Le Sabot Post-Moderne

Speaking of cultic tendencies, that reminds me of back when I was in highschool and did quite a bit of babysitting for Ezzo families. The reason that my sister and I were trusted to babysit their kids was because they decided that since we were homeschooled we were honorary Ezzo children (and and concluded that my parents must have been doing Growing Kids God's Way without knowing it--yep, someone actually said that). It's kind of weird when people who are much closer to your age than to your parents age and who have children who aren't even school age feel the need to put their seal of approval on your parents' parenting skills.

You know I love you and TulipGirl, but I just didn't get why you think the person on that blog was in an "Ezzo Cult." If she is, so am I, and so is Loki. I read a bunch of baby books before Maia v2.0 was born and BabyWise (not the religious first version) was the one that made the most sense to me. We've been thrilled with the results - our daughter is a great sleeper and a joy to be around. She didn't sleep through until about 5 months, but she never had trouble going down since we avoided sleep crutches. No driving around in the middle of the night for us! No nursing to sleep! "Sleep-Wake-Eat-Play" just made sense to us and it worked wonders.

Honestly I think there's a defensiveness here that's due to stuff that isn't actually in the book - your personal history with the guy or whatever. At any rate I'm happy not to know, took what I wanted from Babywise, and will do it again with Loki v2.0 as well!

AP is great for some, but it would have driven me nuts. And I breastfed her a LOT longer than I thought I would have - if I'd AP'ed I'm sure I would have quit earlier just out of exhaustion. I never had a supply problem and she gained great. I never even had to let her "cry it out" that I can remember - I do that more now with naps!

Maia-

"You know I love you and TulipGirl, but I just didn't get why you think the person on that blog was in an "Ezzo Cult."

Please reread my post when you get a chance, and I think it'll be clearer. This is not about the fact that she uses Babywise. The stuff I said about limiting debate and refusing to acknowledge the thoughts of those outside the in-group were central to my point.

She deleted a completely polite, respectful and thoughtful post from TulipGirl, simply because it offered an opposing viewpoint.

If it were the first time, I would never have pointed it out. But if you've been around these circles for any length of time, you find that this sort of mentality is near-universal. THAT'S what I'm referring to -- the omnipresence of sitebanning, censoring and exclusion of those with an opposing or even somewhat deviating opinion.

As I said in the post, almost all parenting forums and lists I've seen online have encouraged free discussion. Ezzo boards ban and censor. They're wonderfully consistent.

As for Babywise "working" for you, I'm very thankful. Healthy babies are a good thing. :-) But Babywise is a bit like a cable car that crashes periodically and unforseeably into the ravine from time to time.

If I talk to the people who make it safely to the other side, it's encouraging that it worked for them. But I won't have a full understanding of if it's a "good" cable car or not until I talk to the crash survivors.

Because Babywise is predicated on a medically unsound basis, it simply crashes for some people. It's a biological thing, not a failure of common sense.

Maia-

Again though, I hope you understand that I'm not lumping everyone who found something useful into the Ezzo cult. And certainly not you. :-)

Well, I do agree that is was weird the blogger deleted TulipGirl's comment - altho I didn't get to even read it, I'm sure it was a nicely worded comment. We get so few comments the only thing we delete is spam! So that was weird. Maybe they've just heard it over and over again and are sick of it - I know that's how I feel when people freak when I recommend BabyWise!

I can't see what in the version of Babywise I read would be "medically unsound." There is no restriction on feeding times/frequency anymore -- my very crunchy pediatrician put more of a restriction on me than was suggested in the book! And the "cry it out" thing is completely overstated - the book I have does not advocate letting a baby cry for hours or anything. It repeatedly talks about choices and decision-making, and puts that square on the parents to do. I wouldn't let my baby cry for more than 20 minutes, so that was my limit and still is (if I make it that long!).

