If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
baby in separate room from mother at night?
Ed Augusts wrote:
Oh, I'm sorry, Ericka! The niceties of netiquette were pushed aside for me when your friend called me a moron instead of offering any substantial evidence. And that surprises you after the names you called her? Frankly, I thought her response much more restrained than your inital post. I'm very glad that even though you were formula-fed and not physically that close to your mother, Um, I didn't say I wasn't physically close to my mother. I said we didn't co-sleep. There would be a difference. that things turned out okay. Better than okay, I'd say. I'm not trying to say anywhere near 100% of mothers who don't breastfeed and don't keep their baby close to them at night are going to find their kids grow up to have problems, Really? Because that's certainly not the impression you gave. but since I know of so many individual cases of exceptional children who WERE treated with special closeness and WERE breastfed, it makes me wonder how the stats would stack-up against each other, if doing such a study was possible! There have been many studies done which at least touch on some of these issues. Perhaps it might be a good idea to look at some of them before making assertions that are darned hard to back up? As I said, all these kids were breastfed until they were at least two years old! They seem to be well-adjusted, mentally proficient, show creative abilities including musical and artistic and literary abilities, and I haven't seen any of them display any physical or mental problems of any kind. I am wondering if these kids are the exception, or the rule! Can anyone add to this list with kids whom they know who have also been breast fed? I know plenty of kids who've been breastfed and plenty who haven't. I know geniuses and challenged kids in both groups. Studies have found small (on the order of a few IQ points) but statistically significant differences in some situations (not always replicable). I know talented and not-so-talented kids in each group. I know successful and unsuccessful kids in each group. I know healthy and not so healthy kids in each group, although here again there seem to be very small but detectable differences in favor of the breastfed child. Personally, my experience and the research I'm aware of suggests that broad generalizations are unwarranted, much less insults. Best wishes, Ericka |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
baby in separate room from mother at night?
Ericka Kammerer wrote:
Ed Augusts wrote: ... and thus this topic of prolonged breastfeeding and various kinds of nurturing experiences in motherhood came up, and seemed important to me; I'm sorry if I haven't been steeped in the history of this particular Group and thus seem like an intruder, such was not my intention! I thought anybody could post here, and that my efforts would be appreciated and also cause some debate. Debate isn't bad, but I don't see debate, I see aggression aimed in my direction! Because you started with aggression, it is not so surprising that you received some in return. You'll find this is a group that is generally respectful of different parenting choices, especially from folks who don't start insulting those who don't share their choices. Best wishes, Ericka Hi Ericka and all, I would like to introduce myself as a non-newbie, because when my kids were young, some even still in utero, I participated in this and related usenet groups (misc.kids and misc.kids.breastfeeding) quite a bit, as well as a few others. In fact, that was back in the days before there was Google dredging up old retired threads for eternal "archives". As a matter of fact, back before there was a web. In fact, back before there were even "emoticons". I say this, because when my personal friend Ed told me what he'd stepped into, all I could say was "OMG". Ericka, I can vouch personally that Ed is one of the LEAST aggressive people I have ever met. (We have met face to face, and had long discussions concerning parenthood.) If you read what he said as "aggression" I strongly believe it can only be because of the ease with which things are mis-read and mis-interpreted on Usenet groups. That IS the reason emoticons were invented, because there were too many people reading anger and aggression into other people's post when there was none. I believe what Ed was trying to do was bounce ideas off of experienced mothers after having heard my own opinions about my childrearing history vs what I've witnessed in other families, some of whom their children are turning out decidedly NOT ok. He is also extending that with what was his own luck to observe in families at opposite ends of the spectrum, from one close little family that was sooo close as to almost be neurotic and distrustful of anyone (almost like those inbred polygamists in Texas), to a family that has been so vicious, cold, and cutthroat (for mere sport) with each other for decades, that they drive each other to suicide attempts and stints in mental hospitals. Anyway, I have seen families that are loving who for whatever reason, scheduling conflicts, breast problems, mother-self-image, bad advice by "doctors", did not breastfeed. But personally, I would not have a clue how to relate to a baby of mine if I could not nurse away all the infantile boo boo's a small child encounters in life. So please cut Ed some slack, as I'm sure his opinions are colored by my own, and I promise to teach him how to use emoticons, so you can know his mood while he's writing ;-) Hey, Happy Mother's Day everyone! Suzanne. -- === Visit my fun corner of the world :-) http://www.SuzCorner.com |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
baby in separate room from mother at night?
