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.

Disney now having children, I do feel saddened that I was left alone to cry. But that may be when exacerbated by other things too.

Art but you did a form of night weaning very early on, so it wasn't something that naturally occurred from breastfeeding IYSWIM? Whereas with ff I thought it was more widely acknowledged that often this can assist in 'better' sleeping.

This a great thread; so interesting.

And I must be VERY tired as the drugging the baby to sleep is actually sounding appealing 🙈

I hope I'm doing the right thing!!

If its working for you then you most certainly are! I think that's the most important thing really, if it works for you and it works for baby then it's the right thing.

I didn't really subscribe to much of the "new book" or attachment style parenting, i was a single mum from a few days after birth and knew i'd have to return to work from 4 months so I had to be strict.. But it worked for me and it worked for my now (healthy, well adjusted) 6 year old. I used control crying, pram was left outside in the back garden (windows and back door open) she was changed, fed, winded and put down again and if she got huffy I swaddled her and put her back. Maybe i had a very old school HV but she never said anything above was wrong or not "the done thing". She slept through from quite early on and the early night feeds were done in the pitch dark with little time out of the cot.

A close family member who was much older than me had a baby since and very much did it the "new way". Her boy still doesn't sleep through and he's 3. Maybe it's just down to temprement but it would not be me, i'm out of the house working/ commuting 12hrs a day- i need my sleep (and time for housework!)... But shes happy with her choices so who am I to judge.

I'm beginning to almost feel like a bit of a martyr!!! Almost like I have completely pandered to the children even when I was on my knees with tiredness because I felt it was impossibly cruel and unacceptable to let them cry!!

All those with a more robust approach seem to also get more sleep and a generally easier time!! Honestly feeling like a bit of a mug!

I'm early 30's and have 4dc. I haven't left any of them to really cry. You tune in to what the crys are, so a hungry cry I will go to immediately, a pain cry again immediate attention, a tired cry can probably wait a minute whilst I make a cup of tea and a bored, just want attention cry can wait until the washing machine is unloaded. I don't play that much with my dc, I just don't enjoy it. Like pp, playing is a child activity. Something to keep them entertained whilst I do the housework etc. I love reading to my dc and talking to my dc and going for walks and exploring with them etc. But sitting on the floor playing tea parties or shops is not enjoyable and I can only manage about 5-10minutes if it. That's what they have siblings for

I'm not very good at playing either, I used to read to them a lot and we'd bake and we'd go for walks bug hunting but that was my limit really I'd set up toys but after a minute or two they were to play by themselves.
I do think among people I know a lot of the more routine led parents have a far easier time of it tbh whether that's because of the routines or whether their children are naturally easier I don't know. I do know though I would never have had five if I'd had to carry them round and sleep with them for months and years on end.

Bertie, I think being able to play on their own may be to do with child. Once my ds could sit up, crawl, walk, he would happily play with some cars on our low windowsill for a while. I could then shower, or do a chore. But, he is obsessed with cars.
I wonder if the research into cot deaths, etc plays a part in how our generation are more hands on?
But even before I did any parenting classes or reading, I was sure I would parent differently to my mum.
I do remember being left to cry on the stairs for hours while she watched her soaps.
From a young age I would have to babysit various kids while my mum went to bingo with their mum.
My older sister hated us younger ones because she was meant to look after us from the age of 3.
We were smacked all the time.
We were sent outside to play by/ fend for ourselves for hours and they would expect us back for teatime.
Brandy in a bottle to help sleeping amd teething. Drowsy inducing over the counter medicine to aid sleep, etc.
I imagine we were drowsy from the 40 a day my mum smoked around us.
I'm not close to my mum at all.

Most modern parents would be horrified at the thought because the NHS guidelines.

My mum argues she was advised to put all 4 of us to sleep in a different position. Eldest was given formula in the maternity hospital so no choice of bfeeding (late 70s).
Also, in the past, most people copied their parenting from those around and generation before. Communities were more close knit, so new ideas would have needed some bravery to implement, iyswim.

Re: attachment parenting, my Grandparents were farmers, my Nana wore my DF on her back whilst she worked on the farm/in the field where obviously a pram wasn't really practical nor able to be pushed across fields. I'm also assuming with cattle about it probably wouldn't have been safe either to put a baby down in a basket.

Painted with my eldest you were advised to sleep them on their front by the time ds2 came along 18 months later it was on their side and for dd1 on her back so I can believe that.

Oh I probably should also say, I'm extremely routine with DS (22 months), but it took us a very long time and a lot of hard work to accomplish.

It seems many others got there with a great deal less effort.

I'm also still intrigued by those of my age (30) saying they wouldn't carry the baby etc, so what would you do if they simply wouldn't go to sleep any other way?

