Ezzo without spanking?

[kiwimum]

I've never read the books and never intend to but a comment I heard recently made me curious. Someone was talking about the person who teaches the course and they said, "She teaches GKGW but doesn't believe in smacking".

That left me wondering, what else is there?

[MissusLeata]

Oh, there's more to Ezzo's teaching than spanking. There is: strict scheduling for eating, sleeping and playing; practicing 'couch time;' manners (as in calling everyone who is married by Mr. and Mrs.); the benefits of bottle feeding (yes, they actually teach that formula is just as good as breast milk); how to get your baby to be able to spend hours contentedly playing in a play pen; oh, and the evils of baby slings.

They teach LOTS of interesting stuff.

[Embracing Grace]

Honestly, there is not one good thing in any of Ezzo's stuff.

[MissusLeata]

Honestly, there is not one good thing in any of Ezzo's stuff.


Oh, I'm not supporting that stuff. Just saying that it's not all about spanking.

[Katherine]

There are plenty of ways to punish a child without smacking.

Ezzo's philosophy hinges on the core belief that parents are more important than children because they're grown-ups. The children must be blended into the parents' lives with minimal inconvenience or effort on the part of the parents b/c... well, adults have more important things to do--like getting on with their REAL lives as quickly as possible after the bump in the road cause by a new baby. :cry

(this is my opinion based on reading his book--and that was when I was still punitive and had never heard of gentle parenting--and based on the fact that the people I've known who Ezzo tend to reflect the "get back to my old life/self/shape/activities" mindset.

Ezzo's writings do not harp on spanking (at least not the baby stuff) but on scheduling, controlling, and containing children. The whole mindset he writes from is unhealthy from a developmental standpoint and a spiritual one.

[snlmama]

Oh, there's more to Ezzo's teaching than spanking. There is: strict scheduling for eating, sleeping and playing; practicing 'couch time;' manners (as in calling everyone who is married by Mr. and Mrs.); the benefits of bottle feeding (yes, they actually teach that formula is just as good as breast milk); how to get your baby to be able to spend hours contentedly playing in a play pen; oh, and the evils of baby slings.

They teach LOTS of interesting stuff.


:yes There are lots of really "important" rules that all children must follow if they are ever going to grow up to be good Christians. So many, in fact, that I had a hard time remembering them when I was visiting my Ezzo friend. :crazy And if you and your child aren't aware of one of these rules or just think it's not overly important or not for you then you are a *bad parent* and their child isn't allowed to play w/ your child b/c your child is "out of control" and "running your house." And their "discipline class" or "nutrition class" (the one of formula I guess :no or just when they talked about this "in parenting class." :shifty An example would be that dh and I rarely if ever have date nights. When he told them (not volunteered, but after they asked) it'd been nearly a year since we'd been out alone b/c we didn't currently have a sitter we trusted they gasped and went on and on about the importance of our marriage and how we were going to end up divorced if we didn't spend quality time alone together. That the kids would be fine and we shouldn't let them manipulate us. :scratch :rolleyes Um, he'd actually said *we* didn't trust the sitters we knew at the time, not that the kids didn't like them. ;) But if you choose not to follow the rules your children are "disobedient" or "manipulative." :rolleyes

And, I think the secular book actually leans more toward promoting time outs, if I recall correctly from thumbing thru it at the store... :think

[ArmsOfLove]

the other possibility is that they are using the Pearl's distinction of spanking vs training (same thing but different intent). I'd find out if she believes in using the rod to train--that's spanking still :shrug

[siberian]

The "swatting" suggestions begin in Along the Toddler Way, in the Mealtime Training chapter. Apparently when your 5 TO & 7 MONTH OLD :jawdropbegins to learn high chair manners, you need to swat them on the hand for such shocking offenses as throwing food on the floor, running food-covered hands through their hair, not sitting nicey with their hands in their lap :no2 (that was the chapter that made me finally stop Ezzo-ing and start parenting). From what I gather it gets worse later on the series, but spanking (swatting, switching, rapping, hitting, whatever...its all the same) isn't really his focus, control is.

[kiwimum]

Ugggh, and that's why I've never read the book.

I guess I was just surprised that someone who liked it enough to teach it WOULDN"T smack their children, because everyone I know who likes it smacks a lot.

[siberian]

Its very interesting how he presents spanking/swatting, etc in his books...its not like Pearl, Dobson or Tripp where you are essentially told that you "need" to spank, but the way he presents it has this air of assumption that the reader will spank/swat, etc. because they want to be "godly" parents.

