posted
As long as hitting isn't involved... That's one of the many reasons why I loath Ezzo. That and how his advice caused a lot of babies to be hospitalized, not to mention the potential for attachment problems. Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Of course, I never knew that "blanket time" was an actual thing; it was something I came up with to preserve my sanity. We also don't completely childproof, we prefer to teach our kids to stay away from exposed outlets as soon as they start moving around to covering them all up, things like that. That's also a "parenting philosophy" but I didn't know that either until well after I did it, it just made sense to me.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are folks out there who believe in training children as if they are dogs. I HATE these people strongly. Works cannot describe my deep loathing for the sort of people who would advocate hitting 4 month old children in the name of training them. Babies! There is absolutely no reason to hit a child, especially one that young whose brain is still developing! I cannot stand these people and the people who support them make me blood boilingly mad because you're talking about flogging kids! That's what it is and there's really no reason at all for those concepts to exist, let alone be called biblical!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boundary training dogs does not mean hitting them either. Hitting a dog (except in a clear case of self defense) is IMO as vile as hitting a baby.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait, some people think it's a bad thing for teenagers to watch their younger siblings? I've never heard that. Those people would really not like my family. When we were younger we always complained that our parents had so many kids to do all of the housework, but in retrospect, my parents were working around the house far more often than we were.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm not sure how healty it is to let a child play with a small handful of toys alone on a blanket... Children need a lot more stimulous than that for their developing brains.
Actually, they don't. Babies and toddlers today are way overstimulated and it's much more harmful to their development than being understimulated. It's almost impossible to find a toy that doesn't light up or make sounds, neither of which we allow for Aerin. I firmly believe in the adage "active toys make for passive children" and we're also trying to adhere to the ten-toy rule (a toy can have multiple parts, like a shape sorter and games and sporting equipment don't count as toys). We have lots of friends whose houses are like toy stores and their kids bounce off the walls while Aerin has excellent concentration.
I haven't seen any evidence that the Duggars believe in striking or "hurting" children, let alone infants. Blanket time seems extremely reasonable to me - very similar to the quiet time practiced in many preschools and daycare centers.
Back to the Duggars - I found it hilarious when they were talking about building a deer stand at their new house and the TLC-provided, New York City interior designer was looking at them with horror and disbelief.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Watching Supernanny, I think training children and dogs is a lot alike. But we never hit our dog in training and that was a HUGE no-no. The most negative we ever got was saying no and then distracting him with another activity.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
I sent them a baby gift and a letter explaining why I am sending it and what I admire about their family. I hope they don't find that creepy.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To clarify: I am not against physical corrections for a dog. Dogs understand touch because it is how they communicate with each other. But there is a galactic difference between a properly executed physical correction a la Ceasar Millan than "hitting" a dog.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm okay with choke collars and rolled-up newspapers, but I draw the line at the Invisible Fence.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vonk: Wait, some people think it's a bad thing for teenagers to watch their younger siblings? I've never heard that. Those people would really not like my family. When we were younger we always complained that our parents had so many kids to do all of the housework, but in retrospect, my parents were working around the house far more often than we were.
I don't think teenagers watching their siblings is a bad thing. Them becing co-parents though and being responsible for disciplining the children can't be too healthy for them. *thinks of having to baby sit my cousin when I was young because his mother was out partying all night long*
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are folks out there who believe in training children as if they are dogs. I HATE these people strongly.
Glad to know you like me so much, Syn.
Maybe not you, but Ezzo and Pearl and their ilk. They advocate hitting children with spoons, glue sticks, quarter inch piping, birch barks, or boards with holes in them. That's just wrong! People don't even hit dogs that way.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In our house, my teen is watches the younger kids and doesn't get paid for it. It is a household chore, like my 9 year old has to unload the dishsasher every day and my son has to take out the trash. It's part of what is done to chip in and help out the family.
She does, however, get special privileges the others don't. Mostly due to her age, of course, but also because she's proven she is reponsible and can handle being "in charge" for a couple of hours if Mom and Dad both have to be somewhere.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly. When I was a teenager, I ended up watching my youngest sibling just as often as Mom did. It wasn't me being a "slave", it was me helping out.
I'm completely baffled at the apparently large number of people out in the Blog-o-sphere who view simple family duties as "evil".
