So, I Guess I Can See Why People Use Babywise

[Setfree]

I read the first couple chapters and skimmed the rest, and it wasn't as bad as I was expecting. (Don't we have one of those hiding under the chair icons on this forum)?? :/ I guess after reading a lot on ezzo.info and hearing stories of ex-Ezzo-ers, I expected much worse. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree and a lot of it made me mad, but now I understand why my friends use it. I used to be, not horrified, but a little disturbed and disappointed that they would buy into such a mindset.

The thing is, the current version (which I know is much changed from the original and from GKGW), is pretty subtle. To the average non-GB person, it sounds great and they probably don't have any warning bells going off because it is so toned down, and maybe that makes it more dangerous than the older versions. I'm sure I missed a lot, but from what I read, it sounds pretty palatable. I mean, he even says to feed the baby before "it's time" if the baby is hungry. The feeding advice, though much misguided, does not seem outrageous like it apparently was originally. Maybe the mindset, the way you view your babe and your relationship to him, that's developed with BW is more dangerous than the advice actually given. I don't know. :shrug

That being said, it made my blood boil to see how he completely misrepresents AP. And it makes me sad because a lot of people who have never been exposed to AP and know nothing about it will take his word for what it is. I think his attitude toward AP results in a lot of people becoming judgemental toward parents like us. My one friend, it's the only parenting book she's ever read. :( Now I feel like people who've read this book look at my family and say, "yep, that cue feeding, co-sleeping and babywearing is what has caused ds all those sleeping problems." Nevermind the fact that he has reflux and a lot of problems with gas. I know I shouldn't care, and I try to remember that it doesn't matter. What matters is that we're doing what's best for DS. Sometimes I feel like I have to prove myself, and that's so unproductive.

Something that made me laugh out loud was his assertion that cue feeding can lead to failure to thrive. Apparently there have been a couple cases where a babe was not giving cues, so the mom didn't nurse. :scratch Umm, I think most moms are smart enough to know that baby needs to eat....I just couldn't believe he had the gall to write such a thing after his book led to so many FTT babies. Good grief.

He also makes a whole lot of assertions without a whole lot of citations....and the fictional stories of Chelsea and whatever the other girl's name was that illustrated how perfectly angelic and happy all Babywise babies are and what a mess AP babies are....gag... :sick I mean, come on....

Anyway, at least now I can say I've read it if I get into a conversation about it. I don't like how it gets in your head though. The couple days after reading it, I found myself doubting and second guessing myself...that's the worst. I'm so glad I found AP and GBD before DS got here!

[mwwr]

Something that made me laugh out loud was his assertion that cue feeding can lead to failure to thrive. Apparently there have been a couple cases where a babe was not giving cues, so the mom didn't nurse. :scratch Umm, I think most moms are smart enough to know that baby needs to eat....I just couldn't believe he had the gall to write such a thing after his book led to so many FTT babies. Good grief.


He probably knows that this is why the AAP has condemned him and is trying to deflect criticism. Like you said, this subtle version may be more dangerous than the first one. :sick

[CelticJourney]

The lack of 'horric' feeding advice is the direct result of the efforts of people such as those that run Ezzo.info. Ezzo has never admitted he was wrong, but he does change things a little with each new edition.

[Sister Ray]

Is Prep for Parenting worse? I've never seen it. Not even the Christian bookstores by me carry it!

I found an older Babywise in a used bookstore, and it was more explicitly bad. Also, once you get to the second volume, things get really. scary.

[allisonintx]

Prep is much worse than the actual Babywise books. To be honest, all of the Ezzo's work "Seems so reasonable and sensible" the way it is presented. That is why it's so dangerous.

[herbalmama]

Prep is much worse than the actual Babywise books. To be honest, all of the Ezzo's work "Seems so reasonable and sensible" the way it is presented. That is why it's so dangerous.
:yes :yes

they get you hooked then slowly lure you in

i have read pearls, ezzo etc.. just so i can say u have
i usually agree with the first chapters! it all sounds so sensible
you think you agree than out pops something odd.

