All Things Babywise / The Ezzo is a Horrible Human Being

[EmmieJ]

Ugh I had a post typed out and lost it. I admitted earlier that I haven't read "Babywise," I had the Preparation for parenting series. I don't know about earlier versions of the books so I can't speak to that. I can say that I nursed my kids for over a year and didn't have any children fail to thrive or jaundiced, etc. If he has amended the books to remove anything that is incorrect then what's the problem? There are a lot of parenting styles even within the same family with children. There's nothing wrong with trying to establish a routine as long as baby is well nourished and cared for.

You are refusing to acknowledge the problems, which have been outlined, in great detail, by more than one poster. Clearly, you do not want to even consider that you followed a book written by a piece of shit father whose own children now have no contact with him. Your characterization of Ezzo's cruel and dangerous advice as "a parenting style" speaks volumes about who you are a person, and is troubling to me.

[Snarkylark]

You are refusing to acknowledge the problems, which have been outlined, in great detail, by more than one poster. Clearly, you do not want to even consider that you followed a book written by a piece of shit father whose own children now have no contact with him. Your characterization of Ezzo's cruel and dangerous advice as "a parenting style" speaks volumes about who you are a person, and is troubling to me.

If he has amended the books to remove the problems, what's the problem? I'm sorry you feel that way about me when you don't even know me or my children. They are happy, healthy, well adjusted kids who know I will be there whenever they need me. They are bright, talented children who are emotionally secure. I didn't leave them to scream in their crib for hours. I'm not sure where that's coming from. I wanted babies ever since I was little and would never do anything that would cause them harm. I truthfully don't think that a baby fussing for a couple minutes is going to cause lasting damage. Not talking newborns here. Parenting sites and books tell you to let a colicky baby cry sometimes and put the baby in a safe place and walk away if you have to! Is that abuse?? Sometimes babies just CRY FOR NO REASON. It's a way they relieve stress sometimes. Again, I did not hear any dangerous or cruel advice when I listened to their tapes. If I did, I honestly can't remember it and didn't do it to my kids. I NEVER said don't feed your baby when it's hungry or comfort him when he cries. What I did like about their series was the feed, wake, sleep cycle to try to establish. Many many babies are on schedules and thrive. I specifically remember them saying to be flexible with growth spurts and the like. If I am wrong, forgive me, but that is what I took away from it and did with my babies. I also never made a newborn cry it out and I don't remember that being a part of the newborn's "training."

[PennySycamore]

IF -and this a a big IF- the baby is not waking up frequently enough to help mom build a good supply and to get enough to eat (plenty of wet and poopy diapers and gaining weight), then the mom may have to wake the baby up for a short period of time. However, this is NOT usually the case. Most babes wake frequently enough if their cues are heeded. Babywise/Ezzos are just terrible. Gary Ezzo got expelled from his church in California because he was teaching this crap as Gospel. They considered it rather heretical.

[Mama Mia]

So is this the guy who advocates Cry It Out?

It really has surprised me which new moms in my kids generation do some sort of modified CIO. I haven't heard of any of them doing it with young babies --- under 4 or 5 months. But it's mostly the older, more educated mom's who do it. It drives me nuts. I always just co-slept and fed on demand. Way easier for EVERYONE in my view. And my kids all did manage to grow up to be functioning adults who , eventually, slept in their own beds :) .

It's been really hard not to, overly, :embarrassed: voice my opinions about CIO to my daughters and their friends! I think they do it because they have to go to work every morning and are exhausted and feel they are worse parents if they don't sleep all night. And they figure within a week or two the baby will sleep through the night and everyone will be happier. I just find it cruel. But I didn't have any babies in my thirties, and I, mostly, had more schedule flexibility in my own life - so didn't care so much if the baby had a schedule.

It's been the younger, less educated moms in their group who do what I did -- put baby in bed. Insert boob. Everyone sleeps.

Any thoughts?

[Snarkylark]

So is this the guy who advocates Cry It Out?

It really has surprised me which new moms in my kids generation do some sort of modified CIO. I haven't heard of any of them doing it with young babies --- under 4 or 5 months. But it's mostly the older, more educated mom's who do it. It drives me nuts. I always just co-slept and fed on demand. Way easier for EVERYONE in my view. And my kids all did manage to grow up to be functioning adults who , eventually, slept in their own beds :) .

