Babies and Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs

According to Wikipedia, Abraham Harold Maslow  was an American psychologist who was best known for creating Maslow's hierarchy of needs, a theory of psychological health predicated on fulfilling innate human needs in priority, culminating in self-actualization.

Clearly, our most basic needs, those at the bottom of the pyramid must be met to our satisfaction before we are concerned for the next level.

For example, I will benefit from the support of friends and loved ones (level 3) as I seek further accomplishments that build my self esteem in the 4th level.   But, I cannot begin to focus on  making friends or seeking a mate if I am hungry and thirsty or if I haven't slept for two days. 

I think you know where this is going. 

But first, I want you to note that major changes and stresses in your life can cause you to revert back to a lower level at any time.  

For example: There's a world-wide pandemic, and everyone is ordered to stay home. Suddenly everything in your world has changed. Fear is widespread. You wonder - Are you safe from the disease? Are you doing everything to protect yourself and your loved ones? Are you still able to earn an income? Are you going to be able to take care of your family? 

If you find you are having an unusually difficult time coping with the changes, it's because you have been bumped back to a lower level on the hierarchy of needs. 

Another example: You realize that your husband has gradually become more jealous, controlling, and sometimes his words are downright abusive.  Sometimes he blows his stack when things don't go his way.  He may even be cheating on you. Everyone wonders why don't you just leave him. 

You can't leave because you have gradually been pushed back down into the lower levels of the hierarchy scale. Safety and security are no longer assured. You find it difficult to make decisions or move forward because if you leave, it means you will be back in the lowest level of the pyramid, seeking food and shelter.

As newborn babies we all begin seeking the most basic of needs, and luckily for parents, those basic needs are usually quite easy to fulfill. And, if the baby has a place to sleep and parents to care for him/her, he is safe and secure, too, and ready to begin building relationships with those around him.

But what about the unfortunate baby whose parents are practicing the "Infant Management System" as outlined in Gary Ezzo's "Babywise" book? Does the baby actually believe he is safe and secure?  He's so helpless, his very existence depends on others to meet his base-level needs. Will his cries be answered?

Following directions in the book, the parents response to crying is inconsistent. They may, or may not come to the crying baby based on where he is in the schedule. If it's night time or a predetermined nap time, Babywise parents will leave the baby crying alone in his crib to "teach him" how to sleep, ultimately delaying his ability to build close, intimate relationships

If Parents Use Common Sense....

Fans of Babywise don't like hearing from the critics that Ezzo's "Infant Management System" is not good for babies.  The claim  is that as long as you use common sense, everything will be fine.

The problem is that parenting books are usually read by first-time parents seeking wisdom from those with more experience.

Ezzo's book, On Becoming Babywise promises its readers that by simply following the schedule in the book, they will raise a happier, healthier, smarter baby who sleeps all night! It even claims that they will have such well-adjusted, secure, delightful children that people will notice and comment on it!

But the book does not promise - or even recommend - using common sense.

Why?

Because common sense would tell most people - parents or not - that leaving a little baby crying for  ALMOST FIVE HOURS like the above example is PROBABLY NOT GOOD for a baby!! 

Not so, for the Babywise parent. They are taught that this is perfectly normal and acceptable!

In fact, they are told that responding to a crying baby is bad parenting! 

The word "dangerous" is even used to ensure parents continue to ignore the crying baby!



What does Babywise advise for parents like the mom above?

The following excerpt is from the updated and improved Babywise '98 version, Chapter 12 "Principles for Starting Late," page 210

Review chapter 8, "When Your Baby Cries," and be prepared for some crying. You are moving from a high-comfort style of sleep manipulation to basic training in sleep skills. Initially your baby will not like this change, but it is necessary. In moments of parental stress, be comforted in knowing your baby won't feel abandoned because you have decided that the best thing for him is learning how to fall asleep on his own."  

Don't feel the necessity to check on your baby every five minutes while he or she is crying. If you go into your baby's room, try to do so without being seen. If necessary, move the crib so you can see the baby but the baby can't see you. If you feel you must soothe the child, go in briefly and pat him or her on the back. With a soft voice, say, "It's all right," then quietly leave. As a result, your baby will do one of two things; be comforted and fall asleep or roar even louder.

If your baby chooses the latter, don't be discouraged! The crying only means he or she has not developed the ability to settle himself or herself. That goal is precisely what you are working toward. 

Be patient and consistent. For some parents, success comes after one night; for others, it comes after two weeks. The norm, however, is three to five days. [Emphasis added]

So here we see a situation that would be extremely upsetting for those with common sense, but Mr. Ezzo frames it all as a good thing!
Notice the choice of words he uses to twist reality:

• Rocking and other calming, soothing techniques that help settle a baby to sleep is labelled "sleep manipulation."
• The baby's distress is portrayed as a positive milestone: "Crying proves that his ability to settle himself is developing!" 
• The only comfort offered is to the distressed adult! "If you feel you must soothe the child..."
• The "soothing" he permits is only a brief pat on the back and quick exit... not something that even adults would find comforting if we've been crying and felt abandoned.
• His wording implies that the baby actually makes a conscious decision regarding his behavior, "choosing" to roar even louder over the parent's brief visit.
• If it takes two weeks of sleepless nights while you try to NOT hear your baby crying, that's perfectly normal too, in Ezzo's view. This is actually about training YOU to ignore the sound of your baby crying. Is that common sense?
• Finally, the ridiculous claim that your baby won't feel abandoned. What an insane statement!
• He tells you - twice - to make sure the baby cannot see you. 
• How could a baby - or any other human being - NOT feel abandoned when he cries and  screams and nobody comes to see what's wrong? 
• The bizarre "reason" he gives that your baby won't feel abandoned? "because you have decided that the best thing for him is learning how to fall asleep." What a ludicrous conclusion!  How does a parent's decision nullify a baby's feelings? 