the pearl book i have actually says on the back it can help you to spank less and when you flip thru it, there is alot of "grace" in there

they're tricky

[milkmommy]

they get you hooked then slowly lure you in

:yes I do agree I can totally see how many can be hooked. I read and "followed" babywise cause I knew nothing about the controversities. (2001 edition) . Matter of fact as I started learning I heard a lot about not CIO but I had by Ezzos decription the "perfect" child the one who easily feel into 4 hour feeding schedules who was sleeping 10+ hours at night. It was picture perfect CIO was never an issues cause shes just cooed and slept and ate... then slept longer and nursed less and then fussed and wouldn't nurse but slept.. and I'd go check the book and ask on mainstream boards and was told I was a silly new mom how lucky I was. By now shes not latching on at all I can't pump worth a darn shes sleeping all the time 12 hours at night and up to 4-5 hours during the day (at 2 months) this countinued untill she was hospolized for FTT. Her diabeties was diagnoised and we began the healing. Babywise didn't cause my DD issues but I could have lost her. :cry According to his book at least the version I had it was good for a 2 week old to sleep 12 hours at night all the time to take only 3-4 feedings a day. A lot of dangerous information.

Deanna

[Rbonmom]

I think his bashing of AP stuff really misinforms people. I know for one my sister totally bashes AP, and yet she babywears, extened bf's, doesn't CIO, and has the baby cosleep and sleep in their room for the first bit :giggle She's AP by pretty much most standards, but still bashes it because she's been "mistaught" what AP really mean and she's had a couple friends who were permissive, yet called themselves AP :yes

[Quiteria]

they get you hooked then slowly lure you in

:yes I do agree I can totally see how many can be hooked. I read and "followed" babywise cause I knew nothing about the controversities. (2001 edition) . Matter of fact as I started learning I heard a lot about not CIO but I had by Ezzos decription the "perfect" child the one who easily feel into 4 hour feeding schedules who was sleeping 10+ hours at night. It was picture perfect CIO was never an issues cause shes just cooed and slept and ate... then slept longer and nursed less and then fussed and wouldn't nurse but slept.. and I'd go check the book and ask on mainstream boards and was told I was a silly new mom how lucky I was. By now shes not latching on at all I can't pump worth a darn shes sleeping all the time 12 hours at night and up to 4-5 hours during the day (at 2 months) this countinued untill she was hospolized for FTT. Her diabeties was diagnoised and we began the healing. Babywise didn't cause my DD issues but I could have lost her. :cry According to his book at least the version I had it was good for a 2 week old to sleep 12 hours at night all the time to take only 3-4 feedings a day. A lot of dangerous information.

Deanna


:yes (except sad, frowning nod) We had a similar experience with dd, though not quite so severe in her case...more like 3hrs at first, 10hr nights, not FTT, etc. I did feed her a little early here and there, so that mitigated things a tiny, tiny bit, but overall the eat-play-sleep order (with no allowance that some babies need to eat AGAIN before sleep) and the "normal" fussiness before naps (hunger + tiredness, not just tiredness), and the sheer length of time between feedings since I was making her sleep before another meal...we went from OAL/oversupply to lowered milk supply and trying to feed solids to a 3mo because she was always so unsatisfied/not full after nursing (yet soo unready for solids it made her sick and created a lot of unpleasant associations.). So, yeah it seems reasonable the way it's presented, with some warnings about not being too harsh... Since the crying often stops, it is hard to notice when things start going awry...and since you haven't read anything else (AP bashing), you don't realize to blame the program, you figure it's just you or just normal difficulties...

[Wonder Woman]

(((((Deanna and Cecilia)))))

[eejei]

Now I feel like people who've read this book look at my family and say, "yep, that cue feeding, co-sleeping and babywearing is what has caused ds all those sleeping problems." Nevermind the fact that he has reflux and a lot of problems with gas. I know I shouldn't care, and I try to remember that it doesn't matter. What matters is that we're doing what's best for DS. Sometimes I feel like I have to prove myself, and that's so unproductive.
I feel ike this too. :no2 It's not helpful at all. :no2

[snlmama]

I read the first couple chapters and skimmed the rest, and it wasn't as bad as I was expectin
Something that made me laugh out loud was his assertion that cue feeding can lead to failure to thrive. Apparently there have been a couple cases where a babe was not giving cues, so the mom didn't nurse. :scratch Umm, I think most moms are smart enough to know that baby needs to eat....I just couldn't believe he had the gall to write such a thing after his book led to so many FTT babies. Good grief.

He also makes a whole lot of assertions without a whole lot of citations....and the fictional stories of Chelsea and whatever the other girl's name was that illustrated how perfectly angelic and happy all Babywise babies are and what a mess AP babies are....gag... :sick I mean, come on....




