So, my wife thinks that I have set out to read everything that OSC has ever published, in print or online. In order to not make her wrong I've started reading OSC's columns on MormonTimes.com. Some of them are decidedly "Mormon" while others I think would be interesting to the rest of the world as well.
Thanks for the tip, Sergeant. I hadn't seen those before. Really liked the marriage one.
I can't get all that excited about dirty diapers ... they're too recent.
Posted by Steve_G (Member # 10101) on :
I've only caught a few of these. too bad there isn't an RSS feed for his columns, since I only seem to catch them when I read about them.
Digging throught the site I did find a list of all his columns of which I'd only read a couple. Here's the list, so you can catch up on all things Orson Scott Card:
By the way I agree completely with OSC about diapers. Though I have had my gag reflexes tested by some of my kids' worst diapers, it is so much easier than changing somebody else's kid's diapers.
Luckily the opportunity doesn't come about to change other kids' diapers very often because my wife and I agreed it would be stupid for any man to change another kids diaper in today's society. While I have done it when the kid is suffering and I'm the only one available for the task, its better to let a female do it lest accusations of abuse or other misconduct come about from it.
Some may consider it paranoid behavior, but I don't let other kids come over to our house unless my wife is there, not because there is any risk to the child, but there is a huge potential risk to me if somebody were to make a false accusation. Its something every man should be constantly vigilant of. One false accusation can ruin a man's reputation and life regardless whether formal charges are ever brought up.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I agree with you Steve_G, and I generally take the same precautions. I would never abuse any kids, but I've witnessed situations with my family members where accusations of abuse were flying and things went on the public record, and I don't want to get caught up in it.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sergeant: So, my wife thinks that I have set out to read everything that OSC has ever published, in print or online. In order to not make her wrong I've started reading OSC's columns on MormonTimes.com. Some of them are decidedly "Mormon" while others I think would be interesting to the rest of the world as well.
Could someone explain to me why his marriage article and that article he sited that I read months ago is bothering me so much? I loved the one about diapers though. Stuff like hat is what I love about OSC even when I disagree with him most of the time.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Could someone explain to me why his marriage article and that article he sited that I read months ago is bothering me so much?
No.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Could someone explain to me why his marriage article and that article he sited that I read months ago is bothering me so much?
No.
I'm serious. It's making my brain itch. I agree with it on some levels, but there's something bothering me on another level.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Do your own homework.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"It's making my brain itch."
Me too. I think it's that he has such a different set of assumptions than you or me. OSC honestly believes, as a result of his religious training/beliefs, that it is pretty much a given that you should marry only once and have a lot of kids. I admit to not fully understanding the theology behind it. It's pretty much a part of the religion, though. OTOH, I don't consider marriage or reproduction an absolute necessity, and, while I do have a daughter and am very proud of her, I don't know if I'll get married again or not. I'm open to it, but I could be plenty happy without it.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Having another perspective would be nice. Like steven's perspective. I just don't like the idea of considering marriage as a not for profit company and I can't understand why the writer of that other article thinks it's unreasonable to want a man who is your best friend. She sounds too much like those Rules dames and they irratate me to no end.
Posted by Sergeant (Member # 8749) on :
Synesthesia,
Was there another article listed? Judging by my limited knowledge of your posts I would guess that steven's guess is probably it. OSC's view of marriage is very traditional and probably comes through in the column.
Sergeant
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sergeant: Synesthesia,
Was there another article listed? Judging by my limited knowledge of your posts I would guess that steven's guess is probably it. OSC's view of marriage is very traditional and probably comes through in the column.
Sergeant
Yes, it was that Marry Him! article from this magazine that was mentioned here months ago. That article bugged me. Perhaps I should be more detailed. She had points about pickiness, but again, that is suchan unappealing way of looking at marriage and relationships. Maybe because I have difficulty dealing with the mundane or something. Plus, my views, despite wanting a husband, or maybe a live in male partner and kids are not totally traditional.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Syn, I don't know if this applies to you, but I think for some people, if they want/expect marriage to include lots of excitement, romance, and fun, and not much hard work and unpleasantness, they might not like OSC's vision of it.
I'd compare it to starting a business from scratch - doing so is probably going to require a ton of hard work, long days, and not that much excitement. It'll be a total grind most of the time. However, some people find it highly rewarding to be their own boss and to build something of value on their own.
Some people might have a naive vision of what it would like to be in business for themselves: freedom, lots of money and spare time, doing something "fun" and getting money for it, answering to nobody. These are also the people who will probably fail. It's people who approach business with lots of planning, realistic expectations, and hard work who succeed.
It's not a perfect analogy, but I think it kind of works.
Whether that explains why the article bugged you, I have no idea.
Edit: I think the analogy extends a little further.
-Some people get lucky and have a great business idea and make a lot of money without much effort. Likewise, some people get really lucky and marry someone who is really easy to be married to, and stays exciting for a long time. Don't expect it to happen.
