Gina Ford: Charlaton Child Rearing "Expert", Free Speech Terrorist, Mother Muzzler
What kind of expert demands that critical analysis, discussions or personal opinions of her published theories about child rearing be silenced? A loser who knows she’s about to exposed as a big, stupid fraud. That’s what kind of expert.
According to Gina Ford’s official web site She studied Hotels and Catering in Edinboro. But, then, poof! She became a maternity nurse. For 12 years, she was a maternity nurse. That’s 8 years shy of raising a a child to maturity. Then some rich and famous people thought she did some decent work with their own children. Poof! She is an expert.
Does she have children of her own? No.
Does she have any background in child development or psychology? No.
What does she have? A lot of really bad opinions some publisher thought could make her a lot of money.
Compare her qualifications with those of say...The Sears Family and suddenly you begin to notice some striking lack of qualifications. How many parents do you know who have valid and impressive credentials; have raised children to adulthood; whose children enter the family business -- which is all about advocating the same child-rearing tactics their parents used? That’s a pretty strong testimony as far as I’m concerned.
What has Gina Ford got? Nothing. No names of universities, no personal experience in the field, no published credentials that I could find. And she is an expert that thousands of families are following? (Oh, England. Where is your own inner Lionheart?)
I’m sorry, I do not care one iota for Gina ford. I place her child-rearing tactics about two rungs below those advocated by The Pearls, a couple whose “parenting advice” recently resulted in the death of a child in North Carolina, Sean Paddock. Yes, that’s how I see her. In the most extreme, out-of-control, egomaniacal parent psyche...Step 1 is Gina Ford. When that fails, Step 2, The Pearls. Step 3 are the results you just read about in the article about Sean Paddock. (And isn’t that a nice tidy solution. Because parenthood is stressful, especially when your children just ‘won’t get on with it.’ At least you’ll get lots of pity and pints out of it all. It was all the “experts” fault.)
Okay - so why am I on my high horse about Gina Ford? Because I want all of you to know about her recent antics. And I want all of you to know what kind of a “shamed to be exposed as a fraud and a sham” woman she is. There is a web site I frequent. Mumsnet has been a critical part of my adjustment here to England. And unless the users “refrain from discussing Gina Ford,” She will attempt to shut down the site.
I just happen to have been brought up with the idea that:
1. If your theories are sound, well-researched, and
2. beyond academic scrutiny, and
3. beyond scientific scrutiny, then
what should you be afraid of? A bunch of inexperienced new mommies chatting with other lonly mothers on an internet support forum? That's a bit of an over reaction in my humble opinion. Or is it that a scientist has actually done some serious scholarship refuting her "theories" and she's facing a financial issue because she's been proven wrong? Margot Sunderland, director of education at the Centre for Child Mental Health in London's findings that children should sleep with their parent until age 5... What Sutherland is saying sounds like that Sears Family, doesn't it? You know, the ones with all of the research, experience and medical degrees.
More info from Mumsnet:
Mumsnet And Gina Ford
ITV
ITV article
Ms Ford is setting a dangerous precedent. She is asking that a web forum take responsibility for the content posted by its users. In essence, she is demanding that entities who provide “any asshole on the internet “with an opinion be held liable for that individual’s libel. Myspace, Friendster users...are you paying attention?
And that's not even mentioning that she is a sham, a fraud and a charlatan who now thinks she should have the right to silence the very women she is supposedly dedicated to serving.
While I'm at it: Let's all write her publisher demanding that if this terrorist, snake oil peddlar does not cease and desist in harassing Mumsnet, then we'll all have larger issues about the authors they choose to print.
Random House
20 Vauxhall Bridge Road
London SW1V 2SA
020 7840 8400 (phone)
020 7233 6117 (fax)
According to Gina Ford’s official web site She studied Hotels and Catering in Edinboro. But, then, poof! She became a maternity nurse. For 12 years, she was a maternity nurse. That’s 8 years shy of raising a a child to maturity. Then some rich and famous people thought she did some decent work with their own children. Poof! She is an expert.
Does she have children of her own? No.
Does she have any background in child development or psychology? No.
What does she have? A lot of really bad opinions some publisher thought could make her a lot of money.
Compare her qualifications with those of say...The Sears Family and suddenly you begin to notice some striking lack of qualifications. How many parents do you know who have valid and impressive credentials; have raised children to adulthood; whose children enter the family business -- which is all about advocating the same child-rearing tactics their parents used? That’s a pretty strong testimony as far as I’m concerned.
What has Gina Ford got? Nothing. No names of universities, no personal experience in the field, no published credentials that I could find. And she is an expert that thousands of families are following? (Oh, England. Where is your own inner Lionheart?)