• Imagine for a moment that someone that you know and love considered that maybe you spend too much time on the phone with each other, and so without consulting you, they decide  one day to stop answering all your calls. Hours go by and you get no response.

It wouldn't take long before you would think something must be terribly wrong...

I would!

Ezzo goes further, to praise the parents who ignore their crying babies -  as those who work at "helping their child  gain this "fundamental skill":(1)

Parents who love their babies give them what they need; young children need a good night's sleep. (2)

Moms who have made the transition from sleepless nights to peaceful sleep report that their children not only gain the advantage of continuous nighttime sleep, but their daytime disposition also changes. They appear happier, more content, and definitely more manageable.

Note the problems with this text:

(1) Sleeping is not a "fundamental skill" to be taught like reading, or using a fork. All God's creatures sleep when they are tired; they don't need to be trained to do so. Ezzo's training will teach them not to cry, because they will soon learn crying is ineffective. Sleep will come, of course, but not because the child has learned a "skill" ahead of his peers. The Ezzoed baby is resigned to sleep from exhaustion, boredom - or despair.

(2) Parents with common sense who love their babies give them what they need. Babies and young children need a good night's sleep, along with the security of having loving parents with the compassion, empathy, and patience needed to care for them, day AND NIGHT, in those early years. 

In that security they feel safe enough to learn and grow and become all they are meant to be. 

Can't we be friends? A Parents' Dilemma

Can't We Be Friends?

 At a Christian Bible Study Group the women were discussing the book of Titus, where Paul speaks about the different roles of those within the church. Our group was considering our roles as wives and mothers, based upon these verses:

Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.  ~ Titus 2:3-5

Verse 4 tells the older women (that's me) to teach the younger to love their husbands and children.  

I wondered what was actually to be taught about "loving" their husbands. Having been associated with a "Christian" cult group in the past, I have learned to be very careful about what the Bible says, compared with what someone says that is says.    

I wondered if the word for love in this verse is the Greek word agape, the self-sacrificing love that expects nothing in return, as is used throughout the "Love Chapter" of 1 Corinthians 13. Or perhaps in this case it was the word eros, which refers to sexual love. That might make for some lively discussion! 

I was wrong on both counts. The word for love in this verse is philia, which means "affectionate regard, friendship," usually "between equals." 

I checked on my favorite online site for bible study for further information:

The last two words in this verse - translated as "to love their husbands" and  "to love their children," - are philandros and philoteknos. 

These two words do not appear anywhere else in the bible. They are made from two words,

 "philio - aner" and "philio - teknos." 

Hovering the cursor over the word highlights it in red and gives the English meaning:

The two words mean "friend of man," and "friend of children."

Back the Christian women's group. Philandros. Loving our husbands. 

We discussed ways maintain a true friendship with our husbands. Making them feel special.  Finding  their "Love Language." Comparing that friendship to the one we have for our "besties". Preserving friendship with our husbands can so easily be overlooked during our busy lives with small children. We each shared things we enjoy doing with our husbands to uphold that friendship between mom and dad. 

I then asked about our Philoteknos. Enjoying friendship with our children, which can also be difficult to maintain when we're so focused on trying to teach them how to behave.

"I would never try to be friends with my children," said one mom, "I have friends already." Another mom agreed. "You are their PARENT, not their friend!" Insisted a third.

I was not surprised by their comments, considering what Gary Ezzo and  Debi Pearl and many other Christian authors say, but I was troubled. Why would you not consider a friendly relationship with your own children? 
Wouldn't you want to be friends with people you will be living with for twenty years?  

I have been friends with my children since they were nursing babies!
I used to call them my "bosom buddy" or my "breast friend! "And why not? We loved each other and we enjoyed being together every single day. 

Does this mean I had no authority over my children?
Of course not!  Can a hungry infant make himself a sandwich? Can he keep himself clean and warm? Ultimately my child relies totally on whatever I will - or will not - do for him / her. I am in supreme control. 

But in dealing with my children I also follow The Golden Rule:

 “All things, therefore, that you want men to do to you, you also must do to them. This, in fact, is what the Law and the Prophets mean

How I speak to my children, how I teach them and how I correct them - and in fact how I treat  anyone - should reflect the way I would like to be treated.  

Discipline is easier and more effective. 

How do I want to be treated when I am struggling to learn new things? How do I want to be treated when I mess up? 

How can one be an effective disciplinarian and still be friendly?

 

Imagine you have a demanding, critical boss. You are nervous and try to stay away from him or her.  You are afraid to bring bad news. You How do you feel when they are angry? You might feel like you are "walking on eggshells." Some  might call in sick when they aren't sick, feel justified in taking extra-long breaks or stealing from the supply cupboard.  Serves them right for being such a jerk.

But suppose you have a great boss who you really like, and for whom you actually enjoy working? You hate to upset the nice boss, and know things will be all right if you are honest, even when you mess up. 

 Likewise, when you are the "nice boss" over your kids, they're more cooperative with your authority.

In his book On Becoming Babywise, Gary Ezzo, like many Christian authors strongly advises parents to avoid being "buddies" with their children in order to maintain authority over them: 

The idea is especially appealing to a generation that has pondered the considerable lack of friendship with their own parents. However, reducing the parental role to the child's level or raising the child to the status of peer will not, in the end, produce friendship. True friendship cannot be forced before its time.

Ezzo warns that your friendship will "reduce the parental role to the child's level or raise the child to the status of peer." 