-You can have your own business and just work on your own, and that keeps your challenges/problems within limits. You will not build a large or highly successful business this way. You can be married and not have kids, and it limits the challenges and problems you'll face. You won't get the same rewards from your marriage that you would if you had kids.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That makes sense, though I am aware that good relationships take work.. It's sort of how I want to have kids. I know it will be difficult and involve many dirty diapers and not a whole lot of sleep, much crying and frustratiomn but it will also involve having a wonderful new life that I'll get to watch grow up. The good moments for the most part will outweigh the bad, depending on my attitude about it. If I get angry and frustrated at a baby for being a baby, that's just bad for me and the kid. If I see the child as communicating the best way it can through crying, and realize that this part of the child rearing process won't last forever it will be better. Perhaps I am a romantic in the sense that I think romance is a good concept to have underneathe a marriage the way you'd have some awesome part in a song. Some kind of violin or bassline. Or possibly some awesome background vocals or piano parts to support the melody of it all. I take it to mean mutual respect and taking time to care and be attentive to the other person needs. I do not know. I see an underlying magic and beauty to the world that may or may not exist, but that doesn't mean you can't have both hard work and drudgery AND excitement and romance at the same time, even though they seem opposite. It doesn't have to be a total and complete grind. That's as bad as saying it's going to be flower petals, walks on the beach and people with saxaphones and violins following you around playing mushy music all the time.
Plus I need to add I am frustrated by the whole get married to be married because if you're not married you are XYZ, not totally grown up an dmissing out on something and that vibe really is crawling under my skin as I don't think it's enough JUST to be married and have kids. It's not like OSC and this woman are saying marry someone even if they don't respect you, but the idea of marriage being like a business partner ship doesn't sit well with me. TO me it's as bad as someone marrying someone because they have a very bodacious posterior. But it's different degrees of unhealthy. I also get that vibe from a lot of his stories. Not the Alvin serious, which next to Lost Boys has the best marriage, but in the Ender Series, especially in the later ones there iss a lot of Get Married to Be Married Syndrome.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Oh, I think it's just a matter of not requiring the "perfect" partner, either in courtship or after the knot is tied. You can and should definitely have elements of romance and fun and attraction. Just don't hold the relationship to an impossible standard in that regard, and be ready for the other aspect.
OSC's article was definitely written for a specific religious audience that already presumably share his values, which include the idea that getting married is something you gotta do.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Oh, I think it's just a matter of not requiring the "perfect" partner, either in courtship or after the knot is tied. You can and should definitely have elements of romance and fun and attraction. Just don't hold the relationship to an impossible standard in that regard, and be ready for the other aspect.
OSC's article was definitely written for a specific religious audience that already presumably share his values, which include the idea that getting married is something you gotta do.
Yeah, I figured that. It's not like I even have the illusion that even a person I feel strongly about is a Knight in Shining Armor and is Utterly Perfect in Every Way as having flaws is such much sexier and appealing. But still... I'm not sure if I can relate to the OMG must get married NOW thing even if I am turning 30. I want a nice man, but still, if I started following the Rules i'd want to be taken to a field and shot because those are such stupid rules for the most part.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:having flaws is such much sexier and appealing.
What "flaws" can make a person sexier and more appealing?
quote:if I started following the Rules i'd want to be taken to a field and shot because those are such stupid rules for the most part.
What rules are we talking about?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:having flaws is such much sexier and appealing.
What "flaws" can make a person sexier and more appealing?
quote:if I started following the Rules i'd want to be taken to a field and shot because those are such stupid rules for the most part.
As for flaws, I don't know. I think acne scars are sexy, and pimples. A lot of people don't seem to like those. Tattoos are not a flaw, but I love beautiful black tattoos and traditional Japanese ink. I also think scars can be really cool looking too, as my left hand is covered with them.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"As for flaws, I don't know. I think acne scars are sexy, and pimples. A lot of people don't seem to like those."
Where were you when I was in high school? Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:having flaws is such much sexier and appealing.
What "flaws" can make a person sexier and more appealing?
Nothing says "sexy, sexy trouble" like an eyepatch.
[Edited for additional sexiness]
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
syn- here is the line that i found upsetting "All the things you think you have to do before you get married are a waste of precious time."
I would never consider the time before I married my spouse a waste of time. My life was still meaningful before he was there. However, I did marry young. I found a man I wanted to be with forever and I could see no reason to wait. I think if I had said, sorry, I'm not getting married until I have my phd, call me back in 7 years, that would have been a waste though. I do agree with OSC (wow, shocking statement) on the idea that you don't get perfection. It is a lot of hardwork and I get the feeling a lot of people don't get that idea. I think he focused so much on the hard work and the not magical parts because he was trying to counterbalance the all magic and romance image currently found in the US. Like in Gilmore Girl where Lorili divorces Chris (?) even though they had a child together, got along well, etc because he just wasn't "the one."
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
quote:Like in Gilmore Girl where Lorili divorces Chris (?) even though they had a child together, got along well, etc because he just wasn't "the one."
Ya know, you read something like that and think "How could someone be so stupid?"
