Re: Re: unfair review
Re: Re: unfair review
Originally posted by frugalmom
How could you conclude that, when I even said: "HA - I can just imagine someone being dumb enough to try this and then have the baby look at you as if it's thinking "What are you talking about?" "
I specified that this was
my assumption. I'm not sure why I assumed this. Maybe it was because you used phrases in your post such as "setting up the child for failure".
The book called it newborn training. And it specifically said that newborns would need training.
Yes, it does but if their idea of a "newborn" is one who "bows his back and bellows", before mom can even put him in the crib then it is obvious that this "newborn" is smart enough to try and get his way. If the author hadn't given this example and simply said "newborns need training", it might have bothered me because it kind of leaves things up in the air. But they make it clear when they suggest that a child is "never too young to train" that they are speaking of a child who is trying to maninpulate. In my experience, this might start at around 3 months old give or take. I don't think you can give an across the board age for this kind of training to start since babies start learning at different ages. Bottom line is, this kind of training should start when the baby is smart enough to start manipulating in order to get his way.
Originally posted by frugalmom
I visit alot of forums that have to do with parenting. A while back, a new mother was bragging how she was "sleep training" her new baby boy. She apparently thought that parenting is a day job, and would confine her baby all alone to the crib from 6 PM to 6 AM. The poor child must have been scared to death. She did mention that she goes in there once during the 12 hour period to change his diaper.
This to me, is a little misleading. You do say that you read this on another forum but you kind of stick it in the middle of your critique of this book and it leads one to possibly assume that these authors support this same kind of thing when they make it clear that "crying is newborn's only way of communication in expressing his needs".
The "child" you were referring to was a 5 month old. It is disgusting to use a switch on a 5 month old baby. They even said, that her little brain didn't seem to understand why she was being switched.
Yes, a 5 month old who was smart enough at that age to already have a fascination with stairs. The author states "such was her fascination that she continued to climb, ignoring her spankings. Spankings are supposed to work but it seemed that at her young age, her little brain couldn't maintain the association. So I laid the switch at the bottom step. We later observed her crawl to the stairs and start the ascent, only to hault at the first step and stair at the switch. She backed off and never attempted to climb the stairs even after the switch was removed."
Also, it's clear that this is a personal experience that they had. They're not suggesting starting training at 5 months old. You'll notice that they never give specific ages that training should begin. They only have you note specific examples of a child's actions in certain situations.
They make gates for stairs and that sort of thing.
Yes, they do. I've used them. But I'm not perfect. In fact my "perfection" diminished more and more with each child that came along. What if the mom forgot to put up the gate one day? The only deterance this baby had was the gate so now that the gate is gone, it's almost a sure attraction for the baby. Again, how much would the parents be beating themselves up if she fell and broke her neck from climbing them due to her fancying them so much? They would have wished they would have trained her to not go near them under any circumstances.
I wonder if they used switches on their 5 month old for going near electrical outlets? What about the stove? And toilets? Coffee table corners?
What is wrong with wanting to prevent the baby from being electricuted, burned or drowned? I don't know if I've ever known of a baby who wasn't fascinated with outlets and, given time,
will check it out. Are you willing to take the chance that you'll get him the first time he attempts? Are you confident enough that you will always have your eye on him? And, yes, I know they have those little plug ins. Are you also confident enough that they baby will never figure out how to pull them out. Besides, we should want our kids to refrain from things that are bad because they desire to obey us rather than because there is simply an obsticle in the way of them doing that which will harm them.
The book used these examples of setting up babies to fail, in order to "train" them. Did God know we would give in to temptation with the tree? And here I was thinking you were one of the ones against predestination. (sorry if I have you confused with another poster)
I hate to get into this since it is a whole other sticky topic, with plenty of great threads devoted to it but I have to comment.
If God stuck the tree in the garden and predestined (planned their sin, pre-programmed it, etc.) them to eat of the fruit, then that would be a warped God. But he
knows man. We
know our kids. I didn't have to pre-plan their actions but I
knew, the day I brought each one of my precious little ones home from the hospital, that soon enough, they would attempt to get their way. Now we could try everything we possibly can and make a way for them not to give in to those things that will hurt them like putting things out of their reach or putting obsticles in their way, but what does that teach them? Ultimately we should want them to
want to obey us and love us enough to do what pleases us. Love is not love unless there is a possibility to "not love". You can't make somebody love you. You want them to choose to do it. My ultimate goal is for my kids to choose to obey me out of their love for me rather than to be
made to obey me.
