Cruel Parenting
- Thread starter frugalmom
- Start date
- Status
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Frugalmom
Point 1
You mishandled Bob Enyart's teaching on the Tree. Just because God left the tree in the middle of the garden, does not imply a kind of informative pre-knowing kind of predestination, verses a preplanning kind of predestination. You said
Secondly, you still assumed BEL's position on that topic by saying that you were thinking that Poly was one who is against predestination (assuming she is for Bob's view), which again, that is an absurd comment. Bob Enyart does not teach against God's having foreknowledge for that matter, let alone God predestinating certain things. The contention is over the kind or extent or type of foreknowledge and predestination, not if he is against predestination.
Plainly, the bible's teaching of the tree does not lend to your use of it against Poly or any BEL supporter. Moreover, the reason why it matters, is that if you say one thing, and do another, or if you say one thing, and it is not true, then you are either being a hypocrite or dishonest. I am calling you to stop the falsifications and exaggerations and just deal with the situation at hand in a calm respectable manner.
Point 2
What I said has nothing to do with defending Bob Enyart. I noticed that you are hostile and misrepresentative of what the book teaches. And it is your exaggerations and falsifications that are indicative of someone who has some sort of agenda or personal baggage fueling such extremism. Because I find fault in your treatment of what the book teaches, now you turn against me as being immature and stupid. And your last comment again substantiates everything I have been saying about your subjective biased and falsifying treatment. I absolutely did not suggest that
Point 1
You mishandled Bob Enyart's teaching on the Tree. Just because God left the tree in the middle of the garden, does not imply a kind of informative pre-knowing kind of predestination, verses a preplanning kind of predestination. You said
- QUOTE
The book used these examples of setting up babies to fail, in order to "train" them. Did God know we would give in to temptation with the tree? And here I was thinking you were one of the ones against predestination. (sorry if I have you confused with another poster)
END QUOTE
Secondly, you still assumed BEL's position on that topic by saying that you were thinking that Poly was one who is against predestination (assuming she is for Bob's view), which again, that is an absurd comment. Bob Enyart does not teach against God's having foreknowledge for that matter, let alone God predestinating certain things. The contention is over the kind or extent or type of foreknowledge and predestination, not if he is against predestination.
Plainly, the bible's teaching of the tree does not lend to your use of it against Poly or any BEL supporter. Moreover, the reason why it matters, is that if you say one thing, and do another, or if you say one thing, and it is not true, then you are either being a hypocrite or dishonest. I am calling you to stop the falsifications and exaggerations and just deal with the situation at hand in a calm respectable manner.
Point 2
What I said has nothing to do with defending Bob Enyart. I noticed that you are hostile and misrepresentative of what the book teaches. And it is your exaggerations and falsifications that are indicative of someone who has some sort of agenda or personal baggage fueling such extremism. Because I find fault in your treatment of what the book teaches, now you turn against me as being immature and stupid. And your last comment again substantiates everything I have been saying about your subjective biased and falsifying treatment. I absolutely did not suggest that
- QUOTE
And if anyone is as stupid as 1WAY and thinks that because I don't agree with him and Bob 100% means I am a social worker or whatever other asinine assumptions he made in the above quote, you are wrong.
END QUOTE
frugalmom
Night Elf
No problem. I don't have time to post much, as you can tell by how long it took me to reply to this.
I have never had that happen, and never heard of a one day old biting the nipple. If nursing is uncomfortable to the mother, it is most likely improper latch. Sometimes it takes a few days, or longer, for the mother and baby to get the hang of it.
Never had that happen either - and if it was an accident, I don't see the point in punishing the baby. (baby nail clippers are a good investment)
No it isn't. If I had listened to "culture", I would believe the mainstream ideas that you endorse. The generation I grew up in was very much a mainstream, detachment parenting, "baby training" culture. The 60s, 70s and 80s were particularly known for this. Infant formula and feminism prevailed too, and went, and still go, hand in hand with detachment parenting. Society says "train your babies to be independent from day one, stick a bottle of artificial formula in it's mouth, and mothers go out and work in your number 1 priority: your career! Let others raise your kids!" ....... I say....."no thankya!"
You are simply wrong on this. A newborn's stomach is only about the size of a cherry. They will need to triple their birthweight in the first year. Because their stomachs are so tiny, food is digested very quickly, and therefore they need to eat often. There is no self centeredness going on here!!!