This is only out of interest as I know the above sounds aggressive!

Both mine got themselves into a standard Gina Ford routine by 6-8 months so no doubt if I'd been inclined to get them into a routine earlier I could have. I think a lot boils down to temperament. Easy, sleepy babies are more likely to conform to a routine.

From speaking to my American friends, I think the number of children per household is higher in the US, too. Here in Britain most people have one or two children, three is unusual, more is extremely rare. Two is overwhelmingly the most common number, and most people have them about three years apart, so there is really not much "older kids entertaining babies" going on unless at a big family gathering with cousins etc. My US friends mostly have three with a few having two and a few having four and hardly any having just one. There is a lot more sibling-baby interaction. (I live in neither UK or US hence I have a mixture of English speaking friends!)

Yes I do think electronics and gadgets have made children expect to be entertained more, but even before DS was old enough to use things like that, he never really seemed interested in anything unless he had someone to do it with. I think he is just very extroverted, he is a people person, making people laugh or smile or be impressed is his absolute favourite thing.

I don't believe that the current trend in parenting is to put children at the top of any hierarchy - I think it looks like that if you're starting from the position of assuming children should generally be lower than adults in the hierarchy of life but I think today's parents just don't really think so much in terms of hierarchy and think more in terms of needs and expectations - who needs what and who can be expected to be responsible and who can't. I also think it's quite difficult at times to balance these opposing viewpoints especially if you haven't really had any occasion to look closely at them. Because you'll definitely have moments of feeling " I would NEVER have spoken like that to my parents!!" when your kids break the hierarchy because they've never been expected to be a part of it. Past generations not only believed in that hierarchy, they actively enforced it all the time in such a way that it felt natural. Now that we see things differently and mostly see children as individuals with thoughts, emotions, opinions worth listening to, we don't enforce the hierarchical structure any more but we still have lingering expectations that adults should be in charge. It's sometimes hard to navigate I think.

OP I don't think you sound like a martyr or a mug, but certainly if I have any more children I think I'll be a bit more attentive to my own needs and perhaps not rush to solve every tiny bit of upset so immediately. But if I'm not doing anything, then I will. I just honestly found it so so upsetting and distressing to hear DS crying that I couldn't deal with it and I wouldn't even finish whatever I was doing. I like muddling through and having a more co-operative approach and I don't think the whole line between kids and adults thing would work for me. I find it a little bit sad which is probably bonkers of me because I know plenty of people who do parent in that way and don't feel disconnected from their kids or anything like that!

My children are now 13,11 and 10. With my first I was advised to read Gina Ford and thought 'you must be joking' I am not being that organised and routine. After about 4 or 5 weeks of being baby led I decided in sheer exhaustion , with a baby who seemed to scream all evening whatever I tried, to try and establish a routine. Within about 3 days she was totally routine. If she woke a bit early and wanted milk, I would distract her and take her for a walk and she might drop off for a bit longer and then make it to the 4 hour stretrch. At night I put her to bed at 7pm rather than have her with me screaming at everything.She did cry a little but not for long and then slept. I think the previous crying must have been tiredness. She always preceded her sleep with a little cry but once I knew it would not be long it was fine. Again, within about 3 days she was settled and routine. It made such a difference. I think it is an absolute nonsense to think our babies will grow up traumatised if you let them cry. Otherwise there would be generations of traumatised children. We fuss too much these days.

Bertie thank you. I agree with all you say.

It is really, really brilliant to hear so many different views, especially as, often parenting advice these days (on forums such as this) seem to conform to a very attachment parenting criteria, it's very unusual to hear how others really do things!

I'm also still intrigued by those of my age (30) saying they wouldn't carry the baby etc, so what would you do if they simply wouldn't go to sleep any other way?

I always swaddled as newborns and they did (i have dd6 and dd2). After that I genuinely can't remember a time when they wouldn't sleep after about 10mins of whinging for something that wasn't a reason (nappy change, teething, generally feeling poorly or hungry). So i'd sort out the problem, comfort with a quick cuddle and put them back down. For teething/ poorly I am obviously much softer and would pander. I think it's all about knowing when to pander, and what you think is more important?

As a pp said, hungry cry can wait x, whingey cry can wait x, fussyness they can wait x, then a quick pat, give them back their bottle and close the door.

I'm by no means saying thats the right way and i'm well aware some people can see this as not meeting their emotional needs. Just what worked for me personally.

My youngest is 13, of course the midwife told me that it was baby led all the way nowadays unlike when I'd had my older ones. Little did she know dd was in a routine before she'd even signed me off.
I do think overtired babies cry a lot more and are more difficult to settle and a routine seems to avoid this. If dd cried when I put her down I'd have rocked her in the pram but I wouldn't have lifted her out. For the early few weeks I'd carry the pram top upstairs and put it in the cot for bedtimes anyway.

