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?

The only person that could have made the statement about lumps is Gill Rapley and she has never said anything about eating disorders anywhere that I've seen and TBH it isn't that hard she hasn't said much! There are a lot of direct and indirect quotes from Gill that are not acurate and haven't come from her - she's posted on Aitch's blog saying so.

As has already been said BLW and Gill Rapley are not commonly known outside of MN. Within my area they are more commonly known because there is a HV and MW who are very into it and train other HCPs in BF so they tend to spread the word. However, mostly in this area it's not mentioned (unless you see those two) unless you bring it up. I was surprised how many people looking after us said "well done" for following BLW.

Rhubarb, you keep listing the things you don't like and calling it baby-led parenting, but most of it isn't baby-led!

I don't want to take anything from anyone's experiences, but if someone got PND from a book then they were already half way there!

Depression is an inbalance in chemicals, it's not a mood!

Rhubarb I know exactly what you mean. The best example I can remember was for giving birth though, on Richard and Judy. The american lady being interviewed preferred the method she reckoned was a successful method in an african/rainforest tribe (it's always one or the other with these people!). The idea was you had no pre-natal checkups whatsoever, no blood tests or scans or anything, then when you went into labour you went off and had the baby by yourself. No partner, midwife, docs or anything. Judy's jaw dropped and she was saying things like "but I had emergency things with my twins we would have all died otherwise" and the lady was responding "you don't know that though do you". Bonkers. They should have asked her how many of the women in the tribe who went off into the forest never came back. It was such a horrible idea and was really being presented as the most "natural" way of doing it. I totally agree with you, it gets right up my nose when people propound nonsense and label it "natural".

Well yes, but I bet having her on Richard and Judy didn't actually win her much support did it? There is a trend to see things that happen either very far away or a very long time ago as better. And that is flawed, for obvious reasons.

BUT, you can't generalise about all the information out there for parents, there are lots and lots of people writing about parenting, an awful lot of toss and some helpful things - as a parent you have to either go with what you feel is right, or wade through it all to find stuff that makes sense to you.

There is some interesting and thought provoking stuff, some things are helpful, some things are not. You just have to read everything with a critical eye and an open mind I think.

Thank you Chukky.

Natural parenting is often baby-led parenting, with no thoughts on the welfare of the parents, as Chukky's example perfectly illustrates.

Routine parenting does actually start from the parent's point of view, such as guaranteeing to get a baby to sleep through from 3 months (who wouldn't want that!), but they go too far in stating things like, you shouldn't give a baby too many hugs because it's not the baby who needs those hugs, it's the parent" - well so what? And they do just as much damage by more or less stating that if you follow their routines your baby will be feeding at regular intervals, sleeping through, only crying for 20mins a day etc. If your baby does none of these then you do feel like a failure.

So I still think that these parenting books and gurus do not have the parents welfare in mind. Although I do take your point Boco and I have to admit, I never did see that programme!

I think the problem is that it is big business these days and there is a lot of money in these books. When I was pregnant I had the career types at work suggesting a certain book, and my earth mother friends suggesting another book, and do you know what I read them and when you disregarded the tone, the content was extremely similar. The book I love is that "What to expect - the first year" as they include all the various ideas and leave you to choose which is best for you. It's funny having a child though, I read all the books when pg and I thought I would be a real earth mother co-sleeping person. But it hasn't turned out like that at all! And we are all happy and content... I think and hope that mothers have always found their own way and aren't being bamboozled away from their instincts too much by all th contradictory info

well, you did once draw a very direct link between parenting books and PND, to be fair. on this thread.

By Rhubarb on Tue 06-May-08 23:01:02
Aitch, there is a regular Mumsnetter, I'm shit with names but I'm sure someone will know her, she swears that GF led to her pnd.

Others have felt the same. Over the years on Mumsnet there have been threads about various parenting gurus and people have admitted that reading them made them feel inadequate at times.

wrt Gill Rapley, unless you've seen it on her site or on a webchat with her typing then it's an interpretation of what she's said. same for GF, Miriam Stoppard et all. come back to me when Gill's book comes out, it'll be interesting to go through it i think, but until then she's about the worst 'guru' you could have picked to illustrate your many and varying points.

" By Rhubarb on Tue 06-May-08 23:01:02
Aitch, there is a regular Mumsnetter, I'm shit with names but I'm sure someone will know her, she swears that GF led to her pnd.

Others have felt the same. Over the years on Mumsnet there have been threads about various parenting gurus and people have admitted that reading them made them feel inadequate at times."

sorry, that should have been in quotes earlier, what with it being a direct quote and all...

Oh BTW Rhubarb you might want to try and delete your earlier posts where you mentioned a certain famous childcare expert. Otherwise MN might be in trouble again and this thread will def be pulled

my goodness - this still going

Just tried to catch up. Rhubarb you did insinuate that books contribute to PND last night hence my posts.

Tinksmum - I have found your posts very interesting. Actually love your description of parenting. Also you comments re causes of PND are so true, nothing is the same for one person. IS the same with any mental illness, we no longer say 'schizophrenic' for example but x is suffering from .... As it is the inidvidual that should be treated not the label attached. I totally sympathise re the PND, with ds1 (8) I ended up in hospital on a MBU. Was a very frightening and upsetting experience. I dont believe one thing contributed to it though, was a combination of issues fom past, the relationship i was in, birth experience, hormones etc.

Clueless -= thanks for your post, not atl all wanting you to put your opinions in a box, but if that what you want to do i am not about to protest

Actually I don't know that it will be pulled I'm just guessing. I was following a hilarious one the other day and a certain person was mentioned and then the thread vanished - which was a real shame as it was the biggest laugh I'd had in ages!!

