you have such a good baby.... - Page 2

[Eman'smom]

Originally Posted by zinemama

OP, you claim that the following actions on your part are responsible for your easy, sunny child:

- recognizing needs
- responding to needs
- feeding
- changing

Please tell me you aren't implying that those of us who followed the same program ("parented" in other words) yet whose babies were less placid than yours, were somehow responsible for the temperament of our children?

Thank you for this ds was born screaming and didn't stop at 8 he is still far more challenging than both other kids combined. I'd did everything "right" and he was still that way. I'd hate to think I made him that way.

DD2 is a very "easy" baby and is so far a pretty mellow toddler, if I were to take credit for that I'd also have to blame myself for how ds was.

[_betsy_]

2 babies, 2 different temperaments and personalities, though they are parented the same (well, you know what I mean, their various needs attended to in the way they prefer)

I often get "What a happy baby" and "What a good baby" about the baby because she loves to be out and loves to see new people. She is engaged by new faces and smiles a lot.

I didn't get that as much with DD1 even though she also loves to be out - DD1 was a more serious baby than DD2 and more cautious.

It has nothing to do with me (though of course both prefer me to just about anyone else at all times and want me near, and both prefer/red to be held or carried by me than anyone else), whether I'm a SAHM or they are in daycare or not ( how did that even factor in at all? Why does it ALWAYS have to be brought up?) and much more to do with their temperaments.

Strangers and acquaintances commenting on their "behavior" is nice, but at the infant stage, it's not behavior, it's baby's temperament and the parent's damage control (and the parents level of comfort with whatever disruption baby may be making).

[pastrygirl]

Originally Posted by zinemama

OP, you claim that the following actions on your part are responsible for your easy, sunny child:

- recognizing needs
- responding to needs
- feeding
- changing

Please tell me you aren't implying that those of us who followed the same program ("parented" in other words) yet whose babies were less placid than yours, were somehow responsible for the temperament of our children?

Thank you -- you put into (gentle) words exactly what I was thinking when I read the first post.

I fully believe it's LUCK when you have an easy baby, and nothing to do with parenting.

[tracymom1]

I think there is no such thing as an "easy" or "good" baby. All babies are challenging in their own ways, just like all babies have their "easy" times, too. It IS a LOT of work to meet each and every baby's needs - whether or not it is readily seen by the rest of the world.

[Cheshire]

My boss said he and his wife thought they were perfect parents until their second baby came along. He said they would look at other parents with more difficult kiddos and felt they knew all the answers and then God sent them their second daughter. Both are now amazing kids and great big sisters to their little brother.

Our son was always a happy baby and loved to go out but he was high needs and colicky. He needed so much more of us. Our daughter is as happy but soooo laid back. As much as I wish to take credit for it I know their personalities are ingrained.

Having said that I also know that if we weren't AP parents our sons high needs would turn into anxiety issues for him. The style does allow him to move into independence at his own comfortable pace.

[emma00]

After reading all the replies - I went back and re-read the OP first post and I don't really think she is saying that by

"- recognizing needs
- responding to needs
- feeding
- changing"

she is globally responsible for her baby's disposition. Or that by being a SAHM she is responsible for her baby's disposition.

What I understood her to be saying was that IN church she had put a lot of effort into getting her baby ready to be 'good' by making sure she was changed; fed etc and that she felt that her efforts / work that went into preparing her baby as well as focussing her attention on the baby during the service to keep the baby happy were being written off by the various observers who credited it all to a "good baby", without taking into account what she had done to ensure that her baby cooperated during the service.

When the OP said: "I think it's more a case of having her needs recognised and responded to, though she does have a sunny personality."

I understood her to mean that her baby wasn't 'good' in church just because she is so sunny and happy, but also because OP put some work into it. Obviously her baby's personality and disposition come into play, but I'm guessing if she had ignored her baby's needs during the service her baby wouldn't have appeared so 'good.'

OP - enjoy your lovely baby and try to take others comments as they are likely intended: a pretty common way for people to try and connect with / compliment someone with a baby.

