New parenting methods

Wolff

Interesing posts on other threads re Green parenting and all sorts of new and lovely buzz words "attachment parenting" "no vaxing" sleeping with your kids, breastfeeding them a la little britain - ie letting them wean themselves.

All very interesting - but and this is why im setting this thread up - where did all this stuff come from - my mum and dad only slept with me when they had too - my mum breastfed till i was 12months old - I got all the vacines because they were supposed to protect me from diseases etc.

who tutored them ? why do we feel the need for all this stuff - Is it because familys are now only one or two kids ? is it because of guilt leaving our kids in creches ?

The whole green parent thing is another stange developement - as i said on another thread if i was an eco warrior or wanted to do my bit for mankind - i probably wouldnt have kids - as no matter what you do your kids
will still use up their share of the earths resources.

- what happens if your kids grow up to be monster truck drivers ?

What do people think these methods will bring to their children ?

The Hill Billy

TBH - I'm pretty much one to live & let live. I have no real opinions on any one "method" of parenting or another. I just got on with raising my lad as best as I see fit & hope to Christ that I'll do a good job of it over the next 30-odd years.

That said, I have noticed that a substantial number (before I get lashed out of it - I'm not saying "All") of the pro-attachment/green/"no-vaxing"-parenting posts to which you refer are from expectant &/or first time mothers. It is interesting to note that the more experienced parents are a lot more cynical of these methods. A triumph of experience over rose-tinted glasses? That said, it is good for us all to strive to be better parents & fair dues to those that make the effort. I would, however, prefer to rely on my gut instinct rather than someone else's "methodology" when it comes to my child's welfare.

On the point of "no-vaxing" - I have to say that I was shocked when I realised that this is seen as an acceptable practice by some people. Maybe one for a thread of its own? Why put your child at unnecessary risk of infection? Have these people seen what a simple dose of the measles can do - never mind polio? Will they say after three sleepless months of their child being racked by whooping cough (the child being scared sh1tless that each breath was their last) - "Ah, sure it'll harden him!"?

Also, surely there is a collective social responsibility upon us to do our bit to eradicate these diseases? (Or am I being a bit too happy-clappy in suggesting that?)

Wolff wrote:

what happens if your kids grow up to be monster truck drivers?

Serious kudos at the Over-65's Club! :cool:

Leax

Since becoming a parent one thing that has struck me hugley is how judgemental parents become of other's choices/approaches, and i think this is because how we parent strikes to the very core of who we are/who we think we are, and to have others do something so differently is challenging for some.

In terms of theory and books this seems to be a western phenomenon over the last 150yrs? Oversimplfying i know but two dominant yet polarised approaches seem to be the Attachment Parenting approach/Sears, and regimented routines/Gina Ford. The first seems to be an infant led approach, demand feeding, co-leeping, baby-wearing etc, whereas Gina Ford seems to be a very controlling parent led approach. I think a lot of people whether they have read books or not must fall somewhere in the middle, what do others think?

who tutored them ? why do we feel the need for all this stuff - Is it because familys are now only one or two kids ? is it because of guilt leaving our kids in creches ?

the knowledge base available wasn't developed to the same degree or disseminated/accessible to the same degree at all as it is now. I for one am delighted to avail of the researched info on car seat safety, infant and child nutrition, SIDs guidelines, etc etc. I think the way we access info now is so different that whatever your interests are, and when you get pregnant your interest is surely piqued at all things baby, the instant accessability via mulitple media means you are exposed, and naturally many people explore further. I'm not sure there is anything overly mysterious about it.
Also, the way we live now is different to previous generations of large family and close community living, where information, skills, knowledge and practical wisdom were handed down and permeated the care of young ones. We don't necessarily have that type of support sydtem and so go looking for information. That infomation comes in the guise of parenting boks, and we each find one or more that appeals to us. Personally i find myself most influenced by my mother, only realised this after giving it a bit of thought prompted by realising we saw things very differently to friends 'Doing Gina Ford' as the phrase goes. i'd never wake a sleeping baby, feed when hungry, keep comfy and cosy, be guided by the little one and help it gently into a wee routine, and don't worry about it doing or not doing x,y,z at thsi time or that time cos they aren't robots. If i hadn't got an influential mum, i'd seek ideas elsewhere.