[maddiegrant]

The "swatting" suggestions begin in Along the Toddler Way, in the Mealtime Training chapter. Apparently when your 5 TO & 7 MONTH OLD :jawdropbegins to learn high chair manners, you need to swat them on the hand for such shocking offenses as throwing food on the floor, running food-covered hands through their hair, not sitting nicey with their hands in their lap :no2 (that was the chapter that made me finally stop Ezzo-ing and start parenting). From what I gather it gets worse later on the series, but spanking (swatting, switching, rapping, hitting, whatever...its all the same) isn't really his focus, control is.


I agree that control is the main issue. The Ezzo approach is about controlling outward behavior instead of learning to parent, guide, nurture and develop your child's heart and soul. If my daughter is obeying me on the outside but inwardly despising me - and she's only 3 years old - what am I setting myself up for? I really devoured the first 2 of his books when my DD was born and really wanted to "fit her" into MY life. Getting pregnant with my second (and accidentally coming across tulipmama's website) made me rethink the approach we first had. I have lots of regrets, but change is slowly occurring.

[katiekind]

Growing Kids God's Way actually has a lot in it that is not about spanking, including some very good things, in my opinion, memorably communicated. I think this is one reason the series is so controversial, there's a lot the Ezzos offer that echoes good, common sensical parenting advice. If it were bad through and through, it would not attract so many young parents and pastors.

Of course I think about this a lot, having studied the Ezzo issue for so long... I think young parents are reassured by the parts of the material that ARE common sensical and are basically the same as any other parenting book would say, making them relaxed and willing to accept the rest of it. And young, inexperienced parents don't have the life experience and/or the healthy family background and/or the theological acuity to compare the Ezzos' overall premises with mature, healthy, biblical premises about family life. And they're actively misled by the Ezzos' abundant double messages and their own fears of loss of control.

I don't think you can simply "take out the spanking", though. Not at all. Too bad, though. I wish that were all that was wrong with it.

[katiekind]

PS--Welcome, Maddie!

Getting pregnant with my second (and accidentally coming across tulipmama's website) made me rethink the approach we first had.

So many parents kind of gradually "outgrow" the Ezzos advice. That's wonderful! And I bet tulipmama will be so happy to know her website had an impact on you. (And on many others, I suspect!) :tu

:heart

[Naked Camper]

Ugh, I had no idea that GKGW was such a horrible book. I have veered clear of it b/c of the few things I have read on this site - that it didn't support GBD. My BIL and SIL are AMAZING parents with AMAZING kids and they had recommended that book. I figured it couldn't be all bad, right? But if it supports principles such as play-pin time, swatting for inapporpriate high-chair manners, no slings, and bottle feeding - ugh!! No thank you!!! The only thing I agree with that I've read in these posts is the Mr. and Mrs. thing.

[katiekind]

Just to clarify, scheduled daily playpen times and the material on inculcating "highchair manners" are actually in the baby/toddler material, not in GKGW. But GKGW does encourage parents to lay a proper foundation (according to them) through using the baby & toddler programs.

[CelticJourney]

Something to keep in mind is that many times people read things like Ezzo with a 'mommy filter' on. I participated in an Ezzo debate board years ago and very often moms would come there and say they supported Ezzo, but after asking about specifics they would either say 'well, not that part' or be surprised when we pointed things out to them. They had read the book, but discounted the truely toxic stuff so quickly and completely that they forgot it was even in there and went around recommending it.

[Soliloquy]

I found GKGW to be the least offensive of all their books that I've read. In fact, if I hadn't read their other books, I wouldn't know just how icky their philosophy is. In GKGW they recommend the 5 Love Languages for Children, for example. That's a good thing. They say that a family should host a dinner party once in awhile to teach the children about a servant's heart--preparing the home and the meal for the enjoyment of the guests. I think that's a good thing, too. But, there's so much that's icky in there, too. They state that the only reason a child/baby throw a tantrum is for attention. WRONG! And, their books on babies and toddlers are truly AWFUL--every single sentence.

[katiekind]

In GKGW they recommend the 5 Love Languages for Children, for example.

You're going to think I'm being incredibly nit-picky, :bag but I think it might be significant that actually they cite the other 5 Love Languages book--the original one -- for adults. I always thought that was odd that they didn't cite the one that is actually for children.

Unless they changed it up in the more recent edition, of course!