Active discussions

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Parenting

For free parenting resources please check out the Early Years Alliance's Family Corner.

Original poster

GIna devotees only - how & when didyou start trying to put baby in a routine?

160 replies

bodenbetty · 16/07/2006 12:51

I don't want to start anything contentious - just windering how to go about starting teh whole routine thing. DD is only 10 days so probably a little young just yet but am trying to think ahead. her idea of night & mine don't coincide but have stared feeding her in the dark from 7pm on hoping she will get teh message!

OP posts:
Are your children’s vaccines up to date?
Set a reminder
Tortington · 20/07/2006 18:59

what kind of a comment is that? stop being so judgemental. if her child was damaged in any way i think she might have mentioned that.

fkinell

spidermama · 20/07/2006 18:59

No. There are times when I can't bite my tongue. I will keep my comments to a minimum as I know they're unwanted but the whole GF thing makes me sad and angry for the babies involved.

piglit · 20/07/2006 19:00

You are right - it worked for her. Good.

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about these subjects:

Families General parenting
piglit · 20/07/2006 19:01

Thank you spidermama. I'm glad I'm not alone.

Tortington · 20/07/2006 19:02

i personally despise everything GF stands for. however what i do understand is that some people find parenting easier than others. those who find it easy, those think it natural and lovely and bonding are lucky - why this leaves however is a huge sympathy/empathy gap. for those mothers who may use different techniques

this is like the sausage roll argument or the bottle feeeding or the dummy argument- i mean honestly whatever gets you through the day

if it works better for you personally and your child then great.

piglit · 20/07/2006 19:03

I'm pouring myself a glass of wine Custy. Can I interest you in one?

Xena · 20/07/2006 19:04

I do agree that GF is a little harsh. But those of you commenting so harshly is just anti gina or anti any form of controlled crying?

zippitippitoes · 20/07/2006 19:06

I don't think it is like sausage rolls and dumies or any other trivia..

routine fine lovely but i think there si sometimes smetimes something more than a bit chillingwith an individual description of how you got there whether intentional or not

I would go for misinterpretation of the idea of the benefit of a routine

sure;ly the baby must come before the parents?

silverfrog · 20/07/2006 19:06

Actually, if you re-read yomellamoHelly's post, it doesn't say anywhere that she left her baby to cry - she said that it took a couple of nights for him to not protest. For all you know, she spent hours comforting and settling him, whilst gently guiding him towards what she wanted (as I in fact did with my dd when she was tiny and I followed GF)

Just because GF is mentioned in a thread, people have to assume that babies are left screaming their heads off for hours on end.

Tortington · 20/07/2006 19:08

i'll be fucked up the arse with a boating oar if i'm arguing for GF

does olive know your offering her branch? peace out

i vote pro choice.

i atually think theres a middle ground - in my case it was do the best you can until near nervous breakdwn then go into another room and cry til dh gets home

harpsichordcarrier · 20/07/2006 19:10

piglit, you tell it how you see it. no harm at all in having a point of view.
would you be interested in joining our rota for GF threads of people who come on and say, but what about the baby? we have some spaces.

zippitippitoes · 20/07/2006 19:11

and I thought it was going so well

harpsichordcarrier · 20/07/2006 19:15

"Just because GF is mentioned in a thread, people have to assume that babies are left screaming their heads off for hours on end. "
well no silverfrog, no one said that but the post did say the first night was a nightmare. and that it took weeks for the bay to "accept it" whatever that means. I imagine there was a fair bit of crying involved, but maybe not. Maybe the baby was never left uncomforted. I find it quite refreshing that people talk about what it takes to put a baby itno a strict routine. if you did spend hours comforting your baby, then you didn't follow GF's routines at all, simple as that. there is no room in them for hours of comforting.

harpsichordcarrier · 20/07/2006 19:19

hello zippi yes I agree with your post. quite right.
though i quite like the Custy method too .
I think it a bit sweeping to say - well if you are finding parenting "easy" good for you and we are somehow "lucky". I don't find it in the least bit easy actually. but even if I was finding it fkn hard then I would still consider my baby's wellbeing first.
of course I would, that's what parenting means.

Greensleeves · 20/07/2006 19:21

I like the idea of being fucked up the arse with a boat oar. I mean I like the expression. I didn't mean - oh well, never mind.

zippitippitoes · 20/07/2006 19:25

and controlled crying is so much totally unrelated to gf

I have said loads about this before no one mentioned it here until the last few minutes and baby crying is not per se cc..and there is a big difference between a young baby and a 9 month old

oohh [shoots self in head emoticon]

silverfrog · 20/07/2006 19:28

What an absolutely ridiculous statement, harpsichordcarrier - yes thanks, I did (and do) follow GF, and no I never left my baby to cry uncomforted. I was there, and I recall it perfectly. There is room for comforting, you make the time, that's what being a parent is about. And actually, someone did imply that yomellomoHelly's baby was left to cry - piglit, in her 6.54 post. And if I had posted (as I so easily could have) that it took a few nights to get my dd into the routine, then I am sure that people would also have assumed that I left her to yell while I sipped a G & T downstairs. I wish a few more people could be like Custy, and see that it takes many different things to suit us all, and that the most important thing for parents is the choice to do what suits them and their lifestyle.

