Showing posts with label Gina Ford. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gina Ford. Show all posts

Friday, September 03, 2010

Get subversive with Tony Blair

Well not him, exactly, his book.

I was amused last night by this group on Facebook who has suggested that those of us who are no great fans of our ex PM should take his memoirs on a wee journey (see what I did there?) from the biography section to the crime section of bookshops.

The creators' invitation is as follows:

Subversively move Tony Blair's memoirs to the crime section in book shops
Make bookshops think twice about where they categorise our generations greatest war criminal.
Go on....do it. 
NON VIOLENT DIRECT ACTION
Please invite your friends to do it too!
Those of you who know me well will be familiar with my habit of re-arranging the mother and baby section of bookshops so that the regime oriented parenting books, such as Gina Ford's, are less visible than books which respect the bond between mother and baby. No books are ever damaged in the execution of this task, but you'll maybe see why this Blair initiative appealed to me.

I'm not entirely sure of its usefulness and, after all,  the WH Smith and Waterstone's and Foyle's hardly had a say in the prosecution of the Iraq war, and people like my friend Kate will end up with the job of carrying them back but as a bit of Friday fun, I thought it was worth bringing to your attention. 

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Cuddle your baby to help make them a happier adult

Anyone who's ever been on a customer service course for work will no doubt have been given some variation on the theme of "behaviour breeds behaviour".  You know, if you're nice and calm and pleasant to someone and it looks like you really care about them, then they are likely to respond in kind. If you ignore them, or patronise them or lie to them, they are going to get angry, and understandably so.

That common sense approach, of treating others in the way you would want to be treated has positive benefits for all of human relationships - with, some would say, one exception.

Regime orientated parenting methods, some of which have every minute of the day planned in excruciatingly unachievable detail, encourage parents to treat their tiny babies as if they are animals to be trained rather than little people to be nurtured. Gina Ford suggests that babies be put to sleep, alone, in rooms that have been completely blacked out and if they cry, then let them.  There are other methods which discourage eye contact between mother and baby and not responding to baby's cries. Instinctively I feel that these methods are unbelievably cruel and I would never practice or advocate them, but do they actually cause harm?

Some new research has proven that babies who are shown affection by their mothers end up being better able to cope as adults in a range of situations - they are less prone to depression and better at dealing with stress, for a start. It seems so obvious, but it's good this now adds to the growing body of evidence that responsive parenting and gentle nurturing produce happier, better balanced adults who are more able to cope with the stresses life throws at them.

This sort of research is important because it gives mums the confidence to follow their own instincts with their babies rather than fear spoiling them by being over attentive. It's useful for them to have that sort of evidence to show family members who are doubtful about what they are doing.

I think the other thing that's good about this research is that it specifically states that it's the affection from the mother which makes the difference. I don't think that we value mothering or mothers nearly enough but this research shows how important that relationship is in determining our emotional wellbeing in later life. There's a really good book called What mothers do especially when it looks like nothing that has a look at what happens when you become a mother and how important it is to spend time building trust with the baby by responding to them.  Our society is very quick to blame a mother when anything goes wrong with her child, but very slow to reward and give mothers credit for their phenomenal work raising the next generation.

I hope that research like this, showing unequivocally that being affectionate with and responsive to babies, finally discredits those who would undermine the mother/baby relationship. There are lots of complex inter-relationships between mother and baby, on a physical and emotional level,  that we much about with at our peril.

As Dr Joanna Maselko, the lead author of the research says:

"These provocative findings add to the growing evidence that early childhood helps set the stage for later life experiences and provide support for the notion that biological "memories" laid down early may alter psychological and physiological systems and produce latent vulnerabilities or resilience to problems emerging later in adulthood.
"Thus, the quality of early socio-emotional development may have more far-reaching effects than previously believed.
"These findings suggest that early nurturing and warmth have long-lasting positive effects on mental health well into adulthood."
Given the huge social and financial cost of mental health problems such as Depression, and drug and alcohol addiction which cause immense suffering for people who are rarely sufficiently supported and treated, isn't it time that we use evidence such as this to try to prevent it? The message is simple - affection in the early years of life pays dividends in the future. That's not to say that everyone who suffers from these conditions wasn't shown affection as a baby, but that will be a factor for some people.

Monday, June 07, 2010

Take that, Gina Ford! A tale of parenting by instinct.

My husband came excitedely through with the Sunday Times yesterday, keen to point out this article in one of the magazines, written by a dad, Matt Rudd, about how and his wife had chosen to do without the copious advice of self styled childcare experts and do what comes naturally.