It's been really hard not to, overly, :embarrassed: voice my opinions about CIO to my daughters and their friends! I think they do it because they have to go to work every morning and are exhausted and feel they are worse parents if they don't sleep all night. And they figure within a week or two the baby will sleep through the night and everyone will be happier. I just find it cruel. But I didn't have any babies in my thirties, and I, mostly, had more schedule flexibility in my own life - so didn't care so much if the baby had a schedule.

It's been the younger, less educated moms in their group who do what I did -- put baby in bed. Insert boob. Everyone sleeps.

Any thoughts?

The AAP also says that co-sleeping isn't safe.

[lawlifelgbt]

Just wanted to say- CIO and not responding to a baby when needed demonstrably lower IQ. See here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1549 ... t=Abstract

It's easy to find more studies on Google Scholar.

Frankly, when my wife and I have kids, I'm not willing to take the risk of "dumbing down" my kid for life. A baby's brain is "plastic" before age 2-3, so any loss of neurons due to trauma or stress then is permanent. But, maybe fundies don't care. Or, it's a feature, not a bug!

[NotALoserLikeYou]

Ezzo quotes:

“If she believes she is central to the family universe, her self-centered feeling will carry over into every relationship in her ever-expanding world.â€

“[The baby should learn] from the start that giving is equally important as receiving.â€

By the end of eight weeks, the stabilization phase is usually complete. By this time, your baby should be sleeping through the night on a regular basis or very close to achieving the skill.

Any crying will be temporary, lasting from five to forty-five minutes.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

Where did you get that advice? I have never heard any of this besides in scheduling books like Babywise. None of it is true.

#1 Milk supply takes longer to establish then 2 weeks, more like 6-8 weeks at least. As growth spurts and preparation for when they are older all start to establish at this point.

#2 No matter how many times it is said feeding to sleep is not a crutch or a bad habit. It is a anthropological norm. One thing to keep in mind milk at night is filled with sleep hormones. A baby fed to sleep will not fed to sleep forever.

#3 Babies when responded too, on their schedules, cry less, and tend to be more independent and better able to handle their emotions when older.

I can go on, but I wont. I wont change your mind, as you would like to think you did the best you could for your kids. But I would hate a new Mum to see your post and believe this is true when its just not.

I respond to my kids, follow their schedules and with no crying, have been able to leave them from a young age with family, get rest and get to the gym even. But I did it within their schedule and follow age appropriate recommendations, and expectations.

Babywise is not scientifically backed. His kids don't have contact with him. It is a poor way to keep up breastfeeding and is blamed for early weaning, supply issues and of course failure to thrive. Sorry, the science backs this as bad advice. In fact they had to go back and change some wording, because of legal issues. It is a bad way to bond. Erica and her cold, distant, scheduled to the second parenting, is pretty much, all the reason this book is bad, as she is pretty much a star pupil.

Eta, I realized part of my issue, is too many people, are too quick to give young babies the benefit of thinking they have higher skills and thinking then they do. The same logic that says babies can self soothe, create bad habits, also line up too often with those who think babies can be manipulative, or even sin. Babies do not function like small adults. Unless this is realized too often books like these will keep being shared for worry they will create bad babies, instead of looking at the science and trying to build their brains to create well balanced adults.

EXACTLY!

Growing up and developing into an adult is an extremely long, step by step process, it takes 20-25 years. It simply doesn`t make sense to judge a baby by adult standards. Your newborn doesn`t have selfish needs (adult standard), he has just needs that you have to meet. He doesn`t need to selfsoothe! Years will pass before he will be able to truly selfsoothe and he will only learn it experincing your way to soothe him. Why on earth should he know what`s wrong with him (adult standard) and what to do for it (another very adult thing)? He simply doesn`t know and he asks your help in the only way he knows: crying. Then you come and together try to understand what happens and what to do. Nappy changed baby still crying, let`s trysomething else, until youfind out. in the end you`ll both have learnt something and he will have done a minuscule step forward in his developement.

[Mama Mia]

The AAP also says that co-sleeping isn't safe.

So? Thousands of years of human history wand thousands of cultures world wide throughout that history say otherwise.

[formergothardite]

Ugh I had a post typed out and lost it. I admitted earlier that I haven't read "Babywise," I had the Preparation for parenting series. I don't know about earlier versions of the books so I can't speak to that. I can say that I nursed my kids for over a year and didn't have any children fail to thrive or jaundiced, etc. If he has amended the books to remove anything that is incorrect then what's the problem? There are a lot of parenting styles even within the same family with children. There's nothing wrong with trying to establish a routine as long as baby is well nourished and cared for.