Yes I genuinely believe that a baby who is clean, dry, and fed is 90% of the time crying due to being tired. You can tell when it's a painful cry and I don't know anyone who'd leave a baby crying in pain. I just don't see the logic in giving a tired baby even more stimulation by fussing over them?

This is interesting!

insan and hamiltoes completely agree about over stimulating tired babies. I read the Baby Whisperer when mine were tiny, which helped me understand baby cues. Ones for tiredness included them seemingly hitting themselves in the eyes, due to lack of coordination, and staring into the distance. The charts showing a rough guideline as to how many hours a baby aged X weeks old should be having helped too. I had no idea newborns slept so much!

For us, as hard as it was, leaving our baby to cry/overtired scream (I read they sometimes do this to block out outside stimuli) for up to a maximum of five minutes each night at bedtime, worked. After three nights, the baby would cry for a minute or two whilst I poured the wine then sleep for 8hrs or more.

The friends I have who absolutely cannot bear to hear their babies cry, therefore pick them up after a minute every time, have shit sleepers.

P.s love this thread - thanks for starting it OP!

I was surprised to read you were born in 1986 OP, as that's the year my eldest was born and your father sounds like mine!

I was born in the 1960s and basically raised in the Truby King way, which was already out of fashion then. Left to cry in the pram/shut in my room. The PP who said it doesn't cause a problem or there'd be generations of traumatised children... there were. I have had MH issues my entire life, which I can put down to the way I was brought up. We were very much seen and not heard. My father never changed a nappy in his life.

So I determined not to do the same with my own. They were BF on demand and never ever left to cry. DC1 was always awake and hated being put in her pram/cot. Everyone told me I had to put her down, and I put myself though a lot of stress trying to do things "right". (The rules never seemed to extend to older relatives who could sit and hold her all afternoon...). She also had colic and we had weeks of evening screaming, which was hell. Despite all that she slept through from 7 weeks old. DH was very hands on and she was a real daddy's girl.

DC2 was an easy baby and slept 4 hours between feeds almost from day one. We didn't know we had him. Except that he didn't sleep through the night until well after 2 years old.

DC3 didn't sleep, and DC4 slept all the time. By this time we were waking up in the morning with all of them squashed into our bed, so we bought a bigger bed. DC4 co-slept with us until he was 12.

We'd both been smacked and didn't know any other way so we smacked ours. Amongst our friends that was normal.

Had DC5 in 2007. She was a velcro baby from day one and co-slept from birth. I don't think she ever cried, because she didn't need to. My DM was quite scathing and kept trying to tell me I should put her down. It was quite a relief to point out that I had done all this before and knew what I was doing thanks very much. This one hasn't been smacked. She won't play on her own. I don't know how much that is because she hasn't got a sibling to play with and how much her own personality.

My parents told me with a laugh how they put my pram in the front hall so they couldn't hear me cry. It made me sad for my infant self.

DM brought up her children in the late 60s/early 70s. One of the big differences she has noticed while observing me bringing up my DCs is how easy it is nowadays for mums to get out and about. She tells me there were no baby-change places, no disposable nappies, no facilities to warm bottles, no public breastfeeding etc. If the baby needed changing or feeding, you had to go home!

DSM (children in early 60s) commented that potty-training was done a lot earlier than it is now. When you are hand-washing nappies you have a vested interest in getting babies out of them quickly.

And both of them used to twitch when I put the DCs to sleep on their backs. Not what they were told to do!

Whisky on gums for teething!! And DM was a nurse FGS!

My granny had 10 children. She apparently had a saying 'you can't expect anything of a baby under 6 months'. I'm one of 5, born in 80s. All breastfed, no routines I don't think but certainly not a huge amount of pandering. Life went on, lots of other families around and the adults did their thing really.

I don't know. I felt punched in the face when my first was a newborn. I felt like my life was upside down. The sound of her crying was incredibly painful to me - intolerable. I put her on the breast all the time as I couldn't listen to the noise. Life felt so chaotic - but by the time she was on solids a routine of sorts had emerged. Think that happens with most babies.

Resolved to be a bit more routiney with no. 2 but that went tits up - reflux and other health issues. Life chaotic again. Impossible to be a Gina ford mum with a reflux baby I feel. Anyway - they are almost 2 and 4 now and eat and sleep very consistently despite my early pandering.

OP - I have felt like a mug many times when mine were babies, but have found toddler years much easier as the routine is sort of there anyway between meals and naps etc. Plus, you know each other by then

Bertie -enjoying your articulate posts.