Does happy mum REALLY equal happy baby?

[Ca Plane Pour Moi]

Interesting thread!

"Happy Mum = Happy baby" to me means that both people here have needs and both peoples' needs should be met. It doesn't mean mum puts her wants in front of baby's needs, though.

I know one Mum who is a happy Mum. Her baby "put herself to sleep" from 6w old (CCing), is "happy with strangers" (has no choice as Mum wants a social life) and "plays happily on her own while I bake/paint/scrapbook". That baby isn't happy the Mum goes out on a date with Dad every week, leaving Baby with a stranger. Mum is, but it's Mum's wants over Baby's needs here.

I know a time when I was an unhappy Mum. I needed help and support: I had bad whiplash from a car accident, DS was injured too and wanted to be held all the time, even with a sling it was agony. He could have been held by ANYONE - but MiL wouldn't come round and cuddle DS for me. (Found out recently I wasn't allowed to ask her because DH had and she'd said no!) Ignoring my needs was not helpful. Friends helped, but also had children so couldn't be around as much as, say, a retired grandmother could.

I'm happy when I go out for (decaff) coffee. DS is happy now to see friends and play. Win-win. But there was a time when he wasn't happy to be away from me. I kept him with me; he needed me and I wanted a half-hour to chat without him. Needs trump wants. Sure, it would have been nice to have a whole conversation but that wasn't happening, no big deal.

Whose needs first? Depends on the greatest need.

I've left DS crying in his cot for an extra 30 seconds before I'm by his side: if I hadn't then I'd have wet myself putting him back to sleep! Loo break trumps a half-hour of putting DS back down. Mostly DS's needs come before mine, but not always. I need to cook a dinner and DS wants to play: dinner wins. DS needs to get dressed and I need my BB time... DS wins (usually LOL).

DS was the one to stop co-sleeping, to stop breast-feeding, to start all his "big boy" behaviour (toilet training, sitting to table etc). His needs are being met as are my wants: I wanted him to tell me when to do this, I didn't want to have to push the issue! I missed him when he stopped co-sleeping but his need to be alone outweighted my need to have a body to cuddle!

[Junglemum]

i think the statement is true to a degree. But i look more at it from the perspective of when i am upset or stressed it reall effects my little girl. When i am happy then our days seem much more pleasant. If i am stressed she is difficult to settle, grumpy and clingy.

but for me, resorting to controlled crying to get that sleep, or making a baby drop night feeds at a really young age, to me isn't about having a happy baby at all..

I guess this would be because doing these things wouldn't make you happy. They wouldn't make me happy either. Differnt things are important to us and therefore make us happy. Not using controlled crying is more important to me than my baby sleeping throught the night. So we don't use CC and i believe that makes me feel like a happier mum because i feel i am doing what i think is best for my child. For other people, having their baby sleep though the night is more important and therefore that is what will make them happy.


I think i have used the term before when a member seems to be stressed, upset and at their wits end and wants to try something else. For eg, they want to stop BF and use formula. I am not going to tell them that i think they are doing the wrong thing and should tough it out and persist with the BF'ing. But i would perhaps offer them encouragement with the words like......... you need to do what feels right for you and your baby, you have tried really hard and what ever decision you make is up to you, it's ok to come to this decision, a happy mum = happy baby. In this instance i would mean it in regards to the stress which was obviously creating issues and upsetting them, which i think would inturn upset the baby. Does that make ANY sense???

Just trying to explain my thoughts in a situation where i might use the term.....

When i see the term happy mum = happy baby it doesn't really bother me. I recognise that happiness and what gets us there is a very individual thing. But i can see what you mean by happy baby = happy mum.

I think it should be happy baby= happy mum = happy baby.

[Lulu]

I keep pondering and trying to find words that won't offend. So gimme a break ok?

In my experiences, I have come across mothers that don't seem to get that motherhood involves sacrifice. And it does full stop, I'm sure we all can agree on that. Now I'm not talking about stopping things that will crack your head apart if you don't stop or endeavor to change them, but things that are part and parcel of being a mother.

Then throwing out the 'happy baby = happy mum" thing. The child comes first or why bother having them at all?

[[M]umma[M]ia]

i believe Happy baby = happy mum. If im happy shes still gonna scream so i dont stay happy for every long so i dont get the happy mum=happy baby. I think its the other way around!

[[M]umma[M]ia]

The child comes first or why bother having them at all?

so VERY true!

[Willow]

Now I'm not talking about stopping things that will crack your head apart if you don't stop or endeavor to change them

Just to clarify my earlier post - this IS what I meant when I was talking about the baby's needs always coming first no matter the affect it has on the mother - I'm talking about the stuff that will 'crack your head apart'...not things like wanting your baby to sleep through the night at 6w old etc etc.