Preparation for Parenting is basically Babywise before he changed the name and some other things. It is also the book((at least in some editions) that tells fathers when they come home from work and their little child runs up to him with his arms up saying "Daddy! Daddy!" because they are excited to see their father, to basically push the child aside, and say "No, your mother comes first" and then ignore the child.

Ezzo never, ever admitted that anything in any of his Babywise editions was wrong and dangerous. If pushed on the question he gets all vague and says things like "well books change". After severe backlash(and babies almost dying) he just takes out the bad information and tries to pretend it never happened. And you don't think it is strange at all that Ezzo started off his program not wanting parents to talk to their baby's doctor about it? That isn't a massive red flag that perhaps this man is up to no good?

Establishing a routine that works for a baby(and with Ezzo we are talking about newborn on, in some of his books he says to start 'training" babies the second they are born), is one thing. Following the advice of Ezzo the Monster is another. He is nothing but a scam artist who has been caught in tons of lies, knows nothing about babies, and only wants to make money. You are lucky it worked for your baby and it didn't end up like my friend's baby who almost died because of following Babywise.

I used to have several editions of Babywise and other Ezzo material but tossed them in a fit of decluttering. I'm going to looking for more at thrift stores just so when these conversations come up in both real life and online I can quote the actual books.

[formergothardite]

If he has amended the books to remove the problems, what's the problem? I'm sorry you feel that way about me when you don't even know me or my children. They are happy, healthy, well adjusted kids who know I will be there whenever they need me. They are bright, talented children who are emotionally secure. I didn't leave them to scream in their crib for hours. I'm not sure where that's coming from. I wanted babies ever since I was little and would never do anything that would cause them harm. I truthfully don't think that a baby fussing for a couple minutes is going to cause lasting damage. Not talking newborns here. Parenting sites and books tell you to let a colicky baby cry sometimes and put the baby in a safe place and walk away if you have to! Is that abuse?? Sometimes babies just CRY FOR NO REASON. It's a way they relieve stress sometimes. Again, I did not hear any dangerous or cruel advice when I listened to their tapes. If I did, I honestly can't remember it and didn't do it to my kids. I NEVER said don't feed your baby when it's hungry or comfort him when he cries. What I did like about their series was the feed, wake, sleep cycle to try to establish. Many many babies are on schedules and thrive. I specifically remember them saying to be flexible with growth spurts and the like. If I am wrong, forgive me, but that is what I took away from it and did with my babies. I also never made a newborn cry it out and I don't remember that being a part of the newborn's "training."

I think you might be misremembering a lot of the stuff. Because if you were listening to his tapes and reading Preparation for Parenting, then Ezzo WAS talking babies who are only a couple weeks old and letting them cry for close to an hour.

I don't agree with everything the AAP says, the reason I brought it up is because it is another example of how Ezzo is not being completely truthful about his teachings. And it isn't just the AAP who says that Ezzo's feeding amounts are at the absolute bottom of the chart when it comes to how often a baby should be fed, pretty much every specialists says that.

This is what Focus on the Family says about Gary Ezzo and his books. Now Focus on the Family is pretty damn awful too, so when they think they should warn people against following Ezzo it really says something.

.ezzo.info/Focus/FOTFstatement.htm

we do have some concerns and reservations about the Ezzos' work, including the updated editions of _Preparation for Parenting_ and _Growing Kids God's Way_. First, it seems to us that their philosophy of childrearing is far too rigid. The very title of program, _Growing Kids God's Way_ has an unnecessarily exclusivistic sound about it, as if there were only one "correct" and godly way to raise children and that all other methods were "unbiblical." In contrast to this, Dr. Dobson believes that there are many different approaches to raising children which are both healthy and consistent with the teaching of Scripture.

Speaking of Scripture, the Ezzo's use of biblical texts is, in our view, a second cause for serious concern. They have, for example, cited Matthew 27:46 -- ". . . My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" -- in support of their teaching that mothers should refuse to attend to crying infants who have already been fed, changed, and had their basic needs met. "Praise God," writes Mr. Gary Ezzo in _Preparation for Parenting_, "that the Father did not intervene when His son cried out on the cross." We see no way to make such an application of this verse without completely disregarding its original context and purpose.