Breastmilk in particular digests quickly. For the lucky babies who are fed human milk, God's perfect design, co-sleeping makes it far easier on the mother and baby. Neither one of them even have to get up for nighttime feedings, and the baby isn't left alone crying because it's hungry. Crying is a late sign of hunger.
Furthermore, breastfeeding works on supply and demand - meaning, the more baby nurses, the more milk mom produces! This is why that breastfeeding on a schedule won't work. (And I specified babies and infants - toddlers are different, since they are mostly on solids) The baby will nurse alot and will also go through several growth spurts in the first year alone. They will nurse more during these spurts. This is natural. During this time and as the baby grows, it is building mom's milk supply to meet it's growing needs. A baby who isn't allowed to nurse on demand won't have it's feeding needs met, will attempt to nurse more and more because of mom's dwindling supply, and mom will eventually think she doesn't have enough milk (she probably won't at this point - and she may be uncomfortably engorged if she isn't feeding on demand). If it hasn't been more than a few months, she can let baby nurse as long and as often as it needs to, to build her supply back up, without drug induced lactation. But by this time, most babies sadly are on artificial formula. THAT'S why formula companies give out cute diaper bags with free samples and coupons - it's a hook and bait that will dry up mom's milk supply....and BINGO!! - there's $1200.00/year in infant formula.
Attempting to schedule a baby's feedings to mirror that of an adult, or anything less than feeding on demand, is cruel and puts unnecessary stress on the baby. This is breastfeeding 101 and to argue against that is equivalent to arguing that the earth is flat.
As for co-sleeping - most of the world co-sleeps with their babies. Putting baby alone in a crib is a western idea, and historically, quite a new one at that.
Babies who are unnaturally forced to be independent from day one are put under extreme undue stress. Babies/toddlers will gradually become independent at their own pace, (such as sleeping alone) and it is so much less stressful for them than to abandon them to cry in a crib. It won't be as convenient for the "career woman" though.
Here's what happens when a baby is left to cry:
source
I encourge you to read this link, as it covers the importance of feeding on cue.
You even said that babies are smart - and I'm telling you that they're smart enough to know when they're hungry.
frugalmom
Night Elf
I'm not sure which "hearsay" you are referring to, but I will defend myself against false accusations.
If you mean the book - I already told you that the first chapter was repulsive enough for me to make my judgment. If you lost respect for me over either of these things, the problem is on your side, not mine. I expected a dubious attitude would arise from some of you.
Some of you Enyart fans are strange! Not all, but some of you act as if I threw a huge insult at your mother or something, just for saying I could no longer support Bob. Is this how you act if you invite RL friends to your church and they decide they don't want to go to/support your church?
Not every Christian is going to agree with Bob and his fans. The way some of you have acted reminds me of third grade games like "I'm not being your friend because you're not friends with so-and-so anymore".
I agree with frugalmom with demand nursing for newborns. The babies I have known who were demand fed did do better than the ones on a schedule.
A newborn's stomach is very small. However, it stretches quite rapidly. Over the course of a few months, it grows, and babies sleep for longer periods naturally. On demand feeding is nuts when a kid gets older and is eating solid food and doesn't like the family mealtimes or the time mom makes the snacks.
As far as breast milk vs bottle, I agree that breast milk is best for a baby, but not always feasable. My mother breast fed 3 of her kids, but bottle fed one because the medicine she was taking to treat a serious health problem passed through the milk and would have harmed my sister. To me, that was a reasonable choice.
I think co-sleeping is OK if you wish to do so. I wouldn't wish to because I move around too much. I'm afraid it would not be safe for the baby in my case.
I don't think you can effectively discipline kids until they know the difference between right and wrong, but you can condition them to avoid or perform some behaviors. The longest it took to toilet train any of the kids in my family was 12 months. We were put on the pot whenever we woke up, after we ate, and just when we looked like we needed to be there. It works. You can condition a 6 week old dog not to pee in the house.
I don't have a problem with people disciplining young kids. I remember when my nephew was about 19 months old. I was on the porch with him and he lifted the flip-up cap on a light socket. I said his name, and he turned, looked at me, said "no," smacked his own hand, and walked away from the socket. And didn't go near it again. So do I have a problem with that kid being disciplined? No. He clearly knew that he wasn't supposed to mess with the socket. I'm pretty sure he was seeing if Aunt Debbie would let him get away with something his parents would not.
