From JJ:
Thanks for your interesting critique of the CDC press release and study.
From Adrianna Joanna:
My mother co-slept with me until I was nine years old from about age two. I chose to leave my mother's bed on my own. Co-sleeping is not for everyone, but most people can co-sleep withou any problems, and I get really irked when people talk about how my mother endangered my life or whatever.
I REALLY hate it when people say that it's bad for the child's character to co-sleep. It makes the child spoiled, the child will always be dependent on you, etc. What the hell is spoiled anyway? It's one of those loaded boogeymen that everyone has their own idea of, a word that I hate to use.
More broadly, I HATE the kind of error that you site. That an increase or decrease in numbers reflects an actual increase in cases as opposed to greater awareness or a shift in reporting standards. I also hate it when people accompaniy reports of such fallacies with snarky social commentary. I hate it even more when people try to refute the fallacies with equally false, and usually highly offensive, propositions. The study of mental illness is an excellent example of this.
It's one thing to be offensive while making a truly valid point, although that's not somthing I necessarily recommend. It's another to be offensive and claim to be informed and bold in your ideas when really, you're just a moron.
Do we have any other co-sleepers hear? Do you ever get grief from these types?
Believe it or not, world, some things just aint your business.
From Lee Passman:
It really irks me that this is just a propaganda site in which Amy talks with herself under various fake nicknames. Amy doesn't have a medical license, and she should not give medical advice, which is just propaganda for those signing her paychecks.
From Susanne:
Lee, I am most assuredly and decidedly not Amy. I don't care if you want to believe it or not, but that's the truth. A Sarah has corresponded with me offline and knows enough about who I am personally to vouch for the fact that I am not Amy. I live halfway across the country, for crying out loud.
What's so interesting about the sock puppet charge is that it's not a very effective debate tactic, is it? WHy don't you actually add facts or well-reasoned opinions into the debate, instead of pretending that if you witness several people who disagree with you, that they all must be one?
From Susanne:
WIth all due respect, Adrianna Joanna, you have indicated that you have significant problems in relating to the outside world, and you've never even told your mother that you loved her. Maybe your mother had little choice but to sleep with you to keep you safe, or maybe she was just desperate to establish some connection with a non-verbal child. So you'll have to excuse me for not particularly finding your argument "I did it and I'm just fine!" particularly compelling.
From Esther:
Whoa there.
I just finished reading the article mentioned in full-text (ordered it from the library last night along with the thimerosal study and the breastfeeding one). The increase in SUID cases attributable to suffocation is clearly due to diagnostic shift from the SIDS group to the suffocation (AASB) and unknown groups, much in the way the apparent rise in autism cases corresponded to the drop in other psychiatric diagnoses such as mental retardation. But that just means that those relatively high infant suffocation rates were there all along - they were just mistakenly attributed to SIDS rather than the actual cause, and perhaps once more stringent death-scene investigations were required to arrive at a SIDS diagnosis, the coroners were finding evidence that babies who would have formerly been classified as SIDS deaths were actually suffocation victims. And this by no means exonerates accidental suffocation as a by-product of bedsharing - on the contrary.
While we can't know exactly how much of the increase in the suffocation category was due to bedsharing because of the large proportion of missing data on the 2003-04 death certificates, the fact that the largest known cause of suffocation (table 3) is overlaying (exclusive to non-crib sleep surfaces), that the largest known category of deaths occurred in adult beds (27.5%), and that over 50% of the deaths occurred while bedsharing is suggestive there is a correlation. Add to this that the CPSC also came up with increased infant suffocation death in adult beds (Drago and Dannenberg 1999), and that the peak months of age in which AASB occurs correspond almost exactly to the interval in which bedsharing babies, even in nonsmoking conditions, are at increased risk of dying from SIDS/SUDI as compared to non-bedsharing infants (0-3 months)...it's very suggestive that bedsharing in those early months does predispose infants to suffocation death.
You can possibly claim that some or all of these deaths were due to "unsafe" bedsharing (though you'd be hard pressed to prove it with such incomplete info except in cases where sofas, waterbeds or soft bedding were involved), but given the big picture, it is, IMO, highly likely that bedsharing played a role in these deaths.
From Esther:
Hmm...have I now proven my bona fides to Lee Passman because I disagreed with Dr. Amy's conclusions? 
From A Sarah:
Wow, Lee Passman, sounds like you find this blog a complete waste of time. One wonders why you would stick around. The internet is so big... and if you think that in this conversation the most vocal people are just Dr. Amy in disguise, then surely you'd be able to find a discussion that suits your needs better? What's interesting about hanging out at a blog where a mad doctor talks to herself using different names?
From A Sarah:
(Oh, I also appreciate the critique of the CDC study although I'm less able than many hear to understand the substance of it. In any case, it's gratifying to hear that, as in so many things, there is more to this study than meets the Associated Press. And yes, I have corresponded with Susanne. But there's a point where someone is not going to believe anything you say, so why waste the electrons, you know?)
From Adrianna Joanna:
"WIth all due respect, Adrianna Joanna, you have indicated that you have significant problems in relating to the outside world, and you've never even told your mother that you loved her. Maybe your mother had little choice but to sleep with you to keep you safe, or maybe she was just desperate to establish some connection with a non-verbal child. So you'll have to excuse me for not particularly finding your argument "I did it and I'm just fine!" particularly compelling."
That's okay. I'm not offended, and no, I don't find the "I did it and I'm just fine!" line of reason compelling either. After all, most people who smoke don't get lung cancer, but there is a definite correlation to be worried about.
I only wrote about my experience to make the point that people are very judgmental sometimes of parents or children who co-sleep, that it's not a death sentence and there are valid reasons for doing it.
In fact, what you wrote about my mother is just the sort of thing that people who are opposed to co-sleeping in general need to hear, I think.
From Ericacrochets:
I think it's especially interesting that "back to sleep" may not actually work. For decades mothers have been told that all babies must sleep in a certain position, on tummy, side, and now back. Wouldn't it be nice if it turned out that babies could just sleep in whatever position they preferred like any other human being?
From Kneelingwoman:
I'm not Amy-in-disguise either; you can find me over on my own blog. I like this piece, Amy, and I have a more personal note to add, actually, so I may e mail you if the address listed here is still correct.
From Rena:
See, Dr. Amy, you can say plenty without access to direct home-birth research. 
From Rena:
Dr. Amy, have you considered attending this conference in March?
http://www.birthconference.org/S...Page.asp?
id=198
From Amy Tuteur, MD:
Rena:
"have you considered attending this conference in March?"
I was invited to speak at the conference and said that I would be happy to debate any of the celebrity homebirth advocates.
The organizers thought it would be easy to find someone to debate me, but that was not the case. Most refused outright. One agreed, but then backed out.
By the way, the organizer of the conference is Robbie Davis-Floyd's significant other, so I wouldn't be surprised if the conference has an undeclared agenda.
From Kim:
In the business world we call this blog post "double-dipping."
From Emma B:
The problems I have with co-sleeping aren't so much about value to the child as about negative effects on the parents. I've watched several of my own close friends unwillingly co-sleep with toddlers and preschoolers, and all of them feel that it's been detrimental to their marriages. One marriage actually broke up largely over intimacy issues, and both parents feel that the co-sleeping was a major factor. (However, most of these friends didn't start out co-sleeping -- the kids were in cribs as babies, and later started climbing into the parents' bed.)
Sure, you can be intimate in places other than the bedroom, but it's not as natural or as private, and my small-number-n unanimously agrees that the frequency goes way, way down. I think it's important for a marriage to have some literal and metaphorical private adult space, and that's harder to achieve when the bedroom belongs to the family. It's also hard for many women to sleep deeply and well with children in the bed, especially children who may be nursing in the night.
My four-month-old is co-sleeping right now, in a sidecar crib unless I fall asleep nursing him, and will continue to do so until he reliably sleeps through the night. It's better than a 3 AM trip upstairs, but I can't wait to get him out of our room, and neither can my husband. I hear every last snuffle and murmur the baby makes even from the co-sleeper, and if he's in the bed, I hardly get any rest. We can't snuggle and talk in bed at night because it wakes him up, and we both really miss that. It's kind of all about the baby right now, and while that's OK in the short term with an infant, it's not something we want for years to come.
From Esther:
About that conference...good lord. Were they trying to see how many strawmen they could stuff on one webpage?!
And I'm dying to know who initially volunteered to debate you and then backed out, Amy.
From Liz:
That webpage exemplifies everything - or most of the things - I see as wrong. An open-minded conference he intended to improve things for all women - what a good idea! Iron out the problems, find commmon ground. Except it is nothing of the kind. It is propaganda and hyperbole heavily selling the usual agenda. I can't decide whether it is laughable or tragic that they claim not to have one. Create a set up where no responsible scientist or medic would be seen dead, then, presumably, there will be a huge hullabaloo about how this prestigious "conference" agreed that NCB was the answer to everything. Lots of preaching to the choir, lots of enthusiastic and dedicated followers, no change in the real problems.
From Holly:
We bed-shared out of necessity, and most of the time the babe was in my husband's arms or on my husband's chest, not mine. I can't sleep with babies. Occasionally I was so sleep-deprived I would latch one of them on and doze off, but it never worked for me. Thankfully it worked for Avram, so we did get some sleep as new parents. Our second was in our room until he was 7 months old. After 3-4 months he was almost exclusively in his own crib in our room. I don't think it cut down on our intimacy at all. We have always had an active sex life. I think it's mostly personal preference. I'd just as well have sex on the bed as the couch, the floor or the shower, but I can see how some prefer the bed.
From Ericacrochets:
I must say that it's annoying, as a co-sleeping parent, to hear rumors of how detrimental the practice is to my sex life. Apparently, some people can make it work, and others can't. I have not found it to be a burden to either leave the bedroom or put the child in another room.
Children interfere with a couple's spontaneity and privacy. They are also exhausting. Anecdotally, I have known of people who use co-sleeping as an excuse to avoid being intimate with their partner. The co-sleeping is a result of their lack of desire rather than a cause of it. "Sorry, little Jimmy's in the bed--not tonight, dear."
I think if a person is motivated to have sex, they will. "Oh, look baby's asleep in bed--race you to the living room." Vs. "I just can't get in the mood when we're not in the bed, honey."
"I've got a headache, I'll take an Aleve, and maybe sex will provide some "natural" relief too." Vs. "Sorry, honey, my head hurts."
(Oh, god, did I just recommend a medicinal purpose for sex? I vowed never to do that in the masturbation thread.)
I will say that it helps to buy a house and furniture when you already have children. Because then you have a better idea of how close you want the bedrooms to be to make nighttime parenting easier. A person also might look for different things in couches if they needed them for purposes other than TV. : )
From Susanne:
"I think if a person is motivated to have sex, they will. "Oh, look baby's asleep in bed--race you to the living room." Vs. "I just can't get in the mood when we're not in the bed, honey." "
I agree with your observation, Erica, but I'd also say: If then you're in the living room / kitchen / whatever and not with baby, then what the heck is the point? If people want to claim that it's un-intimate for Poor Sad Baby to be left alone in a crib while parents are in bed ... well, baby's equally as Poor Sad and Left Alone if he's left alone in parents' bed and parents are in the living room whooping it up. (And parents should be whooping it up! No arguments there!)
From Ericacrochets:
Well, assuming that the parents' have made the bedroom safe for the baby, they seem to sleep better there, possibly because they don't realize they are alone? That's just how mine have been. Some babies don't seem to like sharing room/bed with the parents. I never intended to co-sleep--that just worked out the best way for us all to sleep. Like the Sears family, we just slept better that way. I know someone who did intend to co-sleep but found her son couldn't sleep well in the same room with them.
I'm in favor of doing what works out best for the family and balancing the children's needs with the parents. I certainly don't feel sorry for babies who happily sleep in their cribs all night.
From Adrianna Joanna:
About babies being left alone in cribs as opposed to being left alone in the parents' bedroom, I suppose it depends on how long the couple engages in sexual relations. While the relations are taking place, then it doesn't matter where the baby sleeps, but when you go back to bed, it does.
This isn't exavtly the same as co-sleeping, but the effect is the same. A lot of parents wait until their child is sleeping, and then they leave them alone to do something else. The idea was just to comfort the child while they were awake.
From lurker:
"Some babies don't seem to like sharing room/bed with the parents"
I have to agree with this. Just in my experience with my two children, they're like night and day.
My first couldn't seem to sleep if he wasn't touching me in some form (which didn't stop our sex life, because before he turned 8 months I was pregnant again. oops!)
My second on the other hand, he seemed to be a light sleeper, so if I moved or snored or whatever it would wake him up. He did best in the bassinet besides our bed, and now sleeps all through the night in the "kids" room just fine. While my first still wakes up needing a snuggle. He's a sensitive child, very huggy and lovey and if co-sleeping is what works for him... for now, it's fine. We are trying to get him to sleep in his own bed. some nights it works, some nights he comes crawling back into our bed at around 1am. I figure, hey. I'm the mother, why not mother him in the way he's needing it?
From lurker:
"If then you're in the living room / kitchen / whatever and not with baby, then what the heck is the point?"
so are you saying that "co-sleeping" parents just never leave their babies alone?
frankly sex doesn't take THAT long to conclude that you just shouldn't need to co-sleep at all.
From Rena:
So will you be speaking rather than debating, or just not attending?
From Jen:
"So will you be speaking rather than debating, or just not attending?"
Not Amy, but I believe she was ONLY going to go if they could find someone to debate her...is that right, Amy?
From Susanne:
"A lot of parents wait until their child is sleeping, and then they leave them alone to do something else."
Well, you can do that the easy way, in their own room. Or you can do it the hard way, which is to train them that mom / dad have to be right there, and then once you've trained baby in that, and toddler shows no sign of leaving, then you can go on internet boards and complain about how you can't get child out of your bed and whatever will you do? Talk about creating your own problems. I'm into simplicity and not creating problems in the first place.
From Liz:
I don't have any view on co-sleeping - if it works for you, do it seems rational to me. So long as you don't beat other people up with the superiority of your choice, who knows or cares? Emma Bs point about loss of intimacy seemed sensible to me but clearly it doesn't deter the rest of you. What I do care about is dodgy research, or research which misrepresents its conclusions. I didn't like the Back to Sleep campaign, as it seemed counter-intuitive to me, but was prepared to accept that there was some solid ground for promoting it. Now it seems maybe not. I suppose it is unrealistic of me, but I would like research that could be relied on and press stories that were not "spun".
From Liz:
I must say that it's annoying, as a co-sleeping parent, to hear rumors of how detrimental the practice is to my sex life.
Sorry, but really curious. Why is it annoying?
From Holly:
From lurker:
"If then you're in the living room / kitchen / whatever and not with baby, then what the heck is the point?"
so are you saying that "co-sleeping" parents just never leave their babies alone?
frankly sex doesn't take THAT long to conclude that you just shouldn't need to co-sleep at all.
ROFL. Yeah, if it *is* taking you that long, maybe some viagra or cialis is in order.
And besides, we co-slept because our kids didn't give us a choice. If we wanted to sleep, the baby was in our room or bed. Period. They would start out in their bassinet, but by the time they woke up for their pre-midnight feeding, they would refuse to go back in it. It wasn't about "oh, poor baby, sleeping all alone." It was the baby saying "Don't you put me back in there!!!"
From Liz:
I must say that it's annoying, as a co-sleeping parent, to hear rumors of how detrimental the practice is to my sex life.
Sorry, but really curious. Why is it annoying?
I wouldn't necessarily say annoying, just funny. As if anyone knows what goes on in (and out!) of my bedroom. For the short period I was on prozac we dropped down to 2-3 times a week, but kids? Co-sleeping? No. I guess it does for some people. We just haven't had that problem I guess, and honestly I haven't met that many co-sleeping parents who do have that sort of issue.
From Susanne:
It's rather ironic to hear you say "as if anyone knows what goes on in and out of my bedroom" right before you tell us how many times a week you had sex when on Prozac and then you tell us that you know that it's not a problem for many other co-sleeping parents. If we don't know what goes on in your bedroom, how do you know what goes on in theirs?
"And besides, we co-slept because our kids didn't give us a choice."
Who was the parent, again? It's not that they didn't give you a choice. It's that you decided you were going to give in and then you got stuck with it and then tried to portray it "having no choice." Of course you had a choice.
From Susanne:
"frankly sex doesn't take THAT long to conclude that you just shouldn't need to co-sleep at all."
"ROFL. Yeah, if it *is* taking you that long, maybe some viagra or cialis is in order."
Uh, taking a long time isn't evidence of "bad," nor is it evidence that medications are needed.
From Jolene:
Like Ericacrochets I also get insulted when people imagine that they know something about our sex life, or motivations for co-sleeping. I take it as a sign that they are not very creative.
"Well, you can do that the easy way, in their own room. Or you can do it the hard way, which is to train them that mom / dad have to be right there..."
Of course you could also re-write this the other way. A new parent could train their baby that mom/dad will not be there when they wake up/need them. Which is easiest depends on a lot of factors. It was a thousand times easier to co-sleep than it was to train them to sleep alone when they were newborns. Not to mention hauling my a$$ out of bed multiple times a night to stagger down the cold hall half asleep when they needed feeding.
Not having a nanny/house help means co-sleeping is usually the easy way out. At least for those first few months.
I'm imagining your personal circumstances made sleeping in their own room easiest Susanne. You were well rested when Babies came home from the hospital. You had night time help. You didn't breastfeed.
It's a good idea to pause a moment before judging others for not taking your "easy way".
From Holly:
I refuse to let my child cry it out when they are under a year old. I just won't do it. I don't think it's compassionate parenting. And of course, this also played a part:
"It was a thousand times easier to co-sleep than it was to train them to sleep alone when they were newborns. Not to mention hauling my a$$ out of bed multiple times a night to stagger down the cold hall half asleep when they needed feeding."
From Ericacrochets:
"Sorry, but really curious. Why is it annoying?"
Maybe I'm easily annoyed? I guess it doesn't really matter.
From Ericacrochets:
Suzanne wrote, "Well, you can do that the easy way, in their own room. Or you can do it the hard way, which is to train them that mom / dad have to be right there, and then once you've trained baby in that, and toddler shows no sign of leaving, then you can go on internet boards and complain about how you can't get child out of your bed and whatever will you do? Talk about creating your own problems. I'm into simplicity and not creating problems in the first place."
And what do you do for the 5-pound premature baby whom you've been told isn't supposed to cry because it uses up too much energy, but he cries unless someone is holding him night and day? Really, I'd genuinely be interested in the solution.
From Liz:
5-pound premature baby whom you've been told isn't supposed to cry
Crikey! Mine was a 3 lb 9 oz premature baby who screamed blue murder for ...a very long time. Held or not. In and out of NICU.
From Holly:
From Susanne:
"frankly sex doesn't take THAT long to conclude that you just shouldn't need to co-sleep at all."
"ROFL. Yeah, if it *is* taking you that long, maybe some viagra or cialis is in order."
Uh, taking a long time isn't evidence of "bad," nor is it evidence that medications are needed.
I see. I bet a good lubricant and/or some "toys" could help spice things up a bit in this arena. I'd visit your local sex shop. They can be very helpful when you're looking for something new to add to your repertoire.
From Adrianna Joanna:
Well, you can do that the easy way, in their own room. Or you can do it the hard way, which is to train them that mom / dad have to be right there, and then once you've trained baby in that, and toddler shows no sign of leaving, then you can go on internet boards and complain about how you can't get child out of your bed and whatever will you do? Talk about creating your own problems. I'm into simplicity and not creating problems in the first place.
Who said it was a problem? To me, and to a lot of others, it's a compromise to wait until a chlid is sleeping and do something else. And doesn't this imply that because something might cause problems that it cannot be beneficial and shouldn't be done?
I do not think that allowing a child to cry it out is compassionate parenting. If the child really needs something, I will give it to them. If it's not a pressing need, I will compromise. I do need time to myself, and I need sleep. That sounds fair to me.
Bottom line: co-sleep or not, it is your choice.
From Holly:
From Ericacrochets:
Suzanne wrote, "Well, you can do that the easy way, in their own room. Or you can do it the hard way, which is to train them that mom / dad have to be right there, and then once you've trained baby in that, and toddler shows no sign of leaving, then you can go on internet boards and complain about how you can't get child out of your bed and whatever will you do? Talk about creating your own problems. I'm into simplicity and not creating problems in the first place."
And what do you do for the 5-pound premature baby whom you've been told isn't supposed to cry because it uses up too much energy, but he cries unless someone is holding him night and day? Really, I'd genuinely be interested in the solution.
Erica, The solution is simple. Here are your choices:
1) Let your newborn infant cry until they vomit/pass out/fall asleep from exhaustion.
2) Hire a private nanny.
From Susanne:
"I'm imagining your personal circumstances made sleeping in their own room easiest Susanne. You were well rested when Babies came home from the hospital. You had night time help. You didn't breastfeed."
I agree I was rested when they came home from the hospital (as "restful" as trotting back and forth to an NICU for 6 weeks can be), but I never had nighttime help in the least, so I don't know where that assumption is coming from, at all. I did have a husband who was an equal partner in getting up with them in the middle of the night, but that's simply part of being a father, nothing noteworthy.
Given the importance of sleep to functioning, however, I think it's misguided to assume that women should just put up with interrupted, broken sleep with baby in bed if *for them* putting the baby in a crib is more restful, because they heard somewhere it's better. People should do what works for them. I find it interesting, though, that parenting boards are chockful of women who are now having the problem of getting a child out of their bed, which tells me that it might be a short-term solution to getting more sleep that winds up blowing up in one's face.
From Susanne:
Erica, The solution is simple. Here are your choices:
1) Let your newborn infant cry until they vomit/pass out/fall asleep from exhaustion.
2) Hire a private nanny."
Who said anything about crying until the baby vomits / passes out? It's typical overwrought emotional mommying, however, to assume that not co-sleeping equals baby crying at top of lungs down the hall for hours on end til baby passes out after realizing that no one loves him and he might as well grow up to be a serial killer, maybe he'd get some attention then.
What, no such thing as a normal, content baby, who enjoys his bath, feeding, playtime, lullaby and then contentedly settles in and goes to sleep? Maybe fusses a minute or two, but no big deal? I think there are some women for whom it makes MOMMY said that baby is in crib, so therefore they train baby to need other people to fall asleep. Hey, not my house, so that's their problem. Literally.
From Ericacrochets:
"I find it interesting, though, that parenting boards are chockful of women who are now having the problem of getting a child out of their bed, which tells me that it might be a short-term solution to getting more sleep that winds up blowing up in one's face."
This is true. I'm not sure this has as much to do with infant co-sleeping, although it can start that way. A lot of times, parents who did everything "by the book" STILL end up having their toddler/preschooler running into bed with them at night and then can't figure out how to get them out. The experts will tell you to walk them back to bed, even if you do it 100 times a night, but obviously, most parents are going to get worn down at some point and give up.
There ARE various solutions to getting a child out of the bed, and all children will want to leave EVENTUALLY, before they hit puberty, but it's a complicated problem in large part because small children have difficulty adapting to sleeping all alone--it's simply not something that was required of them for most of our evolution. I think the problem has gotten worse because today so few siblings even share rooms.
Some children have a much stronger urge to sleep than others, and sleep overtakes them, and they seem to adapt to whatever sleep situation life throws at them with little prodding from their parents.
From Holly:
My older son has been out of our room for over 3 years (he's 3.5), and about a month ago we started having a problem with him coming into our room at night. I am confident it has nothing to do with the fact that he slept in our room for the first 6 months of his life, and everything to do with the fact that he's scared of the dark.
From Ericacrochets:
"What, no such thing as a normal, content baby, who enjoys his bath, feeding, playtime, lullaby and then contentedly settles in and goes to sleep? Maybe fusses a minute or two, but no big deal?"
Susanne, so much of this has to do with individual temperment. There are such babies as the ones you described. And there are other types of babies, who resist sleep. If you're really interested in this, you might do some research in temperment. Some people fall asleep easily--sleep overtakes them. Other people do not.
It would be nice if every parent could follow the simple formula you mentioned above and have success, but I don't think there would be so many books written on the subject of infant sleep if it were really so easy.
From Susanne:
"It was a thousand times easier to co-sleep than it was to train them to sleep alone when they were newborns. Not to mention hauling my a$$ out of bed multiple times a night to stagger down the cold hall half asleep when they needed feeding."
It may be harder on YOU in the moment, but it's easier on THEM in the long run when you're not then dealing with a toddler or small child who doesn't understand why he can't be in his parents' bed and why he needs to go take his blankie and go back in his own room. For all the mommies who seem to think that it's So Scary for the Poor Wittle Baby to be in a different room, they seem to take in stride the fact that it's far more traumatic for the toddler / preschooler, who KNOWS what's going on and has been made to get used to a certain situation, to now adjust. Now THAT feels like rejection to a toddler / preschooler; a baby doesn't know the difference either way.
From Holly:
Wait, so is it about what's EASIER for me, or is it about the kid? I'm getting mixed messages from you, Susanne.
From Caryn:
What, no such thing as a normal, content baby, who enjoys his bath, feeding, playtime, lullaby and then contentedly settles in and goes to sleep? Maybe fusses a minute or two, but no big deal?
ROFLOL! Not at my house!
Try: wakes for changes in ceiling fan speed. Wakes for changes in vehicle speed. Wakes for dropped socks. Will not stay asleep while you transfer him from asleep on your body to asleep somewhere else. Will not stay asleep when you *shift your weight in the chair*. If left to "settle himself", screams louder and *louder* and LOUDER until throwing up.
As you know he was a NICU baby; the nurses described him as "a spitfire with quite a temper."
From Alexis:
I don't think it was easier for any of us when she bawled for 2 hours in her crib. None of us slept. With her in the bed, we all get sleep. Maybe I get woken up in the night by her sticking her feet in my armpit, but I can move her and go back to sleep. Now she's 2 and she's learning she can sleep without someone in the bed.
The other issue with judging-by-messageboard is that there are a lot of reluctant cosleepers in there. They never really wanted to do it and still don't, but baby won't sleep otherwise, so they're caught in a vicious cycle.
From Ericacrochets:
"Now THAT feels like rejection to a toddler / preschooler; a baby doesn't know the difference either way."
But it doesn't necessarily work! Maybe it did for you, and I think that's wonderful, and I'm happy for you. But believe me, there are lots of crib graduates out there who demand to sleep in their parents' bed as soon as they can run down the hall.
From Susanne:
So they "demand." If they demand ice cream for breakfast, do they get that too? Don't people ever say no anymore?
I guess my twins co-slept, since they shared a room til age 5. I put them in the same crib at the beginning, but it wasn't because I thought they'd be Sad and Teary Eyed and Lonely ... it was just way cute, and that way I had an extra crib to move them into if someone spit up, LOL.
I do think a lot of parenting today seems to have lost some common sense.
From Caryn:
So they "demand." If they demand ice cream for breakfast, do they get that too?
Certainly not, because I have alternative things to feed him.
There's no alternative for sleep.
From Ericacrochets:
"So they "demand." If they demand ice cream for breakfast, do they get that too? Don't people ever say no anymore?"
So, what are the options here?
1) Punish frightened toddler for running into parents' room (probably won't work).
2) Walk child back to room, leave, child returns, process is repeated over and over (Parent becomes sleep deprived).
3) Walk child back to room, stay with them while they fall asleep, repeat process over and over. (Parent becomes sleep deprived).
4) Let child crash in parents' room, either in the bed or in a sleeping bad on the floor. (Considered "bad" in our culture--some parents find it interferes with intimacy).
5) One parent crashes in child's room. (Again, this may interfere with a couple's desire for 4 AM sex or whatever).
For some people, the temporary sleep deprivation may be worth the possibility of training the child to stop coming into the room. There is no guarentee that the training will work.
This idea that you can follow formulas to get a specific result in child rearing is what is the problem with these people on message boards. It sets parents up to feel like failures. Each child has unique needs, and each child responds differently to these little "tricks" we try and use on them.
From Holly:
Word, Erica. Magic formulas don't work. Each child is different, and parenting isn't a simple 1-2-3.
From Ericacrochets:
"I guess my twins co-slept, since they shared a room til age 5. I put them in the same crib at the beginning, but it wasn't because I thought they'd be Sad and Teary Eyed and Lonely ... it was just way cute, and that way I had an extra crib to move them into if someone spit up, LOL."