His mistake is in confusing a friend with a peer; they are not the same thing.
Peers are persons of equal standing socially or financially - not necessarily your friends.
A friend is someone with whom you have a bond of affection, and not necessarily a peer.
My peers might be those with whom I attend school or work. I will be friendly towards them, but might not socialize outside of work-related activities.
My friends are the people I love to spend time with whether they are 20 years older than me or 20 years younger me. Friends don't necessarily have the same career choice, hobbies, financial status or education as I. One of my dear friends, Mae, is more than 30 years older than me, but I love spending time with her, learning from her and enjoying her sense of humor. 

Even a dog can be "Man's best friend," though clearly one is in authority over his friend.

 And of course the best example is the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the ultimate authority, and yet calls Himself our friend. 

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends

John 15:13-15

 Buddy Status and Blossoming relationships from the Babywise Book

 In his book On Becoming Babywise, author Gary Ezzo uses fictional characters to demonstrate what he sees as the problem with befriending your children: 

Chelsea's parents understand that virtues must be nurtured into her tiny heart. These virtues are not inherent in her life or any new life. Parents must train these attributes into the heart of their child. Therefore, they must govern and monitor her until they are assured she bears the self-control and moral awareness needed to govern herself....

Back at Marisa's home, her [Attachment Parenting] mom and dad continue to strive for buddy status. They yearn for friendship, elevating Marisa to the level of peer. And  what could be more noble than a family made up of friends? The idea is especially appealing to a generation that has pondered the considerable lack of friendship with their own parents. However, reducing the parental role to the child's level or raising the child to the status of peer will not, in the end, produce friendship. True friendship cannot be forced before its time.

Time and experience are prerequisites for building any friendship. Children enter this world with neither. Wisdom, self-control, and the experiences earned over time must be trained into a child by those granted this unique privilege--the parents... 

Chelsea's [Babywise-following] parents understand this, knowing that friendship with their daughter is a gift that only time can give. In the meantime, they must represent her best interests. They set the pace in chelsea's life and insist upon compliance..... 

By the end of Chelsea's teen years, a beautiful friendship with her parents will begin to blossom. Indeed, this should be every parent's goal. [BW '98, p.25]

By the end of the teen years? 

Time and experience may be prerequisites for friendship, but TWENTY YEARS?

If I had to wait 20 years before I would deem someone worthy of any friendship with me beginning to blossom, I'd have no friends at all!  How hard it must be to live with someone for all those years and not enjoy a friendship with them - until it's time for them to leave.

Ezzo followed his own advice, unfortunately while waiting for that "beautiful friendship to begin to blossom." Now that his daughters are grown, they no longer have any relationship with their parents at all.* He is reaping exactly what he has sown: another generation ... has pondered the considerable lack of friendship with their own parents. 

How very, very sad for them.

 *see www.ezzo.info for details of their estrangement

To Train Up A Child

The book  called "To Train Up a Child" by Mike and Debi Pearl is very popular among Christians. I mention it here because many who use the Ezzo's  programs also follow the Pearl's philosophy of parenting.

The Pearls' idea of child training involves pro-actively teaching the child immediate unquestioning obedience through early training sessions.

 The introduction of the book says,

"The emphasis is on the training of a child before the need to discipline arises. It is apparent that, though they expect obedience, most parents never attempt to train their child to obey. They wait until his behavior becomes unbearable and then explode. With proper training, discipline can be reduced to 5% of what many now practice."

An example of obedience training would be to place your baby on your lap and tell him to sit still. If he attempts to move, you strike him. Every time he tries to move or he protests, you repeat the spanking/switching/swatting/licking or whatever they call it until the child is broken and defeated. Mission accomplished; the child will now obey the order.

You can find an excellent summary of quotes from the Pearl's book HERE.

The Pearls insist that they are NOT "punishing" but simply "training the child to obey."

Yikes. There are a lot of problems with this mentality. Where to begin?

Let's begin with the title of the book, To Train Up A Child, since the Pearl's entire book is based on part of this one verse.

This comes from a verse in the Old Testament of the Bible, in Proverbs 22:6. It consists of 6 Hebrew words which the King James version uses 21 English words to translate as follows:

Train up a child in the way he should go,  

and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

Hebrew is a pictorial language, so lets look at each of these word-pictures to find out what these words tell us,

חָנַךְ  chanak  - This word is used 5 times in the bible. Four times it is translated as "dedicate" and refers to dedicating a house to the Lord.  The word is a verb derived from the word for the jaw or palate, meaning to make narrow, or to put something in the mouth to be tasted - metaphorically used to "taste and understand" something: to initiate or commence to use, to instruct or train. This is the only place where it is translated as "train up."

נַעַר  na`ar  - a boy, lad, servant, youth, retainer.  This word is generally used for a boy who is independent of his mother.  The word is translated only once as "babe," in Exodus 2:6, referring to Moses when he was found floating in a basket in the river - away from his mother.

דֶּרֶךְ  derek  - way, road,  journey, manner, distance. This word is usually translated as "way" (590 times) and another 60 or so times as "toward," "journey," or "manner."