I agree with my father's way of dealing with babies who were crying. He would first see if anything was wrong with them. He would then hold them for a while. Then he would put them back in the crib. Usually if they hadn't stopped crying already, they would stop within 5-10 minutes, and if not, he'd go back and try again. 99% of the time, the baby fell asleep within a few minutes. Generally as soon as a baby is old enough to suck their fist they will become a little easier to deal with in the crying department.
I don't see anything wrong with infant carriers. When you take a young baby to a restaurant, or to someone else's house, or to go shopping for groceries, it is great. The baby has a safe comfortable place to sit. It doesn't mean that you can't pick them up when you want to.
I don't have an infant, but I have helped raise them and I do have a 4 year old nephew who I love very much. I would not be afraid in the least to allow Joey to stay with Poly, or 1Way, or Knight, or Clete, or Nineveh, or Turbo and Sibbie, or the Enyarts.
Well, OK, I might be a little concerned for the safety of Poly, 1Way, or Knight, or Clete, or Nineveh, or Turbo and Sibbie, or the Enyarts.....
A newborn's stomach is very small. However, it stretches quite rapidly. Over the course of a few months, it grows, and babies sleep for longer periods naturally. On demand feeding is nuts when a kid gets older and is eating solid food and doesn't like the family mealtimes or the time mom makes the snacks.
As far as breast milk vs bottle, I agree that breast milk is best for a baby, but not always feasable. My mother breast fed 3 of her kids, but bottle fed one because the medicine she was taking to treat a serious health problem passed through the milk and would have harmed my sister. To me, that was a reasonable choice.
I think co-sleeping is OK if you wish to do so. I wouldn't wish to because I move around too much. I'm afraid it would not be safe for the baby in my case.
I don't think you can effectively discipline kids until they know the difference between right and wrong, but you can condition them to avoid or perform some behaviors. The longest it took to toilet train any of the kids in my family was 12 months. We were put on the pot whenever we woke up, after we ate, and just when we looked like we needed to be there. It works. You can condition a 6 week old dog not to pee in the house.
I don't have a problem with people disciplining young kids. I remember when my nephew was about 19 months old. I was on the porch with him and he lifted the flip-up cap on a light socket. I said his name, and he turned, looked at me, said "no," smacked his own hand, and walked away from the socket. And didn't go near it again. So do I have a problem with that kid being disciplined? No. He clearly knew that he wasn't supposed to mess with the socket. I'm pretty sure he was seeing if Aunt Debbie would let him get away with something his parents would not.
I agree with my father's way of dealing with babies who were crying. He would first see if anything was wrong with them. He would then hold them for a while. Then he would put them back in the crib. Usually if they hadn't stopped crying already, they would stop within 5-10 minutes, and if not, he'd go back and try again. 99% of the time, the baby fell asleep within a few minutes. Generally as soon as a baby is old enough to suck their fist they will become a little easier to deal with in the crying department.
I don't see anything wrong with infant carriers. When you take a young baby to a restaurant, or to someone else's house, or to go shopping for groceries, it is great. The baby has a safe comfortable place to sit. It doesn't mean that you can't pick them up when you want to.
I don't have an infant, but I have helped raise them and I do have a 4 year old nephew who I love very much. I would not be afraid in the least to allow Joey to stay with Poly, or 1Way, or Knight, or Clete, or Nineveh, or Turbo and Sibbie, or the Enyarts.
Well, OK, I might be a little concerned for the safety of Poly, 1Way, or Knight, or Clete, or Nineveh, or Turbo and Sibbie, or the Enyarts.....
Last edited:
Poly
Blessed beyond measure
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
No this is how one reacts when false things are being said about a person whom people have developed a great deal of respect for. Yes, they tend to take it a little personal when somebody falsely suggests the things you claim are in this book that Bob supports. You are making false accusations of him when you do this.
Those that are defending Enyart, have they simply just said, "This isn't true" and nothing else or have they made sure that they gave examples of these false things being said? One who blindly accepts anything another has to say, get defensive, says "you're wrong" and leaves it at that. Like I said earlier I felt the need to check this book out since I felt at the time that I could accept what you had to say as being true. If what you were saying was true I was all prepared for this being something I could not agree with him on. And if this were the case I wanted to call into the show and discuss it.
Here are some examples of twisted descriptions you give which shows that I'm not being "wierd" but just doing my homework and investigating if Bob really supports these warped ideas of discipline that you claim are in the book.
You lead others to believe that these authors suggest never picking up a child when the book clearly says "Crying because of genuine physical need is the infant's only voice to the outside world".
