I just read the first chapter. I have to say that I have a different take on it than when I read frugalmom's first post and am a little disappointed that it now seems to have been taken a little to the extreme. In my mind I had the impression that the author was suggesting setting the child down, putting a wonderful object in front of the child, telling the child to reach for the object (frugalmom did not say this last part but was an assumption of mine) and then swatting the child for doing so. Placing a child in a room where there may be some things that the child is interested in seems very different then the first scenerio I described. Besides that, anybody who has had children knows that all you have to do is pretty much set the child down and everything looks desirable. And once that child starts reaching for them, I don't see how saying no first and then swatting them after that if they do it again, is so extreme.
I also thought that it was being suggested that the authors were saying never pick up a baby when it cries. But after reading it I see where it specifically says "Crying because of genuine physical need is the infant's only voice to the outside world, but crying in order to manipulate others into constant servitude should never be rewarded". And the example given in the book is "As a mother attempts to lower a child into the crib, he stiffens, takes a deep breath, and bellows." This sounds more like a child ticked off because he didn't get his way rather than a child who is crying because he's hungry or his diaper needs changed. I see nothing in there that suggested not feeding the child when it was hungry. In frugalmom's post she has this under "newborn training" which is kind of unfair since the author isn't giving a specific age here. But a child that bows back and screems before the mom can even put him in the crib sounds older than "newborn" to me. And I see nothing of the training of "feeding schedules" or "sleeping schedules" being taught.
The author also speaks of excessive discipline and gives the example of the father who was very strict but his strict ways were always shown in public. The author said he always seemed to wonder "If he's this strict, why doesn't he take care of these problems at home?". If the training were to start at home then this severe discipline wouldn't have to take place in public. I know far too well, too many families that were this way in the church I grew up in. It's as if they saved their severe discipline for the public to see so that they would be known as "good" parents.
As far as the child being switched for climbing the stairs (he also explains that the child had a fascination for stair climbing), if this child continued to climb the stairs only to fall and break her neck, how hard would the parents have been on themselves, looking back and thinking "if we would have only trained her, no matter what it took, to have nothing to do with these stairs." They make a good case for this.
The part of this first chapter that I felt was very interesting is the author making note of our God doing this very thing when He put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in their view. He makes some great points with this example.
I must be honest and say that I should have read this before replying, in an earlier post, to these comments that I feel were somewhat out of context.
oly: