# Babywise?



## Pergamum

On Becoming Baby Wise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Any thoughts on Babywise?


----------



## LawrenceU

I know this will cause some folks to go into fits of apoplexy, but I think that many of the principles in Babywise are very good. Of course, common sense must be used in parenting. I don't recommend the rest of Ezzo's stuff, by the way.


----------



## Pergamum

Yes, I've met some Babywise nazis who are militant about it. But it seems that if a baby is crying, this usually means it is not trying to spite you but usually needs something legit.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I have seen abuses from people who listened to the Ezzo's. I even saw spanking an infant. It made me furious, confused, and saddened all at the same time when I saw it. I hadn't heard of the Ezzo's yet and that was my introduction to them. It was a baby who was just a crier in its early months. I didn't even know how to respond. Now that might have been an abberration to their teaching but it wasn't the last time nor the only family that practiced it.


----------



## Mindaboo

We used it with a couple of our children. There are some people who are really rigid about it. I wasn't and the book was clear that you have to take your situation into consideration. I did like the idea of scheduling my babies, and my third child did very well with it. My youngest...didn't do any good. She was just needy. It's a topic I took a lot of heat for with different people. It's a hot topic. I personally don't think there is anything wrong with letting a baby cry after every other avenue has been exhausted. I would feed, change, hold, and when nothing else worked I would let them cry for a little while. I used the parts of the book that fit with my personality and threw out what I didn't like.

---------- Post added at 10:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:32 AM ----------




> I even saw spanking an infant.



I don't remember reading that in their book or being promoted in the book.


----------



## Kim G

I think it depends on the how the parent implements the advice. Tired or angry or lazy or OCD parents could really harm their child if following the book, so I would never recommend Babywise for that reason. My son was a screamer, waking up every hour at night. He also wouldn't follow a schedule during the day, taking five 40-minute naps every couple of hours. I pretty much stayed up holding him all night and existed on a three-hour nap during the day while my husband watched him. Come to find out 6 months later, he had acid reflux the whole time and had a burning esophagus. Ezzo would have had me ignore him since I couldn't find anything wrong with him. Nothing takes the place of parental common sense and grace rather than "law" toward your child. 

Children are all different, and books like Babywise dangle a magic carrot in front of tired parents saying, "if you follow my advice, your child will inevitably be a perfect sleeper, a perfect feeder, and everyone will envy you."


----------



## FenderPriest

As Lawrence said, Babywise + grace + common sense is the best combo. We used it primarily to get Owen into a good schedule that had him sleeping through the night very early on, and to give some sanity to our family. I think it's the perspective of training your baby to be a part of a functioning family verses orienting your family around an untrained baby that's most helpful. Application and needs will change from family to family.


----------



## Mindaboo

> As Lawrence said, Babywise + grace + common sense is the best combo. We used it primarily to get Owen into a good schedule that had him sleeping through the night very early on, and to give some sanity to our family. I think it's the perspective of training your baby to be a part of a functioning family verses orienting your family around an untrained baby that's most helpful. Application and needs will change from family to family.



That's what I got out of it. I really liked the idea of scheduled feedings. It helped me organize my day and function. I had two babies a year apart, four kids under 7, and was homeschooling full time. I liked the idea that naps were at the same time everyday, feedings were predictable for me and my babies, and they did well with that. By eight weeks my third child did sleep through the night. My youngest did not sleep through the night for the first year of life. We did the same routine with them both.


----------



## Pergamum

From wickipedia:



> The infant-rearing research the Ezzos conducted was performed by GFI and not published or subject to peer review.[2] In training the infant to follow the book's recommended eating and sleeping schedule, it was expected that at certain times the infant would be left alone to cry when hungry or wakeful. The book justified the act of leaving a baby to cry alone by comparing that choice to the crucifixion of Jesus: "Praise God that the Father did not intervene when His Son cried out on the cross."[4]




Sounds wacky to me.


----------



## Rufus

Pergamum said:


> From wickipedia:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The infant-rearing research the Ezzos conducted was performed by GFI and not published or subject to peer review.[2] In training the infant to follow the book's recommended eating and sleeping schedule, it was expected that at certain times the infant would be left alone to cry when hungry or wakeful. The book justified the act of leaving a baby to cry alone by comparing that choice to the crucifixion of Jesus: "Praise God that the Father did not intervene when His Son cried out on the cross."[4]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds wacky to me.
Click to expand...


----------



## Pergamum

Okay, I've read up more on Mr. Ezzo and Babywise and he sounds like a quack who has been under church discipline numerous times and his method sounds unhealthy for children. 

So much for the Magic Key to get our newborn to sleep.


----------



## Zenas

"My First 300 Babies" 

It's out of print, but there are copies floating around.


----------



## Jack K

_Healthy Sleep Habits, Happy Child_

We followed this with both our kids, with overall good results. It has some similarities to Baby Wise, but without the "Christian" wackyness. I suspect, though, that no system works with absolutely every baby. Babies are people too, and people differ.


----------



## earl40

Pergamum said:


> So much for the Magic Key to get our newborn to sleep.



I understand why some animals eat their young.


----------



## Romans922

The reader of Ezzo's books will be led to believe that there is significant professional training and experience, and yet there exists no professional background, not even anything in the areas of child development, medicine, or breastfeeding support.

I am against Babywise, I think the methods are unwise, unprofitable, and not good for the health and well-being of the child.


----------



## JBaldwin

I looked at Babywise for about 5 minutes and chucked it. While I do believe giving a child a schedule is a good thing, if my second child had been on a rigid eating schedule, she would have died of starvation. She burned up (and still does) calories so fast that she needed to eat every two to three hours during the day for the first several years of her life. Even now, she eats full regular meals and "grazes" the rest of the day, and she stays slim and trim. 

On the issue of naps...I had one child (after age on) who woke up regularly after only one 30-45 minute nap which she took in the afternoon, but she would sleep through the night. For a while, I tried making her go back to sleep only to discover that when she did go back to sleep, she was up all night long. I finally allowed the shorter naps so we could sleep at night. 

The point is, every child is different, and you need to use some common sense with them.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist

We're on our fourth Babywise baby, if that mean anything. It has worked *great *for us, and works for those who actually pay attention to it (even Ezzo talks about using common sense - "when a baby is hungry, feed her!") A lot of the "wacky" folks don't really follow the method, but do their own thing and blame/credit Babywise. He is NOT in favor of a rigid, strict schedule that is never deviated from, but people hate him because he is against demand feeding and attachment parenting.

Also, to blame Gary Ezzo for the *use of corporal punishment on an infant* is *slander* and a violation of the 9th commandment. He is against it prior to the age of two at least, if not later.

People will do their own weird thing, and then find someone to hang their hat on. Also, people on the other side will demonize the man for stuff he never said or promoted. Now Michael Pearl, despite some nuggets is a Pelagian, KJVO nut.

Here are some pro-Ezzo resources, to balance out the hostility.
*On the Record: Gary Ezzo

*EzzoTruth


----------



## Pergamum

Jonathan, 

Considering that Mr. Ezzo has received church discipline for being divisive, dishonest and authoritarian from more than one church, any sort of wackiness would be better left to the originator of the views and not its adherants. From what I am reading now (with growing alarm), it is not deviations from the method that are the problem, but the method itself (unless one uses substantial common sense and ameliorates some of the rigidness of Mr Ezzo's system).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Jonathan. Reread what I wrote.


PuritanCovenanter said:


> Now that might have been an abberration to their teaching but it wasn't the last time nor the only family that practiced it.



There are many problems that have been pointed out here already with some of their methods. In fact you can do a nice search on the board and hear many other stories and rebuttals of their methods. 

I don't think the Ezzo's were martyrs who were persecuted for doing things the correct way. They were criticized for good reasons most of the time. If I am not mistaken I can post a whole slew of criticism and solid evidence that reveals problematic tlhings that came to fruition because of the Ezzo's distinctive methods. 