I’m sorry, I do not care one iota for Gina ford. I place her child-rearing tactics about two rungs below those advocated by The Pearls, a couple whose “parenting advice” recently resulted in the death of a child in North Carolina, Sean Paddock. Yes, that’s how I see her. In the most extreme, out-of-control, egomaniacal parent psyche...Step 1 is Gina Ford. When that fails, Step 2, The Pearls. Step 3 are the results you just read about in the article about Sean Paddock. (And isn’t that a nice tidy solution. Because parenthood is stressful, especially when your children just ‘won’t get on with it.’ At least you’ll get lots of pity and pints out of it all. It was all the “experts” fault.)
Okay - so why am I on my high horse about Gina Ford? Because I want all of you to know about her recent antics. And I want all of you to know what kind of a “shamed to be exposed as a fraud and a sham” woman she is. There is a web site I frequent. Mumsnet has been a critical part of my adjustment here to England. And unless the users “refrain from discussing Gina Ford,” She will attempt to shut down the site.
I just happen to have been brought up with the idea that:
1. If your theories are sound, well-researched, and
2. beyond academic scrutiny, and
3. beyond scientific scrutiny, then
what should you be afraid of? A bunch of inexperienced new mommies chatting with other lonly mothers on an internet support forum? That's a bit of an over reaction in my humble opinion. Or is it that a scientist has actually done some serious scholarship refuting her "theories" and she's facing a financial issue because she's been proven wrong? Margot Sunderland, director of education at the Centre for Child Mental Health in London's findings that children should sleep with their parent until age 5... What Sutherland is saying sounds like that Sears Family, doesn't it? You know, the ones with all of the research, experience and medical degrees.
More info from Mumsnet:
Mumsnet And Gina Ford
ITV
ITV article
Ms Ford is setting a dangerous precedent. She is asking that a web forum take responsibility for the content posted by its users. In essence, she is demanding that entities who provide “any asshole on the internet “with an opinion be held liable for that individual’s libel. Myspace, Friendster users...are you paying attention?
And that's not even mentioning that she is a sham, a fraud and a charlatan who now thinks she should have the right to silence the very women she is supposedly dedicated to serving.
While I'm at it: Let's all write her publisher demanding that if this terrorist, snake oil peddlar does not cease and desist in harassing Mumsnet, then we'll all have larger issues about the authors they choose to print.
Random House
20 Vauxhall Bridge Road
London SW1V 2SA
020 7840 8400 (phone)
020 7233 6117 (fax)
Comments
And the nerve of her to attack 7 nice WAHM's building up a home-grown business...just barely making a buck by providing a public service - to boot?!!? I remember when they stopped asking for donations just to keep the site up! It wasn't that long ago.
Sometimes, you have to call a bitch a bitch. I mean if she growls when you approach her feeding bowl...that just ain't civilised decent human behavior - now is it?
Martin Niemolleter
First_they_came...
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
So - speak out. Speak whatever your truth is!
When they came for the co-sleepers,
I did not speak out,
I was not a co-sleeper.
When they came for the extended breast-feeders,
I did not speak out,
I was not an extended breastfeeder........
There is such a thing as a right to an opinion. Why should Ms Ford want this for herself...and yet nobody else should have such rights?
Her qualifications mean nothing - there is no such thing as a maternity nurse! Glorified babysitter more like. Just who are her famous clients? Can she even name one who can confirm that she worked for them all those years ago. Anyone can study hotels in any city anywhere - they can also study catering by eating out in restaurants. Her biography is meaningless - it doesn't actually mean a thing and maybe she needs investigating as to what her real qualifications are - maybe that is why over the past few years she has silenced a number of forums where people have raised questions. In a court of law she would lose because asking questions is not a crime in the UK.
You are absolutely right. One site she targeted was
The Bad Mother's Club. It was actually this site which made me feel there was a snowball chance of surviving in London. (When I was doing the initial research.) Unfortunately, I have been unable to keep up with this sassy, delightful group of Mums. But, the fact remains - you are correct. One by one - she targets the small, the vulnerable, the weak, and the disenfranchised. (Of course, we know this from reading her parenting philosophy...after all...who is victimised by her methods - all of the above I just mentioned. )
And perhaps I was wrong in my initial post. Perhaps rather than write her publisher - we ought to begin a fund drive for Mumsnet to fight this beast and let a judge bite her ...well anywhere uncomfortable....let's just say that it would probably be her purse. (Again - probably why she is such a rabid animal to begin with...because science just doesn't support her anymore...does it?
But from what you have said trying to verbally destroy Gina Ford's character I can see you are just the kind of personality who would fit right in there. No wonder you loved the BMC.
I don't know anything about Gina Ford but your method of posting such hatred about her makes me warm to her immensely in response.
If a childcare method seems abusive to lots of people perhaps there is something in that.
