Anyone see Oliver James being a total F***wit on Newsnight last night?

[buggie]

Apart from an early sanity check with the baby whisperer book (and a drop of Annabel Karmel on the weaning front) I've bumbled through as well (thus OJ knowledge tv rather than book based).

[Ruth_Baldock]

The baby whisper riled me right up, erroneous advice re: breastfeeding. We bumble along too, Sebs as mad as a box of frogs but happy, as is Lex (as far as I can tell...) so we must be doing something right, I suppose.

[buggie]

Didn't look at BW for feeding advice (got that from Joanne @ Kings & the Peckham br/feeding cafe). But found it did help me find a way to muddle through - course we're not EASY anymore but in the first 6 mths it helped me relax & enjoy Bugglet.

[Otta]

I've not read much, but the wife has read a shed load of books, with varying styles of parenting advise. To be fair, she is actually very interested in child development, so not actually reading them for advise, but rather because of interest in the research side of things.

I just bumble along, but we definitely err on the side of child centred / attachment parenting.

[Bellenden Belle]

Ruth_Baldock Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The baby whisper riled me right up, erroneous

> advice re: breastfeeding. We bumble along too,

> Sebs as mad as a box of frogs but happy, as is Lex

> (as far as I can tell...) so we must be doing

> something right, I suppose.

I have just finished Baby Whisperer (thanks Buggie!) and since I am just starting out with my first due in February I wondered Ruth which bits you didn't like about her take on breastfeeding. My novice take on it was that she wanted people to feel comfortable with their own choices - whether it be breastfeeding or bottle feeding - and to not be afraid to mix the two, or to feel a failure if breastfeeding doesn't work for them. Maybe I was just reading what I already believe! But if there's anything that you really think is questionable, I'd welcome the feedback.

[Ruth_Baldock]

In one bit she refers to a Mother's "yield" from expressing and says the mother couldn't pump much which meant she had low supply. Total and utter bollocks, expressing is NOT a reliable indicator of supply.

[helena handbasket]

On the other hand, for me the BW was the only book I could relate to and feel competent about (sorry Ruth :))

Before baby, I read Dr Sears and Pantley; talk about false expectations. There was nothing about my intense, colicky, spirited baby that I recognized in those books. It actually started to make me feel bad about both of us. And wow did I ever get a lot of well meaning but crap advice from everyone and their dog. Then based on friends' suggestions I started reading more and more books, not because it's my style but because I was starting to freak out about my challenging baby that steam rolled over any instincts I had. When I found the BW and read about spirited babies, a light bulb went on and I finally read about babies I recognized. Her methods worked for us and I honestly don't know what my next move would have been had I not tried it. It took a couple of months but everything changed for us.

I always chuckle a bit when Gina Ford comes up, don't know what the national obsession is but I can say that nobody in North America has ever heard of her, yet a surprising amount of babies end up on a similar program. Coincidence?

I get that people don't want to rely on books, but when I got home with my newborn I realized I knew as much about babies as I did changing the oil in my car. It's just worth remembering that for every psychologist who peddles their theories, there's another with the opposite conclusion. Aside from doing studies on twins separated at birth (not a huge sample obviously), it's really not possible to solve the nature/nurture debate so I kind of view claims on either side as bad science. Just me of course.

I actually like the wisdom of the nannies TBH. It's like asking doctors to overhaul the healthcare system, instead of leaving it to lawyers in government. From Eton.

[littleEDfamily]

HH - I think you have a point on the 'bad science'. There is interesting research for sure, but I'm yet to find what I feel is conclusive proof on most parenting issues. Which is why it is particularly annoying (rant inducing!) when you see 'bad science' combined with hysterical morally infused lecturing from so-called 'experts'.

I've adopted OJ as my 'pet hate'.

[sillywoman]

helena handbasket Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

>

> I actually like the wisdom of the nannies TBH.

> It's like asking doctors to overhaul the

> healthcare system, instead of leaving it to

> lawyers in government. From Eton.

PMSL @ that HH:))

Another bumbler here. I've dipped into a few books in my time sometimes for personal reasons, sometimes professional. For me & my kids none of them made me think "oh, I'll definitely do that" - though after a crisis of confidence I did try Gina's potty training techniques with number 4. It was crap for us so I went back to doing what I'd done with the other 3 - we just bumbled through it all. My best parenting advice has always come from other Mums, trial & error, & yes, instinct (I suspect this is more down to in depth knowledge of my child, me, & our family unit than anything more ethereal). Having said all that I do think that parenting books have a place; if it's only that in reading them you are made to question more analytically what it is you do/ don't do that works/ doesn't work.

I find it helps to keep in mind Phillip Larkin through the child raising process.

[CanelitaPR]

Perhaps we should blame the devices people have said that is the difference between the two. I agree with everyone who had given a kind advice.And they have also say everything has to be tested before its purchase if you plan a long term,as what you have now Is very good. To have good feelings towards others as more important than anything else in this world and I think I have in my house more than that. Sight!