Also, we are aware that the authors' proposals regarding controlled feeding schedules for infants are highly controversial. Some critics have suggested that they might possibly result in child abuse if applied legalistically, inflexibly, and without regard for circumstance and the special needs of individual children. In fact, our ministry has received numerous letters from parents, pastors, midwives, physicians, and lactation professionals regarding cases of failure-to-thrive in infants subjected to the Ezzos' program

This page is by a guy who used to work for Ezzo and he explain how Ezzo lies to make Babywise and himself look better. This is not an isolated person saying this. The internet is full of stories of Ezzo editing things to make them say what he wants or just flat out making things up. This man was surprised to discover so many stories of babies failing to thrive because of Ezzo's teachings. He went to Ezzo thinking he too would care, but instead Ezzo claimed it was just exaggerated or made up.

.drmomma.org/2009/12/adventure-in-ezzoland.html

[formergothardite]

So? Thousands of years of human history wand thousands of cultures world wide throughout that history say otherwise.

According to Ezzo in Preparation for Parenting, in olden days people used his method. Even Mary the mother of Jesus had him on a strict schedule. :roll:

A practical routine similar to PCF was the method used in biblical times and most likely the method used by Mary, the mother of Jesus." p 45

Yes, because in biblical times babies had their own rooms and beds and no mother stuck their kid in a sling to let them nurse while the mom walked about working. In one of his Babywise or PFP books he bashes mothers who use slings to comfort their child.

[formergothardite]

Here are some Ezzo quotes from Preparation for Parenting:

Our survey of mothers shows that 70 percent of PCF babies drop the middle-of-the-night feeding on their own. That leaves 30 percent needing a little nudge, which may necessitate some crying for a few nights until he or she is able to establish unbroken sleep cycles. Crying may be as short as five minutes or as long as an hour."

A little note here, Ezzo has been known to completely make up his survey information. But he still is saying a TWO MONTH OLD should be left to cry for up to an hour.

As a general rule, you will not feed less than every three hours or more than every four. (See endnote # 6 in Chapter Five.) Anything less than three hours ultimately wears Mom down, often decreasing milk production.

The endnote that is mentioned says this:

Even if a mother feeds her baby on routine, if that routine characteristically falls less than three hours, the baby will not achieve digestive stabilization and will wake on a recurring basis at night. When that child grows older and mealtimes are stretched, he will still have nighttime sleep difficulties because of the long-term affect of sleep-pattern conditioning.

"If you stick to a very strict three-hour routine, you can get eight feedings in during a twenty-four hour period. There is nothing wrong with that if you choose to do so for the first few days. But under normal circumstances, your [newborn] baby will only need to take seven feedings in a twenty-four hour period."

Seven to eight daily feedings in the first month. (The number of feedings will depend on whether you begin with a strict three hour routine, or a flexible three to three-and-a-half hour routine.) By the end of this phase, you should be averaging five feedings in a twenty-four hour period with the baby having dropped the middle-of-the-night feeding.

Weeks 9-13

During this phase you will transition from five to four feedings in a twenty-four hour period. That will

place the baby on a four hour routine and will drop the late-evening feeding.

What to do if your baby is crying because it is hungry all the time:

You may have reversed the order of wake and nap time activities or you may not be milk sufficient. The latter could be caused by a number of different factors. Lack of sleep, stress, improper diet, meddling mother or mother-in-law. With such influences, leaving your routine or dropping feedings below three hours will not make a mother any more milk sufficient. Such attempts are at best temporary, at worse exhausting [sic]. God has so ordered the body to functions best on routine [sic]. If your baby really is hungry all the time, exam those factors that are influencing your routine [sic]. p.124

ezzo.info/resources/timeline/81-timeline/91-quotes-from-1990-1993-preparation-for-parenting

[tankgirl]

If he has amended the books to remove the problems, what's the problem? I'm sorry you feel that way about me when you don't even know me or my children. They are happy, healthy, well adjusted kids who know I will be there whenever they need me. They are bright, talented children who are emotionally secure. I didn't leave them to scream in their crib for hours. I'm not sure where that's coming from. I wanted babies ever since I was little and would never do anything that would cause them harm. I truthfully don't think that a baby fussing for a couple minutes is going to cause lasting damage. Not talking newborns here. Parenting sites and books tell you to let a colicky baby cry sometimes and put the baby in a safe place and walk away if you have to! Is that abuse?? Sometimes babies just CRY FOR NO REASON. It's a way they relieve stress sometimes. Again, I did not hear any dangerous or cruel advice when I listened to their tapes. If I did, I honestly can't remember it and didn't do it to my kids. I NEVER said don't feed your baby when it's hungry or comfort him when he cries. What I did like about their series was the feed, wake, sleep cycle to try to establish. Many many babies are on schedules and thrive. I specifically remember them saying to be flexible with growth spurts and the like. If I am wrong, forgive me, but that is what I took away from it and did with my babies. I also never made a newborn cry it out and I don't remember that being a part of the newborn's "training."