It's all under the bridge Chukky I think.

In relation to parenting books and pnd, I mentioned another Mumsnetter, who I think is Suedonim, who directly blames a certain book for her pnd. I also stated that on this thread where she told us this, other Mumsnetters said the same. Although of course there were others who rubbished all of that.

So I was quoting another Mumsnetter who made that direct link.

ROFL. now you get the point about quoting people. look, you're not some nameless web journalist, you're the OP of the thread, you were making a link. i saw you, lol.

"many and varying points" do I detect a hint of sarcasm there? I really don't quite know what I've done to get your goat quite so much. Can't quite believe it can be this little 'ol thread however, it's hardly controversial now is it?

As I've said, if you feel you are wasting your time on my thread, then do feel free to go elsewhere.

Of course Aitch, don't quite get you there love. I was quoting another mumsnetter and may have been using that quote to illustrate my point, that is generally what quotes are used for, no? But as that Mumsnetter is not here, I cannot confirm her exact words.

Perhaps you would like me to search for the thread?

Yes, I have already said that I believe media forms such as parenting books put new parents under a lot of pressure, that they serve only to confuse, and to vulnerable parents they could be a contributory factor in pnd.

god, yes, it's sarcastic. you're all over the place here... and you've not got my goat. don't know why you would think that.

calling me 'love'... hmmmm, you wouldn't be being sarcastic there, would you?

I've found this thread that illustrates how some people feel about parenting books and the pressure they cause to live up to those expectations.

Am dipping in and out of MN and must leave in a minute, but another interesting problem is, what if you do actually believe that a particular parenting method is harmful?

Is saying so automatically scaremongering? Because if so, how would you ever discuss potentially serious problems that might have their origins in early childhood?

For example, I've watched parents forcefeeding an unwilling baby - you know the sort of thing - baby turning his head, closing his mouth, clearly saying he's had enough; parents trying to trick him into opening his mouth to get the spoon in so they can carry on feeding him.

I've never said anything to parents at the time, but I truly believe that there's enormous potential for harm in teaching children to carry on eating long after their bodies are telling them that they've had enough.

We live in a society which has an immensely f*cked up attitude to food, and I think that practices like this are part of the problem. It's one of the reasons I've so enjoyed BLW - it allows the child to be in tune with their own appetite and I think this is a very good start in life.

So that's what I think. It's just my amateur opinion - I'm no expert and I've no evidence for it. But if I can't say this for fear of upsetting other people - and probably others are in the same boat - how would we be able to discuss society and food in a meaningful way?

In a more practical way, if a parent is force-feeding their child because that's what their family have always done, how will they ever break the cycle and stop and think "hang on, maybe this isn't a good idea" if nobody online or in print dares to mention it for fear of hurting their feelings?

I really don't think there are simple answers here.

All over the place? You do keep saying that, although I have answered all your questions, agreed with points made by others and taken on board criticisms. I've provided links when asked to and expanded on points that were not understood, as well as repeated posts previously made.

Again, if you feel I am "all over the place" then why are you still here?

Interesting point welliemum.

Apologies to Suedonim, it was actually Susanmt who said this "Unfortunately, the details of what works and what does not in the CLBB can be lost in the haze of tiredness and panic of being a first time Mum. I was lent the book when dd was about 6 weeks old and I wasn't coping very well - very tired and crying all the time, although dd was pretty content. I decided to try it because I felt I wasn't coping, and within three days was admitted to hospital with PND that required ECT (Electro-convulsive therapy) to set me right. It exacerbated the depression I was already suffering from as trying to make my reasonably good baby fit into the routines turned her into a monster. I am part of a postnatal depression support group, and I am not the only person in the group who has had depression exacerbated by either trying to follow the routines or by being 'preached' at by people who follow them (the book was heavily promoted by a health visitor where I live and therfore is fairly widely known). I try no to be grumpy about it as much as possible, but I do feel I could have avoided hospital and seperation from my baby (until a place came up in a mother and baby unit) if I had not become so dramatically depressed following the use of these routines. Of course, my (dreadful) HV should have picked up my depression, but I would not have suffered such a catastrophic event if I hadn't tried to fit my dd into something so totally alien to her. Hope this explains my position (again)."

I don't think she's around anymore.

sept 01, the height of Gina-ism. v current.

i don't dispute that some people feel bad for reading certain somewhat dictatorial parenting books but as i've said before they would probably feel just as bad in response to parents, HVs etc.

and i don't think i can be arsed with this any more, the goalposts are swimming in front of my eyes. you've not provided relevant links, not at all, nor any useful answers for the publishing industry, you've attacked AP and then swivelled round to attack all parenting books and anyone who writes them, in fact, everyone who might dare to subscribe to any method and enjoy it... nah, it's all over the place. i was on the thread, since you ask (although how extraordinary that i shoudl be asked to justify this on a public forum), because i thought you might clarify your position with further questioning, but it's not happening, i can see that now.

I still wouldn't blame the book.

My dd1 coudn't be shoehorned into a GF routine either, but I didn't conclude I that I was a failed parent - I just figured that the routine didn't suit her and moved on.

But then, although I was horribly knackered, I wasn't depressed. I was just trying various things to see what would work.

That poor woman tried the routines because she was depressed and trying to get control of the situation. That's the big difference - maybe the only difference - between her and me. We both read the same book.

"I was lent the book when dd was about 6 weeks old and I wasn't coping very well - very tired and crying all the time"

"It exacerbated the depression I was already suffering"

"has had depression exacerbated"

My point proven, thank you.