The crux of it was really "Wake/Eat/Play/Sleep" cycles which I think are VERY important so as to prevent having nursing (or bottlefeeding) be a sleep crutch. And I think the whole "avoid the sleep crutch" advice is very sound. Sleep crutches end up being easier on the parents short-term, but hard on the child long-term (and the parents too).

Look, I can only go by personal experience here. The parents I know who used a schedule-ish thing like I did have good sleepers and plenty of sanity. The ones that AP'ed have two-year olds sleeping in bed with them and lots of insanity, and most of them ended up having to stop exclusively nursing too.

I completely agree with what was written by this blogger and it reflects my experience with (and my usage of) Babywise perfectly.

So, I'm sorry they chose to delete TulipGirl's post, but I still have to stand up for them!

Oh one more thing!

I think the most important thing is that as parents we should be supportive of each other and not judgmental. I might not like this or that thing that another parent or mother does, but I should basically just shut up about it, unless we're talking about real abuse.

But whether they breast or bottle feed, let their children sleep in bed with them, whatever - that's up to them. Every child is different and things that work with one may not work with another. If Loki v2.0 doesn't deal well with Babywise-type scheduling, I will adjust to him.

I'm sure TulipGirl is more familiar with this (sexist comment:) as women tend to be very judgmental about other mothers. But I really try to stay away from that. We should all just support each other!

When you're expecting for the first time you are just scared as heck. I read Dr. Sears' book and cried and cried. I knew I couldn't be a mom, I just wasn't going to be able to hack it based on reading that (incredibly long) book. I read the Weissbluth book on sleeping and couldn't make heads or tails of it - it was structured horribly and very long-winded (although it had some useful information which I still use). But then I saw Babywise and it was short, to the point, and made parenthood seem much more doable. It made sense, and it was the one thing that convinced me to try breastfeeding.

Hey, I think the Monks of New Skete are too harsh (ON DOGS!). So I'm a softie. But I like structure and I think kids (oh, and dogs) like it too. Gives you somewhere to start from.

Hi, Maia!

There is a lot we agree on. You're right--too often mothers can be very judgemental of one another and I believe we do need to be more nurturing of one another. Sadly, I see that judgemental attitude from mamas from many perspectives on parenting.

I want to be clear that my criticism of Gary Ezzo's teachings are just that--of his teachings and not your application. I am sure you are *just* the right mother for your little one. From time to time, I do think it is important to point to those well-meaning parents who have embraced Ezzo's teachings uncritically. They do exist and the cultic mentality is unhealthy and needs to be exposed.

The Ezzo parents I've known have been among some of the most loving and well-intentioned parents. Sadly, making decisions based on faulty information, even when done in love, can be harmful.

I'm glad you don't see any negative effects of your implementation of Babywise, and I'm glad that it was an encouragement to you in your breastfeeding.

Many parents I've known who have used Babywise and praised it at one point, later looked back and realized that what they saw as "success" wasn't really as great as they thought at the time. In retrospect they see how the attitudes in BW led to unnecessary parent/child antagonism, the feeding information undermined breastmilk supply, their child had delayed growth, or their child cried more than was good. Maybe when you look back at the baby years you'll still be satisfied with BW. But maybe not.

That's why there are as many support boards for "de-ezzoing" as there are for parents implementing Ezzo parenting ideas.
FreeFromEzzo
Unprepared for Parenting
AwareParent.Net: DeEzzo Forum

Maia, you asked, "I can't see what in the version of Babywise I read would be "medically unsound." There is no restriction on feeding times/frequency anymore

Gary Ezzo has amended a lot in Babywise from the editions released in the mid/late 90s, thanks in part to the critics.

However, there are still major problems. I don't have a copy of BW 2001 here in Kyiv, but last time I looked at one I was struck by how much of the breastfeeding information was still inaccurate. For example, the information about testing breastmilk supply is completely inadequate and can lead a mother to further undermine her supply.