What do people think these methods will bring to their children ?

Taking the 2 examples above i guess the Sears followers believe their children will benefit in terms of security confidence etc, and Gina Forders believe their babies, having being routinised by her methods will be contented as per the book's thesis. Also, maybe it's not just about what the theories will do for the babies, but more so for the parents. If attachment parenting is congruent with your personal philosophy and beliefs it is going to sit well with you and 'feel right', if you work well with routine and feel a stong need to have a very predictable baby (maybe because that is your coping style, maybe because you have a job that demands predictability and you need order in your life to function outside the home as well as in), then GF wil appeal .

It's an interesting question, and a complex issue. I've just highlighted two polarised views (in probably an oversimplistic way i know).

susiesue

Has there been any studies on how these children fare out in later life?

ArthurDent

Am currently expecting number 3 and with DS 1 & 2 went with a mixture of reading and advice from my mam etc. Think I do agree that before baby's appearance I would have had very fixed ideas on what I would and wouldn't do - some based on advice from midwives friends books etc some based on gut feeling, as I progressed through the past 8 years many of my opinions changed.
Wanted a no intereference, natural birth on number 1, couldn't cope with pain, long labour and ended up with every intervention you could name, epidural, episiotomy, ventouse, forceps - baby in ICU for 3 days, mammy in shock, but came through it eventually, BF for 7 months - was heartbroken when he weaned himself then, agonised over vaccinations (particularly mmr, but went with them), number 2 - much easier birth (crap pregnancy!), no interventions, no epidural, tiny tear, BF for 11 months, co-slept (at one stage all 4 of us on two mattresses in our bedroom!) self trained and no with number 3, I'll take it as it comes - hoping for a med-free birth, but if it doesn't happen, it doesn't - a healthy baby is all i want at end of day, will co-sleep if baby wants to, although would have a prefernce not to and will try her in crib, hope to breastfeed if all works out and as for the rest - its all in the lap of the gods - you don't know whats going to come up and bite you in the bum.For example had thought I might like to cloyth nappy - but both my kids have awful excezma (no known cause, no-one asthmatic, no-one smoked, no known alergies, both BF) and there was no way I would have been able to cloth nappy - as it was I had to rinse my kids clothes 4 times after every wash to ensure no allergic reaction to any detergent and also they both wore about an inch of barrier cream on their bums - you would never have been able to wash those nappies) My kids have been better teachers than any book or advice from well meaning people. The one thing I'd caution people about being very definite on what they will and won't do before that baby arrives - you're setting yourself up for failure - if for any reason you can't live up to those expectations, by all means have ideals in your head, but realise that they may not happen, for whatever reason - for example my sister got a really bad case (surgical intervention necessary) of mastitis a week after her son was born and that meant she could no longer feed him and because she had built herself up so much she got seriously depressed and considered hersefl as a failure.

The Hill Billy

ArthurDent wrote:

The one thing I'd caution people about being very definite on what they will and won't do before that baby arrives - you're setting yourself up for failure - if for any reason you can't live up to those expectations, by all means have ideals in your head, but realise that they may not happen, for whatever reason...

Nice one ArthurDent! Never a truer word said.
The expectations we set for ourselves particularly when it comes to our little darlings can often be too much to live up to. It can be worthwhile having a "Plan B".

It is important to bear in mind that for a child to thrive - it must do so within the family unit. Also, siblings should also be taken into account as unrealistic plans for the "newbie" may cause significant upheaval & upset, thus making it tougher on Mum & Dad in the long run.

Ayla

I've been reading all of the comments made on this and the Green Baby forums, and I think the answer for Wolff's queries lies (as always) somewhere in the middle.