Here is another misleading way to get others to believe that the authors are warped in their ideas on training children.
You forgot to mention that the author said "Due to the cold floor the father directed the child to stay in his lap". And concerning the child turning towards it's mother, you leave us with the impression that this father would actually spank his child for innocently looking at his mother. There is more to it than that and I find it dishonest that the very crux of each of these situations that causes the reader to realize where the parent is coming from, you tend to leave out. Let's look at the whole thing. Here is the entire section concerning the child wanting to get down from his father's lap. (Emphasis mine)Originally posted by frugalmom
2. The story about the Amish guy with the 12 month old. The baby wanted to get down from his lap and he spanked it 15 times in 45 minutes for trying to get down or for turning toward it's mother. The Perls said he had realized the importance of this from training horses and mules.
"As I sat talking with a local amish fellow a typical child training session developed. The 12 month old boy sitting on the father's lap, suddenly felt a compulsion to slide to the floor. Due to the cold floor the father directed the child to stay on his lap. The child stiffened and threw his arms up to lesten the father's grip and facilitate his slide to the floor. The father spoke to him in the German language (which I do not understand) and firmly placed him back in the sitting position. The child made dissenting noises and continued his attempt to dismount his father's lap. The father then spanked the child and spoke what I assume to be reproving words. Seeing the mother across the room the child began to reach for her. This was understandable in any language. It was obvious that the child felt there would be more liberty with his mother. At this point I became highly interested in the proceedings. The child was attempting to go around the chain of command. Most fathers would have been glad to pass the troublesome child to his mother. If the child had been permitted to initiate the transfer, HE would have been the one doing the training, not the parents. Mothers often run to their children in this situation because they crave the gratification of being needed. But this mother was more concerned for the child's training than for her own sentiment. She appeared not to hear the child's plea. The father then turned the child to face away from his mother. The determined fellow immediately understood that the battle lines had been drawn. He expressed his will to dominate by throwing his leg back over to the other side to face his mother. The father spanked the leg the child turned towards his mother and again spoke to him. Now the battle was in full array. Someone was going to submit his will to the other. Either the father would confirm that this one year old could rule his parents or the parents would confirm their authority. Everyone's happiness was at stake as well as the soul of the child. The father was wise enough to know that this was a test of authority. This episode had crossed over from "obedience training" to "discipline for attitude. During the following 45 minutes the child shifted his legs 15 times and received a spanking each time. The father was as calm as a lazy porch swing on a Sunday afternoon. There was no hastiness or anger in his response. He did not take the disobedience personally. He had trained many horses and mules and learned the value of patient perserverance. In the end the 12 month old submitted his will to his father, sat as he was placed, and became content--even cheerful. Some will say "But I couldn't take it emotionally". Sometimes it is difficult in trying to set aside your feelings for the sake of child training. It does involve emotional sacrifice. Yet what is love but giving? When we know it will work to the temporal and eternal good of a child, it is a joy instead of a sacrifice."
The honest reader gets a whole other picture of this situation. Hopefully, people will come to their own conclusion rather than just accept what others have to say about a book which I must admit, to my shame, is exactly what I did when I assumed that what you were saying was accurate. I thought that I had read enough of your posts to know that you would be accurate in whatever you expressed so I didn't feel that I had any reason to doubt you.
Last edited:
That's not it at all.
I think the deal with this thread is....
The book in question is sold by all kinds of ministries (As an example... the homeschooling magazine my wife gets monthly sells "To Train up a Child".) and it just isn't one of the books that I would reject a ministry over. I am not saying he book is perfect but I am saying it certainly isn't evil or anything. Therefore when you claim you can't support a ministry anymore based on the fact that ministry sells a certain product in their inventory most people are expecting the product in question to be pretty bad.
I see it the opposite way. If you read this thread the overwhelming feeling I get is that just because some questioned your disgust over this book we must be blind to the truth that you can see and no others are able. I think some pretty good responses have been made to your objections to the book.
And I am still a little confused as to why you would actually reject a pro-life, pro-homeschooling, Christ centered ministry like Bob's because they have this book in their inventory.
Last edited:
Wow! you must raise perfect children!
Excuse my sarcasm but this doesn't even come close to responding to the issue! No one is suggesting PUNISHING the child, as I have already explained. Training is not punishing! To punish a child before it is able to understand right and wrong, at least to some degree, is a stupid waste of time. Training and punishment are not at all the same issue.
This is insanity!
