At the risk of being flamed, I didn't think the article was *all* bad.  It
started out kind of okay, suggesting not sleeping in long chunks was
normal/expected, telling parents to prepare and get used to it.  The start a
bedtime routine suggestion wasn't too bad either, although I'm  not sure how
helpful it actually is.  They used nice, vague guidelines, words like
"generally," defined sleep through the night as 6 hours instead of the
8-10-12 I usually hear.  It kind of fell apart for me with the standard
drowsy but awake advice, although I did like the follow the baby not the
clock attitude.  I'm not familiar with most of the books, so can't comment
on them I would have phrased the paragraph about "treatments" very
differently or eliminated it completely!).  They didn't classify all babies
as "self soothers" and did state that there are babies who need
something/someone to help them get back to sleep.

Maybe my expectations are getting too low.  It seemed your basic "be aware
of child development" kind of article.  While I didn't agree with everything
it said, I didn't find it nearly as bad as much of what I hear.

Mary Wagner-Davis, MS, MFT, IBCLC, LLLL
Roseville, CA


Date:    Sun, 3 Oct 2010 21:40:43 -0700
> From:    Jessica Claire <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Horrific sleep advice article in NY Times
>
> Read it and weep:
>
> http://consults.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/new-parents-in-need-of-sleep/
>
> Jessica Claire
> LLLL in Los Angeles
>
>             ***********************************************
>
>

             ***********************************************

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome