Sunday, 9 September 2012
A Kilo of Kindness: Update 4 - 9
Some more things to update the Kilo of Kindness list.
4. 3LWs said: Dropping off 3 meals, bread, milk, chocolate biscuits and presents after I had DS2?
Surely those count, they made us feel loved!!
5. Mooki said: after I had DS the forum girls arranged homecooked meals to be delivered for the week,we did the same for nightowl and will be doing the same for Loli and Andy too
6. NH said: I think I could nearly fill your kilo! People are truly wonderful. I will work on a list! NH also got send a little package of goodies for her family and for her daughter when she wasn't well.
7. AP said: I had severe anxiety this week. I had friends drop over food and take my son out so I could sleep. I also received messages of support from some lovely forumites. I feel privileged to be a part of this community.
I will think of an act of kindness that I can return to the world.
I really think that most people on the world are capable of massive kindness when required.
8. and 9.Chubs and I have both been sick, and my sister has helped out with some extra babysitting. Thanks Aunty K!
Please keep your kindness ideas coming in - let me know by leaving a comment here (or on any post) or by emailing a_kilo_of_kindness at live dot com dot au . I would love to attribute names/ usernames but I'm happy to leave it as anonymous if you would like.
Tuesday, 4 September 2012
Plain packaging for formula?
Before I start this post proper, I would like to start this post with what I usually say when I talk about formula advertising. This is in no way, at all, in any way, a critism of how parents feed their children.
Yes, I'm a big breastfeeding fan, however, how someone else chooses to feed his/ her child is not my concern. Yes, I think that breastfeeding (or not) has public health implications, but so do many other things. Someone may write a blog post explaining why exercising regularly is great for the health of your family, and what the risks of not exercising are. Someone else may tell me about their experiences with in home/ family day care, and about how it meets the needs of small children better than other forms of care. Someone else may write a blog post about how car manufacturers encourage dangerous driving by making speeding look attractive, which may encourage reckless driving behaviour. None of these things mean that I am a bad person because I don't go to the gym, I send my daughter to a daycare centre and I have a red car, nor do I think that that is what these hypothetical posts intended.
This post is not several things too. It is not anti formula. It is not passing judgment on how someone feeds their child, it is not meant to be advice, it is not 'telling off' formula feeders. Kick me out of the "yay boobies" club if needed, but I don't think that using formula is something which demands a defence or explanation to random strangers or society at large.
This post is several things - it is a brief commentary on unethical advertising, it is an attempt to raise awareness about these tactics and it is an act of advocacy. With this post, perhaps one more seed of change will be sown. It may take many years, probably decades, but perhaps this post can be one tiny part - though a part none the less - of this change.
Now, for the post proper...
Recently a landmark decision was made in the Australian High Court which is of international significance. (Before I go on, I am in no way a legal expert beyond a fondness for big words, so please forgive my lack of understanding of detail and feel free to correct me if required.) The Australian Government introduced legislation which would force cigarette packets to have plain packaging. Plain packets, no logos or pictures (except for the graphic warning label) or colours or fonts - just a plain packet with the brand name printed and the information about the type and number of cigarettes and so on. It is my understanding (and again, my legalese is very minimal) that the tobacco companies fought against this legislation on the basis that it infringed on their intellectual property rights and that such legislation was not permitted under the constitution.
The good part? The tobacco companies lost. The best part? They had to pay the Government's legal costs, too.
It got me thinking about unethical advertising, and in particular about how similar the sneaky techniques of tobacco companies are to formula companies.
Do you remember cigarette ads like these?
Nope, me either. That is, I remember seeing them in books and blog posts, but as items relegated to the dark ages of pop culture history. I think how amusing it is that cigarettes - perhaps the worst health invention ever - were being advertised as healthy. The worst aspect of the health issue is the respiratory system, and that's the very thing that the advertisments were saying how great cigarettes are - smooth on the throat. Throw in some puffed up professional expert endorsements (like physicians and scientists) and a good drag of pseudo-science and you have an addictive and attractive advertising campaign.
At least, I think it's amusing, until I remember that this actually happened to real, actual people. It's not so amusing, then. It still seems far fetched, though. As a child of the 80s I can't imagine that people actually believed the ads that said that cigarettes were healthy.
Of course, I realise that times change. The high court decision about the tobacco advertising got me thinking - in fifty years time, will the idea that formula was marketed as a health product seem unbelievable? I hope so.
When I was a child the idea that cigarettes were health was long gone of course, although cigarette advertising wasn't. I can't remember ever seeing any cigarette ads on TV, but I remember seeing lots of logos on billboards and lots of sports sponsors. I recall the Windfield Cup and logos adorning atheltes and sporting fields alike. I saw a story on TV about a couple (I think - I was small and it was a long time ago) who ran an informal coast guard service or something; paid for by advertising 'Winfield' in glorious red and white on the side of the boat. The couple were concerned that the (then) soon to be introduced laws banning cigarette advertising would mean that they would lose their funding for this community service. There was an advertising campaign a few years ago against plain packaging - poor, hard working corner store owners couldn't afford to have reduced (cigarette) sales so we should get plain packaging.
None the less, cigarette ads were banned, and now we have this landmark plain packaging. I think it's a huge step in the right direction. If one of the claims against plain packaging "it won't work so why do it" was true, then why were the tobacco companies so worried that they went to the extreme cost of mounting a high court claim? If they weren't really, really worried, then why bother? Now, back to formula. Some would suggested that likening formula advertising to tobacco advertising is ove the top, but I don't think so. The issues of advertising is even more of an issue with formula - formula is a legimate product which is very much needed. Yes, only by a small number of people in a small number of circumstances, but needed none the less. One could reasonably argue that cigarettes could or should be banned completely; not so for formula. As even the rigid breastfeeding supports will claim; when a baby is hungry, he needs to be fed. When the first three options (breastfeeding, expressed milk from mother, expressed milk from another mother) are not available/ practical/ possible, then formula is essential, life saving and vital. The amount of formula sold is obviously well above the amount that would be needed to meet those cases, and I believe that unethical advertising has a lot to do with that. The WHO Code states that no advertising should occur to parents or the general public, including information services such as baby clubs. However, despite Australia being a signatory much of the Code is not enforced under Australian law. A great deal of advertising also sneaks in as permitted through the gaping wide loophole that is toddler formula. Everywhere these days, the 'health benefits' of formula are advertised. The token 'breast is best, consult a health professional' is there - but not on the toddler formula, since it doesn't have to be. Some pseudo-science and a few expert endorsements and it's like we're looking at a 50s cigarette ad. "NAN Pro 3 with Bifidus BL is also sucrose free which is great news for little teeth!" here Similac® Advance®
Yes, I'm a big breastfeeding fan, however, how someone else chooses to feed his/ her child is not my concern. Yes, I think that breastfeeding (or not) has public health implications, but so do many other things. Someone may write a blog post explaining why exercising regularly is great for the health of your family, and what the risks of not exercising are. Someone else may tell me about their experiences with in home/ family day care, and about how it meets the needs of small children better than other forms of care. Someone else may write a blog post about how car manufacturers encourage dangerous driving by making speeding look attractive, which may encourage reckless driving behaviour. None of these things mean that I am a bad person because I don't go to the gym, I send my daughter to a daycare centre and I have a red car, nor do I think that that is what these hypothetical posts intended.
This post is not several things too. It is not anti formula. It is not passing judgment on how someone feeds their child, it is not meant to be advice, it is not 'telling off' formula feeders. Kick me out of the "yay boobies" club if needed, but I don't think that using formula is something which demands a defence or explanation to random strangers or society at large.