That's VERY unusual today, in my experience. Everyone thinks their baby/toddler NEEDS a whole big room to themselves.
From Lies_DamLies_and_stats:
ITA with the "it's so dependent on the kid's temperament" crowd! My (very lucky!) experience with my children has been that we kept them in our bed at first, and they moved out when they were ready. None of them have stayed in our bed even a year - they've moved out in the fourth quarter. Of their own accord - they cued us pretty clearly as to when they were ready for their own room and crib, and off they went, everyone was happy. Admittedly, keeping them in our bed at first was mostly for our convenience, sleep, and peace of mind. It was actually DH who initially wanted them brought into our bed, and it didn't do anything to our intimacy. Our older children, who now occasionally want to "cuddle up" or "hang out" in bed with us (usually during naptimes), are quite independent, and just as happy in their own room on a normal basis.
Not everybody has the same experience, however. I had a dear friend who bought into the "Mommy Olympics" and was convinced that she had to sleep with her son in her bed in order to be a good mother. That little boy did _not_ want to share a bed. At all. He wanted his own space, and that was it. She struggled and struggled, and finally had it and put him in a crib across the hall - where he promptly went to sleep and never had any sleep difficulties again. It took some convincing to get her to see that this was actually _good_ mothering, as he was healthy and getting sleep, and she was protecting her own energy and sanity to care for him when he was awake.
OTOH, another dear friend of mine had children who were only too happy to share their parents' bed - and they're still there, years later. (Obviously didn't ruin their sex life, as this is multiple kids later as well.)
I strongly believe that individual families should do what works for them, and the "stay out of my bedroom" prohibition should extend to family sleeping arrangements. The only "wrong" arrangement is one that a family is forced into due to social constructs (whether that's "you have to co-sleep to be a good mommy" or "you have to chuck that child down the hall or s/he'll never be independent"), that doesn't work for them and deprives them of sleep. I'm not a relativist on many things, but this matter truly is lacking in one universal solution.
From Susanne:
That's VERY unusual today, in my experience. Everyone thinks their baby/toddler NEEDS a whole big room to themselves."
Unusual for twins? Really? I've never known any mother of twins to set up two nurseries so that each baby gets a whole big room to themselves.
But yeah, it's fun when you're having a baby to set aside a room to be a nursery, and decorate it to your taste, and the like. What's wrong with that?
From Susanne:
"Our older children, who now occasionally want to "cuddle up" or "hang out" in bed with us (usually during naptimes), are quite independent, and just as happy in their own room on a normal basis."
Not referring to anyone here, but I think there is a subculture of Fearful Mommies who really want to be needed, and for whom the idea of baby resting contentedly in his / her own room feels like a rejection of them and makes *them* feel lonely, so they intuit baby must be lonely.
I have to laugh, though, because we had in our house what we referred to as "family bed," which was simply in the evening, everyone comes into our room, sits on the bed or gets under the covers, and we watch TV, play cards, hang out, read, whatever. And then, when it was nighttime, they went in their own equally comfy and nice room and went to sleep. And dh had patients who asked him about practicing the family bed, and he would rave about it, and I had to clue him in that they were talking about something completely different .
Having a family bed in a household where the phone often rings at night and dh has to be awake / talk loudly / get up is just a dumb idea anyway, LOL.
From Susanne:
I don't even get how you could sleep comfortably with infants anyway. Two adults and two infants / toddlers in our queen-size bed? We are normal-size adults, but that's a crowd. And I *like* my bed to be a place where I sit, read, watch TV, wind down from the day. I don't want to have to shut it down when it's baby's bedtime at 8 pm when I don't want to go to bed til 10 pm. Doesn't make any sense to me.
From Ericacrochets:
Well, Susanne, I don't think co-sleeping is for you, nor is it for everyone. That's funny about your DH. It sounds like your children slept well, due to genetics, your parenting, or both. Yea for Dr. and Mrs. Susanne and family!
From Susanne:
Actually, dd developed a sleep disorder at age 14. THAT's when I had someone coming in my room in the middle of the night with the "Mom, I can't sleep! Will you rub my back?"
Our ped put her on melatonin and it worked like a charm. She takes it religiously and practices excellent sleep hygiene with a bedtime routine and it has made all the difference. I wouldn't underestimate the power of a consistent bedtime routine.
From Jen:
"I never had nighttime help in the least, so I don't know where that assumption is coming from, at all. I did have a husband who was an equal partner in getting up with them in the middle of the night, but that's simply part of being a father, nothing noteworthy."
But wouldn't a breastfeeding mom not have that help? If you're BF'ing, YOU are the only one who can feed the baby, unless you pump bottles just for nighttime feedings. And not everyone is comfortable giving baby bottles for fear of nipple-confusion. In that situation, hubby could only get up for wakings that didn't have to do with feeding. And, at the newborn stage, most wakings are hunger related, aren't they?
And just to be nit-picky, I would count your hubby getting up as having SOME nighttime help. To me "never had nighttime help in the least" means you were the only one to get up with babies every. single. time.
Overall, I agree it is such an individual choice whether or not to co-sleep that every family has to make that choice for each of their children. I don't agree with anyone trying to force ANY kind of sleeping arrangement on a family, for whatever reason (barring, I guess, any "sleeping arrangements" that are somehow detrimental the child).
From Esther:
I do, however, have to wonder about these babies who just won't sleep in any way other than the one they choose - touching Mom, on Dad's chest, nursing all night. Were there no such babies back in the old days? And if there were, did parents humor their babies' quirks they way they do now, or perhaps they saw this as a behavior to be corrected - with crying involved, if necessary?
I suppose you could broaden this question to ask - are "high needs" babies born or made? (I don't mean the temperament, but the conditions that baby needs just so to be happy). And if the former, is there a way to "fix" them that today's parents are reluctant to use?
After all, we don't hesitate to strap a baby in his carseat even if he hates carseats. Most eventually learn to deal. We can be plenty tough when it's a matter of safety (and then again, maybe not...like a patient of mine who told me she cosleeps with her month-old, SGA baby even though she's a smoker. And she puts him prone to sleep. If he's in any other position in any other place, he cries and won't sleep, or so she claims. Yes, I have told her EXACTLY what I thought of that and plan to follow up).
From Jen:
"It may be harder on YOU in the moment, but it's easier on THEM in the long run when you're not then dealing with a toddler or small child who doesn't understand why he can't be in his parents' bed and why he needs to go take his blankie and go back in his own room."
Also, I don't believe all toddlers react this way to transitioning to their own bed (especially if the transition is gradual). I've seen many moms say that the kid just decided it was time, or what have you, and happily went to their own bed, with maybe a few night visits at first. Of course, I have no way of knowing how many transition easily and how many have a really hard time. As far as the message boards, the moms who have the kids who transitioned fine have no reason to post asking for help. Each kid is different, and you never know how they're going to react to anything you do.
From Ericacrochets:
"After all, we don't hesitate to strap a baby in his carseat even if he hates carseats. Most eventually learn to deal."
My youngest screamed a loud, horrible, shrill scream the entire time he was in the car unless he fell asleep until he was 6 months old. I would not want to listen to that unless it were absolutely necessary. You would think it would not take so long to get used to riding in the car, but it just seemed like he was unable to deal until he was old enough to enjoy looking around and smiling at his brother, etc.
From Jen:
"I suppose you could broaden this question to ask - are "high needs" babies born or made? (I don't mean the temperament, but the conditions that baby needs just so to be happy). And if the former, is there a way to "fix" them that today's parents are reluctant to use?"
If I had to guess, I would say some of them are probably "made" but surely not all. I think the only "fix" per se would be to ignore their discomfort until they no longer complain about it (ie CIO).
I just remembered that my one younger brother was VERY hard to get to sleep. My "parents" didn't take care of the boys, I did. And they certainly didn't co-sleep, they CIO'd. I would put him in his crib with his bottle and sit on the floor next to him, stroking his hair until he fell asleep. It was the ONLY way to get him to sleep, unless he conked out on his own from exhaustion (there were many nights where we didn't get dinner until 9-10pm and they would fall asleep trying to eat). I wonder, if he had shared a bed with either myself or my parents (although that would've been somewhat dangerous, considering they were both smokers and my mom was an alcoholoic) if he would've had an easier time? No way to know, of course.
From Ericacrochets:
Esther, as a family practitioner, would you recommend letting a baby under 6 months cry it out?
My parents didn't feel comfortable putting a baby in their bed, and instead my father spent hours each night walking/bouncing/dancing me to sleep because they had so much trouble and didn't want to CIO.
On the other hand, my sister settled herself easily from day 1. Even today, she can fall asleep as early as 7 PM (what a freak!), and I can't normally sleep until after midnight. She can get up at 4 or 5 AM. I am a zombie at that time.
I think it's interesting when parents have children of two very different temperments.
From Ericacrochets:
I'm convinced that this thread is my karma. Until you have direct experience with a child who doesn't settle easily and struggles with sleep, it is very easy to believe the experts that any parent can turn their baby into a good sleeper by following several simple steps. I was so smug before my first son was born.
From Esther:
Ericacrochets:"Esther, as a family practitioner, would you recommend letting a baby under 6 months cry it out? "
As in training a baby to sleep through the night? No.
As in training a baby not to sleep in a particular position, in a particular place (e.g., a sidecar cosleeper), not attached to the breast all night long...all the while staying by baby, patting him, talking to him soothingly? Yes, even if it involves a bit of crying.
From Esther:
Ericacrocherts:"Until you have direct experience with a child who doesn't settle easily and struggles with sleep, it is very easy to believe the experts that any parent can turn their baby into a good sleeper by following several simple steps."
My eldest wasn't exactly a picnic, either.
From Ericacrochets:
"Yes, even if it involves a bit of crying."
How much would you consider a bit? 10 minutes? 30 minutes? One hour? Two hours?
From lurker:
"For all the mommies who seem to think that it's So Scary for the Poor Wittle Baby to be in a different room,"
do you realize how condescending you sound or is it just done on purpose?
From ObNurse:
Erica;
Your post made me laugh. I was oh so smug before I had my first. He was going to sleep in his crib and get used to taking one bottle a day so that I could leave him with babysitters. I didn't even buy a baby monitor because the baby whisperer book said not to.
All that changed when I brought a colicky, hungry, fussy baby home from the hospital. He cried for 3 months. The only way to get him to sleep was to either nurse him (if I was lucky) or jam his thumb in his mouth and bounce him around for 40 minutes. THEN I had to ease myself back on my bed with him on my chest if I wanted to get any sleep that night.
And oh yeah, he hated bottles, soothers, and his crib.
i bought all of the sleep books, tried CIO a few times, and I just couldn't follow through. It just went against my maternal "instinct" or whatever the hell you want to call it. I liked having my babies close to me.
My first high needs baby was born, not made. My second baby was super easy going and would have slept in a crib had I tried hard enough. But by then dh and I knew how wonderful is was to share your bed with your baby, and how much easier it was for night feeds. The only difference was the second time around I didn't care what anyone else thought and we allowed ourselves to enjoy him a little bit more.
Co sleeping is not without it's problems. We have a 3 and 6 year old who still want to crawl in with us at 4am. Shrug. They'll outgrow it. It's really no biggie.
wouldn't change a thing if I had another baby.
From Esther:
Ericacrochet:"How much would you consider a bit? 10 minutes? 30 minutes? One hour? Two hours?"
Well, if he was still crying 5-10 minutes later, I'd pick him up, soothe him, and repeat. And repeat. And repeat....
But let's say I took the hardnose approach and the baby cried for 2 hours straight, under the conditions I mentioned. Also assume the baby has all his other needs fulfilled beforehand (diaper is clean, well-fed etc.). Do you believe the baby will somehow be damaged by the crying, the way Dr. Sears threatens?
ObNurse:"
i bought all of the sleep books, tried CIO a few times, and I just couldn't follow through. It just went against my maternal "instinct" or whatever the hell you want to call it. I liked having my babies close to me."
It's great that you found something that worked for you, but what if you did follow through?
From Holly:
All of the mother-blaming going on! Am I on motheringdotcommune?
From Esther:
And Ericacrochets, what would you suggest to my patient - the smoking mother of the one-month-old who says her baby won't sleep except when prone and in her bed? What if he cried for 2 hours straight if she tries to change his behavior?
(*Quitting smoking is an option, but in this case, I'm afraid it's not gonna happen.)
From Holly:
Side-car the crib.
From ObNurse:
Esther;
I don't know what would have happened had I followed through. Maybe they would have become "good" sleepers in a matter of days, or maybe not for several weeks. Who knows? It just seemed cruel to *me*, to let my babies cry like that.
I do know that anything, teething, illness, would cause them to have setbacks, so I'm not sure that crying it out would have worked in the long term.
Esther, I really loved being near my babies at night time. I knew that they wouldn't be great sleepers as long as we kept them in our bed, but for us, it was worth a few years of disrupted sleep in order to have that closeness.
I don't judge others who put their babies in their cribs to sleep. It's all about what works for you and the baby in the early days. Honestly for me, it was just too much effort to crawl out of my warm bed , breastfeed, change a diaper, settle the baby, put back in his crib, go back to bed, fall asleep and wake up 90 minutes later to do it all again. I tried that and I was a basket case.
I used to be a maternal health nurse, did home visits,the whole bit. I was a firm believer in letting babies cry themselves to sleep. Until I had my own. There was just something in me that *needed* to be able to see and hear my baby in the night. When they slept in their own rooms I was getting up every 15 minutes to make sure they were still breathing. Call me crazy, but I know that I'm not the only mother to feel that way.
From Holly:
She needs to quit smoking or she's going to die anyway, and she's likely to give her son severe respiratory problems from her behavior. I'd be more worried about the affects of second hand smoke than I would about the co-sleeping.
From Esther:
Holly-she claims the kid needs to be touching her. (I suggested the sidecar). And I'm not going to go into her medical history, incognito or not, online, but let's just say that your last assessment is very much on target *bangs head on desk*.
From Alexis:
I don't think the question is necessarily whether the baby will be damaged (though if you're unlucky enough to get one of the kids who will do that over and over again, maybe, who knows). I DO think that sleep deprivation makes for lousy parenting, and that in the end most parents will end up going with whatever method gives them some peace.
From Holly:
I think I'd recommend a modified CIO routine- let cry 10-20 min, soothe, 10-20 min crying, soothe, repeat.
I think that's totally appropriate in this case.
From Ericacrochets:
Yes, I think co-sleeping is a very dangerous idea when either parent smokes. Even aside from co-sleeping, it's sad to think of the baby being held against the mother's clothes that are reeking of smoke and the damage it does to the baby's respiratory system.
From Susanne:
Esther: "But let's say I took the hardnose approach and the baby cried for 2 hours straight, under the conditions I mentioned. Also assume the baby has all his other needs fulfilled beforehand (diaper is clean, well-fed etc.). Do you believe the baby will somehow be damaged by the crying, the way Dr. Sears threatens?"
Of course not. It's the mother who's damaged by the crying, not the baby. I know it's fashionable to pretend that the above scenario is going to result in baby-becomes-depressed-because-he-believes-no-one-
loves-him-anymore, but absent an abusive situation, why anything would think that any real "damage" would result from a few nights of the above is beyond me. It's women thinking emotionally instead of rationally.
From Ericacrochets:
"But let's say I took the hardnose approach and the baby cried for 2 hours straight, under the conditions I mentioned. Also assume the baby has all his other needs fulfilled beforehand (diaper is clean, well-fed etc.). Do you believe the baby will somehow be damaged by the crying, the way Dr. Sears threatens?"
In the case of my (premature) baby, I was told that he was not to cry at all because he would waste energy he needed to grow and eat.
I don't know of any evidence that the baby will be damaged by 2 hours of crying. I personally could not listen to a newborn cry for 2 hours without holding them--it would be too disturbing. I'm sure you wouldn't either.
In the case of your patient, I think your modified CIO method is probably the best. I don't think CIO when done responsibly "damages" babies. I know of several lovely families who choose to do it that way. But I'm not comfortable letting my babies cry, and I don't think mine are "damaged" either.
From Susanne:
I think I'd recommend a modified CIO routine- let cry 10-20 min, soothe, 10-20 min crying, soothe, repeat."
That's just normal common sense, though. There are certainly parents who don't have the backbone for it, who "rescue" the kid before the 10 minutes or whatever, and then claim that the kid "just can't sleep without being next to them." They never gave him a chance!
From Ericacrochets:
OT, but I have a question. I am probably going to change pediatricians because I am put on hold an average of 30 minutes every time I call. Yesterday, I called, was on hold for 30 minutes, asked for a nurse to call me back about a question. Of course, she called several hours later during the 30-minute window I was picking my oldest up from school. I tried to call back, was put on hold for 10 minutes and then disconnected. (This has happened before, being randomly disconnected after holding for an extended period.). They also have terrible after hours support.
My question is, should I write them a letter telling them why I left? I don't understand why they have these problems with their office. They seem very understaffed as far as office workers. They are a very busy, popular practice. They employ two laction consultants, which is the main reason I was interested in them--they are very supportive of breastfeeding. The doctors seem good, and I hate to leave for a nonmedical reason, but I just can't take it anymore. Do you think the doctors are aware of the situation? Do you think they care?
From Susanne:
"I DO think that sleep deprivation makes for lousy parenting, and that in the end most parents will end up going with whatever method gives them some peace."
Well, sure. I'd rather get my sleep deprivation over with in the beginning, though, rather than not address it and have a bigger issue on my hands later on that will lead to more sleep deprivation on everyone's part. It's a lot harder to convince the toddler that he should go to bed by himself, than it is to convince the baby. The toddler got set up to expect something and now it's being taken away. That seems more "harsh" to me than letting a baby CIO, frankly.
From Holly:
I would write them a letter to let them know I was switching, but I'm that kind of person. Even if they don't care, they will hear me bitch. 
Send a letter. You'll feel better. And I am totally with you on switching. I would switch too.
From Esther:
Is there any way you can complain to the person who runs the practice (MD pr administrator) before giving up on them?
(And heck, I wish I had a fleet of nurses to return my calls for me. Or maybe not...)
From Ericacrochets:
I'm not sure how to find out who is in charge. I'm certainly not going to call and be put on hold for half an hour to find out! Haha. I also feel like I'm spending a lot of time waiting for the nurse to come with the shots after the doctor leaves the room. I can understand waiting for the doctor, but if I'm waiting 30-45 minutes after the doctor for the nurse to come back, I think that's excessive. I don't recall this being a problem in our old practice (we moved--had the most wonderful pedatric nurse practitioner).
From Esther:
And just to finish up (?) the sleep issue - so what I understand you, Erica and ObNurse, are saying is that when parents to high-needs babies say, "my baby wouldn't do X", they mean "I didn't believe it was worth all the misery to induce my baby to change his behavior".
Is that accurate?
From Jen:
"It's a lot harder to convince the toddler that he should go to bed by himself, than it is to convince the baby. The toddler got set up to expect something and now it's being taken away. That seems more "harsh" to me than letting a baby CIO, frankly."
And that's your opinion of course. I think some might argue that the toddler is more able to understand why he's being left alone than the baby can. I don't know if that's necessarily true, but I could see someone arguing it.
And it's not really a matter of "convincing" of course - at least not for the baby. The baby just can't do a damn thing about it, except to cry and scream. The toddler can actually attempt to get out of their own bed all night, and join mom and dad...and then possibly cry and scream when they aren't allowed.
From Ericacrochets:
""I didn't believe it was worth all the misery to induce my baby to change his behavior". "
I would agree with that. And add that the possibility that they might not work (or take many weeks/months to work) bothers me too.
From ObNurse:
Was CIO worth the misery? For me, no. For others, it can be worth the misery.
I fully acknowledge that by letting my babies sleep with me I created toddlers and preschoolers who are very resistant to going to bed by themselves and staying there all night.
I probably missed out on more sleep that I would have had my babies been sleeping in their cribs for 12 hours a night.
I'm also okay with that.
From Susanne:
Erica: You absolutely should complain. It would be one thing if the nurse said that she needed to call you back at X time and you could plan accordingly, but to keep you on hold that long is simply unacceptable. I hate when doctors are poor businesspeople and don't respect other people's time.
From Emma B:
I must say that it's annoying, as a co-sleeping parent, to hear rumors of how detrimental the practice is to my sex life. Apparently, some people can make it work, and others can't. I have not found it to be a burden to either leave the bedroom or put the child in another room.
I'm not talking about what I heard on a message board, but about my friends' and *my own* real-life experience. Maybe I am "uncreative" and "unmotivated", but it's an issue for us. It would be problematic anyway due to the physical issues I've had since my son's birth, but when you're already having trouble, one more barrier to entry is not what you need. (Pun unintentional.) Our home environment is not conducive (dogs, un-curtainable windows, etc), and our son is a light enough sleeper that he wakes up even if we're just snuggling and talking at night.
If it works for you, great, but having kids in our room feels like an intrusion to us, even when they're not in the bed. It's happening right now, because I'm lazy enough to trade the loss of intimacy for not having to get out of bed a couple times a night. Night-weaning is not optional right now, since due to the milk supply/weight loss issues, the baby legitimately needs to eat in the middle of the night, but I don't like it and I look forward to the day when it stops.
I'm not comfortable with CIO for young babies either. I did CIO with the girls around 10 months of age, but I don't think that any of my children have shown the requisite awareness and understanding to do sleep-training before six months. Getting oneself back to sleep is a skill, and the girls didn't seem to know how to self-soothe for a while. Neither does Andrew, who can't fall asleep without his pacifier and can't get it in his own mouth. Maybe my kids are just dumb , but I truly haven't thought any of them have been ready for CIO until later in babyhood.
BTW, my twins have always shared a room, and shared a crib until they started rolling over on each other. That's true for every other set of infant multiples I've known, although many choose to start separating them for naps when they get to be toddlers. Sleep for multiples is a whooooole different ballgame, believe me!
From Emma B:
Re toddlers in the bed, we are avoiding this right now by the very simple expedient of a childproof lock on the bedroom door. They *can't* get out of their room and come into our bed. (We have a baby monitor, and always respond if we're truly needed.)
This is part of the multiple sleep thing, though. We have not been successful at making them stay in their own beds at nap/bedtime -- they don't seem to have the emotional maturity to be able to resist the lure of playing with each other. Their room is childproofed to the teeth (there's no furniture in there except their cribs and a dresser turned around backwards so they can't climb it), so we just lock them up there and let them play until they're ready to fall asleep.
Parenting multiples does tend to make you feel like a zookeeper.
From Ericacrochets:
Well, maybe Andrew will start sleeping better/longer on his own. Not to be patronizing, Emma B., but have you tried white noise? The shower fan has been a lifesaver for us.
From Ericacrochets:
"I hate when doctors are poor businesspeople and don't respect other people's time."
I will complain, and I've gotten a couple of recommendations for a different practice where calls are taken in a timely fashion. I haven't had to call our pracitec that often since my children are rarely sick, so it has taken me a while to realize that those hold times are typical for the practice. Also, when I go in, the receptionist is nearly always talking on the phone to parents into a headset as she helps people check in and does billing. I can't imagine working in that office.
From Miss Belle:
Wow..whathisname must be thinking Amy really spends a lot of time talking to herself!
So many things I would like to respond to but I did like what Holly said and lets NOT be like MDC and questioning eachothers devotion to the cause of co sleeping or crying it out!
For the record I coslept with all three and was happy. With all three I tried a guilt induced from other people cry it out night and lost my mind. And yes, I was afraid to admit how long my toddlers breastfed or slept in our bed I many times at playgroups etc. Dependant on the general consensus on such issue.
I think Amy's post and Esther's wait a sec were both interesting. It makes me glad I am done because I was happy with how things went for me. I was also happy for my sister who did things the complete opposite of how I did. I don't think either mode makes for high needs kids or future sociopaths or guarantees perfect children!
From Caryn:
I spent three years teaching my son that if I stopped touching him, he could stay asleep.
I'd nurse him to sleep on the bed, wait until he had been out for ten minutes or so, get up and leave the room, and he'd wake up sobbing. I'd settle him back down again and get back up, and he'd wake up sobbing. If I left him for 5 minutes he'd take another hour to settle back to sleep. If I left him for ten, he'd throw up. Lather rinse repeat six to ten times each night between his bedtime, and mine. If I woke up at 2:30 am to pee after he'd been asleep for hours, he woke up crying. If I got up in the morning planning for him to sleep for another hour, he'd be up in 5 minutes or so.
The first time he stayed asleep for more than 20 minutes after I got out of the bed, I wrote it down as a milestone -- he was more than 2 years and 9 months old.
He *still*, at age 6, does not sleep so deeply that I could lift his arm a few inches and drop it without waking him -- and IIRC that's the marker for "baby sufficiently deeply asleep to move from one place to another." And he still has a 45 minute sleep cycle and is stunningly easy to wake 45 minutes after falling asleep, 1:30 after falling asleep...
(But then sleep disturbances run strongly in my family, particularly insomnia, night terrors, and sleepwalking, which is why I'm still awake at 1:30 am after not really sleeping for the past two nights.)
Some kids are just like that, absent issues of parental backbone.
As someone pointed out upthread, the issue of child temperment is being conflated with values questions. Whether or not children have different temperments is one factor in sleeping decisions; another is how the parents value adjusting babies to sleeping by themselves/ adjusting toddlers to sleeping by themselves/ waiting until the child moves of his or her own accord/ having a bed for sex/ having a bed for privacy and quiet conversation/ etc. And yeah, it's just stunningly obvious that not everyone shares the same values there.
From Margaret:
" Were there no such babies back in the old days? And if there were, did parents humor their babies' quirks they way they do now, or perhaps they saw this as a behavior to be corrected - with crying involved, if necessary? "
Esther, historically (and still around the world today) co-sleeping was perfectly normal. Not just with babies, but entire families or even random guests at an inn having to share a bed (and fleas/lice!). I'm having trouble imagining that the vast majority of women in Botswana or Zimbabwe have houses big enough to put baby in a seperate room "down the hall", or enough money to even buy a crib. My husband is East African and slept in his mother's arms as an infant, and then shared a bed with his brothers through his childhood. Given the open fires, bugs, rats, and random animals wandering around in rural areas, right next to mom is the *safest* place for an African baby to be. They might have "difficult" babies but just not know it because they already do that which comforts the miserable little thing. :D
All our babies sleep with us in the early days. Usually staring out in the bassinet by our bed and ending up in my arms by midnight. We all sleep better that way. We have never been comfortable letting a baby scream itself to sleep, and all of our children went well beyond "fussing a little" if left alone in bed. The older two have moved to their own room with no trouble by the age of 2. Right now they share the bottom of a bunk bed (one on each end). The "baby" will shortly move into that room as well, when he turns 2 this spring.
From Liz:
I do tend to see another form of collective amnesia here in the ignoring of historical/geographical/class attitudes to co-sleeping I shared a room, and sometimes a bed, with my sister until she left home, and it wasn't even slightly unusual. I had friends from big families who would share two at the top, two at the bottom of one bed. And we still have "homeless families" living in what is known as "bed and breakfast accommodation" - a family in one room, climbing over each other.
And, as someone whose babies are now adults, what's this with the crying? Do modern babies only cry when in extreme distress? I seem to remember that there is a whole range of baby cries, not all of them life and death. Am I mis-remembering? Or was I a cruel and wicked mother? If I was, neither of my two have grown up to be axe murderers. (I didn't leave them to CIO and to be honest, I had more problems with the crying of older children, which I did find hard to differentiate sometimes, finding the crying of a tantrum and the crying of a cut knee just as harrowing.)
From Liz:
Anecdote: Once, as a doting aunt, I was attempting a "pretend" cry. My three year old niece looked at me in disgust, and said: "That's not how you pretend to cry, this is how you pretend to cry..." Burst into the most heart-rending crying, complete with real tears, stopped, looked at me calmly, and said: "THAT'S how you pretend to cry." Good teachers, children.
From Susanne:
"I'd nurse him to sleep on the bed, wait until he had been out for ten minutes or so, get up and leave the room, and he'd wake up sobbing. I'd settle him back down again and get back up, and he'd wake up sobbing."