"Ed Augusts" wrote in message
... Hi, I was giving some examples from real life people who have told me their 'bio', which is more than you have done. One, the female friend, went into a depression punctuated with suicidal anger when she found out she was pregnant, and she wouldn't stand for there being any chance that a child born to her could possibly grow up to be neglected and unloved as she was, and thus the only thing she could think to do was terminate the pregnancy,. I witnessed her despair, so don't be so quick to make light of her as "proving nothing". I wasn't making light of anyone's story. You didn't tell us her story, so how could I have made light of it? As sad as that story is, it doesn't *prove* anything. It's anecdotal evidence. meaning, "Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis." Several sad stories does not make a scientific study, and does not prove anything. There there are TONS of happy, successful people in the world who were bottle fed, and slept in their own room as an infant. I can name lots of them, but that doesn't prove my point either. The people I've seen who were not shown the deepest love and affection by their parents and caretakers turned out to be miserable adults. And showing the deepest love and affection is not limited to breastfeeding and cosleeping. I'm sure that Jack the Ripper was breastfed, and may even have coslept, based on the times, and yet look how he turned out. You are going 'ad hominem', in your put-down comments and disregarding the essence of what I have said, while at the same time, you haven't come up with ANY examples of any children that tend to show that anything I've said doesn't point in the right direction. As Ericka said in one of her responses to you, I didn't feel the need to give you any examples, because your premise was so absurd. Again, your premise was: You either breastfeed, co-sleep and love your child, and said child will be "well-adjusted, happy and mentally healthy," or you bottle/formula feed, ignore your child's cries and neglect them, and your child will be "a self-destructive self-mutilator, or possibly an inhuman, unfeeling, monster, a child who wants to give back to women exactly what his or her mother gave them in their childhood." As I said before, doi. Come on! Put up or shut up! Give us YOUR list of kids who were fed on formula and spent the night in a room by themselves, and tell me what kind of teenagers and adults they turned into... please! I'd be willing to bet that several of the past US Presidents were likely bottle fed and slept in their own rooms. While I may not agree with their politics, they seem to have turned out okay. Starting in the 1940's, there was a big shift from breastfeeding to bottle feeding. "From the mid-1950s to about the mid-1960s--the height of bottle-feeding's popularity--over 80% of mothers were feeding by bottle."* Around the same time, more and more people began to buy their own homes -- the American Dream, so to speak, and were able to spread out and have each family member have their own room. So you could say that most people born between 1940-1960 were likely formula/bottle fed and slept in their own rooms. Are you saying that pretty much everyone between the age of 48to 68 are, let's see, how did you put it, "a self-destructive self-mutilator, or possibly an inhuman, unfeeling, monster, a child who wants to give back to women exactly what his or her mother gave them in their childhood."? No, that would be ridiculous, and yet, that's what you seem to be saying. Again, your premise is absurd. Obviously, from your icy words below, you believe in denying a baby the comfort of being rocked and nursed and mothered, and sleeping right next to its mother, in favor of a colder, more efficient, love- depriving and cynical philosophy, of "toughening-up" the kid by putting him or her in an empty rooim, that is, a room without the presence of the mother. Shame on you! All I can do is feel sorry for any babies that YOU have had or taken care of. So, please! No, I don't believe in denying a baby the comfort of being rocked and mothered and loved. I did not deprive my children of love. They are healthy and happy and well adjusted and affectionate and wonderful. I don't believe in "toughing up" my children. I refuse to accept your ridiculous premise that unless I cosleep and breastfeed my babies, I cannot really love them. That's bull****. I don't believe that you have to parent one way in order to show love. While I would have loved to breastfeed, it wasn't possible for me. I tried, but since both of my children are adopted, it makes it a little harder than for the average mother. But why I couldn't breastfeed isn't relevent to this conversation. Your assertion that you can only love and raise a healthy happy child if you do it your way, by breastfeeding and cosleeping is offensive. Feeding formula from a bottle and having a child sleep in a crib is not child abuse, or love depriving. Authority about children! Please do comment about the results you have had with YOUR particular childcare system? Anything the matter? How'd you do with your love-and-warmth-deprivation system? Did I hit a bit TOO close to home, is that the reason for your angry outburst? My children are great. Just ask anyone. Angry outburst? I called you a moron. That was it. If you delete that one sentance, there is nothing else in my post that could qualify as an angry outburst. You, on the other hand, have accused me of being cold and cynical and of denying my children love and warmth, just because I did not breastfeed or cosleep. Maybe I'm the one who hit too close to