I was recently quoted (though not by name or blog) in an article in the Observer about Gwyneth Paltrow's Nanny Rachel. Remember her?
The article is fairly balanced I suppose (except for minor points like attributing quotes), but I have a bone to pick with Nanny Rachel's response to me. (You knew I would, right?)
She says (in response to my criticism of her frowning on allowing parents to feed on demand):
If people want to feed on demand or if they want a very strict timetable, that is fine, but I'm a great believer in doing what works. I do know after 30 years of experience that babies make better eaters, sleepers and much easier toddlers if they have some kind of structure.
Is this even an answer to my point? Structure and feeding on demand don't have to be mutually exclusive. We are a very structured, routine-oriented family, and I fed on demand. You can do both.
And despite believing in consistency and routine (as Nanny Rachel suggests) my kids probably aren't "much easier" than any other normal kid. They're good kids, sure, but they certainly have their moments. Some of their moments started at age two and are still going.
But oh there is so much more about Nanny Rachel that just chaps my hide. Take this excerpt for example:
Waddilove believes that as women have babies later in life, often after a full career, they find it harder to adapt to their new domesticity. 'Many of them are isolated and don't live near their own mother. Having a baby is not like running an office, is it, dear?'
That's right, ladies. Crank out those babies when you're young and stupid. Before you know any better. Before you get a taste of what life is like. Remember your place and don't strive for more.
Don't you dear me, you limey bitch.
.
.
.
(Ed. note: God, I've been a cranky-ass beeyotch lately. I'll be back to my old self after we move.)