פֶּה  peh  - mouth. Yes, that's right, MOUTH. It carries a sense of blowing or breathing; speech; an orator or spokesman. It can mean the opening of a bag, an edge (like the teeth) or a border (like the lips).  It usually means simply "mouth" (390 times of the 498 times it appears in the bible) but is also translated  as "commandment,"  (37x), edge (35x), according (22x), word (15x), hole (6x), and other miscellaneous uses. It seems very odd that in this one verse it is translated as "he should go." There must be another meaning. זָקֵן  zaqen - to be old or become old. The word pictures an old man with his chin hanging down, decrepid. It is used 26 times in the bible as "old" and once as "aged." סוּר  cuwr  - to turn aside, to depart, to be removed or taken away, to come to an end. A few things to note about what these 6 words tell us: 1. The first word portrays a narrowing, a dedication, tasting, and instruction. Focused attention perhaps? 2. The second word means a boy. Not a baby. Young man or teenager perhaps, but certainly one old enough to be independent of his mother 3. The third word is usually translated "way."  Narrow / dedicate  a lad's way/journey... 4. MOUTH.  What does 'mouth'  mean in this verse? - dedicate the lad's journey from his very first BREATH? - narrow the boy's journey with verbal instruction? Perhaps it relates to 'feeding' on the Word of God as in Psalm 34:8: "Taste and see that the Lord is Good..." What this verse does NOT suggest is "training up" through punishment! Nor does it talk about babies. Even if it did mention punishment, we would have to conclude it has something to do with the mouth -commanding? scolding?  biting the child to teach him a lesson?! To summarize the word pictures:  Dedicate/make narrow -- boy/lad -- way/journey --  mouth/breath/commandment/according to -- old/aged -- turn aside/depart What to YOU think this proverb is teaching you?  Despite the use of this verse as their book's title, there is no mention of the punitive tactics the Pearls promote as the proper way to "train up" children.

And furthermore...

Why take a few scriptures from the Old Testament to justify spankings while ignoring the rest of the Bible's message about love, forgiveness, redemption, and grace?

We don't hold fast to the Old Testament rule about stoning disobedient ones, why hold fast to the few OT proverbs to justify spanking small children?

God is patient with us and doesn't immediately strike us every time we disobey. He allows us to learn from the natural consequences of our disobedience. He sent Jesus to take punishment FOR us. He forgives us and teaches us a little at a time, to grow to become more like Him.



Also note that this verse does not appear in the Septuagint. Perhaps its not all that important.




There are many excellent Christian books on discipline that avoid using corporal punishment. 

How I became obsessed about Babywise.

 I was a La Leche League Leader for many years. I considered becoming a Certified Lactation Consultant, and looking into it one day,  I discovered a website where Lactation Counselors shared their professional information and experience.
One Lactation Consultant was sharing her exasperation in working with a new mom whose baby was not gaining weight sufficiently. The LC had recommended the mom feed the baby more frequently.



The mother had refused.
Breastfeeding on demand was out of the question. She would agree to any herbal remedies,  prescription medicine, or special techniques, but she was a Christian, she explained, and would not feed on demand, because it was not "Godly parenting."

WHAT?!

There's a Godly - and ungodly - way to nurse your baby?!

At the time I read this post, I had been a bible-believing Christian for ten years and a La Leche League Leader for almost twenty years. The LLL Leader who had mentored me through breastfeeding and mothering was also the person who led me to a relationship with Jesus Christ. Prior to that, I had been involved in one of the offshoots of Christianity - misled by one of the popular cults that I won't name - which had guided me into some erroneous doctrine.

But what kind of a crazy mind-control cult could convince parents that feeding a newborn baby when it seems hungry was anti-Christ?

With my background in cults and La Leche League and several years of breastfeeding knowledge and experience, I needed to know more about this! 

I immediately began to search and soon found chat-rooms discussing this book called Babywise. The author seemed to have an almost cult-like following of committed believers quoting "For our God is not a god of disorder..." as a reason to put a baby on a strict feeding schedule!

What in the world? That couldn't be right. I had to find out more.

I went to the Christian bookstore to find this book. I found the '95 version and I skimmed through it at the bookstore.
 It said that nursing "less than a two-and-a-half-hour interval can wear mom down, often causing a decrease in milk production."  That is completely false information.
It said sleeping with your baby is "passively abusive" and would leave children in "a state of abnormal dependency." Nonsense!
It said these children would repeatedly bang their heads on the floor! As a La Leche League Leader for almost 20 years, I had known literally hundreds of moms whose babies slept with them, and never, ever heard of such problems in any La Leche League families.
It said if a two-week-old baby falls asleep while nursing and then wakes up hungry, you must make her wait until the next scheduled feeding. That's just cruel! How could anyone be so heartless? Refuse to feed a newborn baby - because of a clock?

I decided not to purchase the book because I couldn't bear the idea of lining that author's pocket with my money!

I needed to know more about the people who actually do this, so I joined an online group for moms who use the Babywise parenting method. I wasn't the only one questioning - and arguing against - their philosophy. Again and again they would tell the nay-sayers "You cannot criticize it if you haven't even read the book!" So, reluctantly, I bought the book - the newer 1998 version.

I decided to be very open-minded, reading that book as if I were not a mother of six, but a new first-time mom seeking guidance.
As a La Leche League Leader it was difficult to read through all the breastfeeding misinformation and downright lies.  The author criticizes the Internationally Board-Certified Lactation Counselors as being "heavily biased in favor of the attachment parenting theories." Mr. Ezzo, who has ZERO training in lactation, refers to the LC's as "the lactation industry" and even claims THEY are the ones lacking "a working understanding of routine breast-feeding dynamics." !!

Admitedly however, as I continued to read I actually thought the book made a lot of sense. Perhaps Ezzo was right. If I had simply been more proactive in aiming for consistent feeding intervals with my babies as the book recommends, perhaps it would have smoothed out their inborn "metabolic chaos" and my little ones might have begun to sleep through the night earlier!  I was intrigued by the promises of children who he claimed would be more content, easier to manage, smarter, a joy to behold, and so on!

