Gwyneth Paltrow's nanny gives terrible, horrible advice in her new book
Categories: Newborns, Babies, Pregnancy & Birth, Bump Watch, Celeb Kids, Life & Style, Childcare, That's Entertainment
I realize that Karen Walrond covered this story a few days
ago, but I need to add my $.02.Rachel Waddilove, Gwyneth Paltrow's former nanny has a new book coming out, and I am horrified at the advice she gives. Advice like this, for example:
Where a lot
of people go wrong is by making (a newborn baby) baby the kingpin...Baby has a right to be loved, but not to be centre
of attention."
Or this:
Most of us live by routine, why not start that with (newborn) babies. I wake babies during the day to feed them, but never at night.
I believe in routines (heck, I'll even call it "a schedule") as well, but
not for newborns. She's talking about babies less than six weeks old since Waddilove usually
leaves her families at the six week mark. In fact Gwyneth proudly states that it was Waddilove's techniques that had
little Apple sleeping through the night by six weeks old.
The book, How To Enjoy Year
One (Lion Hudson), is a manual to help parents make it through the first year of parenting. Waddilove has worked
for several high-profile parents, which, apparently, gives her cred. Waddilove believes that you need to show babies
who's boss saying, "the unruliness of modern youth can be traced back to misguided handling in the first few weeks
of life." Seriously?
Waddilove blames feeding on demand, "which establishes mum as baby's servant. It affects a child's
whole life...A child who has had to fit in with the family and has a routine fits in better at school."
I am so furious I am seeing red. I can't believe that hippie-dippy, yoga/vegan Gwynnie would
allow someone with such an back-asswards approach to baby-rearing into her house. But not only did Gwynnie allow
Waddilove into her house, she endorses the book with a quote on the cover that reads, "Rachel's flexible yet
structured schedule was just the thing for our daughter."
I'm shaking my head.
Schedules for 6 week old babies? Not feeding on demand? Not making your newborn the center of your world at least for a
precious little while? I'm saddened to think of all the new parents—breast-feeding mothers especially—who
are going to take this advice to heart and not nurse on demand or at night when babies need comforting. Or parents who
will toss their newborn baby aside while they resume their pre-child lifestyle—can't have Junior be the center of
attention, after all.
I hope no one buys this book.
[source: Telegraph.com]Recent Posts
- Juicy, But Not Juice (2/09/2010)
- Carrie Underwood Worms Her Way Onto 'Sesame Street' (2/09/2010)
- Heart-Shaped Valentine's Day Crafts (2/09/2010)
- Study Suggests Link Between Autism and Parents' Ages (2/09/2010)
- Just Chute Me! (Or: Do We REALLY Have to Play with Our Kids?) (2/09/2010)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
LB 4-06-2006 @ 12:32PM
With words like "kingpin" and "servants" this writer really shows her true colors.
Can you imagine the shitstorm if somebody on the flipside wrote that mothers who schedule are trying to be the "kingpin" or "boss" of the baby, or theorized that mothers who schedule feedings for NBs are raising kids who will be unable to handle transitions/changes/emergencies at school age.
I frankly don't care what others choose, but this writer sure does and man is she judgmental. I agree it doesn't really click with Chris and Gwynnie's more earthy vibe. who knows
Reply
Caitlin 4-06-2006 @ 12:39PM
I thought if you wanted to be successful at breastfeeding, feeding on demand played a pretty big part in keeping your supply up.
The only "schedule" we were told to follow once we got home was to make sure we offered a feed every 2-3 hours if Paul didn't act hungry in between. My pediatrician told me not to worry about schedules, but try to start routines to help Paul transition between sleeping and waking, and back again. I think that helped more than a schedule would have.
I think by necessity, the baby does need to be the center of attention during the first year. They can't verbalize what they want, and their dietary/sleep needs change a lot over the first year. I don't think the majority of babies are supposed to be sleeping through the night so young, since they're still doing a lot of growing and need to refuel more often than a toddler would.
Reply
mamaloo 4-06-2006 @ 12:39PM
Here here, Stefania, I couldn't agree more.
When I first had Kieran and was desperately trying to come to terms with my new life as a mother (and a breastfeeding mother to a round the clock, nearly constant nurser) I commented to my stepmum that I was intrigued by a book called The Baby Whisperer. I was intrigued not by what I had heard of it but by the name, which implied to me that the author had some magic skill at interpreting the needs of newborns (and toddlers, as she wrote a follow up for older babys and toddlers).
My stepmum bought the books as a shower gift for me. What I read flew in the face of everything I instinctually felt was in baby's best interest, including nursing on demand. I found the unnatural, imposed scheduling advised in this book (and presumably in the book by Gwyneth's Nanny) to be so off-base that I don't even want to give them away to the Value Village lest a mother who has less confidence in common sense than I had should buy them and take them for gospel.
Routines and schedules are all well and good, but unless the child themselves are given the lead in establishing those routines and schedules, the parent is merely preparing for an entire life where the needs of the child are denied in favour of the wants of the parents.
Babies are only babies for such a painfully short time. Why the need to regiment them like little soldiers? Babies know exactly when they are hungry, when they are lonely, when they are tired and when they are awake: why do parents presume to know better?
Reply
Eden 4-06-2006 @ 12:53PM
Based on your range of excerpts, I couldn't agree w/ you more. If you don't have your newborn baby at the center of your universe, what's there?
Reply
Emily 4-06-2006 @ 1:00PM
Our pediatrician advised us to use a "flexible schedule" from the beginning. It was amazing how quickly our newborn adjusted to it. She would've been sleeping through most nights at 5 days old had we not been waking her to eat in the middle of the night (which we learned not to do after two weeks!). I realize that her adjustment has to do just as much with her personality as our scheduling, but everyone has to make decisions as to how they can best raise their children. Just because parents believe in a schedule doesn't mean they are putting their child's interests behind their own.
We have friends that chose to go the attachment parenting route, with feeding on demand and letting their child make decisions. That's fine for them, but that's not how we intend to raise our child. We don't say a word to them about how their two-year-old acts, because we feel it's their own personal decision how they wish to raise their child. We, however, feel that a certain amount of scheduling is best for our child.
Reply
MMC 4-06-2006 @ 1:07PM
OH goodgod! What newborn DOESN'T deserve to be the center of the universe for a while? I'm hating her with ya. And honestly the Gwynnie endorsement doesn't help matters, in my opinion.
Reply
Stefania Pomponi Butler 4-06-2006 @ 1:10PM
Emily, I hear what you are saying, but if you are going to mention "personality," then it's not fair to allude to the fact that your friend's 2yo's behavior problem is a result of AP. Maybe it's just his personality. Maybe it's something else entirely.
I wouldn't say I practiced AP, but I did many of the things that AP parents do: I slung my kids, fed on demand, and co-slept. I, too, believe in routines and schedules (kids need fences and it makes parenting easier), but I would never dream of trying to schedule a newborn. Not a 5 day old, not a 2 week old, not a 6 week old.
Reply
MamaChristy 4-06-2006 @ 1:21PM
I agree with Emily - for many children, a certain amount of scheduling is very beneficial.
When I was pregnant, I read A TON of books about this. How to schedule a baby and make the baby a PART of the family, not the RULER of the family. That being said, I think that flexibilty is key for every child. The schedule should serve you, not the other way around. I have heard TONS of negative comments about books like "The Baby Whisperer" and "BabyWise", but just as many about "The Happiest Baby on the Block" which is the very anthesis of the scheduling books. I have read all three and found something beneficial in each one. I adopted none of them in their entirety because that wasn't right for my child.
I think the real problem isn't that these books give harmful advice - though I will say that some of it isn't very good - but that some parents don't have the confidence to take what works for their child and leave the rest behind. That comes with personal well-being and experience - two things that people tend to get as they age. So, as with many things, time will cure many people of issues surrounding child-rearing. Chances are that the kids will survive their babyhood, scheduled or not.
Reply
Ms Sisyphus 4-06-2006 @ 1:28PM
Stefania, I think I love you.
(I'm not going to rehash, because I was pretty vocal about how much I hate this book in the other thread.)
Reply
mamaloo 4-06-2006 @ 1:33PM
Emily, allow me to clarify that I never meant to imply that schedules and routines are bad on principle. What I'm saying is that if the routine and the schedule do not serve the child, they serve the parent.
Newborns and babies have needs that are in constant flux. A good parent listens to those needs and uses that information to sketch out a schedule of what is typical and needful for their child. Some newborns require long sleep periods, some require nursing for 10 minutes out of every 45 - those are child led schedules and routines.
Arbitratily imposing a schedule on a small baby is not helping serve the baby's needs, and if the imposed schedule is radically different than the baby's individual natural needs, the imposed scheduling can be dangerous (which is the problem Ezzo created with his scheduling teachings).
Reply
Amanda 4-06-2006 @ 1:54PM
I completely disagree with you! I am an excellent, lovong , stay at home mom. My family benefitted greatly from techniques very similar to those mentioned. My son is a very happy, healthy, well attached little person. We loved him without question, that does not mean we assumed a person who has been on the planet for six weeks knew what was best. And, "Hippy/Dippy"?!? Was that really necessary?
Reply
MelissaS 4-06-2006 @ 2:42PM
Mama Christy: I absolutely agree.
"I think the real problem isn't that these books give harmful advice - though I will say that some of it isn't very good - but that some parents don't have the confidence to take what works for their child and leave the rest behind."
This book makes sense to me, but not in it's entirety because I'm my kids mom and I know what works for us and them but this sounds quite a bit like what I did with my kids and it made all of our lives much more livable.
But what was right for me may not be right for you. So I can't say this is 'a horrible' book. Following anyone's parenting manifesto to the letter is horrible.
Picking and choosing, like a salad bar? Perfection.
Reply
Hollie 4-06-2006 @ 4:00PM
I am so glad to hear other people found this as disturbing as I did. My daughter is, and always will be the center of our universe. I can't imagine it being any other way. I don't think it's possible to give a baby too much nurturing/affection.
Once again, blogging baby has made me feel normal!
Reply
Melissa 4-06-2006 @ 6:22PM
This woman's attitude is too extreme for me but I completely agree that a child is joining a family, not becoming the leader of it. In sum I more or less agree with Amanda and MelissaS. Different things work for different people.
Reply
L. 4-06-2006 @ 7:02PM
Milk supply concerns aside (since every woman`s body is different), I personally think breastfeeding on demand is asking to be a human pacifier. I did it with my first two, but my third baby went straight into daycare when he was 14 weeks old, so yes, I put a newborn on a SCHEDULE, as much as possible.
After the third, I wish I had done some things very differently with the first two, but I was in southern California when they were born, and I felt pressured into a modified AP style that wasn`t right for us and in retrospect may have even been harmful.
I haven`t read the book, but think some of the comments trashing it, and the author, and the rest of us whose parenting styles don`t agree with yours, are intolerant and scary.
Reply
LB 4-06-2006 @ 7:21PM
Ok back again on this-I figured out something about the "kingpin" crap that really bugs me. Whether the family is be on-demand or scheduling really has nothing to do with the the baby being the center of attention.
Many of the AP families I know are lacakadasical about the baby; the baby is seemingly along for the ride. The family goes where it wants when it wants with baby just toted. Certainly not as kingpin.
On the other hand there was woman in a Wiggleworms class we took who made a complete spectacle of herself racing out after class to get the baby home for a feeding and nap on time. I've known other moms who have to keep to the schedule in order to keep the baby managable, keeping the baby on track runs thier whole life.
I totally agree that different families and babies will do well in different ways. However Waddilove is wrong to suggest that on demand babies are kingpins and by extension that scheduled babes cannot become kingpins, or the person around whom things will take place.
Reply
LB 4-06-2006 @ 7:39PM
...re-reading and I just want to state more clearly- I don't think scheduled babies WILL be kingpins. They may or many not, as on demand babies may or may not, there's just soooo much more too it that Waddlilove is sound biting on.
Reply
Eva 4-06-2006 @ 10:19PM
Is she even a mother? And WHY does she leave after the first six weeks?
Reply
sherry 4-07-2006 @ 11:47AM
Count me in as someone who can't imagine how a baby can be anything but the center of your universe. Isn't that the way it's supposed to be?
I've found in my family, general routines work better than strict scheduling according to a clock, but even if schedules worked better, I wouldn't impose one on a brand new baby.
Reply
amy 4-10-2006 @ 11:23AM
I still don't even understand HOW these people put a newborn on a schedule? How is that even remotely possible? Do you just deny certain feedings? Or force-feed them when it's scheduled??
The whole thing just boggles my mind. I've got two beautiful children. Both of them slept through the night by the time they were 10 weeks old. I never scheduled anything, but they both ate routinely every 2-3 hours during the day. I am well aware I was very lucky to have two children without colic or any sleeping problems, but I have to believe that my husband's and my attitude toward parenting played a role. We were relaxed and enjoyed the newborn stage. When they woke up crying to held them and fed them and just snuggled. They only fit on your lap for so long, can a few hours of missed sleep really be so important?
Reply