Let me ask you this Jonathan. Is there a disciplinary function that should be enforced upon a baby that is only a month old because he or she is not living up to expectations?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Here is a critique page if anyone is interested. Boy, I forgot all about the Ezzo's. Ezzo.Info Child Development Concerns


----------



## kvanlaan

How to get a baby to sleep? I think this is what you're looking for:

View attachment 2374


----------



## Zenas

No corporal punishment below the age of two? Does anyone else follow this general rule? I find it insane.


----------



## TimV

I started when they could walk. I also think it's insane.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist

My point is that Ezzo does not push for "infant corporal punishment" like people claim he does, or associate him with. We've run into this a lot from people who criticize Babywise and our parenting.

And let me also say my accusation about the 9th commandment was not directed at anyone in particular, and I apologize that I was not clearer on this. Mr. Snyder was not intended as my target, and I offer this apology to him and the board.

Like it or not, even a broken clock (assuming Ezzo is one) is right 2x a day, and our kids have done VERY well with the basic principles of Babywise. They are patient, healthy, and happy children, and Babywise is a tool (one of many) that my wife and I have used to help bring them up this way. If it doesn't work for you, don't use it, but we're not going to throw out something that has reaped such benefits, unless convicted there is sin in the method.


----------



## Romans922

Zenas said:


> No corporal punishment below the age of two? Does anyone else follow this general rule? I find it insane.



As soon as my child understood 'No' we started disciplining.


----------



## Zenas

Ditto.


----------



## Kim G

Disciplining doesn't have to mean corporal punishment. My son is two, we've never spanked, he's extremely strong-willed, and yet he obeys me. I received compliments from three doctors just last week for my son's good behavior while at their offices. Just saying, people CAN discipline without spanking.


----------



## Mindaboo

> Just saying, people CAN discipline without spanking.



Yes, they can. But we can also discipline with spanking. I have a child who is more compliant that I rarely spank. I have another child who needs to be spanked when she misbehaves. As soon as I spank her she repents and becomes a joy to be around. I think children differ in the way they need discipline. 

My children were not harmed by following the principles in Babywise. It doesn't make me a bad mom for using the book.

My daughter crawled out of her crib regularly when she was one. Often she got into a lot of trouble. I sat outside of her bedroom and as soon as she started I'd go in and swat her on the rearend. It wasn't abuse. It was training. There is a difference.


----------



## he beholds

We did _Babywise_ for our first baby. He slept through the night at seven weeks.
We did more of a _Baby Whisperer_ for Baby Two. (Put down while awake. Pick right up when crying. Put right back down once soothed. Don't rock baby to sleep. Don't hold baby to sleep. Rinse and repeat ad nauseum.) She slept through the night at seven weeks.
We did nada for Baby Three. I held him every night, picked him up when crying, etc. He slept through the night at seven weeks.
However, doing more of nada with Baby Four has not been so perfect, so far. She is two months old and not regularly sleeping through the night. But she's delicious, so it's ok. 
I liked _Babywise_, because as a new mom I was clueless, but I am glad that I didn't need it after I got used to babies. I don't like it. It makes me feel mean. I am NOT saying that I actually was mean, nor are any other parents who let their babies cry it out, but it made me _feel_ guilty. I think I still feel guilty about letting my first cry it out so much, and he's five! I have enough to feel guilty about, so ditching _Babywise_ was easy.


----------



## Zenas

Our son slept through the night at 4 days old. It differs from child to child. What I think is important is consistency and sticking to a *schedule*.


----------



## TimV

And if you don't spank your son you hate him.


----------



## Romans922

Spare the rod and you'll send him to Sheol.


----------



## N. Eshelman

Not Christian. Ezzo is an excommunicant and deceives people with promoting himself with credentials that he does not have. Wouldn't recommend that to anyone.

Gary Ezzo Excommunication from LHEF


----------



## Scottish Lass

I'll cop to being an adherent of attachment parenting....never read Ezzo, partly because of previous negative threads/reviews here.


----------



## Dena

Hello, all. I hardly get on here, anymore. I am Andrew's wife (Romans922) and he mentioned in passing a thread about Babywise on here, since he knows my main "field of study" is breastfeeding and offshoots of that -attachment parenting, birth, baby sleep, etc. (This is totally my passion, as it relates to how God created such a beautiful system.)

This is a huge topic that really covers so much ground, but I'll try to stick to the heart of the matter. We could be here for days and weeks to really get a good grasp of this issue. 

And I'd also like to say to the OP, if you or your wife wants to find me on FB, i'll be more than happy to talk to you more or provide some good resources. My name is Dena Barnes. If you have trouble finding me, ask my husband. 

First, we must come to a basic understanding of certain things. God created infants to be highly vulnerable beings. They come out of the womb, really still needing to be "attached" to their mothers for *quite* some time. Enter breastfeeding, the thing God in His infinite wisdom has hardwired our bodies to do for our children. I'm assuming your baby is exclusively breastfed. If you study breastfeeding physiology, you will know that breastmilk is digested incredibly quickly (this is a really good thing...for the sake of time, I won't go into more details). This means a child really and truly gets hungry very quickly, again, even if he or she ate a "full" meal last at the breast (and this could also go into another discussion about how babies sometimes snack or comfort nurse at the breast, all *super* great things, too, but no time to go down that trail). So. we have a breastfed baby, hardwired by God to wake and eat often, and be attached to Mom. 

One of the brilliant things we see in this is that because babies who are waking to eat often (as their bodies were hardwired by God to do, mind you), is a huge reduction in SIDS. Or, more accurately, a huge increase in the risk of SIDS for children who aren't waking often (formula fed children and/or babies who are being taught at a very early age that their needs won't be met by their parent when they cry (their only means of communication), so they do the only thing their body can do to conserve energy, and that is to shut down, are two examples in this category). 

So....very short story: babies are hardwired for very good reason to wake and to eat often. If a baby is crying, it is for a reason, even if the *only* reason is to be close to their mother. Its difficult for parents, but a very normal reality that we have lost in our American-brained culture the last century or so. Historically anywhere, and still in most of the world today, all these realities have been embraced and just plain understood that they are normal. Trust me, I *know* about sleep deprivation and how tolling it is. God didn't hardwire our babies to eat on a schedule. It simply ignores basic infant physiology to suggest such a thing. Breastfed babies are extremely good at self-regulating their own food intake. I have never seen or heard (and I read a. lot. on this topic) of a baby who was put on a "schedule" (as the Ezzos would define it) where the mother did not, sooner or later, end up with a milk supply problem. 

My advice would be to bed-share, if possible (again, assuming you're exclusively breastfeeeding...and there are guidelines to determine if/how to do this safely...look into it, or I'll be glad to give some resources....also, studies show that breastfeeding bedsharing moms get more sleep than their non-bedsharing counterparts), it will minimize the fully-waking for mom and dad (mom can even learn to side-lay nurse), nurse on cue, respond to your baby's needs quickly, be thankful your child is doing what God hardwired them to do (for one, as a safety mechanism), pray lots (I will be praying for you), realize this too shall pass (I do not mean that at ALL flippantly), and if you're going to look into *any* book, I'd suggest it being The No Cry Sleep Solution, or any book by Dr. Sears touching on these subjects. Those authors/books, are going to have an accurate understanding of breastfeeding/normal infant sleep from which to base all their information. Most of the other stuff out there is missing the mark simply because they haven't studied normal infant behavior and how they're actually hardwired.

I'm always glad to talk about these topics with anyone. I always encourage everyone to do their research. If its not coming from a *true* expert in the field, I'd be very suspect. Google Dr. James McKenna, for one, if you want some solid information regarding infant sleep. http://www.naturalchild.org/james_mckenna/

I'm glad you quickly decided the Babywise (or BabyUNwise, as I like to call it) system was not a good one.


