Calling out some big names
Okay I am going to very briefly going to foray into the issue of actual parenting again. I have mostly stayed away from controversial topics, but I have been doing more reading and it just depresses me.
A lot of people use Babywise for their new baby when they are first born. The basic premise of the program is this:
1) your child is manipulative and selfish and needs to be taught from the cradle that they are not the center of the universe
2) that you can control how and when and if your child sleeps.
3) that the marriage between husband and wife is of utmost importance. It doesn't matter that your child might have needs. The marriage trumps all else.
These are just a few of the ideas found in Babywise. I read the book before I had children. I thought it made perfect sense. put a baby on a schedule. the baby cant control your life. your life and your marriage is still your life. your baby isn't suppose to change any of that. uh huh.
Now he advocates letting your baby scream themselves to sleep until they don't scream anymore. This might take a while. this might take a few nights of putting them down and ignoring their cries. its gut wrenching for most parents and with a reason. YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSE TO LEAVE A NEWBORN BABY BY THEMSELVES TO SLEEP. I feel like its kind of a DUH. Back in my mainstream parenting days, I did use CIO, but I wouldn't have dreamt of it with a newborn baby. I think Ezzo says start to do it at 8 weeks or something. or earlier.
Not only is Ezzo terrible for the developing baby brain, as leaving a child to scream spikes the cortizol levels in their brain which can inhibit brain development, but it can also reek havoc on the breastfeeding relationship. Because a baby is suppose to learn that "the world doesn't revolve around them" they are put on a strict feeding schedule. usually once every 3 hours. Ezzo often contradicts himself because even though you aren't SUPPOSE to feed them if they are hungry, you feed them if they are hungry. This is wicked for a nursing relationship. its all about supply and demand and if in the first three months supply isn't accurate, there is a high probability of a woman losing her milk because of this program. some women can get through it. but I know for a fact scads of women LOST their supply because of listening to his advice.
I think the thing that ticks me off the most is that this man claims to be a Christian. He has been ex communicated from churches he has been to. He has ZERO credentials in the child rearing department. DOBSON speaks out against him. There are *very very* few things that I agree with Dobson about, here is one of them. The AAP has statements against the program. Babies have died and suffered failure to thrive on this program.
I think what else is disturbing about it is that is spiritually abusive. If your baby doesn't conform, then its *your* fault, never the programs. you aren't properly convincing your child of their sin nature that needs to be tamed, ultimately by you.
I am so tired of such a punitive graceless view of children in our culture. what else makes me nauseous is that if even pagans (to borrow Paul here) turn away from a practice and consider it disgusting then perhaps some further examination is necessary. And yes, spanking does come to mind. Its not necessary. Nor is it effective long term. The child has learned nothing except how to avoid a punishment and how to effectively lie to their parents and not get caught.
Ezzo also has a follow up program to this Babywise, which has a Christian and secular version. Its called Growing Kids Gods' Way. This is also an extremely punitive, graceless way to raise children. This program also completely misses the point of the work on the Cross, that Christians claim to believe it. I don't get how these programs can "get" grace for themselves, but can't extend it to children. *I* am not responsible for saving my child. I am not responsible for pressing on them their "sin nature". That is not my job. Nor will it ever be. I am not sure what the whole point of Christianity is for children if there is no Cross until they are 18.
What also frustrates me is when I write things like these, I know I have people sighing thinking that I am some mother who simpers and lets her child walk all over her. I am not. I get angry, Kiera knows when I am angry. If I am disgusted, I tell her. I separate my feelings over her behaviour from herself. If she has hit her sister I will tell her in no uncertain terms that That is NOT ACCEPTABLE and that I am VERY ANGRY when she does things like that. I don't simper. I simply don't use punishment as a deterrent for a behaviour. now that I know she can be anxious about things, its very important that I stay consistent or I will only worsen her anxiety. This allows me to maintain my relationship with my child and not severe it. Punishment severs the relationship, which is why, even in the Dobson ritualistic spanking, there is a coming together at the end. its a recognition that the relationship has been damaged and now needs to be repaired. Its again the cycle of the abuser to the abused. the abuser repents after inflicting damage. To be hit means to be loved. Whether or not a person seeks that out later in life is up to other things, but its a pattern that does often bear repeating.
To add to the list of names that I consider to be horrific parenting advice: Ted Tripp, who wrote this awful book called Shepherding a Childs Heart. Micheal Pearl, who wrote "To Whip up a baby" I mean, "To Train up an animal" I mean "To Train up a Child". He and Tripp both suggest hitting *babies* like I mean six month old babies. I would like to say that most people would recoil at the suggestion, however I mentioned this to someone raving about Tripp's book. Then they want on to tell me about how wonderful the book was and how they left their child in a cold bath for five hours because she refused to put her toys away. And then she got hit, I mean spanked. And how she refuses to eat food sometimes (gee, I wonder, maybe because its the only thing in her life she CAN CONTROL, DUH). I feel really sorry for that kid and the adversarial relationship between them. It really doesn't have to be that way. And yet these supposed "Christians" again use spiritual abuse to convince people its never the program, THEY must be implementing it wrong. Its such a pity :(
Anyway. putting on my flame suit.