But then. . I've known a couple of womend with those very rose-colored glasses who've either divorced or refused to marry as a result of them, so. . . guess it's not that unrealistic, sad to say.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: syn- here is the line that i found upsetting "All the things you think you have to do before you get married are a waste of precious time."
I would never consider the time before I married my spouse a waste of time. My life was still meaningful before he was there. However, I did marry young. I found a man I wanted to be with forever and I could see no reason to wait. I think if I had said, sorry, I'm not getting married until I have my phd, call me back in 7 years, that would have been a waste though. I do agree with OSC (wow, shocking statement) on the idea that you don't get perfection. It is a lot of hardwork and I get the feeling a lot of people don't get that idea. I think he focused so much on the hard work and the not magical parts because he was trying to counterbalance the all magic and romance image currently found in the US. Like in Gilmore Girl where Lorili divorces Chris (?) even though they had a child together, got along well, etc because he just wasn't "the one."
That bugged me too. I can't help but think it's not unhealthy for a person to have a healthy idea of who they are before making such a huge step like marriage. Or, perhaps they are like the fellow in a Personal Matter and they just want to go to Africa. There doesn't seem to be much of a point of being married and whining about not going to africa.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
That column about diapers had TMI. Not that there was any way it couldn't have.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
A "healthy idea of who they are" is simply not a goal you can actually achieve without experiencing real life.
There is another man I could have married, and he's a great guy. He just happened to have been on his mission when I met my husband. This many years into the marriage, I would have been a totally different person than I am now. I've also thought about what would have happened if I didn't get married and pursued my career in biology. Once again, totally different person.
I think we have a good enough idea by the time we are in our early twenties, and sometimes before that.
No amount of premarital soul searching is going to make you who you are going to be in the marriage. So why bother? Such a self centered activity is going to be more about finding what makes you happy and making a list of those things rather than finding a person you can explore the world with together. Learning about life through a marriage is just a completely different experience and requires the opposite of self centered searching. It requires searching for a way to work with and understand your spouse. Who we are develops naturally and much more beautifully if we aren't always worried about who we are.
If we have told ourselves a story about who we are, we will be too rigid in the way we approach others and what we require of them. We will have created a one person dogmatism that would make it hard for us to adapt to situations that challenge our person. We will become that much less compatible to a lot of other people, all of who are good, decent human beings.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
Well said, amka.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I reckon so, but I'm reminded of a book I just finished about two people with Asperger's Syndrom and how they got married and despite having a condition in common and a simular way of viewing the world their marriage fell a part. They had to learn that in order to have a good marriage you have teo learn to love yourself as well. They took a lot of anger and trauma from the past and bought it with them into the marriage. There second marriage worked better because they were apart for a while and able to soul search and toss aside that old anger, and they were able to understand the other person better. I can't help but think that it is important to love yourself before you can love another person in a marital way.
I also am still frustrated by that girl's point of view. Seriously, if all you have in common in a marriage is the kids then what happens when the kids leave home and it's just the two of you?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I think there is a difference between loving yourself and taking time to "find yourself." most of the people who take time to find themselves are not learning to love themselves, they are bumming around Europe (or someplace), usually unemployed and on their parents money. It's a very selfish time, often filled with much drinking. I will admit that I am biased in that definition since right now I go to a fairly expensive private school for of spoiled brats. As far as just being married for the kids, who is arguing that?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That's what that dame made it sound like. Like she wanted to get married JUST to have a father for kids and not out of, well... love and connection. That doesn't sit well. Especially since Aidan in Sex and the City was soooooo good looking, but why should Carrie marry him if she doesn't LOVE him as much as she loves big? That seems unfair to him and her...
Also that dame watches too much television and should consider doing something else.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Using people who aren't just damaged from a bad history, but have a disorder such as Aspergers is not the best example. Of course we need to repair damage. But then, if we focus our energy on what is WRONG with us, this is yet another story that will curtail our ability to contribute something good.
So the Asperger's couple isn't such a bad example after all. If they had figured out they were too angry and damaged before, they would never have gotten married. Though they required some separation, it was their marriage that ended up healing them. The healing process usually involves pain.
While I appreciate the concept that we must love ourselves, I don't think it is an emotional experience we should be seeking after. The love will come naturally if instead, we seek to do well: do the best we can at our work and more importantly, serve those around us.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Love in marriage is the same way: if two people sincerely serve together, they will gain enough in common that there is going to be a lot of love in the marriage.
So if we are seeking for a spouse with even a moderate checklist of what they must be in order for us to be happy, I think we're going to end up being lonely and that dame figured it out too late.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The correlary between marriage and business is very interesting to me, since we've had a business and my husband has a persistent belief in the fun/freedom nature of business, despite the stresses, while I find it more trouble than it's worth. But I guess it's a good thing he feels that way about me.
I don't think he's too much trouble, though Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amka: So if we are seeking for a spouse with even a moderate checklist of what they must be in order for us to be happy, I think we're going to end up being lonely and that dame figured it out too late.