[ann_of_loxley]

I got that all the time as well - what they meant was 'Your baby pleased me because they are quiet and not crying or fussing'. and it still makes me chuckle when people ask 'Is your baby good?'...What they really want to know is 'Have they comformed yet to mainstream standards such as sleeping through the night yet?'...and they ask it at like...birth! lol I mean - what are you supposed to say? 'No, my baby is horribly bad...antichrist this one!' ...lmao!

[ann_of_loxley]

I agree with emma as well - I don't see the OPs post as claiming that she has such a 'good' baby because she is doing everything she feels is right. In fact, I hate conclusions like that - because inadvertantly you could be saying that how we parent our children doesn't matter. Yes, all children are different and they all have different personalities and temperment. But how we parent then does matter or make a difference at all. So many of us strive to be the parents we are here. We educate ourselves, we read books, articles, mothering magazine, follow our instincts, etc. If she, for example, never breastfed, went back to work when he was only 2 months old, left him to CIO, spanked, etc...same child, same temperment...that child probably would come across as a very differnt baby (perhaps a very unhappy one - in a way that people didn't refer to him as 'good'). This isn't saying that if you have a fussy child or a child that cries or doesn't come across as 'good' to the mainstream public that you have done something 'wrong'. Such conclusions as many made here are falacies - A=B doesnt necessarily mean that B=A.
My son is the way he is because of the way I parent. I have many close friends and some do have 'fussy' babies who cry a lot. But I can tell you, it would probably be 'worse' if they didn't parent in an 'AP' style (recognising, responding to needs, all that good stuff). I'd take a crying baby getting his needs met as best as his mother could any day, over a quite baby who was that way out of neglect.

[mariekitt24]

I know how you feel! I get that all the time. I might make some people mad by admitting this but I really do believe the difference between my happy baby and someone elses not so happy baby is at least in part parenting. I have this forum to thank for my knowledge though.. without mothering.com My husband and I would have very different approaches to parenting, and I know my baby would not be as well off. I know it goes against social correctness to admit, but I really do feel like if other mothers knew what I knew, their babies would be happier too. Just to be totally honest.

[mamazee]

I have done the exact same things with both of my kids, and one was happy and sweet natured and well behaved, and the other was the complete opposite. On the "nurture vs nature" thing, I'm in the nature camp. It's great you have a sweet natured baby, but don't assume those with difficult babies aren't doing "all the right things" too.

[elmh23]

Originally Posted by emma00

What I understood her to be saying was that IN church she had put a lot of effort into getting her baby ready to be 'good' by making sure she was changed; fed etc and that she felt that her efforts / work that went into preparing her baby as well as focussing her attention on the baby during the service to keep the baby happy were being written off by the various observers who credited it all to a "good baby", without taking into account what she had done to ensure that her baby cooperated during the service.

Except I did the same thing to try and get dd to "behave" in church from infancy and she was still a fussy little girl. It really DOES have all to do with the personality. With ds, we didn't have to do anything. He was just a happy baby anywhere we went, including church.

[red and lulu]

Originally Posted by ann_of_loxley

I got that all the time as well - what they meant was 'Your baby pleased me because they are quiet and not crying or fussing'. and it still makes me chuckle when people ask 'Is your baby good?'...What they really want to know is 'Have they comformed yet to mainstream standards such as sleeping through the night yet?'...and they ask it at like...birth! lol I mean - what are you supposed to say? 'No, my baby is horribly bad...antichrist this one!' ...lmao!

it has surprised me how i get sort of defensive (inside... haven't bitten anyone's head off for a well-meaning compliment...yet) when someone says "she's so good!" or the grandmas say "good girl!" because she picked up a toy or stopped fussing... i don't want her to grow up thinking she's good only if she's quiet and obedient. there are so many better ways to praise a child. my dd is peaceful, happy, and determined... and i hope she grows to be an independent, free thinking, kind hearted, "good" person...