One gets the feeling they wouldn't have lasted long back in the era when "teenager" was not truly a recognized stage of life between adult and child. These days it's become a nebulous age of carefree fun that often seems to have been extended into some people's early 30s.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I watched my younger siblings often. If I babysat for my parents to go out for "fun," they paid me the same rate I charged other families. If I babysat for my parents to go out to a "household" function - shopping, or going to parent-teacher night, for example - I did not get paid.
And I was never paid for watching them as part of day-to-day household functioning.
I think - and thought so back then - that this was a very fair way to handle the situation.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are folks out there who believe in training children as if they are dogs. I HATE these people strongly.
Glad to know you like me so much, Syn.
Maybe not you, but Ezzo and Pearl and their ilk. They advocate hitting children with spoons, glue sticks, quarter inch piping, birch barks, or boards with holes in them. That's just wrong! People don't even hit dogs that way.
Okay, but that's not what you said.
I wouldn't train a dog OR a child that way, but I use a lot of the same methods to train my young children that I would to train a dog. It's the same concept, they need to learn to listen and obey, stay out of potentially dangerous situations, respect the adults giving them directions, and follow house rules.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
True, but there are also some differences which make me object to the word "train" for babies and children... Dogs must stay totally depended on their owners, children have to go out and do their own thing and stand on their own... grr. I can't frame it without Ezzo/Pearl rage, it's the sort of venom I'd like to throw at them for planting ideas like that into people's minds in the first place. Their way of "training" a child seems totally limiting for the child and puts 100% control in the hands of the adult. I'm not saying you're like that, but the word train used like that makes my teeth grind.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I somehow stumbled on Pearl on Amazon.com! His book to Train a Child teaches parents to systematically break the will of their children so they are totally obediant and do not rebel against their parents when they are teenagers. His methods include- putting an object in front of a child and hitting them each time they try to reach for it, or calling a child that is about one after they've been playing, telling the child to go back and play and waiting for the child to get absorbed into what they are doing, then calling them again. If they don't come right away, he believes in striking the child. I don't know how I stumbled on to Ezzo, but he knows nothing about babies! He thinks that babies from the day they are born need to be put on a schedule and they must also be allowed to cry it out or else they will turn out evil. He claims his method of raising children is God's method, but he's had to make a lot of changes to Babywise because of several babies who suffered from failure to thrive because of not being fed on demand, not to mention the results of allowing a newborn to cry it out in their crib. His original publisher doesn't even publish him anymore and the church that supported him before cut him off, and his method was criticised in Christianity Today and by Sears, as well as by the AAP who state that babies should be fed on demand and not on a schedule because it results in failure to thrive and many mother's breast milk has dried up as well from using this book.
But, it's still commonly sold and has a high rating on Amazon.com. It couldn't make me more angry.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dogs must stay totally depended on their owners, children have to go out and do their own thing and stand on their own...
Babies are totally dependent until about 3 months old, and very dependent for a long time after that. Some parts of parenting are teaching, and some parts are definitely training. I don't know what else you would call saying "No" repeatedly and removing a child from a place/object until they don't go near it any more (what we do to train our kids to stay out of the cat water.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Some parts of parenting are teaching, and some parts are definitely training. I don't know what else you would call saying "No" repeatedly and removing a child from a place/object until they don't go near it any more (what we do to train our kids to stay out of the cat water.)
This is true, teaching and disciplining children is important, children without discipline are like sidewalks with ice on it. A disaster for society. I just wish these folks did not equate training and teaching with hitting and dominating. That's what makes it crazy. That they somehow think religion and the bible = hitting children and I wonder where they draw the line.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Syn, I really think that the people who do think that are a tiny subset of society. It's very sad, I agree, but wouldn't a more proactive thing to do, rather than discussing it with people who agree with you, be to get involved in parent education or similar work (volunteer or professional) to change it?
In any case, the Duggars are definitely NOT that kind of parents.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing that scares me is this sort of stuff is more mainstream than I'd like it to be. The sort of ratings Babywise gets on Amazon! But suspect Amazon deletes bad reviews a lot of the time. I wish I wasn't so shy, and right now I have no credibility since I don't have children yet and I'm afraid of becoming punative when I have children.