I think a moderate checklist of what a person must be in order to be considered a potential spouse is absolutely crucial. The key is how you define "moderate." I could not be happy living with someone who smokes. I could not be happy married to someone who is physically or verbally abusive. I could not be happy married to someone who isn't interested in lifelong growth and learning. I would not have considered marrying someone who's views about what marriage means were incompatable with mine.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I think one has to havfe some standards. Ideally speaking, I may not prefer a conservative sort of guy for a mate, but how do I know he won't be the right man? I'm allergic to cigarettes, but have an odd thing for smokers I don't get, but I definetly have to rule out abusive and controlling people. I'd definetly have to rule out guys who are... well, mean, petty, cruel to aanimals, believe in spanking children and won't change their mind, anyone who thinks it's OK to let a child CIO and won't look at it from another perspective, a person who doesn't want kids and will not change their mind, someone who cheats a lot, and I agree about not having someone who isn't interested in lifelong growth and learning. And someone who won't treat our kids with compassion and respect too.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
But I think it comes down to knowing what is a character issue and what is not. The kinds of lists I have seen are not about character issues: is a Soprano, is shorter/taller than me, plays piano. One can argue whether one's weight is a character issue, I suppose. I know it's appalling to think someone would have such items on a list, and that's the reason such lists have been discouraged in the Latter-Day Saint culture. But religious commitment and the weight of marriage are obviously appropriate items to screen for, and while the are character matters, one should not count on taking up with someone who is an opposite planning to change them.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Like my old professor told us, (he was speaking about a job, but it fits a spouse too) "Everyone should have two lists, Things they Want; and Things they Need. One list should be much longer than the other."
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
In my head, I had large, moderate, and small list. I do think a small list is necessary, and everyone has pretty much already talked about those things.
Same religion, same idea about having kids, not abusive, not addicted to anything, trustworthy, compassionate.
What is CIO, Synthesia?
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
I think CIO refers to "cry it out," a method for "teaching" babies to sleep through the night by letting them cry themselves to sleep. According to this method, you're supposed to leave them in their cribs to cry for x amount of time, as opposed to picking them up and cuddling them or nursing them when they wake up at night.
I don't think CIO is a good idea, and refused to do it myself with my daughter.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yozhik: I think CIO refers to "cry it out," a method for "teaching" babies to sleep through the night by letting them cry themselves to sleep. According to this method, you're supposed to leave them in their cribs to cry for x amount of time, as opposed to picking them up and cuddling them or nursing them when they wake up at night.
I don't think CIO is a good idea, and refused to do it myself with my daughter.
I agree, children need a foundation of love and trust, and this isn't leaving a child to cry for 5 minutes I'm talking about, it's more like an hour or so and it's been proven to be unhealthy. Even Ferber doesn't approve.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
My husband and I feel differently about CIO, spanking, co-sleeping, allowance, college v. military, and the list goes on. But we feel the same that the parents come to a consensus and are united in giving guidance to children.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Synesthesia, I don't think that letting babies cry themselves to sleep has been proven to be unhealthy. There are studies which conclude the opposite, in fact. Here's a nice list of studies. I haven't read the studies myself, but from the abstracts it appears that the evidence points toward CIO being OK. Combine this evidence with the fact that pediatricians - who should generally be up to date on the literature - commonly recommend it, and it seems implausible that it's been "proven" to be unhealthy.
Whether the parent finds it preferable to comforting and helping the child fall asleep is a personal decision, IMO, and (other aspects of parental care being equal) doesn't impact the well being of the baby.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Some pediatricians reccomend it, others are vehemently against it. Pretty much all of them on both sides (the ones that take a "side" anyway) agree that it impacts the well being of the baby, they just disagree on whether that impact is positive or negative.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It has been proven to be unhealthy. http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1998/04.09/ChildrenNeedTou.html But it depends on what is meant by cry it out. There's a difference between laying a baby down and coming back in the room to pat her back and reassure her and leaving her alone to wail in her crib for hours. There's also a difference between letting a six month old cry it out (again, reassuring them every few minutes or so, the way Ferber outlines it) and doing that to an 8 week old baby. That strikes me as wrong because biologically speaking babies NEED to be held, comforted and picked up when they cry. It's what helps their brains to develop and it teaches them to trust their parents to take care of their needs.
Plus I hate the idea of doing that. It makes my heart hurt. Especially if it's a newborn! That's when they need the most care and rocking and spoiling!
Another thing to consider is the idea of Cry it Out is related to the behaviourlist idea that says the more you pick up a baby the more the baby will cry. In the case of ignoring the baby's cries, they've found that a baby will sometimes just give up crying altogether, making parents think that the method works, but really you have a child that has given up all together. Babies use crying as a way of communicating because they have no other way to express their needs. If folks see it as manipulation or as some way to annoy them they may not be empathetic enough towards that kid. Plus, another proof lies in children who have come from overseas orphanages who get their cries ignored, who are fed on a strict schedule and do not get held and cuddled enough. It has a negative effect on most of the children.