Look, if you don't want to discuss the issue just say so and I'll drop it or talk with someone else about it. But characterizing either the "Growing Kids God's Way" material or especially "To Train Up a Child" as "mainstream" is just simply intellectually dishonest! If anything you are the more mainstream! On demand feeding, especially on demand breast feeding is the mantra of practically every parenting magazine ever published!
You either have what these books are teaching completely upside down and backward, or you're just arguing to be arguing!
[/quote]
Yeah! ME TOO! Do you really think that this is what I advocate or what those books are teaching?!!! If so you are seriously wrong and, as I have been trying to get across to you, are reacting emotionally to teachings that are not there!
I have no argument with you if you want to say that the Pearl's are little harsher than most and even perhaps harsher than they should be in certain situations. But this sort of nonsense is just not in there! The Pearl's were Amish for crying out loud! I hardly think they could have given a rip what was popular in the 60's, 70's and 80's! And when the Ezzo's published their stuff it was met with all sorts of accusations of child abuse and the like, exactly the sort of thing you're saying, again, hardly what I would call mainstream.
Here again, you are either incredibly naive or being intentionally disingenuous. I can't even believe that a parent could say such a ridiculous thing.
Look, feeding on a schedule does not; I repeat, DOES NOT have the child going hungry! All its about is intentionally taking control of the babies biological clock (for want of a better term). If you have your baby on a feeding schedule, the baby still gets fed on demand, it’s just that you are in control of when that demand is going to come.
Babies aren't hungry when their bellies are full whether the stomach is the size of a grape or a grapefruit. The baby gets hungry because its last meal has left the building sort of speak! And guess what! Food takes a very specific amount of time to digest! So if you control the amount and time a baby eats, you also, by default, control when the baby will be hungry again. Imagine that!
Further, a baby’s sleeping patterns are directly influence by its feeding patterns. If you stabilize a baby’s feeding times you will also stabilize their sleep patterns as well. This is the ONLY reason why it is possible to have normal babies sleeping 6-8 hours AT NIGHT by about the 8th week after birth. It has nothing to do with letting the baby cry all night long until it just figures out that it’s not going to be fed and goes to sleep. It has everything to do with the fact that the baby can sleep peacefully all night long because IT IS NOT HUNGRY IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!
This way you will not have to worry about leaving a crying baby to cry, and worry about whether it is hungry or not. You know that it is not hungry and so it becomes about a billion times easier to figure out whether the baby is just being stubborn or if there is actually something wrong. As you know, when there is something wrong, the cry sounds dramatically different.
This sentence very dramatically argues against your own position!
You say that crying is a baby’s only means of communication. This is certainly not so, but I'll grant it for the sake of this conversation. You now claim that crying is a late sign of hunger (which I agree with) and you claim to feed on demand. Thus you only feed when the baby cries because otherwise how would you know when it is hungry since it can't communicate any other way, which means that your baby has been hungry already for some period of time while you've been clueless or oblivious to it.
If you had been on a schedule you would have known hours in advance when the child was going to be hungry and chances are, the child would never have gotten to the crying hungry stage before it had a nipple in its mouth.
Feeding on a schedule works just fine with breast feeding and this statement of yours backs that up. As you said, breasts produce milk based on demand and as I said a moment ago, you are still feeding on demand it’s just that you have taken control of when that demand will come.
Further, if you breast feed on demand you will almost certainly be feeding on cue, when the babies cries. And just as the babies body can be trained, so can yours. If you feed your baby every time it cries, then get ready to lactate all over yourself the first time you hear a baby crying at the grocery store. It called involuntary conditioned response. You are no more in control of it than Pavlov's dog unless you take control of the conditions you will be slave to the response. It's as simple as that.
Two things here.
First of all this statement is patently untrue.
Second, you knew it was untrue when you said it. That's why you said it in the first place. If this statement where true, there would be no reason to say it. The only reason anyone ever says anything like this is when they aren't really sure they've done a sufficient job of establishing their position and so attempt to head off a rebuttal at the pass. It's sort of like the Calvinist preacher who, when they are making a point that they can't establish Biblical, they leave themselves a note in their sermon outline..."material here is weak, POUND PULPIT HERE!"
Most of the world co-sleeps! Is that supposed to convince me that it's a good idea? I thought you said it was my position that was in the mainstream! And now you’re making the argument that the mainstream has it right! Which is it?