This post is several things - it is a brief commentary on unethical advertising, it is an attempt to raise awareness about these tactics and it is an act of advocacy. With this post, perhaps one more seed of change will be sown. It may take many years, probably decades, but perhaps this post can be one tiny part - though a part none the less - of this change.
Now, for the post proper...
Recently a landmark decision was made in the Australian High Court which is of international significance. (Before I go on, I am in no way a legal expert beyond a fondness for big words, so please forgive my lack of understanding of detail and feel free to correct me if required.) The Australian Government introduced legislation which would force cigarette packets to have plain packaging. Plain packets, no logos or pictures (except for the graphic warning label) or colours or fonts - just a plain packet with the brand name printed and the information about the type and number of cigarettes and so on. It is my understanding (and again, my legalese is very minimal) that the tobacco companies fought against this legislation on the basis that it infringed on their intellectual property rights and that such legislation was not permitted under the constitution.
The good part? The tobacco companies lost. The best part? They had to pay the Government's legal costs, too.
It got me thinking about unethical advertising, and in particular about how similar the sneaky techniques of tobacco companies are to formula companies.
Do you remember cigarette ads like these?
Nope, me either. That is, I remember seeing them in books and blog posts, but as items relegated to the dark ages of pop culture history. I think how amusing it is that cigarettes - perhaps the worst health invention ever - were being advertised as healthy. The worst aspect of the health issue is the respiratory system, and that's the very thing that the advertisments were saying how great cigarettes are - smooth on the throat. Throw in some puffed up professional expert endorsements (like physicians and scientists) and a good drag of pseudo-science and you have an addictive and attractive advertising campaign.
At least, I think it's amusing, until I remember that this actually happened to real, actual people. It's not so amusing, then. It still seems far fetched, though. As a child of the 80s I can't imagine that people actually believed the ads that said that cigarettes were healthy.
Of course, I realise that times change. The high court decision about the tobacco advertising got me thinking - in fifty years time, will the idea that formula was marketed as a health product seem unbelievable? I hope so.
When I was a child the idea that cigarettes were health was long gone of course, although cigarette advertising wasn't. I can't remember ever seeing any cigarette ads on TV, but I remember seeing lots of logos on billboards and lots of sports sponsors. I recall the Windfield Cup and logos adorning atheltes and sporting fields alike. I saw a story on TV about a couple (I think - I was small and it was a long time ago) who ran an informal coast guard service or something; paid for by advertising 'Winfield' in glorious red and white on the side of the boat. The couple were concerned that the (then) soon to be introduced laws banning cigarette advertising would mean that they would lose their funding for this community service. There was an advertising campaign a few years ago against plain packaging - poor, hard working corner store owners couldn't afford to have reduced (cigarette) sales so we should get plain packaging.
Give your baby complete nutrition for the first year
Similac Advance has EarlyShield® and is designed to support your baby’s developing immune system, brain and eyes, and strong bones. here Aptamil® Gold+ 1 Infant Formula nutritionally supports the developing immune system. A well-supported immune system is important for your baby’s growth and development. here
![]() |
| "protect" "premium" "gold" |
![]() |
| "Gold +" "premium" "Immunocare" |
What is ImmunocareTM? Well, I've got no idea. It's trademarked, and it comes on a shiny gold shield, subconsciously protecting my child from all those nasty daycare germs, but how it actually works or what's in it? No idea. Breastfeeding support the child's immune system by helping the child to build passive immunity to diseases that the mother has come in contact with when the mother's antibodies pass in her milk into the baby. Stuffed it I know what ImmunocareTM does."Nutritionally supports the immune system" - so, it's about nutrition, not the immune system at all. Hmmm...
The High Court decision got me thinking about plain packaging formula. Of course, all formula advertising would need to be banned first (including retailers and toddler milk) - and it would take much, much greater legal minds than mine to tell me if the High Court decision could set a precedent in any way for a plain packaging formula push.
Is it too much to hope that the immune-caring benefit of formula eventually goes the way of cigarettes which soothe your cough? The health of our future depends on it.