home...either that, or you really are a moron...LOL! -- Jamie Clark *http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0...eding-and.html On Apr 21, 8:45 am, "Jamie Clark" wrote: According to you, there are only two options -- you either breastfeed, co-sleep and love your child, and said child will be "well-adjusted, happy and mentally healthy," or you bottle/formula feed, ignore your child's cries and neglect them, and your child will be "a self-destructive self-mutilator, or possibly an inhuman, unfeeling, monster, a child who wants to give back to women exactly what his or her mother gave them in their childhood." Doi. Don't forget lesbian. You're a moron, Ed. And your "sample" of two does not prove anything. It is possible to bottle/formula feed and have your child sleep in their own room in a crib without damning them to hell and a lifetime of relationship issues and therapy. Of course not showing love to a baby and child can damage that child, but that has nothing to do with breast or bottle feeding, co-sleeping or crib sleeping. Nor does it have anything to do with bio or adopted. -- Jamie Clark "Ed Augusts" wrote in message ... I am thinking over the results I've seen in families where the baby is, typically, nursed by the mother, and spends the night close to the mother, as compared to families where the baby is immediately put on formula and then sleeps in a room down the hall. There is this insidious "Ferberizing" process many young parents inflict upon their children in which they let their kids cry themselves to sleep at night until they get used to being without Mom and sleeping alone in their own little room. Oh, yes! Let's make the little guy 'tough' by making him cry, and then ignore his cries until he or she gets over it and becomes insensitive to whether they're sleeping with mom or not. (Is that insane, or what?) This neglect often goes along with putting these kids on formula. In my experience, it is NEVER a breastfeeding mother who also locks her child away in a room down the hall at night where they have to cry themselves to sleep! Looking at the results, that is, what becomes of this unfortunate child who is denied his or her mother's love, space, breastmilk and also physical protection, tells an ugly story. I know of a girl who was adopted into a very austere and Spartan household in which love was nothing but a 4-letter word, and the adoptive mother could not stand to be in the child's presence child for very long. The baby's room was down the hall, I guess so she could sometimes choose to ignore her when she cried. The adoptive mom THOUGHT she wanted to have a baby --then changed her mind. But she didn't give the baby to someone who would love her, she kept the baby, but just didn't LOVE her or make the child feel loved... Well, unfortunately for all concerned, that child no sooner got into her teens than she got into a syndrome of self-abuse by cutting herself in parallel lines on her arms and legs with knives and razor blades. She did this before she was half-way through high school. That child, as a grown woman, had at least one abortion and later became a lesbian. She has had absolutely no contact with her adoptive mother or father for many years now. Here is a second case, a businessman who, for his entire life, has hated his mother because she never told him she loved him, never, in his memory, hugged or kissed him, and kept him in a small dingy room down the hall throughout most of his childhood. She never breastfed him, she told him such a thing "freaked her out", she would not want a baby on her breast! This is a mother who STILL makes fun of her child and enjoys telling a roomful of guests nothing but unflattering stories about her boy. This man is now close to 50 years old, and he confided to me that he is still a virgin. Guess what? He says he has "issues" with his mother, and somehow ALL women seem to him to be a little bit LIKE his mother, therefore he has never had a successful relationship with an adult woman, not in the business world, nor in private. Women are "things" to be "consumed" as "eye candy" at a strip joint or sex magazine, but he cannot figure out how to get close to a woman -- not in real life! My point is very simple, and I'm sorry if I sound like I'm "preaching to the choir", but some of women reading this article MAY NOT be planning to hug and kiss and breastfeed their babies, and I really thought any such mothers-to-be out there ought to consider the consequences of a lack of intimacy with your baby! You have the AWESOME responsibility of raising either a well-adjusted, happy, mentally healthy child, one whom you keep close to your breast, and in your room... OR, participating in raising an unhappy, wretched little child whom you put away in a dark little room down the hall, whom you don't breastfeed, whom you make to be alone and lonesome, and who may very well grow up to be either a self-destructive self-mutilator, or possibly an inhuman, unfeeling, monster, a child who wants to give back to women exactly what his or her mother gave them in their childhood --- coldness and contempt! Remember, MOST of the contempt is actually reserved by the neglected child FOR HIS OR HER MOTHER. Think carefully, now, about how you decide to raise this baby! "Ferberize" and harm them? And lose their love and respect? Or, love them and be loved in return, both now and as long as you live! Which will it be? Is it really all that hard to decide? Best wishes & hoping you choose wisely, ------Ed http://www.breastpumppedal.com- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
baby in separate room from mother at night?