[emma00]

I have four kids with all varying degrees of happiness and fussiness as babies - so I get that parenting doesn't create temperament.

What I don't really get is the sentiment is that the OP had nothing to do with the fact that her baby was "good" (such a dumb word) at church. That she has a baby who may be easier to keep content than many people on this thread doesn't negate that it still took effort on her part to keep her baby "good" during church. I think she was just looking for a little acknowledgement of that effort.

[APToddlerMama]

Originally Posted by zinemama

OP, you claim that the following actions on your part are responsible for your easy, sunny child:

- recognizing needs
- responding to needs
- feeding
- changing

Please tell me you aren't implying that those of us who followed the same program ("parented" in other words) yet whose babies were less placid than yours, were somehow responsible for the temperament of our children?

Sometimes I feel like being so AP has created the cranky temperment my toddler has. Then I remember it is a lot of luck and just his personality.

[artgoddess]

Originally Posted by emma00

I have four kids with all varying degrees of happiness and fussiness as babies - so I get that parenting doesn't create temperament.

What I don't really get is the sentiment is that the OP had nothing to do with the fact that her baby was "good" (such a dumb word) at church. That she has a baby who may be easier to keep content than many people on this thread doesn't negate that it still took effort on her part to keep her baby "good" during church. I think she was just looking for a little acknowledgement of that effort.

Well you're right she does deserve acknowledgment for that. But the truth is, there are kids out there who if their parents worked twice as hard as the OP did it still would not work. so in that sense the child's temperament has a lot to do with how well s/he responds to all of mom's hard work.

[mamazee]

The problem is that inherent in the assumption that one baby is better behaved than other babies because he/she is parented well is an assumption that the others are not as well behaved because they are not parented as well. For older kids, the actions of the parents have more to do with it, although still not everything. But for babies I think it's really all or just about all temperament. Those babies who can't stay quiet could have great parents who tend to and respond to every need.

[Abraisme]

I understand what you're saying.. People comment all the time about what a sweet, polite child my 6yo is. I either thank them or say something like, "good parenting makes good children".

I also agree what what a lot of the other posters have said.. Some babies are just happier or easier in spite your parenting approach. I have seen many attachment style parents have fussy babies and vis-versa.

[annekh23]

Originally Posted by LROM

Just wanted to say though, don't assume not having her in daycare is such a huge component of her disposition.

I wasn't, it was really just detail as to why she was with me.

[ananas]

Originally Posted by the_lissa

I parent all my kids the same way, and they all have various temperaments and levels of "good" behaviour.

So no I don't think it is just your parenting.

Oh nd I know just as many "good" day care babies as sahm babies. Not a factor at all.

ITA. Sorry, but while meeting her needs is great and probably does keep her happy and more content, it has nothing to do with her temperament. I have known babies with parents who meet their every need one step ahead of the baby that scream constantly for no reason, and babies who were nearly neglected who were calm and smiley every minute. Some of their parents work, some stay at home, etc...

Needs being satisfied does not change a person's personality. If someone did exactly as you do and their baby was always fussy, would you assume they were doing something wrong?

Also, in response to another poster, a 6 year old's manners DO have to do with good parenting. An infant's personality does not.

[annekh23]

Originally Posted by elmh23

Congratulations on having an easy baby. Not all of us are as lucky!

That was exactly my complaint. I don't have an easy baby, she's not a difficult baby either, just somewhere in the middle of the road!

I've had an easy baby, so I know what it's like, I'd have not had to work anywhere near so hard to get the same result with that one in this kind of situation. I was working hard, physically, mentally and emotionally to make the situation work and I continue to have to do that at home, with a bit of tolerance for essentials, like going to the loo!

My easy baby would have taken a long afternoon nap, which I'd have put her down for awake, this one doesn't sleep for longer than 20mins in the day and even then it's usually on me or right next to me.

The tones of voices combined with the words seemed to say to me "aren't you lucky", which though there is a huge element of luck in her personality, I think I find her the hardest of my babies, but at the same time, also the most rewarding.