Can I bag out other sites??

[meow]

The funny thing is that when my little bubba he generally doesn't make eye contact anyway. But sometimes he chooses to look up me and I'm glad I'm quietly looking back. Then he usually just gazes off over my head.

The never settle in your arms bit bothered me hugely. The advice was that holding is for feeding, floor is for play and cot is for sleep. Again- arrgghhh!!! Can a newborn never feel the love of falling asleep in mummy's arms? Breaks my heart and gets me worried about the disconnected children we're raising.

[Willow]

Even the sleep school I went to who, let's face it, haven't had the best reputation for gentle methods in the past told me the no eye contact thing was total crap and completely unnatural.

[BellyBelly]

I think this thread has been blown waaaaaay out of proportion and has been over analysed. I've nearly wished for the ignore button!!!

I guess we do have to watch our language (sometimes what we mean comes out wrong language wise), but at the same time I understand what the OP meant. And it is terrible for a site to be advocating one thing... it should have said, 'some mothers find xxx works and some mothers find xxx works.' There are too many sites that say don't give eye contact or don't cuddle your baby or don't whatever, like the govt website that says, hey its okay if your baby vomits during controlled crying, just dont make a fuss, change it and continue on...

I think this is what the thread was all about and I am sure that everyone who posted meant exactly that - it is not nice to tell mothers to do things one way which a mother may take the wrong way as being 'THE' way to do it and end up with a disconnected baby. I know I persisted with CC with my daughter even after two or three weeks after I thought it wasn't working because I thought it was 'THE' way to do it and the only way I would get sleep (when it worked).

So can we not all be so techincal now?! Yes be careful of language and how you imply others as opposed to other sites or routines but at the same time it is okay to discuss this - what worked for you, what didn't and yes it's inappropriate to to tell mums one way fits all.

Moving on? Please?

[LimeSlice]

And the voice of reason shines through! lol

[River]

I am enjoying this thread, I think that open discussions about topics like this are good to help everyone realise their own parenting positions.....from time to time LOL, repetitively doing so would be tiresome. It also helps people realise that advice is advice and not judgements or orders. It helps mothers gain strength in their instincts and ability to parent. It helps parents realise that even within an ethos, there are many people who do varied things.

I think the government sites need to stop taking a 'tell em what to do' stance and start giving generalised advice rather than parenting 'instructions'. I think that the first line in any topic on 'how to' parenting issues should be "take all advice under consideration and choose what works for you and your family".

As for the government sites content, I think that for a government who is struggling to fight the wave of child abuse in our community it is weird that they advocate harsh parenting methods ONLY from the get-go. Sends a message that parents need to be dismissive from the start I reakon, regardless of whether or not those methods are warranted in your situation, some babies thrive with a firmer hand, others wither. Can't they see that if a parent can let a wee bub vomit themselves to sleep from birth, what could they let that child do (or do to them) when they are older? They should be advocating a nurturing community and see if that helps family bonding later down the track. Yes some of their methods might be perfect for some situations, but they are pretty much telling everyone that this is 'normal' for parenting!

[paradise lost]

Sushee - It's ben too long since i was in psychology and anthropology classes (*whispers* 8 years!? WTF!?) but i'll tell you what i remember..

In Psychology (main text was Gleichmann et al, dunno if you encounter it, also i seem to remember a lot of photocopied journal articles so i don't know how much was IN that book about this) we examined how emotions without actions in a child's early life (i.e. from a dramatic parent (who interprets emotions which are not truly there in the child) or a parent who always picks up a crying baby but does not address the source of discomfort (like not feeding/changing/etc. when it was appropriate) leads to a tendency towards sentimentalism later. Because the child has formed a good emotional bond but emotions have been separated from action, which they are the reflex for (i.e. the emotions one experiences when hearing one's baby cry with hunger should lead one to pick it up and feed it and if one DOES pick it up but DOESN'T feed one is teaching the child that one need not act on what one feels, or need not act appropriately and also confuses their own sense of self since they feel unable to communicate their needs).