"Ed Augusts" wrote in message
... On Apr 21, 2:29 am, "lu-lu" wrote: "Ed Augusts" wrote in message ... I am thinking over the results I've seen in families where the baby is, typically, nursed by the mother, and spends the night close to the mother, as compared to families where the baby is immediately put on formula and then sleeps in a room down the hall. There is this insidious "Ferberizing" process many young parents inflict upon their children in which they let their kids cry themselves to sleep at night until they get used to being without Mom and sleeping alone in their own little room. Oh, yes! Let's make the little guy 'tough' by making him cry, and then ignore his cries until he or she gets over it and becomes insensitive to whether they're sleeping with mom or not. (Is that insane, or what?) This neglect often goes along with putting these kids on formula. In my experience, it is NEVER a breastfeeding mother who also locks her child away in a room down the hall at night where they have to cry themselves to sleep! Looking at the results, that is, what becomes of this unfortunate child who is denied his or her mother's love, space, breastmilk and also physical protection, tells an ugly story. I know of a girl who was adopted into a very austere and Spartan household in which love was nothing but a 4-letter word, and the adoptive mother could not stand to be in the child's presence child for very long. The baby's room was down the hall, I guess so she could sometimes choose to ignore her when she cried. The adoptive mom THOUGHT she wanted to have a baby --then changed her mind. But she didn't give the baby to someone who would love her, she kept the baby, but just didn't LOVE her or make the child feel loved... Well, unfortunately for all concerned, that child no sooner got into her teens than she got into a syndrome of self-abuse by cutting herself in parallel lines on her arms and legs with knives and razor blades. She did this before she was half-way through high school. That child, as a grown woman, had at least one abortion and later became a lesbian. She has had absolutely no contact with her adoptive mother or father for many years now. Here is a second case, a businessman who, for his entire life, has hated his mother because she never told him she loved him, never, in his memory, hugged or kissed him, and kept him in a small dingy room down the hall throughout most of his childhood. She never breastfed him, she told him such a thing "freaked her out", she would not want a baby on her breast! This is a mother who STILL makes fun of her child and enjoys telling a roomful of guests nothing but unflattering stories about her boy. This man is now close to 50 years old, and he confided to me that he is still a virgin. Guess what? He says he has "issues" with his mother, and somehow ALL women seem to him to be a little bit LIKE his mother, therefore he has never had a successful relationship with an adult woman, not in the business world, nor in private. Women are "things" to be "consumed" as "eye candy" at a strip joint or sex magazine, but he cannot figure out how to get close to a woman -- not in real life! My point is very simple, and I'm sorry if I sound like I'm "preaching to the choir", but some of women reading this article MAY NOT be planning to hug and kiss and breastfeed their babies, and I really thought any such mothers-to-be out there ought to consider the consequences of a lack of intimacy with your baby! You have the AWESOME responsibility of raising either a well-adjusted, happy, mentally healthy child, one whom you keep close to your breast, and in your room... OR, participating in raising an unhappy, wretched little child whom you put away in a dark little room down the hall, whom you don't breastfeed, whom you make to be alone and lonesome, and who may very well grow up to be either a self-destructive self-mutilator, or possibly an inhuman, unfeeling, monster, a child who wants to give back to women exactly what his or her mother gave them in their childhood --- coldness and contempt! Remember, MOST of the contempt is actually reserved by the neglected child FOR HIS OR HER MOTHER. Think carefully, now, about how you decide to raise this baby! "Ferberize" and harm them? And lose their love and respect? Or, love them and be loved in return, both now and as long as you live! Which will it be? Is it really all that hard to decide? Best wishes & hoping you choose wisely, ------Ed http://www.breastpumppedal.com So, Ed, how many kids do you have? I'm assuming you must have some in order to 'preach', Or that you must have lived with these families you speak of?