I agree with those who've stated the fact that society has changed - generally speaking we in Ireland no longer live in a society where families live communally and everyone relies on each other for basic survival. Now the core family unit is commonly isolated from other families, to the point that most folks probably don't even know their neighbors. This means that suddenly mom, and grandmom, and aunts, and everyone else isn't always there to tell the new parents how to calm a baby, and how to get them to b/f, and on and on. It is (anyone will agree with this) very daunting for new parents to suddenly have a completely dependant baby on their hands, and know they alone are responsible for its well-being.

That said, I also agree that parenting is somewhat natural, somewhat learned behaviour. Even experienced parents will tell you that there is a learning curve associated with having a baby and establishing a family. Everyone has some instinctual feelings, and I'd imagine that most parents will rely somewhat on those, however there is a lot of information out there to help parents use their instincts the most effectively.

So, you put those two points together, that families are more isolated and that each one therefore has to learn parenting individually, and wham - you suddenly have "parenting methods".

Parenting methods have existed forever, but they are just recently (since the advent of mass media and telecommunications) developing names. There are infinite ideas, theories and practices out there, but now we can talk to folks across the world about how they do things. And to have such discussions, it's easiest if there are names to the methods.

I personally think it's a great thing that people are willing to take the time and effort to learn as much as they can, if not before than during their child-rearing experiences. We just don't (and can't) know everything, and only through speaking, reading and discussing can we learn. That's what humans do (even outside the parenting forums).

And of course it's hard to make your mind up about parenting (or anything) until you're in that situation, however that doesn't mean that we can't learn as much about what's out there beforehand. That way we'll be better equipped to handle the various situations we'll find ourselves in when the time comes.

eiretamicha

I was going to add in my $0.02 to this discussion, but I agree with just about everything Ayla said so there's no need, lol.

It's so weird though...I've never been labelled like this before. I've always been a pretty down-to-earth kinda girl. I love animals, I'm a vegetarian, I try not to slather my body and home in chemicals, I don't pollute, I sing in the shower, I'm just me. I've always been called little names like "nature-girl" and "animal-girl"...but it was always in a light and joking manner. People knew I did things differently, but they didn't care and they usually didn't judge me for it. This is the first time I've been labelled in such a negative sense (in real life or on the internet). Maybe Americans just tend to mind their own business, but I truly find it strange that some of you are so judgemental over how people choose to parent their children.

We're not following fads. I had never heard of attachement parenting when I first saw an African woman at the airport with her baby tied to her back. It made so much sense to me and I realized right then and there that when I had a baby, I'd want to do the same thing. I'd never heard of no-vaxing when I was due to attend the University of Florida and was told that I needed about 50 vaccines. I started researching how vaccines affected health and was immediately repulsed. It didn't help to learn that many vaccines contain harmful heavy metals and chemicals, and are tested on aborted fetuses. I never knew there was anything called co-sleeping as I grew up sleeping in my mom's bed. I just thought it was the norm. Breastfeeding was a given. Why on earth would anyone choose to feed forumula when breastmilk is free and has been the sole method of feeding infants since the beginning of time??

Only recently did I discover that these things had names, and that many, many people put them into practice all over the world. If that makes me a crazy hippie, so be it. But I do what I truly believe is best for my family, as I'm sure you do as well, and no one should be judged for that.

Wolff

Interesting posts everyone

Hill billy I have to agree with what you are saing - Ayla good point about the lack of people to ask in modern ireland - that has to be part of these fads - and they are fads make no mistake about that.

eiretamicha - I have to take you up on something you said - about the african woman - perhaps she couldnt afford the nice mamma and pappas buggy or perhaps its no use in the area she lives in - it doesnt mean its the best way to carry your young

A lot of these tribes are nomadic or have to cross long distances so it make sense to have a sling - doesnt mean its the best way though

Vaccines are another very emotive area but I have to say after all i read especially the so called link to autism etc id rather have my child immune to an infection that not.

I think if he / she caught TB or what ever Id never forgive myself.

The Hill Billy

eiretamicha wrote:

I've never been labelled like this before.