----------



## fishingpipe

All three of our boys were good sleepers. We decided to move about the house and speak normally while they were sleeping as infants/toddlers. We didn't tip-toe or whisper during nap times, at night, etc. After a couple of weeks I think they became used to the noise. Either that or we were just very blessed with three great sleeping babies.


----------



## Yocelita

I'm a mom of 4 children (6,3,2 and 4 month old). I've read baby wise from front to cover but didn't agree with many things in the book. The books I recommend all my friends who are new moms or dads is Secrets of the Baby Whisperer by Tracy Hogg and also Healthy Sleep Habits, Happy Child by Marc Weissbluth
The biggest issue that most parents have is the night waking and why they are in search of a miracle book. I think each baby is very different and some may go to sleep very easily while other require being rock to sleep. None of my children have slept through the night before 3 months but at 2 month I had 6 hours of sleep non stop from 2 of them  
One of the things that has really helped with my last two has been a good swaddle. My 4 month old is still swaddle and she sleeps 10-12 hours. I've asked the pediatrician if I should stop swaddling her. I feel she is too old to be swaddle and don't want her to not have the freedom to move if she want to. However, my pediatrician said she could be swaddle until she shows she is not comfortable any more being swaddle. So I've continue swaddling her using and getting a great night of rest. I use the miracle blanket or the summer swaddle blanket that have the Velcro.
I hope that helps


----------



## JoyFullMom

Enjoyed your post, Dena. That is exactly how I parented my six. We even survived GERD, severe colic, and nursing a newborn while staying in the hospital for a week with an older child. 

My experience with the Ezzo's was back in 1991 under Growing Kids God's Way. Babywise, the book, is not NEARLY as extreme as GKGW was. I was turned off when I was told that there is no such thing as a "God-given mother's intuition". When we chose to *not* use the Ezzo's material, we were personally confronted by the leadership of our church who were pretty close to Gary and Anne Marie. Perhaps my view is jaded by that time. 

I really like Dr. Sears.


----------



## interalia

Babywise is fantastic. Our son has slept through the night since 8 weeks old.


----------



## bookslover

John MacArthur's church is just one of the churches from which Ezzo has been disciplined. If I remember rightly, he really raised a ruckus there, and MacArthur's church had to put out a public statement distancing itself from Ezzo and his "teachings." As has been stated, he claims credentials he doesn't have. I get the impression it's just a power trip for him.


----------



## interalia

JBaldwin said:


> I looked at Babywise for about 5 minutes and chucked it. While I do believe giving a child a schedule is a good thing, if my second child had been on a rigid eating schedule, she would have died of starvation. She burned up (and still does) calories so fast that she needed to eat every two to three hours during the day for the first several years of her life. Even now, she eats full regular meals and "grazes" the rest of the day, and she stays slim and trim.
> 
> On the issue of naps...I had one child (after age on) who woke up regularly after only one 30-45 minute nap which she took in the afternoon, but she would sleep through the night. For a while, I tried making her go back to sleep only to discover that when she did go back to sleep, she was up all night long. I finally allowed the shorter naps so we could sleep at night.
> 
> The point is, every child is different, and you need to use some common sense with them.



I would politely suggest you finish more than the five minutes, as your last point is exactly the main thesis of the author, within a general structure that is best for the child.

I know next to nothing about the man's personal/religious life. I only comment on the contents of the first BW book and its tremendous positive effect on our son. 

I am troubled by so-called attachment parenting and other child-centered raising techniques. While the Bible does not portend to offer a child raising theory (no smart responses - I mean a comprehensive approach), I think anyone would be hard pressed to suggest that such methods of child-centeredness comport with general Biblical values of responsibility, discipline, and growth. We are born selfish...yes, there is a natural design even to that which cannot be ignored (particularly with the earliest newborns), but nurturing this value that so perfectly demonstrates our depravity is not good. No person is the center of the created order. We must not treat our children as a microcosm of this distortion.


