ACK! What was I thinking??!!

[MegBubLia]

:doh I have this idiosyncrisy that requires me to know both sides of the story b/f speaking out against something (I've always been able to see everyone's side--curse and blessing) Well, last night I jump on Ezzo's site and read through it and followed their links for co-sleeping. That's where the ACK! comes in! I went to bed freaked out about sleeping w/ little Lia! I got over it as soon as she snugged up to me, but WHAT WAS I THINKING?! :banghead

I know people can pretty much find anything anywhere (esp on the internet) to support their opinions, but WHERE did they get the stuff on the "epidemic" of overlay (in Indiana, Philly, etc)?! (Yes, I also have an idiosyncrisy that makes me need to know WHY! <g> )
I just got back from a LLL training conference and basically, I'm hearing two conflicting reports w/ all the research and articles to support both! Can someone explain this to me?

I also get the distinct feeling it's "us against them." I don't want to suggest Ezzo's are correct in their parenting techniques as a whole, but I do see some good things there (interpreting baby's cry properly and having a solid marriage) which proves one of my favorite sayings, "a broken clock is still right twice a day." That said, Ezzo's also have AP/LLL all wrong. We're not some cult of permissive mommies who pummel new mommies with our our-way-or-the-highway attitude which in turn, ends up sabotaging their efforts to breastfeed b/c they aren't doing it perfectly.

There's got to be a KIND way we can approach PDFer's w/o making this an us against them thing.

I know there's a lot said in this post, but I'd love to have some people weigh in on this. Ideas, thoughts, knowledge of where the research comes from! :smile
Amy

[allisonintx]

You can twist 'facts' to make a 'study' to prove any side of any point you wish to make or disprove.

I started out in Sociology and Social Work and they taught us that first rattle out of the barrell.

[Katherine]

This is just my own opinion, and I'm not a philosopher or anything... ;) but I've come to the conclusion that when you're talking about a "system" of belief, whether it pertains to child-rearing or theology or anything else... it can be very dangerous to pick and choose which parts to accept.

The problem is that many concepts depend on the other or are slanted and tainted by the overall "tone" of the philosophy.

With Ezzo, for example... Having a strong marriage IS a good thing, but what exactly does he mean by that, and how does he frame it? I feel like he encourages the idea that parents should not have to sacrifice or be inconvenienced by their children... that "couple time" is so important it warrants using whatever means necessary to subdue the children in order for it to take place. The *marriage* becomes more important than the family as a whole, and the wants of the couple take precedence over the NEEDS of the children. So, when Gary Ezzo says it's important to have a strong marriage... he means something totally different than I do when I say it. I won't appreciate that difference unless I consider his entire philosophy of family life, and put his statement into context accordingly. Does that make sense?

Same with interrpreting baby's cry. I want to "interpret" my baby's cry so that I can meet his needs in the most effective way possible. Ezzo, IMO, encourages Moms to "interpret" their baby's cry so that they can choose not to respond in some situations. (He's crying b/c he's angry or doesn't want to go down for a nap.. That's his sin nature.. I shouldn't respond to that) The motive behind the teaching is totally different, and motives are VERY important.

I am also the type that likes to consider the facts and not brush away the results of a study or a statistic simply b/c of my own personal bias. However, I think it's important to consider the agenda of the source. Ezzo's studies and info have all been subjected to the filter of what he believes in, and--for me--that filter is so messed up that I consider his "research" guilty until proven innocent. KWIM?

[ArmsOfLove]

If you read any of his books (especially with your idiosyncracy ;) ) you will note that THERE ARE NO FOOT OR END NOTES! So, where does he get this research? He makes it up. Really--he just makes stuff up. Sometimes he takes real things (like sometimes people do lay on their babies if they are overtired, drunk, or drugged) and twists them to support his ideas.

He does have a few good ideas--but nothing you can't get from a better source.

I don't believe we have to make it an "us vs. them" thing, but I believe we have to be strong in who we are and not try to gray the lines to make it all seem okay. Ezzo and AP are diametrically opposed. He did that with purpose. And he makes sure that anyone in the AP is seen as "Christian up to a point' instead of fellow believers :(

I think the way to minister to PDF'ers is to believe that they love their children and are truly doing the best they know how to do, to pray for them, to not be the one to end the relationship (even if you have to set some healthy boundaries for your own sake or that of your family), and share with them when you have a chance.

{ETA: it's been brought to my attention that more recent versions of Babywise have endnotes--albeit questionable ones. I wanted to say that the version I read was in 1997 and the only endnotes I saw were Scripture references and additional author comments.}

[Benjaminswife]

When I rtried to read Babywise I had to stop because of the way he was talking about APers. He really didn't have a clue what he was talking about.

[Sara]

Very good response, Palil! You made some great points that I hadn't really thought of WRT only using the "good" stuff that Ezzo has to say. I still believe that almost anything good that he has to say can be found elsewhere.

And Amy, I honestly don't know that Ezzo has all the articles and research to back him up! I haven't seen that. I think much of his advice and writing is based on his own opinions. And that's part of the reason his books have had multiple revisions - they have been so "off" that he has had to correct some of what he has said (although he would never admit that he corrected anything because it was wrong).

[Sandy]

It's pretty well known that Ezzo makes up whatever he needs to support his statements. My favorite is the "convenient sampling" of breastfeeding moms using pdf...which showed, of course, that pdf moms were more successful breastfeeders (as in they bf'd longer). could that be supported in the real world? Absolutely not!

When asked to provide the studies and research that he uses, his answer is "it's out there; look it up." A genuine researcher is happy to provide the source of their information.

I know that folks who use his stuff only want the best for their children...but it still amazes me how much of this gunk is swallowed whole.