Yet another media strike against AP!

Stephanie and Tim wrote:
"Karen Askey" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(H Schinske) writes:
Assuming no other behavior problems had developed, he'd be a
well-adjusted child who was perfectly content with a room and a
bed of his own.

Well, duh. If no other behavior problems had developed, he'd be the
perfect child, no? At least he'd look like one.

Anyone remember Pet Rocks? I think some people ought to have Rock
Babies. They
do behave themselves awfully well, and you don't have to rock them
-- they're already permanently rocked :-)

Heh, I wonder if Ted Bundy or Jeffery Dahmer slept all nite content
in their rooms? Being content all nite in a room of your own does
not mean a child is well-adjusted in other areas as well.

"He was a quiet guy, kept pretty much to himself. Never complained.
. . " Sound familiar?

Right, if you child sleeps in his own room, then he is going to grow
up to be an ax murder because his mother did not love him. That must
be it.

I don't think that was what Karen was implying. I certainly didn't read it
that way, and my kids all sleep in their own rooms.

I think what Karen was saying is that the behavior described in the letter
and inveighed against by Rosemond (who, IMO, is a hard-line parenting
idealogue cut from the same basic cloth as Ezzo) *isn't* necessarily a
problem. It's only a problem if the parents *think* it's a problem. And even
if it *is* a problem, it doesn't necessarily mean the child in question is
poorly disciplined and maladjusted, any more than sleeping through the night
in one's own room means the child in question is well-disciplined and
well-adjusted.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [7/22/97], Aurora [7/19/99], and Vernon's [3/2/02] mom)
See us at http://photos.yahoo.com/guavaln

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"Loose weight, feel great!" -- fair booth sign

What does it all mean? I have *no* idea. But it's my life and I like it.

"Circe" wrote in message
news:RgVQa.8484$u51.7356@fed1read05...
Stephanie and Tim wrote:
"Karen Askey" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(H Schinske) writes:
Assuming no other behavior problems had developed, he'd be a
well-adjusted child who was perfectly content with a room and a
bed of his own.

Well, duh. If no other behavior problems had developed, he'd be the
perfect child, no? At least he'd look like one.

Anyone remember Pet Rocks? I think some people ought to have Rock
Babies. They
do behave themselves awfully well, and you don't have to rock them
-- they're already permanently rocked :-)

Heh, I wonder if Ted Bundy or Jeffery Dahmer slept all nite content
in their rooms? Being content all nite in a room of your own does
not mean a child is well-adjusted in other areas as well.

"He was a quiet guy, kept pretty much to himself. Never complained.
. . " Sound familiar?

Right, if you child sleeps in his own room, then he is going to grow
up to be an ax murder because his mother did not love him. That must
be it.

I don't think that was what Karen was implying. I certainly didn't read it
that way, and my kids all sleep in their own rooms.

I think what Karen was saying is that the behavior described in the letter
and inveighed against by Rosemond (who, IMO, is a hard-line parenting
idealogue cut from the same basic cloth as Ezzo) *isn't* necessarily a
problem. It's only a problem if the parents *think* it's a problem. And
even
if it *is* a problem, it doesn't necessarily mean the child in question is
poorly disciplined and maladjusted, any more than sleeping through the
night
in one's own room means the child in question is well-disciplined and
well-adjusted.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [7/22/97], Aurora [7/19/99], and Vernon's [3/2/02] mom)
See us at http://photos.yahoo.com/guavaln

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"Loose weight, feel great!" -- fair booth sign

What does it all mean? I have *no* idea. But it's my life and I like it.



I hear what *you* are saying. That is not what it sounded like *she* was
saying at all.

S

Stephanie and Tim wrote:
"Circe" wrote in message
news:RgVQa.8484$u51.7356@fed1read05...
Stephanie and Tim wrote:
"Karen Askey" wrote in message
...
Heh, I wonder if Ted Bundy or Jeffery Dahmer slept all nite content
in their rooms? Being content all nite in a room of your own does
not mean a child is well-adjusted in other areas as well.

"He was a quiet guy, kept pretty much to himself. Never
complained. . . " Sound familiar?

Right, if you child sleeps in his own room, then he is going to grow
up to be an ax murder because his mother did not love him. That must
be it.

I don't think that was what Karen was implying. I certainly didn't
read it that way, and my kids all sleep in their own rooms.

I think what Karen was saying is that the behavior described in the
letter and inveighed against by Rosemond (who, IMO, is a hard-line
parenting idealogue cut from the same basic cloth as Ezzo) *isn't*
necessarily a problem. It's only a problem if the parents *think*
it's a problem. And even if it *is* a problem, it doesn't
necessarily mean the child in question is poorly disciplined and
maladjusted, any more than sleeping through the night in one's own
room means the child in question is well-disciplined and
well-adjusted.

I hear what *you* are saying. That is not what it sounded like *she*
was saying at all.

