So, how did our parents do it then?!

[Luckystar1]

I'm intrigued really.

We often get 'advice' from people, especially our own parents/grandparents, in relation to bringing up our children.

For example, the most recent thing from my father, is that I'll have to 'wean the baby off that soon' in relation to the baby (6 weeks) wanting to be constantly held and be in the sling. I also have a 22 month old so it mostly works for us all (although in fairness I would like to be able to put her down occasionally!)

I know for a FACT there is no way my parents did or would've carried me round constantly, so how did they do it?!

This is also in relation to things like getting us to sleep through the night etc.

The advice is given out as though it was so easy/obvious... So how did they do it?!

I'd be very interested to hear from those of my parent's generation (late 50s early 60s) as to how children were raised.

Oh and just another point... My DD wakes up if I don't hold her while she sleeps, and regardless of how drowsy she is, will not fall asleep unless on me (in the day time).

I just find it hard to equate that with my parents (and people above) saying they would never hold a sleeping baby etc... How have I suddenly no choice IYKWIM

I went back to work ft when ds was six weeks old and he wouldn't have been allowed in the office Bottles were prepared in advance back then and stored in the fridge. I knew when ds would feed and so he fitted in my schedule, childminder kept to the schedule. I didn't get up in the night because he was sleeping through in his own cot and very quickly in his own room.
To me having a baby constantly by me would be very wearing and limiting but that's probably because I have a definite need for my own personal space.
I don't really understand what attachment parenting is about if I'm honest what does it do that other methods don't? My dc seemed pretty attached to me anyway and even now as adults we are very close.

Oh no, see I don't WANT to be an attachment parent!! She LITERALLY will not be put down (I know she's very young) but she will stay awake all day, in the car, in the swing chair etc, unless she is on me.

I have absolutely no desire to be permanently attached to her. But similarly she just will not do it any other way, hence my interest in my babies of previous generations seemed 'easier' (as many of my friend babies are like my DD, but seemingly no babies from previous generations, as so many people are telling us it wasn't like that before)

You have to remember we only had 3 months (or less) for maternity leave. Its very different from taking a year or even 9 months.

There are some very odd ideas on p1 though - some people getting their centuries decades a bit mixed up

Obviously some of them didn't do too good a job, otherwise there will be more happy people around. Human babies are very adapt at maximising the resources to survive

Sometimes people with laid back babies who sleep anywhere and self settle from birth think their temperament is down to their parenting, when in fact it's probably just luck. All babies are different.

Luckystars when I had ds1 you spent five days in hospital. Midwives were very firm about feeding every three to four hours, babies were not allowed on mother's beds and they were taken to the nursery to be fed overnight by night nurses.
Routines were established before you had even left hospital as you had to ask for formula and it would have been noted when you asked previously. When you got home the midwife who visited would expect that you and baby were dressed and bathed before she visited and it would be frowned upon if you weren't.
Perhaps it was just that babies never got used to being held whilst asleep after all the midwives and night nurses had plenty to feed to wouldn't have time and so they slept without the need.

LuckyStar1 - my situation was exactly the same as yours. Had to be held all the time (though I'm generally not a 'touchy' person), would stay awake all day and would only sleep on me. I think some babies are just like that.

I think I'm really old fashioned after reading this.

I'm 35 with a 2yo and 5yo. Was guided by MIL and HV when first was born, but am definitely not an attachment type person anyway (could think of nothing worse than baby wearing or cosleeping). So babies were fed every 3hrs then 4hrs after a few weeks; I started off bf then moved to ff when they were about six weeks. I'm a huge fan of routine.

I'm very much feed/wind/change/quick cuddle then they're put down to sleep. Ditto PP who said about differentiating between night and day asap; night feeds were done in dim light, with no interaction or proper eye contact. Night nappies only changed if dirty. I also did cry it out/sleep training from about three months, and weaned at four/five months.

Both kids slept through 7-7 from 12 weeks, love their food and no problems so far.

I think a lot of parenting depends on who you are. My friends who all try to do things by the New Book struggle (I have one who has a 7mo who hasn't slept for more than 2-3hrs at a time since he was born, but then she has never let him cry and seldom puts him down).

I was obviously very lucky in so far as I've had five that have fed and slept like clockwork and have never had a baby awake all day or all night come to that. Quite possibly they would have been easy babies without the routine but I would have been thoroughly miserable and it wouldn't have fit in with going back to work, school runs and multiple children.

I think change would have come about with invention of the contraceptive pill. Women could plan their families & that altered the dynamic to a more child-centric one.
Also, women going out to work. Most families now have two working parents. Single parent & step families are more common too, so I think children are more in the picture than before.

My sister was born in the late 70s. My mum still talks about how awful it was and how she was awake all the night (prem baby that refused to eat). She certainly fed on demand and slept in the same room as her babies (I was born in the 80s). Nothing about what she did seems very different from how I do it, apart from my life is easier because of stuff like disposable nappies.

I do remember my gran saying that she spent the first 6 weeks after my uncle was born ( late 1930s) in a nursing home so she didn't have to do anything apart from look after him at first.

I was born in 1959, at home, which was quite common. I came quickly and we didn't have a phone so a neighbour went to a callbox to ring the midwife.

Babies were carried "Welsh Fashion" in a large shawl wrapped around the body. We spent time in playpens, or in our prams outside. No one had a car, so small buggies were unheard of. Families were bigger, and bigger kids were expected to help out with the little ones.

I remember gripe water, and also rosehip syrup, which was a thick sugary drink put in a dummy. It fell out of favour soon afterwards.

