I disagree with leaving children to cry especially at night

[serena]

I have been making comments to this effect and feel that I am alone on this site in not following Gina Ford routines etc. I really wanted to know if there are others out there who might agree with me .

GF does mention babies being left to scream for 25
minutes, according to bella2

I don't have the truth, other civilisations have the truth, where for millions of years babies have been given the care they needed. Then opinions of varying degrees of sophistication took over in Western civilisation. This process is akin in my view to the medicalisation of childbirth.

As someone somewhere on this site mentioned, babies don't know it's the 21st century. Its up to us to fix it so that they get the care stone age babies would have had.

Yes I have been frustrated and felt angry with my children. I don't live in an extended family or similar community where the demands of a baby would be easily absorbed. But I think it would have been worse and far more traumatic for everyone concerned if I had tried to tie my babies door shut or shut him behind a gate so that he vomited in distress. The horror of that image gives me the same feelings as I have when I see babies starving.

Physical and emotional neglect have similar effects on young animals. I think we should stop colluding in the subjection of defenceless beings. Thats why I have said these things. But no-one has to read this thread if they are affronted by my views.

I'm off to chuck out the calpol,discard the contents of the freezer, disconnect the central heating and dig a stone age latrine in the garden.
To think I have been subjecting my children to the abuse of 21st century nutrition, medication, and sanitation...

does anyone leave their child to 'vomit in distress'? Serena - your opinions always seemed to be expressed in the most extreme way, which alienates people from what you say. No one civilisation has 'ancient truths' that we should all follow slavishly. Lets not forget the child sacrifices, child prostitution, child rape, killing of female children, female circumcision, lack on sanitation etc. that went on, and in some cases still go on, in some of the civilisations you seem to admire. This idea of rejecting the advances of the 21st century to look back on a 'golden', and alledgedly much more natural way (as though natural = better!)is as tunnelled visioned as sticking to gina ford as though your life depended on it! Surely, from a point in history where we can review and select practices from around the world, we could have a much wholer view of childcare by now. Myself - I'm a gf fan. I also, self conciously, have chosen to live with other people. One of the reasons is that I believe my children will benefit from the input of more than just their parents, making them wholer, more rounded humans. I have been lucky enough to create my own 'extended family'. I also took my baby into my bed at 6am this morning. He woke early, having not eaten enough last night because he was off his food. The reason I knew this was precisely because we have a routine, he went out of it, and rather than being in the dark, I knew the reason he woke early was because he was hungry. The knowledge from the routine has helped me to read my baby better, which for a first time mother can be incredibly difficult in the early stages.

Serena, what is the point here ? You disagree with babies being left to cry or having a routine or using the benefits of the 21st Century ? I don't think the 21st Century promotes leaving children to cry. In fact that is something that dates back hundreds of years where babies were shut away in wings and left to cry between 4 hourly feeds ! What is being discussed here is the choice of some parents to help their babies learn to sleep on their own by leaving them in their cot when they are over tired and helping them to go to sleep. Not by leaving them to cry for hours and vomit - that's ridiculous. I for one stand by my daughters cot and then outside the door but go in every couple of minutes. Generally she fusses for a minute or two and then is asleep and a lot happier for it. If I were to refuse to let her cry at all and pick her up the instant I put her in her cot when she protested then what do you think would happen ? I can tell you, she would be overwrought, miserable and desperately tired !! She needs her nap to refresh her and she wakes up happy and ready to play again.
Babies need to be taught - they need our guiding to help them learn. It is the same with helping a baby to drink from a cup or feed itself. If you never give the baby the chance to learn it they never will. It's the same with teaching them to feel secure and go to sleep.
We no longer live in caves and of course in this busy day and age parents have so much more to worry about and do than just going out to hunt lunch or making another grass skirt ! I lead a busy life, work part time, run a house but still dedicate myself to my DD 100% and play with her the days I'm at home, teach her, smother her in affection and I don't think you would find a more contented little baby and I don't think that would change if I was in the stone age. I still manage to spend quality time with her even leading a busy 21st century lifestyle. I don't think that the stone age is synoymous with better child care, as Manna said, they used to do abominal things to female babies.

It seems you automatically tarnish everyone with the bad mother brush if they leave their child to cry at all and expect that they must therefore also leave them to vomit, which is a ridiculous assumption. And your reference to tieing doors shut - whose ever said anything about that.

