in REM. Whereas adults spend only 20% of their sleep time in REM, newborns spend 50% of their sleep time in active sleep. As a result, newborns spend a much greater proportion of the time ?sleeping light.?

For another thing, newborn sleep cycles are much shorter than are adult sleep cycles. Instead of 90-100 minutes, the average newborn sleep cycles lasts only 50 minutes or so. As a result, newborns are vulnerable to awakening much more frequently.

This sounds like a raw deal for parents. But the truth is that newborns probably benefit from being light sleepers. Having a low threshold of arousal may protect babies from SIDS....'

There is a huge difference between an ambulatory infant exploring her environment and needing protection from its dangers and a baby.

It was the former matana.

I agree that for the first three months babies are very vulnerable and probably would be better off still in the womb! So it is probably pointless and counterproductive trying to get into formal regime in first three months. But I don't see a problem with it afterwards.

Or at the very least, putting a baby down to sleep and trying to get some consistent bed times in evening.

Am reading this thread at work while supposed to be working. Oops. But it's riveting!

Not sure what I can add but feel compelled to add something now I've read all 11 pages. I am a semi GF convert having experienced a year of following my so-called instincts and ending up totally miserable.

I don't think this debate is one we will ever all agree on, just like religion, abortion, politics etc. But that's okay, because we're all different. Some need structure/routine/clock watching - whatever you want to call it - others can't think of anything worse. I am the former and always have been. It's my personality. Trying to raise my child any other way just didn't come naturally and made me feel utterly miserable most of the time. That's not wrong, is it?

The one thing I will say which will probably be a little unpopular is that I am amazed by the number of threads in the Sleep section written by mothers who have gone with their instincts and let their baby do whatever they wanted, only to find at 6/7/8 months that they are tearing their hair out with exhaustion. The advice that follows is often some sort of sleep training. I abhor controlled crying; as far as I can tell from GF's latest book (can't speak for her first), she doesn't suggest it as part of a routine either. In fact, the implication is, if your baby is well fed and well rested during the day, they won't be up every hour every night looking for the breast and yelling if they don't get it.

Not going to flame you loveis but presumably the reason people are posting in the 'sleep' section is because they're having problems. You're hardly likely to hear from people (even those led by their babies and not in 'routines') saying "my DC sleeps wonderfully".

I have posted in that section when my DS has gone through a 'phase' which is also perfectly normal for babies. I have sought, and received reassurance. I've BFed him on demand, let him fall into his own sleep patterns when he's ready etc etc. He slept through from 7.5 months and is now a reliable 12 hours a night little man, waking at 7.30am. So it seemingly did him (or me) any harm. On the other hand, when i was a new mum and had no confidence, i tried to force him into a routine because i thought that was 'normal' and expected. It made us both thoroughly miserable!

I agree with PP^^. Those on the Sleep boards who are struggling to get their sometimes even 2 or 3 year old to learn how to self settle, or parents who, at every nap time had the baby sleeping on them, or allowed baby to find it's own rythms which involve waking 4/5 times a night....as far as I can recall from these threads, these parents have been baby-led all the way, and refused to be routine-based. They then get advice on MN about trying to establish a routine...after a problem/pattern emerges. By establishing a routine (which, contrary to popular belief is not 'regimenting' or refusing) from the start, in the main, could result in a baby that sleeps through at around 3 months (just as your article says, Math), is able to self-settle, and knows exactly what is happening, and when.

my post was in support of Daisy's

Thank you for not flaming. :)

I guess the point I was trying to make is that the overwhelming number of people in the sleep section have the same things in common - they've all done it without routine/structure and now they are finding it harder to cope. I don't see many GF mums in there with the same problem (or maybe they're just not on MN. )

My biggest issue isn't even that. It's the fact that a lot of these same people sound like they may end up going down the CC route and I think that's the most unfair thing of all to the baby. You let it do its own things for several months and then you leave it to cry because you want to/are so knackered that you have to change the rules.

I have never had to do CC because I focused on getting things right during the day which I honestly believe promoted a good night's sleep (eventually... I'm not a proponent of forcing little babies into doing anything they're not ready for). My daughter was far from easy and still is an independent little minx, but taking topline tips from GF's book, we got there in the end.

I'm not being smug or judgemental of anyone who's having sleep issues with their babies (which yes, are inevitable at some time or another - although I think a baby waking every hour at 7 months is something else entirely and can't be classed as a phase).