Shrug It can be remarkably difficult to "hear" what people are saying in a
strictly written formal. Sarcasm and irony often don't come across properly
at all. To me, it "sounded" like Karen was simply saying that sleeping
through the night in one's own room was no indication of normalcy. I think
it's quite likely that most mass murderers DID sleep through the night in
their own rooms as children, given the fact that this is the societal norm.
That doesn't mean their sleeping through the night in their own rooms
*caused* them to be mass murderers or even that it meant their mothers
didn't love them (and I don't think Karen meant it did, though it's entirely
possible that *I* misunderstood her); it simply means that appearing normal
and being normal aren't one and the same!

I just get the impression that you felt attacked by what Karen wrote because
you've chosen not to co-sleep. And I'm not sure why. Because *we* don't
co-sleep, but I didn't remotely feel that Karen was attacking my choice not
to or that she was suggesting my kids were going to turn out to be psychotic
killers as a result. I realize this group has a *lot* of co-sleepers in it
and folks here are generally enthusiastic about it. Like Clisby, I happen to
be one of those people who doesn't find co-sleeping particularly pleasant or
restful, and therefore choose not to do it unless absolutely necessary. But
I've never felt like anyone who was enthusiastic about co-sleeping was
attacking me or putting me down for being different. Ever. So I'm wondering
where your sense of injury is coming from. I don't think it's just from what
Karen wrote.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [7/22/97], Aurora [7/19/99], and Vernon's [3/2/02] mom)
See us at http://photos.yahoo.com/guavaln

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"Loose weight, feel great!" -- fair booth sign

What does it all mean? I have *no* idea. But it's my life and I like it.

Rarely do I meet a father who has chosen to initiate this unnecessary
practice.

Rarely do I meet a father who says "No dear, you stay here in our bed whilst
I get up and soothe the baby to sleep for an hour or so in his own room...."

ROSIE

p.s. DH said the other night, that when DD is asleep in her own bed, he just
lies awake worrying about her until she comes into bed with me ... ahhh!

At risk of opening another can of worms, I'll stick my two pence in. John
Redmond strikes me as someone who has never spent an entire day alone and soely
responsible for the care of an infant. Daddy sitter, yes and I'd bet he did an
adequate job of child watcher. But he doesn't seem to GET what it is like to be
a breastfeeding stay at home mom with an infant. It wouldn't matter so much
EXCEPT... when it comes to things like cosleeping, and daycare he gets onto
these high horses that show his arrogance more than his expertise.
Now I will say, I do like (full disclosuer, I have one daughter who is all
of 2) his style of handeling teens. 15 & 16 year olds can get into really
dangerous trouble. His "lower the boom" technique (take away the car, the
stuff, the allowance, the job, whatever) makes a lot of sense to me. We will
see if I have the balls for it when she is 16. Sue
Tupperware without the party???
Shop online at my website.
http://my.tupperware.com/SueBurton

** remove "spamnot" to reply**

"Circe" wrote in message
news:EJVQa.8501$u51.4579@fed1read05...
Stephanie and Tim wrote:
"Circe" wrote in message
news:RgVQa.8484$u51.7356@fed1read05...
Stephanie and Tim wrote:
"Karen Askey" wrote in message
...
Heh, I wonder if Ted Bundy or Jeffery Dahmer slept all nite content
in their rooms? Being content all nite in a room of your own does
not mean a child is well-adjusted in other areas as well.

"He was a quiet guy, kept pretty much to himself. Never
complained. . . " Sound familiar?

Right, if you child sleeps in his own room, then he is going to grow
up to be an ax murder because his mother did not love him. That must
be it.

I don't think that was what Karen was implying. I certainly didn't
read it that way, and my kids all sleep in their own rooms.

I think what Karen was saying is that the behavior described in the
letter and inveighed against by Rosemond (who, IMO, is a hard-line
parenting idealogue cut from the same basic cloth as Ezzo) *isn't*
necessarily a problem. It's only a problem if the parents *think*
it's a problem. And even if it *is* a problem, it doesn't
necessarily mean the child in question is poorly disciplined and
maladjusted, any more than sleeping through the night in one's own
room means the child in question is well-disciplined and
well-adjusted.

I hear what *you* are saying. That is not what it sounded like *she*
was saying at all.

Shrug It can be remarkably difficult to "hear" what people are saying in
a
strictly written formal. Sarcasm and irony often don't come across
properly
at all. To me, it "sounded" like Karen was simply saying that sleeping
through the night in one's own room was no indication of normalcy. I think
it's quite likely that most mass murderers DID sleep through the night in
their own rooms as children, given the fact that this is the societal
norm.
That doesn't mean their sleeping through the night in their own rooms
*caused* them to be mass murderers or even that it meant their mothers
didn't love them (and I don't think Karen meant it did, though it's
entirely
possible that *I* misunderstood her); it simply means that appearing
normal
and being normal aren't one and the same!