Linked
Linked
National Science Week
I just realised that this post was sitting in my drafts. Sorry, it's a bit late now but hopefully it's still funny!
As National Science Week draws to a close, I would like to share with you one of Chubs' outfits from this week.
Anyone looking for a geeky baby shirt idea, here you go:
For those of you who aren't so nerdy, the symbols of the elements iodine, americium, sulphur, oxygen, copper and tellurium spell
I Am SO CuTe
If you're giggling by now, then you probably didn't need the explanation, and I suspect that you and I are the same type of nerd.
If you did need the explanation, then you are probably groaning and rolling your eyes now. It's ok, I'm used to it :D
I also did some volcanoes (ie, vinegar and bicarb) with my very helpful and enthusiastic scientists-in-training at playgroup and at Chubs' daycare (with the big kids.) Very simple but lots of fun and dead easy to clean up! Yay for science!
As National Science Week draws to a close, I would like to share with you one of Chubs' outfits from this week.
Anyone looking for a geeky baby shirt idea, here you go:
For those of you who aren't so nerdy, the symbols of the elements iodine, americium, sulphur, oxygen, copper and tellurium spell
I Am SO CuTe
If you're giggling by now, then you probably didn't need the explanation, and I suspect that you and I are the same type of nerd.
If you did need the explanation, then you are probably groaning and rolling your eyes now. It's ok, I'm used to it :D
I also did some volcanoes (ie, vinegar and bicarb) with my very helpful and enthusiastic scientists-in-training at playgroup and at Chubs' daycare (with the big kids.) Very simple but lots of fun and dead easy to clean up! Yay for science!
Monday, 27 August 2012
Monday mind thoughts
Another week, another list of why Chubs is so awesome. We had two parties this weekend and she charmed her way through both of them. Slime, watermelon, dragon cakes, pass the parcle and someone's child streaking. (Ok, it was my child streaking. Don't pretend you're suprised!) Happy birthday Smidge and the warmest of blessings to my friend who is expecting the arrival of her precious bub in the next few weeks.
I have so many posts planned and half written in my head, but I never seem to have the time or clarity to write them down. Hopefully some will make it though soon!
Menu plan this week:
- Monday: Chicken tomato rice casserole
- Tuesday: Beef stir fry
- Wednesday: Bolognese
- Thursday: Stir fry
- Friday: Hot chook
- Saturday: scavenge
- Sunday: hmmmm, I think I'll wait for inspiration to strike!
Linked
I have so many posts planned and half written in my head, but I never seem to have the time or clarity to write them down. Hopefully some will make it though soon!
Menu plan this week:
- Monday: Chicken tomato rice casserole
- Tuesday: Beef stir fry
- Wednesday: Bolognese
- Thursday: Stir fry
- Friday: Hot chook
- Saturday: scavenge
- Sunday: hmmmm, I think I'll wait for inspiration to strike!
Linked
Friday, 24 August 2012
Supernanny and breastfeeding advice
Last night I was watching TV and I saw an episode of Supernanny which I have been thinking about ever since. I'm a bit of a Supernanny fan - it's one of my guilty pleasures. In general, I like a lot of her methods and approaches to kids.
For those who have never seen the show, Jo Frost is the ‘Supernanny’ who goes to a different family each week. She observes for a period of time, then implements various strategies and rules and helps the parents to carry them out.
I think she generally communicates well, both with parents and children. She keeps the positive praise coming for both but isn't scared to pull up either the parents or child when needed.
Whilst she seems to have a standard set of 'rules' and 'techniques', I don't believe that she has a 'one size fits all' approach; she seems to tailor her advice and techniques for the individual families' situations. I think that the reason that she appears to have so many standard techniques and rules (for example, the back to bed technique, the schedule, reward charts and of course the infamous Naughty Corner) is that these techniques apply to may of the common issues in families.
