posted
Context... Hmmm. Mostly I am thinking of people who have their children in foster care, or people who are currently abusing their children through lack of experience or intent. And I'm also rehashing the topic I had before, based on books that disturbed me such as To Train a Child, but now there are these books to consider by a guy named Ezzo who advises putting babies on a strict schedule, limiting how much they are coddled and cuddled and imposing strict rules. There is more information on that on Ezzo Info. It bothers me in light of what I've learned about attachment and the importance of bonding to children and giving them a foundation of love and trust. But, those that practice Ezzo's principles and the principles of the Pearls seem to believe that without scrict discipline and regulation by their parents (that means frequent spankings as well as a lot of structure, it bothers me because it's done to young toddlers for typical toddler behaviour!) children will go astray, but their suggestions, especially Ezzo's just makes me think of orphanages where children do not have a primary caretaker to attach to and instead are put on a strict schedule...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just had a look at www.ezzo.info (which is an anti-Ezzo-method site). While the Ezzos' approach certainly does not sound like something that would work for me or my kids, and I think it is a bad idea overall, I absolutely do NOT think it rises to the level of abuse.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is that when the child is toddler age, to Christian parents, (I don't think it's in the secular versions of the books) he advocates hitting toddlers for typical toddler behaviour, things like putting their hands in their food or getting out of bed. He also advocates the use of isolation if the child fails to fall into line. I think it does border abuse because there is no reason to hit a child at that age for the sort of things all toddlers do at that age. I'm not talking a swat on a diapered behind if a child runs across the street either... It disturbs and alarms me deeply.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it does border abuse because there is no reason to hit a child at that age for the sort of things all toddlers do at that age.
I don't mind you not agreeing with spanking a child, but I think it's quite presumptive for you to say that it borders on abuse.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's the thing. It's one thing to spank a child that is aware of the consequences of the things he or she is being spanked for. It's one thing to use your hand or something like that. But when you are talking about switching toddlers for typical toddler behavior who do not have the cognitive awareness when it comes to spanking BECAUSE THEY ARE BABIES, then it is wrong and does count as a form of abuse. Especially when they fail to take into consideration normal toddler behaviour. How is it reasonable to hit a child for getting out of bed when they are one or two years old? Or to swat a six month old child for spilling food on the floor or wanting to touch their own plate?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
From reading the website rivka provided and reading summaries of other child rearing books with "tough love" advice, I think a lot of it comes from fear. You want your kid to turn out right and what is the best way to do that. Right now, my baby is going through a tough time (teething and such) and she is refusing to fall asleep in her crib (she used to). So, I figure I can either rock her to sleep or let her scream until she falls asleep in the crib. From advice books, if I rock her to sleep, she will never fall asleep on her own, when shewakes up in the middle of the night, she will need me to come rock her back to sleep so I'll never get a good night's sleep again and I'll have shown her she has all the power in our relationship, she will run wild as a toddler and be uncontrollable and then grow up to be a drugged out prostitute. So, when I sit there and rock her to sleep, I feel guilty for not letting her cry it out. These methods take it further, but still rely on that guilt- if you don't do X, your kid will turn out bad.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholar: So, when I sit there and rock her to sleep, I feel guilty for not letting her cry it out. These methods take it further, but still rely on that guilt- if you don't do X, your kid will turn out bad.
Don't feel guilty... I think that's what they need when they are that small, and for some reason the idea of cry it out makes my arms and heart hurt... Especially when it's taken to the extreme Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think almost nobody who abuses ever admits to himself that he is abusive. I often hear people say they have to teach the child a lesson, or that there's some reason what they're doing is justified, or that they had no idea the child was suffering. Sometimes I think Alice Miller must be right: that the only way people can be so blind to what they're doing is that they need to hide the knowledge of what was done to them.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's why I want to keep my eyes open. I want to become a parent more than almost anything right now, but there's no way I can do it until I learn a lot more than I know now... I don't want to be like these young parents who don't know anything and fall under the sway of all these people who make me so mad with their bad not backed up by science advice. Heck, even science can be annoying when it comes to these things.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it mind staggering that you assume that you know when a spanking for someone else's children is abusive, not based on physical abuse but based solely on your own idea of their child's cognitive ability.
Often a toddler needs that more than an older child. I don't care WHY my child is afraid of going out into the road, I just want him too afraid to do it until he is old enough to understand why he shouldn't be there.