His assertations about cue feeding really bother me. I did have one baby who did not cue to feed in the first few weeks. Even though I consider myself to have "cue fed", I fed that baby every 2.5 hours (3 if he was sleeping and I had trouble waking him). *Every book* I've read, including Dr. Sears and the lactation consultants who were very pro cue feeding recommended this. I never had anyone tell me to just wait until he cued. Never. It's ridiculous to assert that cue feeders would not feed their babies at least every 3 hours. The only people I know who wait more than 3 hours w/ an infant did Babywise, not AP or any other parenting method. :mad

Yeah on the stories about the two girls. I have a "friend" who did the church-based program and she was regaling me of tales of the Babywised child vs. the AP one while she was in the class. It was so irritating. :rolleyes What made it even funnier is that when I visited her w/ my AP baby she at first assumed he was Ezzoed until I gave her a copy of my Dr. Sear's book to read, then she suddenly decided he was poorly behaved and I needed to take the GKGW classes. :rolleyes

[CelticJourney]

Take the misinformation about AP or cue feeding and then add to that the fact that Ezzo actively instructs parents to 'judge other parents' and you have a situation that is HIGHLY devisive.

[katiekind]

SNLmama--that's very funny!!! :laughtears

Don't we have one of those hiding under the chair icons on this forum

Come out from under that chair, SetFree! Your reading and analysis of it was very perceptive! It is subtle, building its case starting from language that sounds very common sensical, or where even if you were not impressed with the tone or found the wording ambiguous, human nature is to give the benefit of the doubt. "He probably just means..."

It really is easy to see why people read it and use it and don't really see the problems. I always say that if the problems were patently evident, no one would use it, and it would have never gained the momentum it did. But it DID gain momentum, and what's even more disturbing is that it was the early books which took hold and spread like wildfire. Criticism of those earlier editions was vigorously disputed by Ezzo and his followers at the time. And THAT is a very interesting and cautionary thought. :think

[Sister Ray]

I once asked a BW parent who said that it clearly said to feed the baby if the baby was hungry: "Then what makes that different from demand feeding?"

Cue long convulted explanation about the differences.

[snlmama]

I once asked a BW parent who said that it clearly said to feed the baby if the baby was hungry: "Then what makes that different from demand feeding?"

Cue long convulted explanation about the differences.


:roll I bet that was interesting, ;)

[abbzchld]

I haven't read BW but it scares me to think about the "what if..." What if someone had given me that book and it was the very first parenting book I read? I tend to jump into things pretty passionately. What if I had jumped into that instead of AP? It makes me relieved that I didn't read any parenting books or have any iota of parenting styles b/f dd was born. But still...what if? Could I have been convinced like so many other mamas? :sick :sick :sick

Julie

[katiekind]

I once asked a BW parent who said that it clearly said to feed the baby if the baby was hungry: "Then what makes that different from demand feeding?"

Cue long convulted explanation about the differences.

That's a good point. And Ezzo has taken to emphasizing how similar it is--the same as cue feeding, really, except for being so much better. :mrgreen

But it's those pesky improvements that create the problem. For example, if you authorize parents to feed the baby "early" as an attempt at mimicking cue feeding, it begs the question, "earlier than what?"

Well, earlier than the proper time. <--And there's the problem. Implanting in parents' minds the idea that the proper time for feeding is other than their baby's own hunger cues.

According to Ezzo, the proper time for feeding is the book's recommended interval, as of 2001, this was 2.5 - 3 hours for newborns with incrementally longer intervals for older babies.

As long as Ezzo portrays the proper time as being healthiest for the baby in the long run, as being essential to formation of healthy sleep habits, as being essential for a pleasant home and happy marriage, as being critical for the baby's later development--including character development--then some parents are going to hedge their bets and go with feeding at the proper time, particularly since, in contrast to the dire consequences of not feeding on schedule, Ezzo doesn't mention it could be that bad to make the baby wait a bit for his next scheduled feed. And you can use a pacifier, if you want, to help the baby wait.

The problem is that inexperienced parents who buy books that promise an "infant management plan" are uncomfortable winging it, deciding to feed a baby that may or may not be hungry or may just want to "snack" (as Ezzo puts it, as if it were potato chips and soda pop he was after), and they bought the book hoping it would help tell them what to do. The book itself informs them that it will, and that millions of families have followed its advice to the joy and satisfaction of all members of the family, "perhaps even the family pet" (as Ezzo oddly points out.)