Ok, again, I have to tackle something in your post for others to see. Babies do not cry for no reason. Period! Sorry, no. You might not know or like the reason in the case of say, comfort, but babies do not cry for no reason. Crying also does not relieve stress for babies. In fact the longer they are left to cry, the more stress hormones are produced. In some cultures, babies almost never cry. Why? Because according to modern Western cultures they are "spoiled". Babies use crying as their only means of communication. Their small brains are building a shocking number of connections and acquiring knowledge at a faster rate then at any other point in their lifetimes. This sort of training forgets how babies develop. They are told to "self soothe", before they understand the concepts of self, object permanence, or have the basic abilities to help themselves. Babies have base needs, and as parents we are responsible to tend to them, no matter how inconvenient. Yes, sometimes parents aren't perfect and a child must cry, while you run to the loo or whatever, but purposely leaving a baby to cry, does not help the baby, and can cause extra stress to the baby, and a recent study shows, can also build a hormonal divide to baby and mother.

My next major issue, is Babywise trainers and promoters. Some are damn stealthy, swearing up and down they aren't trainers. But I came across one on a Mum board. She went into the sleep and breast feeding advice boards and touted Babywise as a miracle. But over time we discovered a few holes in her story. She claimed perfect sleeping at 6 weeks, first she said with no crying, and not as newborns, but admitted later, she revisited cio at many stages, but her kids, knew better, and she did not respond to those cries, or "give in". Also she often started

"training" as early as the day they came home, or at the latest 2 weeks. We also got her to admit to pumping, which on one hand she said, she had to do, for several reasons, including helping her supply, but when called out on Babywise effecting her supply, she said, "she pumped, because she liked having a milk stash". Earlier it was found, she had reported issues with supply, but she refused to admit, it had anything to do with following, the original stricter Ezzo schedule.

My biggest issue, is this woman had direct ties to Ezzo, met him many times, promoted him, stood up for him, and more. All while claiming, she just liked the program. But she was in deeper. She also promoted the unchanged earlier versions of Ezzo's advice. And that can lead to major issues, if a tired Mum, were to follow her advice. She talked of all the perfect children at her church all raised in this manner, and an over wrought Mum, might see this as great advice and for it to a tee, and this is how things go wrong fast. Funny, she occasionally slipped about issues with her kids as well, but of course those had nothing to do with the way she raised them either. Funny, I actually relooked her up one day after reading about Erica here, as they sounded so similar in tone, but sadly she is just another cold Mum, deciding scheduling, and ease are more important, then patience and supporting a child.

ETA; I went looking for some information, I remembered reading and came up with this great article that lays out the feeding issues, Cio issues, the issues with following the program to a tee, further issues with the book and advice, the fact that the Ezzo's group, has been called a possible cult, and more. This really brings back a lot of why this parenting technique should be discussed on a site like freejinger. Leaving link intact as they want this out there. http:http://www.freejinger.org/forums/styles/abbcode/images/bold.gif.pagespeed.ce._JpCq22zsI.gif//www.nospank.net/granju2.htm

A few quotes from the article;

Although it is the feeding recommendations in "Babywise" that have received the most negative attention, much of the other child-care advice in the books is similarly diametrically opposed to modern pediatric and psychological practice. For example, babies who resist the prescribed napping and bedtime components of the "Babywise" regimen are left to wail alone in their cribs for up to an hour at a stretch in order to "train" them. Play time is highly structured, with ever-increasing portions of a baby's day spent in solitary "roomtime" or "playpen time." According to Ezzo, skills such as "creativity," "mental focusing" and a "sustained attention span" may be "seriously delayed if your child misses out on structured playpen time."

After babies reach only 6 months of age, parents are instructed to begin punitive disciplinary measures such as "squeezing or swatting" of the child's hands or "isolation" in the crib for "rebellious" infractions including "foolishness," "malicious defiance" or even playing with food on the highchair tray. Ezzo explains to parents that the use of "pain" and "discomfort" can be essential disciplinary tools. After age 2 and a half, children who have a toileting accident are required to clean themselves up.

Yup, typical manipulative babies, stuff. With TTUAC type advice.