I just get the impression that you felt attacked by what Karen wrote
because
you've chosen not to co-sleep.


Nope. I just thought the Ted Bundy reference was a tad off the top. The
smiley was intended to take some of the seriousness out of the complaint.

And I'm not sure why. Because *we* don't
co-sleep, but I didn't remotely feel that Karen was attacking my choice
not
to or that she was suggesting my kids were going to turn out to be
psychotic
killers as a result. I realize this group has a *lot* of co-sleepers in it
and folks here are generally enthusiastic about it. Like Clisby, I happen
to
be one of those people who doesn't find co-sleeping particularly pleasant
or
restful, and therefore choose not to do it unless absolutely necessary.
But
I've never felt like anyone who was enthusiastic about co-sleeping was
attacking me or putting me down for being different. Ever. So I'm
wondering
where your sense of injury is coming from. I don't think it's just from
what
Karen wrote.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [7/22/97], Aurora [7/19/99], and Vernon's [3/2/02] mom)
See us at http://photos.yahoo.com/guavaln

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"Loose weight, feel great!" -- fair booth sign

What does it all mean? I have *no* idea. But it's my life and I like it.

"Sue theo b" wrote in message
...
At risk of opening another can of worms, I'll stick my two pence in. John
Redmond strikes me as someone who has never spent an entire day alone and
soely
responsible for the care of an infant. Daddy sitter, yes and I'd bet he
did an
adequate job of child watcher. But he doesn't seem to GET what it is like
to be
a breastfeeding stay at home mom with an infant.


I wonder if his wife agrees with him. You know what this makes me think of?
The woman, whose name escapes me now, who drowned all of her children in the
bathtub. Her husband sounded similar to this uy, all demands.


It wouldn't matter so much
EXCEPT... when it comes to things like cosleeping, and daycare he gets
onto
these high horses that show his arrogance more than his expertise.

Just goes to show that Anyone can become an expert. I am feeling a little
poor today. Maybe I should write a book on parenting.


Now I will say, I do like (full disclosuer, I have one daughter who is
all
of 2) his style of handeling teens. 15 & 16 year olds can get into really
dangerous trouble. His "lower the boom" technique (take away the car, the
stuff, the allowance, the job, whatever) makes a lot of sense to me. We
will
see if I have the balls for it when she is 16. Sue
Tupperware without the party???
Shop online at my website.
http://my.tupperware.com/SueBurton

** remove "spamnot" to reply**

"Rosie" wrote in message
...
Rarely do I meet a father who has chosen to initiate this unnecessary
practice.

Rarely do I meet a father who says "No dear, you stay here in our bed
whilst
I get up and soothe the baby to sleep for an hour or so in his own
room...."



This is my DH. Not all the time of course. DH frequently sleeps through baby
cries better than I do. But he definitely is a hands on Dad who will suggest
just this sort of thing if I am dying.

ROSIE

p.s. DH said the other night, that when DD is asleep in her own bed, he
just
lies awake worrying about her until she comes into bed with me ... ahhh!

In article EJVQa.8501$u51.4579@fed1read05, "Circe"
writes:

I hear what *you* are saying. That is not what it sounded like *she*
was saying at all.

Shrug It can be remarkably difficult to "hear" what people are saying in a
strictly written formal. Sarcasm and irony often don't come across properly
at all. To me, it "sounded" like Karen was simply saying that sleeping
through the night in one's own room was no indication of normalcy. I think
it's quite likely that most mass murderers DID sleep through the night in
their own rooms as children, given the fact that this is the societal norm.
That doesn't mean their sleeping through the night in their own rooms
*caused* them to be mass murderers or even that it meant their mothers
didn't love them (and I don't think Karen meant it did, though it's entirely
possible that *I* misunderstood her); it simply means that appearing normal
and being normal aren't one and the same!

Thanks, Barbara. That is exactly what I was implying. Rosemond seems to say
that only a child who sleeps in his own room by himself is Normal. I was
replying to a comment that was in reply to Rosemond's quote:
Assuming no other behavior problems had developed, he'd be a
well-adjusted child who was perfectly content with a room and a bed of his
own.
And my comment was simply that just because he is content in his room does not
mean that he's content in other areas of his life.

Hey, my parents didn't co-sleep with me and I'm not an ax murderer yet. I do
co-sleep with my children and I guess I would be a shocking sight to Rosemond,
as I am told that my older child is usually well-behaved. (It's too soon to
tell about the 3-mo old!)


koa
Still nursing James, 02/06/01
EP'ing for Joey 04/02/03 (BCP)

Meanwhile, this child has been deprived of the inestimable benefit of
learning
that he was not a member of the wedding, that the marriage is not a
threesome.


Heh. So my 10 year old, who WAS a member of the wedding party, IS a part of
the marriage? That seems like a rather dumb way of defining it.

Jenrose