You've not been labelled as anything so far as I can see in this thread.

eiretamicha wrote:

Maybe Americans just tend to mind their own business...

As in minding their own business in the middle east? (ONLY JOKING!)

eiretamicha wrote:

but I truly find it strange that some of you are so judgemental over how people choose to parent their children.

I don't think that anyone is being so judgmental in this thread. As a matter of fact the harshest words have probably been from me in relation to the whole "no-vaxing" malarky.

eiretamicha wrote:

But I do what I truly believe is best for my family, as I'm sure you do as well...

Fair dues to you! Don't we all?

eiretamicha wrote:

...no one should be judged for that.

I've not seen anyone being judged here. Questions have been asked. Opinions have been offered.

ArthurDent

eiretamicha wrote:

I was going to add in my $0.02 to this discussion, but I agree with just about everything Ayla said so there's no need, lol.

It's so weird though...I've never been labelled like this before. I've always been a pretty down-to-earth kinda girl. I love animals, I'm a vegetarian, I try not to slather my body and home in chemicals, I don't pollute, I sing in the shower, I'm just me. I've always been called little names like "nature-girl" and "animal-girl"...but it was always in a light and joking manner. People knew I did things differently, but they didn't care and they usually didn't judge me for it. This is the first time I've been labelled in such a negative sense (in real life or on the internet). Maybe Americans just tend to mind their own business, but I truly find it strange that some of you are so judgemental over how people choose to parent their children.

We're not following fads. I had never heard of attachement parenting when I first saw an African woman at the airport with her baby tied to her back. It made so much sense to me and I realized right then and there that when I had a baby, I'd want to do the same thing. I'd never heard of no-vaxing when I was due to attend the University of Florida and was told that I needed about 50 vaccines. I started researching how vaccines affected health and was immediately repulsed. It didn't help to learn that many vaccines contain harmful heavy metals and chemicals, and are tested on aborted fetuses. I never knew there was anything called co-sleeping as I grew up sleeping in my mom's bed. I just thought it was the norm. Breastfeeding was a given. Why on earth would anyone choose to feed forumula when breastmilk is free and has been the sole method of feeding infants since the beginning of time??

Only recently did I discover that these things had names, and that many, many people put them into practice all over the world. If that makes me a crazy hippie, so be it. But I do what I truly believe is best for my family, as I'm sure you do as well, and no one should be judged for that.

eiretamicha not getting into a heavy debate on the pros and cons of vaccinations but just had to comment on your quote about them being tested on aborted foetuses - all medicines for humas are tested on humans, they all undergo clinical trials, i've never heard of any being tested on aborted foetuses - have you got any links for this statement? And while I do think that some vaccinces probably may not be necessary (the schedule followed for children in most US states seems excessive), I think that erradication (or near erradication) of diseases such as polio, and TB and the decreases in childhood deaths due to rubella, pertussis, meningitis and mumps vaccines would, on balance appear to outweigh the small risks assocciated with these vaccines.

Ayla

Wolff wrote:

eiretamicha - I have to take you up on something you said - about the african woman - perhaps she couldnt afford the nice mamma and pappas buggy or perhaps its no use in the area she lives in - it doesnt mean its the best way to carry your young. A lot of these tribes are nomadic or have to cross long distances so it make sense to have a sling - doesnt mean its the best way though.

It is the best way for them, and for us (in this concretized, citified world) it may or may not be the best. But who's to say a buggy is the best? It's different...no better, no worse. Why can't that be enough?