In interview after interview with families who are using "Babywise," parents spoke of their sincere desire to produce "obedient," "respectful" children. Rarely did these parents mention a hope to produce emotionally healthy adults. Overwhelmingly, "Babywise" parents accepted without question the conventional wisdom that "kids today" are out of control. Faced with the onslaught of media images of rampaging middle-schoolers and wilding teens, these parents believe that by cracking down on what Ezzo defines as infant rebellion now, they will prevent problems later.

"I have no intention of raising an out-of-control child, " says Franklin Stout, a 32-year-old father of two who is implementing "Babywise" methods with his young children. "My wife and I like having a guide to help us know how to respond to our sons' different behaviors. We believe that firm discipline in the first year or two will save us all a lot of grief later."

Several parents spoke of their belief that, after reading the books, they are convinced that any other child-rearing philosophy might eventually produce some type of obnoxious felon. Some of them may have gotten this idea from a statement made by "Babywise" co-author Bucknam, who in 1997 told the Denver Post: "As they [babies not fed on a schedule] get older, every whine is an opportunity to feed. They become more demanding. They become brats."

This sounds so much like many of the fundies and their thinking in regards to kids.

Additionally, the most recent issue of the magazine of the Christian Research Institute, a fundamentalist "cult-watch" organization, features a lengthy and meticulously documented cover story titled "More Than Just a Parenting Ministry?" alleging that GFI has consistently exhibited "cultic tendencies," including authoritarianism, isolationism, physical and emotional endangerment and hardball tactics used against naysayers. As one example, GFI parenting classes disallow any debate concerning the course materials. Some parents who have taken the courses say that they were instructed by GFI representatives not to discuss what they learned in class with anyone who has not themselves completed GFI parenting training. GFI's Web site message boards are similarly intolerant of any disagreement. Those who are not deemed to be "like-minded" have had their Web access permanently blocked from what GFI calls its Internet "Family Room." (In my own case, after I requested an interview with the Ezzos and registered to log on to the forum in order to research this article, GFI's Web site forum administrator informed me via e-mail that she had "checked me out" at the request of Anne Marie Ezzo. She wrote that she had made the determination from information found on my family's personal home page that I am "not in agreement with [GFI's] beliefs and so I have denied you access." This is despite the fact that I had never posted or attempted to post to GFI's message boards. The forum administrator further cited privacy concerns. Not surprisingly, I was also denied an interview with the Ezzos.)

I saw some of this in regards to the Mum I mentioned. It was a bit like talking to a JW, conversation, turned all disagreements to a offer to have the source used as reference to answer all questions. They would not accept any possible criticism of the materials, it was always, due to a misunderstanding of the book, or a failure to read to book, or follow it incorrectly, even if the parent, did follow the book exactly.

Gary Ezzo and Robert Bucknam have in the past responded to families who report experiencing problems with their child-care guidance by suggesting that the parents in question should have used the ideas in "Babywise" more flexibly and with a dose of common sense. Although the books do sprinkle warnings against "legalism" and in favor of "context" throughout their pages, the overall message remains one of rigid, uncompromising parental authoritarianism toward even the tiniest newborn. GFI's message boards provide insight into how parents, particularly religious users of Ezzo's programs, are applying his ideas to real-life situations in their own homes. In recent months, one anxious mother posted to the boards of allowing her young infant to cry for so long over the course of several weeks that the baby lost his voice and had blood in his throat (GFI quickly removed this mother's post from public view). In another instance, a parent wrote of her frustration with having to spank her unruly toddler (with a flexible instrument, as Ezzo recommends for babies after the second year) so often that welts appeared. Yet another father spoke of leaving his 13-month-old in isolation in her crib off and on for up to four hours in response to her stubborn refusal to use baby sign language to communicate that she was "all done" with her meal. In the case of each of these alarming tales, GFI "contact moms," volunteer laywomen designated by the organization to offer support to other parents in the appropriate use of their programs, actually suggested a stricter adherence to the program and more structure for the children (although it was noted that hitting a child as per Ezzo's instructions should inflict pain without leaving visible marks).

And this!

[formergothardite]

I don't actually think scheduling is a horrible thing as long as the schedule is following the needs of the baby. That isn't what Babywise or PFP is, though.

[Snarkylark]

If that advice is true and what he stands by 100% then I agree, it's not what's best for babies. I was very flexible with my babies and used common sense. I guess some people can't see that difference and I specifically remember them saying to be flexible. I do not remember hearing them say not to respond to your child when coming home from work! Some of the points you all bring up would be scary and dangerous and just plain stupid. But my interpretation when I had my babes was nothing like that. Just as with any schedule, routine, program, co-sleeping, etc, a little common sense goes a long way.