[ May 29, 2008, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: Synesthesia ]
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
quote:If folks see [crying] as manipulation or as some way to annoy them they may not be empathetic enough towards that kid.
Amen, Synesthesia.
Another way I look at it is that until a few thousand years ago, we lived in the wild. Babies could not be left alone to predators. They are programmed to not be left alone. There is no real reason to counteract that programming except for the convenience of the parents.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amka:
quote:If folks see [crying] as manipulation or as some way to annoy them they may not be empathetic enough towards that kid.
Amen, Synesthesia.
Another way I look at it is that until a few thousand years ago, we lived in the wild. Babies could not be left alone to predators. They are programmed to not be left alone. There is no real reason to counteract that programming except for the convenience of the parents.
So true. Plus babies NEED to be held, cuddled and talked to, they have got their whole lives to be structured and have schedules.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Synesthesia, I've got studies that contradict your Harvard article. See the list I linked earlier. There are controlled studies that look at the specific question (how to get babies to sleep) instead of comparing the overall tendency of cultures to respond to their babies' crying.
A lot of the studies to which people refer to supposedly show that CIO is harmful are actually studies that show that persistent emotional neglect and lack of physical contact is harmful. (Duh)
If your baby gets lots of attention and care and responsiveness, letting them cry themselves to sleep isn't teaching them that their parents don't care about them. Of _course_ babies need lots of contact and nurturing. They can get it at times other than bedtime. Parents also need sleep, and there really is no clear *fact based* case, on the balance, to show that CIO is harmful. At most the research is split.
If you prefer not to do it, because it makes you feel bad, or because it's not worth the effort to you, or you pick the "con" research over the "pro" research because it seems more right to you, fine, but there isn't sufficient reason to say that people are harming their children because they prefer to let their children cry themselves to sleep.
(And this doesn't mean persistently neglecting children who need something for hours at a time, just in case anyone is concerned that I'm advocating such a thing. "CIO" as most people understand it doesn't mean extreme measures)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
^ Exactly.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
In my opinion, this really is where the Golden Rule applies: Do unto others as you would have done to you.
Why are they crying? Because they are alone and frightened, and very likely hungry. Until they have a full sense of permanence and self, any attempt to train them to be alone at night by crying it out is, IMO, selfish. Yes, I know we need sleep but maybe we should blame the lack on modern lifestyle more than baby's needs.
It is well enough understood now by pediatricians that they recommend a baby sleep in the parent's room until they are 6 months old.
Sure, babies can adapt. They're very good at it. And in an environment that otherwise is full of responsiveness, they'll probably do pretty good. What can't be studied is how the same exact individual is going to turn out if they are subjected to lone sleeping and CIO vs true nighttime parenting.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Well, I decided long ago that trying to be perfect is counter productive for me. So I mainly try to figure out what will be "good enough" and go with that. For my family, sleeping at night helps us function better as parents the rest of the time. (shrug). I'd certainly re-evaluate if there were clear evidence that what we do is harmful (and therefore not good enough), but there isn't.
And the golden rule hardly applies in a consistent manner when parenting...personally, I want the cookie.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amka: Until they have a full sense of permanence and self, any attempt to train them to be alone at night by crying it out is, IMO, selfish.
You are of course entitled to your opinion.
So am I. And mine is that you are wrong.
I also think that every child is different. Some babies really don't seem to be able to fall asleep past a certain age without crying themselves to sleep (and we're not talking about a long period of crying, FYI). For others, such a method would be an exercise in frustration and futility.
Edit: Parents get enough grief, even GOOD parents. I strongly disagree that "putting on one's own oxygen mask first" is selfish.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: For my family, sleeping at night helps us function better as parents the rest of the time.
Exactly.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
I have five kids, 8 yo to 1 yo.
I didn't let my oldest cry it out.
What resulted was he slept very, very lightly, and until he was 3 wouldn't sleep through the night. He would refuse to go to sleep and require being rocked, storied, and cajoled. We got away with it because he was our only one for 2 1/2 years.
When our #3 turned 2, she had the habit of stealing into our room like a ninja and infiltrating the bed.
Some friends with kids told us that after just one night of locking their door, their daughter hollared, fell asleep on the floor outside their room, and stayed in her own bed after that.
We locked our door. Toddler Honeybee stood outside the door, crying. Then, after 20 minutes, we heard a choking sound--she was so upset she'd started to vomit.
We didn't lock our door after that.
There is a lot of advice out there--our job as parents is to selectively apply that advice.
I had a lot of nice ideas about parenting before I had kids.
I let my #5 cry a bit when I put him to bed. Like my oldest, he doesn't self-regulate his sleeping patterns. Unless he is placed in his bed and the light turned off, he will not fall asleep. It would be negligant of me to allow him to deprive himself of sleep, especially at an age when he is growing so quickly.
My job is to override his wishes--to stay up and have partytime with Mommy all night--for the sake of his own good. It's not fun having to be the ogre, but it comes with the territory.