My wife has been a stay at home mom since day one. This discussion has nothing to do with being a "career woman". And no one has suggested that a baby should be independent. I don't even know what that means!Babies who are unnaturally forced to be independent from day one are put under extreme undue stress. Babies/toddlers will gradually become independent at their own pace, (such as sleeping alone) and it is so much less stressful for them than to abandon them to cry in a crib. It won't be as convenient for the "career woman" though.
Meaningless. As I have said a couple of times already, feeding schedules do not let the baby go hungry at all.
Thank you for arguing my side! They are far smarter than most give them credit for. And a baby who get a full night of sleep it not only smart but happy. As are the parents who also get a full night’s sleep and find it much easier to manage their children.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Last edited:
C
cattyfan
Guest
I've tried to read all the posts on this thread, but my computer is refusing to "give up" posts #96 - #105.
I've seen the phrase "a baby's wants are its needs" several times...and whereas I agree with that in relation to an infantg, applying that to a child old enough so he or she is mobile and reaching for attractive things is false. That baby may want to pick up the Waterford candydish on Auntie's table...but he doesn't need to, and if "NO!" doesn't stop him and good swat is not inappropriate.
I agree with Clete:
comparing a child's intellectual level to an animal may offend you, but it is not wrong. A small child will learn more and will learn faster than an animal, but their intelligence level initially is very similar, and the best techniques for teaching them are very similar.
I am not advocating child abuse or beating your child, but I would rather have a child associate an attempt to turn on the gas stove with a stinging slap on the hand or rump than have an undisciplined kid burning down a house.
Having spent considerable time with my nieces and nephews and also having taught in a school, I can tell you: it's easy to spot which children come from a household where the parents understand how to properly discipline and raise a child...and you can pick out the kids who live in a house where they are clearly in charge and are running the parents.
And I understand the urge to want to give in to everything the child requests, but a child should learn boundaries. By the time a child is crawling and walking, they are more than capable of being taught they are not allowed to do everything, touch everything, go everywhere, or decide what is best. Just as they know their parents are the ones who respond to their need to be changed and fed, they can learn that same parent decides whether or not the child can crawl up the steps. They may not like it...they may cry because they haven't yet learned another way to communicate their displeasure....but they are more than capable of understanding.
By the way, frugalmom, everything I've read about co-sleeping says it's a very bad idea for a number of reasons, not the least of which are 1.) teaching the child to run the parents and 2.) interfering with the parents' relationship with each other. Allowing the children to waltz into the parents' bedroom at will gives the parents no time alone with each other, no sense of privacy, and no place to decompress. I would like to hear what your experiences are since I read on one of your early posts you are for it. Could you tell me how and why you became a proponent of it and how it has worked for you, and also how you think things would be different if you handled the sleeping situations like most other parents? And until what age should a family co-sleep? ( I just re-read that, and it sounds combative, but wasn't meant to. the articles I have read against co-sleeping were authored by people were adamant in their objections. I was paraphrasing them.)
I've seen the phrase "a baby's wants are its needs" several times...and whereas I agree with that in relation to an infantg, applying that to a child old enough so he or she is mobile and reaching for attractive things is false. That baby may want to pick up the Waterford candydish on Auntie's table...but he doesn't need to, and if "NO!" doesn't stop him and good swat is not inappropriate.
I agree with Clete:
comparing a child's intellectual level to an animal may offend you, but it is not wrong. A small child will learn more and will learn faster than an animal, but their intelligence level initially is very similar, and the best techniques for teaching them are very similar.
I am not advocating child abuse or beating your child, but I would rather have a child associate an attempt to turn on the gas stove with a stinging slap on the hand or rump than have an undisciplined kid burning down a house.
Having spent considerable time with my nieces and nephews and also having taught in a school, I can tell you: it's easy to spot which children come from a household where the parents understand how to properly discipline and raise a child...and you can pick out the kids who live in a house where they are clearly in charge and are running the parents.
And I understand the urge to want to give in to everything the child requests, but a child should learn boundaries. By the time a child is crawling and walking, they are more than capable of being taught they are not allowed to do everything, touch everything, go everywhere, or decide what is best. Just as they know their parents are the ones who respond to their need to be changed and fed, they can learn that same parent decides whether or not the child can crawl up the steps. They may not like it...they may cry because they haven't yet learned another way to communicate their displeasure....but they are more than capable of understanding.