I think it is necessary, but should be used sparingly, myself.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is I'm not sure if these folks use it sparingly. One person said they spanked their child several times for 23 days for not staying in bed... 23 days! I feel like these folks they they are at war with their children. I cannot see how that attitude is good for the parent or the child... there has to be some other way to handle besides switches, belts, rods or paddles ><
Perhaps it drives me nuts, because I suspect when I was a toddler and lived with my mother, I think she employed the belt on me quite a bit out of sheer impatience and frustration. It makes me mad.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's because it takes between 21-23 days for something to become a habit, syn.
I guess it would depend on how you define spanking. My dad used a belt...but it wasn't abuse at all. He would crack the belt and make us jump a mile high, but he really didn't hit us any harder than a hand lightly touching us, even when we were older.
It probably only happened twice a year, too.
If a child get the idea/forms a habit that he can get away with something, punishing them each time they try it could very well take three weeks, or longer.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that combined with witholding attention and affection, a child could easily seek out corporal punishment because it was the only surefire way to get attention from their parents.
I agree with Synthesia on this... If a parent strikes their child twenty-three days in a row, that's probably something wrong with the parent, not the child.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the relationship should be about the parent taking care of the child's needs, not the child taking care of the parent's needs. Of course a parent using a child to meet his own needs may deny it. "I'm doing this to teach that 1-year-old a lesson. She needs to know who's boss." I hear that sort of thing, and I cringe, because I can't help the child and I know she's suffering.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The biggest problem I have with spanking is that I think it probably teaches other things besides the immediate lesson that the parent was going for (that X behavior was wrong in a seriously important way).
Especially in young children a spank would have to be incredibly immediate to even have a hope of its being associated in the child's mind with whatever behavior prompted the parent to do the spanking in the first place. As the seconds tick by between behavior and consequence, the likelihood rapidly increases that whatever the child thinks the spank was for will have no relationship whatsoever to the behavior the parent thinks it was for.
The second biggest problem I have with spanking is that I have a hard time believing it was necessary -- i.e., that there were probably other, less physical ways of getting the point across. In short, I do tend to look down on parents who spank or use physically painful methods as regular part of their approach to disciplining a child.
I can actually understand the urge to spank, and would make some slight allowances for it happening on rare occasions. But corporal punishment as a "feature" of discipline is, to me, a sign of parental failure rather than something right and proper.
Whether it rises to the level of abuse is a question in my mind. I would be very open, however, to having any family investigated by child protective services if spanking is the normal corrective action that the parents take.
I sincerely believe that such parents need parenting lessons, and probably should be supervised until they learn better, more effective methods that are less likely to teach unanticipated and clearly unwanted lessons.
I'll go so far as to allow that there might be rare circumstances where a child might only be receptive to corporal punishment -- or punishment in general. But the truth of the matter is that those instances are quite rare and would take an expert to recognize in any case. When the proportion of punishment to the use of positive and negative (withholding of) reward in a disciplinary "method" gets to be high, it is a clear sign that the people doing the "training" don't know what the heck they are doing. Period.
My concern is that, in my experience, the people least likely to administer punishment in anything like a long-term healthy manner are the ones most likely to use it as the primary method of behavior adjustment.
It is a testament to the flexibilty of the human mind, rather than to the effectiveness of those techniques that the majority of people exposed to them turn out within the brackets of what society would call "normal."
I would not advocate removal of a child from a home SOLELY because of spanking -- especially if the spanking is very infrequent. I would, however, consider it a red flag item and one that might trigger mandatory training for the parents, especially if the use of it is consider "frequent" or "normal" by the parents themselves.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think a good rule in life is that if your cleaning up someone else's poop, you're not their boss.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I want to become a parent more than almost anything right now, but there's no way I can do it until I learn a lot more than I know now..
Syn, there are some things you can't learn any other way than by doing. Yes, a person should definitely do the best they can to be prepared, but I am firmly convinced that parenthood is not something that can be intellectualized and quantified. To that degree, it is art, not science. Every child is unique, every parent is unique, and every combination thereof is going to be unique -- and there is no manual that says this child is going to respond best to this discipline method. It is experimentation, mistakes, apologies and hopefully, forgiveness and learning.
