Nick Clegg has done the unthinkable and
insulted Gina Ford, the so-called baby "expert" and role model for the professionally offended.
Speaking in an interview in the Times, Clegg described Ford's approach to bringing up
his baby as absolute nonsense and said that following her guidelines:
was like following a sort of Ikea assembly instruction manual... It made us feel strangely passive as parents.
Which is exactly what happens when you submit to the authority of any expert at the expense of your own intellect and conscience. You become a passive subject, subject to the direction of somebody else and
their perspective on
your life.
An indignant Ford immediately hit back this weekend, suggesting Clegg was stupid and immature. She accused him of insulting millions of parents who use her methods and suggested his party should think about finding a different leader.
For doing nothing more than
disagreeing with her she thinks he should be removed by his party members? This is, of course, what bullies do when they are questioned in any way. They give the impression of having the majority of right-thinking people behind them. Rather than defending their position honestly and engaging in open and constructive debate, they attempt to slur any dissenters. Nick Clegg wasn't insulting any parents. He wasn't insulting Gina Ford
the woman. He simply dismissed her one-size-fits-all approach for
his child:
Clegg made his comments to The Sunday Times after saying he had been up four times the night before the interview with his 10-month-old son, Miguel.
The programme in Ford’s The Contented Little Baby Book is designed to encourage infants to sleep through the night from a very early age. The techniques are controversial, requiring parents to stick to a highly prescriptive and rigid timetable of feeding, waking, bathing and sleeping.
However, the book has been the bestselling childcare book in Britain for 10 years and has sold more than 1m copies worldwide. Many parents who follow the routines report that their infants sleep 12 hours a night from when they are just a few weeks old.
Asked whether he would consider using Ford’s methods to help his young son sleep more soundly, Clegg put his head in his hands and replied: “Don’t get me on to Gina Ford.
“With our first one [Antonio], like all new parents, we religiously followed Gina Ford. Instructions like, stick him in a broom cupboard at 7.46am.
At 7.48am, take him out, do not look at him . . . Absolute nonsense.”
He said he had finally lost patience with the programme when his wife Miriam suggested consulting the book in the middle of the night.
“I will never forget — in the middle of the night, Antonio woke up. Miriam said to me: ‘What does the book say?’ I remember saying to her: ‘Okay, we have got to stop this. I have subcontracted my parental instincts to this book’.
And that is the nub of it. Whether you are reading Gina Ford or Jean Liedloff, the error is subcontracting your parental instincts. It is perhaps a rare family that would fit squarely into Gina Ford's highly prescriptive worldview of their own accord; small children are by nature likely to wake regularly during the night, require frequent feeds to suit their developing metabolisms, and be eager for human touch and affection regardless of the hour. Responding to those needs might be demanding for any new parent, particulary a sleep deprived one. But being responsive is not bad. Choosing to meet the very real needs of a baby is not wrong - it is normal, natural and healthy. That is a fact.
But back to Gina:
"We live in a democracy, and parents are entitled to choose whatever style of parenting they wish,” said Ford.
Did I miss the bit where Nick Clegg said that were the Lib Dems were in power, Gina Ford would be banned? (Although it wouldn't necessarily surprise me). Sadly, only the naive believe that democracy protects one's freedom to choose whatever style of parenting one wishes (home education, anyone?) but that's a different matter. Following Ford's logic, one would assume that Nick Clegg is entitled to parent as he wishes. And is it then too liberal to permit him to discuss it in public? Personally, I find it very illuminating when politicians put policy to one side and discuss their private lives in the public arena. It gives me the opportunity to assess what their priorities are, and whether I consider them to have integrity.
“What is sad about this statement is that it comes from a supposedly intelligent man who would have us believe that he is capable of running Great Britain."
Stupid man, not listening to me. I am an
expert! Now won't somebody please think of the economy? Let's hope and pray that whoever ends up running the country doesn't make too much eye contact with their baby, otherwise we're
doomed!
"Clegg may think his comments are funny — and indeed in one way they are, as he has just insulted the parenting choice of more than 2m British voters.”
No, no he hasn't. He has simply joined the ranks of people who have said no, thank you and refused to subcontract out their parental instincts. He now stands alongside everybody else for whom a dictatorial stranger's version of "how it should be" is absolutely not "how it will be" in their household. But that is not acceptable for Gina:
However, the child-rearing guru countered by warning him that his comments would cost him votes.
Well, maybe - but maybe not. I know many more parents who hate that book than love it and I personally think more of Nick Clegg for following his instincts. Judging him on the basis of what he says is right and proper; he is a seasoned enough politician to decide what personal information to disclose.
“If the Liberal Democrat party wishes to be taken seriously, it should perhaps look to getting a more mature leader who takes seriously the beliefs of all potential voters,” she said.
Absolutely not, you foolish and unthinking woman. Guru?
please. One can believe in and protect the freedom of other people to believe what they wish. I certainly do. But I reject absolutely that I or anybody else should without question take seriously those beliefs, no matter how many people hold them dear or what my relationship is with them. That way lies ruin.
Some things are wrong. Some things are wrong for me. Some things I reject as a matter of preference. And whilst we may not ever reach agreement, that does not mean that anyone should use force to stop us from trying. It seems to me that perhaps Gina Ford and the rule of mob actually go hand in hand.