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I don't mean to 'preach', but I'm 59 years old which is plenty old enough to see the results of all kinds of various systems of raising children. You did mean to preach, which is what got you into trouble. That and the fact that your whole post was a veiled attempt to be a part of this group so you could continue to push your "friend's" website. Rather transparent, which is part of the reason you got the reception you did -- that, and the offensive content of your post. So how many children do you have? I like to give information about definite cases, definite individuals, so I'm puzzled why I get anti-Ed remarks, "Who are YOU to preach, buddy?" instead of someone saying "I've known such-and-so-many children who were all raised on formula and whose moms didn't show them much warmth, and they've all grown up just fine!" As I already pointed out, while your individual cases may be interesting, they are not useful in proving anything. Ericka already mentioned some actual studies, in which the answers between formula and breastfeeding are much less clear cut than you seem to think. Perhaps if your post had not been so in your face rude, and offended so many people in the process, you might have been able to engage in a civil discussion. Instead, you basically bash strangers and insult their mothering, by telling us that unless we colseep and breasrfeed, our children will end up with emotional problems and fail in life. And you wonder why we didn't receive you with open arms. I don't see those kinds of remarks because I think the truth is, children who are deprived of affection by their mothers or other caretakers, which includes nursing them, DO NOT grow up as successfully as very much LOVED children do. Bull****. Stop equating breastfeeding and cosleeping to love. You are offensive and rude. Are you saying that father's aren't capable of loving their children, because they can't breastfeed them? Lordy. Of course children who are neglected and deprived of love will likely have emotional problems, but that has nothing to do with how they are fed and where they slept. Millions and millions of children were bottle fed and slept in their own rooms and were incredibly loved and cherished and adored and grew up to be happy successful people. If anyone is shamed or embarrassed that they DID NOT love their children enough when they were babies and tots, and realizes now that personality deficits and behavior problems, stunted emotional and physical development, etc., may very well be due to not "being there" for their baby, well, I'm sorry about that, I really am! Perhaps it is more politically correct to not talk about this issue at all? Is that what you folks are saying? Don't rock the boat of public opinion that states "go ahead and abandon your baby in an empty room at night, their crying, their loneliness, doesn't matter!" I'm resisting the urge to tell you to "F" off here, Ed. Really I am. Yes, I have indeed lived with the families I mention, although that was on another USENET group where I listed five children who had been breastfed for 2 years or longer, and who slept very close to their mothers; and reported on their particular, individual, scientific, musical, artistic, and literary talents, which were often exceptional; also on the fact they never had to take any medications to control any behavior problems, nor did they display any signs of ill-health. What I was HOPING was that someone would jump in with additional support from their own experiences raising children, and if they want to posit a contrary point of view, that they would do so using evidence of X-number of children who were formula-fed and slept in a different room from their mom. But so far, aside from a few snippy remarks, nobody has stepped forward with any evidence! THAT surprises me! You walk into a room claiming the sky is lime green, ranting and raving about it, and are suprised that no one is stepping forward with any evidence that the sky is NOT lime green? My dad taught me years ago, you never argue with crazy. -- Jamie Clark |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
baby in separate room from mother at night?
Suzanne at SuzCorner wrote:
Anyway, I have seen families that are loving who for whatever reason, scheduling conflicts, breast problems, mother-self-image, bad advice by "doctors", did not breastfeed. But personally, I would not have a clue how to relate to a baby of mine if I could not nurse away all the infantile boo boo's a small child encounters in life. So please cut Ed some slack, as I'm sure his opinions are colored by my own, and I promise to teach him how to use emoticons, so you can know his mood while he's writing ;-) Sure, everyone can be misunderstood, but honestly, I don't see how an emoticon can soften the blow of the things he said in his original post. If anyone called out any of the parenting practices you've used and called them the things he called parents who don't breastfeed or co-sleep, you'd be up in arms. Even you just said above that you don't see how mothers relate to their kids without breastfeeding! Do you truly mean to imply that moms who don't breastfeed can't relate to their kids? Or at least can't relate to them in the special way you relate to your kids? I'm sorry, but that's just plain arrogant and hurtful. Mothers who didn't breastfeed for whatever reasons still manage to love and nurture and relate to their babies, and it's insulting to imply otherwise, whether you stick a smiley on the end or not. I'm glad I breastfed my babies, but I would never in a million years look down that way on women who didn't. You won't find a stronger proponent of homebirth either, but I don't go around telling folks that if they didn't give birth at home without any drugs or interventions, I couldn't possibly imagine how they bonded properly with their babies. Best wishes, Ericka |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
baby in separate room from mother at night?
