Bringing Up Baby

A friend emailed me about the above show on ABC last night.  I wrote this, but have decided to post it here, not including my friend's email, as I think it's a demonstration of my ability to rant uncontrollably, and not a good reply to her.  Maybe.  I'm right about everything of course, just think there's a less ranty way to say it!  This is beginning to be baby blog central, guess I'm a little focused at the moment.

Yes, I watched most of it, and noted that the 1950s routine woman (who actually based her ideas on a book written in 1913) was portrayed very negatively. She had some curious ideas (like the "fresh air" idea, and the no picking up baby at all between feeds - is that true? I missed the beginning bit), but I don't think all the negatives associated with 1970s woman and 1960s woman have been properly played out. The Amazonian idea of having baby in a tub at home, and then having to be "rushed" to hospital after 30 hours of labour, which then caused, surprise surprise, serious problems with the baby, wasn't treated with much concern by the producers. Or the completely crazy idea that you can't breastfeed or "bond" properly with your "innately wise" newborn if you don't have physical contact with your child within the hour is a complete crock. It also places an innordinate amount of pressure on mothers who may have difficult labours or children that require immediate intensive care in order to have any chance of survival, as it apparently condemns them to not being able to breastfeed or bond successfully with their children ever. Thank goodness Xxxxx wasn't exposed to such moronic ideas, as she has been able to breastfeed very successfully after two weeks of only tubefeeding her son, and he seems to be very bonded with her. If her midwife or carer had suggested such dimwittery I would have advised Xxxxx to slap her upside the head. What a thing to tell a mother of a newborn who is already having the normal attachment difficulties that come with most newborns. Oh but she said it with such a caring face! HAH! "I can understand why they bottle fed your newborn" (after being born with various unspecified complications and low blood sugar) "but you know it hasn't helped with the breastfeeding". Well, duh! Perhaps instead of accusing the medical professionals who ensured her baby was born alive after she sat in a warm tub at home for 30 hours, you might help her to feel positive about the breastfeeding experience, not saddle her with the pressure that she won't ever be able to bond with him because she can't get the breastfeeding to work!! Sorry those kinds of women make me so angry! And what of those women who for other medical or physical reasons are unable to breastfeed at all? Is there no bonding possible there? The implication that 'Bottles are from SATAN', when people say "Breast is Best" leads to all sorts of unnecessary pressure on women who then end up clinically depressed and then actually unable to bond with their child solely because there was so much pressure and expectation placed on breastfeeding. So wrong!! Isn't it better to be grateful and thankful that your baby is ok and alive, rather than second guess every thing that happened that wasn't in your birth plan or other idealised expectation of birth and parenting?

I can see exactly where this 'study' is going - I'll be very interested to see how it plays out, but I won't be surprised if the routine woman gets a bum rap, regardless of how baby or parents turn out. I'm a big believer in routines, but not where you watch only the clock - it's called 'Parent Directed Feeding', and it helps you to stabilise your baby's hunger cycle allowing you to feed them fully at every feed, play with them and bond with them, and then put them down for a nap. It works, I've seen it work for every baby I know who's been "subjected" to it, and while I wouldn't leave a newborn crying for 1.5 hours, I don't think it's fair that 'routine parenting' of newborns is represented by such ideas. I expect this woman gets called in after 3-6 months and has to instigate such draconian ideas to get the parents to understand what routine means. But we shall see.  In the end I expect we'll discover that a blend of styles is what 'Noughtie Babies' need!

As for this experiment being cruel, I agree - only it's cruel to the parents who place upon themselves ridiculous expectations like having the child attached to their boobs for 24 hours a day. Tell me Ladies, does that sound like fun to you? Sure, I can get stuff done with an 8 kilo 12 week old attached to me 24 hours a day! I already have back problems but you want me to pick up a 2 year old, change her nappy, get her dressed, cook breakfast lunch and dinner, do the dishes, get my 4 year old to school, wipe his bottom on the toilet, hang out the washing, fold the washing, go to the toilet, HAVE A SHOWER?!! all the while having Brown-Eyed Bear in a sling around my chest until he's 6 MONTHS OLD!! Are you insane, Amazonian woman? Or do you plan on limiting all women to just the one child then? Or perhaps their Daddies and other care-givers will be on hand for the first 6 months so bubs can be held 24 hours a day? What's funny about this is that parents who have more than one child quickly discover that routine is what naturally happens, because the baby can't be attended to every time they squeak. Haven't you heard the old story - oh the second baby was so much better, really flexible, goes to sleep where ever, is more content, feeds better...SIMPLY because they have been given (an unnatural and clearly unloving) routine as they have to fit into the routine of the first. I don't think anyone can suggest that all subsequent babies are somehow less bonded or 'abnormal' developmentally because they didn't have 'unfettered access to the breast' (what a nightmare) for the first 6 months. And I think it's bordering on slander to suggest that women who use routines somehow love their children less than women who give them unfettered access to the breast - can you tell I just love that phrase?  I plan on using it a lot in conversation in future.  There's a great Little Britian sketch about such things..."Bitty, Bitty!!" (Insert Mr Burns like shudder here).

And after 6 months, what then? How do you get that child to spend any time away from you, and fall asleep not in your lap with a nipple in its mouth? Is there some crying involved, perhaps? I haven't met the child that would naturally and easily transition from having their mother's attention 24 hours a day to not having it for any length of time at all, or are they just the babies without the requisite 'innate wisdom'? Hope the babies with Amazon woman as their expert have the same innate wisdom as those anthropologically researched tribal babies from ages past...

End Rant.

Hmm, yes, definitely went a bit overboard there.  Glad I didn't hit send...