Mothers didn't work, or at least until children were much older. Even relatively young children were left to their own devices. Yes, threats of s good hiding were common, although I was never smacked afaik. Worse, kids were threatened with the Children's Home. I have a friend who still bawls threateningly at her son.

I think by the 60s a lot of the psychology of childrearing was beginning to take off in some homes but not, as a rule, round our way. Children had been raised in the same way for generations, and survived.

I think the idea that children are influenced and shaped by their parents' behaviour is a relatively recent thing, and has driven the progress of the very intensive parenting we see today.

Despite everything, I'm certain my childhood was more "fun" than dd's, due to the freedom we had. .

I remember my mother discussing with a friend how she was advised to leave my sister and me to cry, as it was "good for our lungs". By the time my brother was born, 6 years after me, it was all feeding on demand. He used to feed a lot in the evening, and she thought we probably would have, too, but didn't get the chance.

My DH was left to cry in the hall, in winter, as "he made such a racket". He contracted pneumonia as a baby, and it is now well known that physical touch is important for a child's physical health. (Studies were done of orphans after the Second World War. Those who were raised in clinical conditions in orphan hospitals in America did worse, statistically, than those in foster care in Europe, often in squalid conditions, because of the poverty of the general population.) I often wonder if lack of physical affection caused his illness, as much as the cold.

I was born late 80s and my brothers in the 90s and noughties and my parents put us in a room on a different floor and left us to cry. I think I also play with DS a lot more, the moment he grumbles I am doing something about it. It's very exhausting and it takes over your life so not sure it's really a good thing. I can't leave to CIO though.

Lules dm went to recuperate after db too (born 57). Two weeks in a nursing home being looked after and getting her strength back. With dsis born five years later she had her at home but it was still expected that she'd be in bed whilst dgm looked after her and the house for a week or two.

See I can't imagine leaving a baby 4 hours with no milk. As an adult I don't go 4hrs without a drink in the daytime and wouldn't want to either, so assume the same with babies.

Oh yes good point about contraception! And also work. I suppose with women moving away from their own families and leaving having children until later, children become more (dare I say?) precious? And having fewer of them means your time with each child is greater.

Good point too about 'me' as a person. I'm probably not what would be considered especially maternal or soft, but I suppose I can't bear the thought of hurting my babies and every you read now suggests that all the crying etc would hurt them (whether or not that's true!!)

Although this thread has given me a lot of good ideas, perhaps I should let her grumble a bit longer than 1 nano second!!!

Research has changed our understanding of babies massively in recent decades. It wasn't long ago that it was thought newborns didn't feel pain. The idea that babies are people that think and feel is actually pretty new. Also we now know that even before we make conscious memories, the experiences we have in the first couple of years couple of years have a huge impact and affect the rest of our lives.
As recently as the 80s, many people would find the idea that babies had emotional needs a bit ridiculous, so yes if you have met their physical needs (clean, warm, fed) then crying is meaningless noise. Why not ignore it and think of it as good exercise for the lungs? That phrase really indicates the thinking about babies was all just physical.

I was breastfed but put in a cot to sleep in my own room from birth. My mum says I spent most of my first few months of life screaming.

My MIL thought I was pandering to DD all the time.
She was what you might call 'easy' certainly didn't want holding and slept well - I cuddled her by choice

The one time I left her with her (for 30 minutes) I came back to DD screaming and she had closed all the doors. DD had been sick, had a full nappy and was very distressed - I was still told I was pandering

I never left her with her again..... I wonder what ignoring babies did to infant mortality rates!

Yes excellent point on research! I've had a few people mention the 'exercise' point, it didn't sit right with me!

I hope I'm doing the right thing!! I feel sad at some of the things that my parents would've done out of it being the norm, compared with my much more gentle approach. I hope my children don't feel I'm doing wrong.

I think the horrific Romanian orphanages might have changed things.

They showed what happened with extreme neglect and I think that is what changed people from letting babies cry for 10 mins to not letting them cry at all.

I might have had routines but I didn't them to cry, I didn't even give them a dummy any unhappiness was mostly sorted by rocking the pram or patting and shushing though rather than lifting and nursing.
Art in the eighties though we didn't carry bottles of water with us which is common now, we didn't really snack either so leaving the house at 7.30 I wouldn't get a drink until teabreak at work it didn't seem strange to me that ds went three to four hours as well.

My sis and I were born in the 50s. We were both 100% breast fed until we were weaned at around 6 months My father grew vegetables in the garden and my mother cooked and baked and sewed and knitted our clothes. Rationing only completely finished in the early 1950s. DH was born in 1948 and had a baby ration book.

My parents were very much 'make do and mend'. Cloth nappies were boiled in a Burco boiler and rinsed and rung out by hand and dried on the line. When no longer needed, the nappies were cut out to make sanitary towels (more recycling). My mother never left us to cry, she thought it was cruel and that babies cry because they needed something.

My DC were born in the 1970s and 1980s. They were both 100% breast fed until weaned at about 6 months. My babies slept in the bed with me in the crook of my arm. I never left them to cry either and I don't remember any of my friends doing this either. Yes, I had a large pram and I used to walk miles with it. I used terry nappies too and used to boil them up, rinse them by hand and then spin them in a spin dryer.

I used to spend a lot of time singing and talking to my babies and encouraged them to read and draw and garden with me. They did not have loads of toys and electronic toys were just coming in. Does anyone else remember 'Little Professor?'.

My family and I have lived in south London for several generations, I'm just wondering where everyone lives. Some of the descriptions of childcare seem to me to come from several generations ago, not just parents / grandparents generations.