A lot of people use Babywise for their new baby when they are first born. The basic premise of the program is this:
1) your child is manipulative and selfish and needs to be taught from the cradle that they are not the center of the universe
2) that you can control how and when and if your child sleeps.
3) that the marriage between husband and wife is of utmost importance. It doesn't matter that your child might have needs. The marriage trumps all else.
These are just a few of the ideas found in Babywise. I read the book before I had children. I thought it made perfect sense. put a baby on a schedule. the baby cant control your life. your life and your marriage is still your life. your baby isn't suppose to change any of that. uh huh.
Now he advocates letting your baby scream themselves to sleep until they don't scream anymore. This might take a while. this might take a few nights of putting them down and ignoring their cries. its gut wrenching for most parents and with a reason. YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSE TO LEAVE A NEWBORN BABY BY THEMSELVES TO SLEEP. I feel like its kind of a DUH. Back in my mainstream parenting days, I did use CIO, but I wouldn't have dreamt of it with a newborn baby. I think Ezzo says start to do it at 8 weeks or something. or earlier.
Not only is Ezzo terrible for the developing baby brain, as leaving a child to scream spikes the cortizol levels in their brain which can inhibit brain development, but it can also reek havoc on the breastfeeding relationship. Because a baby is suppose to learn that "the world doesn't revolve around them" they are put on a strict feeding schedule. usually once every 3 hours. Ezzo often contradicts himself because even though you aren't SUPPOSE to feed them if they are hungry, you feed them if they are hungry. This is wicked for a nursing relationship. its all about supply and demand and if in the first three months supply isn't accurate, there is a high probability of a woman losing her milk because of this program. some women can get through it. but I know for a fact scads of women LOST their supply because of listening to his advice.
I think the thing that ticks me off the most is that this man claims to be a Christian. He has been ex communicated from churches he has been to. He has ZERO credentials in the child rearing department. DOBSON speaks out against him. There are *very very* few things that I agree with Dobson about, here is one of them. The AAP has statements against the program. Babies have died and suffered failure to thrive on this program.
I think what else is disturbing about it is that is spiritually abusive. If your baby doesn't conform, then its *your* fault, never the programs. you aren't properly convincing your child of their sin nature that needs to be tamed, ultimately by you.
I am so tired of such a punitive graceless view of children in our culture. what else makes me nauseous is that if even pagans (to borrow Paul here) turn away from a practice and consider it disgusting then perhaps some further examination is necessary. And yes, spanking does come to mind. Its not necessary. Nor is it effective long term. The child has learned nothing except how to avoid a punishment and how to effectively lie to their parents and not get caught.
Ezzo also has a follow up program to this Babywise, which has a Christian and secular version. Its called Growing Kids Gods' Way. This is also an extremely punitive, graceless way to raise children. This program also completely misses the point of the work on the Cross, that Christians claim to believe it. I don't get how these programs can "get" grace for themselves, but can't extend it to children. *I* am not responsible for saving my child. I am not responsible for pressing on them their "sin nature". That is not my job. Nor will it ever be. I am not sure what the whole point of Christianity is for children if there is no Cross until they are 18.
What also frustrates me is when I write things like these, I know I have people sighing thinking that I am some mother who simpers and lets her child walk all over her. I am not. I get angry, Kiera knows when I am angry. If I am disgusted, I tell her. I separate my feelings over her behaviour from herself. If she has hit her sister I will tell her in no uncertain terms that That is NOT ACCEPTABLE and that I am VERY ANGRY when she does things like that. I don't simper. I simply don't use punishment as a deterrent for a behaviour. now that I know she can be anxious about things, its very important that I stay consistent or I will only worsen her anxiety. This allows me to maintain my relationship with my child and not severe it. Punishment severs the relationship, which is why, even in the Dobson ritualistic spanking, there is a coming together at the end. its a recognition that the relationship has been damaged and now needs to be repaired. Its again the cycle of the abuser to the abused. the abuser repents after inflicting damage. To be hit means to be loved. Whether or not a person seeks that out later in life is up to other things, but its a pattern that does often bear repeating.
To add to the list of names that I consider to be horrific parenting advice: Ted Tripp, who wrote this awful book called Shepherding a Childs Heart. Micheal Pearl, who wrote "To Whip up a baby" I mean, "To Train up an animal" I mean "To Train up a Child". He and Tripp both suggest hitting *babies* like I mean six month old babies. I would like to say that most people would recoil at the suggestion, however I mentioned this to someone raving about Tripp's book. Then they want on to tell me about how wonderful the book was and how they left their child in a cold bath for five hours because she refused to put her toys away. And then she got hit, I mean spanked. And how she refuses to eat food sometimes (gee, I wonder, maybe because its the only thing in her life she CAN CONTROL, DUH). I feel really sorry for that kid and the adversarial relationship between them. It really doesn't have to be that way. And yet these supposed "Christians" again use spiritual abuse to convince people its never the program, THEY must be implementing it wrong. Its such a pity :(
Anyway. putting on my flame suit.
posted by Candice | 4:34 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home