In Anthropology we learned how this sentimentalism carried through in different parenting styles and cultures throughout the world. We focused on Chinese culture because out lecturer was Chinese and had done her thesis on foot-binding and the first-son-worship. There we basically covered how cruelties (like binding feet of the daughters) in the name of love combined with almost deification (of the sons, especially the eldest grandson) in the name of the self same love led over centuries to an imbalance of sexes, and in the context we looked at, created a perhaps unique polarity in which eventually BOTH sexes became exhausted by it, which provided a fantastic context for the Revolution. For centuries people had been placed in opposition from birth and the ability to join forces against these old habits was incredibly attractive. We also looked at the brutality of punishment beatings, also done in the name of love for the country or the individual (to "save" them from themselves/thoughts) as a continuation of the brutal love of sentimental child rearing.

On the side of that we looked more generally at parenting styles which have impacted in a similar way. The victorians expecting children to behave like mini adults, modern children being "babied" well into their 20's and 30's (more recently there might have been things written about the western child and the lack of freedom/over-protectiveness of parenting?) and so on. This is all very vague as i read it back! Sorry!

Basically the premise is that children are not sentimental creatures in the raw and that in many ways addressing needs they don't have can be as damaging as NOT addressing needs they DO have.

Sorry i don't have the article names...you could try a catalogue search in your uni library maybe? I think you'd have to tie it in to AP because it doesn't directly relate, it's a trend ACROSS parenting styles, rather than specifically in one, but it's one reason fro the mainstream rejection of AP, because people who do not BELIEVE a child needs to be loved and SHOWN love in the early weeks and months think it will "cause problems" (always very vague aren't they!?) to respond emotionally to the emotional needs of babies and children. It is basically possible to trigger sentimentalism by behaving sentimentally towards a child WHATEVER style you use, whether that be treating them as little gods or brutally altering their bodies to make them "delicate lillies" that cannot move about anymore or even by addressing pressing needs that they don't have (like assuming they would need eye contact to settle when in fact it is stimulating for some babies) or addressing a pressing need innapropriately (like picking them up when they cry but not addressing the root of the cry beyond that).

Very o/t, but thought i'd reply while i had the time

Got nothing to add to the main topic i'm afraid! LOL.

Bx

[sushee]

Thanks for that explanation Bec, I was just about to PM you to see if you had any info for me (yes I'm keen! Lol).

I can see how this 'branch' of parenting is something I've not stumbled across, because looking at attachment theory, relating specifically to secure and insecure attachment, I imagine it wouldn't relate. I actually did have a search for it in my uni catalouges as well as the sciencedirect and proquest catalogues but wonder if I'm putting in the correct parameters, because nothing comes up. Psych always changes the way it descrcibes things (every few years, I'm told) so I may be looking at the wrong areas.

I can see how actions in the absence of meeting emotional needs might impact on parenting, but where it sits inasfar as relating to attachment theory as a direct result of responsive parenting, I'm not sure. I may have to pick your brains on the subject if I go down that tangent. At the moment I'd hoarding articles of interest for the future, and this is one area. I also am specifically interested in women's issues, so the whole Chinese first-born-son is interesting too (and witnessed first hand, growing up in an Asian country). Women's issues is one of my MIL's specialised areas too, and having her there helps heaps with research. That's why I am always on the lookout for people to chat to about psychology!

I'm so sorry this is sooo OT too. I might start a psych thread in Adult learning, Bec, when I have a minute (I'm supposed to be studying right now) and maybe we can get some discussions going on some topics of interest. I know there are a few Psych students lurking.

As for eye contact, I don't think babies need it to settle - if I'm sleepy and someone was trying to stare intently into my eyes, I'm sure I'd find it hard to sleep - but I wouldn't avoid it either. I'm going to expect my baby to settle while I stare it down :P but neither am I going to conciously avoid eye contact either.

[paradise lost]

I'll keep an eye out for other threads on this sort of thing Sush as i do find it interesting. I don't think sentimentalism directly relates to any particular parenting style, but i DO think it is a knee-jerk against the sentimentalist raising of children in the 60's (the "never say no anything goes" mentality) that makes people suspicious of AP, because they really DO fear that responding so completely to needs (which they possibly see as desires instead) will "spoil" the child.