----------



## JoannaV

interalia said:


> I am troubled by so-called attachment parenting and other child-centered raising techniques. While the Bible does not portend to offer a child raising theory (no smart responses - I mean a comprehensive approach), I think anyone would be hard pressed to suggest that such methods of child-centeredness comport with general Biblical values of responsibility, discipline, and growth. We are born selfish...yes, there is a natural design even to that which cannot be ignored (particularly with the earliest newborns), but nurturing this value that so perfectly demonstrates our depravity is not good. No person is the center of the created order. We must not treat our children as a microcosm of this distortion.



I think attachment parenting often gets a bad press among some because certain things are assumed to be associated with it when that may not actually be the case. What I mean is, I would assume that most of the puritanboard members who would identify themselves with attachment parenting are very aware of their children's depravity, and ensure that they look to the Bible first and such philosophies second. I doubt that most of them would consider their parenting style "child-centred". I agree though that that is the way which attachment parenting leads non-believers, who often view their children as perfect innocent beings. Just as some other parenting philosophies can lead non-believers to the opposite approach, ie a self-centred approach where the children are more inconveniences than anything.


----------



## Mindaboo

> am troubled by so-called attachment parenting and other child-centered raising techniques. While the Bible does not portend to offer a child raising theory (no smart responses - I mean a comprehensive approach), I think anyone would be hard pressed to suggest that such methods of child-centeredness comport with general Biblical values of responsibility, discipline, and growth. We are born selfish...yes, there is a natural design even to that which cannot be ignored (particularly with the earliest newborns), but nurturing this value that so perfectly demonstrates our depravity is not good. No person is the center of the created order. We must not treat our children as a microcosm of this dI istortion.



I don't agree with this style of parenting either, but I will say most of the kids I know are happy kids. I was very uncomfortable with the attachment parenting. I am 4'11" and carrying a ten pound newborn in a sling was awkward. I was handed a book by Dr. Sears, and I knew it wasn't for me. On the flip side I've seen some happy kids that were brought up using Babywise. I think it's important to remember all of our works are as filthy rags before the Lord. This is an area where conscience and liberties found in Christ rule.


----------



## Pergamum

It appears that nursing a baby is not merely about getting milk. It appears to be comfort, too. And many baby-scheduling books seem to deny or downplay this, or treat parents as weak for using the mother's breast as a comfort item rather than merely a giver of nutrition.


----------



## Mindaboo

> It appears that nursing a baby is not merely about getting milk. It appears to be comfort, too. And many baby-scheduling books seem to deny or downplay this, or treat parents as weak for using the mother's breast as a comfort item rather than merely a giver of nutrition.



Sucking is a means babies use to comfort themselves. I had two babies that were very needy. I gave them pacifiers. What about moms who can't nurse? Do they really feed their children everytime they cry? I think that would be setting them up for some very bad habits when they are older. What does that say about them? I for one wasn't able to nurse for long periods. My milk dried up when my second and third child were five months old. Attachment parenting would say it's because I had my babies on a schedule, but that is not true. I was able to nurse baby number four for the first year, and she was on scheduled feedings. 

A mother's breast is not the only place a child can find comfort. Holding them, rocking them, placing them in a swing, playing music, and lots of other things can be options. I used all of those. After my milk dried up I would have been very uncomfortable letting my child have my breast as a means of comfort.


----------



## Kim G

Pergamum said:


> It appears that nursing a baby is not merely about getting milk. It appears to be comfort, too. And many baby-scheduling books seem to deny or downplay this, or treat parents as weak for using the mother's breast as a comfort item rather than merely a giver of nutrition.



My milk supply disappeared within the first month with my son due to a number of health issues on both sides. But I still nursed him for six months just for this reason. I wouldn't have traded the bonding time for the world, and I would have kept nursing except that he started biting when his teeth came in.