But then why would you nurse him to sleep, Caryn? Wasn't that just "training" him that he needed you to get to sleep / stay asleep, versus nursing him while making sure he stayed awake, and then putting him down?
From Susanne:
"Also, when I go in, the receptionist is nearly always talking on the phone to parents into a headset as she helps people check in and does billing. I can't imagine working in that office."
Someone needs to hire another receptionist or office assistant, it sounds like. How can she not wind up making mistakes? And it's rude not to attend to the person in front of you. Sounds like a poorly run office. I'd tell them.
From Susanne:
"And, as someone whose babies are now adults, what's this with the crying? Do modern babies only cry when in extreme distress? I seem to remember that there is a whole range of baby cries, not all of them life and death. Am I mis-remembering? Or was I a cruel and wicked mother?"
Of course there is. They don't all need to be treated as the life or death shut-them-up-at-any-costs-because-baby-might-grow-
up-to-be-a-serial-killer. I think Esther's comments about putting a baby in a carseat are spot-on.
From Caryn:
But then why would you nurse him to sleep, Caryn? Wasn't that just "training" him that he needed you to get to sleep / stay asleep, versus nursing him while making sure he stayed awake, and then putting him down?
If I put him down while he was awake, he screamed. Immediately. And kept going for 10 minutes, and threw up. And couldn't be settled for an hour following.
If I put him down *at all*. On anything. Well, if he was in his carseat *and the car was moving*, he'd be quiet, but stoplights were a bad thing. Strollers equaled screaming. Floor on a blanket equaled screaming.
I've a lot of experience with babies -- younger siblings born when I was in my teens -- and this was not a vaguely fussy whimper or a mellow annoyed cry. It was hysteria. People with lots of experience with babies, five children of their own or whatever, would insist that I was making it up, and I'd hand him to them, and they'd spend 10 minutes trying to distract him/ sooth him/ wait it out, and he'd throw up, and they'd hand him back and say "Wow."
When I met my mom for coffee, and had to run to the bathroom, I'd hand him to her, and invariably by the time I finished peeing, she'd be outside the shop holding a sobbing baby. I'm talking the kind of volume that clears restaurants.
My little brother was a "normal" baby, and could be handed off to anyone, and liked to play on the floor, and slept anywhere. That was the sort of baby I was anticipating, but it's not the sort I got.
From Ericacrochets:
"But then why would you nurse him to sleep, Caryn?"
I can't speak for Caryn, BUT:
Because that's what babies DO, Susanne. When you breastfeed a newborn, they fall asleep. They are wired to do so. Some babies will fall asleep at the bottle, but the composition of formula isn't as sleep inducing. And I imagine that sucking on a human nipple, which is warm, attached to the mother, and tastes of her, is more "snuggly" and sleep inducing that sucking on silicone. Also, the breastfed baby is pressed against more of the mother's skin, and the bottle fed baby is not, unless parent chooses to unbutton his/her shirt. The skin effect is more sleep inducing as well.
The baby, being attached at the mouth to the mother, snuggled up next to her skin, is going to respond a little differently to being moved than the baby who is not attached at the mouth to the mother and is snuggled up next to clothing. It's often easier to make that transition from the parent to crib or bassinet when one is bottle feeding, particularly if the bottle feeder is not the mother.
Most of this "expert" sleep advice is tailor made for parents/babies who use formula. It's much more difficult to apply this advice to the breastfed baby.
From Liz:
All in all, I have been intimately involved with trying to get five different babies to sleep at night - as mother/aunt/grandmother. All of them were different, moving in and out of different phases. One would only sleep if you walked up and down holding her, and wake if you sat down (at a very heavy 10 months)but would settle when fast asleep; one liked noise; one would never ever sleep in your arms, but only in her crib. My youngest, put her in her crib, and she was asleep before I got to the door. My eldest would happily sleep in a crib, but as a toddler flatly refused to acknowledge any difference between night and day, and would not sleep if she wanted to play. I think mothers who congratulate themselves on their foolproof technique are deluding themselves.
From ObNurse:
Erica
ITA. I know of very few breastfed babies who were sucessfully "sleep trained". It is extremely difficult to apply sleep training methods on a baby who falls asleep the moment he is done eating. And you have to feed a breastfed baby right before he goes to sleep, otherwise he is going to wake up hungry in half an hour anyway.
I think the sleep books are popular because a lot of new parents are exhausted and therefore most babies must be "poor" sleepers. Which leads me to think that these so called poor sleeping habits are actually pretty normal.
By the time I felt that my babies were old enough for sleep training, the nurse to sleep habit was firmly entrenched, and like I said, i was not willing to put either of us through the misery.
From ObNurse:
FWIW I returned to work (shift work) when my babies were a year old. I guess you could say that my husband sleep trained them. They would wake up to nurse and I wasn't there, they'd cry and dh wore a path in the carpet walking them around.
Eventually they caught on.
My dh was never very happy with me when I'd get home, and I felt bad. Both times I tried to night wean before returning to work but in reality, it is SO hard!! In that sense it would have made much more sense for me to put my babies in their cribs and listen to a little bit of crying. I admit it!
I was very torn, wanting to do what was best for my baby *at that moment* while worrying about how we were going to handle things a year down the line.
Being a mother is a very hard job not matter how you do it. As my mother pointed out, there is always a day of reckoning with your kids. CIO, taking away breast/bottles/soother, potty training, none of it is very pleasant but it has to be done. I'm a big wimp but so far everyone is potty trained and off the breast and sleeping in their own bed most nights! I guess I haven't screwed them up too much.
From Jolene:
Susanne,
In not too long you may (or may not, who knows?) be seen as the judgemental, unreasonable grandma. When you are so unwilling to open your mind to accept other experiences than your own and when you label the parent as doing something "wrong" when the results aren't exactly what yours was, you tend to be granted less involvement in your grandchildren's lives as you may wish for.
And who knows, maybe that situation will suit you just fine. Some grandparents don't like more than a very surface relationship with their grandchildren.
From ObNurse:
Sorry for the multiple posts. I just want to clarify, because this thread is starting to sound like MDC, that I don't think that crib sleeping babies are going to grow up to serial killers. Not in the least.
And also, that sleep training is much harder IRL than what is written in the sleep books.
From SarahNicole:
@EricaCrochets: Most of this "expert" sleep advice is tailor made for parents/babies who use formula. It's much more difficult to apply this advice to the breastfed baby.
Really? What about babies, like my son, who are fed exclusively breastmilk, but from a bottle (long story short, since he was about 3 weeks old, I pump an adequate supply for him, my husband is at home with him alone 2 1/2 to 3 days a week, and I am at home alone with him the same amount of time, on opposite weekdays)?
The whole statement you made upthread doesn't actually sound as if it's based on evidence, as you "*imagine* [emphasis mine] that sucking on a human nipple, which is warm, attached to the mother, and tastes of her, is more 'snuggly' and sleep inducing that sucking on silicone." My son appears to like his milk regardless, and snuggles quite a bit, whether he's being held against clothing or skin. It's also not as if skin on the chest is the only skin that can be touching him as he's fed... He regularly falls asleep after eating, although not always... He's 4 1/2 months old, and pretty much sleeps through the night as well... We partially co-slept with a sidecar, but also used our chests and a foldable mini-bed on top of our bed. The sidecar is now upstairs in our office for naps, and he is generally in his crib for the night...
From Alexis:
Susanne, many doctors' offices are fully aware of how poorly they're run and simply don't care. My father has waited for 2 hours at his cardiologist's. When he complained, the response was "tough, blame the HMOs".
I also think you're setting up a ridiculous scenario in pretending that parents do treat it as life and death. The carseat analogy works to some extent, but not entirely. Sleep is different. Your entire attitude, your level of tolerance, is completely different when you're exhausted and want to sleep. That carseat screaming doesn't last all night, every night, which is what sleep issues do. It's easy for someone who's not in the situation to say suck it up and be in it for the long haul. Most people will do what works now.
(BTW, I know several parents of carseat-hating children who, while they didn't stop driving, did curtail their driving to "absolutely necessary" because it was so unbearable and continued exposure didn't seem to change anything.)
From ObNurse:
SarahNicole
When you are pumping, how much milk does your son generally take in a bottle? See, I myself produced lots of breastmilk, but fed my babies frequently because although I made lots of milk, I didn't have the storage capacity, KWIM?
When I pumped and fed my babies would never take more than a few ounces. And then they would still wake up a few hours later to be fed.
I would try pumping a few times and combining that amount in one bottle, but they would never take the whole thing.
If your son is drinking 6 or more ounces at a feed, it may account for him having nice long stretches of sleep (lucky you! )
I am not trying to get anyone fired up here, I am just curious. And I think its great that you are able to pump enough milk, that can be a big challenge from what I've heard.
From Kat:
I will mention a professor who once told us of a study (and yes, I should find a link to it and I will but only if one forces me to work that hard) about high needs babies in Africa.
The researchers noted babies as either high needs (crying, cranky, awake a lot) normal, or good (hardly ever crying). Most babies were normal of course.
Some time later there had been a drought and they went back to the remote village. None of the good babies were alive, some of the normal babies were, and all of the high needs babies were alive.
Now why that was is just speculation, but the speculation was that the difficult babies screamed so much and made such a ruckus to be fed and taken care of that they got fed. The good babies starved, and of course as statistics go, some normal ones survived.
So are babies hard-wired to be high needs? Is there a benefit? Perhaps.
I do think every child is different and every parent is different, and I am secure in knowing that each family makes the right decision for them. It is one of those no-brainers that a mom and infant will find a way to get some rest.
From Ericacrochets:
"My son appears to like his milk regardless, and snuggles quite a bit, whether he's being held against clothing or skin."
I'm sure he does. I just think it's easier to move a baby from a bottle nipple than from a human nipple and bare skin. If your head is resting against a shirt, then the feel of the sheet might not wake you up as easily. If you had a bottle nipple in your mouth, the pacifier nipple might not feel as different.
However it came out, I was trying to explain, as I think Emma B. put it a few weeks ago, that breasts are not bottles attached to the chest. I meant that it is easier to trick the bottle fed baby into thinking you're still holding him/her. I didn't mean they were snuggled less.
I also think fathers are often better at putting babies in their cribs because the baby minds less.
From Ericacrochets:
One more thing I wanted to clarify:
Breastfeeding and bottle feeding are both good ways to feed a baby. Both have advantages and disadvantages. However, they are not exactly the same. Turkey and Greece are both great places to visit. They are not exactly the same. You will not get EXACTLY THE SAME experience in Istanbul that you do in Athens. (Or so I'm told--I've never been to Athens.)
From Emma B:
Do modern babies only cry when in extreme distress? I seem to remember that there is a whole range of baby cries, not all of them life and death.
That is one of the lessons of having multiples, that no child ever died from a few minutes of crying. Of course, what Caryn's talking about is different from "a few minutes", but I'm OK with ignoring a little bit of ordinary "I'm unhappy with the universe" crying.
That's why CIO worked for us -- the first night was 40 minutes of crying (with me standing right there back-patting), the second night was 20, and after that it was a couple minutes, if there was any crying at all. I wouldn't have done it if the crying lasted for hours, and the child didn't seem to be making any improvement after a few days of it. If the child isn't learning anything, s/he probably isn't ready for whatever you're trying to train her to do, and you're just teaching a pig to sing.
From SarahNicole:
EricaCrochets: "I also think fathers are often better at putting babies in their cribs because the baby minds less."
Why would that be, especially in a situation like mine? I know I am in a still rare situation, but even when I was directly breastfeeding, more often than not, it was my husband that got up and got the baby for me -- even when he was in the sidecar or the little bed -- due to my need for him to help me both lift the baby from my position on the bed (no, the lying down feeding position did not work for me at all) and help me get him settled with the boppy, and the nipple shield when I had to use that. Whether or not he also changed the baby before or after, he was doing the bulk of the physical care of the baby early on, and he does roughly half of it now (sometimes more, sometimes less). It may be that the baby minds less being separated from his/her primary caregiver, and that may still overwhelmingly be the mother...
My son seems to be a lot like I was as a child -- will sleep anywhere he happens to be, if he is inclined to sleep. If he is not, there is the magical battery-powered swing, which almost never fails...
@ObNurse: Currently, I get about 36 ounces of milk a day. I was up at about 42 ounces for awhile, and I had a freezer full for a couple of months. I basically followed the amount guidelines for formula feeding, but fed on demand, and right now he's taking about 28-32 ounces a day (usually between 4-6 ounces at a time; 6 is still rare, and I'd say he averages about 4.5). I'm not sure why I dropped from 42, as I have been very consistent about my pumping schedule. I may go back to doing a middle of the night pumping and see what that does...
I feel extremely lucky that the pumping has worked out so well, since direct breastfeeding became an issue for me fairly early on...
From Susanne:
"I also think fathers are often better at putting babies in their cribs because the baby minds less."
Or, the fathers have harder hearts (not in the bad sense of the word, mind you) and don't let themselves get all discombobulated at what Emma nicely characterized as ordinary "I'm unhappy with the universe" type of crying. Babies cry, and sometimes their crying will be inconsolable ... and, then, what? Like I said, in an otherwise well cared for child (barring orphanages and neglectful situations), it's far bothersome to the mother than it is to the child.
From Susanne:
"The baby, being attached at the mouth to the mother, snuggled up next to her skin, is going to respond a little differently to being moved than the baby who is not attached at the mouth to the mother and is snuggled up next to clothing."
I was explicitly told by our pediatric neurologist that it was a bad idea to "let" them fall asleep while feeding (in this case, a bottle) - that if they showed signs of doing so, then you WOKE THEM UP, you tickled their feet or whatever, so you didn't get drawn into the trap of baby thinking it has to be feeding, falling asleep, and then getting upset when source of feeding and / or parent is removed. Shrug - seemed like simple everyday common sense to me.
From Susanne:
"That's why CIO worked for us -- the first night was 40 minutes of crying (with me standing right there back-patting), the second night was 20, and after that it was a couple minutes, if there was any crying at all. I wouldn't have done it if the crying lasted for hours, and the child didn't seem to be making any improvement after a few days of it."
Exactly. Why wouldn't someone try this?
And total agreement that raising multiples helps you understand that no one ever died from a few minutes of crying, crunchy-mama-boards notwithstanding.
From Alexis:
Again, Susanne, what you don't appear to get - that's not what actually happens for many babies. My daughter was capable of crying till she vomited and passed out from exhaustion. That's cruel. Many parents HAVE tried it, and it didn't work for their babies.
From Jamie:
Yeah, we co-sleep. Anyone surprised? ^_^
I kept my LO's side-carred portacrib empty for almost a month -- determined not to let it turn into a hamper/catch-all, but alas, it has.
But I'm not here for that -- Dr. Amy? Are you going to do a story on the octuplets born in California? I have a highly irreverent question to ask you if you do. ^_^
Cheers!
From Liz:
My daughter was capable of crying till she vomited and passed out from exhaustion.
Really? At what age? That does sound very unpleasant, and I really, really don't mean to be snarky, but what is the difference in "passed out from exhaustion" and "finally went to sleep"?
My memories are a bit vague, it being a long time ago, but my youngest daughter, an omniverous feeder, would vomit frequently and seemingly quite happily. Me eldest, tiny, brain injured, colicky, I remember more clearly would cry inconsolably from 6 to 10 every evening for what seemed like weeks. Putting her down was out of the question, so I would hold her and rock her and eventually she would stop and sleep through most of the night. Bit of a nightmare at the time, but you can get used to anything. It wasn't frantic screaming, just crying that nothing would fix. She was simultaneously thriving (considering) and content the rest of the day. Very definitely high maintenance though.
From Jen:
"Are you going to do a story on the octuplets born in California? I have a highly irreverent question to ask you if you do. ^_^"
She has on her Open Salon blog. There's a link on the front page of this one, right under the "Risk Quiz"
From Jamie:
"I was explicitly told by our pediatric neurologist that it was a bad idea to "let" them fall asleep while feeding (in this case, a bottle) - that if they showed signs of doing so, then you WOKE THEM UP, you tickled their feet or whatever, so you didn't get drawn into the trap of baby thinking it has to be feeding, falling asleep, and then getting upset when source of feeding and / or parent is removed. Shrug - seemed like simple everyday common sense to me."
Ah yes. That horrible trap of caring for our children the way they were designed to be cared for -- I think there's a shorter word for it... ah, yes! Parenting! ^_^
I have no problem with babies and kids falling asleep on their own, sleeping in their own beds/rooms/whatever. I have a problem with universally prescribed CIO, and also with doctors giving parenting advice without clearly identifying it *as* parenting, rather than medical, advice.
From Jamie:
Thanks, Jen!
From Holly:
Liz, My 18 month old cried/screamed until he vomited in his pack and play while we were visiting my mom. He screamed for over an hour. Both DH and I were both delirious from sleep deprivation and letting him scream himself to sleep was our last option.
From Jolene:
I had one of those 5 lb IUGR babies, who was considered "high needs". I was told to let baby nurse even through his sleep (they continue sucking, even though they are asleep... binky behavior) becuase he needed every swallow of milk he could possibly fit into one day. That means constant nursing for awhile. Crying is valuable calories a difficult-to-start baby can ill afford. (any infant, really)
I think the difference Susanne, is that your babies spent their first weeks in NICU, and by the time they came home they simply didn't need or expect to be held while they slept. Can you admit that that may have made for a very different experience than mine, (and many others) who was discharged less than 6 hours later?
His care was all up to me. Daddy worked at night. *I* was responsible for helping that baby grow, or risk re-hospitalization.
Oh, and holding the baby constantly doesn't necessarily stop the screaming. My IUGR baby arched his back and screamed bloody murder for hours every evening. Not "I'm unhappy with the universe" crying, but "the universe is killing me right this instant crying". By the time he could be settled, I wanted nothing more than to doze off and keep him quiet at the same time. Thank god that period didn't last long, or it wouldn't have ended well for either of us. (speaking of ax murderers, it may not have caused the baby to become one, but I nearly became one!)
From Liz:
I think you mean me, not Susanne, and yeah I can accept that weeks in NICU made a difference. Just that my frail tot's crying did seem to bother me more than her. It would have been far worse in the middle of the night and I agree that that could turn the most placid mother frantic. Feeding did tire her, so that was a nightmare too. Much worse than the crying. Then I got the world's easiest baby, and boy was that a relief.
From Jolene:
No, I mean Susanne. The statement "why not just try CIO" simply doesn't jive with my experience.
Interestingly, my MIL did try to come help me at night for awhile. That lasted exactly one night. I was more anxious when she had the baby... after waking Twice and finding her asleep on the couch, and the baby fallen in between her and the back of the couch the first time and the baby LITERALLY on the floor the second. "I was tired" she said. Jesus! Aren't we all?!?!
No thanks. I'll do it myself.
From Alexis:
Liz, she was about a year old when she did that, and it lasted a while. I know she was exhausted because her crying got weaker and she was trying to force herself to keep crying. Finally she zonked. And further attempts didn't seem to be any better, though I never let her get that far again. Not paying attention didn't make her learn the way the "experts" said it would.
Again, as kids go, mine is not that high needs (just very stubborn!), but when we tried to switch her from a bassinet in our room to a crib in her own room, she freaked. Really and truly freaked. She didn't cosleep before that. And yeah, we got her to realize that sleeping right next to us was better, which might have been detrimental in the long run but we felt like we had no choice. When we finally got the big crib in our room, she wouldn't have it. We kept trying to get her back in her crib, and I even tried the Ferber controlled crying thing, and she wouldn't do it. Now, at 2, she's better, but she still wakes up crying in the middle of the night and nothing works but letting her come in with us, calm down, then moving her into her bed.
From Kat:
"Or, the fathers have harder hearts (not in the bad sense of the word, mind you) and don't let themselves get all discombobulated at what Emma nicely characterized as ordinary "I'm unhappy with the universe" type of crying."
Yes and yes. My husband has an easier time still putting the children to bed. He is no nonsense, while I can fall victim to extra tucking, cuddles, whines for another story, all of which leave the nighttime ritual exhausting for me. Dad has a very easy time with it since they know they can't manipulate him like they can me. Not bad or good. Just different.
From sarahz.:
I'm not Amy! And I'm not going to debate co-sleeping. IMO, I have always felt safer doing it. I need to check on my LO about 1000 times a night and co-sleeping allows me to do that. I am a totally light sleeper though. It is not something that I am that fired up about.
However, Amy I LOVE that you don't let idealogy get in the way of your critiques! And will speak out on both sides of the idealogical fence in favor of accuracy.
Also just as an aside, publically thanking Dr. A for friendship and support during my recent m/c at 10 weeks.
She was amazing, very sweet to me, and an invaluable resource for advice as I searched Pubmed to sort out my options. I am pleased to say her assistance helped me ensure a smooth passage for my baby and a great outcome for myself & my family!
From Ericacrochets:
"I had one of those 5 lb IUGR babies, who was considered "high needs". I was told to let baby nurse even through his sleep (they continue sucking, even though they are asleep... binky behavior) becuase he needed every swallow of milk he could possibly fit into one day. That means constant nursing for awhile. Crying is valuable calories a difficult-to-start baby can ill afford. (any infant, really)"
Interesting, that's what I did with my 5-pounder. I wasn't told to nurse him in his sleep though--it just seemed like a good idea. He did gain weight really, really well.
From Ericacrochets:
"That's why CIO worked for us -- the first night was 40 minutes of crying (with me standing right there back-patting), the second night was 20, and after that it was a couple minutes, if there was any crying at all."
I have done CIO while I was there with them, holding them or patting their back, too. Night weaning and such past a year. But I didn't count it as CIO because I was there. I agree that there is a big difference between sleepy fussing and outright crying.
Without "help" being parented to sleep, my older son was/is capable of staying up all night. He would get exhausted but never sleepy. Sleep did not overtake him. He almost never has fallen asleep watching a video or listening to his bedtime stories (at least 30 minutes, sometimes an hour). When he was a baby, he needed nursing and often singing/bouncing/dancing (like his mom as a baby, I guess), and even now he needs backrubs and footrubs, lots of encouragement to stop asking questions, turn his mind off, and think about sleep. I had terrible insomnia until I was 16, so I think there is something neurological at play with both of us. We do have an extensive bedtime routine for him, and that helps a lot.
Now, my younger son, if we're late getting him to bed, will just fuss a little, come up to one of us, put his head in our lap, and fall asleep. At night, when he's tired, I can put him in the bed, rub his legs a little bit, sing, and he falls asleep pretty quickly.
It's amazing to us to see a baby fall asleep like that. And I nursed the second one on demand, let him fall asleep that way (of course didn't let him nurse IN his sleep because he was a good, hefty size), and babywore him hours and hours each day, including for most of his naps. It wasn't anything I DID to make him settle easier. He just developed that capacity much sooner than his brother.
From Ericacrochets:
I'm sorry to hear of your loss, sarahz.
From Ericacrochets:
"Why would that be, especially in a situation like mine?"
I meant that newborns have more difficulty being put down by their mother because they spent the last several months in her body, are used to her, and they seem to resent being taken off of her body. True, as they get older, that changes, depending on the circumstances.
From Susanne:
"Ah yes. That horrible trap of caring for our children the way they were designed to be cared for -- I think there's a shorter word for it... ah, yes! Parenting! ^_^ "
Well, if children were "designed" to be cared for in such a way that it wreaks tremendous havoc on the parents' sleep, and causes deprivation which isn't a good thing, then it's a pretty stupid design. Because many women can NOT sleep if the baby is in bed with or near them.
So if that's the case, are you saying that too bad, so sad, the mother's sleep deprivation is of no health consequence whatsoever? So damn what if it leads to maternal exhaustion, clinical depression, zombie-like functioning? So damn what if it affects older children -- baby's all of a sudden the most important member in the household?
From Susanne:
"My husband has an easier time still putting the children to bed. He is no nonsense, while I can fall victim to extra tucking, cuddles, whines for another story, all of which leave the nighttime ritual exhausting for me. Dad has a very easy time with it since they know they can't manipulate him like they can me. Not bad or good. Just different."
Well, right. How many of the people on parenting boards who are complaining about not getting the preschooler to stay in his own bed do you think were no-nonsense and all-business from the beginning?
Clue: If the child responds to the all-business, no-nonsense approach, then it's not "innate."
From Susanne:
"I think the difference Susanne, is that your babies spent their first weeks in NICU, and by the time they came home they simply didn't need or expect to be held while they slept. Can you admit that that may have made for a very different experience than mine, (and many others) who was discharged less than 6 hours later?"
Sure, but I take issue with the assumption that had they been born in a normal situation they would have "expected" to be held while they slept. Again, it's amazing how you can walk down the hall of a hospital and see a hospital nursery with babies who all fell asleep even though OMG-they-aren't-in-parents'-arms. How does that happen, do you suppose?
From Susanne:
Oh dear Sarahz - I am so sorry to hear of your miscarriage, and wish you and your family well in your healing.
From Squillo:
I'm so sorry for your loss, sarahz.
You and your family will be in my prayers.
From Susanne:
"I have no problem with babies and kids falling asleep on their own, sleeping in their own beds/rooms/whatever. I have a problem with universally prescribed CIO, and also with doctors giving parenting advice without clearly identifying it *as* parenting, rather than medical, advice."
I have a problem with how women today have been so brainwashed to believe that they don't count at all, and so they should accept interrupted sleep for months on end rather than help the baby learn to sleep on its own. And further, I think that if nursing means the mother has to live in this constant state of half-awake-half-asleep, I think that's enough reason to wean, because mother's important too.
I continue to find it ironic that this blog discusses women who homebirth -- who are all about "me and my experience too!" -- and yet the experience of women after having a baby has to be All About The Baby 100% of The Time and Just Suck It Up and live in that constant state of sleep deprivation because you have to nurse through the night or have baby in your bed or whatever.
From Susanne:
This is a prime example of Teh Stupid That Burnz, that is the crap that women are being fed today by the typical mama-drama women:
"But I worry that if I leave my children to cry it out, then they will not see the point in reaching out to us if they have problems later in life and could try to deal with serious issues like bullying, drug addictions, teenage pregnancy, gambling problems, or flunking out of school on their own or turn to peers. Unfortunately, those problems are often too big for a teenager to be left to deal with alone or with peers and it can have disastrous results ranging from making poor decisions all the way to committing suicide out of a feeling of hopelessness."
Really? It's not about the totality of the parent-child relationship, it's about a couple of nights as a baby? It seems that the overall trend in parenthood is to make everything So Completely Significant Or Else Disaster Will Result, and it's so fear-based. Which begs the question - why are these women so fearful that they won't do a good job in raising their kids in the first place? If you haven't already, I'd urge you all to read Esther's blog (Mainstream Parenting) - Mango Mama Redux. It captures so much of this whole philosophy these days - parenting from fear and scared-ness, not confidence and self-assurance.
From Alexis:
Except that sometimes, parenting IS about sucking it up and saying that this is what your baby needs, or this is the price you'll pay. You're presenting this really false, easy choice of being Suck It Up and being a Mommy Martyr, or being sensible and just not do it. Sometimes, what you want doesn't count, not because of any ideology about the supreme importance of baby, but because baby has their own opinions and needs.
From SarahNicole:
@Ericacrochets: "I meant that newborns have more difficulty being put down by their mother because they spent the last several months in her body, are used to her, and they seem to resent being taken off of her body."
Again, I have to ask, Really? That was *never* the case with my son. I think this is an (gender-based) assumption on your part, not one that is backed up by research. Can you point to any that shows this? I don't mean research that shows that newborns respond differently to higher-pitched voices, or to the smell of their own mother's milk (things I've read that say they are backed by research; have not read the original studies themselves). I mean specifically any study that shows that newborns fuss more/sleep less/are harder to get to sleep in a crib/whatever it is you're arguing it is harder for them to do if they are put down/separated from the arms of their biological mothers as opposed to their fathers (with comparisons between types of birth for the babies, because what I hear here is an implication of a very deep onoing physical connection between mother and child that also seems to exist in arguments for attachment/natural [I think there's a big overlap] parenting, some that get into arguing that c-section -- or even medicated childbirth of any kind -- breaks that all important link in a variety of ways...). My husband and I have been doing shared parenting -- tasks that our society mostly puts in the "mothering" column -- since the beginning of his life; it's my husband that first started having him fall asleep on his chest, in fact.
