Bringing Up Baby

I have recently been viewing Bringing Up Baby, a UK parenting documentary that screened on the ABC earlier this year. The premise — six familes test out three different approaches to parenting popularised during the 50s, 60s and 70s, respectively.

If I were to classify my own approach — taken not from any book, but derived through a combination of trial and error, instinct, common sense and love — it would probably be a mix of the 60s and 70s approaches. In the 60s, Dr Spock was the most popular of parenting gurus, and believed that you could not spoil a baby. Mothers were told to follow their own instinct and do whatever they felt comfortable with. Breastfeeding was advocated, but not pushed, and babies slept in cribs in their parents' bedrooms.

In the 70s, the Continuum Concept apparently took hold, and baby-wearing and co-sleeping became popular. Bottle feeding is not endorsed by practitioners of this approach. The general idea is that babies and mothers should be in close physical contact at all times, as continues to be practised in many tribal communities today.

I like the idea of the Continuum Concept in many ways, but I do believe that, as babies grow older, they tend to sleep better alone. Otis does, at any rate. I loved having him close as a newborn, and I'm sure I'll enjoy that experience with his little sibling, due to arrive in early November! (More on that in another post...) Baby-wearing is also something I enjoyed, but it is simply not true that you can do absolutely everything with a bubba strapped to your chest. It is very difficult to eat a messy meal, such as a kebab, for instance, without spilling sauce onto your baby's little head. It is also difficult to perform chores that require repetitive bending... Not as easy as it looks, I assure you. But I imagine I'll need my hands free like never before, when wrangling Otis and Sibling without any assistance on hand.

Now, to the point of this post. The 50s approach, as outlined by Truby King. What a vile, cold, monstrous individual he must have been, to have come up with such a method. According to King, babies should not be cuddled. They should be fed by the clock, swaddled and left outside to cry, and should, as a result of this detached approach, sleep twelve hours straight every night by the time they are twelve weeks of age. The appeal of this approach apparently lies in the fact that parents need not alter their lifestyle whatsoever. Adherence to King's strict routine allows parents plenty of time away from their babies to drink wine and watch TV. Because, you know, that is the whole point of becoming a parent.

King, and Claire Verity, the 'maternity nurse' who is employed by tired parents to instill King's methods, fills me with the type of rage I normally reserve for Rugby League-playing rapists. I was on the verge of tears watching these tiny week old bubs screaming, all alone, whilst their selfish, self-serving parents swilled cheap-looking wine and pigged out on pasta, offering one another self-congratulatory pats on the back for being able to tough it out and stick to the routine. What I want to know is:

1. Why have a baby if you do not wish for your life to change in even the smallest of ways?
2. Why is it that 'thriving' is so simplistically equated with 'sleeping through the night'?
3. How can a mother resist being physically affectionate with her own baby?
4. How can these selfish idiots sleep at night?

Honestly, I am all ears.