[Snarkylark]

Babies do sometimes cry for no reason and nothing you can do helps. Helping your baby learn to sleep is not just tossing the baby in the crib to cry it out. You watch for sleep cues and put the baby down when drowsy but not yet all the way to sleep. No one's talking about putting your wide awake baby down to CIO for hours.

[formergothardite]

If that advice is true and what he stands by 100% then I agree, it's not what's best for babies. I was very flexible with my babies and used common sense. I guess some people can't see that difference and I specifically remember them saying to be flexible. I do not remember hearing them say not to respond to your child when coming home from work! Some of the points you all bring up would be scary and dangerous and just plain stupid. But my interpretation when I had my babes was nothing like that. Just as with any schedule, routine, program, co-sleeping, etc, a little common sense goes a long way.

I feel like I'm back in the conversations I have had with people who said that they used Bill Gothard's teachings and it worked wonderful and they don't remember any of the crazy stuff.

Ezzo does use the term "flexible" a lot but much like Gothard he changes the meanings of words. I quoted the schedule earlier in this thread that was used in Preparation for Parenting and his advice on why you shouldn't feed a baby more than every three hours. That isn't a flexible schedule even though he claims it is.

This is what Ezzo says for fathers coming home from and their children rush to greet them:

.(Page 27) In Preparation for Parenting, fathers are instructed to disregard their children as they rush to greet him after work, telling the,. "No! No, no. Mommy comes first. MOMMY comes first!"

The reason that Ezzo seemed to work for you is that it doesn't seem like you actually followed his schedule and instead followed a real flexible feeding schedule. Some people aren't going to know to ignore Ezzo's advice and that is when problems arise.

[DaisyD]

I also remember very specifically that the book said to move to every 1 1/2 hour feedings during growth spurts.

I'm very happy for those of you that didn't have a baby that cried for no reason. My second was like that. There were many times with my first that I would feed him, change him, check his temp, attempt to feed him again, strip him down to his diaper, bundle him up, and still end up rocking him while he screamed bloody fucking murder in my arms. That child is now 13 and still gets upset when his schedule changes suddenly. It's part of his personality and it always has been. He needs structure. Say whatever you want about Ezzo, that book saved us. If there is a different book out there about scheduling that doesn't have the other stuff, please tell me. I give no fucks whatsoever about who the info came from, I know I'm not the only person whose baby needs structure.

[Irishy]

Snarkylark, you say up thread that you would wake a sleeping baby to establish supply and yet not allow a baby to use you as a sleep prop. Do you not see how ridiculously contradictory this advice is. Whether or not you were ever aware of it, I don't know. It's just such incredible bullshit.

You woke your sleeping babies to get them onto YOUR schedule, not to establish supply.

Sleep prop indeed. That's what breasts are for.

No baby cries for no reason.

[formergothardite]

I also remember very specifically that the book said to move to every 1 1/2 hour feedings during growth spurts.

I'm very happy for those of you that didn't have a baby that cried for no reason. My second was like that. There were many times with my first that I would feed him, change him, check his temp, attempt to feed him again, strip him down to his diaper, bundle him up, and still end up rocking him while he screamed bloody fucking murder in my arms. That child is now 13 and still gets upset when his schedule changes suddenly. It's part of his personality and it always has been. He needs structure. Say whatever you want about Ezzo, that book saved us. If there is a different book out there about scheduling that doesn't have the other stuff, please tell me. I give no fucks whatsoever about who the info came from, I know I'm not the only person whose baby needs structure.

You might have read an edition where he had to add that because his original advice was so awful. When taking advice on how to feed a baby I think it would be wise to research where this advice comes from. A guy has no credentials when it comes to babies or children and has a long history of lying, scamming, plagiarizing, and giving out advice that almost killed children while refusing to admit that his advice is bad, probably isn't the best person to listen to.

I did have a baby that cried, it wasn't for no reason, it was just that I couldn't figure out the reason. Sometimes just setting her down would work to soothe her. Other times nothing worked. I have never said I was against structure, but I am against Ezzo. Some babies thrive on a regular schedule, some babies don't, and that is where Ezzo causes massive problems because he says it works for all babies, says the babies who don't fit into the Ezzo mold have an "uncooperative stance" and promise parents that their children will be sleeping through the night by 8 weeks. That just isn't possible or healthy for many babies.

ETA: I was reading some various websites about the Babywise books and it doesn't looke like Ezzo changed his books until around 2000 to that babies waking early and crying could be a growth spurt. Until that point he claimed it was a sleep issue. Even in the 2000 edition he wrongly says that growth spurts pretty much only happen at eight weeks and four months. Ezzo also in this edition warns mothers not to be "too flexible too often".