Spanking is just a tool. I've used it and keep hoping I'm done with it until another situation comes up where it is necessary. It's very strong currency for my daughter. The last time I spanked her, she had gone outside without permission from a building where she is as comfortable as if she were at home (where she is also not allowed to go outside without asking first -- she's a wanderer) -- but this building is in a decidedly less safe environment than our home. I wanted her to have the full impact of her decision, which, because I know her well and together we've experimented with other methods, meant a firm spanking with plenty of dreading to lead up to it. When we left the building (after I finally found her), she knew she was in for it, and as far as I'm concerned, that's GOOD. I don't want her to do it again, for her sake. SO I consider it a small price to pay, she wasn't harmed by the spanking -- it definitely hurt a lot less than the various scrapes and bruises she gets playing -- yet it got her undivided attention. She's 5 and it is my hope it's the last time I ever have to spank her.
Can spanking be abusive? Sure. Can any method of discipline be abusive -- absolutely yes. I would consider it poor parenting to put a kid in time-out more than 7 or 8 times a day, day after day -- because it's obviously not effective with that child and is not serving the purpose for which it is designed. Does that make time-outs a bad discipline tool? Obviously not. It's about currency and finding out what really gets your kid's attention.
quote:I'll go so far as to allow that there might be rare circumstances where a child might only be receptive to corporal punishment -- or punishment in general. But the truth of the matter is that those instances are quite rare and would take an expert to recognize in any case.
I agree with this as long as we agree that parents should be recognized as the experts on their kids. Spanking can be an excellent attention getting tool. When a child gets to be about 2 or 3, it is sometimes very hard to get their attention, especially in the midst of a full blown temper tantrum. Sometimes, and a parent would know best here, a swift smack on the rump is enough to get their attention to get them out of danger. For example, the first spanking I ever gave Rainbow was on an airplane when we were about to start final descent. She wouldn't sit down in her seat to be properly buckled in. I could not get her attention. She was absorbed in her little fit. I put her over my lap, gave her a sharp swat on the bottom and sat her back in her seat. She was so surprised she stopped screaming and sat very quietly the rest of the trip. She held my hand very nicely as I loved on her in the midst of her discipline -- as I always do following a spanking. The point is for her to know I mean business but that no matter what, I love her unconditionally. This is not that complicated a message, but for some reason, adults seem to feel the need to complicate it. I can discipline and love at the same time -- in fact, I must discipline if I'm to love my children. And my husband and I are the best experts you can consult about them. As you are about yours.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Syn, there are some things you can't learn any other way than by doing. Yes, a person should definitely do the best they can to be prepared, but I am firmly convinced that parenthood is not something that can be intellectualized and quantified.
I know this, but it's still something I feel like I need to perpare for. The problem is I've seen too many people in my family do things to their children that bordered abuse, then there was living off and on with my mother to consider. I refuse to take this sort of path. Like when I was in Jr. hgih school my cousin would dump her son on me often to party. She was way younger than I am right now. My own parents were about 21 and 20 when they had me, and they really were not ready because it was mostly my grandmothers that took carfre of me. I feel it's something I have to put a lot of thought into to avoid making these same sort of mistakes. It's inevitable I will make mistakes, but if there's one thing I do not want to do is to employ spanking the way these people who write these books advocate it. A swat on the butt a few times over possible dangerous situations and systematically hitting a child with a switch or a spoon over something like not wanting to sit in a high chair or a car seat is entirely different.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Depending on the age of the child, and how much time passed between the event and the spanking, the "message" of the spanking could be exactly what you intended, or something entirely different.
I don't agree that every parent is the acknowledged expert in their own child. Not by a long shot.
A "good" parent probably is a better interpreter of their kid's behavior than any randomly selected child developmental expert offering generic advice.
That is nowhere near what an expert in child development would be able to advise given a reasonable amount of time to observe both the child and the parent, and their interaction.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Not every self proclaimed child rearing expert knows beans about raising my (or for that matter, your) kid.
We all have different values and the fact is that we often think that we know what damages children (obviously there are some absolutes) but there are a lot of gray areas too, and we often filter those gray areas to black or white very firmly, myself included.
I know some very excellent parents with great kids who used a lot of the Growing Kids God's Way (Ezzo) techniques, and for them, it seems to have been helpful for them. Their kids seem happy to me, and the parents are very loving people, not just to their kids but to others.