But there's got to be a way to meekly make non-punative parenting more mainstream. I am a member of Gentle Christian mothers and some say differently. I reckon I'll judge if I have more information. The conservativeness of the Duggars kind of scares me...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Conservative does not equal bad parent. Strict does not equal physical discipline. Schedule does not equal child beating.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
After reading this discussion, one aspect of it puzzles me. I think it is fine for a family to have as many children as they want and can provide for, but I don't understand the "fan" thing. I don't see why it is more admirable, good, special or otherwise worthy of "fans". I do get that it is noteworthy but it strikes me as neutral rather than necessarily either good or bad.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
'Cause they're on TV! (Occasionally.) I enjoy watching shows about them; that makes me a fan.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Conservative does not equal bad parent. Strict does not equal physical discipline. Schedule does not equal child beating.
True, but conservatives tend to frighten me for other reasons.
The Duggars did have this dangerous recipe I should never try. It was mindboggingly full of SUGAR
But it looked rather good with some extra chocolate modifications... But I am already unhealty.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: 'Cause they're on TV! (Occasionally.) I enjoy watching shows about them; that makes me a fan.
Okay. I don't really get it - but then I tend to avoid the "worthy of fame because they are famous" stuff. I couldn't tell Lindsay Lohan (no idea if that is spelled right) from Paris Hilton.
Not that there's anything wrong with that - lots of people do it - jsut not my cup of tea.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't usually do that either, but TLC's Family Night programming is some of the only "reality tv" I'm really into. I also love the Roloffs. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
. I like Jon and Kate Plus 8 Those two positively win at genes. They have the cutest kids ever. But Kate is very punticiious. I find her annoying, but secretly wish I was like that. *eyes the chaos of this apartment*
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: No, but I do have a rabbit.
Dogs and rabbits are really, really different. I'd say a rabbit is closer to...hm, I'm not sure. But I definitely think a rabbit is less of an interactive type pet than a dog. I think the same thing about cats.
posted
Rabbits are rabbits. They can be interactive when they want to, and quite naughty like dogs and cats, but you don't just sit there and leave them alone most of the time, even though they like to hang out in their little space for hours...
I don't know how I'm supposed to train Bernie not to do typical annoying rabbit stuff as he looks so cute when he's annoying me and it usually means he's healthy.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: In our house, my teen is watches the younger kids and doesn't get paid for it. It is a household chore, like my 9 year old has to unload the dishsasher every day and my son has to take out the trash. It's part of what is done to chip in and help out the family.
She does, however, get special privileges the others don't. Mostly due to her age, of course, but also because she's proven she is reponsible and can handle being "in charge" for a couple of hours if Mom and Dad both have to be somewhere.
Precisely.
There don't need to be 17 kids in the house for it to be reasonable (necessary, even) for the parent(s) to depend on teens to occasionally babysit their sibs.
And Dags, I like that way of working things. I am going to have to consider that when my babysitter gets back from sleepaway camp. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I met a woman a few weeks ago who was visiting my workplace. We were walking somewhere and talking about our families, and I mentioned that I'm expecting. She told me about her friend who had a new baby and she had almost gotten the baby to sleep through the entire night. (I think she said the baby was only a few weeks old.) The mother accomplished this by not allowing the baby to sleep during the day--what her exact methods were, I'm not sure, but it didn't sound good. This woman was telling me that I should do that, after all we as adults know better than the baby when it should sleep.
I was not convinced--just told her that was interesting and moved on. I happen to believe that a baby's natural instincts about when to eat and when to sleep are there for a reason, and should not be tailored to fit my schedule.
What do you all think? I'm new to all this, so I don't have any scientific data to back me up--I just think it sounds like common sense to me.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The rate of sleep disorders in this country makes me skeptical of the claim that being an adult confers knowledge of good sleep habits.
I also don't get the obsession people seem to have with getting babies to sleep through the night as fast as possible. Total strangers would come up to me and ask if my baby was sleeping through the night yet.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: 'Cause they're on TV! (Occasionally.) I enjoy watching shows about them; that makes me a fan.
Okay. I don't really get it - but then I tend to avoid the "worthy of fame because they are famous" stuff. I couldn't tell Lindsay Lohan (no idea if that is spelled right) from Paris Hilton.
Not that there's anything wrong with that - lots of people do it - jsut not my cup of tea.