And I'm otherwise fairly attachment-minded--I mean, I don't even send them out to school.
One of the shortest roads to being frustrated with parenting in general and with a child in particular, is remaining dogmatically committed to some childrearing ideology that clearly isn't working.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: For my family, sleeping at night helps us function better as parents the rest of the time.
Exactly.
I reckon, but it's good as long as folks don't take it to the extreme. Like expecting a newborn to sleep through the night when I can't even do it.. There has to be some sort of balance between a baby's natural need to be held and parents getting their sleep.
Mostly I object to people like Ezzo. He is such a major *insert explitive for a part of the body here* I don't know why folks take his advice. He doesnt' even seem to like babies and seems to think they should be away from their parents as much as possible. I just don't get that sort of attitude. I suspect from talking to my mother that when I was a baby with her she let me cry quite often, thinking that if I was pciked up a lot, like with my grandfather, i'd be spoild. That is a myth that seriously needs to die, especially when it comes to things that have been discovered about attachment. I don't think I want to take any chances. But things could change when I have kids. I just hope I take them into consideration first. It's one thing with toddlers I guess, but I hate parents thinking something is wrong with their child because they cry in the middle of th enigh like most children do... I think some warped ideas have crept into mainstream parenting and we need to sort of get them out like picking off fleas. I'm not saying kids should be spoild rotten, but they need that foundation.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:One of the shortest roads to being frustrated with parenting in general and with a child in particular, is remaining dogmatically committed to some childrearing ideology that clearly isn't working.
I want to throw confetti and neon around this sentence.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
First of all, last night I thought to add that there are a lot of parents who would put their children away from them at night that aren't selfish because many parents are taugh that they must do this to their children in order to be good parents.
Sachiko,
I agree with your idea that children are all individuals and need an individual plan. The center of that plan, no matter what, must be compassion and a desire to help the child excel in their own way. That is the ideology that I will dogmatically cling to.
You can't necessarily blame how your oldest sleeps on what you did when he was young. I have family bedded four children now. One of them is a light sleeper, and always was. I can't imagine that making her sleep alone would have helped. As it is, she has a lot of anxiety anyway, and this was part of her personality from the beginning. What would have happened to her had I applied the regime of nighttime = must be alone?
That said, none of the arguments that are for parental separation at night have taken into consideration the feelings of the baby. Before anyone claims that this is spoiling the child, consider that they have no concept of anything beyond their needs, and they're only aware of those in the immediate moment. Young babies only cry if they are uncomfortable or in pain, frightened, hungry, lonely, or overstimulated.
Children's feelings and needs are as intense as adults and even more so, since they have no ability to control those emotions. The simplicity of their needs, and their lack of ability to communicate them, as well as the fact that they won't remember it in a year, doesn't make those feelings any less important. There is a time to train for delayed gratification and independence, but that is not in the first six months of life.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Crying it out can mean so many different things that we're probably just chasing our tails here. I would never have left my kids to cry when they were, for example, 3 months old. But by the time they were nearing a year and had proven that they could make it through the night, I definitely let them cry it out. I let my son cry for an hour one night. The method was in response to his growing habit of crying in the middle of the night out of boredom, and each of my responses caused him to do it more often the next night. In my opinion, doing anything OTHER than letting him cry it out would have been irresponsible and just plain dumb on my part.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
An hour though? In his perspective that would be a bit... well...
harsh... and how do you know he was crying out of boredom?
Somehow this idea that babies are crying to be manipulative has gotten into mainstream society. I'm not sure it's really accurate.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
When you have a child, there are things you just know about it, and one is the type of cry they are crying. And by a year, leaving him for an hour really isn't that harsh. I have learned with my baby that there are cries that you are better ignoring and one you never ever ignore. And if mine is crying in one way, by going and getting her, I can pretty much guarantee that it will lead to her having an awful day. If I let her be, she'll be happier (she sometimes will fall back asleep, but sometimes I think she just needs some time in her crib half asleep to decide if she is really ready for the day). Until you have been a parent, it is hard to judge another parent's decisions fairly.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
Amka, I agree with you. The thing we must embrace as parents is that we'll always strive to do the best we can with our children.
In my family, our attempt to reconcile the baby's boredom and lonliness, and everyone's need for sleep, is having our children share rooms. Only recently have we seperated them into two rooms (boys and girls). Before, they all slept Japanese-style on the floor in a row, and loved it. The light sleepers seemed to learn to sleep through more noises, and took comfort from their siblings nearby.
I agree that small infants, and even middle-sized infants, cannot be ignored. The issue is that most parents--and I'm including myself here--don't know the "magic age" when the parent is supposed to leave them in the bed to cry for a little while, instead of getting them out as the child's accustomed too.
Generally by about ten months is when I'll start plunking them in their crib and letting them whimper for a few minutes before they pass out for the night. Some people start sooner, some later, and some not at all. T
he not-at-all parents that I've known couldn't bring themselves to get through the first night of letting Baby get himself to sleep because the baby wasn't used to it, and it seemed "so mean". It just gets progressively "meaner" as the child gets older and more and more accustomed to never having to conform to family sleeping patterns. Parents who give their kids whatever the kids wants, are setting everyone up for some painful consequences.