Personally, I'm very fond of Love and Logic by Fay and Cline and Boundaries for Kids by Cloud and Townsend. I also like Rosemond's books. I know people who hate Love and Logic and think Rosemond is out of the dark ages. I don't think that makes them abusive to their kids, and I sure as heck hope they don't judge my parenting to be abusive.
Syn, if you don't like Ezzo's techniques, don't use them when you become a mom. But don't tell me it's abuse, because I've seen very happy families (parents *and* children) who found them very helpful. Is it something I chose for my kids? No. One thing I love about Rosemond's books is that he says right up front to pick out the stuff that works for your family and let the rest go.
Abuse is an oft abused word that is highly charged with emotional energy. Which lends itself to undue judgement of situations we may not actually know as well as we think. And it especially dangerous to start delving into absolutes like "Spanking is never right" or, more particularly, "Only an expert could say when spanking is warranted." I've spanked my kids, sometimes with periods of time between offense and consequence -- on purpose and I make no apology for it. I have had very specific reasons for it and it was not done without forethought and purpose. It was not careless. It was with a great deal of care and love, with the ultimate purpose of having a well disciplined child who knows she has parents who love enough to set limits.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jeniwren: Syn, if you don't like Ezzo's techniques, don't use them when you become a mom. But don't tell me it's abuse, because I've seen very happy families (parents *and* children) who found them very helpful.
That's well and good, but my concern are the babies who have suffered from failure to thrive because of his techniques and his liberal suggestions that parents use corporal punishment when it's not warranted. Plus the dude has no credentials and folks like La Leche League and the AAP are against him and they know a lot more about caring for babies and breastfeeding than he does. He doesn't understand about child development or age appropiate behaviour. It bothers me, because there seems to be an underlying attitude about children I've observed that disturbs me. It's not a reflection on anyone here, I just can't understand why I am wrong for not believing in spanking a child, why I am wrong for believing that compassion towards a baby when they are small and vunerable is more important than getting them to sleep all night (When I can't even sleep an entire night myself!) or why I am wrong for not understanding why these folks view children the way they do especially in light of recent studies and things I have learned about attachment. I can't even totally understand why children adopted at older than one or two years old tend to have emotional problems. I think the root of that is attachment and not attaching securely to a primary care giver. It can have an effect on how the child's brain develops too, a child left to cry on his or her own for long periods of time secretes high levels of cortisol in their brain which can effect how it develops. What scares me is that these effects are often permenent. If a child doesn't learn about love and trust in the early years of their lives, it shapes them for the rest of their lives. There's no way I want to take this risk following the advice of someone so... questionable, even if it turns out OK for other people.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then don't! Follow your gut. If it seems wrong for you, it's probably wrong. "Some people who do this turn out okay" is not a strong enough recommendation.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good point. And neither is it good enough to say that following "some of their advice" worked out great -- if everything they said was obviously wrong, they'd never sell a book...
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Their advice makes me ache all over. Plus a guy who worked with Ezzo stated that some of his quotes were fabricated. And there are these findings to consider. http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1998/04.09/ChildrenNeedTou.html The American attitude towards child care bugs me, whether it's so-called radical feminists or the religious right.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Syn, my understanding on attachment and attachment disorders (which primarily comes from a single lecture I went to some years ago on the topic given by an expert in the field, so take it for what it's worth: not much) is that it comes from a repeated cycle of unmet need by an infant, which can occur for a number of reasons outside of neglect. The most common (outside of neglect) is illness. (Interestingly, one of the most famous cases of this type of lack of attachment from infancy through illness is Helen Keller.) Attachment is formed when a child has a need, expresses his need, and has his need met in a timely consistent fashion. It's the very first cycle of life that teaches the fundamentals of cause and effect. I'm wet, I cry, somebody comes and changes me. I'm hungry, I cry, somebody comes and feeds me. That cycle has to be interupted over a consistent and prolonged period of time to cause a failure to attach.
I've never studied Ezzo's work, but as I said, have friends who have taken the Growing Kids God's Way course and raised their babies on it, including putting them on a sleep schedule. None of them have attachment problems. You may find his recommendations abhorrant but so far as I can tell, it's not a guaranteed recipe for raising a sociopath either.