Most pointless of all quibles: Lindsay Lohan is famous because for her acting in the remake of The Parent Trap, which she got from acting in soap operas. Paris Hilton is famous 'cause she's a rich floozie.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd be all-- "How do you know I have a baby, Total Stranger?"
Then I'd punch him in the throat. Because that's what sleep deprived parents should do to nosy strangers.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I happen to believe that a baby's natural instincts about when to eat and when to sleep are there for a reason, and should not be tailored to fit my schedule.
In the beginning, yes. My children woke and were fed when they were hungry, I didn't even worry about them sleeping through the night until they had outgrown the need for a nighttime feeding. I just tried to take advantage of their naps during the day to steal some sleep myself.
There comes a time though when they're waking from habit and not from hunger. In that case, you can begin to adjust their schedules and aim for more daytime activity. We just tried to keep them awake longer during the day and shortening their naps and when they did wake at night, we'd get them, change them, comfort them, but try not to stimulate them or play with them at all. Eventually, they began to learn that nightime was for sleeping, not playing, and they adjusted themselves to sleeping at night.
With my twins, I had to have them on a schedule to survive. By that I mean if one woke to eat, the other was wakened. I didn't feed one at a time at night, or I would never have gotten any sleep. So while I didn't try to force them on MY schedule I did want them to coordinate THEIR schedules. Makes sense? It worked well, and actually they began sleeping through the night on their own around three months, quicker than my other two kids. I think because they slept in the same room, even the same crib for a while, and if they woke at night and weren't hungry, they had no need to cry for boredom or need of company because they had each other.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you admire people who raise one or two kind, healthy, happy, intelligent children? If that is what they have decided to do? Or people who raise none but spend their time doing other things well, if they have decided that is right for them?
I ask not because I think that choosing to raise lots of children is a bad thing - I just don't think it is any better than doing any number of things well that aren't deemed worthy of TV specials.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Synthesia, I mean this gently, delicately, and as a friend: being obsessed with Ezzo and Pearl is not going to make anyone -- least of all people who would review you as a candidate for adoptive parent -- feel better about having you in charge of kids. It comes across as an unhealthy obsession, and that raises red flags.
I know you don't focus on this deliberately in order to seem more noble or better suited to parenting than other people. I know it honestly concerns you. But currently any conversation that is had about children, child-rearing, or thinking about having children calls forth from you a rant about evil parenting disciplines.
Sweetheart, nobody can carry on a conversation about children with you anymore. You are speaking to points that aren't even made and not paying any attention to what is actually being said, speaking completely apropos of nothing at times. If you have this mindset when being interviewed as a potential adoptive parent, or even just for babysitting, people will think you are obsessed and not quite stable. You don't want that!
If this topic is so overwhelming and mind-consuming that you can't carry on a regular conversation, then (I think) it touches on some serious personal issues which you need to deal with separately. (*warm hug) It might be too much for you to work through on you own, and I can see that it may be impeding your friendships right now, too. Better to deal with it now than later.
---
Edited to add: This is my opinion, and mine alone. Please take it with the due grain of salt.
quote:Do you admire people who raise one or two kind, healthy, happy, intelligent children?
I sure do.
I even admire people who decide not to have any children because they feel that they'd be terrible parents.
One of the things I love most about being a technical writer is being able to talk to people who are really, really good at what they do. I have a lot of admiration for people who are talented or knowledgeable.
I do see knowledge and competence in the Duggars. Ergo, my admiration. They seem to be doing quite well with an abnormal family size.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cool. As I said, I don't have any problem with large families. I come from a large family (6); my great-grandmother had sixteen children; when I was a little girl, I was charmed by "Cheaper by the Dozen" (the book, not the movie).
I just don't get the "fan" thing. Lots of people do well whatever it is they choose to do.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, that makes sense. But she was talking about doing this to an infant right away, getting it to sleep through the night in mere weeks, based on waking the baby up. I can understand using other techniques to eventually get the baby on a night-sleeping schedule, like changing the environment for day and night, giving long feedings at night, etc. But I got the impression that this mother was doing things like pinching the baby awake. (I hope she wasn't actually pinching the baby, but that's what came to my mind when she said waking the baby up.)
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
When we were n00b parents, we were advised by the hospital to wake up our infant by patting, stroking, and undressing them...
BUT this was so we could get our sleepy daughter to eat food. Beyond critical health matters...let sleeping babies sleep.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I also love the Roloffs. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