[DaisyD]

That's probably true about the version I had. I don't recall where I got it. I didn't know anything about Ezzo when I read the book. I didn't find out until later what people thought of him. That's why I asked about alternative books on scheduling. I've gotten into this debate before (hence the defensiveness) and it always came down to people calling me a terrible mother for scheduling at all. I was active duty when my son was born and I credit the schedule for being able to provide all the milk he needed. I would pump at work while he ate at the sitter's so we stayed in sync. My milk was like clockwork.

I didn't catch the "uncooperative" part in the book. Now that both my scheduled and "unscheduled" babies are older let me just say the one that doesn't need the structure is much more cooperative in general the the one who does need it. If I want him to do something it takes a lot more effort if it wasn't part of the plan for the day to begin with.

ETA: My son was born in '02. I probably got the latest version of the book that year. I guess I realized that growth spurts happen more often than that because we did the every hour and a half thing pretty often. I remember pumping on one side while he nursed the other over a weekend to try to get my supply up before Monday when he had spurts.

[polecat]

So is this the guy who advocates Cry It Out?

It really has surprised me which new moms in my kids generation do some sort of modified CIO. I haven't heard of any of them doing it with young babies --- under 4 or 5 months. But it's mostly the older, more educated mom's who do it. It drives me nuts. I always just co-slept and fed on demand. Way easier for EVERYONE in my view. And my kids all did manage to grow up to be functioning adults who , eventually, slept in their own beds :) .

It's been really hard not to, overly, :embarrassed: voice my opinions about CIO to my daughters and their friends! I think they do it because they have to go to work every morning and are exhausted and feel they are worse parents if they don't sleep all night. And they figure within a week or two the baby will sleep through the night and everyone will be happier. I just find it cruel. But I didn't have any babies in my thirties, and I, mostly, had more schedule flexibility in my own life - so didn't care so much if the baby had a schedule.

It's been the younger, less educated moms in their group who do what I did -- put baby in bed. Insert boob. Everyone sleeps.

Any thoughts?

I dunno. I am an older working mom, and I definitely didn't do the CIO thing. I also breastfed on demand. It was just simpler for me. Maybe I'm lazier than the average older mom. That's totally a possibility.

[polecat]

I also remember very specifically that the book said to move to every 1 1/2 hour feedings during growth spurts.

I'm very happy for those of you that didn't have a baby that cried for no reason. My second was like that. There were many times with my first that I would feed him, change him, check his temp, attempt to feed him again, strip him down to his diaper, bundle him up, and still end up rocking him while he screamed bloody fucking murder in my arms. That child is now 13 and still gets upset when his schedule changes suddenly. It's part of his personality and it always has been. He needs structure. Say whatever you want about Ezzo, that book saved us. If there is a different book out there about scheduling that doesn't have the other stuff, please tell me. I give no fucks whatsoever about who the info came from, I know I'm not the only person whose baby needs structure.

Babies don't cry for "no reason." They may cry for reasons you don't see or understand, but I can promise you they have a reason for crying. This is coming from someone with a colicky baby who screamed through the first three months of his life and a high needs baby who is now 11 and still quite capable of periodic meltdowns.

The people who propose leaving babies to cry themselves to sleep ... is that what they would want? Would they want someone to look at them while they were crying and say, "Yeah, you're not crying for any reason that I understand. You go in that dark room, lie down and stay there until you cry yourself to sleep. You're disrupting my peace." If adults need comfort, why in the hell would anyone assume a baby doesn't?

[Mama Mia]

I dunno. I am an older working mom, and I definitely didn't do the CIO thing. I also breastfed on demand. It was just simpler for me. Maybe I'm lazier than the average older mom. That's totally a possibility.

Yea, it really surprised me. Especially because they tend to be relatively relaxed , loving, semi- crunchy in general. None of them are particularly religious. Although none of them did this with newborns/ young infants. They nursed on demand with young babies. They mostly seemed to do CIO , with limited success, when their babies were between 4 and 6 months.

I have heard the wake a sleeping baby to nurse, fairly frequently, from a variety of people. Not with newborns. But to stretch out the nighttime sleeping block. So they might try to get a sleeping baby , who last ate at 8, to nurse at 11, so they would be more likely to get a block of sleep themselves. I can see that making sense. Especially if you aren't co- sleeping and have to be at work in the morning.