By the way, frugalmom, everything I've read about co-sleeping says it's a very bad idea for a number of reasons, not the least of which are 1.) teaching the child to run the parents and 2.) interfering with the parents' relationship with each other. Allowing the children to waltz into the parents' bedroom at will gives the parents no time alone with each other, no sense of privacy, and no place to decompress. I would like to hear what your experiences are since I read on one of your early posts you are for it. Could you tell me how and why you became a proponent of it and how it has worked for you, and also how you think things would be different if you handled the sleeping situations like most other parents? And until what age should a family co-sleep? ( I just re-read that, and it sounds combative, but wasn't meant to. the articles I have read against co-sleeping were authored by people were adamant in their objections. I was paraphrasing them.)
erinmarie
New member
Hello Catty! I have a little time and I think I may be qualified to answer you about co-sleeping, being that I practice it with both of my daughters, and am an advocate of it in the correct instances.
I wrote a column for my staff writer position at a local paper, essays essentially, and all 6 I have written have been related to a parenting issue. In responding to your post, I will be using an excerpt from my essay.
There are two sides to every disagreement, and regarding co-sleeping there is no lack of opposing views. Depending on what you are reading or who you are speaking with, co-sleeping is either "passive abuse" or a wonderful experience, positive for the whole family. I think the people who find co-sleeping to be abhorent in some way are wrong, and perhaps not very knowledgeable about parenting in the first place, but that's their opinion and I don't have a problem with it on any moral level.
I do however have a problem with people telling me that I shouldn't be practicing co-sleeping, or that it is wrong, or harmful and in that instance I become a little defensive (I'm not implying that anyone on this thread has done that *yet*)
Here are some examples why co-sleeping (albeit bot for every family), can benefit some families:
"Theories abound as to why most children sleep more soundly with their parents. The fundamental reason may be quite simply that children feel more relaxed and secure when they are close to the most important people in their lives. Although a majority of parents are able to accept a young child's strong dependency needs during the day, American culture expects even the tiniest infant to "shut down" at bedtime for a period equaling the average adult's nightly sleep requirement -- in spite of the fact that most adults, given the choice, prefer not to sleep alone. Katherine Dettwyler, Ph.D., award-winning anthropologist, infant nutrition specialist, and co-editor of Breastfeeding: Biocultural Perspectives contends that in the United States, "Parents want to promote independence in children at the earliest possible age. Parents are always being encouraged to leave their baby with sitters and get him to sleep through the night. People want to be able to essentially turn their children off at seven or eight p.m. and not have to deal with them until the next morning. "
According to Dettwyler, American parenting culture appears to resent the amount of time it takes to properly nurture a child, particularly if that child has needs when a parent would rather be asleep. However, according child development experts who favor family sleep-sharing, parents who put their children in a crib down the hall and expect them to stay there quietly until morning may be risking their child's emotional health. A child who does not receive warmth and reassurance when she asks for it can develop a range of attachment and trust disorders, whether the parents' failure to respond comes at noon or midnight. “I am my daughter's parent twenty-four hours a day," says Marsha Franklin. "I can’t expect her to adhere to a predetermined schedule for needing a hug or a drink of water." "
I have many other excerpts to respond to any questions, and some opinions as well, I just thought I would start out with this.
Nineveh
Merely Christian
I was referring to what you think is on certain pages of the book that isn't there.
I wish you had read my post to you a little more closely:
"I can respect your disagreement with the methods, and I can respect your choice to not patronize people who sell the book based on your firm beliefs."
C
cattyfan
Guest
erinmarie,
thanks for taking time to answer me about the co-sleeping issue. I'm wondering how you respond to those who say that, well it may be good for the children, it has an adverse affect on the parents' relationship.
thanks for taking time to answer me about the co-sleeping issue. I'm wondering how you respond to those who say that, well it may be good for the children, it has an adverse affect on the parents' relationship.
Re: .
Re: .
I couldn't disagree with you more. It all comes down to survival of the fittest, and, when you recognize that, you have to realize that your offspring just might not be the fittest. We use these same techniques on dogs and on children when they're older, so why not use it on babies? It works.
Re: .
Originally posted by frugalmom
Yesterday while visiting another forum, the topic of discipline came up. Someone posted this link and recommended the book it describes titled "To Train Up a Child" by Michael and Debi Pearl. I had heard of this book before, and this link allows you to read chapter one.
All I can say is, one chapter of this nonsense was enough!
These people advocated having training sessions by putting desirable objects in the child's reach for the purpose of using a switch on the baby's hand (if they don't respond to no) to try and teach it not to touch desirable objects.