Leax

I had been thinking that this thread was so far totally unjudgemental, and put it down to the fact that parenting theories as a concept is being discussed rather than (so far!) the perceived merits of each.
eiretamicha i think attachment parenting has featured as it was mentioned on the green babies thread, which sparked this one, no-one is being critical of it i think.
i've seen some good advice to parents-to-be here though, particularly about being too psychologically beholden to different ideas and perspectives in case they don't work out . I was dead set on breast feeding, and finally stopped after 7 tortuous weeks, most of the torture coming from my own brain as i grappled with stopping, i have 3 slings and don't use any of them , wasn't dead set on baby-wearing but liked the idea and liked the thought of having mobility options, i read 'three in a bed' by deborah jackson, mostly because i am interested in how western culture has shaped parenting trends in the last century. Co-sleeping was something i was open to, but 10 weeks of sleeping with a baby with acid reflux sleeping upright on my chest made me very happy to have him finally in his cot , and now 7 months on he has just moved into his won room and i am delighted to have my space back. I guess you don't know what will work until the baby arrives and you live the whole experience.

Ayla

"i have 3 slings and don't use any of them" - Leax

Leax - this is a bit (or more) off subject, and I probably should just pm you, but what slings did you try? Why did you finally not use them? If you still have them, would you want to sell them? I'm asking purely for myself here b/c I'm shopping around for them at the moment. Feel free to pm me.

eiretamicha

Wolff wrote:

eiretamicha - I have to take you up on something you said - about the african woman - perhaps she couldnt afford the nice mamma and pappas buggy or perhaps its no use in the area she lives in - it doesnt mean its the best way to carry your young

I believe that it is the best way to carry my children, as it makes breastfeeding easier and keeps baby close-by. Parents of preemie babies are also urged to carry their children in this manner, skin-to-skin. I'd much rather have my child in my arms at all times, rather than have them being pushed around in a stroller. If you disagree, that's ok! We're entitled to different opinions.

ArthurDent wrote:

eiretamicha not getting into a heavy debate on the pros and cons of vaccinations but just had to comment on your quote about them being tested on aborted foetuses - all medicines for humas are tested on humans, they all undergo clinical trials, i've never heard of any being tested on aborted foetuses - have you got any links for this statement? And while I do think that some vaccinces probably may not be necessary (the schedule followed for children in most US states seems excessive), I think that erradication (or near erradication) of diseases such as polio, and TB and the decreases in childhood deaths due to rubella, pertussis, meningitis and mumps vaccines would, on balance appear to outweigh the small risks assocciated with these vaccines.

I love Google. This is easier because I'm at work and don't have my links handy. There's quite a few very reliable websites out there regarding vaccines and aborted fetus testing. Ya just gotta sort through some of the not-so-reliable ones.

Hill Billy wrote:

You've not been labelled as anything so far as I can see in this thread.

You're absolutley right. I haven't been labelled in this thread. I felt that I (along with other parents) was being labelled in the Green Babies thread, but no one came outright and judged me. Sometimes feelings are more powerful than words though. *shrug* At any rate, maybe I'm just overly sensitive, lol.

ArthurDent

I love Google. This is easier because I'm at work and don't have my links handy. There's quite a few very reliable websites out there regarding vaccines and aborted fetus testing. Ya just gotta sort through some of the not-so-reliable ones.

Vaccines derived from cell lines that may (or may not) be derived from tissue from aborted fetuses does NOT mean that vaccines are TESTED on aborted fetuses. Is it the where the cell lines are derived from or the fact that there is human testing that you object to?

Human cell lines for the development of human vaccines for all types of diseases (including many types of cancer) are made from different human tissues - do you object to all of these too? As I said before ALL medicines for human use are tested on humans.

Leax

Ayla wrote:

"i have 3 slings and don't use any of them" - Leax

Leax - this is a bit (or more) off subject, and I probably should just pm you, but what slings did you try? Why did you finally not use them? If you still have them, would you want to sell them? I'm asking purely for myself here b/c I'm shopping around for them at the moment. Feel free to pm me.

have pm'd you

eiretamicha

ArthurDent wrote:

Vaccines derived from cell lines that may (or may not) be derived from tissue from aborted fetuses does NOT mean that vaccines are TESTED on aborted fetuses. Is it the where the cell lines are derived from or the fact that there is human testing that you object to?

Human cell lines for the development of human vaccines for all types of diseases (including many types of cancer) are made from different human tissues - do you object to all of these too? As I said before ALL medicines for human use are tested on humans.