"Suzanne at SuzCorner" wrote in message m... I believe what Ed was trying to do was bounce ideas off of experienced mothers after having heard my own opinions about my childrearing history vs what I've witnessed in other families, some of whom their children are turning out decidedly NOT ok. He wants to sell something. That's all. So do you! |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
baby in separate room from mother at night?
"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
. .. Suzanne at SuzCorner wrote: Anyway, I have seen families that are loving who for whatever reason, scheduling conflicts, breast problems, mother-self-image, bad advice by "doctors", did not breastfeed. But personally, I would not have a clue how to relate to a baby of mine if I could not nurse away all the infantile boo boo's a small child encounters in life. So please cut Ed some slack, as I'm sure his opinions are colored by my own, and I promise to teach him how to use emoticons, so you can know his mood while he's writing ;-) Sure, everyone can be misunderstood, but honestly, I don't see how an emoticon can soften the blow of the things he said in his original post. If anyone called out any of the parenting practices you've used and called them the things he called parents who don't breastfeed or co-sleep, you'd be up in arms. Even you just said above that you don't see how mothers relate to their kids without breastfeeding! Do you truly mean to imply that moms who don't breastfeed can't relate to their kids? Or at least can't relate to them in the special way you relate to your kids? I'm sorry, but that's just plain arrogant and hurtful. Mothers who didn't breastfeed for whatever reasons still manage to love and nurture and relate to their babies, and it's insulting to imply otherwise, whether you stick a smiley on the end or not. I'm glad I breastfed my babies, but I would never in a million years look down that way on women who didn't. You won't find a stronger proponent of homebirth either, but I don't go around telling folks that if they didn't give birth at home without any drugs or interventions, I couldn't possibly imagine how they bonded properly with their babies. Best wishes, Ericka Amen, sister. Amen. -- Jamie Clark |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
baby in separate room from mother at night?
On Apr 21, 9:58 pm, Ed Augusts wrote:
I like to give information about definite cases, definite individuals And you then assume that those individual cases can be generalised. So, you see two people who were emotionally neglected and, in the second case, abused, and who also happened to be formula-fed and sleep in separate rooms. And you then appear to have leaped from this information to an assumption that *all* formula-fed babies and/or *all* babies who sleep in separate rooms from their parents (two groups which you appear to consider synonymous) are similarly neglected. This is such an elementary error of logic that it's very hard to believe that you can't spot it. There's probably even a name for it, though I haven't time to look it up right now. so I'm puzzled why I get anti-Ed remarks, "Who are YOU to preach, buddy?" instead of someone saying "I've known such-and-so-many children who were all raised on formula and whose moms didn't show them much warmth, and they've all grown up just fine!" Actually, Ed, I was raised on formula and my mother showed me plenty of warmth. I don't know whether or not I slept in the same room as her as a baby, nor do I care - it's irrelevant. The important thing is that my mother was extremely warm, caring, and affectionate throughout my childhood (and adulthood). And, yes, I grew up just fine. (If you want details; I'm a successful doctor, happily married, and have two children.) My sister slept in her own room as a baby, but was breastfed. Our mother was just as warm and caring to her, and she has also turned out just fine. My son was breastfed until the age of sixteen months and slept in the same room as us until he was twenty-two months. During this time he was also sleep trained, by a method that used the basic principle of the Ferber method (the exact details were different). The reason for this was not to make him 'tough', but because it was the ultimately the only way of dealing with the fact that he didn't want to go to sleep at bedtime - keeping him up when he was tired, or sitting with him until he went to sleep, just made him even more annoyed, and eventually the only way to convince him that it was bedtime was to walk out of the room and leave him alone for a bit. So that's what I did. He is lovingly cared for full-time by myself and my husband, with lots of hugs, affection, and attention. At the age of three, he's happy, confident, and loves life. Funny how real people don't fit into your neat little stereotypes, isn't it? Perhaps it is more politically