Write to your MPs people - this is a political matter on freedom of speech, the use of the internet and so on and complain about the GF empire.
I'm not someone who is sent out by anyone to do anything. I form my own opinions. And so what if Gina Ford advocates some method of raising children over another? We all have free will whether to buy and read books or not. Nobody is making me use her methods so why should I resent or hate her for using tough methods? And if you feel the same way, you are also free not to read her books. I think assassinating her character on your weblof says a lot more about you than it ever could about her.
I might write to my MP and ask him to close down all websites where libel and personal attacks are encouraged. I have a completely different take on this story from you because I have been on the receiving end of this sort of mob-minded behaviour and it's not pleasant. You can only get all high handed about "freedom of speech" by ignoring or dismissing what this story is really about.
I have made no false statements of fact.
1. Fact. On two seperate occaisions, Ms. Ford has attempted to silence women who wished to express negative opinions about her work.
2. Fact. She does this by attempting to hold the owners of websites which provide a forum for mothers liable for the contents of the site.
3. Fact. Ms Ford prevents mothers from discussing her by having the websites enact bans on all posts which mention her or her methods.
4. Fact. "A statement that amounts to an insult or is mere vulgar abuse is not defamatory. This is because the words do not convey a defamatory meaning to those who heard them (simple abuse is unlikely to cause real damage to a reputation)." In the Mumsnet case discussing the comment about WMD, this was an insult - not slander. as defined by YourRights.org
5. Fact. Ms Ford expressly chooses websites which are unable - for financial, not legal reasons - to fight back.
6. Fact: Ms Ford's behavior falls quite neatly into the definition of terrorist under Psycological Imact and Fear. "The attack was carried out in such a way as to maximize the severity and length of the psychological impact. Each act of terrorism is a “performance,” a product of internal logic, devised to have an impact on many large audiences. Terrorists also attack national symbols to show their power and to shake the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to. This may negatively affect a government's legitimacy, while increasinging the legitimacy of the given terrorist organization and/or ideology behind a terrorist act. "
7. Fact. The woman who posted the WMD comment has apologized. It is published at the end of Justine Robert's comments inThe Guardian.
So, Anony, you are wrong. She is attacking free speech. She doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. Because - no libel, defamation or slander could be proven in court. The fact is - she's behaving like a big bully and attacking groups with few resources to stop her. That's a very small person. (Heee. Heeee. Have you seen her picture?)
Your fact no 2, the owners of the website ought to be liable for the words of their members. That is what moderation is for. Moderators exist in order to police a site. In this case, the moderators did not do their job properly and so Gina Ford got the lawyers in. She gave them ample warning and gave them a chance to sort themselves out and they didn't. I think they deserve everything they got.
Fact 3, if the women on the website had proven they could act like grown ups they might deserve the right to discuss her there. But really, is this really going to cause a bunch of gossipy women that much hardship? "Oooh I can't discuss Gina Ford on MumsNet any more! Call in the European Court of Human Rights!" No. Any women desperate to go and make mean minded swipes at her are free to go to any number of other websites nd bitch to their heart's content. So I don't buy the whole "human rights" angle on this story.
Fact 5, I am glad. These websites have moderators who think their members are free to destroy people's reputations with personal attacks and abuse. That's not on. It's unjust. It offends my principles of fair play and decency and humanity. How scary is it to consider these women who enthusiastically promote bullying of minority voices are also raising the next generation? That terrifies me. If a website closes down because of this I would do a happy dance.
Fact 6, I find it hard to take seriously.
Fact 7, too little too late, and also she apologised very sarcastically, so I don't think it counts.
"The fact is - she's behaving like a big bully and attacking groups with few resources to stop her. That's a very small person. (Heee. Heeee. Have you seen her picture?)"
Yes, you want to joke about how fat she is. Hilarious. Maybe you'd also like to say that she smells and your big sister is bigger than her and you're going to get her after school today? (sigh). Can you not mount an argument without recourse to ad hominem attacks? What does it matter what she looks like? You really should go back to the BMC, you'd fit right in.
That said it means she is opening herself up for babies who turn into adults - any of them believe themselves traumatised by her methods will be able to sue with a great deal of success if she repeatedly bans any criticims or evaluation of her works.
I assure you I am acting under my own volition by posting here. I can't prove it, so I suppose you must believe what you like. I am very much on GF's side simply because I have been cyber-bullied by a parenting messageboard and have tried unsuccessfully to resolve the situation amicably- so my sympathies are with women who have been viciously cyber-bullied as GF has.
I think that if websites are complacent about libel/personal attacks then they deserve the book thrown at them. Maybe UK law needs to change, I don't know. I'm not an expert in law. I think that common decency should be evoked a long time before the need to recourse to the law.