Full disclosure: I had gestational diabetes, an emergency gallbladder removal and appendectomy at 31 weeks, and an emergency c-section at 38 weeks (a planned induction, my son's HR decelerated and wasn't bouncing back, and he was born gripping his cord; he's utterly fine. 15 pounds, 25 1/2 inches at just over 4 months). Through both my own experiences and the research and teaching that I've done as a sociologist, I'm quite suspect about gender differences that are presented as biologically innate, epsecially when there are so many counter examples to the stated difference.
From Susanne:
"My husband and I have been doing shared parenting -- tasks that our society mostly puts in the "mothering" column -- since the beginning of his life; it's my husband that first started having him fall asleep on his chest, in fact."
YES. Exactly!
From Esther:
ObNurse:"I know of very few breastfed babies who were sucessfully "sleep trained". It is extremely difficult to apply sleep training methods on a baby who falls asleep the moment he is done eating. And you have to feed a breastfed baby right before he goes to sleep, otherwise he is going to wake up hungry in half an hour anyway."
I have 3 examples to the contrary in my own house, and know quite a few others personally. I simply didn't nurse them to sleep after the neonatal stage (well before CIO came into play). In any case, at the time in the baby's life CIO becomes pertinent, the baby is also usually taking solids. A solid supper can help prevent the baby from waking hungry half an hour later.
Caryn - honestly, in the context of a family history and what you're describing, I would have asked my pedi for a sleep lab and consult long ago.
Sarahz - adding my condolences to the others' 
.
From SarahNicole:
sarahz -- Almost exactly a year before my son was born, we had an anembryonic pregnancy, and I had to take meds to induce the miscarriage. I am also sorry for your loss.
From Jamie:
"Sure, but I take issue with the assumption that had they been born in a normal situation they would have "expected" to be held while they slept. Again, it's amazing how you can walk down the hall of a hospital and see a hospital nursery with babies who all fell asleep even though OMG-they-aren't-in-parents'-arms. How does that happen, do you suppose?"
I've never been in a hospital with a well-baby nursery.
Susanne, I took exception to your implication of why should anyone *want* to help their kids get to sleep. I don't judge any one family for using CIO, because I don't know them, and don't know their kids. I have a problem with the idea that EVERYONE should use CIO, because helping kids get to sleep is too difficult/time-consuming/worthless. I don't find it worthless (and I have a baby who nurses every 2-3hrs at night). Cosleeping keeps *me* from being more a zombie. And coincidentally, feeding the baby as soon as he stirs keeps *him* from waking up my oldest (who sleeps right next door) and my hubbie (who sleeps like a log).
For the record, my oldest cried himself to sleep in arms. He's had trouble getting to sleep from a very early age, and needed to be wrapped up against someone in order to block out stimulation enough to get to sleep.
From Jamie:
"Except that sometimes, parenting IS about sucking it up and saying that this is what your baby needs, or this is the price you'll pay. You're presenting this really false, easy choice of being Suck It Up and being a Mommy Martyr, or being sensible and just not do it. Sometimes, what you want doesn't count, not because of any ideology about the supreme importance of baby, but because baby has their own opinions and needs."
ITA. Sometimes, it is all about what the kids need. Less frequently, it's all about what I need. But I can handle the inequality one experiences with young children, because I'm an adult with a certain amount of logic.
From Janna:
ObNurse:"I know of very few breastfed babies who were sucessfully "sleep trained". It is extremely difficult to apply sleep training methods on a baby who falls asleep the moment he is done eating. And you have to feed a breastfed baby right before he goes to sleep, otherwise he is going to wake up hungry in half an hour anyway."
I have to agree with Esther on this one. My son, while he was breastfed learned to fall asleep on his own without being nursed to sleep. Almost all of my new mom friends breastfeed and only 1 nurses her baby to sleep (which caused a lot of trouble for her and baby around 15 months old, another story). Between 3-6 months most start putting their babies down awake after a feeding to help teach them to fall asleep on their own. And its usually mom, not dad, who puts the baby down. This isn't hard core CIO BTW just early, gentle sleep training.
So no, in my experience and the experience of most of my friends breastfed babies do not *need* to be nursed to sleep. If a mom chooses to do that with her child that is completely her choice and a valid one if it works for her and her family. Just don't make it seem like its a breast vs bottle fed baby issue because it isn't.
From Susanne:
"I've never been in a hospital with a well-baby nursery."
Surely you can imagine what it must look like. A room full of babies who are, for the most part, sleeping while their mothers rest and recuperate.
From Susanne:
"Except that sometimes, parenting IS about sucking it up and saying that this is what your baby needs, or this is the price you'll pay."
The same could be said about a parent who sucks it up and realizes that a few nights of baby fussing make *her* uncomfortable and make *her* lower lip tremble, but might easily be far better for baby in the long run as baby learns to fall asleep by himself and isn't conditioned to need someone else in order to sleep.
I absolutely don't doubt that there are babies who are truly high needs, a la Caryn's example, and who have fundamental sleep difficulties no matter what. But I also don't doubt that many of the babies who grow into toddlers and preschoolers who "just won't get out of my bed" or "won't stay in their own rooms" were created by parents who didn't want to deal with the temporary discomfort that a crying baby induced *in them*, and would have been better off if they'd fussed for a few nights and dropped off to sleep.
From Lies_DamLies_and_stats:
Sarahz - so sorry to hear of your loss! I wish you and your family health and healing.
Susanne: So if that's the case, are you saying that too bad, so sad, the mother's sleep deprivation is of no health consequence whatsoever? So damn what if it leads to maternal exhaustion, clinical depression, zombie-like functioning? So damn what if it affects older children -- baby's all of a sudden the most important member in the household?
Agree with this statement about results, but I don't think you can universally ascribe a cause for them. For some families, CIO (in any form) causes exactly the results you refer to. For other families, co-sleeping does. I think people are just offended that you seem to think every parent can do exactly what you did and have happy, healthy, well-adjusted children. There are no "magic formulas" in birth _or_ parenting. The tons of "expert" advice out there really just provides a milieu of techniques that have worked for other parents in the past, and may work for you. Don't be offended if they don't - just try other techniques, and recognize that what didn't work for you may work for other parents, and vice versa.
From Jamie:
"Surely you can imagine what it must look like. A room full of babies who are, for the most part, sleeping while their mothers rest and recuperate."
My point, Susanne, has nothing to do with whether or not I can picture it -- my point is that well-baby nurseries are going the way of the dinosaur -- that I am raising my children in a different climate than you raised your children. You seem to think that *I'm* the one who is brainwashed, without any evidence to support it. We do things differently. It doesn't make either of us broken.
From Suzanne:
Susanne said: Sure, but I take issue with the assumption that had they been born in a normal situation they would have "expected" to be held while they slept. Again, it's amazing how you can walk down the hall of a hospital and see a hospital nursery with babies who all fell asleep even though OMG-they-aren't-in-parents'-arms. How does that happen, do you suppose?
Both of my kids were super sleepy their first week of life. I could practically hang them by their ankles and they wouldn't wake up.
My first would only wake to feed until 30 minutes after my husband left to take my mother back to the airport. Then she woke up and she had had enough sleep, thank you very much.
She had to be completely asleep before I put her in her bed.
My second, however, has no problem being put to bed awake. He'll fuss for a minute or two and then zonk out. Different.
From Susanne:
LOL, well-baby nurseries are going the way of the dinosaur because of cost-savings efforts on the parts of hospitals, dressed up as "promoting mother-baby bonding" but everyone knows the real reason.
From Jamie:
I'm also not entirely sure how someone who has ever *looked* at a human infant (let alone raise two) can faithfully argue that it was designed to fall asleep on its own in a box, but can be "conditioned" to prefer human touch.
Sleep train all you like, but at least admit that you are fighting against the baby's natural biological tendencies, which will be easier with some babies than others.
From Jamie:
"LOL, well-baby nurseries are going the way of the dinosaur because of cost-savings efforts on the parts of hospitals, dressed up as "promoting mother-baby bonding" but everyone knows the real reason."
Try again, Susanne. I argued that the current climate was *different* not better. How many times do you think I've been around this block with you? I know better. ^_^
My POINT is that today's healthy newborns are *not* swaddled in basinettes from birth and watched over by experienced nurses -- they are turned over to their parents immediately. Parents who want to touch and hold, through their exhaustion. That's the 'norm' today. If it is reasonable to supposed that some NICU babies have the benefit of a little early conditioning in being able to fall asleep alone, it is also reasonable to suppose that healthy newborns who room-in do *not* have the same experience, yes?
From ObNurse:
Ah well, most of the breastfed babies *I know* are not sleeping through the night until at least a year, maybe that is b/c we have one year of maternity leave here, and are slightly less motivated to get baby sleeping as we would be if we only had 3 months off. Or not. I don't know.
My kids were not taking much in terms of solid food until they were close to a year, and by then, they just ate table food. So until that time, I was pretty sure that they were hungry when they woke up in the night.
And anyway, who really cares?
I don't feel like arguing about it. To each their own.
Carry on...
From Jamie:
"Ah well, most of the breastfed babies *I know* are not sleeping through the night until at least a year, maybe that is b/c we have one year of maternity leave here, and are slightly less motivated to get baby sleeping as we would be if we only had 3 months off. Or not. I don't know."
I agree with this. I hear more Canadian moms agitating about getting baby sleeping more reliably when *they* face going back to work, which is at a year.
From Esther:
LDLAS:"For some families, CIO (in any form) causes exactly the results you refer to. For other families, co-sleeping does."
Perhaps. I know this isn't really the purview of this particular discussion, though, but some mothers do feel threatened that if they go the CIO route to alleviate their exhaustion, they're harming their babies. cosleeping isn't working, they're at their wits' end, but they "just can't CIO" because of all the scary stuff they read over at Dr. Sears. That's what gets me, not families who are (safely) cosleeping and doing OK with it.
From Susanne:
"I'm also not entirely sure how someone who has ever *looked* at a human infant (let alone raise two) can faithfully argue that it was designed to fall asleep on its own in a box, but can be "conditioned" to prefer human touch."
Are you serious? I don't know why I wouldn't think a human infant could be quite happy in a nice warm crib after playtime and bath and lullaby and kisses and nighty-night, with mom / dad down the hall if need be.
And what's with the "box"?
BTW, if babies so very much need mom and / or dad's presence to fall asleep, how do they ever take naps in the middle of the day?
From ObNurse:
Esther,
I can agree with this. I read the Sears books, only by then I was already sleeping with the baby, so it merely validated my feelings on the matter. I can see how one could read these sorts of books and think that by letting baby CIO or by using a crib, they would cause their baby permanent emotional trauma. I sort of bought into it to, sanctimommy that I was, until I realized that my friend's kids were just as loving and wonderful as mine were, and they were good sleepers to boot! They all slept in their cribs, and some of them, oh the horrors, were bottle fed. I was forced to get down off of my high horse in a hurry.
In my case, I was sleeping with my baby out of pure exhaustion, and was getting a lot of criticism from my mother, my inlaws etc., so I ran sobbing into the bosom of Dr. Sears where my feelings were validated and my fears abated. Embarrassing to admit it, but it's true. I think if everyone had just minded their own business, I probably wouldn't have become so militant about it. My defenses were up.
Otherwise, i am decidedly mainstream. I don't walk around in berkenstocks, homeschool, or tinker in homeopathy. You'd never know by meeting me that I slept with my children or breastfed the into toddler hood. It just worked for us. That's all.
From Jamie:
"Perhaps. I know this isn't really the purview of this particular discussion, though, but some mothers do feel threatened that if they go the CIO route to alleviate their exhaustion, they're harming their babies. cosleeping isn't working, they're at their wits' end, but they "just can't CIO" because of all the scary stuff they read over at Dr. Sears."
I think it is up to individual families to weigh the evidence and decide what helps meet everyone's needs the best. It's not about the kids or the parents -- it's about the family.
On the flipside, I know a few families who really feel like they *can't* co-sleep, despite falling asleep with their babies and struggling to stay awake long enough to put them back in their cribs. They feel guilty whenever they wake up and find baby snuggled up next to them. It's not because they have a personal aversion, but because of the AAP recommendations, scary cautionary tales of their own mothers, etc.
It goes both ways -- mothers pressured to CIO and mothers pressured not to.
From Esther:
And Susanne, I had no idea you were still reading my blog. I don't remember you ever commenting, but I'm happy and proud to count you among my readers!
From Susanne:
"My POINT is that today's healthy newborns are *not* swaddled in basinettes from birth and watched over by experienced nurses -- they are turned over to their parents immediately. Parents who want to touch and hold, through their exhaustion. That's the 'norm' today."
Not around here, it's not. The mother has the choice if she wants to send the baby to the well-baby nursery or have it room-in with her. Her choice, as it should be, and no pressure either way.
"If it is reasonable to supposed that some NICU babies have the benefit of a little early conditioning in being able to fall asleep alone, it is also reasonable to suppose that healthy newborns who room-in do *not* have the same experience, yes?"
Rooming-in can also mean baby sleeps in bassinet, you know. This fetishization of baby being in constant contact with mother's body at all times gets a bit much, and it would be a bit healthier if some of the women would admit that it's *their* need to hold baby all the time (which is fine!) rather than trying to rationalize it by bogus attempts at pretending that it's all babies' innate preferences at all times. Own your preference instead of dressing it up as better.
From Susanne:
"Some mothers do feel threatened that if they go the CIO route to alleviate their exhaustion, they're harming their babies. cosleeping isn't working, they're at their wits' end, but they "just can't CIO" because of all the scary stuff they read over at Dr. Sears. That's what gets me, not families who are (safely) cosleeping and doing OK with it."
Yes, yes, yes. A thousand times yes!
From Jamie:
"Are you serious? I don't know why I wouldn't think a human infant could be quite happy in a nice warm crib after playtime and bath and lullaby and kisses and nighty-night, with mom / dad down the hall if need be."
I'm dead serious. See, there's this whole 'evolution' thing. When chimpanzees start putting their babies down to sleep in a nearby tree, maybe I'll revisit it.
"And what's with the "box"?"
Most cribs I know are box shaped. The one next to my bed is, in fact, box shaped.
"BTW, if babies so very much need mom and / or dad's presence to fall asleep, how do they ever take naps in the middle of the day?"
Well, my baby naps in a sling, but that's mostly because I chase after his brother all day. He sleeps quite happily there, and aside from a little bouncing, I generally don't need to put any effort into getting him down.
From Jamie:
"Own your preference instead of dressing it up as better."
I never said it was better. You're hoping I do, so that you can smoosh me. I'm deliberately not making it easy for you.
Instead, I will happily admit that I personally love to hold my baby, love to kiss his fuzzy head, and love to fall asleep with him on my chest or at my side. In the defense of my selfish behavior, though, I will observe that he doesn't seem to mind human touch. He's not yet pushing me away and saying "Mom, cut it out!" His 4yo brother, in contrast, will say, "Mama, that's enough kisses. Little boys want jelly beans." I absolutely refuse to believe that any small child was psychologically *damaged* by a loving human touch. They figure out when they want space, and ask for/demand it.
From Jamie:
BTW, Susanne, I find it ironic that I'm brainwashed in depriving myself for co-sleeping, but selfish for admitting that I *like* to co-sleep.
Can I do anything (besides sleep training) that wouldn't damn me in your eyes? ^_^
From Alexis:
Well, "evolution" is tricky, since we're skating very close to the naturalistic fallacy. However, that said, I don't think it's ridiculous to state that babies tend to have a preference for being held, and there are biologically plausible reasons why this would be so.
It's also true that the whole trend of having babies in their own room, in their own bed, is historically recent. Historically, bed or room sharing was common, not necessarily because of a fetishization of attachment (though some groups did come up with Continuum Concept style justifications and customs), but because safety and space dictated it. And, Susanne, you don't see that as a problem, because it's what you've been socially conditioned to think. That's not a moral judgment, but you seem to have difficulties with acknowledging your own biases in this arena. Instead, you dress it up as a "choice" that has no significance beyond personal preference. I've noticed that when it's a "choice" that you care about, you're all for judging people who choose otherwise, but when your choices are being criticized, suddenly, they have no meaning.
From SarahNicole:
@Jaime: "I'm also not entirely sure how someone who has ever *looked* at a human infant (let alone raise two) can faithfully argue that it was designed to fall asleep on its own in a box, but can be "conditioned" to prefer human touch."
"I'm dead serious. See, there's this whole 'evolution' thing. When chimpanzees start putting their babies down to sleep in a nearby tree, maybe I'll revisit it."
It's either design, OR evolution, isn't it? You're making appeals to both A Designer and Nature. If it's evolution, that encompasses adaptation, both biological and cultural, at both the individual and group levels. By saying that human infants can learn to sleep away from the arms of their mothers, one can quite comfortably argue from an evolutinary standpoint. By arguing that either a deity or Nature *meant* for us to behave in any particular way, you're coming at it from an entirely different perspective.
From Alexis:
I'm sure the fact that I kept co-sleeping because we all slept would give Susanne a reason to criticize me. It's no-win, isn't it?
From Jamie:
"It's either design, OR evolution, isn't it? You're making appeals to both A Designer and Nature."
Sorry -- I believe in evolution, to clarify.
I will admit that human infants can adapt to sleeping alone. I refuse to believe that they are *born* expecting anything other than human contact.
From Jamie:
Looking from a very simple POV:
I don't need my baby to fall asleep on his own badly enough to leave him crying, and I don't believe that he enjoys any advantage to being left crying, therefore, we don't use sleep training, and especially CIO, at this time.
From sarahz.:
I have to say, I can buy arguements for own sleeping space, up to and including a crib (with an natural mattress free of chemical additives, of course).
I can't however buy arguements for separate room. Not only is that historically recent, but without historically VERY recent electronic monitoring equipment, which could always fail, it is straight up unsafe, IMO.
And not just pyschologically. An infant who wakes up in his own room has no idea they are not on some other planet. And it could cost the precious seconds in terms of caregiver response time that we are always crowing about with repsect to birth. If we can step outside of American social condition, IMO it is very clear that putting an infant in a separate room is unsafe.
Bottom line, is if I hired a caregiver for my infant, I would ask that she sleep in the same room as my infant during any time that she was on duty at night and I can't ask any less of myself.
From Emma B:
Rooming-in can also mean baby sleeps in bassinet, you know. This fetishization of baby being in constant contact with mother's body at all times gets a bit much, and it would be a bit healthier if some of the women would admit that it's *their* need to hold baby all the time
I think there would be some safety concerns with bed-sharing in a pospartum hospital environment, in fact. The beds are narrow, and the mother is frequently unusually tired and/or on pain meds (both contraindications to co-sleeping). I'm not of the school that freaks about co-sleeping safety, but I was not at all comfortable co-sleeping under those circumstances. Both Andrew and the girls roomed in, but in their bassinets.
Side note: in hospitals without nurseries, where does the baby go if the mother needs to leave the room (for tests, procedures, or post-CS walking)? At both of the hospitals I delivered at, policy was that the baby had to be in the nursery unless the mother was in the room. Babies can't even be left with their fathers -- the mother or hospital staff have to be with the baby at all times, for legal reasons. With the girls, we laughed at the silliness of sending the babies to the nursery, then walking down to the nursery to see them; then a father tried to abduct his baby from the room a few doors down, and it stopped being funny.
From Emma B:
Sarahz, I'm really sorry to hear you lost your baby. You and your family are in my thoughts.
From SarahNicole:
@Emma B: "Babies can't even be left with their fathers -- the mother or hospital staff have to be with the baby at all times, for legal reasons."
My husband didn't get the same electronic monitor tag as I did (the kind that if baby gets too close to the elevators, an alarm goes off and the doors and elevators lock; they were matched so that they played a tune when close to the mother's tag, so that the right baby was with the right mother), but he did have the same matched-ID tags as I did. It was apparently not too far away in terms of setting off the alarm for the baby to be in the nursery (ours roomed in, with a bassinet, and was in the nursery for health checks; he had mild jaundice) and not in our room. My husband was there in the hospital room the whole time I and the baby were, and I'm not sure what their official policy was on whether the mother or just a parent had to be in the room with the baby at all times. The fact that only mothers get an electronic tag makes me suspect what their policy is, but I don't recall the specifics. My husband and I both brought up the discrepancy of the monitor tags, but only in conversation with each other, not the staff.
From Jamie:
"I think there would be some safety concerns with bed-sharing in a pospartum hospital environment, in fact. "
Interestingly enough, it was one of my postpartum nurses who 'okayed' bedsharing for me 4 years ago when my first was born. I had been leaving him in the bassinette, and at one of his checks, his temp was a little low. She tucked him in with me.
I thought it unusual at the time, but obviously it appealed.
From Kat:
Where I delivered there were no nurseries. I did get the plastic bassinet and used it when the baby slept and I got to eat and visit with everyone. At night I slept on the plastic couch since I hated the divide where the bed changes into a delivery table. We were told we could not co-sleep for liability/safety reasons.
However, I did at night anyway because it was just easier that way. I didn't continue the practice though.
From Janna:
FWIW most of the breastfed babies *I know* are sleeping through the night by 6 months. And all their moms are SAHM so I don't think maternity leave has much to do with it- IME anyway (since we are talking in anecdotes and our own experience).
I think expectations have a lot to do with it. And environment- because if there is cosleeping going on why should a breastfed baby sleep through the night? The only cosleeping breastfed baby I know (my niece) isn't sleeping through the night at 16 months. But why should she when she can snack all night? And that is her mom's expectation for her- especially since she feeds her very little at dinner so she will BF all night.
From Janna:
Sarahz- I'm also very sorry to hear about your loss.
From Alexis:
Emma, I gave birth in a hospital with wards (bays, ie rooms, of up to 8 women, off a corridor with an entry lock at the end) and no nurseries. (Only nurseries in NHS hospitals, AFAIK, are special care.) Your baby is in a bassinet next to your bed. Generally, it seems that the midwives and ward staff keep an eye on everyone coming into maternity, and there's always someone around. I suppose that if one of the other patients was psychotic, something could happen. I spent very little time with her on the ward, though (overnight in surgical recovery, maybe 8 hours on the ward before she was transferred to special care, and for all that time I was confined to bed).
I do remember having my daughter in with me in transitional care right before we were discharged, and I had a heck of a time finding someone to watch her so I could go to the toilet.
From Caryn:
Caryn - honestly, in the context of a family history and what you're describing, I would have asked my pedi for a sleep lab and consult long ago.
Insurance wouldn't have covered it until he was almost 4, at which point he'd outgrown it. Graduate student insurance is pretty crappy.
From Alexis:
(Oh, and before anyone interprets my experience as evidence of the failings of rooming-in, it's just the failings of my particularly understaffed hospital.)
From ObNurse:
Janna;
Well, and please don't take this the wrong way, there is breastfeeding and then there is breastfeeding.
There are those who breastfeed based on a flexible schedule, aim to start the baby on solids at 4-6 months, perhaps use soothers, put to sleep awake, etc., and by the time the baby is 9 months old, he is only nursing a few times a day and able to sleep without mom's assistance. And there is NOTHING wrong with that.
(My SIL nurses this way, baby is down to only one feed a day and still not sleeping thru the night at a year, FWIW).
Then there are lazy mothers like me who would rather sleep in than get up and make breakfast, so I nurse instead to buy myself another half hour. I would nurse away any owies, for naps, comfort, boredom. I'm lazy that way.
My kids weren't into solids not because I didn't offer them, but probably because they were full from snacking at the breast all day. And when you co sleep, you're absolutely correct, babies will nurse all night and therefore will not sleep until mother has had enough and night weans. Otherwise it would go on for years, I'm sure.
I doubt your sister (or was it sister in law? I forget) is deliberately not feeding her child a big enough dinner, I'm sure by now she'd like the extra sleep, but they are in this routine, rut, whatever, and it's hard to get out of it. I know because I've BTDT. Your niece's behavior sounds pretty normal compared to the toddlers that I've met in crunchier circles.
I know it seems weird, but it's not abnormal behavior. I agree that babies will adapt to whatever conditions we set up for them. Crying it out as infants or as toddlers, well, it eventually comes down to it, and I felt more comfortable letting a toddler cry in my arms than as a helpless infant. Just my preference. No judgement on those who do.
Like I said earlier, by the time my friend's babies grew into toddlers and preschoolers, they were just as sweet and wonderful as my own, and they all cried it out at some point and slept in cribs. They were better sleepers too! (But most not until they were around a year old and completely weaned...)
Anyway, I really hate debating on this board, I'm not very good at it! I'm not attacking anyone's beliefs, just sharing my own experiences and observations.
I'm really really done now
We are recovering from the flu (I think it may be the real thing) and I'm bored, which is why I'm boring you all with my "wisdom".
From Liz:
Whenever I read approving references to what champanzees do, my mind boggles. If I was sleeping in a tree with predators around, I'd hang on tight to my baby too, and be glad that they clung back. It is cute and interesting that baby chimps like the furry substitute, not the wire one with tits, but do we really have much to learn from such studies? If your tender heart breaks at the idea of your baby sleeping in a "box", then don't do it. We are adults, we do get to choose, but every choice doesn't have to defended with theorising?
From Elizabeth:
1. My infant did enough crying even when I was doing my best to stop it that I didn't feel the need to orchestrate extra occasions of crying by way of "training" her at anything.
2. As a first time mother, with little help, coming off a traumatic labor and c-section with recurring feverish infections, I was absolutely warranted in being as attentive and conscientious a mother as possible for the simple reason that, in that state, the best I had to give wasn't that great. Cutting corners on attention to a newborn (which shutting it up alone in a separate room surely is) may sometimes be justified, but it seems to me that only a person in a certain place of physical and psychological strength could feel confident doing it. Granted, if I sensed that I was about to fall into an unusually deep sleep, I wouldn't hold a baby in my arms; but by the same token I wouldn't shut the door on her and walk away, either. (All this entirely independent on how well the baby herself is sleeping.)
3. Likewise, in that state I could not afford to sacrifice a single minute of sleep to achieving some ideal state of affairs days or weeks in the future. Stand over the baby rubbing its back while it cries for 40 minutes? Ha! I slept like a rock while the baby screamed in its father's arms right next to my head for forty minutes.
4. I can't parse how a preference to keep cuddling my long-awaited only child for as much of her fleeting babyhood as possible over immediately returning to standard night-time conjugal availability, makes me "brainwashed" into thinking I "don't count" as a woman. Quite the contrary, I would think.
4a. My marriage is quite fine, thank you. I pity those women who stand in danger of losing their marriages if they temporarily stop putting out, whether by necessity or [GASP!] choice. Points to deeper problems IMO.
4b. Not that it's any of your frackin' business.
5. Here in flyover country, we are deeply in the closet with respect to co-sleeping. It's probably a superabundance of caution, but Heaven forbid we encounter a HCP possessed of prejudices like those expressed by some here, intersecting with "mandated reporter" doctrine. Unlikely, but stranger things have happened, here in the land where nursing mothers are still occasionally removed by security guards. The only time I have heard co-sleeping spoken of locally is in the form of official exhortations not to do it.
6. My not-quite-three-year-old has begun leaving the family bed on her own, with no suggestion from us. Indeed we don't even have a bed set up for her yet; she goes to the couch, or the floor. So much for the "never-learn-independence" argument.
7. Many posts in this thread differ from MDC in content, but slavishly imitate the worst of MDC attitude and form.
From Elizabeth:
If I was sleeping in a tree with predators around, I'd hang on tight to my baby too, and be glad that they clung back.
But we are surrounded by predators. What makes you think we're not? Only that you've been fortunate enough not to encounter them.
When I was nine years old, a crazed criminal broke through a window and attacked me in my bed.
In the desert where my husband was raised, they have scorpions, deadly spiders, etc. In their houses. One of them almost took my MIL's life during a midnight trip to the bathroom.
And a baby caught in a fire won't know how to follow a safety map.
Etc etc ad infinitum. IMNSHO, the ability to shut a door on one's newborn and calmly walk away for the night suggests either extreme lack of imagination, or an unwarranted belief in one's own invincibility (which seems to frequently coincide with socioeconomic privilege).
From A Sarah:
Sarahz, I am also so sorry to hear about your loss. ((((hugs Sarahz))))
From ObNurse:
"But we are surrounded by predators. What makes you think we're not? Only that you've been fortunate enough not to encounter them."