They also talked about having training sessions in order to train a baby to come when called, which would end up in swatting the baby with a switch if the baby didn't listen. This would be done by putting a child alone in a room with a desirable toy - again - another cruel method for the sole purpose of setting the child up to fail to administer training. The first few times, if the baby didn't come on demand, the father would go over and give the 10 or 12 month old an "explanation" of what is expected of him. HA - I can just imagine someone being dumb enough to try this and then have the baby look at you as if it's thinking "What are you talking about?" Many babies aren't even walking yet at that age. The book called this "booty camp" - although the example they gave was for 10 - 12 month olds. ("Toddlers" the book called them)
I'm not saying I'm against discipline, but a baby who doesn't understand, and an older toddler or child who is trying to manipulate their parents and misbehave are very different situations. A young baby just wants it's needs met and is not capable of trying to manipulate anyone.
Newborn training
OK this is the year 2004 for crying out loud. Surely by the time the 90's came around, the "spoil that baby" myth was debunked. I thought almost everyone knew by now that you can't spoil a baby by meeting it's needs and loving it! A newborn's wants are it's needs, yet this book warns against the mother picking up the crying child from the crib and encourages letting the newborn cry.
Children are precious gifts from the Lord and should not be treated like animals, or worse. A mother has to go against her motherly instinct to and harden her heart to ignore a crying baby.
I visit alot of forums that have to do with parenting. A while back, a new mother was bragging how she was "sleep training" her new baby boy. She apparently thought that parenting is a day job, and would confine her baby all alone to the crib from 6 PM to 6 AM. The poor child must have been scared to death. She did mention that she goes in there once during the 12 hour period to change his diaper.
That is one example of many cruel parenting blunders I have read about by visiting forums. The way some people treat their children makes me sick.
Studies have debunked the "spoiling" myth and proven that babies whose needs are met and who are held alot and loved, grow to be independant, happy and secure. (I just love when it takes a study to prove what should be common sense)
Another thing is, a newborn's stomach is the size of a cherry. They need to be fed every 2 or 3 hours. Some people don't want to have to deal with their children and don't feed them on demand. That is so cruel. And the sad thing is, there are books out there encouraging people to treat their children this way. Some of the authors claim to be Christians - yet I know God doesn't want us to neglect our children. It's so sad to read the stories of babies getting dehydrated, and failing to thrive and gain weight, because the parent's read some bogus book by someone claiming to be an expert and a Christian. Do a search for Ezzo's babywise if you aren't familiar and you will see what I mean.
I couldn't disagree with you more. It all comes down to survival of the fittest, and, when you recognize that, you have to realize that your offspring just might not be the fittest. We use these same techniques on dogs and on children when they're older, so why not use it on babies? It works.
Re: Re: .
Re: Re: .
Re: Re: .
You are an idiot and your act is wearing thin. :troll:
C
cattyfan
Guest
don't hold back, Knight...tell us how you really feel! :chuckle:
erinmarie
New member
I guess if I were to answer from personal experience I could tell you that it doesn't have an adverse effect on my marriage. If it's just a matter of sex, the children aren't in bed all day and night, and there are other places to make love other than the family bed. *gross* :ha:
Also, we made the decision as parents and as a married couple to have a family bed, and to let our daughters share the bed with us. If it were having an adverse effect on our relationship, I think that we would make efforts to find out what the effects are exactly, and to make sure they are caused entirely by the sleeping situation, and then rectify it in an appropriate manner.
I love my husband and my children an immense amount, and sharing my sleep and all the comfort I can give them through the night is something I am more than prepared to do. And if people are not prepared to do this just so you can have sex, or be alone, maybe those people shouldn't have had children in the first place. They could get a dog, or a cat, or maybe even a bird!
Re: Re: Re: .
Re: Re: Re: .
Give me one reason that can't be immediately refuted as emotional or immaterial, which supports the opposition of my opinion.
Re: Re: Re: .
Give me one reason that can't be immediately refuted as emotional or immaterial, which supports the opposition of my opinion.
Re: Re: Re: Re: .
Re: Re: Re: Re: .
You are an idiot and your act is wearing thin. :troll:
Re: Re: Re: Re: .
Like I said....
You are an idiot and your act is wearing thin. :troll:
I have never supported any 'act.' I have always expressed my views as I honesty hold them. I am not an idiot just because you say I am, or because you refuse to respond. And I am still waiting for an answer.
- Status