Mum's the Word

August 9, 2006 3:54 AM

Mum's the word. Gina Ford threatens to close a website over comments in the sites forums. Most recent statements from both sides. Other cases.
posted by lloyder (54 comments total)

The libel laws in the UK are pretty messed up, in that favor is directed to the complainant from the start. It really curtails much of a notion of free speech there. Good luck to Mumsnet, but they probably don't have much choice.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:03 AM on August 9, 2006

"It is true that my solicitors asked for the Mumsnet website to be removed but as the host persuaded Mumsnet to delete the publication, it was, of course, not necessary to pursue the matter further.

Any suggestion that I am trying to close down the Mumsnet website is completely untrue. -- Gina Ford"

If her solicitors asked for the website to be removed then she was trying to close down the website. How can see claim otherwise?
posted by ?! at 4:12 AM on August 9, 2006

How can she claim otherwise?
posted by ?! at 4:12 AM on August 9, 2006

"It is true that my solicitors asked for the Mumsnet website to be removed... Any suggestion that I am trying to close down the Mumsnet website is completely untrue. "

Umm? These two statements were in paragraphs right next to each other.

Likewise, this: "I have no objection whatsoever to people discussing or disagreeing with my advice and methods concerning childcare." is complete bullshit.

Seems to me like Gina Ford is a sourpuss douche.
posted by antifuse at 4:14 AM on August 9, 2006

Blast, ?! beat me to it!

Even better is that her lawyers demanded the site be taken down HOURS after sending the letter to Mumsnet. WTF?
posted by antifuse at 4:15 AM on August 9, 2006

One of the main objections to her child rearing advice is that she hasn't ever had a child, which, despite the fact that she was a nurse, seems a fair point.

No doubt she'll sell more books on the back of this, which is pretty depressing.
posted by johnny novak at 4:18 AM on August 9, 2006

discontented baby.
posted by quonsar at 4:24 AM on August 9, 2006

The other main objection to her child-rearing advice is that her routines are very difficult to follow for some mothers, and leave them feeling like failures right from the off. The suggestion that one-size-fits-all and all mothers and babies will respond well to a particular child-rearing technique, especially when it is a labour intensive technique expounded by a non-parent, has got quite a few people irritated.

To find out that her authoritarian views on child-rearing are accompanied by a lawyer happy attitude to criticism and an ability to state contradictory sentences within the same article (as pointed out above by ?! and antifuse) doesn't make her any more endearing.
posted by handee at 4:27 AM on August 9, 2006

The mom who offended Ford is a hoot:

"I apologise profusely to any childcare guru that I may have offended by suggesting that they are involved in military action in Lebanon and her followers for suggesting that she/they strap their babies to weapons of mass destruction.

I have read her book many times and I can confirm that this IS NOT suggested as part of any childcare guru's recommended routine.

I apologise to any new mums who may have been confused by my post and would advise that if you are considering utilising your baby in any sort of warfare or military conflict, please speak to your health visitor first."
posted by mediareport at 4:37 AM on August 9, 2006

One of the main objections to her child rearing advice is that she hasn't ever had a child, which, despite the fact that she was a nurse, seems a fair point.

I'm not sure that it is. If I was seeking an oncologist, I wouldn't
insist on seeing one who had personal experience of cancer.

A much fairer objection, ISTM, is that she doesn't appear to
have *any* qualifications in child care, other than the fact that
she's worked in the field for twelve years.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:39 AM on August 9, 2006

discontented baby.

That picture of her on the BBC website definitely looks like a
discontented baby.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:40 AM on August 9, 2006

It is true that my solicitors asked for the Mumsnet website to be removed but as the host persuaded Mumsnet to delete the publication, it was, of course, not necessary to pursue the matter further.

Any suggestion that I am trying to close down the Mumsnet website is completely untrue. -- Gina Ford

Well, to be completely fair, that last sentence is in the present tense and it appears that she is no longer trying to close down the Mumsnet website. So in a technical sense she is correct.

Considering the kind of payouts crazy rich people who sue for libel can get in the UK, it was nice of her to drop the case. Unless she's afraid that they might be able to prove truth.



Her eyes are saying something to me that I'm not sure I want to hear.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 4:44 AM on August 9, 2006

As a mom I can assure you that the fact she has no children of her own is indeed relevant. It's easy to pontificate about how to raise a theoretical infant-real ones don't read childcare books.
posted by konolia at 4:46 AM on August 9, 2006

Beat me to it mediareport, I loved that bit too.