You know, once a few years back, we had one of our kids in his own bed, and a pedophile was breaking into houses in our neighborhood and was molesting little boys.
You can believe that we brought him back into our bed until the police caught him. The neighbors did the same.
From Jamie:
Well, I reference higher apes not because I fear that my child will get eaten if I don't, but because I believe that honoring a child's natural, developmentally appropriate expectations as much as possible is a great way to parent. Generally speaking, it results in a happy baby with little conflict, and that makes me happy too. Win/win. I call myself a 'path of least resistance' parent. I do what works until it stops working, and then we find a solution.
I find my clues for what a child might appropriately expect from our nearest genetic neighbors, but I *also* think you can simply observe a human newborn and come to the conclusion that it is an organism that is meant to be in close contact with its parent, just as you can observe a whale and conclude that it lives in a large body of water.
From Jamie:
Or, look at it this way, Liz -- how does that tiny baby know that he's not in a tree in the jungle? What tells him that I'm just in the next tree over, and that I'll be there as soon as he needs me (er -- make that as soon as I can wake up enough to drag my exhausted self off of my branch)?
From sarahz.:
I am just posting to say thanks y'all. Everyone's kind thoughts mean a lot!
It was very sad for us, of course, but also a learning experience. Maybe at some point I will post my story here so we can debate the many and varied politics of the m/c (like how there is NOT a lot of agreement amongst provdiers about how to do Cytotec inductions (I basically m/ced on my own, but there was a little Cytotec involved. Too little apparently) or how they sent me home, after an Ultrasound, saying I was all done, must have missed the babe, only to have a sweet baby emerge a full SEVEN days later! This is one time I am TRULY thankful for the antibiotics I was taking! )
Even though it is really sad that it happened, I am grateful for the opportunity to learn and grow through this experience. :D
/Personal Hijack. :D
From Caryn:
Question: given for the sake of argument that you can sleep-train a baby, why wouldn't it be possible to teach a baby that you were going to nurse him to sleep, and then get up for the rest of your evening?
Why would that, as a strategy, be any less satisfactory than teaching him that you were a) going to nurse him, then put him in a crib to fall asleep on his own, or b) going to nurse him to sleep, then stay with him? Wouldn't he learn to sleep through the night, regardless, following that particular implementation of a bedtime routine?
Certainly if you *valued* not nursing a baby to sleep and then getting up, and you valued one of the other alternatives more, that would be a reason to avoid that strategy. But I'm not convinced that those using that strategy should expect *inherently* poorer outcomes.
From Caryn:
Sarahz, I just read your post. I'm sorry to hear that you've miscarried; no one plans for that. Take care.
From SarahNicole:
@Elizabeth: "Cutting corners on attention to a newborn (which shutting it up alone in a separate room surely is) may sometimes be justified, but it seems to me that only a person in a certain place of physical and psychological strength could feel confident doing it."
"IMNSHO, the ability to shut a door on one's newborn and calmly walk away for the night suggests either extreme lack of imagination, or an unwarranted belief in one's own invincibility (which seems to frequently coincide with socioeconomic privilege)."
"I was absolutely warranted in being as attentive and conscientious a mother as possible..."
Um. Wow. And you just felt okay about judging others as overly-judgemental?
And what, exactly, does "here in flyover country" mean? I'm from the midwest, and spent my entire residential life either there or here in the South, and I've been and am surrounded by people who breastfeed, co-sleep (in a variety of ways, for a variety of reasons), and who are from a variety of socioeconomic and racial/ethnic backgrounds.
Is CIO currently ever advocated for *newborns* in comparison to *infants*? At the very least, has it been on this blog?
@Jaime: In terms of referencing higher apes, you might find Susan Sperling's article, "Baboons with briefcases and Langurs in lipstick" interesting. It's a chapter in Micaela diLeonardo's book, "Gender at the Crossroads of Knowledge."
@sarahz: "I can't however buy arguements for separate room. Not only is that historically recent, but without historically VERY recent electronic monitoring equipment, which could always fail, it is straight up unsafe, IMO."
Hmmm. I would say that the electronic monitoring equipment is a technological adaptation to our cultural evolution. But then, I'm a dork that way. :-D
From Esther:
Caryn:"Question: given for the sake of argument that you can sleep-train a baby, why wouldn't it be possible to teach a baby that you were going to nurse him to sleep, and then get up for the rest of your evening?"
The theory is that babies who nurse to sleep then have a sleep association of being nursed. When they partially wake at the end of a sleep cycle, many babies need the association they fell asleep with originally to fall back into deep sleep. A baby who nursed to sleep would demand the nipple back in his mouth at that time in order to get back to sleep. That's why the point of sleep training is to get the baby associated with lying in a crib/other sleep surface, not needing anything or anybody else to fall asleep.
From A Sarah:
Elizabeth: "IMNSHO, the ability to shut a door on one's newborn and calmly walk away for the night suggests either extreme lack of imagination, or an unwarranted belief in one's own invincibility (which seems to frequently coincide with socioeconomic privilege)."
You've neglected the possibility that some of us mean mommies just love the sense of power that we get when we walk away from our helpless wee thing while s/he is still crying. Neglecting them like that, when they're so small and vulnerable, so that we can go watch the teevee is the only thing that gives our small, shriveled, tarlike hearts any pleasure.
From Liz:
I call myself a 'path of least resistance' parent. I do what works until it stops working, and then we find a solution.
Me too. But I suppose we all have some pre-conceived notions of what might work, or of what kind of mother we want to be.
I am not suggesting that babies SHOULD sleep in a box - just that quite a lot of them will.
From Liz:
What tells him that I'm just in the next tree over,...?
Instinct? A baby sleeping in a box will wake up and cry. Interesting question: is it crying for mother, or to alert care givers?
My children loved to snuggle up to my sister. She was bigger and softer than me. Babies, and even small children are a bundle of instinctive needs, but the reciprocal and complex interactions of mother love are, I believe, socialised and human.
From Liz:
I wonder how many mothers there are who can shut the door on a very distressed baby? Not many, I would imagine. Babies are designed to be hard to ignore. But does that mean you have to hover attentively over a sleeping child?
Co-sleeping as a practice seems to me neither here nor there - do what works for you. As an ideology, I think it is full of wholes.
From Liz:
Sorry for your troubles, SarahZ. A sad and miserable thing to happen.
From A Sarah:
Co-sleeping as a practice seems to me neither here nor there - do what works for you.
*applause*
Incidentally, this manufactured fight over -- oh, hell, cosleeping, but also absofrigging everything having to do with what mothers do to make their lives hang together in some workable way... it came to mind when I read this post on Shakesville about Girl Math... inspired by the Jennifer Aniston/Angelina Jolie media myth, but pertinent to other forced rivalries between women that serve to ensure women are devoting energy to unproductive sure-to-lose contests, rather than building each other up. While meanwhile ANY work coded as "feminine" gets to be trivialized by the onlookers who don't have to do it and can't see what all the fuss is about.
Or, as the commenter Sniper said over at Shapely Prose (and I'm paraphrasing here): "Shorter whole world: Women's work is so stupid and trivial that a chimp could do it, yet women still must be policed because otherwise they will screw it up."
I say, parenting is hard and highly household-specific; and no, a chimp could NOT do all the things I do, so I need not start off by looking to chimps straightaway to see how to parent. The test of how your family should be sleeping is how your family in fact sleeps best, and if you stumble upon an arrangement that accomplishes that goal, it's not deficient simply because you can't back up what you're doing with appeals to evolution, attachment theory, or to the latest in sleep disorder research. Those things are primarily useful to the extent that a) you find them personally, genuinely interesting and/or b) they give you ideas of things to try when what you're doing isn't working.
But this idea that every mother on the planet is required to have a philosophical underpinning for the decisions their household makes about something as personal as sleeping arrangements... I mean, sleeping arrangements, for heaven's sake! And that these philosophical underpinnings are so universally-applicable that they stand to pit you against other mothers who do things differently... *boggles*
From Janna:
OB Nurse- thanks for sharing your perspective. I hope you and your family recover quickly from the flu!
I really wasn't trying to debate either- it just bothers me when it seems like the assertion is that *these* types of babies do *this* when as we have both pointed out there can be a large variability in babies who are fed in the same manner or whatever.
I think we can both agree that there are many types of babies, families, and parenting styles and families should find out what works for them and go with that (as A Sarah just pointed out).
And for the record, it is my SIL and I actually do know that she doesn't feed my niece much at dinner so she will nurse more at night because she has stated that very thing. There is actually a long story behind this but this site isn't the place to go into it.
From Susanne:
"Co-sleeping as a practice seems to me neither here nor there - do what works for you."
Exactly! Look, I'm not arguing *against* co-sleeping. People can do what they like and what works for them, and I don't much care either way what other people do. Not my business. And I fully admit that I had "easy" babies from that standpoint. We didn't really have anything other than the occasional minor fussing while settling down. I had excellent sleepers and that was a blessing with twins.
Everything's a choice, though. If you co-sleep, it may work out beautifully - or you may wind up down the road wanting advice on how to get the darn kid out of your bed because he's been conditioned not to fall asleep without your presence. It's pretty obvious that that's a reasonably common outcome because there are so many parenting boards etc dealing with it, an entire shelf at Barnes & Noble, etc. OTOH, maybe he'll transition to his own bed with nary a peep and everyone's happy. Who knows?
And if you CIO (and frankly the definition of CIO ranges all the way from ignoring 5 minutes of fussing to ignoring agonized screams for hours on end, so there really needs to be a tighter definition), it may work out beautifully -- or you may raise the next serial killer who, while he is plunging the knife into his next victim, is crying "Mommy, why, why?" LOL. It's that kind of mama-drama that I object to.
From Susanne:
"I don't need my baby to fall asleep on his own badly enough to leave him crying, and I don't believe that he enjoys any advantage to being left crying, therefore, we don't use sleep training, and especially CIO, at this time."
Does it make someone a bad mother if she does need her baby to fall asleep badly enough on his own to put up with some crying? What isn't being understood is that putting baby in the same bed isn't an option for a lot of people. Not for Elizabeth's snarky gotta-be-ready-for-sex-at-all-times reason, but because Mom won't sleep well with a baby next to her. So, Mom should be unproductive and grumpy just to let baby sleep with her? I don't get that reasoning whatsoever.
If OTOH mom can sleep and baby can sleep and mom prefers it, then cool for everyone and what do I care?
From Alexis:
I don't think any of the cosleepers here have said that you're bad to do CIO, so that's a strawman argument.
From Caryn:
The theory is that babies who nurse to sleep then have a sleep association of being nursed. When they partially wake at the end of a sleep cycle, many babies need the association they fell asleep with originally to fall back into deep sleep.
Can you link me to data on this?
From SarahNicole:
@Alexis: "I don't think any of the cosleepers here have said that you're bad to do CIO, so that's a strawman argument."
I interpreted Elizabeth as doing exactly that, and we co-sleep...
@A Sarah: Once again, I have an internet girl crush on you. :-D
From Jolene:
A Sarah,
May I print out your comment and hang it on my wall?
I promise to put a pretty little squiggly outline around it, and sign it ~A Sarah.
Words to live by.
From Susanne:
"I don't think any of the cosleepers here have said that you're bad to do CIO, so that's a strawman argument."
I didn't do anything that was remotedly related to the CIO sleep training that is portrayed in books - occasionally they fussed for a few minutes and if they fussed, so be it. And I don't think anyone here was attacking anyone else. I do think it's silly to act as though co-sleeping doesn't bring with it a host of problems for many women, because there wouldn't be so much need for all the support groups and books and what-not about getting junior out of your bed.
BTW, though, I do think there is a phenomenon of what I'll term the Quivering Lower Lip Mom (QLLM) who can't bear even one moment of thinking that she wasn't 100% completely responsive at all times to what her child wanted, and is very fearful of what the dire consequences are of letting her child feel some stress and discomfort at some point, however inadvertently. And while no one is advocating throw the kid into the middle of the highway and hope for the best, the QLLM taken to extremes is the mother whose kid runs around the restaurant because she can't bear to tell junior no for fear of crushing his spirit and risking that he would be less than 100% happy.
From Emma B:
I pity those women who stand in danger of losing their marriages if they temporarily stop putting out, whether by necessity or [GASP!] choice. Points to deeper problems IMO.
Oh, yes, you're not judgmental AT ALL here, are you?
Lemme explain what I meant a little further. I don't expect my husband to leave me because I can't have sex with him. However, loss of intimacy is destructive, to both partners. It has less to do with keeping him satisfied so he won't leave/cheat, and much more to do with the fact that a healthy sexual relationship helps smooth over a lot of smaller tensions.
I have experienced a long period of involuntary celibacy for health reasons, and let me tell you, it's hard on a marriage. I have a great marriage to a wonderful husband, and still it's really stressful and difficult. Our marriage is surviving it, but another marriage might not -- and you don't necessarily know how strong your marriage is until it gets tested, and the transition to parenthood transforms a marriage in sometimes-unpredictable ways.
But then, I'm an excessively privileged, unimaginative, neglectful, self-absorbed Bad Mommy, so what do I know?
From Susanne:
"The theory is that babies who nurse to sleep then have a sleep association of being nursed. When they partially wake at the end of a sleep cycle, many babies need the association they fell asleep with originally to fall back into deep sleep."
Can you link me to data on this?"
This isn't data, but that's part of overall sleep hygiene treatment for people with sleeping disorders -- to get them to associate certain things with sleep, such that if X happens (warm bath, lights low, soothing music, whatever) their brain associates it with "time to go to sleep." Why do so many people do bedtime routines with their children? Bath, brush teeth, drink of water, read a story, night-night time. It's the same concept -- training your brain that if X happens, start priming yourself for sleep. If sleep routinely happens at the end of nursing and then baby is jolted awake by the removal of the mother, it makes perfect sense that baby has been "trained" that mother's presence / nursing is necessary for sleeping.
From Jolene:
SarahZ "Maybe at some point I will post my story here so we can debate the many and varied politics of the m/c"
Sorry for your loss Sarah.
I also miscarried at 10 weeks and have a story about running my own m/c. I was quite surprised as well to find a complete lack of consensus about care. So I agree with you completely on this one!
I wasn't ready to talk about it for quite awhile however, so give it some time, just to be sure you are.
From Susanne:
"I pity those women who stand in danger of losing their marriages if they temporarily stop putting out, whether by necessity or [GASP!] choice. Points to deeper problems IMO."
I pity those women who apparently think that sex is something that is just a chore that's done to appease a husband's desires or demands. This might surprise you, but some women might want to be sexually active with their husbands in their own bed because women are sexual beings, not because they're afraid of the husband leaving them if they don't put out.
From Jamie:
"Does it make someone a bad mother if she does need her baby to fall asleep badly enough on his own to put up with some crying?"
I never suggested that.
Isn't it funny how the outcry is 'each to her own!' and then when I state what *is* to my own, there's a good chance that *I'm* being judgmental? Well, maybe it's not funny...
From Jamie:
I am struggling with the notion that a baby can be 'conditioned' to prefer human touch when falling asleep. I thought conditioning referred to introducing a new pattern of behavior, and babies are born seeking the warmth of their mother.
I would think that 'conditioning' applies more to babies who are taught to sleep alone, and theories that use adult sleep associations don't hold a lot of water with me.
From Esther:
Caryn:"Can you link me to data on this?"
Ferber talks about it in his book and IIRC so does Weissbluth.
From Caryn:
This isn't data, but that's part of overall sleep hygiene treatment for people with sleeping disorders -- to get them to associate certain things with sleep, such that if X happens (warm bath, lights low, soothing music, whatever) their brain associates it with "time to go to sleep."
My point exactly; so far it's a narrative, not data. I don't associate anything in particular with sleep, except being tired -- I have no trouble falling asleep on a tour bus full of musicians when I'm tired, and can have immense trouble falling asleep if I'm not sleepy at 2 am, regardless.
And this would seem to be true of babies as well, or else they wouldn't generally fall asleep wherever they happened to be, when they were tired, right?
If sleep routinely happens at the end of nursing and then baby is jolted awake by the removal of the mother
That's why you nurse them to sleep on a bed. They unlatch, then they roll away, then you get up. (Unless, as in my son's case, they have radar for "distance to mom" that works even when they're asleep.) I know multiple people who've happily managed nursing babies this way; it doesn't seem all that uncommon to me.
I'm having trouble figuring out exactly what it is that's supposed to hang on this argument. If there are really people who dispute the idea that people make their own decisions about how to maximize restful sleep for their families, it seems to me like that's *their problem*. It's not like we're under some sort of moral obligation to make infants sleep in some sort of particular way, so long as the way the infant sleeps is safe.
Which gets us back to the original post, doesn't it?
From Caryn:
Ferber talks about it in his book and IIRC so does Weissbluth.
Those are popular press, but I'll go look in PubMed.
From Jamie:
"This isn't data, but that's part of overall sleep hygiene treatment for people with sleeping disorders -- to get them to associate certain things with sleep, such that if X happens (warm bath, lights low, soothing music, whatever) their brain associates it with "time to go to sleep."'
Alright -- this is what I was getting at. It kind of implies that a baby who nurses (or sucks) to sleep has a disorder, rather than a normal behavior designed to maximize its survival.
The behavior may eventually be problematic for the child's parents, but that doesn't make it a pathology. The child will eventually build *new* sleep associations (on his own or with help), but he can't be 'conditioned' with the ones he's born with. That makes no sense.
From Ericacrochets:
"At both of the hospitals I delivered at, policy was that the baby had to be in the nursery unless the mother was in the room. Babies can't even be left with their fathers -- the mother or hospital staff have to be with the baby at all times, for legal reasons."
Oh, my! I think that's so sexist. At both my hospitals, my husband received an identical bracelet. They are as much his kids as they are mine! This remidns me of something he and I were saying the other night about men who can't "babysit" their children. I've never felt guilty about leaving my husband with HIS children.
From Ericacrochets:
"Again, I have to ask, Really? That was *never* the case with my son. I think this is an (gender-based) assumption on your part, not one that is backed up by research. Can you point to any that shows this?"
No, I can't. It's an assumption based on my own experience.
From Esther:
Jamie:"Alright -- this is what I was getting at. It kind of implies that a baby who nurses (or sucks) to sleep has a disorder, rather than a normal behavior designed to maximize its survival."
If his nursing to sleep is causing his parents to be exhausted and not function, then, like our love of sweet and fatty foods, it's an evolutionary relic that can be maladaptive in certain situations and/or environments.
Caryn - here are a couple of academic articles which discuss sleep associations, but it's pretty basic sleep medicine:
http://pediatrics.aappublication...stract/90/4/
554
http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi...tract/159/3/
242
From Ericacrochets:
I think it's interesting that our society still takes such a strongy behavioralist approach to sleep, rather than a developmental one. There is a combination of neurological and environmental forces at work.
I've been blessed with children who are very verbal. What if I said to a mother whose child was a little behind the average, "Hey, you know, all you have to do is talk and sing more. Maybe he's watching too much TV or using the paci too much. blah blah blah."
Well, chances are she is giving the child adequate verbal stimulation, the child just isn't READY to talk yet, or possibly has a speech problem. Either way, it isn't her fault or thei child's.
Same with walking. "Kid isn't crawling by 10 months/walking at a year? Get them out of the exersaucer! Why didn't you do more tummy time?" Well, we know that these things may help to a degree, but some children aren't neurologically ready to walk at a year.
Sleep association is only one small part of the picture. I think it's unforturate that we start from the assumption that there is something wrong with a baby who, by the age of 6 months, isn't able to sleep by himself in a crib all night. Or the newborn who needs human contact to sleep at all. It's simply a cultural bias. It's based on what some people want children to be like rather than observation of children.
From Ericacrochets:
Esther, I've read similar things to the articles you've posted. They don't show a clear cause and effect relationship. They show a correlation. The "worse" sleepers were not put into their beds awake. Well, is it because of the parents or because of the difficulty the baby had settling himself? Same with the night feeding.
These things are almost impossible to prove a cause and effect relationship because of the difficulty of finding vast numbers of parents willing to be randomly assigned to a particular sleep method.
From Caryn:
Thanks, Esther.
So far I've found this which says ...Findings support the hypothesis that maladaptive parental behaviors develop in reaction to preexisting sleep difficulties. Further, early sleep difficulties are more predictive than parental behaviors in explaining [bad dreams] and foreshortened [total sleep time] beginning at age 50 months. Results are interpreted in light of early emotive/physiological self-regulation problems...
which suggests that there's at least some dispute in the literature about cause and effect, and also this perfect description of my son's behavior (and yes, he likes for things to be predictable.) I won't have a chance to dig into the journals up at the university until the middle of next week.
From Caryn:
(Also, I'm not in any way vouching for either of those articles; this is not my primary research interest. They are merely the result of a quick browse through PubMed.)
From Esther:
Ericacrochets:"Esther, I've read similar things to the articles you've posted. They don't show a clear cause and effect relationship. They show a correlation. The "worse" sleepers were not put into their beds awake. Well, is it because of the parents or because of the difficulty the baby had settling himself? Same with the night feeding."
The answer is easily had if when the asociations are changed, so does the behavior. In a good many cases, this is what happens, as any sleep clinic will tell you.
From Elizabeth:
It's not like we're under some sort of moral obligation to make infants sleep in some sort of particular way, so long as the way the infant sleeps is safe.
Yes we are, because otherwise how would we prove that we're not insecure, brainwashed, sexually inadequate girlchildren?
I only piped up after a couple hundred posts insinuating or explicitly stating as much, and now I'm judgmental. Whatever.
I never said walking away and leaving a helpless newborn shut up alone in a room was evil. What I implied, and probably should have come out and said in as many words, is that it is foolish. Imprudent at best, and at worst downright stupid. When a person shuts a door on something and walks away to go do something else, that normally means they can afford to forget about it for a while, particularly if the "something else" is going to sleep for the night. I don't even shut the kitchen door when I have a pot of water boiling. The idea that the safe development of a brand-new human being is somehow a special case that merits less vigilance than other sensitive and high-stakes processes is nonsensical absent certain philosophical assumptions which I and many others do not share. And yes, I get feisty when it is repeatedly stated that not endorsing those questionable assumptions makes me not a grown-up, not a real woman, not psychologically normal.
"Hard-heartedness" was mentioned above - not by a proponent of co-sleeping, but by a vocal opponent, and she meant it as a good thing. If you feel the need to cultivate hard-heartedness toward your children, that's your business. You have a lot of historical precedent for it, actually. But don't go telling the rest of us that there's something wrong in our heads if we don't. If "hard-heartedness" is an important personal value for you, then it only makes sense that you would trade a little bit of vigilance and peace of mind in order to insert distance between yourself and the child. If the kid is screaming, putting it in a separate room isn't going to magically enable you to sleep; if the kid is peacefully asleep, having the bassinet in the same room isn't going to prevent your sleep. (Same goes for sex.) So what makes the difference? The answer willingly supplied, "hard-heartedness," seems as likely as anything. Fine; suit yourself. But the moral panic over parents who don't feel the same way - what's wrong with these poor widdle helpless nellies, all a-quiver over a mere child! - is just a bit much.
From Esther:
Here's the American Association of Sleep Medicine's take on the subject:
http://www.sleepeducation.com/To...Topic.aspx?
id=8
From Ericacrochets:
I have a question for the CIO people.
How do you know when the child is just fussing because he's mad to be stuck in the crib, or if there's something really wrong?
I have grouchily told my children to go to sleep only to have them wake up a couple of hours later with a fever.
I prefer to err on the side of comforting a nonverbal child because I don't believe I can tell if they might be sick, having teething pain, a leg cramp, who knows?
From Mama Liberty:
Esther, from the link above:
"Do not let your child fall asleep while being held, rocked, fed a bottle, or while nursing."
I wonder why breastmilk contains cholecystokinin, which causes sleepiness in the baby and the mother if it is unhealthy for them to fall asleep together?
From Jamie:
"I think it's unfortunate that we start from the assumption that there is something wrong with a baby who, by the age of 6 months, isn't able to sleep by himself in a crib all night. Or the newborn who needs human contact to sleep at all. It's simply a cultural bias. It's based on what some people want children to be like rather than observation of children."
Bingo. Thank you.
All I want is for those in favor of sleep training to admit that they are (possibly) fighting against the child's Completely Normal Development. It may very well be that doing so the least possible evil in any given situation, and no one has the right to judge anyone else's need to make that decision for their own family. That's fine.
But when sleep training, even in its most extreme forms, is recommended or justified as being purely for the child's own benefit, I take issue.
From Esther:
Ericacrochets:"How do you know when the child is just fussing because he's mad to be stuck in the crib, or if there's something really wrong? "
Well, you generally are supposed to start sleep training when the baby isn't undergoing any acute illness. If the baby is happy and smiley up until the moment you put them in bed and say good night, it's a pretty clear indication that they're displeased at being put to sleep, not in physical distress. My babies also tended to have an angry cry and not the same one they used when sick, hungry or in pain.
Mind you, after they learned how to STTN by themselves, I would treat any middle-of-the-might cries as indicating distress (with my second son - who was and still is my best sleeper - it was usually an ear infection) and attend them immediately. Also, when my eldest was about 2-3yo, he had night terrors. The blood-curdling shrieks he made were nothing like a baby undergoing CIO, and were similarly attended to (though, as is typical of NT's, he never actually fully awoke and didn't remember anything the following morning).
Mama Liberty - it's not a matter of being unhealthy as much as it can really mess with a mother's sleep (especially if they aren't a SAHM, have older shildren that need to be gotten to school in the morning, etc.). We don't lead the lives of hunter-gatherers anymore.
From Mama Liberty:
"Mama Liberty - it's not a matter of being unhealthy as much as it can really mess with a mother's sleep"
Well, many health "authorities" frame the issue as a matter of health. The website above did exactly that, authoritatively proclaiming that a baby shouldn't fall asleep at the breast.
I really don't care what other families do with regards to sleep, but I still don't understand how making multiple trips down the hall to another room to feed a breastfeeding baby helps the mother's sleep.
From A Sarah:
I never said walking away and leaving a helpless newborn shut up alone in a room was evil.
Oh my. That's... kind of priceless.
The thing is, Elizabeth, you may even be entirely right that most people who do CIO are imprudent, privileged, hardhearted beeyotches who care about their children just a little bit less than you do. But they still don't have to care that you think so! A mother is not required to feel stung when a stranger from the internet is overcome with shocked disapproval over her inadequate selfish choices! Strange but true.
That said: I think you're absolutely right that choosing to co-sleep doesn't necessarily mean that someone is a weak-willed simpering sexless needy mombot with no understanding of psychological boundaries. Absolutely, 100 percent correct. It sucks to have your household's choices policed by other self-appointed authorities. It's totally unfair, unproductive, and ridiculous. They should knock it off.
Yet you seem to want to cry "foul!" when people do this to you, while reserving the right to do it to others. Does it bother you that this is hypocritical? Or are do you think you should be given extra hypocrisy allowance because co-sleeping is so obviously better?
From A Sarah:
All I want is for those in favor of sleep training to admit that they are (possibly) fighting against the child's Completely Normal Development.
Hmmm.
*considers fulfilling Jamie's request*
You know what, Jamie? No thanks. I don't feel like it.
I mean, I get it: to you, the choice to do CIO requires some defense based in evolution.
But, I don't agree; and also, I don't really feel like expending the effort to make sure that you are personally satisfied with what goes on in my house.
Ah, but you WANT the CIO people to "admit" something to you. Well, okay. I WANT a search committee chair to show up at my door and give me a job. And? I mean, you can want what you want -- and in this case it sounds like you want people to say, "Yes, Jamie, your way is More Righter but I just wasn't cool enough to make it work in our house so I took the slacker's way out," -- but that doesn't mean that people are required to make that happen.
I guess you'll have to figure out some other way to feel okay about the way you've chosen to do things.
From A Sarah:
I still don't understand how making multiple trips down the hall to another room to feed a breastfeeding baby helps the mother's sleep.
Well, then, it probably wouldn't help your sleep to do it that way. Cool for you. I don't understand how some people can like cold vinegar-y salads. That doesn't mean they are obligated to defend this preference to me. It just means I shouldn't eat cold vinegar-y salads.
From Elizabeth:
But they still don't have to care that you think so! A mother is not required to feel stung when a stranger from the internet is overcome with shocked disapproval over her inadequate selfish choices!
That's a really odd way of framing the interaction. I notice that you frame a lot of situations that way, regardless of what's actually said.
Why would I expect someone who (over a period of YEARS now!) proudly trumpets her own tough-cookie attitude toward children, with big heaps of scornful judgment toward those who differ, to be "stung" when I occasionally pipe up with "right back at ya, and here's why"?
And how does doing so make me a hypocrite?
Which side here, really, is presently in the position of dishing it out but not taking it?
It's not that I think other mothers care less about their children than *I* do about mine. After all, I'm not the one who's spent almost a week on this thread preening how non-inadequate I am. But I do think that most mothers care about as much about their children as I do, or more so. Emphasis on "or more so." A big part of my whole take on this is that I'm not such a great mother to start off with that I feel I can afford to dial it back any. (Doubly so when my baby was new.) And people militantly nagging me to do so, lest I prove inadequate by some irrelevant, poorly-defined standard, make me suspicious. To be told that I'm insecure and vapid and brainwashed for figuring "eh, they're only little once, so better safe than sorry!" and temporarily foregoing other priorities? Why do they even care? Evolution is still happening; why are other women so interested in persuading me to reduce my investment in my own offspring, using this transparently illogical "boo hoo you're judging me" manipulation? Is eliminating the tiny chance that I might save my baby from SIDS by being in the same room in order to be at least liminally aware of her while I sleep THAT important? Is taking a kid into an adult bed with pillows really that much more foolhardy than walking away from it for the night and hoping for the best?
From Jamie:
"I mean, I get it: to you, the choice to do CIO requires some defense based in evolution."
Nah -- the decision to do CIO is entirely personal as far as I'm concerned (which I have stated several times on this thread). The only thing I dislike is the way it is often justified as 'necessary' in order to raise a healthy child.
Look -- I nursed my oldest until he was 2yo. And then I (*gasp!*) weaned him. Deliberately. I was done. He weaned remarkably easy at that age, which I have since learned is fairly common. It went so well that I'm likely to do it again with my new baby.
Why? Because I wanted to. Because it worked well for ME. Because I'm not willing to nurse an older toddler, *and* I'm not willing to go through a hard weaning.
I don't think my son enjoyed any benefit from *my* decision to wean, other than not being put through a mountain of power struggles if he had still been nursing when that 'fun' phase kicked in just before his 3rd birthday. In that regard, weaning probably made *me* a better mother than I would have been still nursing, and he benefits from that, obviously.
Just like a more sane parent is a benefit that child can enjoy from sleep training. But it's far crying from saying a child *must* be trained to sleep alone at an early age -- which something that I often come across.
From A Sarah:
And how does doing so make me a hypocrite?
Because you're saying that it's illegitimate for people to criticize your choices -- it's all personal choice, after all -- but then you feel free to portray mothers who don't do as you do in the most negative light possible. You expect people to abide by standards of behavior - and fault them for not doing so - that you don't seem to feel held to yourself.
From A Sarah:
Nah -- the decision to do CIO is entirely personal as far as I'm concerned (which I have stated several times on this thread).
You have said that; but then you said that you want CIO-ers to "admit" that they are going against a child's biological tendency. I just don't see how it can be entirely personal, yet they owe you an admission of anything. Perhaps you can explain to me how they hold together?
From A Sarah:
After all, I'm not the one who's spent almost a week on this thread preening how non-inadequate I am.
Okay, Elizabeth, you don't like me and are predisposed to find fault with anything I say. Got it. I notice you didn't address the point where I tried to concede legitimacy of what you'd written about co-sleepers not being needy mombots. I'm mildly interested as to why.
(Just to get clear on a factual matter, though: I've been out of town for most of the last week without internet access and just got home yesterday, so I haven't actually spent a week "preening" here.)
Anyone else want to discuss the idealization of motherhood, ways to be unapologetic about your own choices, sleep, or anything else?
From Jamie:
"I just don't see how it can be entirely personal, yet they owe you an admission of anything. Perhaps you can explain to me how they hold together?"
I'm not sure that I can, other than apologizing for my poor word choice.
I was responding to theory though, rather than practice. Susanne raised her babies many a year ago, and was citing the studies of adult sleep disorders to call nursing a baby to sleep 'conditioning.' My opinion is the reverse, that we *condition* babies to sleep alone, because they are born sucking and snuggling. That was why I used the term 'supporters' of sleep training, rather than parents who use it.
From A Sarah:
A big part of my whole take on this is that I'm not such a great mother to start off with that I feel I can afford to dial it back any. (Doubly so when my baby was new.) And people militantly nagging me to do so, lest I prove inadequate by some irrelevant, poorly-defined standard, make me suspicious. To be told that I'm insecure and vapid and brainwashed for figuring "eh, they're only little once, so better safe than sorry!" and temporarily foregoing other priorities? Why do they even care??
Okay, first: I don't even get along with you, Elizabeth, yet I can tell plainly that you are a GREAT mom. Which is not to say that I don't understand the feelings of inadequacy... of course I do. Partly because I've bought into this line of bull about how mothers have to prove themselves. I believe it to be insidious, and a patriarchal construction.
But I'm confused, because I really feel like I took some trouble to say that I THINK IT IS AWESOME THAT YOU COSLEEP BECAUSE YOU LIKE IT! It's AWESOME when people find things that work for them! I think we should all throw ourselves a friggin' PARADE whenever we find something that makes our family lives WORK, because there are a million voices - within and without - telling us that it can't just *work*, it has to be RIGHT. All I'm saying -- to myself as much as to anyone else -- is that it's enough for it just to work.
So, in case it wasn't clear enough before: Attention, people who criticize co-sleepers as damaged neurotic needy mothers with no boundaries who haven't read the best research!!! In my not-so-humble opinion, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.
From Elizabeth:
I do think that most mothers care about as much about their children as I do, or more so. Emphasis on "or more so." A big part of my whole take on this is that I'm not such a great mother to start off with that I feel I can afford to dial it back any
To be clear, I'd also like to add:
Another big part of it for me is that I think I'm really average. The claim here isn't "I'm special, and you suck"; it's "I'm normal, and I'm not going to let you paint me as a freak." In an era where babies still sometimes turn up dead in their cribs for no discernible reason, I think that anyone who wants to say that parents who wish to keep as close an eye on their kid as possible are weak and brainwashed has a pretty heavy burden of proof. I spent the first month or so of my child's life sleeping with my arm extended into her bassinet to feel that she was still breathing. I don't claim another mother would be inadequate if she didn't do the same; but in fact, a lot of the women I know did do that or something like it. In my case it was a compromise with myself in order to be able to sleep at all, and I have at least one (perfectly normal) friend who couldn't even do that much: she would just sit there and watch the kid. My claim isn't that this is extra-special saintly mommy care. My claim is only that, GIVEN THAT SEEMINGLY HEALTHY KIDS SOMETIMES REALLY DO EXPIRE IN THEIR BEDS FOR NO APPARENT REASON, it's not crazy, and says absolutely nothing about my gender role, marriage, self-esteem, or intellectual independence. Indeed, given the facts, a mother or father who can confidently leave a child of the age at which SIDS happens alone in a room for extended powers is, objectively, highly risk-tolerant. That's not right or wrong; it just is, although like all risk-averse people I think the risk-tolerant tend to imprudence. As I said above, it seems to betray a certain lack of imagination. There may be countervailing factors; believing, whether out of Calvinism, feminism, or sheer cussedness, that "hard-heartedness" or emotional distance is an important ethical value, would certainly qualify. After all, I can't *prove* that checking that my baby was still breathing wards off SIDS. Letting your baby sleep alone isn't comparable to not using a carseat. But by the same token, I'm not about to dial down my personal vigilance, in the privacy of my own home, to meet standards of rational proof put forth by some "stranger on the internet."
BTW, isn't projecting that I'm on some holier-than-thou sanctimommy trip just another, sneakier way of calling my concerns crazy?
From A Sarah:
BTW, isn't projecting that I'm on some holier-than-thou sanctimommy trip just another, sneakier way of calling my concerns crazy?
Well, then let me say: I don't think your concerns are crazy. But likewise, I don't think that sleep training is evidence that someone has said, "Bah! Child safety, shmild shmafety... momma's tired, so suck it up, little one." Earlier it sounded to me like you were implying as much. To me that's as off-base as someone's implying that you only co-sleep to meet some neurotic need. Ridiculous!
IOW, I don't have any beef with how you do things, truly. I just think that in general, every mother on the planet will be helped if we can all just act as though "This is what works in my family" is a good enough reason for most of the hot button mothering issues that divide... Co-sleeping, cry-it-out, whatever.
Which is not to say that it's some kind of contest to see who is the most inured to mommy-prefectionism. That would be counterproductive, to say the least. Of COURSE we are all influenced by mommy-perfectionism; I certainly am. When I "preen," as you put it, it's because I'm imperfectly practicing a different way to be. I'm trying to convince myself, obviously. I'm trying to contribute to a different discourse around motherhood - one where mothers are allowed to shrug and say, "Yeah, maybe I'm being selfish. And? This is your business how, exactly?" Because I truly believe that that would help everyone. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but that's what I'm doing.
From Jolene:
(Just to get clear on a factual matter, though: I've been out of town for most of the last week without internet access and just got home yesterday, so I haven't actually spent a week "preening" here.)
She's not talking about you, A Sarah. Read back.
From A Sarah:
Jamie: My opinion is the reverse, that we *condition* babies to sleep alone, because they are born sucking and snuggling. That was why I used the term 'supporters' of sleep training, rather than parents who use it.
Ah-ha... Well, then, I was insufficiently attentive to your use of the word "supporters." I getcha now. I thought you were saying that people who *did* sleep-training needed to address your criticism... But if I understand you correctly, you're saying that people who say sleep-training is *superior* need to address the possibility that the default is for infants to nurse to sleep?
Sorry for my misunderstanding!
From A Sarah:
She's not talking about you, A Sarah. Read back.
Wait... what? Sorry to be so dense. I'm low on sleep. Who's she talking about? I thought that she started the comment by addressing me and being snide about how long I've been here and how I always frame the issues in such-and-such a way?
From Jolene:
Nope.
Susanne.
From SarahNicole:
@Elizabeth: "I spent the first month or so of my child's life sleeping with my arm extended into her bassinet to feel that she was still breathing."
Oh, I totally did that too. Now that he's both in his crib AND has learned how to turn over and seems to have just discovered that he enjoys sleeping on his tummy, I am now up and in his nook (we converted our master suite closet into his nursery, because the other options were too far away upstairs, or required the re-doing of a guest room and the tv room upstairs) every time I feel that he is too quiet, which is the opposite of when all of his little grunts and shifts, etc. tended to keep me awake...
"Indeed, given the facts, a mother or father who can confidently leave a child of the age at which SIDS happens alone in a room for extended powers is, objectively, highly risk-tolerant. That's not right or wrong; it just is, although like all risk-averse people I think the risk-tolerant tend to imprudence. As I said above, it seems to betray a certain lack of imagination."
I think that rather than being risk-tolerant per se, it is just an example of differences in individual risk-analysis. The incidence of SIDS in and of itself -- even given how murky our knowledge of what the causes of it are -- is very small (.8 per 1000 live births in the U.S. in 1996, and the incidence has been dropping, righ?). Its small incidence coupled with its murky risk factor profile is, I think, outweighed by the sheer horror that one can easily imagine upon finding that one's child has died, right in one's home, when doing something that is otherwise innocent and necessary -- sleeping. I have recurring nightmares about harm coming to my son, and either his sounds or lack thereof can either keep me from sleep, or rouse me from it. Of course, I also have a history of sleep disorders, as well as having a hairy imagination. At the same time, I make an effort, for a variety of reasons, towards trying to analyze and assess the fears behind my fears, as well as the facts behind them. I know that, having taken infant CPR, there's a belief in my brain that if I discover him not breathing in his sleep, I'll be able to do something about it... I think there's an underlying issue of both what our risk profiles actually are, what our understanding/analysis of risks are, and our sense of whether we feel we have any control over those risks...
That pacifiers are one recommendation in the lowering of SIDS risk is interesting too, given that breastfeeding is also, and other advice we all get often sets up "sucking on silicone" as a contraindication for "suckling on mom."
The peak incidence of SIDS is between 2 and 4 months, and I don't think anyone, here at least, was advocating any sort of regular sleep training or push towards inappropriate independence at that age (whatever anyone think is inappropriate). I think we're all using the word "baby" in a way that conflates the differing needs of differing ages, as well as of the differing needs of different babies and different families...
Also, I personally was never calling you crazy. I was calling you judgemental, and just as judgemental as those I thought you were saying were judgemental.
And that is a circular sentence. Sorry.
And. Gee. If I'd known I was going to go on that long, I would have brought a glass of water.
From Susanne:
"My opinion is the reverse, that we *condition* babies to sleep alone, because they are born sucking and snuggling. That was why I used the term 'supporters' of sleep training, rather than parents who use it."
But what if there was no "training" involved? What if it was simply as simple as .. baby was put to bed however it suited mom, occasionally whimpered a few minutes but that was that? See, this whole thing presupposes that sleep is something that only comes with some kind of "training" - whether it's mommy's going to nurse you to sleep in the family bed or mommy's going to put you in the crib and turn off the light and leave.
From Susanne:
"I really don't care what other families do with regards to sleep, but I still don't understand how making multiple trips down the hall to another room to feed a breastfeeding baby helps the mother's sleep."
Well, I don't see how being in a constant half-asleep half-awake state while baby is sucking on you helps the mother's sleep either. Not to mention that I don't see how it would "help" my sleep to have to go to bed when baby does, when maybe I'd like to stay up til 10 pm to read or watch the news. Maybe ... here's a concept ... adults have different sleep requirements too.
From Susanne:
"In an era where babies still sometimes turn up dead in their cribs for no discernible reason, I think that anyone who wants to say that parents who wish to keep as close an eye on their kid as possible are weak and brainwashed has a pretty heavy burden of proof. I spent the first month or so of my child's life sleeping with my arm extended into her bassinet to feel that she was still breathing."
Who said otherwise? BTW, my twins had apnea monitors and like other premie parents, we had to learn infant CPR. They were already at higher risk of SIDS (making the idea of sleeping on a soft bed with pillows even the more I totally understand the fear of baby not breathing. TOTALLY. I have no issue with co-sleeping in general; I don't much care what other people do. If that's how you all prefer things, grand. If you're afraid baby will stop breathing and this is how you get your assurance -- cool beans. What I object to is the silly straw man that not co-sleeping = CIO, and that CIO encompasses everything from a few minutes of whimpering to full-out hours of agonized screaming but they're all equally damaging. And I think that co-sleepers have to know that they are running the risk of having a harder time getting child out of the bed later down the pike. If they're cool with that, well, then, hey, not my problem.
"My claim is only that, GIVEN THAT SEEMINGLY HEALTHY KIDS SOMETIMES REALLY DO EXPIRE IN THEIR BEDS FOR NO APPARENT REASON, it's not crazy, and says absolutely nothing about my gender role, marriage, self-esteem, or intellectual independence."
Who said it did? Who said it was crazy to check on your child by whatever means?
"Indeed, given the facts, a mother or father who can confidently leave a child of the age at which SIDS happens alone in a room for extended powers is, objectively, highly risk-tolerant."
You're bringing up a whole 'nother argument, though. The prevailing reason given to co-sleep isn't "protect your baby against SIDS since co-sleeping reduces that ris." The prevailing reasons given to co-sleep are about how It's Just So Emotionally Distant to Be Down The Hall You Might As Well Be in Siberia, and What Kind of Mother Could Turn a Deaf Ear to Even One Minute of a Baby Fussing. That's the ultimate in sanctimommy, IMO, and it plays right into the Mask of Motherhood -- the faux having to pretend that every moment with your baby is Absolute Pure Bliss and How Could It Not Be.
I mean, what if I'm happy playing with baby during the day, and then I'm equally happy tending to baby's needs, giving him a kiss and putting him in a nice comfy warm crib and saying night-night? And what if I'm the kind of mother who really doesn't miss him with quivering lower lip during the X hours that he's just right down the hall anyway?
From Susanne:
"Well, I reference higher apes not because I fear that my child will get eaten if I don't, but because I believe that honoring a child's natural, developmentally appropriate expectations as much as possible is a great way to parent."
Having twins is a fascinating case study because you can see how much really is nature vs nurture, as mine are very unalike on most personality dimensions. I think some people are innate introverts (in the Myers-Briggs sense) -- being by themselves simply isn't problematic, they enjoy their own space. And some people are innate extraverts - if there's a party going on in the house and they aren't there, boy do they feel hurt.
And I sometimes think that the introverts such as myself can't "get" why the extraverts assume that Every Baby Wants to Be Part of the Party, and the extraverts can't "get" that a naturally introverted baby could enjoy hugs and kisses and snuggles and then left alone to explore his hands and feet in a nice comfy crib just fine and it doesn't mean his lack of crying is because he's given up hope that anyone cares.
And again, I'm using the Myers-Briggs introvert / extravert definitions, not to be confused wit shy and outgoing.
From Caryn:
And what if I'm the kind of mother who really doesn't miss him with quivering lower lip during the X hours that he's just right down the hall anyway?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the point Elizabeth is making here is that it's *also* not correct to paint all co-sleepers as the sort of mother who does really "miss him with quivering lower lip", nor as the sort of mothers who aren't getting any, nor as people with no common sense.
People are different.
From Jamie:
"The prevailing reason given to co-sleep isn't "protect your baby against SIDS since co-sleeping reduces that ris." The prevailing reasons given to co-sleep are about how It's Just So Emotionally Distant to Be Down The Hall You Might As Well Be in Siberia, and What Kind of Mother Could Turn a Deaf Ear to Even One Minute of a Baby Fussing."
Susanne, I almost hate to take issue with this because I'm actually liking what you're saying now.
But the most common reason for co-sleeping I hear is that it's highly convenient to the nursing mother, and I don't know of anyone who has continued to co-sleep if it meant less parental sleep.
I can get my 3m/o back to sleep in less than five minutes if he's next to me in bed. Which is a good thing, because I have trouble staying awake for longer than ten. I discovered that with my first son.
I tried very hard *not* to co-sleep with him. I would try to stay awake through feeding him, through holding him long enough to make sure I could transfer him without waking him up (and he was absolutely *NOT* a 'awake but sleepy' baby -- he needed to be very OUT to be put down). I couldn't do it. I would fall asleep with him in my arms, propped up against the headboard. I think he was almost 3m/o when I just gave up and stopped trying to get him into his crib (side-carred).
My sleep improved SOOO much. He went from waking a couple of times a night to waking 4 times or so, but instead of being up (or trying to be up) for nearly an hour each time, I was up for 5-10 minutes, without the stress of worrying if I'd be able to get him back down.
From Jamie:
"And some people are innate extraverts - if there's a party going on in the house and they aren't there, boy do they feel hurt."
I'm an extrovert with at least one extroverted child. I can *very* deeply empathize with any pain he feels at being left alone, because the tenor of his cry or his expression brings back strong memories for me. For me, him not wanting to left alone is an extremely valid reason to seek a solution that does not involve isolating him.
I don't know if his little brother is intro or extroverted yet, but I can already tell that he's *much* more easy-going. He likes being in the center of activity, but he's much less sensitive to stimulation. I could easily see him being able to fall asleep without help long before his brother.
From Mama Liberty:
"Maybe ... here's a concept ... adults have different sleep requirements too."
Why so sarcastic, Susanne? I was responding to someone (you?) who said that cosleeping disturbs the mother's sleep. I was just saying that *I* don't see it that way. To me, getting up disturbs my sleep more than halfway waking up to latch a baby on. Actually, initially I chose to cosleep so that I could get more sleep. My mother did not cosleep with me and then DID cosleep with my two younger siblings. She was much happier with breastfeeding when she coslept. So, I decided to draw on her experience when I was a young mother and decided to cosleep. I'm glad I did. I truly believe that cosleeping helped me to successfully breastfeed. Now, four children later I couldn't imagine mothering an infant any other way. My husband feels the same way.
Ironically, cosleeping with an infant has always worked well for me. My young babies have always slept well (at least 6 hours) in bed with me. It is when they get older that they start to nurse more and disturb my sleep. I am getting ready to night-wean my now 18 month old because he has increased his nursing frequency. I have done this with my three older children... my pattern is basically to nightwean at 18 months and fully wean at 3 years. And some time between 3-4 years, I put them in their own bed.
I haven't had any problems with the way I have done things. My husband and I are happy with our decisions (and, yes, we still have a decent sex life). I have a big problem with the fact that the prevailing "expert" wisdom is not cosleep. Honestly, it is this kind of advice, which is clearly not grounded in science, which makes me question the "experts" in other areas such as... childbirth.
From Jamie:
"But if I understand you correctly, you're saying that people who say sleep-training is *superior* need to address the possibility that the default is for infants to nurse to sleep?"
Yep! This is what I'm saying. ^_^
From Jamie:
"But what if there was no "training" involved? What if it was simply as simple as .. baby was put to bed however it suited mom, occasionally whimpered a few minutes but that was that?"
I guess to be faithful to my assertions here, I'd have to say that anything I have the luxury or inclination of doing with my sleeping baby that another primate wouldn't would be a form of sleep training.
That list would include (from the last three months):
Putting him down asleep on a bed.
Putting him down asleep in his crib.
Swaddling him.
Putting him down asleep with his sleeping father.
Putting him down awake with his sleeping father.
Unlatching him.
Blocking his access to my breast.
Putting him down asleep in his bouncy seat.
Putting him to sleep on my back when his clear preference is to be closer to the food supply.
Really, *putting* him to sleep at all, rather than letting him fall asleep suggests a level of agenda, and I'm very much a Putter of Children to Sleep.
So, putting a baby in a crib and shutting the door is a form of sleep training, IMO. And, as you pointed out earlier, not all sleep training = CIO.
"Not to mention that I don't see how it would "help" my sleep to have to go to bed when baby does, when maybe I'd like to stay up til 10 pm to read or watch the news."
Er... why can't the baby stay up until 10pm?
From Alexis:
Not to mention the fact that even if baby sleeps in their own crib, they don't always go down straight away, and co-sleeping doesn't necessarily require constant presence. (Some babies will wake up the minute you get up, and cry like hell, but these are the babies who, IMO, would probably be awful in a crib too.) You can go lie down with baby, get her to sleep, tuck her in, and then get up. (If you're worried about her rolling over and out, there are bed rails you can use.)
From Jamie:
"(Some babies will wake up the minute you get up, and cry like hell, but these are the babies who, IMO, would probably be awful in a crib too.)"
My 'borrowed' baby (well, toddler) is like this. She has been swaddled, rocked, CIO-ed, white-noised, worn down, you name it. She was an *awful* sleeper until she 'decided' that it was fun to nap. Now she asks to nap, takes her paci, and climbs into a twin bed that she voluntarily stays in -- not until she wakes up, but until someone opens the door to come get her. She's 2yo now.
From SarahNicole:
@Jaime: "I guess to be faithful to my assertions here, I'd have to say that anything I have the luxury or inclination of doing with my sleeping baby that another primate wouldn't would be a form of sleep training."
I would just call it culture. Which is natural for human primates.
From Susanne:
"To me, getting up disturbs my sleep more than halfway waking up to latch a baby on."
The crux of it seems as follows:
For X% of women, getting up to feed baby (whether breast or bottle) is less disruptive to their sleep than is co-sleeping and rolling over to feed baby. Therefore, co-sleeping gives them (mother) interrupted / less sleep.
For the other Y%, rolling over and latching on is less disruptive to their sleep than getting up and walking down the hall to feed baby. Therefore, co-sleeping gives them (mother) less interrupted / better sleep.
Seems like there's no right solution other than what the mother identifies as giving her the best sleep - and only she can judge which of those two types she might be.
From Jamie:
"I would just call it culture. Which is natural for human primates."
Natural, but highly variable between different populations of human primates. I guess that's why I try to *start* with biology and apply culture as I go, at least as far as relating to a relatively unsocialized infant goes. Biology is pretty consistent for all mammals.
From Susanne:
"I have a big problem with the fact that the prevailing "expert" wisdom is not cosleep."
But why *should* someone co-sleep if the baby does just fine in the bed / crib, goes to sleep happily / contentedly, gets a good rest, and the mother finds getting up to walk down the hall and feed baby less disruptive than being snacked on all night? What's the point of that? What's being missed out on?
And in my household in particular, with a phone that rings all night long, in which dh may at any point have to turn on lights or talk loudly or make a lot of movement? Why *ever* would someone put premies, who certainly need their sleep more than the average baby, through that?
From Susanne:
"I would just call it culture. "Which is natural for human primates."
Natural, but highly variable between different populations of human primates. I guess that's why I try to *start* with biology and apply culture as I go, at least as far as relating to a relatively unsocialized infant goes."
By that token, putting on a onesie is "clothing training," since it's not found in nature.
BTW, if we want to start going down what is natural, what's so natural about sleeping on a Serta mattress with cotton sheets in between four walls made of brick, stone or wood that has electricity and running water? I don't recall any other primates doing that. It's interesting how the definition of natural only goes as far as people want it to.
From Jamie:
"BTW, if we want to start going down what is natural, what's so natural about sleeping on a Serta mattress with cotton sheets in between four walls made of brick, stone or wood that has electricity and running water? I don't recall any other primates doing that. It's interesting how the definition of natural only goes as far as people want it to."
I'm not allowed to partake in culture because I find biology a more reliable indicator of normal child development?
BTW, for a good deal of the human population, a lack of electricity and running water *is* culture.
From Esther:
Mama Liberty: "Well, many health "authorities" frame the issue as a matter of health. The website above did exactly that, authoritatively proclaiming that a baby shouldn't fall asleep at the breast."
Parents looking for this info are typically of the kind who want their baby to sleep for longer stretches, or through the night, because they (and the baby, quite often) are suffering from sleep deprivation. To that end, disassociating nursing from falling asleep is quite healthy, not to mention helpful. If you don't need it - don't do it.
Mama Liberty: "I really don't care what other families do with regards to sleep, but I still don't understand how making multiple trips down the hall to another room to feed a breastfeeding baby helps the mother's sleep."
Ah, here we go again with the ol' false dichotomy - either baby is snuggled up against Mommy in bed, or he's 'down the hall' (and might as well be in outer space).
You know, plenty of people (in fact, just about everyone I know IRL) share a room with their small babies for the fist few months. Sidecars and basinettes don't require 'making multiple trips down the hall to another room to feed a breastfeeding baby', they require, at most, sitting up and reaching over.
And by the time babies are down the hall in their own room, such mommies night-wean their babies (Gasp! Horror!) and thus don't need to make said multiple trips.
From Jamie:
"By that token, putting on a onesie is "clothing training," since it's not found in nature."
Sure it is. Just like putting a diaper on a baby is diaper training.
Note that I'm not expressing an aversion to training/socializing. I'm not sure what you're getting at...
From Esther:
Alexis:"Not to mention the fact that even if baby sleeps in their own crib, they don't always go down straight away, and co-sleeping doesn't necessarily require constant presence. (Some babies will wake up the minute you get up, and cry like hell, but these are the babies who, IMO, would probably be awful in a crib too.) You can go lie down with baby, get her to sleep, tuck her in, and then get up. (If you're worried about her rolling over and out, there are bed rails you can use.)"
If you're practicing SAFE cosleeping with a baby, this is a no-no:
http://www.safebedsharing.org/
sa...guidelines.html
"Never leave an infant or toddler unattended on an adult bed. Co-Sleeping or family bed sharing consists of an adult & a child. Babies can roll off of beds (even when using a co-sleeping device) can become tangled in blankets, or otherwise need the attention of an adult. We recommend babies not be left unattended in the early months."
But hey, I'm constantly saying even ideological cosleepers don't follow all the safe cosleeping rules all of the time.
From Jamie:
"And by the time babies are down the hall in their own room, such mommies night-wean their babies (Gasp! Horror!) and thus don't need to make said multiple trips."
Nightweaning = STTN? I'm honestly curious. We didn't nightwean until shortly before J's 2nd birthday, but he was only nursing once or twice a night at that point, and spend the night before he woke up in his own room.
And if nightweaning happens before a year, does the baby still STTN during teething/gross motor milestones?
From Esther:
Jamie:"Nightweaning = STTN? I'm honestly curious. We didn't nightwean until shortly before J's 2nd birthday, but he was only nursing once or twice a night at that point, and spend the night before he woke up in his own room.
And if nightweaning happens before a year, does the baby still STTN during teething/gross motor milestones?"
In our house, night weaning immediately preceeded or went along with sleep training. There's no point, IMO, in getting a baby to sleep in a separate room if I need to go there to nurse him during the night. And yes, babies can night wean at 6-8 months.
Teething was treated as genuine distress when appropriate - Teejel and painkillers helped a lot.
From Alexis:
If there's no pillow, no blankets (I used the baby sleeping bags), a rail along the side (not pillows piled up) and a hard mattress (and our mattress is the firmest they sell) I'm honestly not seeing how that's so different from a crib. The "baby might need attention" argument could just as easily apply to leaving your baby in a crib by themselves.
From sarahz.:
To add another twist to this debate,IMO, the mattress, adult or child, that is being slept on is a big concern.
IMO, I prefera chemical treatment free mattress or futon. I actually deeply prefer a futon because it is closer to the floor and very inexpensive, but my DH has back problems and we choose a natural latex mattress. It was appx. the same cost as a middle of the line Serta.
Modern mattress are chock full of chemicals and that goes double for crib mattresses. There has been some association between mattress chemicals and SIDS (perhaps the real reason for success of 'back to sleep'), so crib or adult bed, I think the chemcial makeup of the mattress should be considered.
From Esther:
""The prevailing reason given to co-sleep isn't "protect your baby against SIDS since co-sleeping reduces that risk.""
Well, actually, I've heard that reason quite often from certain quarters. Never mind that it's patently untrue (and cosleeping in the earliest months is, as far as is known today, a risk factor even if you're not smoking).
From Caryn:
If there's no pillow, no blankets (I used the baby sleeping bags), a rail along the side (not pillows piled up) and a hard mattress (and our mattress is the firmest they sell) I'm honestly not seeing how that's so different from a crib. The "baby might need attention" argument could just as easily apply to leaving your baby in a crib by themselves.
Yeah, we put our hard mattress on the floor when it became obvious that we were going to be sleeping with a baby. (It helps that we aren't into that whole cultural "nicely kept house" thing, lol.)
From Alexis:
sarahz, they studied the mattress "off gassing" thing and there's no evidence it relates to SIDS. Some mattresses (and carpets) can smell, but they don't kill you.
From Esther:
Alexis:"If there's no pillow, no blankets (I used the baby sleeping bags), a rail along the side (not pillows piled up) and a hard mattress (and our mattress is the firmest they sell) I'm honestly not seeing how that's so different from a crib. The "baby might need attention" argument could just as easily apply to leaving your baby in a crib by themselves."
Simple: Cribs are designed for infant use; Adult beds (esp. with pillows and duvets present, even if not present right next to baby) are designed for adults.
These are rules from family bed proponents, not me.
From Caryn:
Well, actually, I've heard that reason quite often from certain quarters. Never mind that it's patently untrue
They've read McKenna.
From Alexis:
So, I can't question "rules" made by "family bed proponents" if they patently don't make sense? Because that "baby might need attention" rule means you should never leave your baby alone to sleep, whether it's in an adult bed or a crib.
And by "no pillows or blankets", I meant they were not on the bed at all. I took them off.
From Esther:
I don't know too many cosleepers who divest their beds of all pillows and blankets, anyway. Especially not in February.
And Caryn, Of course they'e (people who cosleep for ideologival reasons) read McKenna. And Tina Kimmel and Peggy O'Mara.
From Alexis:
(I didn't, actually, leave her alone in our bed very often, but that "rule" does irk me.)
From Susanne:
"BTW, for a good deal of the human population, a lack of electricity and running water *is* culture."
Well, right. And to that end, the fact that they co-sleep does not reflect an inherent Noble Savage ideal (ie., they know what the "best" solution is, but we've all forgotten it as we became civilized) -- it just means that's all they had access to or were able to do.
From Alexis:
Also, keep in mind that the problem is frequently worse with older babies and toddlers. Blankets and pillows are not an issue with a toddler who can reach and grab the duvet for herself.
From Jamie:
"Simple: Cribs are designed for infant use; Adult beds (esp. with pillows and duvets present, even if not present right next to baby) are designed for adults."
Cribs are incredibly modern development. Babies have slept and lived and died in adult beds (whether it's a mattress and box spring or a mat on the ground) since the beginning of human history.
I'm willing to concede that cribs are designed for babies who sleep *alone* and are therefore safer than a baby sleeping *alone* in an adult bed.
And if Alexis is anything like me, she was popping in to check on her daughter every 20 minutes or so. My little guy doesn't tend to sleep that long after I leave, so it's less of an issue.
From Alexis:
And (if I'm serial posting) if it's all about safety above all, parents who sleep with the baby down the hall aren't doing it. There's research suggesting a lowered risk of SIDS for babies who sleep in their parents' room, and the UK Department of Health's advice is that this is the safest place for a baby to sleep. (In their own crib or bassinet.)
From Susanne:
And if nightweaning happens before a year, does the baby still STTN during teething/gross motor milestones?"
I'm sorry, I'm missing something. What is STTN?
From Alexis:
Jamie - when she was little, I did check frequently.
Now, if she falls asleep in my bed, I do leave her for some time. But she's 2, and she can get out of bed if she wants.
From Alexis:
STTN - sleep through the night.
Anecdata: My daughter was one of the lucky ones who slept through the night early--formula fed, pacifier baby. She did revert to waking up for various reasons, and is doing so more now that we're trying to get her to sleep in her own bed.
From Jamie:
"Now, if she falls asleep in my bed, I do leave her for some time. But she's 2, and she can get out of bed if she wants."
Makes sense to me. ^_^ My oldest was in his own twin bed starting around 15 months, for at least part of most nights. My new baby, being pretty wee in my estimation, gets quite a bit more supervised sleep.
From Esther:
STTN=sleeping trough the night.
Alexis:"And (if I'm serial posting) if it's all about safety above all, parents who sleep with the baby down the hall aren't doing it. There's research suggesting a lowered risk of SIDS for babies who sleep in their parents' room, and the UK Department of Health's advice is that this is the safest place for a baby to sleep. (In their own crib or bassinet.)"
Agreed.
Jamie:"I'm willing to concede that cribs are designed for babies who sleep *alone* and are therefore safer than a baby sleeping *alone* in an adult bed."
That was the point. Adult beds are also, to the best of our knowledge today, less safe in the early months, even (and maybe especially) if a parents is present. Hence, sidecarring is a great idea.
From Jamie:
"That was the point. Adult beds are also, to the best of our knowledge today, less safe in the early months, even (and maybe especially) if a parents is present. Hence, sidecarring is a great idea."
Eh. Not for me. As I said above, I can't stay awake long enough to get a baby back into his own crib after a feeding. Especially not after he has become fully alert. I don't know the numbers that I'm defying, but I *feel* that my baby is safest when he is in close proximity to me. Maybe I'm wrong, but I have a lot of trouble accepting logic that implies that being *with* me puts him in danger.
From Susanne:
"Cribs are incredibly modern development. Babies have slept and lived and died in adult beds (whether it's a mattress and box spring or a mat on the ground) since the beginning of human history."
Cradles have been around for eons -- same concept. And once more with passion, up until modern times, the vast majority of humankind, including all our ancestors lived in the poorest and direst of conditions, so what they *did* when they had no *choice* has little to do with anything. So yes, they did it. So what? What kind of argument is that for anything? Is there evidence to suggest they raised "better" children? Happier children? More well-adjusted children? Got more / better sleep themselves? Of course not. They just HAD NO CHOICE. They also defecated outside and never took baths. Now what?
From Jamie:
"Cradles have been around for eons -- same concept. And once more with passion, up until modern times, the vast majority of humankind, including all our ancestors lived in the poorest and direst of conditions, so what they *did* when they had no *choice* has little to do with anything."
Susanne, I'm not going to use a crib that doesn't benefit me or my child just because someone invented them. I feel like that's the argument -- "Well, *now* we have cribs and they are obviously superior, so babies should all sleep independently!" It just makes no sense to me.
I'm not saying that having no running water is a positive, or that I'd really love myself a good outhouse. I'm saying that I don't understand how a very recent CULTURAL development is safer for my child than a timeless biological constant.
From Jamie:
Ok, if I'm making sense to anyone, *what* makes co-sleeping in the early months less safe: is it parent or the adult bed?
From Alexis:
Both, I think. It would require a controlled study to sort out the effects, and I don't think there's been one that measures that specifically.
From Alexis:
I would take issue with your last post--again, we're skating close to the naturalistic fallacy. Sometimes, newfangled inventions are better, or safer. Or an adaptation that may have previously been safer, given a particular set of circumstances, isn't safer in a new set of circumstances. Having your baby in your bed probably was safer when you had to worry about animals coming in and biting the baby. But eliminate that risk, and maybe it isn't any more.
From Jamie:
"I would take issue with your last post--again, we're skating close to the naturalistic fallacy. Sometimes, newfangled inventions are better, or safer. Or an adaptation that may have previously been safer, given a particular set of circumstances, isn't safer in a new set of circumstances. Having your baby in your bed probably was safer when you had to worry about animals coming in and biting the baby. But eliminate that risk, and maybe it isn't any more."
I meant to ask earlier: what is the naturalistic fallacy -- it sounds like something that I'm very guilty of buying into.
From Susanne:
It's the assumption that because it's more natural / it's what our collective ancestors did / it's what people in underdeveloped parts of the world still do, that it is somehow better or reflects some greater insight or reflects a norm that we should aspire to. It's a very weak and fallacious argument. What my ancestors did only has validity as input into what I do if there is some proof that their way had better OUTCOMES. It's fashionable for people who haven't read a history book to conclude that people were kindler / better / gentler in the unspecified Way Back When and therefore Their Ways must have been superior and we should go back to them, but like I said ... that's people who haven't read a history book (and, who don't understand that what has been "natural" has varied widely across cultures across time, as if one would actually expect that 16th century Peru and 8th century India and 10th century Poland and 19th century Papua New Guinea all had the same "natural" ideas on childbirth, weaning, baby sleeping, etc).
From Alexis:
Naturalistic fallacy - the idea that because something is "natural", it's inherently superior. It's the basis of MDC.
Basically, it fails because Mother Nature is satisfied with "good enough". It's perfectly OK if 5% of people die, just not 50%.
(I'm mildly crunchy, but deeply cynical, which is why I could never drink that much organic fairtrade Kool-Aid.)
From Susanne:
"I don't know the numbers that I'm defying, but I *feel* that my baby is safest when he is in close proximity to me. Maybe I'm wrong, but I have a lot of trouble accepting logic that implies that being *with* me puts him in danger."
I don't know if you are wrong or not -- and my argument here has never been from a safety perspective -- but it's an empirical claim. Either it's safer or it's not, and your feelings have little to do with it either way.
From Susanne:
"I'm mildly crunchy, but deeply cynical, which is why I could never drink that much organic fairtrade Kool-Aid."
LOL - nothing "natural" about fair trade, as trade subverts hunter-gatherer societies!
From Jamie:
Ok, that's what I thought.
Well, I *do* feel that there's something to be learned from how we lived before Things That Go Beep, and I don't necessarily believe that Those Things are always 100% beneficial to us, but as I said before, I trust biology more than culture -- any culture.
From Jamie:
"Either it's safer or it's not, and your feelings have little to do with it either way."
Spoken exactly like Dr. Amy! Thanks, Susanne... I (didn't) miss that. Maybe I'll just take my feelings and crunch them elsewhere. ^_^
From Jamie:
"I would take issue with your last post--again, we're skating close to the naturalistic fallacy."
Now that I better understand the term, I disagree. I don't think saying that I *don't* believe that device developed to better facilitate a recent cultural fad is inherently superior to The Old Way suggests that The Old Way is objectively better.
Basically, I'm rejecting that the fad *is* an improvement. A great deal of technology and study has gone into the fad, but I don't see that as a validation of its superiority.
From A Sarah:
I'm saying that I don't understand how a very recent CULTURAL development is safer for my child than a timeless biological constant.
Personally, I'm very leery of sanctifying biology in this way. For one, I don't believe we have any access to what body parts "mean" without a cultural filter. But more to the point, it seems like extremely fertile ground for a lot of patriarchal constructs. I mean, for example, how many times have the voices of the patriarchy looked at penises and vaginas and said, "See? It's biological. Women are inherently passive, and men are inherently active," and then gone on to legitimate rape? Rape makes perfect biological sense; one might say women were "evolved" or "designed" for it because otherwise women would all have teeth down there, or men's penises would be too floppy.
From A Sarah:
I'm just posting this to see whether my previous comment - that I wrote a moment ago - will show up if I do. At the moment it seems to have disappeared.
From A Sarah:
Okay, it did. Never mind.
From Susanne:
"Well, I *do* feel that there's something to be learned from how we lived before Things That Go Beep"
What culture and what time frame are you considering as part of that "we," however? See, part of what you see on MDC is this desire to return back to the olden days. Yet these olden days are spectacularly ill-defined. What century are we talking about? What specific culture? Why that time and why that culture? Is there a time / culture in history that you believe had objectively better results or outcomes than today, such that their techniques (if you will) are to be emulated?
These are very serious questions, by the way. You can only argue that there's a Way Back that is worth going to, if you isolate which of the many, many Way Backs you're thinking about. Otherwise, you're making the assumption that everything shrouded in the mists of time was the same Way Back (and that it was all good).
On MDC, their ill-defined Way Back always seems (at least to me) to have some Celtic / pagan components to it (dancing under the light of the moon type of thing). It's a culture that many of them have some intuitive linkage or good feelings towards, as reflecting a Better Time and Place. Well, why those? I'm willing to bet it's because most MDC women are of Western European background. And so they conceptualize life Way Back that way, without even realizing that hey, at the same time the Celtic / pagan goddesses were dancing to the light of the moon, totally different "natural" norms surrounding childbirth / parenting were going on in Africa, in China, in India, etc. Which of those is more natural?
From Alexis:
OK, the reason I said that it skated close to it is that you framed it as culture vs biology, new vs old. It's not quite full on fallacy since you didn't say, this is biology and therefore it HAS to be the best way. But, you're going towards that, and I'm always leery of it.
As it happens, I do have some sympathy for your argument, because it's not unreasonable to assume that mothers have a desire to protect their children and that contact with young is an important part of keeping predators away. But that doesn't equate to newfangled cultural adaptations not having an edge by certain measures. It's perfectly possible for crib sleeping to be the safest way to sleep, without it being "best" in all respects. People, just like nature, make tradeoffs.
From Susanne:
"Well, I *do* feel that there's something to be learned from how we lived before Things That Go Beep"
If humans were satisfied and happy with the things they did and how they lived before Things That Went Beep, then why did humans exert their considerable ingenuity to create said Things That Go Beep? Any "product" (and I'm including philosophies) is created because it serves a need that isn't being met by the available options. Epidurals were created because many women found childbirth excruciatingly painful. Multiple bedroom households were created because as people got wealthier, they desired more space. Formula was created (and wet nurses used prior to that) because women either couldn't or didn't want to nurse. Homebirth is becoming more popular because women are dissatisfied with some of the attention they get from mainstream HCP's. Etc. Whether these things are improvements or not from your standpoint is your call, but evolutions / inventions don't occur unless they address something people are dissatisfied with.
From Jamie:
"Personally, I'm very leery of sanctifying biology in this way."
My intent is not to sanctify anything. I just trust biology more than culture when it comes to child development because babies and toddlers operate at a different level of socialization than (most) adults. I have no way of knowing when their social conditioning starts to regularly trump their instincts (though I'm suspecting early school age), and I definitely don't know when they develop enough context to understand (like we do) that we are not apes in trees. Well, my 4yo would probably rather be an ape in a tree. Or maybe a pirate in space. But probably a different subject entirely.
I don't think biology is some sacred truth, but I do think it offers more reliable information than culture, which varies wildly and shifts frequently.
From Jamie:
"And so they conceptualize life Way Back that way, without even realizing that hey, at the same time the Celtic / pagan goddesses were dancing to the light of the moon, totally different "natural" norms surrounding childbirth / parenting were going on in Africa, in China, in India, etc. Which of those is more natural?"
Well, none of them. This is why I rejected organized religion as a teen: I refused to believe that one 'story' was correct at the expense of all the rest.
Please don't lump me in with MDC.
From Susanne:
"I don't think biology is some sacred truth, but I do think it offers more reliable information than culture, which varies wildly and shifts frequently."
Ah! But you have defined biology as the *assumption* that babies innately need the presence of mother in the same sleeping quarters to sleep well, and that such is a biological truth - and that using a crib or other location is subverting biology (even if baby seems happy enough, etc.). And I think if there is any such tendency, it's highly individual. Your baby might need that - because of your gene pool, his personality, etc. Mine might not. There's no universal innate inherent, any more than there is a universal level of shyness that your baby and my baby might have or a universal level of musical talent or artistic ability.
The other point that I'd make to yours is that when you say "I trust biology more than culture", it presupposes that you are enlightened enough to discern what is biology from what is culture. But differnet societies took biological facts and drew different cultural interpretations of what those facts meant over time (e.g., Culture A put babies to breast immediately; Culture B thought colostrum was bad and so delayed baby at breast; Culture C put mom in charge of infant care immediately; Culture D had female friends care for baby and mom did no baby care for the first month). Each of these "natural" cultures were working with the exact same biological facts and observations, yet they overlaid very different interpretations of what those facts MEANT or what "should" be done. How do you know that your view of the facts is any more stripped-away from culture as anyone else's? Put another way, you and I are *both* equally "victims" or more accurately products of culture in what we're saying and what we believe.
From Jamie:
"Whether these things are improvements or not from your standpoint is your call, but evolutions / inventions don't occur unless they address something people are dissatisfied with."
No argument here.
There's something about what came first, independently sleeping babies or babies rattling around in my head, but I can't make sense of it, and it's late. I guess I should take my co-sleeping baby of to our unsafe adult bed and endanger him with my proximity.
From Susanne:
If it works for you as the means by which all get enough sleep, does it *matter* if it's natural or not? I guess I'm asking what's more important, the natural-ness or the outcome.
From Susanne:
I was not clear on this part, so let me make it more clear:
Biological Fact: Mom produces colostrum shortly after birth.
Culture A: The natural thing to do is put baby to breast immediately; colostrum is good.
Culture B: That's the body clearing itself out of yucky stuff and it's not very healthy at all. The natural thing to do is to delay baby at breast til colostrum is gone.
Same biological fact; both cultures think that they're being equally "natural" in their reaction to it. Indeed, both reactions are cultural, not natural.
From Jamie:
"The other point that I'd make to yours is that when you say "I trust biology more than culture", it presupposes that you are enlightened enough to discern what is biology from what is culture. But differnet societies took biological facts and drew different cultural interpretations of what those facts meant over time."
....why do you think I look at chimpanzees? ^_^
Well, all mammals, really. Newborn mammals all behave in very similar ways to meet very similar needs. There's my biological constant.
I also think you can tell a good deal about the kind of environment/care an organism prefers/thrives in by observing it for a while. It has very little to do with enlightenment. Sure, I learned somewhere along the way that flippers are for swimming while wings are for flying, but I'm not sure how that can be called be cultural filter.
But like I said, I'm very tired, and probably not making much sense.
From Jamie:
"If it works for you as the means by which all get enough sleep, does it *matter* if it's natural or not? I guess I'm asking what's more important, the natural-ness or the outcome."
I'm all about problem-solving, so I think I honestly say the outcome. I tend to think that outcomes are improved by not fighting with natural tendencies, but to be fair, I probably just prefer them. Like I said before, I'm a 'path of least resistance' parent. I'm not going to spend 40 minutes patting a baby's bum or prying my eyes open at the headboard to stay awake long enough to put him back in his crib. I'm going to curl up with him so that I can snooze too, or tie him into a sling so that I can pat his bum *and* make my coffee at the same time. I do what works until it stops working, and I find, overwhelmingly, that what works best for me is not fighting with my child's inherent preferences.
From Susanne:
Well, all mammals, really. Newborn mammals all behave in very similar ways to meet very similar needs. There's my biological constant."
Well, yeah, but mammals don't have split-levels to house the fam in . Nor do they need to be at a high cognitive level to drive the car or operate the stove safely. It takes more mental cognition to navigate our environments than it does for mammals to navigate theirs. We also have higher expectations for our offspring; to the extent that most mammals could even conceptualize what they want for their offspring, it would be merely survival, not self-actualization, security, etc.
From A Sarah:
I don't think biology is some sacred truth, but I do think it offers more reliable information than culture, which varies wildly and shifts frequently.
And I believe that you can't really oppose "biology" and "culture" so neatly, as though they are discrete quantities with no overlap. So when you look at a baby and think, "Oh, it's clear that babies were evolved to X, Y, and Z and therefore X, Y, and Z should be the default," you are likely bringing a lot of cultural assumptions to bear when you decide what counts as natural vs. unnatural, snuggled up vs. at a distance, helpless vs. independent, pertinent to mothering vs. irrelevant to mothering, etc.
Just like someone who looks at penises and vaginas and says, "Rigid penis, vagina that can't put up a fight. Women's biology means that they're sexually passive and exploitable." Well, sure, it looks like that if you come in with a certain set of preconceived ideas. But what if someone else came in with a different set of preconceived notions and so said, "Ah-ha! The penis has to go into the vagina for procreation to occur. This shows how men are meant to be surrounded and protected by women, at least once they've become sexually active." And, well, sure. It all depends on what you've already decided is true, likely without even realizing it.
I'm not explaining this well because I'm going through a great deal of professional stress at the moment and took something to help me sleep, only... it didn't. Can someone else say it better?
From A Sarah:
Also, Jamie, I doubt that a lot of moms seek out the paths of *most* resistance. But not every path has obstacles in the same places. For our house, sleep training was the path of least resistance. Really truly. For everyone. Including the kid... not that I think it wouldn't have been okay to sleep train just because I needed the kid out of my dingdang bed. But in our case, this was easiest for all. Maybe my son's not really a primate? Or else I'm either lying or giving an incorrect version of events? (I don't think you're saying that... but, really, how *do* you account for instances where sleeping next to mom really isn't what makes everyone happiest?)
From Susanne:
"But in our case, this was easiest for all. Maybe my son's not really a primate? Or else I'm either lying or giving an incorrect version of events? (I don't think you're saying that... but, really, how *do* you account for instances where sleeping next to mom really isn't what makes everyone happiest?)"
Exactly!
Or how do you account for mothers not having "instinctual" needs / desires to co-sleep? Because I gotta tell you, I don't think it ever even occurred to many women, which sort of puts the lie to the innate / instinctual. Yeah, you could argue they were socialized to crib-in-nursery-down-the-hall as the norm, but I suspect you're equally socialized to baby-in-same-bed as the norm.
Just like the old canard that the definition of tasteful is something I can afford and the definition of gaudy is something I can't -- I think we all see the things that we're attracted to as instinctive / instinctual and the things that we're not attracted to as obviously the prduct of faux social conditioning.
From Esther:
Or as I like putting it: It's innate human nature to create culture.
From Liz:
I do what works until it stops working, and I find, overwhelmingly, that what works best for me is not fighting with my child's inherent preferences.
And what if, as a toddler, your child's innate preference is not to wear shoes (or clothes at all) and snack all day long on chocolate biscuits as opposed to eating crunchy vegetables?
And do all chimpanzees thrive? Quick glance at some figures seemed to imply that quite a high proportion of chimpanzee mothers (especially young ones) want nothing to do with their young, and quite a lot of the infants don't make it to adulthood. And unrelated females would play football with them. Chimp grannies seem pretty good though. So what about the present cultural preference for keeping granny out of the picture?
From SarahNicole:
@Jaime: " trust biology more than culture -- any culture."
Well, as Esther said, "Or as I like putting it: It's innate human nature to create culture."
Also, the more non-human primate research you read, the more you'll read arguments about which non-human primates have at least rudimentary culture themselves. So, which sample of chimps do you mean? And, when you say you look to chimpanzees, do you mean bonobos, or the more common chimp species? Again, I'd suggest the Sperling article, because it goes into the very meanings we human primates put on non-human primate behavior, something Sperling argues we've done as it became less acceptable to use "primitive" -- especially non-white -- humans as the measuring stick for the "natural" versus "cultural" comparison.
From Caryn:
Of course they'e (people who cosleep for ideologival reasons) read McKenna.
Right. He's indexed in PubMed and has a whole academic infant sleep center. It goes back to that whole thing about which authorities you accept, and why. I think it would be possible to argue against his claims, but so far there's just the assertion that, even properly done, cosleeping is more deadly, because the data is suggestive of a correlation. Some of McKenna's data is suggestive of a protective effect. Epidemiologic data is often untrustworthy. Who's right?
Jamie, it's: because it is the case that X has such and such natural property, X is good. But I'm not sure I understand you entirely as claiming that we ought to or that it is good to cosleep because it is natural to cosleep; there seem to be some elements of the empirical claim that coslept babies (and possibly their mothers) thrive on certain markers in comparison to crib bedded babies. (Or perhaps even just that *your* coslept baby thrives on certain markers in comparison to putting him into a crib, which is certainly what I'm claiming.)
In particular, you've said that you reject the claim that crib sleeping is an improvement in the absence of good data showing that, right? And as I understand Dr. Tuteur and Esther at the top of the thread, we don't actually have that data. Instead we have a suggestive epidemiologic correlation because of a change in data reporting.
From Esther:
Caryn:"Right. He's indexed in PubMed and has a whole academic infant sleep center. It goes back to that whole thing about which authorities you accept, and why. I think it would be possible to argue against his claims, but so far there's just the assertion that, even properly done, cosleeping is more deadly, because the data is suggestive of a correlation. Some of McKenna's data is suggestive of a protective effect. Epidemiologic data is often untrustworthy. Who's right?
"
McKenna's data is a bunch of contradictory physiological factoids that don't even come close to suggesting a protective effect to cosleeping. And no evidence, epidemiological or otherwise, has suggested that cosleeping is safER than not (just that it might be AS safe).
From Caryn:
McKenna's data is a bunch of contradictory physiological factoids that don't even come close to suggesting a protective effect to cosleeping.
And that's exactly what obstetricians have always said about Brewer's diet. But it doesn't work, as an argument or as a strategy, because it is just an assertion and you've not provided a reason to believe the assertion is true. I know it's a pain in the ass to take down every single fallacy in a bad argument, and to provide counterevidence, but it's the only thing that works.
Biologists tried ignoring creationists on the grounds that their claims were patently false, too. Now they're 50% of the US population and they're voting against funding. As a strategy, it doesn't work at all.
And no evidence, epidemiological or otherwise, has suggested that cosleeping is safER than not (just that it might be AS safe).
So if there's data suggesting that it might be as safe, how can it be clearly more dangerous? What's wrong with the data suggesting that it's just as safe?
From Susanne:
Safety isn't the only criterion that people use, though, in making decisions.
From Susanne:
"And if nightweaning happens before a year, does the baby still STTN during teething/gross motor milestones?"
Going upthread, but mine slept through the night at 5 months (3 months adjusted age) at around 12 pounds, and yes, they STTN with the exception of unusual circumstances (like taking ill suddenly). It's also pretty much what the doctors told us to expect, and it's pretty much what my mother experienced with her children and my siblings experienced with theirs. Not a lot of fuss about the whole thing,and no "procedures" that needed to be followed. Nighty-night and off we go. Everyone's "natural instincts" seemed to be that this was a fine approach that resulted in a heck of a lot more sleep for everyone than the months of broken, uninterrupted sleep I hear about from people who are never fully asleep because baby is there with him and they react to every rustling, or because they're repeatedly putting an older child back in bed. Maybe it's genetic or maybe it's luck. I don't know.