Experts love to scare parents to death. They know we are easy targets because our children are our very hearts. Tell us that we're ruining them for life and we can't not believe them for fear of possibly being wrong, no matter how absurd the advice they're spouting. From what I can see, outside of obvious extraordinary trauma, kids can roll with a lot of our mistakes, especially when they are lavished with love most of the rest of the time.
quote:It's not a reflection on anyone here, I just can't understand why I am wrong for not believing in spanking a child, why I am wrong for believing that compassion towards a baby when they are small and vunerable is more important than getting them to sleep all night (When I can't even sleep an entire night myself!)
You're not wrong to disagree with spanking. You're not wrong to have compassion for a crying baby in the night. But you are wrong if you think everyone should feel exactly like you do. You're especially wrong if you imply that by disagreeing, it constitutes child abuse. That's where my hackles go up.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jeniwren: Experts love to scare parents to death. They know we are easy targets because our children are our very hearts. Tell us that we're ruining them for life and we can't not believe them for fear of possibly being wrong, no matter how absurd the advice they're spouting. From what I can see, outside of obvious extraordinary trauma, kids can roll with a lot of our mistakes, especially when they are lavished with love most of the rest of the time.
But this is the very thing Ezzo and his ilk seem to do. They tell young parents that if their children (at least perhaps in earlier editions, I think he has changed a lot of his views under pressue which sends up a ton of red flags) are not scheduled, not disciplined from birth and strictly controlled they will go astray, do drugs, turn totally evil and bad and listen to racous heavy metal and party. So they believe in strictly controlling children from the very beginning. They mean well, they care about their children and only want what is best, and in their case, to not go astray into the world... But I think in some ways they are taught to deprive them of the love and connections they need to "roll with the mistakes". The problem is that these methodes, especially in their earlier form have proven detrimental to a good deal of children, I have no idea how many, but quite a few. He states his methods can be use to prevent teen rebelion, but I am doubtful. Also this woman's child suffers from attachment disorders http://www.ezzo.info/Voices/attachment.htm. What's to say that there are not more out there facing these same issues, unprepared to deal with the larger world because of a lack of a good foundation? If these folks' children were suffering with issues like this, I doubt they'd want to say anything to the outside world. If children are so resiliant, then why are there so many adults out there suffering from anxiety disorders, not things like alcholism or drug abuse which is based on personal choice, but PTSD, anxiety attacks, depression and the like? I'd really like to kill the idea that children are totally resilient and can "bounce back". It has been shown countless times that this is not the case. I think these sort of techniques are too risky. It's one thing to say, to each its own when it comes to grown adults who can make their own decisions and think for themselves, another thing when you're talking about children who do not have that luxury. People really, really, really need to think carefully when it comes to trying stuff like this on their children, nevermind Christianity vs secularism. I think Ezzo has really twisted things in such a way that makes it seem like his way is the ONLY way and is god-sanctioned and that is what makes me object to him so strongly! His ideas are contrary to the pattern of normal child development. If it works for some people, that's all well and good, but I'd question what they mean by "work". I'm sorry to be rude, but when it comes to children and people doing things that could potentially hurt them, my claws really come out...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Syn, not having studied any of Ezzo's work in detail, I really can't speak to specifics. It's very easy to take things out of context and/or not see the whole picture when you only read a website based on discrediting a thing rather than actually studying the thing itself.
The mental disorders you are listing do not have fully known sources, but do have strong suggestive links to genetics.
I honestly think that you are buying into the exact type of terrormongering that you are accusing Ezzo of.
I can give you any number of cases where severely abused children, clear cases of abuse where the state removed those children and they were placed in loving homes for adoption, given consistent love and care were able to overcome their early neglect and abuse. Not that they went unscarred -- no one in this life goes unscarred, no one -- but I know quite a number of have gone on to productive, happy lives. It is far too hopeless to indulge in the thought that early childhood mistakes or outright abuses ruins a person utterly, for the rest of their lives and there is nothing to be done about it. It's not true and it won't help you in your eventual parenting.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Synesthesia, the examples you mentioned from your own life of parenting which you don't wish to duplicate look to me like pictures of parents who don't really want to be with their children at all. Parenting is such a cascade of learning experiences and choices, but the one choice I feel it is most important not to make is to check out. Whether a parent decides the best solution is total attachment parenting (books by Dr. William Sears are really great on that topic, by the way, as well as The Continuum Concept by Jean Liedloff) or a different method, such as Ezzo's or the Dr. Dobson style, an essential ingredient is the presence of the parent. OSC mentioned his own breakthrough realization of his daughter's need for his presence recently in his Uncle Orson Reviews Everything column, btw. When your child sees that you are interested in him or her as a person, a real human being, an individual soul (and, in my opinion, children begin to experience and see this from the first moment being held naked, wet, and still connected by the cord on mother's breast, possibly before), your actions will be interpreted by your child through the lens of the very fact of your presence. Parents “check out” in many ways, some physically as yours did, leaving you with your grandparents much of the time, others by ignoring their child’s attempts to communicate with them.