harpsichordcarrier · 20/07/2006 22:13

what's a ridiculous statement silverfrog? sorry I don't understand your point.
I have read GF's CLBB and the timetables in there are very specific. which doesn't sound like the method you used at all.
My question is - if you are so happy with your method, then why is the tone of your posting so defensive and bordering on the paranoid? no-one (except you and some others who have used the Gina Ford routines) has talked or implied anything like babies "screaming their heads off for hours on end" or "downstairs sipping G&T's", or even (for heaven's sake) that people who use the GF methods don't love their babies?? so why get so very defensive and hyperbolic?

silverfrog · 20/07/2006 22:40

"if you did spend hours comforting your baby, then you didn't follow GF's routines at all, simple as that. there is no room in them for hours of comforting." - that is the ridiculous statemnet I was referring to (as I think you actually knew, since this is the point you answered). I don't think my postings are defensive (well, they are in that they defend GF methods, but not in any other justification way) and certainly not paranoid, but I guess it depends on the tone that is inferred when they are read... I repeat that it was mentioned that GF followers might leave their babies to cry alone - 'Nice first lesson to teach your child. "No matter how much you cry no one will come".' - piglit's post of 6.54 (also referenced earlier). I merely pointed out that there is another way to guide your child into a routine - out of the GF followers I know, none have gone "cold turkey" so to speak, and all have used the routines, as GF herself comments they should, as a guide to work towards. I do find it amusing that you make a huge generalisation about my use of the GF routine from one comment I made regarding how one might guide a baby into a routine. For what its worth, I didn't have to do many hours of comforting (I think maybe a total of about 10-15 hours over the first 6 weeks) but I do recognise that I had an exceptionally sleepy baby who took great delight in sleeping whenever I wanted her to for the most part (and one who has always eaten very well, and generally been an absolute breeze so far)

happybebe · 21/07/2006 09:06

that is a totally ridiculous statement, if you spend hours comforting your baby then you didnt follow GF routines at all....is that coming fom someone who has used them then?!

i have used them with both my babies and helped my friends follow it too who have chosen to follow it after seeing how HAPPY my babies are, so i think that classes me as someone who is eperienced in using the GF routines. Perhaps some young babies are left to cry for hours with mums who use GF but that is the Mothers fault not GFs no where does she say leave your babies screaming for hours before the age of six months to force them into my routines, it is COMMEN SENSE not to leave your baby screaming for any reason at such a young age. when MY dd1 cried when it was 'time' to go for a nap, i didnt look at my watch and go 'shit its 7pm and shes not in bed better sling her in and leave her bawling her eyes out' i would comfort her for as long as it took, and if that was two hours that was two hours. once she settled happily i would then just wake her up at the next feed. I am sure hundreds of GF mums have done exactly the same.

my 3 and a half week old has just gone down for her MN...earlier than the routine time of 9 o clock and she had a cry for less than two minutes as she went off to sleep and is now sleeping like an angel...so tell me...should i have gone in and got her up the minute she whimpered? of course not, all babies will have a little cry before settling themselves...but for some reason people automatically assume that when a GF mum says 'without a whimper of protest' it means she has been leaving her child for hours. total nonsense.

harpsicord you are very hung up in pointing out that you cannot be a GF routine follower unless you follow the exact times as stated in her book, that is also total nonsense, like saying you cannot be a catholic if you use protection to stop yourself getting pregnant, clearly against catholic rules....who says you have to be a strict GF routine follower? she certainly doesnt...

happybebe · 21/07/2006 09:28

elsie has now woken up earlier than routine time of ten o clock and i have got her up and am cuddling her i will now put her down at the next routine time unless of course she gets too tired...because eventually of her own accord she will fit into routine times just like my DD1 did once she is ready and able.....but because i am not forcing her to sleep till ten, tell me, does that mean i am not a GF follower??? if i feed her five minutes before it says in the book does that mean i am not a GF follower???

Imafairy · 21/07/2006 11:28

Oh dear- I thought this one had gone quiet but obviously not. Without being too much of a pedant, the thread title CLEARLY states that it's a thread for Gina devotees only, which begs the question: if some of you get so upset about Gina (which you are fully entitled to do) then why did you venture in here???
Remember, we are here to support each other, not slag people and their methods off (unless specifically requested to do so of course )

((jumping off soapbox emoticon!!)

morningpaper · 21/07/2006 11:31

Iamfairy people think that there are aspects of GF which border on abuse and neglect

so telling them not to contribute - on an open internet forum - when people might be encouraging others to follow these practices, is just futile and wrong

morningpaper · 21/07/2006 11:33

anyway have we heard from SWMNBN lately?

Dottydot · 21/07/2006 11:33

I'm with Custy - if it works for you, then brilliant. If you think it borders on abuse and neglect you're clearly not going to try it! Isn't it just common sense at the end of the day - try it, or don't..?