This is very much what we decided to do when Anna came along 11 years ago, although what came naturally for us wasn't what came naturally for the Rudds. There was no way either Bob or I could have coped with ditching nappies, for example,although I know a few families who have done so successfully and I am so clumsy that I wouldn't have felt comfortable carrying Anna round in a sling outside cos I'm always falling over my own feet. However, she was held and carried a lot for most of her babyhood.

The decision to keep her in bed with us was an easy one, done mainly for reasons of laziness than because we were following any sort of ideology. Sleep deprivation was the thing that scared me most about parenthood because one night with one sleep is bad enough, but two and I turn into the witch queen from hell. Having Anna right next to me meant that even though she didn't sleep through the night until she was well into her third year, apart from the very early days, it didn't bother me at all. One of the best books I've ever read in my life was Deborah Jackson's Three in a Bed which has all sorts of research showing that sleeping with your baby is quite safe and actually helps both get better quality sleep, and UNICEF has produced this leaflet with FSID giving safety information to breastfeeding mums who share their bed with their babies. Like all mums, I was pretty scared about SIDS and I was utterly paranoid about making sure that there were no covers apart from her wee cellular blanket anywhere near her. It all worked really well for us.

I just think it's great to see a dad write about what is definitely a minority parenting style with enthusiasm (although admittedly he isn't crazy about the co-sleeping). In a culture that's deluged with regime orientated parenting methods, it's just great to see a man be positive about following your instincts. His and his wife's instincts are different from my instincts and any other family's instincts because we're all different. Anyone who says they can come up with a regime that suits everyone is simply wrong.

I was very proud of Nick Clegg earlier this year when he spoke about how he and his wife had decided that Gina Ford's methods were not for them.

One of the things I really appreciate is that Bob always supported my instincts as a mother and recognised and respected Anna's need to be with me. It's paid dividends for him as his understanding deepened my feelings for him and consequently our relationship and also has led to him having a really close relationship with Anna.

Matt Rudd makes this bet with himself about how the prevalent parenting regimes of today will be seen in the future:

A hundred years from now, people will look back on us the way we look back on the Victorians and many will find it astonishing that we treated children the way we do. The more extreme parenting strategies appear to deny the fact that we’re parents at all. The aim is to get back to our normal, child-free lifestyles as soon as possible.


Well said, that man.

Saturday, January 09, 2010

Nick Clegg blasts Gina Ford's ideas as "absolute nonsense"

One of the things you may not know about me is that I spent a fair few years as a volunteer breastfeeding supporter. I used to run breastfeeding groups where mums would meet together to help each other through the often challenging process of getting to know their new baby.

What was so good about those groups is that I'd see women who'd been tentative and nervous when they first came along months before confidently and sensitively support and reassure new members with tiny babies.

An all too common experience during that time was to have a woman phone me up in tears because she and her baby were so unhappy. There are lots of reasons for that to happen, but on many occasions I found that the root of their distress was trying to follow the rather prescriptive regimes in Gina Ford's to my mind ironically titled "Contented Little Baby Book." I have no doubt that her methods work for some people, if you define success as a baby that sleeps through the night and doesn't trouble its parents at all.

The thing is, most babies don't do that. Ford's one size fits all approach, which includes putting the baby to sleep in a totally blacked out room from birth, a completely alien environment, and leaving him or her to cry, is by its very nature counter instinctive. I used to suggest to mums that the best place for that book was to prop up the leg of a wobbly table or something and encourage them to set themselves free from the tyranny of her routines which had practically every minute of the day mapped out.

In every single instance, within days mum and baby were happier as they started on a two way process of communication and built up a trusting and responsive relationship.

Those experiences are why I am so utterly thrilled to see Lib Dem Leader Nick Clegg explain how her methods certainly didn't make his family contented in the Sunday Times. He hit the nail totally on the head when he said:

“I will never forget — in the middle of the night, Antonio woke up. Miriam said to me: ‘What does the book say?’ I remember saying to her: ‘Okay, we have got to stop this. I have subcontracted my parental instincts to this book’.”

Gina Ford is clearly unhappy with Nick's comments, but I'm sure that there are parents round the country who will appreciate that he's spoken out and will empathise with his experience.

UPDATE: Superb post by Cllr Lisa Northover on how Gina Ford's methods undermine breastfeeding and wreaks havoc on the relationship between mother and baby.

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails