Is it just me, or is Me Too! the most irritation and annoying pre-schoolers’ tv programme ever aired?  Does anyone else find themselves saying ‘not particularly, thank you very much’ when mad Granny Murray says ‘And I expect you want to know all about what I’ve been up to today?’?  And who on earth invented her bizarre and irrelevant sayings?  The other day she told the market-stall holder “well, you know what I always say - ‘if you can’t bear the noise in the kitchen, move into the sitting room’”.  But then, her sayings apparently always ’save the day’ according to whoever has left their poor child with this deranged woman for the day - “Well, I never did!” is always Granny Murray’s response, which is completely bizarre considering every day one of her random comments ’saves the day’ so why she is so surprised every single time one of her unfortunate charge’s parents arrives to collect them, I don’t know!  Last week her wonderful saying (I sadly forget what it was now) caused the buffet-car bloke to make himself a kilt out of yellow dusters as his trousers had got covered with custard and he had to take them off!  I can’t tell you how glad I am that Riverseafingal isn’t anywhere near me.  So anyone else agree with me, or am I alone in my ‘Granny Murray is mad and annoying’ club? 

Nestle is the biggest unethical marketer of artificial baby milks world-wide - using artificial baby milks (ie. not breastfeeding) has been shown to increase the risk of obesity - obesity goes hand-in-hand with being unfit - new tv. programme on last night about unfit children - who chooses to sponsor it? Nestle!!!! Talk about shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted!

So we watched this programme last night, fearful that it would be a real ‘look at these wierdos’ programme, and was pleasantly surprised.  Although the narrator did seem at times to be taking the mickey out of the parents, at other times she sounded genuinely interested and sympathetic.  However, I don’t think they chose the best families to look at.

Firstly, the British family.  I liked them.  They were lovely, honest, happy people, and the Dad was hilarious!  But…and this is going to sound awful…if you’re going to present an unusual form of parenting to the masses, surely the way to do it that is most likely to make it appear a valid, acceptable form to those who don’t yet subscribe to it, is to follow a family that looks completely ‘normal’.  By ‘normal’, I mean look like a family who could easily follow mainstream parenting practices.  I’m playing devils advocate here - I don’t think that there was anything wrong with the British family, but the American families looked a bit more mainstream, and I think that that is the route to choose.  I think that mainstream followers are far more likely to listen to someone who looks like they do, simply because the narrow-mindedness of so many people ensures that they go on looks far more than on anything else.  The over-riding thought in many people’s minds, I believe, would have been “well, what do you expect?”.  Although it’s downright wrong to make an issue of physical appearance, I think the impact of using a family that looks mainstream is much stronger, leading to the “oh!  So it’s not just for ‘weirdos” reaction.  I hope I’m making sense here!  I’ve had this conversation with a few of my friends on several occassions.  One of my friends has dreadlocks and wears gorgeous hippy clothes - we think that very mainstream people take one look and write her off as a hippy, which is fine by her, but does seem to make people switch off and stop listening, as if they already know that what she’s going to say is ‘weird’.  Apart from the fact I don’t wear make-up, I look like most mums - dark hair tied back, jeans and t-shirts - we all think that I have more impact when talking about non-mainstream ideas because people don’t expect to hear me talk about them.

Secondly, the one-child American family.  I was thinking all the way through that the mother was the one in control of the attachment, not the child.  A common criticism of attachment parenting.  Then, lo and behold, at the end the husband said exactly the same thing!  In my opinion, for attachment parenting to work, the child *has* to be in control.  The child *has* to have the opportunities to detach from his/her mother/family and it is important that there is no underlying emotional blackmail going on ie. mum goes on and on about how much she loves being attached to her child leading to the child thinking that is what she needs to do in order to maintain her mother’s love.  Attachment parenting is about being there for your child when and for as long as she needs it - not encouraging attachment, but not discouraging it either.  It’s also about letting your child have the opportunity to be attached to a number of adults, and children, not just to mum.  In an ideal world, children are brought up by a community, not just two parents, and this is when attachment parenting is really healthy.  Babies are carried by their grandmothers; sisters; cousins; aunts - they’re even suckled by them if mum’s not available and baby is in need of comfort!  Babies need to form the strongest attachment to their mum, but to also form strong attachments to other people too, when *they* are ready - not when mum is ready!  Showing this family, I believe, will just reinforce people’s misconceptions that attachment parenting is about parents who don’t want to let go of their babies.

Thirdly - the two-child American family.  I loved this family - I think that this woman talked the most sense.  She didn’t look too unusual and she was extremely articulate when explaining her choices.  I liked it that she talked about asking herself what ‘jungle-mama’ would do in certain situations - it’s something I do all the time!  The British family seemed to work solely on their instincts; the one-child American family worked mostly on mum’s needs; this family worked on a combination of instinct and the experience of thousands of years of evolution.  In the natural world, we wouldn’t bring our children up just on our instincts - they’d certainly be very respected, much more so than they are in our culture, but we’d also listen to our parents; sisters; aunts; grandparents who would have listened to our ancestors - generations and generations of accumulated knowledge of child-rearing would be accessible to us.  Surely this is the best way to do it?  When our girls do something that doesn’t fit with what we expect of modern children, before I worry, I ask myself what a cave-toddler would be doing.  Is this normal behaviour for natural children?  Is what the books say only normal for children brought up the conventional way?  I also ask myself what cave-mother would be doing all the time.  Would she sit down and play with her children all day long?  Certainly not!  She’d have been busy working, with her children running round her feet, occasionally asking questions, helping out, going off to play fantasy games with their friends, sometimes asking to breastfeed; baby in a sling, feeding on and off, not going out of the family’s sight.  If baby cries, mum does something about it asap because to not do so would be to risk the baby’s life.  I’m rambling now!

All in all, I liked this programme - it wasn’t totally ‘look at these wierdos’ but I think it could have been done better. 

Oh yes, and mass breastfeeding sessions (which one of the mums in the tv programme attended with her two nurslings!) - I’ve ranted about these before.  Gah!  I hate them!  People say they are necessary to make breastfeeding more normal.  I don’t think they make breastfeeding normal - I think they make it wierd!  They just serve to increase the perception that breastfeeders are ‘militant’.  I dislike Breastfeeding Awareness Week too.  The only thing that can make breastfeeding normal is by doing it, and by doing it normally!