These readers are influenced by the considerations Ezzo throws into the feeding decision equation. Feeding the baby isn't just feeding the baby, he points out. It's integrating life into your baby, and your baby into life, he says. Thus he connects decisions about feeding by schedule or by cue to enhancing or ruining the marriage. The decision will produce healthful sleep all night long or bondage to the baby's whims all night, for years to come. The child's disposition is on the line too, where one path will cultivate the ability to accept delayed gratification and the other path will produce a selfish person who has to have whatever she wants right this minute and doesn't care about the needs of others.

But go ahead and feed the baby earlier than the proper time, if you think he really needs it. It's your baby, your call.

And that's what makes it so different from cue feeding. :mad

[hey mommy]

When I was pg w/DS, DH's uncle gave BW to us for Christmas.. UGH.. I skimmed through it, read some it and vowed it would be the only book I willingly burned.

I'm curious if he uses it w/his own kids.. Yes, DH's 60-something yr. old uncle has a 5.5 year old and a 2-3 yr. old w/his 30-something yr. old wife. We went out to lunch w/them once and his 2 kids(including the 2 yr. old) sat like little angels while my almost 4 yr. old squirmed, moved, layed down on the chair. I looked like the schmutz of the family that day...

[milkmommy]

We went out to lunch w/them once and his 2 kids(including the 2 yr. old) sat like little angels while my almost 4 yr. old squirmed, moved, layed down on the chair. I looked like the schmutz of the family that day...
See this is another thing I really dislike about many "parenting" books is the ultra distorted view on behavior its given us. A 4 year old lying i chairs and squirming is totally normal and IMHO "appropiate" behavior. Part of parenting at that age is setting the boundries and that includes the shushing the "we don't runs" the here a piece of paper draw the lets listens the walks the No's all of it. :shrug To suggest that eliminating the need to parent makes us somehow a better parent is silly. :shrug.

Deanna

[hey mommy]

I totally agree Deanna...

[snlmama]

We went out to lunch w/them once and his 2 kids(including the 2 yr. old) sat like little angels while my almost 4 yr. old squirmed, moved, layed down on the chair. I looked like the schmutz of the family that day...
See this is another thing I really dislike about many "parenting" books is the ultra distorted view on behavior its given us. A 4 year old lying i chairs and squirming is totally normal and IMHO "appropiate" behavior. Part of parenting at that age is setting the boundries and that includes the shushing the "we don't runs" the here a piece of paper draw the lets listens the walks the No's all of it. :shrug To suggest that eliminating the need to parent makes us somehow a better parent is silly. :shrug.

Deanna


:yes that's a very good point.

[Quiteria]

But you certainly should go ahead and feed the baby early, if you think he really needs it. It's your baby, your call.

And that's what makes it so different from cue feeding. :mad


Yep. very subtle difference, yet so big. It's still not about feeding the baby when he/she thinks he/she reaaly feels like he/she really needs it. It's still pretending that you have a better understanding of interpreting hunger pangs better than the baby who's feeling them.

[ArmsOfLove]

The problem is that his logic appeals to parents (first time with no experience or tired) because it's adult logic. If only those children came wired with adult logic. If only parentin weren't intended by our Creator (ours and our children's!) to sharpen us and make us grow. Then it would be as easy as Ezzo suggests it *should*

[milkmommy]

It is ridiculous to think that a cue-feeding minded parent would be o.k. with letting six hours go by without feeding a newborn. roll eyes
See but this is where I found Ezzo soo dangerous. I had the baby that not only didn't sue feed but didn't feed when I offered She even with me offering was going like 6+ hours with no feeding and would sleep all night. I didn't think this was normal but when I inquired on the more ezzo support boards and sadly even the horrid doctor I had at that time I was told to be thankful that she would feed when she was hungry that no child would starve them self. :shrug

Deanna

[milkmommy]

:yes this was exactly what I experienced. I felt like such a looser mom when I discovered AP parenting and parents were fininally going like :jawdrop your how old slept how long!! Some wasn't too nice but it was also the first time someone finially said it was disturbing. :(. Harsh but the first steps I needed to take..
Deanna

[mom2threePKs]

When I'm meeting with new parents for an LC visit I ALWAYS teach feeding cues. Teach what they look like. How they are interpretted. Why they are important. Most new parents don't know what feeding cues are, aside from crying. I also teach that while they're getting to know their baby they need to use a clock as well. (I figure if they've read Ezzo they'll think I'm "like-minded"). That while watching for cues they can be mindful of how much time has passed so that if they notice the baby is cueing and its been 1.5 - 2 hours or so, that would be a good time to pick the baby up and try to feed. And conversely if it has been 2.5-3 hours and the baby is still sleeping it is a good time to watch carefully for a cue. Cueing babies wake up easier than baby's who are being awakened from a dead sleep becuase the clock says it is time.