correct to not talk about this issue at all? Is that what you folks are saying? No, Ed. We're saying that it's factually incorrect to say the things about it that you're saying. From what you say, it appears that you think that if a woman is formula feeding, or if she puts her child to sleep in a separate room, or if she uses sleep training, then it can automatically be assumed that a) she must be doing *all* those things, and b) she is also neglecting and possibly abusing the child. It's the latter assumption that is putting people's backs up. I don't think anyone disagrees with the idea that if a parent is emotionally neglectful and/or abusive then that is likely to cause emotional damage in the children. What we are disagreeing with, not to mention vehemently objecting to, is your heavy implication that all mothers who formula-feed, or who put children to sleep in a separate room, or who sleep train, are also being emotionally neglectful. Rubbish. Oh, and one last thing: Being a lesbian is not a sign of emotional maladjustment, and does not belong on your list of Dreadful Fates These Poor Children Suffered. Please do not make it sound that way. Sarah -- http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
baby in separate room from mother at night?
On Apr 22, 7:04 pm, Suzanne at SuzCorner
wrote: I believe what Ed was trying to do was bounce ideas off of experienced mothers after having heard my own opinions about my childrearing history vs what I've witnessed in other families, some of whom their children are turning out decidedly NOT ok. If that really was what he was trying to do, then he failed dismally. He was not offering up ideas; he was stating his theories as though they were fact, and exhorting parents to act the way he felt they should act, in a way that made it quite clear that he believed that women who don't breastfeed or don't put their babies to sleep in the same room are also being emotionally neglectful and unloving. He is also extending that with what was his own luck to observe in families at opposite ends of the spectrum Suzanne, the problem is that he doesn't seem to recognise that there *is* a spectrum. All he sees are the opposite ends. Anyway, I have seen families that are loving who for whatever reason, scheduling conflicts, breast problems, mother-self-image, bad advice by "doctors", did not breastfeed. But personally, I would not have a clue how to relate to a baby of mine if I could not nurse away all the infantile boo boo's a small child encounters in life. You may feel that way now, but I strongly suspect that if you were faced with that situation - if, for whatever reason, you had a baby that you couldn't nurse - then you would rapidly develop other ways to relate to that baby. In fact, I should think - and hope - that you had plenty of other ways to relate to your baby as it was. Surely you must have spent plenty of time touching and holding your baby even when you weren't nursing him or her, not to mention talking to him or her often? However, if that really isn't the case - if being unable to nurse really would leave you genuinely stymied as to what else you could possibly do to show your affection and responsiveness to that child in such a way as to build up a strong, loving relationship - then that would make me seriously worried about your own emotional wholeness and ability to relate to others. In the highly unlikely event that you really are that deficient in normal maternal responsiveness, please recognise that this is your own problem (and needs dealing with), and do not project it into an assumption that the millions of warm, loving, affectionate mothers who formula-feed are similarly lacking in ability to show love. So please cut Ed some slack, as I'm sure his opinions are colored by my own, and I promise to teach him how to use emoticons, so you can know his mood while he's writing ;-) Suzanne, don't bother. The reason Ed offended others is that he claimed that if you don't breastfeed, or don't share a room with your child, then that automatically means that you're spending that child's entire childhood neglecting them and possibly abusing them. Those views are uninformed, judgemental, arrogant, and ridiculously inaccurate. They do not become acceptable because they were coloured by the opinions of others, they do not become acceptable because he's in a calm happy blissed-out mood while writing, they would not be acceptable if you stuck a smiley on the end. What he needs is not to use emoticons, but to realise that the word is not the black-and-white place he paints it, and that there are millions of women out there who formula feed and/or put their babies to sleep in separate rooms and who maintain warm, loving, affectionate relationships with those babies. Sarah -- http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
baby in separate room from mother at night?