Whilst she doesn't explicitly say 'relationships with your children need to come first' she does show this in her actions and techniques. She believes that discipline is appropriate, but that the parents need to have realistic expectations and scaffold the situation too. She thinks that it's reasonable to have the kids playing quietly while Mum cooks dinner - as long as Mum has one on one time with the kids earlier in the day. She tries to 'solve' many problems by having families spend time together doing activities and connecting. Some of her rules do seem a bit formulated and punitive for my liking, but in general they are driven by love.
Her expectations of children’s behaviour are reasonable, and she has a good understanding of what normal behaviour looks like for different children and different ages. I recall one episode where there were two (I think?) young kids who kept climbing up the doorframes and furniture. She deal with this in two ways – there was a rule that there was no climbing in the house, and the kids got taken to the playground in the park every day to ‘shake their sillies out’ (a phrase I borrowed from Playschool, not Supernanny’s). One parent once said to her that his/her toddler would go on the Naughty Spot but would then go back to doing the same misdemeanour – Jo said that the child was probably too young for the Naughty Spot technique to work, and that the parents should deal with the misbehaviour by distraction/ removal instead.
However, I was not impressed by last night’s rerun. I’ve been a little bit angry and upset, but to be honest I’m mostly just disappointed.
I would like to apologise for any errors of recall that I have on the details of the show –I can’t access it again to check the details of the ages, but the main points I have are still valid. I also feel that this would be a prudent time to point out two issues. I realise that Supernanny is primarily an entertainment program. It is highly edited to make it watchable and appealing to the most viewers. I realise that by blogging about this I am giving them free publicity and I’m keeping that well oiled machine moving along – I still feel the need to respond. I realise that the highly edited final show may not be an accurate representation of life in that household, and for me to draw any sort of conclusions requires a lot of assumptions on my part. However, this is inherent of all candid/ how to reality shows and I or any other viewer can only base their opinions on what they are shown. I hope that the conclusions I have reached are appropriate and respectful, and I thank this family for the insight into their lives.
I also realise that, unlike a scripted show, the characters in this show are not characters at all, but real people. I do not mean this blog post to be disrespectful or judgmental or snarky. I am responding in a public medium to something else which the family chose to present to me via a public medium. I hope that if the family in the show or Jo Frost were to read this blog that they would see it as respectful.
The family which Jo went to work with had four kids living with them – a 17yo? nephew who was living with them, a 13?yo son, a 6 yo daughter and a 14 month old daughter, plus Mum and Dad. In general the main problems that the wanted help with were a disrespectful attitude from the 13yo, stressful and dysfunctional bedtime, ineffective discipline (smacking) and general chaos, and the 14 month old’s ‘constant nursing’.
I am not convinced if the last one was actually a problem for the family or not. The mother ran and in home day care (similar to Family Day Care I believe) and the show said that she was constantly nursing. I am not sure if this was actually a problem for the mother, or if she was just convinced that it should be a problem. It was portrayed that the child’s constant feeding was preventing the mother from being able to get on with her day and do things. The child was very clingy, and this was blamed on the breastfeeding. Jo said at one point that if she weaned then the girl would learn that she could play on the floor with some toys where she was ten feet away from her mother and that that could be ok.
Jo said to the mother that it wasn’t her (Jo’s) decision if she should wean or not, and that it was the mother’s prerogative to continue if she wanted. However, it seemed to me that this came across as an ultimatum – keep going as you are and nothing will change (and it will be your fault), or choose to wean to fix the problem. When the mother said that she wanted to wean Jo effectively said that she had made the right decision.
I was pleased to see that Jo acknowledged that breastfeeding and weaning were emotional for the mother, however I do feel that the show made it appear that the mother was only feeding because she had some crazy attachment to breastfeeding her child and the bonding that it had, and that she was worried that she wouldn’t bond with her child anymore if she weaned her.