I have to say though, I'd never heard of Gina Ford before now, and I don't think I'll be buying any of her stuff. Setting this case aside, I can't take child care advice from someone who isn't/hasn't ever been a mom seriously. I don't care how many dozens of kids she worked with on the ward, being a maternity nurse and being a mom are NOT the same thing.

On preview: Peter, you're comparing apples and oranges. Cancer management and childcare are two entirely different worlds.

But just for starters, a maternity nurse can go off shift - a mom is on duty 24/7 for the rest of her life. That's a tremendous psychological and (for the first two years or so) physical burden. A maternity nurse also has no personal emotional attachment to her charges, apart from perhaps becoming fond of one now and then. A mom is looking after her own flesh and blood, so it's VERY personal and comes with tons of personal baggage.

It's not the same. trust me.
posted by Zinger at 4:49 AM on August 9, 2006

peter,

it's difficult to be as prescriptive as she is and not have actually experienced parenthood.

The analogy you draw between children and cancer management is a weak, albeit amusing, one.
posted by johnny novak at 5:13 AM on August 9, 2006

Cancer management and childcare are two entirely different worlds.

I wasn't trying to claim that they were alike. Rather, I was
trying to make the point that when I'm taking advice from
experts, I like them to actually have some real expertise.

There are all manner of women who have had veritable
squadrons of babies, but that actually doesn't qualify them
to provide an opinion on anything other than their own
experience, which may or may not be generalizable.

A child care expert who has some recognizable qualifications
in her field can at least be expected to be familiar with the
literature, and hopefully would have the intellectual skills to
be able to evaluate the evidence in a professional manner.
Simply having dropped a few kids is no guarantee of that
whatsoever.

Caveat: We've raised three children to adulthood, and never
once bothered to read a book on raising children. All of our
advice came from friends and family, so I suspect you'd only
really bother if you had serious problems -- and again, at
at that point I'd want my experts to be genuinely expert.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:13 AM on August 9, 2006

So would people stop complaining if she said the same things but revealed that she has a baby?
posted by pracowity at 5:16 AM on August 9, 2006

So would people stop complaining if she said the same things but revealed that she has a baby?

Probably not, since one of the centerpieces of Ford's advice is what's known as "Cry It Out" which is the practice of leaving a small infant to cry for extended periods of time (in Ford's advice, up to an hour) without attending to his/her needs. Even Ezzo and Ferber, the most loathed of the American CIO advocates never suggested a child be left alone for such a long time -- and further, there is medical evidence now that prolonged crying can cause cerebral damage in a baby. As such, no, she could have a dozen children but so long as she's promoting a practice which could cause brain injury, her advice would always be a target for (much-deserved, IMO) complaint.
posted by Dreama at 5:26 AM on August 9, 2006

Well, really then, the issue should be the practices themselves, not whether or not she's had a baby herself. I'm with PeterMcDermott on that one.
posted by mediareport at 5:30 AM on August 9, 2006

So would people stop complaining if she said the same things but revealed that she has a baby?

This is the point: Ford's detractors are likely convinced that if Ford had had a baby, she would never have written her book as it is.

Without having read the book, breaking a day into five-minute intervals sounds like the work of a lunatic.
posted by mistersquid at 5:45 AM on August 9, 2006

Her eyes are saying something to me that I'm not sure I want to hear.

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn?
posted by shawnj at 5:52 AM on August 9, 2006

Interesting on the focus of this discussion so far, I thought it would have focused more on the actions of trying to shut the website rather than a discussion of her suitabilty as a parenting guru.

Suppose that's the great thing about Mefi.

As the very proud father of a nearly eight week old, I thank god that we can always call on both sets of grandparents for parenting advice.
posted by lloyder at 6:18 AM on August 9, 2006

As a mom I can assure you that the fact she has no children of her own is indeed relevant.

You're sterile, is that it? No, that's too convenient of an excuse. The truth is, nobody ever wanted to have babies with you. Isn't that it? Always the mom's maid and never the mom? Must be hard on you, knowing that the years are ticking away, your friends all getting married and all the while your uterus is slowly shriveling away, drying up, becoming totally worthless.

posted by prostyle at 6:30 AM on August 9, 2006

Her eyes are saying something to me that I'm not sure I want to hear

"Bring me Solo and the Wookiee. They will all suffer for this outrage".
posted by raygirvan at 6:35 AM on August 9, 2006 [2 favorites]

Would you let this woman
babysit your children?

posted by bitmage at 6:38 AM on August 9, 2006

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn?