Then I got to Chapter 8.

Chapter Eight: "When Your Baby Cries."

To summarize this chapter: Ignore your baby's crying.

-If baby cries when you lay him down for a nap, ignore it: that is "normal" crying, because he's "learning a new skill."
-If baby cries in the middle of the nap, ignore it; that is "normal" crying, as he's just coming out of a sleep cycle.
-If baby cries at the end of a nap, ignore it; that is "normal" crying, because it's feeding time. He's just hungry and will be eating, shortly.
-If baby cries after feeding, ignore it; it's his own fault because he didn't finish eating his meal properly. You must not permit him to "snack," so you let him cry to teach him a lesson about finishing his meal properly. (As if snacking is somehow a moral failure for rapidly growing babies!)
-If baby is over eight weeks old and still wants fed during the night, ignore it. It's just a bad habit. Three nights of ignoring the crying should fix it.
-If baby cries for no apparent reason, well, don't fret; that's just what babies do.

He then describes examples of "normal" crying in his own grandchildren. Interestingly, though he claims three nights of crying it out usually puts an end to these struggles, he admits that after three months of  consistent "training" all of his grandbabies were still crying occasionally at naptimes. (page 147)

Ezzo describes this method of extinguishing crying as "teaching" your baby the "skill" of sleep.
Your job during this "teaching?" You simply listen to the crying. This is supposedly so you will get to know what's "normal" for your child.

But more likely, this is meant to train your own ears to become immune to the sound. Why? Because the sound of a crying infant naturally upsets people -  as it's meant to! - especially the baby's mother! That's why you must train yourself to go against your natural inclination.  Ezzo even tells parents that motherly instincts are detrimental to our babies!

 He writes, "Mother's decisions without assessment can be dangerous."

 and  "Emotional mothering can set the stage for child abuse."(page 150)

Attempts to comfort and soothe a crying baby are now re-framed as "blocking the baby's cry" - as if by soothing her baby she's somehow obstructing baby's development!

 By blocking the cry, mother loses confidence in her own decision making.
She also misses out on assessing the child's real needs.... she probably is missing her baby's primary cues.

He even admits that babies who are carried, nursed on demand, and sleep with their mama cry very little - but he claims this is not good, because "this parenting philosophy calls for the suppression of all crying" He doesn't believe a good mother should allow her heartfelt emotions to assist in decision-making! sleep habits are of utmost importance!

To summarize, Chapter 8 actually got to the truth of the Babywise method:
It isn't being fed routinely that trains babies into sleeping, it's being ignored that teaches babies that crying is hopeless.
If quiet nights are your only goal, well, this book can probably help you accomplish that.


Continuing my pursuit

I  spent countless hours online reading Ezzo debates, Ezzo support groups, testimonies, and watching some youtube vlogs. The best resource for all things Ezzo is http://www.ezzo.info/

On the online Babywisers support group, someone said, "The Babywise book is really helpful as a guide. The critics don't realize the biblical viewpoint behind the guidelines. If they knew the scriptural reasoning they'd understand why we faithfully follow the program."

So I got on eBay, and purchased a used copy of  Preparation for Parenthood course, complete with eight weeks of audio tapes for teaching classes and a study guide.
I listened to the tapes, read the workbook, and studied the scriptures he mentions.
It was all extremely manipulative and very disturbing.

I then purchased:

•  Babywise II: Parenting your pre-toddler 5-18 months,
•  Preparation for the Toddler years series with book and tapes,
•  Childwise, 
• "Birth By Design" by Anne Marie Ezzo 

(All were purchased used, to avoid putting another dollar in that author's pocket.)

One thing I do not have is personal experience with Ezzo families. It is not promoted in my church. I personally know of only a couple of families who used the program, not enough make any conclusions about the effects of its use.

 To summarize what has caused my crazy obsession Babywise:

1. As a La Leche League Leader, I know Ezzo's breastfeeding information is terrible.
  With no background in infant feeding nor in human lactation, Ezzo has no business writing a book about a feeding program.

2. As a Christian, I’m concerned that Ezzo uses scripture out of context to make a point. 
{I do the same thing in this very blog!} 
Also, scripture tells women to learn about caring for our children from other women, not men (Titus 2:3-5).

3. As an attachment-style parent, I know Ezzo is either extremely misinformed about what AP entails, or else is lying in order to mislead parents.
 If he’s lying, we can’t trust anything he says. If he’s misinformed, he has no right to author a book criticizing a parenting philosophy about which he knows so little.

4. As a mother of six, I know his one-size-fits-all approach to parenting is unrealistic and rigid. 
Every baby is different; every family is different. And my motherly heart breaks for every little crying baby who is being ignored for the sake of a clock.

5. As a former cult member, I see very cult-like attitudes among the followers of this program. Especially the Prep for Parenthood because a) its taught in churches as if it's The Truth; and 
b) the attendees continue to support each other in enforcing the methods, compared to one who might read the book alone and if dissatisfied, discard it

6. As a trained Psychiatric Nurse, I can accept his program does indeed "work" but sadly, that's  because excessive sleep is a well-known symptom of depresssion. 
Sleeping can be a defense mechanism for feelings of hopelessness. 
What could be more hopeless than to be a completly helpless newborn, and realize that nobody will come when you call? 

Finally, I want to point out that oftentimes the baby is NOT actually sleeping through the night when the parent claims they are.
 - Sometimes the parents are simply lying, because Ezzo and his followers believe difficult nights are proof of bad parenting.
 - Sometimes it's because the parents have trained their own ears not to hear it any more. The sounds you deem irrelevant can easily be ignored, just like when you stop noticing traffic or a chiming clock after you become accustomed to it.
  I have spent the night at someone's home and witnessed this myself, waking up to a baby crying twice during each night I stayed there. The parents didn't hear a thing.