As an example, I had a friend who's 18 month old would wake up at night and be awake for 4 solid hours, every single night for months and months and months. That mum had 2 sets of twins under 4 years and was just about ready to lose her mind with sleep deprivation. Should she have let that continue because that's what the baby 'wanted/needed'? In that situation...no, I personally don't think she should have and I supported her all the way when she sought help to get her baby sleeping again.

[Lulu]

hang on, will bbl to clarify again. Im being kicked off....!

[sunshine_sieben]

Oh, some good points made here.

Willow, that sounds like a very extreme situation. I don't think being awake in the middle of the night is what the child wanted. I'm all for trying to find reasons for a behaviour like that, then trying to come up with a solution. I do believe it is possible to remedy this without resorting to measures like CC. DD was a really bad sleeper from 9-14 months, then average until just recently. Now she sleeps through most nights. And if she does wake up, she goes back down within 10 minutes.
I don't think that when it comes to sleep it is your needs versus theirs. At least not at this age. Both mother and baby NEED their sleep. So it's in the best interest of both of them to find a solution.

I think Rosehip-Fairy has summed it up quite well. Sorry, darl, I couldn't give you any points, gotta spread the love first. In most cases it is a case of whose needs are more urgent. Does mummy need to sleep right now, or could she give her 6 week old a feed first, to fill his tummy which is sore from being hungry. Is it really that important to go shopping right now, when bubby is beside himself from being so tired, can't it wait til after a sleep. Sometims it's also siblings which seem to be rivals here. What's more important right now: feeding a hungry baby or playing with a bored toddler (cna you keep them busy until you have time). Comforting a toddler who has bumped their head or bathing baby.
As I said earlier, it's all about compromises.

Lulu, very well said.

Saša

[Willow]

Sunshine - yep, I absolutely agree that it was an extreme situation but that was the point I was trying to make. I completely agree with your points about the day to day needs of a baby (especially about sleep) and they absolutely should come first, but sometimes there are extreme situations where it's not that black and white.

I was just trying to clarify my earlier post, that's all.

[sunshine_sieben]

Willow, let's just agree to agree then - lol!
That's what I meant by having to make compromises sometimes. I guess what other posters have meant was that they have an issue when the Happy mum = happy baby saying is used as an excuse to act in a selfish manner. If we use it in a situation where our sanity is at risk, I don't think anyone would judge.
Saša

[Marlene]

I definently think that Happy Baby = Happy Mum...and not the other way around.
For instance my little man is still not sleeping through the night and still needs to be cuddled to sleep at night, but you should hear all the comments and pressure I am getting from friends and DH to "just let him cry, he needs to learn". Learn what?? Learn that his mummy is just going to dump him in the cot and walk away when he needs to be cuddled?? Well, thats not going to happen...I must admit I have tried to leave him to put himself to sleep...and it it certainly did not make for a happy baby or a happy mummy!! So now, I sit in his room and cuddle him to sleep, which takes no more than ten minutes of my time....I'd rather spend ten minutes cuddling and looking at my precious baby than an hour going in and out of his room every few minutes while he screams.

Anyway, I dont know if that ramble actually makes a point, LOL, but I havent had any significant "me" time for a long, long, long time, and although I sometimes complain to DH about it (when I am particularly tired or stressed) I wouldnt have it any other way...and either would my very happy and content baby.

[Cassius2]

I reckon it's a bit of a chicken and the egg situation... which one first LOL?! and can they really be seen as two distinct threads? rather i see it as a finely textured weaving of the two.

I am personally happier when DD is happy. but DD isn't always happy (usually as we set off into the sunset AWAY from the playground after hours of swing and slide time...hmm, but mummy IS happy! LOL!) and i am not always happy. are the two connected? not exclusively. sometimes I am unhappy when DD is gloriously over the moon with joy. we read the same book 6 times over! but it in this instance it is a sacrifice worth making. and sometimes DD is unhappy when i am happy. for example, DH is with her and mummy sneaks off for a shower; DD thinks it is uncalled for and bangs at the door demanding me to come out. but i disappear into the steam with a blissful smile while i hear DH negotiating at the door with DD with promises of playground extravaganzas.

I guess i have to agree with RHF on many of her points, it's a balance that we all need to find for ourselves, and however we define it we all mean the same thing. we want to achieve happiness.

[Lulu]

Agreeing to agree with you too Willow! Sorry I misread your post first off

I will agree with you Cassius but only to a point. Yes we do have to find a balance, but not at the expense of the childs needs. See Sasa point about the selfishness?

Where I'm coming from is this. I have had both a cruisy baby and one highly sensitive/needy one, and one in the middle. I KNOW what it feels like to think your head is literally about to cave in - you gotta do what you gotta do.
I don't know if some haven't actually REALLY thought about the reality of having a baby. I'm not preaching and this has absolutely nothing to do with age, its about responsibilities.