I hope that you will come to see that you have what it takes to be a parent because you are in fact concerned with children as people. It is most disgusting to me to observe in our American culture the trend of having children “conveniently,” parents who don’t plan to actually care for the children they produce because institutions we have invented such as daycare and the compulsory public education system will take them off the parents’ hands for most of the day. Children see and know that their parents value them as humans when it’s clear that mom and dad really want to BE with them--and this means not faking it, either. If you really don’t want to play Hi-Ho Cherry-O right now, be honest. Kids can tell when you’re not into it, and there’s nothing wrong with them understanding that you are a person, as well. Better to teach them to be honest about their feelings than to teach them to do things resentfully. My example applies more to the later stages when discussion with a child is possible, but I believe an infant can still sense resentment you feel if truly, you do not wish to take care of his needs because other things in your life are more important to you. If establishing your career or being a social butterfly is more important to you, please consider that before becoming pregnant. If you will continually feel the “sacrifice” of your time while changing every diaper, by all means, use contraception! In my opinion, it is not sacrifice or duty to properly respond to the needs of another human being, whether child or adult. It is simply right to do so.
I want to disagree with the idea that children even need to cry to have their simple needs met. Particularly during the first two years of life, a child who is kept very close to his primary caregiver (usually mother for breastfeeding purposes), has his needs met before he even has to vocalize them. An observant mother will see her baby wants to latch on long before he cries to nurse. Even the concept of diapers, which many people would consider universally necessary, is one of those inventions that allow parents to ignore their children’s natural signals. Ingrid Bauer’s book Diaper Free! outlines a method used by cultures where clothes are superfluous and diapers unheard of in which parents respond simply to the rhythm of the child’s bodily functions and cues in action and expression. It is possible, believe it or not, to assist your child in using the proper facilities for their waste right from birth. I’m not saying I’ve tested out this method, however. I hadn’t heard of it when my son was born, and I’m not sure if my husband and I are ready to try it with this new one that’s coming, either. I’m just pointing out that there is really no need for the child to cry from having soiled himself if his parents were so cued in that he never became soiled at all. I am NOT saying that the goal of parenting is to ensure that your child never cries. A child’s cry is part of his communication palette. It is, however, farther to the distressed end of the spectrum than may be necessary to communicate a simple need. It really just depends on how well the child’s milder signals are understood, encouraged, and trusted by his caregivers. (Why is it that we trust children so little? What exactly is it that we think they are trying to “trick” us into doing? Do you really think your child is manipulating you by crying to be held? Would you think your sister or best friend or another adult was trying to manipulate you if she or he cried and wanted to be held?) This exchange of communication and understanding flow right into the arena of behavior, as well. A parent who is seeking understanding and trusts his or her child will behave toward that child in a manner befitting the relationship they have established. The parent who sees his child as a social being and a real person will punish (or not) accordingly in the given situation. The “checked-out” parent will assign a response as they would to an untrusted stranger, because in reality that is what their child is to them.
Some more good reading material on this topic is by John Holt. I particularly like Learning All the Time and his companion books about education How Children Fail and How Children Learn. They sound like they’re books for teachers, but really they’re for anyone interested in viewing children as real people. Holt has a profound respect and trust of children that is so inspiring.
Perhaps, Synesthesia, if you choose to read a little of these recommendations, they will help you to feel more confident in your own obvious ability to respect and love people, and you will allow that that is what will carry you through parenting and that your heart’s desire to become a parent will lead you to great joy.
Posts: 354 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I want to become a parent more than almost anything right now, but there's no way I can do it until I learn a lot more than I know now...
You know what? Learning isn't actually all that important. I know a lot of competent parents who didn't know much about parenting when they started out.
You know what's more important? Having a life partner.
Single parents have it harder. Period.