I am pro-life. I oppose abortion in any shape or form. In my opinion, vaccines being derived from cell lines that are (quite often) derived from the tissue of aborted fetuses are just as morally wrong as vaccines being tested on aborted fetuses. I am quite certain that I have indeed read that some vaccines are tested on aborted fetuses. I will search for that link when I get home from work.

I didn't comment earlier on your "all medicines for human use are tested on humans" because this does not apply to me or my family. I practice herbal and holistic medicine (treat the problem, not the symptom--most illnesses can be healed by change of diet and lifestyle, therefore not even needing to be treated with herbals), have done so for years, and do not support pharmaceutical companies. I wasn't going to mention this because this is such a touchy subject, but then again, parenting is a touchy subject anyway so oh well.

(Disclaimer: Please do not misunderstand. If my baby got a broken bone or needed a blood transfusion, I WOULD take her to the hospital and allow her to be treated. I promise I'm not that crazy, lol. )

Ickle Magoo

Well, I have two kids - so bang goes the old bless-them-they-are-just green-behind-the-ear-first-time-mother theory...the majority of friends we have know these parenting techniques & they have kids ranging up to 13 - I find it's a common misperception that these are new things or that only a couple of people indulge...as this thread proves there also seems to be lots of assumptions & derogitory comments made - which is strange because I've never heard the opposite happen....

I am confused why it would be considered "fads" anyway....many families (mine included) have had generations of breastfeeding, cloth nappies, sling wearing, etc - surely formula, disposibles & buggies are the modern fads?

I think the terminology just helps people to discuss (and maybe that is the crux of the issue - there is no longer a "behind closed doors" policy regarding child-rearing).

Why does it bother people so much if some parents want a greener lifestyle, or want to discuss issues re children & methods of dealing with them together to the point that a language of parenting has developed? I find the levels of distain & dismissal quite bizarre...is that an Irish thing? I'm from the UK, I notice another poster is American...why does it bother you if I choose to raise my child a certain way & why would the methods I choose to parent raise anger? :eek:

On the anti-vax subject....all my kids have been/will be vaccinated. Personally I think those that choose not to only have that luxury thanks to those parents that do nearly illiminating these horrible childhood illnesses. If these diseases once more became rife then I think things would soon change. However, as long as there are children who do not get immunised by the vaccines, live vaccines which keep these illnesses going, awful ingredients whose long term effects have not been studied, etc, etc then you will continue to have parents who do not wish to or cannot see why their child should have it. [That is just my personal opinion.]

Ayla

Ickle Magoo wrote:

I am confused why it would be considered "fads" anyway....many families (mine included) have had generations of breastfeeding, cloth nappies, sling wearing, etc - surely formula, disposibles & buggies are the modern fads?

I agree with this thought, and it's been someting I've been wondering since this thread started. Surely the b/f, child-wearing, cloth-nappy-wearing parenting methods have been around a lot longer (and are generally more wide-spread across the globe) than the bottle-feeding, formula-feeding, buggy-carrying folks?

Again, I'm not saying anything derogatory about either method...to each their own. But I think saying the "greener" method is a fad is a bit mis-led and backwards. Sure there are a lot more names and "methods" out there in the last 50 years or so than there may have been before, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the theories behind any of them are new. We just have names to call them now.

The Hill Billy

Ickle Magoo:

Great post! It's good to get feedback from someone who has used some of the methods being discussed.

Ickle Magoo wrote:

Why does it bother people so much if some parents want a greener lifestyle, or want to discuss issues re children & methods of dealing with them together to the point that a language of parenting has developed? I find the levels of distain & dismissal quite bizarre...is that an Irish thing? I'm from the UK, I notice another poster is American...why does it bother you if I choose to raise my child a certain way & why would the methods I choose to parent raise anger? :eek:

I think that the broad issue that you describe above is due to the vigour with which some parenting methods are being extolled by posters who are not yet parents. Maybe it is an Irish thing. But maybe it is also a "world-weary/Christ-try-that-when-you've-got-three-kids-running-around-like-maniacs-and-four-loads-of-washing-to-do-and-don't-have-time-to-scratch-my-ar$e" thing.