I can't tell you how many examples of this I have. My SIL that just didn't want to BF because she would 'have more freedom', who constantly complains about her children (and they are LOVELY) because they have the nerve to act like children. They muck about at the dinner table, they are fussy eaters (heavens above!), they want her time and attention. Her version of a birthday party is to invite mainly her friends around, sit around and drink whilst the kids sit at a table by themselves with party hats on.

My exh had 2 sons. The older is quiet, hated sports, didn't have friends and didn't really care. The younger was tall, athletic and a natural at sports - just like his dad. Exh doted on the younger and seemed to leave the older because they had nothing in common. He did stuff all about it, he didn't even try.
You can't send 'em back if you didn't get what you ordered yanno? Be a PARENT FFS!

sorry, all ranty now

[sneakysparkle]

Rant away Lulu2 - you always have something good to say

[sunshine_sieben]

I don't know if some haven't actually REALLY thought about the reality of having a baby.

It definitely seems like that with some people. I'm having those issues with DH atm. Some days I feel like he loves the idea of having children, but the reality of it is just not really what he bargained for. He can be so impatient with DD just because she isn't quiet so he can listen to some TV show.

And yes, I have been told at 4 months: It's about time you weaned so you can get your life back. What the???? I don't want my life back. I made a decision to have children and I knew full well that it is going to change my life. Isn't that the point? And how is weaning going to get me my life back anyway?

Saša

[Trillian]

This is something I've been pondering over the past few months - partly due to what I read on here and partly for what I see in my RL. My conclusion is that no matter which way you put those 4 words, it's all just self-serving bullsh.. to try and make you feel better for the choices you make.

Look at where it's bandied about the most - when a Mum is having problems with feeding or sleeping and she is struggling with what choice she should make - and it's never easy to decide - and I actually think it's detrimental that when someone is having a crisis like that to say "oh happy Mummy/Baby = Happy Baby/Mummy" because more often than not ONE of the two is NOT HAPPY regardless of which choice is made. I know Mum's who went to FF because they *see* a happier baby, but the internal struggle and guilt they deal with over that can be huge and plague them for years. It's no different for a Mum who decides to continue to BF through bouts of mastitis, or with PND when the only meds she can take while BF aren't quite doing the job (and that's even if she does deicde to medicate due to her concern for bubs) because she knows it's the best thing for baby. And with the sleeping - how many truly co-sleep because you're over the moon happy about it? Nearly every baby would be happy to sleep with Mum, but I know I wasn't when I had to do it for nearly 5mths, but it's what I had to do so he (Alister) could get some sleep and I could manage a few hours sleep a night too if I was lucky (reflux and food sensitivity issues). Most of the people I know who co-sleep do so because it is a means to an end and helps them ride out sleep issues. I know only a handful of people who plan that from the outset with their babies, and even less who are 100% happy with having a child in their bed as time goes on.

This follows on through everything we do as parents to our children. I've had the children who don't eat (not fussy, just small eaters who prefer grazing) and it took me ages to get over that and just leave them be because they are MUCH happier to do what they do and not the forced to eat a meal they don't want. I know that they will survive without 3 square meals a day, but I'm not happy about it because I don't think it's enough to keep them going (and as coincidence would have it, my two *busiest* and most active children were the two who preferred to eat like that).

I'm not happy that one of my children is THE most stubborn and obstinate child you could ever meet which makes her hard to parent 99% of the time, but like it or not I have to embrace those traits because that's what makes her HER. With the two of us it's circles and roundabouts - if she's happy I'm not, if I'm happy she's not (usually in regards to keeping her room clean LOL, but in my defence we get bad mice problems and her messy room doens't help the issue)

So it IS about sacrifices you make for your children. They are just fluffy buzz words for what we have to believe to *survive* raising our children at times. You could even call it a Mantra, but it doesn't change the fact that in my opinion sometimes we do just have to survive what life throws at us while we are raising our children in the hope that one day it will be better

[Junglemum]

They are just fluffy buzz words

Yep, and you can read into them what you like. But i guess what i was trying to say in my previous ramble is that i don't take the words literally, i don't think if someone types to me "happy mum = happy baby" That they mean i should put ALL of my needs first ALL of the time. or vice versa if they type the oppposite.

[Liz]

My conclusion is that no matter which way you put those 4 words, it's all just self-serving bullsh.. to try and make you feel better for the choices you make...
They are just fluffy buzz words for what we have to believe to *survive* raising our children at times.

Completely agree. I think that's why the phrase irritates me. I hate sayings that are only what people want to hear.

It's one reason I rarely go into the boohoo room because it feels like people are just in there fishing for people to say what they want to hear. LOL.