Common decency to my mind would be: remove threads that are full of personal abuse, remove them as and when they are seen and not just because someone has complained, and the moderators ought to take a strong line against it. Any posters with a modicum of intelligence will be aware of the difference between legitimate criticisms of GF's methods, and personal attacks. And those who cannot tell the difference should be banned. The law should not be needed, it should not take lawyers to have to tell a website "personal abuse is not acceptable". I mean for God's sake, these are parents, if they know not to personally abuse their own children and to abhor bullying when it happens to their children, why is it suddenly okay to bully each other on a website? Does anonymity mean common decency need not apply??
I see you have fudged the difference between "legitimate criticism of her methods" and "personal attacks". She had no problem with the former, her complaints were about the latter. The only way you can attack GF is by basically fudging what this issue is about, which tells me a lot.
I think if babies are traumataised by her methods they should sue their own mothers. I believe in personal responsibility. Nobody is making you, or me, or anyone, read her books.
I have just read GF's latest statement on her website http://www.ginafordinfo.com/announce-mumsnet101106.html
I think it is absolutely terrible that you are spreading lies about her via your blogs.
Perhaps the question that Mumsnet needs to answer is: why they didn’t take up Gina's offer on March 31st about her being prepared to waive her right to costs and damages.
This is hardly the behaviour of a woman who, according to Mumsnet, is only out to increase her own wealth.
I myself tried the Baby Whisperer techniques and found that the confusion they caused me nearly drove me mad! So I abandoned that I looked elsewhere for advice. But just because I didn’t agree with Tracy Hogg’s advice didn’t mean I felt the need to lauch into a personal attack on her.
I would also like to point out that NOWHERE does Gina Ford advocate leaving a baby to cry for hours.
Please can people just accept that they don’t like her advice, but that for some people it really works and has been a godsend. No one is forcing you to read the book or follow her advice. If it works great, if it doesn't, throw the book in the bin and try somehting else. Stop the Gina bashing and move on.
I would also like to point out that I too am acting of my own volition by writing this here. My opinions are influenced by no one but me.
The disclaimer at the bottom of that post applies here too.
Thanks for your comments.
Madness, I only wish you had left your rather fantastic comment on my blog. I would have been honoured if your well written and lucid statements had been part of the discussion here.
If you go to my more current musings, you will notice my surprise and amusement to be listed on GF's website.
For once, she has done a wonderful thing. Point people in my direction!
I apologies for not gracing (everything is relative) your blog with my original rant. As an engineer, duplication of information is deemed a waste of resources ;)
I'm glad my posting brought Ian's comment to light for you, if nothing else :)
MoI. (Which I've just noticed could stand for "Ministry of Insanity" as well, not to mention the completely unintentional but happy collision with French.)
I watched Mums Net members set up a disgusting spoof site about her, watched the so called moderators allow it all and then watched Mums Net actually asking its members to refrain from abusing Gina as a person...and the members carried on so they have brought it on themselves. Do you really think Mums Net has a chance in hell of winning this case with all the evidence against them? and with Gina's lawyers so positive she will win that they are doing it on a no win no fee basis?
Her methods like any other parenting guru are up for debate,but her personal life should not be. everyone has the right to defend themselves, that is a human right. And if freedom of speech means you can bully (which is what they did) someone and not have any repercussions then what the hell is that teaching our children? that bullying is okay? gina may be the best selling child care expert (and why do you think that is if her method are so terrible) but she is also still just a person.
i would like to ask you christina...have you used her methods? read her book> spoken to her yourself (let me guess, no no no and i wouldnt even want too blah blah blah) but in case i am wrong, i would love to hear why you despise her so much. I am rather disgusted to see you say her methods are akin to one that kills babies...you have no idea.
It is extremely sad that supposed mature adults (scarily, most of them appear to be mothers) don't appear to know the difference between a debate about someone's methods, and personal attacks.....is there really any need for the personal comments which appear on this page for instance?
It seems possible that those who criticise Gina's methods the loudest, are those who are most threatened by them....who perhaps cannot bear to entertain the possibility that there might have been another way of raising their own children.
I don't claim to know whether Gina's methods or anyone else's are "correct" or not. Surely it is an individual choice. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that Gina's methods were the right choice for me. I have no difficulty with anyone disagreeing with me, but I too would be most upset if this disagreement degenerated into the type of nastiness I have read on this page. You appear to be turning even your comments of the legal aspects of this matter into a personal attack on Gina Ford....which is exactly the kind of thing I would expect a playground bully to resort to.
Again, surely if you had no doubt that the material in question was NOT defamatory or libellous, you would be able to sit back, relax, and wait for the tribunal of fact to confirm that truth for you?
Or do you have a conspiracy theory about the justice system too....?