On Apr 21, 3:10�am, Ed Augusts wrote:
I am thinking over the results I've seen in families where the baby is, typically, nursed by the mother, and spends the night close to the mother, as compared to families where the baby is immediately put on formula and then sleeps in a room down the hall. �There is this insidious "Ferberizing" process many young parents inflict upon their children in which they let their kids cry themselves to sleep at night until they get used to being without Mom and sleeping alone in their own little room. �Oh, yes! �Let's make the little guy 'tough' by making him cry, and then ignore his cries until he or she gets over it and becomes insensitive to whether they're sleeping with mom or not. (Is that insane, or what?) �This neglect often goes along with putting these kids on formula. �In my experience, it is NEVER a breastfeeding mother who also locks her child away in a room down the hall at night where they have to cry themselves to sleep! Looking at the results, that is, what becomes of this unfortunate child who is denied his or her mother's love, space, breastmilk and also physical protection, tells an ugly story. I know of a girl who was adopted into a very austere and Spartan household in which love was nothing but a 4-letter word, �and the adoptive mother could not stand to be in the child's presence child for very long. The baby's room was down the hall, I guess so she could sometimes choose to ignore her when she cried. �The adoptive mom THOUGHT she wanted to have a baby --then changed her mind. �But she didn't give the baby to someone who would love her, she kept the baby, but just didn't LOVE her or make the child feel loved... Well, unfortunately for all concerned, that child no sooner got into her teens than she got into a syndrome of self-abuse by cutting herself in parallel lines on her arms and legs with knives and razor blades. �She did this before she was half-way through high school. �That child, as a grown woman, had at least one abortion and later became a lesbian. She has had absolutely no contact with her adoptive mother or father for many years now. Here is a second case, a businessman who, for his entire life, has hated his mother because she never told him she loved him, never, in his memory, hugged or kissed him, and kept him in a small dingy room down the hall throughout most of his childhood. �She never breastfed him, she told him such a thing "freaked her out", she would not want a baby on her breast! �This is a mother who STILL makes fun of her child and enjoys telling a roomful of guests nothing but unflattering stories about her boy. �This man is now close to 50 years old, and he confided to me that he is still a virgin. �Guess what? �He says he has "issues" with his mother, and somehow ALL women seem to him to be a little bit LIKE his mother, therefore he has never had a successful relationship with an adult woman, not in the business world, nor in private. Women are "things" to be "consumed" as "eye candy" at a strip joint or sex magazine, but he cannot figure out how to get close to a woman -- �not in real life! My point is very simple, and I'm sorry if I sound like I'm "preaching to the choir", but some of women reading this article MAY NOT be planning to hug and kiss and breastfeed their babies, and I really thought any such mothers-to-be out there ought to consider the consequences of a lack of intimacy with your baby! �You have the AWESOME responsibility of raising either a well-adjusted, happy, mentally healthy child, one whom you keep close to your breast, and in your room... OR, �participating in raising an unhappy, wretched little child whom you put away in a dark little room down the hall, �whom you don't breastfeed, whom you make to be alone and lonesome, and who may very well grow up to be either a self-destructive self-mutilator, or possibly an inhuman, unfeeling, monster, a child who wants to give back to women exactly what his or her mother gave them in their childhood --- coldness and contempt! �Remember, MOST of the contempt is actually reserved by the neglected child FOR HIS OR HER MOTHER. Think carefully, now, about how you decide to raise this baby! "Ferberize" and harm them? �And lose their love and respect? � Or, love them and be loved in return, both now and as long as you live! Which will it be? �Is it really all that hard to decide? Best wishes & hoping you choose wisely, �------Edhttp://www.breastpumppedal.com It doesn't matter one bit what you want to assume every parent is doing just because they don't cosleep, but the fact of the matter is that many parents have their children in separate rooms and those children don't CIO and are not left to do so and who do just fine sleeping on their own, and yes even breastfeeding mothers have their children sleeping in separate rooms, including myself. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mother lived lavishly while keeping her adopted children locked inside a utility room | [email protected] | General | 0 | August 11th 07 02:40 PM |
6 month old's crib in parents' room causing night waking? | [email protected] | General | 2 | January 3rd 07 02:51 PM |
Night light in nursling's room | [email protected] | General | 20 | February 11th 05 02:10 PM |
infant/baby room monitor | John Doe | Pregnancy | 0 | January 27th 05 08:55 AM |