Unfortunately some of this is coming across negatively when the intent is probably to give a more realistic (& maybe somewhat cynical) view of the "parenting experience".

Ickle Magoo

I do know what you mean HillBilly but I don't understand why other parents don't just say nothing & let new parents find out for themselves what suits...I remember on my first I was determined to do things a certain way - looking back on it now it may have been a tad idiolistic but where is the harm in that? What's the alternative? We all trundle into maternity wards, accept whatever we are told from whatever establishments without question & raise our children with no input or perspective from the outside world? Just because one parent has 3 children and can't fathom why anyone would want to use some of the methods being discussed - or hasn't even heard of them - doesn't mean those methods or the parents that use them should be immediately written off as tree-hugging, faddy, mumbo-jumboers...

I know some real militant parents who would find it absolutely unbelievable why anyone would NOT use some of the methods discussed & would be utterly astonished that a parent WOULDN'T use all available resources to help them be the best parent they can be.

Personally, I'm all for choice. I understand my choices won't suit others & visa versa but what I don't understand is the negative language used here. Why self-weaning has to be compard to something out of Little Britain, why parents who look for information from other sources are ridiculed for not winging it...I don't understand the mentality or the criticisms. We all try to raise our children to the best of our ability and hope they turn out reasonably well for our efforts - so what if my efforts meant internet parenting sites or co-sleeping? I don't care if others choose to use disposibles, feed formula from birth or put their 3wk old in a room on their own, I don't understand why the great hillarity or interest, tbh.

The Hill Billy

That's the curse of parenting or soon-to-be-parenting I suppose. There's sometimes a tendency to adopt "holier-than-thou" attitudes. Emotions run high when we discuss our nearest & dearest.

But enough of the why's & wherefore's of who is saying what...
Anyone else care to respond to Wolff's post & share their experiences - good, bad or indifferent? (In a constructive & non-confrontational manner of course!)

Ayla

Wolff wrote:

that has to be part of these fads - and they are fads make no mistake about that.

My question goes back to the OP written by Wolff - You have mentioned that you believe parenting methodology to be a fad. Irregardless of whether this statement is right or wrong, I'm wondering what you think will take its place when the "fad" runs its course? Every style and fad will someday become unpopular (need I remind us of how we all thought we were something else in the eighties, and now we look back on the photos with humiliation?)

So if parenting methods are fads, what do you see happening in the future to "de-throne" them?

TempestSabre

Everyone situations is different, and every child is different. So its pointless to make sweeping generalisations. You do what you feel right based on what you've been taught, and what you learn and research yourself.

Take what works for you from wherever and discard the rest. Otherwise you'll wreck your head.

EcologiKids

From what I've read I don't think anyone has taken a 'holier than thou attitude' about what types of parenting are best. Rather the opposite has happened - I think people became defensive about why they don't use certain parenting methods. Some people's preffered parenting styles have been ridiculed and questioned rather than simply discussed and shared to be understood by others.

All the posters have stated that they do what suits them - why can't that be enough for people without putting others down? imho if there were any attitudes displayed they were belittling and condemning other people's ideals. As far as I can see, as long as children are happy, loved and are not in any danger, or abusive situations, isn't that successful parenting? by whatever method suits each family?

I can't say that I subscribe to any one style of parenting rather I do what suits me and my children.

I use a sling - very handy for keeping both hands free when out and about and baby is very contented and happy in it...we're both happy
I sometimes co-sleep - ie when I'm too tired to lift baby back into her hammock (yes a hammock) during the night - it's handy too as I breastfeed.
I also have a pram for when I need it - which I sometimes do.
We don't have a set routine a la Gina Forde, but our day does have a pattern to it and we use the same bedtime routine every night to send signals to our toddler and baby that it's now time for sleeping etc. ie. story time, into the grobag, cuddles etc. it's worked for us - we have two great sleepers and bedtimes are fun and cuddly
I read baby's body language ala the babywhisperer to determine whether she is tired/hungry and don't rely just on her cries etc. - ie I try to provide whatever she needs before she cries.
We use time out for our older toddler or remove toys,treats or dvds etc. to discipline and always expect and get an apology followed by hugs.
Our kids get organic food as much as possible- I like the idea that there are no chemicals or pesticides used on it
I use reusable nappies - I don't like the chemicals or waste associated disposables
above all I love them unconditionally - this is not anything new to anyone here - we all do.

I am fair and consistent in the message I send to my children and use a variety of methods or parentings styles to achieve the most peaceful, harmonious and loving relationship I can while teaching them about life and setting fair limits and boundaries.

basically I've gotten to know my children's signals and react to them accordingly and I use whatever method suits us best that I feel comfortable with. Something that all the parents on here do - why should anyone be criticised over doing something their way? It works for us and I congratulate any new parent on finding their groove with their baby - let's face it, it's a huge culture shock so finding your rhythm and methods that suit you and your family is the most important thing we can all achieve.

just my 2 cents.:D

Crea

I think what is being referred to as "fads" is the accepted way to do things which are later on rejected.
For example my mother was told that at 12 weeks the baby no longer should need a night feed and should be left to cry. By the 4th night the baby shouldn't wake and parents will get a full night sleep. She followed this advice which worked eventhough she thought it heartless but she bowed to pressure from others in her family. Now this method of parenting would be rejected by most and has been taken over by the controlled crying/pick up-put down/co-sleeping etc methods which in 30 yrs time will be taken over by other methods.
I don't know if anyone follows 1 "method" of parenting.
I use the baby whisperer for bed time routine, super nanny for the discipline (kinda), no one for feeding/entertaining/waking up during the night etc. In fact in the main I follow the Bob Geldof method where he said the best way to raise a child is with endless love and endless patience - probably the most difficult parenting method but I try.

TempestSabre

Theres tough love and theres "tough", "love".

Ickle Magoo

Crea wrote:

I follow the Bob Geldof method where he said the best way to raise a child is with endless love and endless patience - probably the most difficult parenting method but I try.

I think this is by far the most popular approach!

littlebug

TempestSabre wrote:

Everyone situations is different, and every child is different. So its pointless to make sweeping generalisations. You do what you feel right based on what you've been taught, and what you learn and research yourself.

Take what works for you from wherever and discard the rest. Otherwise you'll wreck your head.

I've been trying to think of a meaningful contribution to this thread for days but I think TS sums it up nicely. My first baby was premature and had severe reflux, cried non stop for the first 6 months of her life, and only a little less for the next 6 months. She woke numerous times at night til she was well over a year. Gina Forde and Co went out the window as did many pre-baby ideals and principles we had. The first year and a half was all about coping, holding it all together and staying sane.

Lest I've frightened the living daylights out of the first time moms to be I should also tell you that my second baby was much more "textbook" though sleep was a big issue til he was 6 month old. Though she's a lovely clever 4 year old now, we still see more of our dd in the middle of the night than we do of her little brother who's nearly 2.
I think they're all "wired" differently and I think if we are doing our best to keep them and, just as importantly, us happy and healthy, then we're doing a good job no matter what method(s) we use.

p

susiesue

I too have been following this thread, I admire the mammys who are planning to practise the traditional/alternative practices, all parents want to do what is best for their children, but when I read the "supermammy" lists from people (some who have yet know the "pleasure" of children) and I'll think "great another f****ing thing I have'nt done right. Not only am I a scourge to the planet but also a ****ty parent"

Ive gone 3 days with not even a hours sleep, and that included having a stressful job, the house is never clean, the kids always need to be dropped here and there, somedays I can't think, and forget my own name. I am a taxi service a maid, a referee and a nurse. I love my childen dearlyand things have evolved like the invention of buggies and disposable nappies to make life handier. Its not the worst thing in the world to make life easier for yourself. I know for a fact that the one thing all kids strive to be is normal