If you really want to prepare for having a child, try looking for an adult to help you with that first. No other form of preparation is more likely to help.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I don't think I am. I want people to THINK before they use the methods of Ezzo, who isn't an expert on child development and also has been discredited by various churches. I don't know how many women have had their breast milk supply dwindle within 4 months, but it seems like quite a few, and that is disturbing. Worse, is him suggesting that parents need to discipline their children with a "biblical rod" or rubber tubing or any of these things which is dangerous in the hands of the wrong people. A child in NC died because of the methods described by the Pearls in To Train a Child. Even in the hands of the right person, it can't be healthy to expect a child to obey right away without question first time or they get "spanked"! There's something WRONG about that. It's teaching a child to be okay about being hit, or breaking their spirits, that's what I object to. I don't think there's any justification for it. It cannot possibly be right, there cannot possibly be a good reason to hit children that way! It's not terrormongering, it's just not right to treat children that way for any reason. I can also point out several blogs, several posts on the foster to adopt forum that state that's not always the case when a child is severely abuse. Too many people go into adopting a child that has been abused thinking that only love and care will be enough, but it isn't always. These parents need to be educated and supported by social workers to learn how abuse can change the very landscape of a child's mind meaning they can't aways overcome such horrible pain and neglect. I don't think it "ruins" a person, but it certainly doesn't just go away, but it colours their relationships for the rest of their lives. Ezzo is mild compared to that, most of the people who use these methods, again, love their children and want them to grow up to be good Christians, but in the hands of people who don't understand about children, who are young and inexperienced it can and will do a lot of damage that isn't easy to repair.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would use spanking only as a last resort, and I know a family of very well behaved children whose parents do not spank, so I mean last resort.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I want to become a parent more than almost anything right now, but there's no way I can do it until I learn a lot more than I know now...
You know what? Learning isn't actually all that important. I know a lot of competent parents who didn't know much about parenting when they started out.
You know what's more important? Having a life partner.
Single parents have it harder. Period.
If you really want to prepare for having a child, try looking for an adult to help you with that first. No other form of preparation is more likely to help.
I'm working on it... If I could stop harping on this guy.... But how the heck is a person supposed to not only find a guy, but also find a guy who is open to adoption and has simular values and such? Perhaps it will happen someday, but if it doesn't, what then? I don't see anything wrong with trying to educate myself before hand. I learned so much I wouldn't have learned if I hadn't started this path, like about attachment, the effects of abuse, the foster care system. I'm so glad to be on this path.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The more I read of Ezzo, the more he reminds me of some crib or car seat that has been recalled. Just because your kid hasn't had anything happen because of it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be recalled and taken off the market.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
And I pretty much agree with everything jeniwren has said in this thread. It's great when someone else has already made all the thoughtful posts that outline my position. *kicks back and relaxes*
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DeathofBees: I particularly like Learning All the Time and his companion books about education How Children Fail and How Children Learn. They sound like they’re books for teachers, but really they’re for anyone interested in viewing children as real people. Holt has a profound respect and trust of children that is so inspiring.
Perhaps, Synesthesia, if you choose to read a little of these recommendations, they will help you to feel more confident in your own obvious ability to respect and love people, and you will allow that that is what will carry you through parenting and that your heart’s desire to become a parent will lead you to great joy.
I'll have to read those books! One thing that disturbs me about Dobson, Pearl and Ezzo is they keep pulling out that myth of babies manipulating their parents with their cries. I hate that concept, it simply isn't true, it's their only means of communication. I think having that sort of attitude would only alienate a parent from their children. I picked up that sort of attitude when I was talking to my mother the other day. She said my grandfater (who was abusive towards her) would spoil me by carrying me around all the time. I really don't think that being held a lot makes a child spoiled, I think it's the opposite. If anyone considered adopting a baby from foster care (Especially one that has suffered from drug exposure, not that all children from foster care have been drug exposed, but there are quite a lot) or from an orphanage they should NOT under any circumstances follow the advice of Ezzo. Children in those settings, especially in orphanage settings have already gotten used to being put on a schedule, having their bottles propped instead of being held and having their cries ignored and disregarded. What they need the most is to be held as much as possible to facilitate proper attachment or there are a lot of issues that can crop up with the child is older. I do not believe in following the advice of an expert to the point of turning off one's own mind and instincts. God or nature has already put a system of hormones and natural responses in people, especially mothers during the first few months or so of life. I see no reason to tamper with that to force baby's into a mold they are not ready for. There's an underlying resentment I pick up in the words of Ezzo, Pearl and Dobson that bothers me. Children are blessings, they should not have their spirits broken by their parents at an early age to make them more convinient. To me, it seems like it would just lead to problems down the road, to a teenager who either suddenly rebels and does not trust their parents enough to communicate or is too naive to understand the larger world.