I agree that a newborn cannot be bratty or manipulative.
A 2 year old, however, CAN.
And if the parents have never managed to transition a child whose ever cry has been met with more holding, to a child sleeping through the night, then getting up at night with a child who is lonely or bored will never end. They will continue to expect it for years past when they are able to amuse or comfort themselves.
I stay at home and homeschool, partly because I believe it's unreasonable and unnatural for a child to be away from their parents for substantial hours every day, starting at a young age.
Countless people disagree with me on this, and think I'm nuts for not sending my kids to daycare and public school.
Just so you know that, as a rule, I don't favor putting children in unhappy situations for the sake of adult conveniance.
I agree that our society encourages parental selfishness; I disagree that some bedtime practices are such acts of parental selfishness.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Until you have been a parent, it is hard to judge another parent's decisions fairly.
I truly hate when folks say that. Yes, it's true to a certain extent, I'm not a parent yet, and the closest I've come to it was having my cousin dumped on me when I was about 11 or 12 while his mother went off to party bu tI have been a kid before and I just know there are things my parents did that I don't want to do to a child of mine. That's why I've bene reading a lot about AP because I never even knew about attachment, especially when it comes to adopted children. I love the concept of it because it makes a lot of sense. I think my mother made me cry it out a bit based on conversations I've had with her. She also, when I lived with her employed the belt and I'm hoping ot undo all of that stuff somehow, but it makes me a bit nervous. Still, I'm looking forward to it.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia:
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Until you have been a parent, it is hard to judge another parent's decisions fairly.
I truly hate when folks say that.
Then imagine how much parents hate to have their judgement second guessed by someone with no experience. Before I had children, I'd see boys and girls misbehaving (in my view anyway) and I'd think to myself that MY children would never act like that. I was not usually bold enough to say so out loud most of the time, but I did have pretty strong opinions about how children should behave and how parents should respond when they cry/throw tantrums/won't eat/talk back or whatever. HA! I ate my (non-verbalized) words many many times over the years once I started my family (I have 6 children, now aged 17-27).
The fact is, until you have 24/7 responsibility for a child(ren), you really have no frame of reference. Even school teachers without children of their own don't have a clue. Being a parent is different than any other job, and the only way to learn is by doing.
That said, there were things that my mother said/did when I was growing up that I swore I would never say or do to my own children. And I didn't and haven't. Of course you can and should learn from your own experiences and plan for your future family. But even so, as trite as it sounds, you won't REALLY know how you'll parent until you have your own children.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by maui babe:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia:
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Until you have been a parent, it is hard to judge another parent's decisions fairly.
I truly hate when folks say that.
Then imagine how much parents hate to have their judgement second guessed by someone with no experience. Before I had children, I'd see boys and girls misbehaving (in my view anyway) and I'd think to myself that MY children would never act like that. I was not usually bold enough to say so out loud most of the time, but I did have pretty strong opinions about how children should behave and how parents should respond when they cry/throw tantrums/won't eat/talk back or whatever. HA! I ate my (non-verbalized) words many many times over the years once I started my family (I have 6 children, now aged 17-27).
The fact is, until you have 24/7 responsibility for a child(ren), you really have no frame of reference. Even school teachers without children of their own don't have a clue. Being a parent is different than any other job, and the only way to learn is by doing.
That said, there were things that my mother said/did when I was growing up that I swore I would never say or do to my own children. And I didn't and haven't. Of course you can and should learn from your own experiences and plan for your future family. But even so, as trite as it sounds, you won't REALLY know how you'll parent until you have your own children.
Yes yes yes, I'm aware of this, but try to understand this from my perspective. When I lived with my mother (mostly I was raised by my grandmother) she would hit me. She herself was hit as a child, worse than I was, with belts and extension cords and hangers. When people say this to me it makes me think, "When you're a parent you'll hit your kids too because then you'll know what it's like." That may not be what they are saying, but that is what I hear and I do NOT want to do that to my own children. It's super important to me not to follow in my relatives footsteps when it comes to this. It scares me out of my brain, and hearing folks say that really doesn't help one bit. I've seriously got to find a way to break the cycle of that and not slip into that sort of mentality my mother had for me. It's been bothering me ever since i decided I wanted to be a parent. She was a lot younger than me when she had me, but still, there had to be some other way to handle me when I was a toddler besides belts. I was recovering from cancer as well, so that disturbs me doubly. I'll do just about anything not to mistreat my children for their own good. I will not have them inheriting that sort of thing from me.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: The not-at-all parents that I've known couldn't bring themselves to get through the first night of letting Baby get himself to sleep because the baby wasn't used to it, and it seemed "so mean". It just gets progressively "meaner" as the child gets older and more and more accustomed to never having to conform to family sleeping patterns. Parents who give their kids whatever the kids wants, are setting everyone up for some painful consequences.