Good News!

 

Brand new copies of Babywise were offered for fifty cents at Chapters.
I guess nobody wants the nasty book any more!

10 Lies About Attachment Parenting

In his church-based Parenting Program called "Preparation for Parenthood" and his secular book "On Becoming Babywise," author Gary Ezzo portrays his Infant Management System as a superior parenting method resulting in content, well-behaved children and confident, well-rested happy parents.  
To make his point, he contrasts his method against Attachment-Style Parenting, portraying its proponents as ill-informed, secular humanists who attempt to be their child's 'buddy' rather than a decent parent, ultimately resulting in children who are self-centered, chaotic, and ill-prepared for the world.

This blog corrects a few of the misconceptions (or outright lies) that Mr. Ezzo writes about Attachment Parenting.

Note :
"PFP" = Preparation for Parenting (Ezzo's church-based parenting program)
"BW" = Babywise (Ezzo's secular book based on the church-based program)
"AP" = Attachment Parenting (A style of parenting that focuses on becoming closely tuned to your baby)
"PDF" = Parent Directed Feeding (The feeding schedule described in Babywise)

1. Ezzo claims Attachment Parents follow a “Neoprimitivistic” school of thought  that hopes to “undo birth trauma.” (Babywise’98 pg 31-2)

Attachment Parenting proponents believe first and foremost that families thrive when they have close, loving attachments to one another. Starting from birth, you respect your baby as an individual, communicating your unconditional love by responding to the baby's cries.  You learn subtle ways that your child communicates. Understanding your child better leads to better communication, ultimately avoiding many negative behaviors and conflicts.

The term “Attachment Parenting” was coined by Dr. William Sears, author of a book by the same name along with his wife and co-author who are parents of eight children. He is a pediatrician and his wife, Martha, served as a La Leche League Leader. Together they are well-qualified to share information about normal growth and development, breastfeeding, baby care,  and parenting.
In contrast, Gary Ezzo and his wife, Ann Marie, parents of two, have no experience or credentials in lactation or child development.

AP theorists today believe that babies are born with lingering womb attachments and that birth only changes the way the attachment need is met... an artificial womb-like environment must be maintained after birth. Why would a parent wish to stagnate a natural progression of their child's life?  (BW pg 33-34}

("Does the birthing process really create psychologically fragile children?" ~ BW '98 p.36)

 Attachment Parents are not attempting to "undo birth trauma" as Babywise claims, but to welcome the baby to the world with love and and help the baby adapt with gentleness.

 However, it must be said that the Birth Trauma theory of which Ezzo is skeptical surfaced after birth had indeed become quite traumatic for babies. During the early part of the last century, births began occurring in institutions for the first time in history. In contrast to being born at home surrounded by supportive family members and a midwife, the standard delivery method in American hospitals at this point involved babies being pulled out of their unconscious mothers by metal forceps. Drugs given to the mother negatively affected the babies' inclination to begin breathing, so newborns were grasped by the feet, held by the ankles and slapped to make them gasp and breathe. Rather than transitioning from womb to world on its mother body as the placenta completed its job, the umbilical cord was immediately clamped and cut so the baby could be taken to a nursery for resuscitation - and for observation, since unconscious mothers cannot care for their own babies.
 I would definitely call this introduction into the world traumatic. One cannot "undo" trauma.

2. Ezzo claims Attachment Parents cannot be Christians. 

He says that Christians who practice attachment parenting “are Christians up to a point… [but  are not subjecting] their personal opinions, reasoning, and emotions to the guidelines of Scripture...” (PFP pg. 21)

a) La Leche League
Far from a group of "neo-primitivistic secular humanists,"  the founding mothers of La Leche League were members of a close-knit church; they began La Leche League as part of a community outreach.

The idea for La Leche League was conceived at a church picnic, when nursing mothers had been approached by several other moms expressing their regret in not being able to breastfeed. The church had recently hosted a series called the Christian Family Movement in which attendees were encouraged to reach out to others in the community. The nursing mothers recognized that helping other mothers succeed in breastfeeding was a God-given opportunity. They realized that by helping mothers, they helped entire families, and if they helped families, they were helping the whole community.

Most of the founding moms themselves had not been successful either when trying to breastfeed their first  babies. Each of them had learned by experience that the secret of success was to watch the baby instead of the clock, nursing the new baby as often as the baby seemed to need it.

This was a terribly radical idea at the time. Science was the new god. Doctors, rather than mothers, delivered babies. Doctors, rather than mothers, decided how babies were to be fed. Doctors regulated the times babies were to be fed. Formula was new, modern and scientific; breastfeeding was seen as something the lower animals did. Formula was expensive but seen as superior, especially in an era of prosperity. Breastfeeding was for the poor.

The name "La Leche League" was chosen because 'breast' or 'breastfeeding' were words that could not be used in polite company in the 1950's.

b) Dr. William Sears
Dr. Sears is a pediatrician, and author of Christian Parenting. His wife, also Christian, is a nurse and a La Leche League Leader

c) It is extremely arrogant to say anyone not feeding their child on Ezzo's schedule cannot be Christian.

d) If Ezzo's PDF program were indeed a Godly parenting program, it would be the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. This schedule could not work in Jesus' time when people did not have timepieces.
It would not work for Christians in less developed nations where fewer people rely on clocks.

e) Ezzo recognizes that mothers in less-developed nations carry their babies attached in wraps or slings "out of convenience" but he claims mothers in North America are only doing so because they are afraid the child is suffering Birth Trauma.

d) In Preparation for Parenting, Ezzo attacks Christians who AP as follows: 

Here are three questions for the Christian community to consider:
(1) Did God make a mistake when creating the birthing process by introducing trauma?
(2) Did Jesus suffer from psychic shock and separation anxiety as a result of His birth?
(3) Was Mary a bad mother because she laid Jesus in a manger (literally a feeding crib) and not a family bed? To all three questions, we answer "no."