Perhaps there is a pattern involved. I have been concerned for children since I was six years old, bothered by stories of children killed by abusive parents, or bounced from one foster home after another, or hurt by other people who were supposed to care for them. Maybe Providence, God or whatever is involved in me reading China's Lost Girls and learning about all the stuff I know now (And I'm still learning) so SOMETHING can be done to make things better for children, even if they are not my kids. The American foster system is in need of DRASTIC REFORMS. There's no way we should live in a world where millions of children languish in orphanages or in foster care without the hope of having a loving family to guide them. Perhaps I am going off topic a bit, but there's nothing more important than making things better for kids. Learning all of this stuff has effected a lot of my future decisions about doing what is best fo rmy future kids in terms of their welling being... But I really want to figure out, for starters, how the foster care system can be reformed to make things better for children... I can't understand why there isn't a middle ground between the rod and $50,000 birthday parties.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: The more I read of Ezzo, the more he reminds me of some crib or car seat that has been recalled. Just because your kid hasn't had anything happen because of it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be recalled and taken off the market.
A big resounding Yeah That! I have read the Ezzo books and I found both their advice and *how* they view children quite disturbing. All the books DeathofBees recommended are great reads if you're interested in attachment parenting. You might also try the message boards and articles at mothering.com or if you want to be really radical (like me) www.compleatmother.com.Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I do not believe in following the advice of an expert to the point of turning off one's own mind and instincts. God or nature has already put a system of hormones and natural responses in people, especially mothers during the first few months or so of life. I see no reason to tamper with that to force baby's into a mold they are not ready for. There's an underlying resentment I pick up in the words of Ezzo, Pearl and Dobson that bothers me. Children are blessings, they should not have their spirits broken by their parents at an early age to make them more convinient. To me, it seems like it would just lead to problems down the road, to a teenager who either suddenly rebels and does not trust their parents enough to communicate or is too naive to understand the larger world.
I totally agree with what you're saying and why.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't even figure out who is worse, Ezzo or Pearl. I can't find Pearl's books at the library, but I read his book about child rearing online and criticisms about his wife's book where she advices a woman giving her will over entirely to a man. A horrible thing to do if you are talking about someone abusive. And their views on abusive wives and what they should do is much worse. I need to stop reading this stuff because it makes me grind my teeth.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I need to stop reading this stuff because it makes me grind my teeth.
I can't understand why you are reading it at all. When someone recommends a book/site/etc. by an "expert" to me, I usually check it out briefly. If it looks interesting and/or useful, I pursue it in more depth.
If it doesn't look helpful, I stop spending my time and energy on it.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I need to stop reading this stuff because it makes me grind my teeth.
I can't understand why you are reading it at all. When someone recommends a book/site/etc. by an "expert" to me, I usually check it out briefly. If it looks interesting and/or useful, I pursue it in more depth.
If it doesn't look helpful, I stop spending my time and energy on it.
It bothers me deeply. Especially the idea of hitting a kid with flexible rod things or rubber spatulas... >< Makes me absolutely crazy. Plus they are spreading things that are really unhealty and potentially damaging and perpectuating myths and stereotypes. It has to stop.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know, at least I'm awre of it now... But it's making me so mad, and being mad = shooting head pains, teeth grinding, but luckily no stomachaches.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe the fact that you have such severe physical reactions to anger would be a better thing to be spending time and energy on?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
And I pretty much agree with everything jeniwren has said in this thread. It's great when someone else has already made all the thoughtful posts that outline my position. *kicks back and relaxes*
I'd just like to clarify that I have been talking about extreme situations -- where a child is clearly too young or the caregivers are using spanking too much.
That's why I don't see where I have contradicted anything that jeniwren has said.
I personally don't care for spanking at all, but I haven't been talking about THAT here. I've been pointing out that there are extremes that should be classified as abuse.
One of those is hitting a kid who is too young.
The other is using corporal punishment as a frequent means of discipline.
Would you all assert that there are NO children too young, or frequencies too high to consider at least a red flag for potential abuse?
I'd be surprised to hear that.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