----------



## JBaldwin

Pergamum said:


> It appears that nursing a baby is not merely about getting milk. It appears to be comfort, too. And many baby-scheduling books seem to deny or downplay this, or treat parents as weak for using the mother's breast as a comfort item rather than merely a giver of nutrition.



There are lot more benefits to nursing children than just the breast milk. My argument for breast feeding has a lot to do with the fact that God gave women breasts for that purpose, and unless there's a physical problem for not nursing, a woman should nurse her baby. British studies done in 1991 and 1992 and again more recently show that babies who are breastfed have an IQ of 3-5 points higher and that this intelligence level stays with the children through secondary school. The department of health in GB recommends women breastfeet exclusively for 6 months. 

Another thing to take into consideration is the child's needs and how they respond to touch. Some children give and receive love by touch while others respond better to words and sounds. If a parent withholds affection from some of these needy "touchy" children, it can be devastating, even in their health. My mother a pedeactric nurse for years says that children who do not receive enough physical attention when they are infants can and do die. She tells of working in one facility where some of the babies came in who had been physically neglected and had stopped eating. The nurses were required to pick up the babies and hold them for a number of hours each shift, and it would not be long before they would begin eating again and were brought back to health.

---------- Post added at 11:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:31 AM ----------




interalia said:


> JBaldwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I looked at Babywise for about 5 minutes and chucked it. While I do believe giving a child a schedule is a good thing, if my second child had been on a rigid eating schedule, she would have died of starvation. She burned up (and still does) calories so fast that she needed to eat every two to three hours during the day for the first several years of her life. Even now, she eats full regular meals and "grazes" the rest of the day, and she stays slim and trim.
> 
> On the issue of naps...I had one child (after age on) who woke up regularly after only one 30-45 minute nap which she took in the afternoon, but she would sleep through the night. For a while, I tried making her go back to sleep only to discover that when she did go back to sleep, she was up all night long. I finally allowed the shorter naps so we could sleep at night.
> 
> The point is, every child is different, and you need to use some common sense with them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would politely suggest you finish more than the five minutes, as your last point is exactly the main thesis of the author, within a general structure that is best for the child.
Click to expand...


What I didn't point out when I made the comment about the "five minutes" is that I knew several families in my church who were taking the "Babywise" approach to raising their children, and frankly, I wasn't impressed. I picked up a copy of the book in the church library and perused it and decided it wasn't for me. My christian parents gave me an excellent biblical example for raising children, and I didn't see the need to look elsewhere for guidance.


----------



## Pergamum

JBaldwin said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that nursing a baby is not merely about getting milk. It appears to be comfort, too. And many baby-scheduling books seem to deny or downplay this, or treat parents as weak for using the mother's breast as a comfort item rather than merely a giver of nutrition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are lot more benefits to nursing children than just the breast milk. My argument for breast feeding has a lot to do with the fact that God gave women breasts for that purpose, and unless there's a physical problem for not nursing, a woman should nurse her baby. British studies done in 1991 and 1992 and again more recently show that babies who are breastfed have an IQ of 3-5 points higher and that this intelligence level stays with the children through secondary school. The department of health in GB recommends women breastfeet exclusively for 6 months.
> 
> Another thing to take into consideration is the child's needs and how they respond to touch. Some children give and receive love by touch while others respond better to words and sounds. If a parent withholds affection from some of these needy "touchy" children, it can be devastating, even in their health. My mother a pedeactric nurse for years says that children who do not receive enough physical attention when they are infants can and do die. She tells of working in one facility where some of the babies came in who had been physically neglected and had stopped eating. The nurses were required to pick up the babies and hold them for a number of hours each shift, and it would not be long before they would begin eating again and were brought back to health.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 11:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:31 AM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> interalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBaldwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I looked at Babywise for about 5 minutes and chucked it. While I do believe giving a child a schedule is a good thing, if my second child had been on a rigid eating schedule, she would have died of starvation. She burned up (and still does) calories so fast that she needed to eat every two to three hours during the day for the first several years of her life. Even now, she eats full regular meals and "grazes" the rest of the day, and she stays slim and trim.
> 
> On the issue of naps...I had one child (after age on) who woke up regularly after only one 30-45 minute nap which she took in the afternoon, but she would sleep through the night. For a while, I tried making her go back to sleep only to discover that when she did go back to sleep, she was up all night long. I finally allowed the shorter naps so we could sleep at night.
> 
> The point is, every child is different, and you need to use some common sense with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would politely suggest you finish more than the five minutes, as your last point is exactly the main thesis of the author, within a general structure that is best for the child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I didn't point out when I made the comment about the "five minutes" is that I knew several families in my church who were taking the "Babywise" approach to raising their children, and frankly, I wasn't impressed. I picked up a copy of the book in the church library and perused it and decided it wasn't for me. My christian parents gave me an excellent biblical example for raising children, and I didn't see the need to look elsewhere for guidance.
Click to expand...