I agree that a newborn cannot be bratty or manipulative.
A 2 year old, however, CAN.
And if the parents have never managed to transition a child whose ever cry has been met with more holding, to a child sleeping through the night, then getting up at night with a child who is lonely or bored will never end. They will continue to expect it for years past when they are able to amuse or comfort themselves.
I’ve read this argument pretty often, but it doesn’t hold true for any of the families I’ve known who co-slept/had a “family bed” when their kids were young or any of what I’ve read about those practices. All of those kids eventually moved into their own rooms and sleep just fine. That’s holding true for our family so far as well – we co-sleep and I night nurse. As John has gotten older he sleeps longer between nursings and sometimes now he will stir and roll over and go back to sleep without asking to nurse. Sometimes he sleeps through the night, sometimes he still wakes and either needs to be soothed back to sleep or asks to nurse, but he’s on a general trajectory of waking less and sleeping longer that I have no reason to think won’t continue. He’s 20 months now and we got him his own toddler bed last week and put it next to our bed. The first two nights he woke up and realized he was alone in bed and started to cry, we swooped him up and brought him to bed with us. The next two nights when he woke up he crawled out of his bed, came over to ours and asked to come up. Last night he slept through the night in his own bed. I’m sure we have many nights of partial bed-sharing yet to come, but I have no reason to think that unless we force him to learn to sleep alone before he chooses to he’ll never do it.
There are good reasons that extended co-sleeping is not right for every family, but the idea that all families who choose it are setting their kids up for problems is, IMO, nonsense.
And, btw, we parent this way because we choose too, not becasue we tried to let the baby cry and "couldn't bring ourselves to get through" it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm just grateful there are parents like dkw and Amka and Sachiko, who at least are making considerate choices about raising their children.
It's the consideration part that, to me, is essential.
We don't co-sleep, or practice attachment parenting-- it's just not how we've chosen to do things. And it's working out pretty well for us.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Yes yes yes, I'm aware of this, but try to understand this from my perspective. When I lived with my mother (mostly I was raised by my grandmother) she would hit me. She herself was hit as a child, worse than I was, with belts and extension cords and hangers. When people say this to me it makes me think, "When you're a parent you'll hit your kids too because then you'll know what it's like." That may not be what they are saying, but that is what I hear and I do NOT want to do that to my own children.
It really is not fair to equate letting a 1 year old cry itself to sleep to hitting a child. I don't think people are saying you'll hit your kids, but I think you will understand your mother better. The difference between a good parent and a bad parent is not whether or not you think about hitting your kid (everyone does at some point), but whether or not you actually do it.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
dkw, I don't think you co-cleep because you can't manage to make a kid sleep in their own bed. Obviously that's not happening at your house.
I'm referring here to a friend I had who did not want to co-sleep, but ended up doing it anyway. Bad situation. We should do what we decidet od o, because when we feel forced into a corner with parenting, that's when the resentment of our life and our kids begins.
I think your arrangement is just fine, not that you really care about MY opinion.
Me, I can't sleep if anyone/anything is touching me, and DH and I prize being able to sleep in our very own bed and very own room. I spend all day every day under a dogpile of homeschooled children, so for us, sleeping alone is essential for employee satisfaction.
Synesthesia--you WILL be able to be a good mom, because you care about not repeating past parenting mistakes perpetrated on you.
It is hard, because your autopilot may be set on something you don't want to let yourself follow through on--speaking from experience here. But it can be done, and good people around the world are doing it every day. You'll be fine.
*reassuring pat*
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Without commenting on any specific case, I think there is a lot more involved in not repeating the parenting patterns of our parents than just a strong desire to do better. For most people with serious parenting issues in their family history, counseling with a qualified family therapist is an absolute must BEFORE there is a child in the picture.
We all want to be great parents. But for those without good family histories to draw on, that can be an uphill battle, and wanting to do better is really just the first step.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
This isn't an argument for anything. I'm just reminded of when I chose to co-sleep.
First I had my oldest's bassinet at the foot of our bed in our tiny one room apartment. It wasn't that she'd cry, it just felt wrong. Here was a being that had been inside of me for 9 months and now it was expected to be that far away from me? So I moved the bassinet next to me. Felt better. Brought baby in bed a couple of times to nurse, and we both fell asleep and that felt right too. Didn't people used to do it this way, and why did they stop?
I went to the library and discovered the philosophy of co-sleeping and attachment parenting, as well as the safety issues involved in it. I knew I'd found my parenting style.
So I did change, but only because I hadn't been that aware of co-sleeping, and part of that was because I wasn't afraid (babysat a lot of kids and my youngest sister was born while I was a teenager) so I didn't read parenting books.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
Honestly, the best parenting book I've found yet is the Monks of New Skete's How To Be Your Dog's Best Friend.
Not that anyone asked.
I usually brought my babies to bed with me until I weaned; I just also weaned early (usually pregnant again, or I run out of milk).
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)