I am not sure what you are saying when you refer to the medicalisation of childbirth but assume that you are saying that it is a bad thing. I cannot see how saving mothers from dying in childbirth (which many of course did in the stone age, including babies) is a bad thing ? Also how can the fact that we can now keep very premature babies alive when we couldn't before be a bad thing ?

Anyway, I am also now guilty of straying from the point. What is this discussion about ? Abusive parents ? Leaving babies to cry ? The stone age vs modern civilisation ? I am not entirely sure.

One last thing I want to say. Tell me how you feel after a good cry sometimes ? Better ? I often feel relieved - it's better than bottling things up. Sometimes my dd will cry for no reason and I cuddle her and she cries. This is a stress relief for her as it is for us. Same applies to when she goes down for a sleep. She ALWAYS fusses a bit but goes off very quickly and doesn't scream for hours. Would you consider this leaving her to cry ?

Manna, I'm really intrigued. I hope you don't mind my asking, but do you have some kind of communal/fellowship living arrangement? I have always read accounts of groups of families making a shared way of life possible with great interest, while not being the "commune" type of person. Sorry to change tack slightly, everyone.

I think Tillysmummy is pretty much spot on here. The only thing I will say in serena's defence and what I think may have sparked this thread off in her mind is on a previous thread there was a mother of a new baby who was distressed following GF routine and leaving her baby to cry and she did mention one incident when she went back to check on her baby and she had been sick through crying. Although she posted back later to confirm that she was still following GF and things had settled down.

If anyone is interested in reading about childcare over the years (although only as far back as about 500 yrs, not the Stone Age!) then Christine Hardyment's book, 'Perfect Parents' is also fascinating. 4 hourly feeds are actually a very recent invention, 20th Century, I think. Lots of myths are defused, such as the one suggesting Victorian parents weren't too phased by the loss of children because it was so common, when the evidence shows that they were every bit as distraught as we are today. It also shows that fathers often had much more input than we give them credit for. The book is out of print, unfortunately, although Waterstones had a few copies still lying around or you should be able to get it second hand via the internet.

4 hourly routine date from the late 1800... I can find out more - when I get my book back out. It was "devised" by a (man) doctor who had observed the difference in infant health and mortality between poor and rich families...

Marina - yes we do live communally. It came about because no one could aford to live near our church in notting hill. The church itself is very culturally / socially mixed but everyone there is committed to improving the local community in some way. I approached a friend, who also goes there, and happens to be a merchant banker (at least someone has some cash!), and asked him whether he would like to invest in a property in the area large enough to house 4 people to help those that couldn't afford to to live in the community they are committed to. He agreed, although doesn't live here. I found a 4 bed, 2 bath flat nearby, and he put in 30% of the final cost. We had a deed of trust drawn up by a solicitor to regularise the financial situation. Now me, dh and ds live here, along with 2 others, who have to fullfill certain criteria. I.e. can't afford to live near the church otherwise, working in the community / studying (dh is an academic), committed to the principles of communal living. One room is 3 month max, for overseas visitors and emergencies, and in the past we've had American Quakers, Slovakian Evangelicals, friends at the end of their tether just coming for some tlc for a week etc. The other room is long term, and until march was lived in by a friend who is also ds's god mother. She has now moved to northern SA to work in primary healthcare for hiv and aids in a township there. She 40 and childless. Her involvement in my pregnancy, birth and the first 4 months of ds's life was a very special time, invaluable for all of us in different ways. At the moment we are having a taste of life as a family alone for the first time, but intend to take someone new for this room in the summer. The benefits of living like this are huge: there's always someone to talk to, household costs are cheaper, cleaning is shared, babysitting is free (!), you learn and grow so much from having to relate properly to others, you don't get sloppy with communication like you could with a partner, etc. etc. We were lucky enough to find someone who had the cash and the vision to share our idea, but I know of many others who are doing this in a variety of ways, both for spiritual and secular reasons. We were not meant to be self supporting couples, with no outside input, I feel. No wonder so many marriages break up - what a burden to have to feel responsible for anothers happiness / life expectations 100% of the time. Living in an 'extended family' gives perspective and added wisdom on all sorts of situations that could otherwise boil up or over. Of course, not everyone is suited to it: you have to have ground rules, be fairly forthright, and have your own space to creep away to occasionally

Hope that's helpflu

Serena - I can appreciate that you are a very sensitive parent and obviously give your child the very best care, as we all like to think that we do. You are right to have your views and I don't think that anyone should knock them really, they don't have to visit this thread or listen to your views. But in that same vein, I also believe that other mums on this board should be entitled to their views too, after all you did have a go at Pupuce.