Yes, I think I am 100% with you. Just being close to mom, smelling her and hearing her voice plus seeing her with eyes that don't seem to see very far at all seem to be benefits of this close bonding. I notice our 1 month old soothing at the mere sound or nearness of her mom. Even if I were to bottle feed instead of her breastfeeding, it seems that 90% of the experience is drained of the activity by this lack of bonding. And under rigorous scheduling and philosophies that treat breastfeeding as merely a feeding and not so much more, it seems that so much is missing.

---------- Post added at 04:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:03 PM ----------




Mindaboo said:


> It appears that nursing a baby is not merely about getting milk. It appears to be comfort, too. And many baby-scheduling books seem to deny or downplay this, or treat parents as weak for using the mother's breast as a comfort item rather than merely a giver of nutrition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sucking is a means babies use to comfort themselves. I had two babies that were very needy. I gave them pacifiers. What about moms who can't nurse? Do they really feed their children everytime they cry? I think that would be setting them up for some very bad habits when they are older. What does that say about them? I for one wasn't able to nurse for long periods. My milk dried up when my second and third child were five months old. Attachment parenting would say it's because I had my babies on a schedule, but that is not true. I was able to nurse baby number four for the first year, and she was on scheduled feedings.
> 
> A mother's breast is not the only place a child can find comfort. Holding them, rocking them, placing them in a swing, playing music, and lots of other things can be options. I used all of those. After my milk dried up I would have been very uncomfortable letting my child have my breast as a means of comfort.
Click to expand...


If the baby did not yet have teeth, what would have been the cause of the discomfort?


----------



## Dena

Pergamum, you seem to be on the right track of understanding how God hardwired His children. There is much beauty in it. I continue to pray that we all learn to embrace it, for the sake of God's glory and the sake of our own and our children's health and well-being.


----------



## Mindaboo

> If the baby did not yet have teeth, what would have been the cause of the discomfort?



Me...After I wrote my response I thought about it, and then read Kim's response. I guess I just always viewed my breast as a supply of food, not as a pacifier. I didn't want to be my child's pacifier. I had children who would have hung on me all day and night. That just isn't reasonable when you have toddlers running around. I respect what Kim did, but I wouldn't do it. I thought at that time and still think there are other ways for babies to be comforted. I nursed my kids when they needed to eat, and sometimes I used it to get them to sleep, but not always. 

Maybe it stems from a mom who was so opposed to me nursing that she made me leave her house everytime I nursed. No one in my family ever nursed their children. I was considered odd for doing so. My mom would make me go out to the car when my oldest two needed to be nursed. I'd never been around anyone in my life who nursed their children. Everyone I knew thought I'd gone completely out of my mind. 

All I can say is I am glad I no longer have to worry about these things. I am past all of those days. I am not a follower of the crowd, and most of the crowd I hung out with were doing attatchment parenting. I don't have a problem with people who do. I just don't think it's for everyone. If I were to do it all over again. I think I'd stick with a schedule and a pacifier.


----------

