Baby Led Parenting

[Rhubarb]

Yup. The baby is the boss and they will tell you what to do. You feed them when they cry, they'll sleep when they want, do what they want when they want to do it. If you want to experience true, pure and natural parenting then this is what you do.

No mention of the African tribes who tie crying babies to trees to discourage them from crying and giving their location away to enemy tribes. No mention of feeding on demand in Ethopia because you don't have enough milk to sustain a baby for 4 hourly feeds. No mention of carrying the baby on you at all times because there are no prams and therefore not a lot else to do. Noooooo, these third world mothers really know how to bring up baby naturally and that is the way forward!

It's all bollocks isn't it?

"to be told you have to do a certain thing with your baby at a certain time or else your baby will grow up to be a psychopath is surely wrong?" jeeeeesus, rhubarb, which guru is saying that?

and i don't really think you've got the idea of BLW straight tbh. it's just letting them get on with it and letting them have fun. the idea is that parents feel less stress, not more. and for those people who do like to follow rules and regs and who would worry about amounts (as you said you did with bfing), well, it's just not a method they'd choose tbh as the whole point of it is not to worry about those things.

rhubarb i think you're getting marketing mixed up with mothering here tbh. although i can't think which publisher has marketed its author's method as 'the only way' tbh.

I also think we need some specific info here. The names of the gurus you're talking about, and direct quotes from their books or websites. Then we can discuss what they've said.

I really think the baby is the main guru. I did BLW with ds2. I had no choice. He wasn't going to have any bloody puree. I don;t think I have even once been able to put a spoon in his stubborn little mouth......You should have seen the look on his face when faced with a glass of puree...LOL

yeah, it is all a bit vague at the moment imo. i don't think anyone on the thread would approve of a guru who claimed that unless you followed her routines your child would grow up to be a sociopath... what's prompted this, rhubarb?

"Gill Rapley, a health visitor for 25 years and now deputy programme director of UNICEF UK's Baby Friendly Initiative, has a personal interest in baby led weaning. She believes that babies who are allowed to feed themselves by being offered a selection of nutritious finger foods can easily join in with family meals from the start, and are less likely to refuse foods or become fussy eaters as they grow older. She considers that many childhood feeding problems stem from a child's unwillingness or inability to accept foods which require chewing, and that these problems become apparent when babies move from purées to "second-stage" foods which contain lumps. She also suggests that the baby food industry puts unnecessary pressure on parents to introduce puréed foods into their babies' diets at an early age."

From the babycentre website. So basically if you are a first time mum reading this you are thinking that pureeing food for your baby will led to a fussy eater who may turn out to have a childhood eating problem when older. How about the negatives of blw? Like the fact that you can't buy the food in jars from a supermarket shelf? Why not just give plain and simple facts and let parents themselves decide.

And Aitch, of course I am being deliberately exaggerative in my comments and I think only Sarah Buckley might say that your child may become a psychopath if you fail to follow her wonderful advice.

Its a long time ago since I read dr sears on attachment parenting. Is it dr. sears or is that cat in the hat? anyway, i think he said he had several babies who pretty much responded to normal routine and then he had what i think he called high-need baby and realised babies had different needs and responded accordingly. am i right? read it so long ago......

Here is a very informative and totally realistic article about giving birth.

It did make me chuckle though.

I am sorry Rhubarb, but what is wrong with what Gill Rapley said?

i'm still a bit puzzled about all this tbh, I don't usually fall over people ramming attachment parenting techniques down your neck, more the opposite tbh, ''rod for your own back, carry them all day and you'll spoil them, they're going to choke to death on that carrot stick etc.'' and the gurus who seemed the most dogmatic were pretty much the routine led ones, cos then there is a right and wrong way to do things (if it's past 7am and you're still in bed, naughty you)
give us some examples of these radical ap gurus pls rhubarb

you can buy a banana in any supermarket and hand it over. or carrot sticks, or a bread roll. you're not going to get far on that score if that's your negative. a better neg is that some people who like knowing amounts etc are not suited to it, which is fine.

and that babycentre page also suggests mashing up food at the beginning of BLW so that your child doesn't miss out on nutrients... so i wouldn't automatically assume that babycentre has interpreted Gill's thinking in a way that would thrill her.

where are the african tribes, btw? this doesn't seem very related to the OP.

Yes Fairymum, Dr Seuss is the cat in a hat man.

That's my point though, every baby has differing needs. So whilst one may respond really well to GF, another might want the "tie me to mummy all day!" approach.

What I also disagree with is the bandying about of the word "natural" in parenting these days. This society couldn't be less natural if it tried. To expect mothers to go back to how stone-age mothers brought up their babies is a tad unrealistic. Today we have many conveniences that have made our lives easier, so we no longer have to wash our clothes in the river, or forage for food, or give birth without painkillers. And mothers shouldn't be made to feel like failures for wanting to hold onto those conveniences. Yet even Mumsnet has this smugness about it that "natural is best". In some instances it is, but in others it's not, for instance you'd still get your baby vaccinated, right?

rhubarb - and the problem with what gill rapley said is?

Tribal and other ancient ancestors knew best crap.

WHERE are all these people banging on about 'natural', rhubarb? (also plenty of people don't vax, unfortunately).

Yes, I don;t like the terms "natural" either. Especially not as prefix to birth

but as natural as poss surely is beneficial. Like breastfeeding for example.

just read that article, it looks fine to me. are you saying that it shouldn't exist on an obscure Australian website in case it makes a GFer feel bad? i'm really not getting this...

Gill Rapley said "She considers that many childhood feeding problems stem from a child's unwillingness or inability to accept foods which require chewing, and that these problems become apparent when babies move from purées to "second-stage" foods which contain lumps." so is this just her opinion? Or is it a fact? There is nothing wrong with harping on about the benefits of something, and if you have evidence, sure by all means tell us the downsides. But implying that many childhood feeding problems stems from being weaned on pureed foods is just balls.

i LOVE natural yoghurt.

why are you detting your knickers in a twist. live and let live

I am sorry, but I really don't understand why you are so angry rhubarb.Were you made to feel bad because you couldn't breast feed or because you were a GF mother or what?

bloody one hand typing in near dark with lo attached to boob - me and my weakness to feed when he wants.

"She considers"

it's her opinion, clearly. and it's been interpreted by a BC hack and certainly some of it is rubbish, as i explained earlier.

It's very simple Aitch, I'm having a rant. Not just about natural parenting gurus but about all gurus and those people who think they know best, regardless as to whether they have kids themselves. Because all of these people, no matter what they say, fail to recognise the needs of the parent and the fact that every baby is different, so no one parenting technique will work on 2 different babies.

However, instead of coming together in harmony and giving out lots of good advice on different parenting techiques, they all banter and argue as to which technique is the best and which is more likely to turn your kids into sociopaths. This confuses parents and more and more first time mothers are being diagnosed with depression than ever before. At the same time more and more parenting books are being sold. Coincidence?