To be honest, I get quite annoyed when people go on and on about breastfeeding = bonding. Breastfeeding is about so much more than bonding, and bonding is about so much more than breastfeeding. For anyone to imply that one is equivalent to the other is patronising and misguided.
Yes, breastfeeding a toddler can be demanding. However, toddlers can be (are) demanding if they are nursing or not. From what I saw on the show the child seemed to have a need for constant reassurance – this is a normal toddler behaviour - and this need was met in this case by breastfeeding. I don’t see how weaning would remove this child’s separation anxiety, and indeed weaning – especially if it occurs quickly – may intensify the clinginess. Anxious, clingy and demanding toddlers and children can be found everywhere – breastfed or not. I think for Jo/ the show to blame the breastfeeding for the clinginess (rather than to see the ‘constant’ breastfeeding as a comfort measure to relieve said clinginess) shows a lack of understanding of breastfeeding, particularly a toddler.
Jo pointed out that if the child was weeks old, then constant breastfeeding would be ok. This is true. A constantly breastfeeding toddler may or may not be normal – it depends on what’s going on. The child seemed to me to have needs which were being met by breastfeeding. To blame failure to wean for those problems is like saying that I wouldn’t have a messy kitchen if my family didn’t eat, so I’d better hurry up and get them to stop eating – and if I don’t, then the messy kitchen is my fault.
I’ve said before that one of the best things about breastfeeding a toddler is that a lot of the hard work has been done. In general, there are less supply issues, engorgement and rushing home for a feed are things of the past and do you know what – you can say ‘no’ sometimes if you want. There are two people a breastfeeding relationship (usually, sometimes there’re multiples or tandem nurslings but that’s another post…) and both of them need to be happy. However, if one isn’t happy – like Mum in this case (although I’m not convinced that she actually was unhappy with feeding) then changes can be made.
Any changes (or continuing with the situation as is) needs to consider the benefits and disadvantages of all options. In my opinion, this show didn’t do that.
Firstly, what are the benefits of continuing to breastfeed? There are the nutritional and immune benefits of breastfeeding a toddler (none of which got a mention in the show) as well as the comfort benefits. There are also the benefits to mum’s health, like reduced risks of osteoporosis and various cancers. (I would argue that these aren’t benefits, but ‘normal’ and that not doing them is detrimental, but that is also a post for another day…)
The ‘logistical’ benefits of continuing to breastfeed also weren’t considered on the show. This afternoon my 14 month old toddler and I got stuck in traffic –it took us half an hour to go between two sets of traffic lights. I was passing sultanas from our ‘car container’ back to her and thankfully she was happy enough and we made it through the jam, however if we had been stuck in a tunnel or for a longer period of time, then it was good to know that I could have given her a feed if needed. (I only would have done this if the cars were stopped with engines off and people getting out to stretch their legs so please don’t worry about the safety aspects!) If the child is clingy and needs frequent reassurance – again, normal toddler behaviour – then a quick breastfeed may be enough to provide this, and then the toddler is on her way again. Without the option of a breastfeed, the child may become more clingy and need longer, more time consuming reassurance, which will foil the ‘wean to get more time during the day’ plan. A two minute feed to sleep is much faster than a ten minute rock and pat, and a quick night feed often means more sleep for everyone than resettling without a feed, and almost certainly more sleep than heating up a bottle. I’m not saying that non breastfeeding parents can’t cope with a traffic jam or a clingy child – of course all parents have different techniques and breastfeeding is only one. I am pointing out that breastfeeding can be a very useful technique which makes life logistically easier for everyone, including (and sometimes especially) the parents, and therefore I don’t think that it should be discarded without considering its value.
Here we come to perhaps the underlying issue here – I do not believe that Jo Frost values the breastfeeding of a toddler. One of the biggest indicators of this was her language. She constantly referred to breastfeeding as ‘nursing’. At one stage she said in a talking head segment (and I’m paraphrasing, like I said I don’t have access to the recording to check the wording) ‘The mother is walking around all day with the baby hanging off her hip or worse – um, how do I say it – or hanging off her breast!’ as if feeding a toddler was something extreme and shameful and for behind doors only. She claimed that the child wanted to use mum’s breast as a pacifier – that shows a lack of understanding. A pacifier is a breast substitute, not the other way around (and I say this as a mother who has used a dummy since Chubs was days old.) Both Jo and the show demonstrated that breastfeeding is not something which polite people discuss in public. I think this points to a fundamental underlying attitude where breastfeeding, at least beyond the newborn stage, is not valued. As I said above, the advantages of weaning (although I’m not convinced that they will work) were not compared with the advantages of continuing to feed.
Not only do I feel that Jo does not value breastfeeding a toddler or child, I do not feel that she is knowledgeable about breastfeeding, and therefore she should not be giving breastfeeding (or weaning) advice. Jo Frost is a nanny who has apparently worked with children in different settings for many years and has been filming the Supernanny series for many years. I believe her that she is an expert in children. As I said above, many of her techniques are educationally and developmentally sound. She has a real love of children and seems to have a set of skills which can only be developed over time and practise – she knows what she is doing when it comes to children’s behaviour. However, to my knowledge she has no breastfeeding experience or expertise. She has no children (and although inducing lactation and breastfeeding another woman’s child is possible, I find it near impossible that she has done this) and I don’t believe much experience which babies in general. Older children yes, babies not really. She has never marketed herself as a baby expert, she’s usually just kept up with the older ones. I don’t feel that being a parent or breastfeeding a child is necessarily essential to being knowledgeable about children or breastfeeding, obviously it helps but in my opinion it is not essential. However, training and experience need to fill the gap, and I don’t believe that Jo Frost has either of these in breastfeeding, and it shows. She has called in specialist professionals in the past, for example when working which children with special needs, why not enlist the help of an IBLCL or breastfeeding counsellor? For Jo Frost to be giving weaning advice is like me giving advice on how to fix your car – best avoided.
However, all of this diatribe of mine has not deal with the key issue that Jo was trying to fix – how to manage the problems that the breastfeeding was causing. This post is already lengthy and the laundry is calling yet again, so I will come back to my suggestions for this. There are many, many things which can be done to make breastfeeding a toddler logistically easier, and in my opinion most of them are far easier to implement (and more beneficial) than cold turkey weaning. So stay tuned for an update.
In conclusion, I was disappointed with this episode more than anything. There was a great opportunity to address an issue – a demanding breastfeeding toddler – and instead breastfeeding was belittled and pushed aside. Breastfeeding is certainly no stranger to poor media coverage and self proclaimed experts making up crap advice, but I guess I expected more from Supernanny. All that age appropriate, sensitive, custom tailored advice seemed to go out the window with a sugar coated ‘wean or else’. I was expecting more, Supernanny. L
Monday, 20 August 2012
Operation Sleep Rule Change - Conclusion?
Well, here it is. A tentative conclusion to the sleep changes that we've been trying. I say tentative as I don't want to jinx it, but it seems that we have success!!!!!
Chubs will happily resettle in her cot at night now. She's actually done so since the first night. It was an hour and a half of patting and rocking and panicing (on my part) and her pointing at the door and wanting to get out, but I was there to comfort and hold her. We made it to midnight and she came into bed with us then, but she seemed to have gotten the message about the 'rule change', that Mummy and Daddy's bed wasn't 'open' until later.
We moved bringing her in to our bad back by an hour each week, but she resettled fairly easily each time and we probably could have stretched her out longer sooner.
This week should be 2am, but we're just going to jump to 3am and be done with it. Whenever she wakes before 3am it's resettle in the cot, after that it's in bed with us. We could keep going and make it 5am, but you know what, getting up in the night is hard work. Perhaps the best thing about cosleeping is that Chubs can get milk, comfort and reassurance and all I need to do is roll over.