I think also that there is ALWAYS the danger of sentimentalism in modern parenting (i say that as a BFing, baby-wearing (even now she's 2) mother) because we have so deified our children. I'm not saying children aren't precious, i'm just saying that now more than ever before we value them more highly. My mother's mother had 4 children, 2 grew to adulthood. My mother had 7 children, six grew to adulthood. Nowadays losing a child has become such a rare thing and is therefore such a shock when it happens (i'm not saying it wasn't then, but my mum and my nana knew LOTS of women, the majority in fact, who had lost at least one infant or child, whereas now it is rare enough for parents who suffer such a loss to be isolated in their grief) and so the tendency to wrap in cotton wool is stronger than ever. My mum would no doubt have had a FIT at the situations i was in when in fact i learned the hardest and most useful lessons of my life so far, but i cannot imagine in a life of classes, planned activities and supervised playdates how my child would ever GET into such situations. I DO think there is a more common trend nowadays to over-protect and that lessons about HOW to cope when you fall/are harmed/meet danger/encounter evil are being lost to our children. Already a generation have genuinely NEEDED therapy for things which past generations accepted with stoicism. Simultaneously talking therapy and antidepressant use are higher than ever before and suicide rates climb ever higher. This is WAY o/t now. If you start a new thread feel free to move this post there.

Bx

[~Saram~]

Another one here who is deeply saddened by the sheer number of parents who are being fed this info in antenatal class MCHN etc. When DS was not sleeping through the night at 6mths I was bombarded with CC, and "settling techniques"

While I often close my eyes when putting my babies to sleep my face is still turned towards them and there is nothing so precious as watching you baby slowly fall asleep looking back at you.

My favourite parts of the day are gently putting my kids to sleep, lying down with them or gently rocking them it is the most beautiful and calming part of everyday for all of us.

As for the comment on holding is for feeding, floor for play etc, perhaps this is the reason for the increase in flat heads in little babies! Both my babies have spent their awake time in slings, in my arms and on the floor with me

[Lulu]

It's also hard when one book, one author or one website (not this one!) decides there is ONE way to go and stubbornly sticks to it. Follow the rules and you will get this outcome.....just follow the RULES.

I wish they would all have the foresight to say "if this technique is not working for you or is upsetting for you, maybe you can try something else".....etc. But of course they dont, because "they" want to have the answer and make a lotta $$$

[BellyBelly]

You've hit the nail on the head there Lulu - much more money in - 'make your baby sleep from 7 to 7' than, 'here's a few things that could help your baby sleep'....

[paradise lost]

It's funny isn't it how much more willing people are to pay for something with contravenes all common sense (like a creature (i.e. a newborn) with a stomach the size of a walnut going 12 hours without food being healthy/normal/good!) than just accept reality!? Modern life and the removal of the "nasty" truths from in front of our eyes has ALOT to answer for!

Bx

[Astrid]

It's also hard when one book, one author or one website (not this one!) decides there is ONE way to go and stubbornly sticks to it. Follow the rules and you will get this outcome.....just follow the RULES.

True, especially when the advice ignores other factors, such as possible illness, food intolerances, allergies etc To me it is cruel not to eliminate those factors first. As adults we would not insist on making ourselves go to sleep with a tummy ache, so why do some people think we should do it to our babies?

[Phteven]

https://www.bellybelly.com.au/forums...d-mothers.html

I think we need to remember that there's a fine line between bagging out other sites and bagging out other Mums

[Willow]

I think we need to remember that there's a fine line between bagging out other sites and bagging out other Mums

[meow]

I wasn't bagging out other Mums... the thought didn't even cross my mind when I started this.

I'm obviously still too fragile for all this at the moment.

[Roryrory]

The advice was that holding is for feeding, floor is for play and cot is for sleep.

Wow, that is harsh

Personally I have cuddled both my boys to sleep and LOVE cuddling them while they snooze, but at the same time have put them to bed in their own cot (in our room) and do not baby-wear. Why do these sorts of sites have to polarise parenting so much? Its not like you have to do EVERYTHING that gentle parenting might suggest (such as co-sleeping) but why can't these pro-detatched parenting sites take a little from other ways of doing things?

[Lucy]

Rory, I agree.

Why does there have to be a particular 'school of parenting' that a mummy fits into?

I am like a magpie: I pick and chose the concepts I like from all sorts of avenues of advice.

I am also a firm believer on being gentle on all other Mums, as well as gentle with my children........