Also many civilisations have different ways of bringing up their children. As others have pointed out here, I am sure you wouldn't agree with some of the methods used for childcare 50 years ago. I cannot think of any one culture who has all the values you talk about. In certain remote parts of Africa for instance, babies who cried where tied in a bundle onto trees until they learnt not to cry, this was vital for the tribe as the babies cries gave away their location to enemy tribes. Babies also used to sleep with their mothers all the time as there was usually only one room for the family to live in, they had no other choice. In Indian and Asian cultures they are having a battle to encourage mothers there to breastfeed as in their culture it is seen as dirty, just as it was in ours 50 years ago.

The good thing about this society is that we have choices. I don't think that today's society has dictated to us how to raise our children, the vast array of opinions on threads like this proves that.

So whilst you are asking for your opinions to be respected, you must also respect other's opinions and be aware that a thread like this is bound to attract some criticism, but if we didn't hear other opinions then we would be very narrow-minded wouldn't we?

BTW, the story of the child vomiting through distress upset me too, but I think it was a toddler, not a baby, as she mentioned he kept getting out of bed, hence why she tied the door shut. And it was more to do with CG than GF.

Rhubarb, I think you're referring to me here My toddler will also vomit(on rare occasions)if he is told firmly and repeatedly that he can't do something, gets in a paddy,, and has to be restrained by a firm hug/ rugby tackle by me.

He also vomited one evening, after a huge cuddle in bed with me, when he was standing on the stairs for under 10 minutes - and free to come down to see me (see message under 'toddler trying it on'.

So IME, a vomiting toddler is more the result of a tantrum than a locked door denying access to mum. Though obviously the two can coincide. My oldest, as a toddler, also used to vomit if he has having a mega tantrum, even if he was in my arms. He just grew out of it. That's probably why I might appear a bit blase about it. Sorry if this upset you.

Rhubarb the thread I am thinking of was "Sleep: Advice please on Contented Little Baby routine" where someone was talking about their baby who was only a few weeks old. I'm afraid this is comment that upset me "I put her in bed at 7 pm and she cried on and off till 9pm till the crying got much worse. I went in to see her, she was lying in a cold and wet pool of sick" (although I did get told off at the time for making comment about it, so please I'm not trying to be nasty by bringing it up again). I had assumed that this may be what serena was talking about.

That was me who posted that . The next sentence read "you can imagine how terrible I felt" In other words, noone here at all thinks it is okay to leave your baby lying in sick, least of all me who asked for advice.If you read the post again you will see she cried off and on, stopping for quite long periods but as soon as the crying changed to a different tone I went in to check on her.
With hindsight, my daughter was 4 or 5 weeks old at the time and I thought the wet patch on the sheet was sick ( she had never been sick before)but have since discovered it was saliva plus a few milky curds - she has turned out to be a bit of a drooler. She has been properly sick only once , last week, during the day when wide awake. Quite spectacular and not to be confused with the damp sheet the night I asked for advice.
And before anyone asks, no I don't leave her to lie in a damp patch of anything.
She is very happy in her routine, incidentally.Hope this clarifies

you go girl!

SusanAM, I didn't want to bring this up again as I remember from your original posting that you were upset regarding this as well and should have made this clearer when I posted earlier. I hope you don't think I deliberately took your words out of context. I only felt I had to clarify my words earlier as Rhubarb was thinking of a different incident. I don't believe we should go back to the caveman times either but did feel serena was getting a bit of stick re children being left to cry until sick when this subject has been discussed so recently on Mumsnet. I know things have settled down for you and you are happy with the GF routine and to tell you the truth I wish I hadn't mentioned it again and think I will just try and keep away from anything remotely GF! Sorry again!

Glad you have clarified things Tigermoth and SusanAM! Although I am a bit of a GF fan, we didn't use the book until dd was 3 months old, I'm not sure if I would have got her into a routine from such a young age. She could be a fiddly feeder and sometimes would want feeding half an hour after I had last fed her, so I did b/f on demand. I know GF doesn't advocate this, but I do believe in it for newborns, but decided at 3 months it was time to get her into a routine to give me a break!

I think Serena is a bit misunderstood, she is merely advocating skin-to-skin care at all times, which is a lovely idea if you can stick with it. I don't think she should be knocked for her views, they sound reasonable enough if she's happy with it. Each to their own!

I do LOADS of skin to skin... and GF as well - they are not incompatible. I think Serena's tone is sometimes adversorial.