Cue-feeders recognize that babies should and do give cues, and when they don't there is something wrong and the parent needs to step in and be proactive.

YES< YES< YES!!!!!! Babies are born to cue. A baby who TRULY doesn't cue should be evaluated and closely followed by their doctor.

Magan

[katiekind]

((((Deanna))))

I am sorry for your experience. How scary for you. :hugheart

When I read your experience, and then someone's response to it, I got confused whether your baby was two weeks or two months old when you started realizing something was wrong. Or have I misunderstood your story altogether? I'm thinking she must have been two months. Is that right?

[hey mommy]

Thankfully I took child care classes in college and researched a LOT before DS was born, so I learned a lot about babies before I even had one.. When C was a week or two old my dad came to visit and see him for the first time.. C started rooting around while my dad was holding him and my dad asked what he was doing. I said "he's rooting. he's hungry. He's looking for milk". My dad gasped and handed him to me and said "sorry kid, can't help you there!!" It was funny...

[Katherine]

What Kathy said in her longish post. :yes :yes The problem with these books is that when you try to implement then, you suddenly become aware that you're trying to live a contradiction.

Ezzo: Your baby *ought* to eat every 4 hours, and here's all the problems you'll cause for him if you cue feed.... but if you think he's hungry.. well.. go ahed and feed him. (Implied: it's your child to ruin)

Pearl: Training (e.g. switching a child for each and every misstep) is the only godly and effective way to raise kids. Your child will be a brat at best, and go to hell at worst, if you haven't whipped them into complete submission by a young age. Sit on them and hit them as many times as necessary until you break their will. but make sure you're tying "heart strings" and not being unduly harsh and that you're not provoking your child to anger or making them scared of you. (implied: if your child isn't responding "right" you're doing it wrong)

When parents get confused, or things aren't working, or there's a question, they default back to the "method" or tangible action b/c their parenting instincts have been so thoroughly undermined, or b/c their parenting instincts contradict the overall message of the book, and are therefore assumed to be wrong. :(

[illinoismommy]

The thing is, the current version (which I know is much changed from the original and from GKGW), is pretty subtle. To the average non-GB person, it sounds great and they probably don't have any warning bells going off because it is so toned down, and maybe that makes it more dangerous than the older versions.

That being said, it made my blood boil to see how he completely misrepresents AP. And it makes me sad because a lot of people who have never been exposed to AP and know nothing about it will take his word for what it is.


Good opening post! You are absolutely right. If its the first thing you read, you assume "okay, whatever this AP thing is... not for me...." manipulation at its best! And its true, the current version has taken out some of the shocking stuff that I hear was in the original.

[illinoismommy]

Another thing I noticed when I skimmed the first chapter this morning is that it leads you to feel like a failure if your child isn't low needs, because obviously you "created" your high needs baby. From day one, even following Babywise, David has cried more than his cousin who also was following Babywise. David was never the type to quietly calmly sit there. He still isn't. :shrug

[hink4687]

I haven't read through all the threads but just wanted to say the book gets MUCH worse as you read on! I thought the same thing when I first read it (before I was even preggo) and heard all the controversy over it. I couldn't understand why people were so upset about it while reading those early chapters. But as I read on it became more clear.

[eaving]

i think the danger lies in setting up a situation where its a battle: Parent vs Child.

The child is shown to be the adversary, and its up to the parent to be in control of the child, for the good of the family, otherwise its chaos and moral decay.

On the feeding 'before its time', its the parent who decides when its time, on naptimes, its again the parent who decides when its naptime and for how long they should be confined to their cot/bed. Whenever the parent is not in control, its apparently a misguided choice.

I think Ezzo appeals to our innate selfishness, that we want to be in control. This is all about control.

Its destructive for the parent/child relationship, and probably causes alot of stress in mothers who are torn between following this and their instincts.