Is she Welsh? Or maybe just her eyes are?
posted by TheDonF at 6:41 AM on August 9, 2006

This is the point: Ford's detractors are likely convinced that if Ford had had a baby, she would never have written her book as it is.

People like this tend to mitigate against that theory though.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 6:55 AM on August 9, 2006

lol raygirvan!
posted by gminks at 7:00 AM on August 9, 2006

Is she Welsh? Or maybe just her eyes are?
posted by TheDonF at 9:41 AM EST on August 9 [+] [!]

Comment flagged as dygnwvwyn.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:02 AM on August 9, 2006 [1 favorite]

Would you let this woman babysit your children?

No! It looks like she's just eaten one and is hungry for another.
posted by Turtles all the way down at 7:18 AM on August 9, 2006 [1 favorite]

She looks as friendly as crib death.
posted by klangklangston at 7:40 AM on August 9, 2006 [1 favorite]

OK, people, please lay off the lovely and endearing Ms. Ford before she gets offended at MeFi and goes after Matt. And for goodness sakes don't say that she straps babies to rockets and fires them into south Lebanon.
posted by TedW at 8:14 AM on August 9, 2006

Don't mention the war in Lebanon. I did it once but I think I got away with it.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:16 AM on August 9, 2006

Here's part of her lawyer's letter to the Website:

The defamatory postings are too numerous to list in full here. However, we provide the details of the following postings as examples:
• postings timed at 10:55:32 on 5th April 2006, attributed to a Mumsnet member nicknamed ‘Flum’, and at 10:58:53 that day, attributed to ‘moono’, bore the defamatory meaning that our client has unpleasant and unhygienic personal habits;
• postings timed at 8:46:36, 8:48:52, and 8:57:59 on 3rd April 2006, attributed to ‘harpsichordcarrier’, bore the defamatory meaning that our client is cruel, uncaring, and justifiably reviled because in her book ‘The Contented Little
Baby Book’, she advised a mother to leave a 5 month old baby to cry for three hours; and
• a posting timed at 12:36:34 on 21st July 2006, attributed to ‘morningpaper’, says our client “straps babies to rockets and fires them into south Lebanon”.

That last one must be the lady mediareport quoted. All in all, their client has no sense of humor. (And if she did advocate ignoring a crying child for three hours, she is cruel, uncaring, and justifiably reviled. So sue me.)
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:20 AM on August 9, 2006

This might be better in AskMe, but: suppose someone here on MeFi were to say that Ford is a hateful beast who advocates child abuse from a platform of self-glorification and pure willful ignorance, is a danger to children of impressionable parents everywhere, and should never be allowed to publish, broadcast, or transmit any kind of parenting advice ever again because of the unimaginable scale of the damage she's doing to innocent babies, and that she knows this and is trying to suppress the truth with the force of law, and also that she's fat and ugly.

It's a U.S. website hosted on U.S. soil. Could she really sue Matt? If this hypothetical poster, who could probably use some anger management counselling, were posting from Canada, could she sue him? Where does the jurisdiction for this sort of thing end in this age of digital globalization?
posted by Zozo at 8:34 AM on August 9, 2006

What is it with pregnancy and parenting sites that seems to bring out the worst in people?
posted by elmwood at 8:43 AM on August 9, 2006

USA libel law is more defendant-friendly than UK.

Both legal systems have the defect that a plaintiff can force a settlement by economic coercion despite being wrong or weak on the merits. There is some sort of "loser pays" principle in the UK but I'm not sure of the details. Even so, you may have to have to finance your way to victory before collecting, or settle if you can't.
posted by jam_pony at 8:58 AM on August 9, 2006

Please stop posting that pic. I find I have a hard time reading while it is on screen.
posted by pointilist at 9:09 AM on August 9, 2006

It looks to me as if taking care of babies for twelve years has left this woman very, very angry with babies in general, and that her books are her revenge.

And, as many commenters in this thread have pointed out, even a fairly casual glance at a photo presumably chosen by Ford herself for publicity purposes gives an unmistakable impression of thinly veiled, barely restrained fury, so she has perhaps good reason to fear that any criticism at all may serve to wake people up. Wouldn't you say her response to Mumsnet embodies the contradictions of her approach to caring for babies, where she expresses benevolent concern, but acts out of draconian anger?

How did someone like this ever become a baby-care guru in the first place? I think the answer is that there is a great deal of antagonism built into the relationship between babies and parents; antagonism which babies cannot articulate (though the tone of some crying seems extremely clear), and parents dare not articulate even to themselves. So when someone comes along who advocates treatment which is harsh and vengeful at the least, but relentlessly sold as the most loving thing you can do, parents who are being torn apart by their own internal contradictions run screaming to embrace her.
posted by jamjam at 9:34 AM on August 9, 2006 [1 favorite]

I'm not sure how Ms. Ford is regarded as an expert in child care and parenting without having experienced parenthood herself.

Other than that, Ms. Ford's attitude and behavior simply reinforces negative opinons of her, creating the effect she is attempting to stop. How can people be so obtuse?
posted by Argyle at 9:37 AM on August 9, 2006

What is it with pregnancy and parenting sites that seems to bring out the worst in people?
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:39 AM on August 9, 2006

It's just confirmed my belief that she seems to have little respect for other people's views. It comes across in the black & white nature of her book (I've read enough to get the gist, and, incidentally, a lot of it is actually useful, sensible stuff), and this hasn't really helped change my view.

I can't say I'd be overly impressed by some of the comments made about her, but she knows her views are controversial, and knows she's made a lot of money out of it. Surely by expressing such polarising opinions, you're expecting extreme responses (both good and bad)? And surely you should take this with a pinch of salt?

But overall, it's the intolerance that comes through it all. I suppose the "do it my way or do it wrong" tone in her writing fosters all this ill-feeling...
posted by moonface at 9:53 AM on August 9, 2006

What is it with pregnancy and parenting that seems to bring out the worst in people?

Sleep deprivation.
posted by Zinger at 9:55 AM on August 9, 2006

Wow, she looks like quonsar in drag, but not as cute.
posted by zarah at 9:59 AM on August 9, 2006

It looks like she's just eaten one and is hungry for another.

Thereby continuing a fine English tradition: Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal, 1729.
posted by cenoxo at 10:07 AM on August 9, 2006

I'm not sure how Ms. Ford is regarded as an expert in child care and parenting without having experienced parenthood herself.

Being a parent doesn't make you an expert. Not being a parent doesn't automatically make you a non-expert.

Someone who's worked on studies of childhood development and behaviour and how parenting affects them could well be an expert on parenting without ever having children. They could be completely incapable of ever having children and still be an expert.

Someone who has had primary care responsibility for many children could also become an expert over time without ever having any of their own. A professional nanny, perhaps. Or a even a daycare provider.

I'm not sure that either of these things describes Gina Ford - I gather her experience is with infants in hospitals, which means she'd likely care for them for only a few days and not really see the long term effects of her behaviours. But the fact that she's never had a baby of her own so she can't possibly be an expert is one of the more shallow criticisms of her.
posted by jacquilynne at 10:16 AM on August 9, 2006

As far as child rearing advice goes- you're best to take it only from parents whose kids you actually like and get along with. Sounds rational, but so many people who were raising psychopathic monsters wanted to tell us exactly what to do with our own back in the day.

The only expert I ever found worth paying any attention to is John Rosemond- he's controversial as well for his authoritarian philosophy, zero-tolerance for television, and his insistence that children be allowed to fail when their actions warrant it.
posted by squalor at 10:16 AM on August 9, 2006

> "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn?"
>> "Is she Welsh? Or maybe just her eyes are?"

Qwghlmian?
posted by jam_pony at 11:04 AM on August 9, 2006

Gina Ford seems like the Dr. Leo Buscaglia of child development. (The "Love Doctor" may have been right on the money with everything he ever said or wrote, but AFAIK he never had a significant other or any children.)
posted by pax digita at 11:26 AM on August 9, 2006

This Contented Little Baby stuff sounds quite a bit like a secular version of Babywise, and Babywise is scary.

This blog entry has quite a few sources re: this.
posted by palmcorder_yajna at 11:41 AM on August 9, 2006

She looks like a character from tom goes to the mayor, particularly Eric Wareheim in a wig.
posted by bob sarabia at 11:47 AM on August 9, 2006

I knew she reminded me of something.
posted by jam_pony at 12:54 PM on August 9, 2006

Would you let this woman babysit your children?

No! It looks like she's just eaten one and is hungry for another.

That was my exact reaction. For the benefit if googlisms: Gina Ford is a baby-eater.
posted by Sparx at 2:36 PM on August 9, 2006

I don't know why everyone is so hard on her. It isn't as if she's advocating Box Learning (warning: juvenile stupidity).
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 2:40 PM on August 9, 2006