I would answer:
(1) God did not make a mistake creating the birthing process, but MAN made the mistake of messing with it, thinking they can improve upon it.
(2) If Jesus had been born in modern times, yes! If born today, Jesus would have been ultrasounded several times in his mother's womb, his birth would be induced by 40 weeks, monitored and assisted by forceps, scissors, scalpel or cesarean section. His cord would be clamped before it finished its function, so He could be taken from his mother, and would likely have a tube put in his nose, mouth, possibly even lungs suction fluids, then medicine would be put in his eyes, and He'd be injected with Vitamin K. He'd be placed on a metal scale, weighed, measured and tagged, then taken to the NICU for observation, due to the  increased risks involved in virgin birth.
 And yes, this would likely cause some psychic shock and separation anxiety.
(3) No, Mary was not a bad mother because she put her baby in a manger. It was probably the only place not covered in animal manure and amniotic fluid.
I also doubt that Mary and Joseph would have toted a feeding crib with them when they fled to Egypt in the middle of the night.

Here are three questions I would ask Mr. Ezzo to consider:
(1) Did Mary have a clock in Jesus' nursery?
(2) Did she have to check the sundial to know when it was time to feed her baby?
(3) Without a clock, how was she able to stretch out his feeding intervals in 15-minute increments as he grew? Or measure the time he spent in his playpen to "develop mental focusing skills, a sustained attention span, creativity, and orderliness"? [BW'98 pp190-191]

 His "infant management program" is obviously not feasible for Christians living in less-developed nations - or else all believers outside of the Western world are "only Christian up to a point."

 3. Ezzo states that for Attachment Parents, the primary signal for food is the baby’s cry. (BW '98 page 33)

This is not correct and it is not descriptive of attachment parenting.

a). Crying is not the primary signal for food; crying is a late signal for hunger.
In other words, after the baby has been hinting - after the baby has been rooting and smacking his lips and getting restless, after the baby has been asking politely for several minutes - as the mother continues to overlook or ignore these signals, then comes the late signal: he cries to get her attention. Nobody was paying attention to his increasing distress until he cried. 

Attachment mothers notice the early signals, and respond when the baby asks politely. That is why they cry less. 
That is also what psychologists call Positive Reinforcement. If you wait until baby cries, you are teaching your baby to cry for what he wants.

b) Ezzo does not understand that nursing is not just “food” from a different container. Formula may be a substitute for mother’s milk, but bottles do not substitute for mother’s soft body, her smell, her voice and her warmth and her taste, which-unlike formula- changes throughout the feeding and from feed to feed.
Attachment Parents recognize the baby needs a mother's presence as much he needs her milk. Her breast is a source of comfort and nurture and delight, - and this is biblical: "that you may nurse and be satisfied from her consoling breast; that you may drink deeply with delight from her glorious abundance...Her children will be nursed at her breasts, carried in her arms, and held on her lap. I will comfort you there in Jerusalem as a mother comforts her child."  ~ Isaiah 66:11-13

 4. Ezzo believes you can hurt a baby by picking him up too much (page141) and disapproves of the use of baby slings, even claiming this hinders the child's development. (page 34) He strongly encourages the use of playpens as a 'structured learning environment.' (p.190)

Attachment parents use a sling for many reasons. 

a) It’s convenient, keeping the baby where you can see it, the cat can’t jump on it and the toddler can’t poke it. Mother doesn't need to keep going to check on the baby.
b) It's easier than a stroller in many situations (walking in rough terrain, at the beach, in the woods, etc.)
c) It keeps baby content. They are soothed and calmed by mother's familiar movements.

d) It benefits the baby's learning. When baby is at eye level,  he is able to see what his mother does  and how she does it, constantly watching and learning about the world he lives in. This enhances his intellectual development as well as social development.
e)  Lying alone in a crib or playpen hinders development! Carring actually enhances the baby's development in a variety of ways. http://www.bobafamily.com/research/strollers-baby-carriers-and-infant-stress/
f) Moms quickly recognize changes in the baby’s movement that indicate things like hunger, sleepiness, and discomfort, and respond accordingly.
g) They are simply following the wisdom of their ancestors and sisters and around the world.  (http://www.hybridrastamama.com/2011/04/babywearing-around-the-world.html .)

Ezzo mentions the women “in some third-world nations and primitive settings, [carrying] their babies in an infant sling as they move through their day. Their actions are not based on a need to create an attachment with their child nor spurred on by Freud’s writing. For these mothers it is simply a matter of convenience and safety.” (page189)

Attachment parents agree. They do not use a sling to 'create attachment' or because they care about Freud's writing. It's convenient and safer than leaving your baby alone, whether you're in a primitive world or not.

5. Ezzo claims babies raised by Attachment Parents are insecure.

Ezzo says, “A baby’s security is tied to his or her developing relationships with mom and dad, not simply the proximity of mom. The child who is physically attached to mom through baby slings and shared sleep is not necessarily experiencing relational attachment. That statement is easily proven. Just remove the child from mom at any point and observe how secure he or she appears. It’s disheartening for a parent to see and hear her own child in a state of hysteria under the stress of independence.”  (pg 139-140)

a) Why is he using ‘the stress of independence’ to prove ‘relational attachment?’ Doesn't a child's stress upon being removed from mother PROVE his attachment to her? Or does Ezzo think indifference to his mother's absence proves attachment?

b) How does the Babywised child's indifference to his parents' absence show more of a 'developing relationship' than the child who appears distressed? Isn't indifference indicative of a weaker relationship?

c) Is your goal to rear children who are attached to their loved ones or indifferent to them?

d) How you can have a good developing relationship with mom and dad without proximity?

e) Why would he think that a little baby - who is incapable of getting his own food or keeping himself warm - shouldn't be upset when left alone?

 f) I would remind the reader how disheartening it is for a parent to see and hear her own child in a state of hysteria when he needs to sleep away from home. Having a baby who must have his own crib in his own room in order to sleep has its disadvantages. 

 Ezzo says, “Try placing an “attached” baby in his own crib and in all probability there will be a great deal of crying” (Babywise ’98 pg. 139)
Of course! The baby would cry because he is not accustomed to being left there.

But try taking the Babywised child on a camping trip, or to a hotel, or to Grandma's house and in all probability there will be a great deal of crying. Baby can't sleep in a strange place. Meanwhile, the attached baby will fall asleep and stay asleep anywhere. His security is not in his furniture, but in the proximity of those who love and care for him.

 6. Ezzo claims that frequent nursing is so exhausting that many mothers quit prematurely, and that PDF moms are better rested. 

Actually, studies show that nursing mothers get the most sleep. http://www.scienceandsensibility.org/?p=3618

Frequent nursing assures more than just milk supply; it also increases maternal hormones in the mother - hormones designed to make her feel loving, calm, and motherly, delighting in her baby. These hormones increase every time she breastfeeds. Wouldn't you want a child's mother to feel more loving, more nurturing, more calm? Far from the “mutual discontentment” he predicts (pg.44)  when a mother feeds on demand, the mother who nurses more often is happier and more content. 

The more often she nurses, the higher her hormone levels, the less she cares how much she nurses!

This is a gift from God, ensuring we find joy and contentment in caring for our babies so we don’t leave them outside for the buzzards!

Ezzo is correct in saying the AP baby will in all likelihood continue to waken at night longer than the PDF child. However, night waking is not nearly the same problem for Attachment Parents as it is for the PDF mom:

 Since the AP mother believes in sleeping with or near baby, this means

• She doesn’t have to go to the baby’s room and sit in a chair for those feedings, but can tuck the baby in bed with her, warm and sleeping while baby nurses.
• Studies have shown that when you sleep close to your baby you share the same sleep cycles. This means:

1) Nursing mothers enter light sleep cycles with their babies, becoming aware of the baby's waking movements. They are not being woken out of a deep sleep by a crying child. Many mothers report that they can sleep through a thunderstorm yet are aware of slight changes in the baby’s breathing.

2). Mother will slip back into that rejuvenating, deep REM sleep as quickly as her baby does.

• Fathers are rarely aware that the baby even wakes.
• You can sleep in later when you co-sleep. (My firstborn would happily keep nursing on and off and I could stay in bed till 10.)

On the Preparation for Parenthood tapes the female speaker mentions - with a tone of disgust - that the AP moms joke about still being woken at night with an EIGHT month old. My response: I agree, they JOKE about it! It’s not a big deal!

7. Ezzo even claims the AP mother isn't able to make good decisions about her child's needs!

 “By blocking the cry, mother loses confidence in her own decision-making. She also misses out on assessing the child’s real need. While she may be meeting a secondary cue, she probably is missing her baby’s primary cues.” (Pg 139)
"Blocking" something means to hinder or obstruct it. AP's are not hindering the baby's communication, they are learning baby's language, interpreting it and acting accordingly.

 The AP'd baby doesn't cry much because he doesn't need to. Mother doesn't wait for the distress call, she already knows what baby wants. This is the essence of the “attachment” in attachment parenting. There is a level of communication and understanding such that the baby doesn't have to resort to crying to be "heard."

 8. Ezzo  claims breastfeeding works better on a PDF schedule. 

PDF involves making the baby wait for feedings, using a pacifier if necessary, and include keeping the baby in his own room.  Ezzo discourages the use of a baby monitor (page 187), so the baby's early signals won't be heard, only the distressed baby's cries.
A study on five hospital practices from the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative showed that women who used pacifiers, delayed the first feed, gave formula, did not breastfeed on demand, and did not room in, were eight times less likely to be breastfeeding at two months than women who experienced none of these practices.

 9. Ezzo claims most AP'd babies are fussy.  

"Because of the lack of order associated with the attachment-parenting methodology, the one statement attachment mothers do not hear is: "My, what a good natured baby you have!" PFP page 49

That is simply not true, and the first lie I saw when I looked at a copy of Babywise. As a member of  La Leche League for many years, I often heard moms comment on how frequently they were complimented on our delightful, happy babies. We felt sorry for all the moms who had put their babies on feeding schedules and didn't know how liberating it was to nurse freely on baby's request. At LLL Conferences where there would be hundreds of babies in attendance, only rarely did you hear one crying.

10.  Ezzo claimed babies are born in a state of metabolic chaos.

First, that is complete nonsense. 
Medically defined as a severe disturbance in amino acid chemistry, a result of chronic illness with multiple causes, metabolic chaos is NOT a normal condition of the newborn.

Secondly, he says the parent’s job is to stabilize their child's hunger metabolism using PDF. We would like to know where he got this information, and why we haven't heard parents talking about stabilizing hunger metabolism throughout history, or how this was managed before clocks were invented..

Ridiculous.