And while the most recent copy of BW does insert more disclaimers for "being flexible" and "feeding a hungry baby" it is still sending mixed messages and emphasizing the schedule over infant cues. Some mothers read the newer Babywise and interpret it to be very flexible. Some read the newer Babywise and interpret it to be more by-the-schedule. I recommend this comparison of the 2001 edition to older editions of BW.

You mentioned that you didn't perceive any restrictions on feeding times/frequencies. However, the "norm" that is presented by Ezzo is much more limited than what is recommended for infants who need lots of calories for doubling their birth weight and going through amazing brain growth. For example, p 210, "at three months of age your baby should be receiving four to five feedings a day. If he or she is six months old, your baby should be receiving three meals a day with a nursing period or a bottle just before bed." For most babies that is inadequate for optimal growth. For most nursing mothers, a mere 4-5 times at the breast a day isn't enough to keep up sufficient supply.

The 45 Minute Intruder portion of the 2001 version of Babywise is quite an improvement. When we used BW with our first, the advice from those that taught Ezzo was that an infant waking up early from a nap was most likely still tired, not hungry. Reality is, most infants after that long stretch from the last feeding are hungry! Yet, there are still problems with this section that is recognized as a great improvement over the last edition!

Also, check out this Comparison Chart that looks at the AAP recommendations and Babywise. There are still a lot of basic, factual problems in how Ezzo teaches infant growth, development, and sleep.

Maia, I don't want to overwhelm you with information or lead you to feel I'm being critical of you. However, there is one more thing I want to point out.

Ezzo is very persuasive. But he uses a lot of manipulative techniques to convince parents that they need to use BW to avoid a horrid, marriage-wrecking, child-run home. Take for example his fictional parents and fictional children. One is always a brat, the other an angel.

Or look at his chapter on the importance of a strong marriage. Great concept--I don't know anyone who would disagree. Even gay couples with children I know agree that a strong, committed relationship is important for children. But he uses the fear of a broken marraige to persuade parents that they need the Babywise routine. (Btw, I know strong marriages and weak marriages in both Ezzo and other families. It's not PDF that makes or breaks a couple.)

Besides the fear tactics related to marriage, he attempts to persuade parents to use BW by telling them they and their children will never get healthy sleep without his sort of routine. That simply isn't true.

Another false dichotomy that you've alluded to is the Ezzo / AP split. Most parents don't fall into either catagory, nor do they need to. Ezzo paints a very unappealing picture of AP families that misrepresents what AP is (and isn't.) After I rejected the Ezzo ideas we started with, I very much was NOT an AP parent. Several years later I did adopt many of the ideas that are associated with AP (slings, breastfeeding, limited co-sleeping, focus on bonding, gentle routines, etc.)

Along with that Ezzo tends to misrepresent other ideas. I'm not sure whether it's in BW 2001, but in his older materials he referred to AP being founded on "birth trauma theory" and lab rat experiments. If his ideas are so good in themselves, why should he falsely represent other points of view?

I certainly understand a writer trying to be persuasive. I'm just pretty disillusioned by Ezzo's manipulative tactics. You might be interested in reading this article about Ezzo and Logic.

One of the things, though, that I find the most sad about Babywise, is how it leads parents to not recognize in themselves what good parents they are. When Babywise "works," ie, baby sleeps well and the routine seems to be good, then parents are praising Babywise and Gary Ezzo to high heaven. (As in the blog Hubby linked to.)

But when it doesn't work--a mother loses her milk supply, a baby doesn't "fit" the schedule, a baby doesn't grow well, naptimes and bedtimes are stress-filled from the crying--then it is the mother's fault. I can't tell you how many times mothers who have tried BW and discarded it have been told, "Well, you didn't understand the principles. You were too flexible. You weren't flexible enough. You should have done XYZ." Or mothers blame themselves that their baby doesn't mesh well with the routine, when Babywise and their friends promise them it will "work great."

When it's good--praise Ezzo. When it's bad--blame the mother. Definitely not a healthy scenario.