To be honest, Dear Husband and I aren't feeling as wonderfully well rested as I was hoping. As I supsected (but was dearly hoping I was wrong) I think at lot of our constant state of exhaustion is more to do with having a vibrant, beautiful, bouncy toddler than a cosleeping one. It is a bit better to have the bed to ourselves for a few hours, but the catch is that I have to get up for the first feed at 10 or 11pm, and then to resettle as required.The 3am rule will be a nice mix I think - I'll have to get up for the first feed (and then pat as needed which hasn't been often - maybe once every three nights?). It means when she wakes up at 3am/4am/ 5am she can come in to our bed and have a feed. It means that I'm only getting up for one feed in her room, then in our bed from then on. I think it's a good mix between the pros and cons of cosleeping and cot sleeping.
So, ultimately, I think that OSRC was a success. Through gentle parent led methods we were able to get Chubs comfortable in her cot for longer at night, but still have time for family snuggles in the morning. That's about as perfect as I think it gets x
Chubs will happily resettle in her cot at night now. She's actually done so since the first night. It was an hour and a half of patting and rocking and panicing (on my part) and her pointing at the door and wanting to get out, but I was there to comfort and hold her. We made it to midnight and she came into bed with us then, but she seemed to have gotten the message about the 'rule change', that Mummy and Daddy's bed wasn't 'open' until later.
We moved bringing her in to our bad back by an hour each week, but she resettled fairly easily each time and we probably could have stretched her out longer sooner.
This week should be 2am, but we're just going to jump to 3am and be done with it. Whenever she wakes before 3am it's resettle in the cot, after that it's in bed with us. We could keep going and make it 5am, but you know what, getting up in the night is hard work. Perhaps the best thing about cosleeping is that Chubs can get milk, comfort and reassurance and all I need to do is roll over.
To be honest, Dear Husband and I aren't feeling as wonderfully well rested as I was hoping. As I supsected (but was dearly hoping I was wrong) I think at lot of our constant state of exhaustion is more to do with having a vibrant, beautiful, bouncy toddler than a cosleeping one. It is a bit better to have the bed to ourselves for a few hours, but the catch is that I have to get up for the first feed at 10 or 11pm, and then to resettle as required.The 3am rule will be a nice mix I think - I'll have to get up for the first feed (and then pat as needed which hasn't been often - maybe once every three nights?). It means when she wakes up at 3am/4am/ 5am she can come in to our bed and have a feed. It means that I'm only getting up for one feed in her room, then in our bed from then on. I think it's a good mix between the pros and cons of cosleeping and cot sleeping.
So, ultimately, I think that OSRC was a success. Through gentle parent led methods we were able to get Chubs comfortable in her cot for longer at night, but still have time for family snuggles in the morning. That's about as perfect as I think it gets x
Saturday, 18 August 2012
A Kilo of Kindness: It has begun!
Two lovely friends-who-live-in-the-computer have been very obliging and gave me the first three things for the list.
1. Bellatrix: I worked in aged care community and I called on an elderly lady living at home alone. She was in tears because she had put eggs on the stove to boil and forgotten about them, they had burnt and she had no lunch and no money to buy more. After I left I went and bought a half dozen eggs and a permanent marker and drew a happy face on each egg. I gave them to her and her face lit up, she said it absolutely made her day and long after she had used all the eggs she kept the happy egg shells in her kitchen. She said they always made her smile.
2: Gwen's Mum: Kindness given - a close friend was having a run of crappy luck and was feeling pretty down. I put together a package of her favourite things (e.g. cheese, chocolate, tim tams, a voucher to a yarn store) and dropped it around to her. Brightened her week a little.
3: Gwen's Mum: Kindness received - all our milk donors are special, but the very first person who offered us her freezer stash... That will always stand out in my memory. We hadn't even considered donor milk as an option - she just offered. Both the milk itself, and the very idea of using it, were the most extraordinary gifts.
View the whole list list here, and keep them coming!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)