From Liz:
What I find so fascinating is not just the biology versus culture strand, but received wisdom, changing fashion and how mothers learn to mother. In my day, co-sleeping was unquestionably regarded as both dangerous and unwise, and the horror stories stressed the suffocated and overlain infants. I think I would have quite liked to snuggle up with mine,(I certainly did enough of it with toddlers and older children) but it was, then, unquestionably regarded as Bad Mothering. I am pleased to see that those myths are being dismantled, but nonplussed that it is now the epitome of Good Mothering, and the assumption that today's mothers have access to wisdom that other generations were denied. It is all very relative folks. On another board, their is a discussion going on about adults who were AP.d who, it seems, did not grow up to be wonderful, well balanced individuals who cope effortlesslessly with the pressures of modern life, but feel, as adults often do, that the actions of their parents screwed them up. Do as you please, do what works for you, do, as most of us do, what seems right - but don't count on the outcome being Superchild.
From Susanne:
"I also think you can tell a good deal about the kind of environment/care an organism prefers/thrives in by observing it for a while."
Right. But if I observe your baby, who cries / screams / doesn't sleep unless he's cuddled up with you, and then I observe my baby, who enjoys cuddling just fine during the day but is happy to lie down in a crib at night and go night-night, what kind of observation can I make about babies *in general*? See, you seem to be arguing that babies are [b]innately [/b] the first way and that the babies who aren't have just gotten used to their natural nature being subverted so the poor things have just given up.
And as for the whole family thriving, it's kind of hard to argue that the crib folks have the same level of preschooler-won't-stay-in-his-bed-issues than the co-sleeping folks do. Of course the co-sleepers have a greater incidence of that, precisely because whether it's *innate* and reinforced, or *trained* and reinforced, their children seem to need the presence of the parent and react more strongly to that withdrawal or lack of presence.
Put another way, I think that a 4 yo who can't sleep in his own bed, and understands at some level that mommy used to let me in bed and now she says no, is FAR more damaging than an infant who sleeps in his own crib and occasionally fusses in doing so. Actually, I think there is no comparison between the two.
From SarahNicole:
Given the Caryn's comments above, here's something else that might be appropriate for discussion on this blog: http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/01...w-they-tell-us/
Alot of what we seem to discuss here has to do with research, popularized distillation of that research, and ultimately the cultural practices we are implementing, defending, or condemning based on those readings of that research. And other meaning-making worldviews, which are not based on systematic evidence...
From Mama Liberty:
"Put another way, I think that a 4 yo who can't sleep in his own bed, and understands at some level that mommy used to let me in bed and now she says no, is FAR more damaging than an infant who sleeps in his own crib and occasionally fusses in doing so."
Huh? There are lots of things that a child has to let go of as he grows older.
Susanne, I have no problem with anybody choosing NOT to co-sleep or with the fact that women might find it easier NOT to. My problem is that there is very strong bias from health "authorities" to pressure families against the practice with no sound scientific evidence. And furthermore, cosleeping does make breastfeeding possible for many women who would otherwise give it up. Young babies need to nurse every two hours or sometimes even more often. Prohibiting cosleeping causes problems for many women who want to breastfeed. (Please notice I said *want* to breastfeed. It is no skin off of my back if you want to formula feed and sleep train, or whatever else you want to do.)
From Jen:
"On another board, their is a discussion going on about adults who were AP.d who, it seems, did not grow up to be wonderful, well balanced individuals who cope effortlesslessly with the pressures of modern life, but feel, as adults often do, that the actions of their parents screwed them up."
Please tell me where this is, Liz. I've been on the look-out for something like it for awhile, out of curiosity, but haven't really found anything yet
From Susanne:
"Prohibiting cosleeping causes problems for many women who want to breastfeed."
It would seem to cause or exacerbate problems for those women who are *like you* - for whom the idea of lying in bed and being nursed upon gives you better sleep than waking up to walk down the hall in the middle of the night. It would not cause problems for those women who are not *like you* - who find the idea of getting up to walk down the hall preferable to the idea of having broken, interrupted sleep all night long and who would not sleep well with another person in the bed.
From Susanne:
"Put another way, I think that a 4 yo who can't sleep in his own bed, and understands at some level that mommy used to let me in bed and now she says no, is FAR more damaging than an infant who sleeps in his own crib and occasionally fusses in doing so."
"Huh? There are lots of things that a child has to let go of as he grows older."
Sure. But the child who has been happily sleeping in own bed / crib for a while doesn't have anything to "let go" or to angst about in the first place!
From Mama Liberty:
"It would not cause problems for those women who are not *like you* - who find the idea of getting up to walk down the hall preferable to the idea of having broken, interrupted sleep all night long and who would not sleep well with another person in the bed."
Well, Susanne, I believe that wrt to breastfeeding and cosleeping that most women *are* like me. Keep in mind, that I am talking about BREASTFEEDING mothers, and for the purposes of this discussion I am talking about young, exclusively breastfed infants. I was a breastfeeding peer counselor, ran a breastpump rental business and come from a family of breastfeeding women. I have had exposure to hundreds of breastfeeding mothers. For the newborn/young infant period, most (not all) women sleep better, have longer breastfeeding duration and are happier when they breastfeed and cosleep. Personally, I believe that sleep training might be a good option for some women, but if we are talking about a breastfeeding infant, I think it is inadvisable until they are older and breastfeeding is established. Just my .02!
From Mama Liberty:
"It would not cause problems for those women who are not *like you* - who find the idea of getting up to walk down the hall preferable to the idea of having broken, interrupted sleep all night long and who would not sleep well with another person in the bed."
Well, Susanne, I believe that wrt to breastfeeding and cosleeping that most women *are* like me. Keep in mind, that I am talking about BREASTFEEDING mothers, and for the purposes of this discussion I am talking about young, exclusively breastfed infants. I was a breastfeeding peer counselor, ran a breastpump rental business and come from a family of breastfeeding women. I have had exposure to hundreds of breastfeeding mothers. For the newborn/young infant period, most (not all) women sleep better, have longer breastfeeding duration and are happier when they breastfeed and cosleep. Personally, I believe that sleep training might be a good option for some women, but if we are talking about a breastfeeding infant, I think it is inadvisable until they are older and breastfeeding is established. Just my .02!
From Liz:
It is one Esther's Minstream Parenting Blog. Like this, not definitive, but suggestive.
I do think that being a mother is an impossible job - at least if you want guaranteed outcomes. What works well with one child may not with others. What we attribute our grown-up troubles too is so individual. I have had several interesting conversations with my sister and with my younger daughter, about internalised feelings of self worth, and where they come from. I never met my husband's mother, but as far as I can tell, she was an attentive and devoted mother to her adored only child. I have a lot of sympathy for her approach, and think I would have liked her. Not sure it did my husband any favours though. Sooner or later, you have to recognise you are not the centre of everyone's universe.
From Caryn:
Safety isn't the only criterion that people use, though, in making decisions.
Of course not -- that's why I nodded at the idea that I was maximizing certain markers when I coslept my son, namely the ones that had to do with the amount of sleep everyone was getting -- but Esther has been making an argument about safety.
From Jolene:
"Well, I *do* feel that there's something to be learned from how we lived before Things That Go Beep, and I don't necessarily believe that Those Things are always 100% beneficial to us, but as I said before, I trust biology more than culture -- any culture."
Spoken like a true biologist.
Those of us with Biology degrees (myself included) see the world through eyes somewhat different than those with ... um, dare I say... "softer" ones?
From Jamie:
I haven't read everything here, and I don't have time now, but I wanted to pipe up quickly on the subject of granny chimps.
The toddler I watch during the day was an incredibly colicky newborn -- the kind who screams for most of the day, is impossible to settle, and very quickly depletes her mother's emotional, mental and physical resources to a dangerous level. She has a very involved grandmother, who stayed with the new family for at least a month. I have no doubt that the mere presence of another interested party improved outcomes in that situation, but in practice, Nana had no better notion of how to soothe Baby than her Mother did, as in Nana's culture (Manhattan, circa 1975), it was appropriate for her to have a baby nurse for a month after both of *her* children were born.
This (obviously) is an argument for culture/society improving outcomes, but that's because new mothers aren't abandoned in nuclear families.
Thinking of my mother, I have no doubt that she would be wonderful *with* a baby in her arms, but the advice she gives from 1000 miles away is useless. It's all about weaning and STTN, criticizing my choices, and validation of her own superior mothering (yes, I know this all filtered through our very fractured relationship, but that certainly limits her effectiveness as an interested party).
I'm also realizing that my argument for innate biology is weaker than I originally suspected (and not for all the brilliant reasons that y'all are sharing that I just can't follow). It's because we've been defying our biology for decades (and I think that's an excellent thing -- don't get me wrong). The baby who struggles until he gets his needs met is no longer favored in certain situations, and now the survival of all kinds of babies is more or less assured in our culture.
Example: Parent/caregiver decides to enact a strict 4hr feeding schedule.
Result: Baby does not receive enough nutrition to thrive.
Baby 1: Screams from hour 2-4, wasting precious calories
Baby 2: Sleeps between feedings, therefore conserving calories and ultimately has a better outcome in the same environment.
And lastly, if I can find it...
"We also have higher expectations for our offspring; to the extent that most mammals could even conceptualize what they want for their offspring, it would be merely survival, not self-actualization, security, etc."
Honestly, this is what appeals to me about mammalian parenting. They feed and clean the babies. They feed and clean themselves. They all fall asleep at night in a heap. They don't stress about what the *books* say their baby should be doing, or threats about what their baby *might* want next month. They don't make choices at 2 months designed to maximize their potential at 12 months. 2 months is 2 months, and 12 months is 12 months.
And yes, as a relatively sane adult human, I have an obligation to do one (or two) better and not eat or abandon my young.
From Mama Liberty:
Jamie, I am enjoying your comments.
From Jolene:
"Epidurals were created because many women found childbirth excruciatingly painful."
Woah! I'm falling off my chair laughing. {the precursers to} Epidurals were created for use in OTHER surgerys, and it wasn't until later than somebody slapped their forehead and said, DUH, I bet this would work well for childbirth too!
A second point about co-sleeping and predators.... we no longer need to worry about our children and wild animals, thank goodness. What is the main predator of children today? Any guesses? Yup. "daddy" or "uncle fred" Male family members/friends. Hmmm, maybe keeping the kid next to Mom isn't such a bad idea after all.
From SarahNicole:
@Jolene: "Spoken like a true biologist.
Those of us with Biology degrees (myself included) see the world through eyes somewhat different than those with ... um, dare I say... "softer" ones?"
Really? My husband is a biomedical engineer and cardiovascular physiologist, and he has a startingly similar take on the biology/culture continuum as his qualitative sociologist wife. :-D
From SarahNicole:
@Jolene: Except when Mum is doing the bulk of the physical and psychological child abuse.
From Susanne:
"Well, Susanne, I believe that wrt to breastfeeding and cosleeping that most women *are* like me. Keep in mind, that I am talking about BREASTFEEDING mothers, and for the purposes of this discussion I am talking about young, exclusively breastfed infants."
There's no *inherent* reason to believe that the distribution of the ability to sleep well with others in the bed and/or to react well to being nursed upon would be any different among women who chose to breastfeed than among the general population of women. Choosing to breastfeed may change what you're willing to put up with (i.e., you may decide you'll live with half-awake-half-asleep-all-night long because you believe that bfing is worth it for other reasons) but it doesn't change your (adult) inherent sleep needs.
From Susanne:
"What is the main predator of children today? Any guesses? Yup. "daddy" or "uncle fred" Male family members/friends. Hmmm, maybe keeping the kid next to Mom isn't such a bad idea after all."
Well, if you want to co-sleep with your kid because you're afraid your husband or Uncle Fred is going to go down the hall and molest baby, go for it, but that won't enter into my decision-making at all, and if I have reason to believe that husband or Uncle Fred is a molester, then co-sleeping is sort of the least of my issues, no?
From Elizabeth:
It helps that we aren't into that whole cultural "nicely kept house" thing
Well yeah, but you're a dirty, dirty hippie with no self-esteem. Just don't act all surprised if your kid doesn't get into the best school.
From Elizabeth:
who would not sleep well with another person in the bed.
Oh, so that explains why their sex lives are so pathetic.
Oh wait.
From Jolene:
"@Jolene: Except when Mum is doing the bulk of the physical and psychological child abuse."
I am talking the physical here....psychological is a different animal, but Yup, I agree.
Statistically speaking, It's Mom's partner who's doing the abusing, not Mom. But there is the rare situation when it's Mom, I agree.
From Jolene:
"Well, if you want to co-sleep with your kid because you're afraid your husband or Uncle Fred is going to go down the hall and molest baby, go for it, but that won't enter into my decision-making at all, and if I have reason to believe that husband or Uncle Fred is a molester, then co-sleeping is sort of the least of my issues, no?"
I agree with your point Susanne.
Remember however that Mom almost universally claims not to have known about the abuse. (we can have a whole nother conversation about if we believe that or not) *IF* we accept that Mom didn't know, then my point stands.
I responded to the claim that the biological adaptation of sleeping with an adult is no longer protective, because we don't need to worry about wild animals taking bites out of the baby.
I am asking if that is true. The Predator may be different, but it might still be protective against the predator of the day to sleep with an adult - preferably Mom.
From SarahNicole:
@Jolene: I think you were specifically talking about sexual abuse, which is a subset of physical abuse, and no, statistically speaking, it isn't Mom's partner doing the bulk of the non-sexual physical abuse. It's Mom. In the U.S. an estimated 75% of sexual abuse cases are perpetrated by men, and over 70% of neglect, and 80% of medical neglact is perpetrated by women. What actually counts as physical abuse? Putting hands on a child, or affecting the physical outcomes of a child?
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Child Maltreatment 1997: Reports from the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System. (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1999).
Although here's an interesting deconstruction of those sorts of stats: http://www.thelizlibrary.org/
liz...statistics.html
Linda Gordon's work on the historical emergence of the definitions of child abuse and neglect is fascinating. I have a student and colleagues that study violence in women, and as with much in the criminal justice system, our definitions of what constitutes a crime, and what constitutes a perpetrator, matters.
From desiree:
i've been thinking about the intersection of safety data with parental decision making. it's really new to our generation, i think: the availability of information that paints one parenting choice as objectively superior, in terms of safety, to another. it is really interesting, but i'm going to try to keep my thoughts brief (little DD will be up soon. she's a sleep in her stroller, if anyone cares. )
how worth it is to pin down that co-sleeping (i'm making up numbers here) increases the baby's risk of death by 1 in 10,000? how, supposing this is absolutely true, does this affect any individual family's choice to co-sleep? seems like most of us have kids that in the end, made the choices for us. i think all it really does it induce guilt in the moms that feel like co-sleeping is the only way they'll maintain their sanity and sleep. and yes, moms. becasue i've yet to come across the message board filled with dads debating this stuff.
the information really can be a curse. i mean, we all want to know, and distributed over a population of 4 million babies, well, a 1 in 10,000 risk means 400 babies that might die each year. not so trivial anymore.... but 1 in 10,000, when i'm up at 3 with my baby, desperate to sleep? it's not going to affect my choices.
and, how sucky would it be to have all of your choices made for you by safety margins of 1 in 10,000?
i hope this made sense. i'm a reluctant co-sleeper, so my head is a bit fuzzy. :-P
From Liz:
I honestly can't understand why anyone wants to prioritize biology as a guide to child care. So infants and to some extent mothers are a bundle of instinctual drives but if you want to raise a human baby you are going to have to deviate radically from those drives. Valorising those that fit with what you want to do anyway seems illogical to me.
From Jolene:
"our definitions of what constitutes a crime, and what constitutes a perpetrator, matters."
Oh, I have no doubt.
I was using a much narrower definition of abuse I guess. The definition has seemed to explode of late, and I haven't quite caught up. Last I heard, spanking could be considered abuse.
I'll check out your source.
I was referencing the fact that deaths of children occur almost entirely at the hands of men. (although I've just lately heard of a horrific case where the mother finished the baby off) And physical/sexual abuse (hands ON) occurs mostly at the hands of men (the woman's parnter usually).
I'm not talking about the sort of "abuse/neglect" that the child might need a shrink for later.
Fact of the matter is, predators still exist, although not in the form of a wolf sneaking into a cave. And our biological adaptation to seek the protection of the primary caregiver at night might not be an unnecessary relic after all.
From Jolene:
SarahNicole, From your source
"Note that each counted incident of reported abuse is per occurrence per child, and not per perpetrator. (So that, e.g. one woman caring for 4 kids who didn't send them to school or didn't take them to the dentist when she should have in the opinion of some DCF worker is responsible for four reported counts of neglect-type abuse "perpetrated by a woman," whereas one man's rape of one child would be one count of abuse in the reported statistics.)"
Yeah. That's exactly what I am *NOT* talking about. Although the conclusion of the paper agrees with me, although it's amazing that they do, *EVEN* when they include instances of not taking a kid to the dentist!!! (?) One further note, they removed all statistical abuse of the kind in the night-sleep example above. Abuse that happened when a child was under the care of a COUPLE together, was removed for ease of calculation.
"Children are at astronomically greater risk of physical abuse in the care of a man than in the care of a woman."
From SarahNicole:
@Jolene: "I was referencing the fact that deaths of children occur almost entirely at the hands of men. (although I've just lately heard of a horrific case where the mother finished the baby off) And physical/sexual abuse (hands ON) occurs mostly at the hands of men (the woman's parnter usually)."
I'm still not sure this is true though, given how violence by women is hidden and often invisible. I've heard of -- and read research on (this is the topic my student did her thesis on) -- A LOT of "horrific" cases of women who kill their children, and they're not by any means all that recent... My student was looking at both the actual incidence, and the media representation, of such cases... Yes, horrific. But nearly always presented as MORE horrific than such cases perpetrated by fathers...
From Jamie:
"So infants and to some extent mothers are a bundle of instinctual drives but if you want to raise a human baby you are going to have to deviate radically from those drives. Valorising those that fit with what you want to do anyway seems illogical to me."
Basically, Liz -- I'd rather deviate according to my baby's cues and my own needs than deviate because Dr. Ferber or Dr. Weissbleuth or Dr. Sears think I ought to, in part because I have problems with authority and 'rules,' and in part because I think I can better meet my child's immediate needs if I parent in the present to the best of my ability.
I talk about biology because I believe that observing all infant mammals tells us more about what human newborns *need* than reading up on adult sleep disorders.
From Susanne:
"Children are at astronomically greater risk of physical abuse in the care of a man than in the care of a woman."
That may very well be. Is the biological "conclusion" from that fact to never leave child with any male, even the father? See, this is what I mean. That's a "natural" conclusion to the above observation, but it's irrelevant as to how I'm going to run my life, where I wouldn't have the eensiest bit of hesitation to leave my children with my husband for any period of time.
And in *today's* society, if you (gen) are seriously co-sleeping because you fear dh, you've got far bigger problems to worry about than bedsharing.
From Susanne:
"Basically, Liz -- I'd rather deviate according to my baby's cues and my own needs than deviate because Dr. Ferber or Dr. Weissbleuth or Dr. Sears think I ought to."
But that's precisely what other women are doing too! They're seeing that their babies fall asleep quite nicely in the crib and appear happy upon awakening, so that's what they do! How is that any less instinctive for me than co-sleeping was for you?
YK maybe for *you* 5 minutes of fussing induces uncomfortable feelings in you about an unhappy childhood, troubled relationship with mother, extrapolating that baby is feeling abandoned, and the overwhelming desire to do anything to stop it. Maybe for *me* 5 minutes of fussing induces the feeling of "ah, he just needs to get out some noise in the only way he knows how before he settles down contentedly, but all is certainly well and this is of no meaning or significance." Who are you to say your reaction is more "instinctual" or "innate" than mine? Who are you to say you're doing a better job of reading your baby's cues if two years from now you're frequenting parenting message boards all bleary-eyed saying how do I get this kid out of my bed?
From Susanne:
"I'd rather deviate according to my baby's cues and my own needs than deviate because Dr. Ferber (etc)."
So is the woman who puts her baby in the other room because she likes her privacy at nighttime and the baby seems to enjoy the solitude.
Really, I think your E -extraversion is part of the thing here. As an I, it makes all the intuitive sense in the world to me that a baby, like anyone else, after being stimulated all day, would be happy in his or her "own space" to contentedly fall asleep, and doesn't need people hanging all over them. For you, as an E, it makes all the intuitive sense in the world to you that a baby would want company because who doesn't want company at all times? So *I* extrapolate that keeping the baby with me is potentially overstimulating for baby, whereas *you* extrapolate that putting the baby in the crib is lonely-making for baby. We're just reading it all through our own lenses, but you're claiming that your lens is inherently more innate.
From Caryn:
Put another way, I think that a 4 yo who can't sleep in his own bed, and understands at some level that mommy used to let me in bed and now she says no, is FAR more damaging than an infant who sleeps in his own crib and occasionally fusses in doing so.
Why can't they grow out of it, though, the same way they grow out of staying at home with a caregiver and start to go to school? The same way they used to grow out of short pants and into long pants and boots?
From desiree:
susanne, it's not that most co-sleepers can't stand to hear 5 minutes of fussing. i'm insanely jealous that your kids would fall asleep in their crib after 5 minutes of fussing. it's the hour of screaming, complete with vomiting, that those of us who just "can't" cry it out won't do. what i wouldn't give for 5 mintues of fussing! 10! even an hour of fussing i would do... sigh...
From Susanne:
"Why can't they grow out of it, though, the same way they grow out of staying at home with a caregiver and start to go to school? The same way they used to grow out of short pants and into long pants and boots?"
Why not minimize the chance that it will come to that in the first place by not deliberately setting up a situation where baby gets used to sleeping in a situation where eventually the rug will be pulled out under him?
From Mama Liberty:
I'd probably do sleep training if it meant 5 minutes of fussing! I had a friend who did CIO and I had to stop going over to her house at nap time because this kid would scream for 20-25 minutes and it really bothered me. I felt sorry for the baby. Sorry if that is judgmental.
I'd like to make a correction about abuse by fathers. Most abuse is perpetrated by non-related male partners... step-dad or boyfriend of mom, NOT by biological fathers married to the biological mom. But, hey, biology is of no consequence to a modern society, right?
From Jamie:
"Why not minimize the chance that it will come to that in the first place by not deliberately setting up a situation where baby gets used to sleeping in a situation where eventually the rug will be pulled out under him?"
Because working it out with a verbal 4yo makes more sense to me than trying to guess what my 4m/o baby can or cannot handle because of what *might* happen when he's 4yo.
From SarahNicole:
@Mama Liberty: "I'd like to make a correction about abuse by fathers. Most abuse is perpetrated by non-related male partners... step-dad or boyfriend of mom, NOT by biological fathers married to the biological mom. But, hey, biology is of no consequence to a modern society, right?"
Again, which kind of abuse? If we're including neglect and medical neglect, most adverse physical outcomes defined as crimes against children are still committed by women, and mostly by biological mothers.
Nancy Fischer did some very interesting work on the cultural retention of patriarchy in family law, showing that sexual abuse as committed by fathers, stepfathers, or male partners of mothers was directed towards family court and couseling, thereby keeping the abused child *with* the abuser, while sexual abuse as committed by strangers (or non-familial men) was directed towards the criminal courts. Is that biology, or culture?
From Caryn:
Why not minimize the chance that it will come to that in the first place by not deliberately setting up a situation where baby gets used to sleeping in a situation where eventually the rug will be pulled out under him?
I'm still not seeing why it's horribly traumatic, the sort of thing that pulls the rug out from under a child, instead of a marker of *growing up*.
Admittedly, my son asked yesterday if he could have a team of oxen and a bobsled to haul wood with when *he* was 10, just like Almanzo, so maybe he's more excited by the idea of markers of maturity than some other children.
But I'm not seeing the claim that moving from one bed to another is the sort of thing a child cannot learn without trauma as justified by, well, anything. It seems speculative.
From Jolene:
"I'd like to make a correction about abuse by fathers. Most abuse is perpetrated by non-related male partners... step-dad or boyfriend of mom, NOT by biological fathers married to the biological mom. But, hey, biology is of no consequence to a modern society, right?"
Oh, you are absolutly right! I should have said *step-daddy* or *uncle fred*
From Jolene:
"Again, which kind of abuse? If we're including neglect and medical neglect..."
I'm not.
From Liz:
Well I don't think anyone can be criticised for not being able to stand their child screaming blue murder - I don't know many who could. I honestly don't remember my second daughter even doing much in the way of fussing - she slept happily in crib/cot from the start. I do think a lot of lines are getting blurred here - the child who will sleep/stay asleep versus the child who will wake as you move away or put them down.
My oldest could scream for England, unfortunately, into adolescence. It can still be very hard to comfort her when she is distressed. Not early conditioning, or I hope bad mothering, just a function of her damaged brain and disordered language skills. Quite small triggers could set her off, and you did just learn to live with it. I have seen several over-confident care givers reduced to jelly by their inability to deal with her. Maybe crying in itself is more complex than we realise.
From A Sarah:
Mama Liberty: But, hey, biology is of no consequence to a modern society, right?
Who said this? Has anyone yet addressed what the claim really was -- that there's no way to completely separate "an interpretation based on biology" and "an interpretation based on culture," because as soon as you're doing any interpreting of the meanings of purpose of body parts, you are *necessarily* bringing your cultural assumptions to bear?
Maybe Jolene, when she writes: Those of us with Biology degrees (myself included) see the world through eyes somewhat different than those with ... um, dare I say... "softer" ones?
So you're saying you acquire different cultural lenses by virtue of your training as a biologist as opposed to someone with training in the humanities, and this affects how you interpret data? Because... well, yeah. Exactly.
From Esther:
Jolene:"Those of us with Biology degrees (myself included) see the world through eyes somewhat different than those with ... um, dare I say... "softer" ones?"
Only if your biology studies have conditioned you to be too enamoured of biological determinism. I've noticed more anthropologists than biologists falling for that one, frankly.
"Fact of the matter is, predators still exist, although not in the form of a wolf sneaking into a cave. And our biological adaptation to seek the protection of the primary caregiver at night might not be an unnecessary relic after all."
I think that's reaching an awful lot. By the same logic, you should also be cosleeping with your teens, or even your adult children (to protect your daughter from the rapist who comes through the window, perhaps?).
Liz - are you referring to Basiorana's comments here? I'm not entirely clear if the people she was referring to were APed in the sense we're using here, but would be interested in hearing their POV of they happened to show up. IME, APed (as per MDC) kids make for very undisciplined preschoolers, and - for the most part - normal and fairly non-sparkly young adults. I don't know that any of them have ended up on the shrink's couch, but then again, their parents probably wouldn't have shared this.
Caryn - my issues with cosleeping as they are presented on parenting websites are 1) that it's often portrayed as both being safer than not (which, according to all the epidemiological evidence we have - and it's replicable - is simply not true, at least for the first 2-3 months). Even McKenna recognizes this, kinda sorta out of the side of his mouth, when he's not talking to gullible mommies via Mothering Ragazine, 2) However small the risk is, it's still possible to reduce it to ZERO by providing a separate sleeping surface for the baby and still cosleep (either with a sidecar or one that fits in the parents' bed), 3) the more ardent cosleeping advocates claim benefits for cosleeping in the psychological realm (really scraping the bottom of the research barrel by quoting two unpublished masters' these, one of which was proctored by McKenna if memory serves) so that cosleeping mommies can really feel "so sad" for the poor widdle non-cosleeping babies, and 4) the controversy is almost always (falsely) presented as bedsharing vs. newborn baby shunted to a cold room on the other side of the house.
I've discussed the larger part of the evidence regarding cosleeping on my blog here and here, if you're interested.
From Susanne:
"I had a friend who did CIO and I had to stop going over to her house at nap time because this kid would scream for 20-25 minutes and it really bothered me. I felt sorry for the baby. Sorry if that is judgmental."
I'd probably feel more sorry for the mother, who (naturally) finds it upsetting. I'm not so sure that I can conclude that it is as bothersome to the baby as it is to the mother.
From AA:
I believe the most recent publication on sleeping from the AAP states that children 6 months and younger should be in the same room with a parent to sleep (bassinet, crib, sidecar etc).
DS 1 was very high needs-didn't sleep well, and I was pumping and bottlefeeding him the milk (DH also fed). I couldn't sleep with him in the room (due to PPD and anxiety). For 4 months DS 1 slept in the Pack N Play in the living room with DH for most of the night, then I would take over around 3am or so for the early morning feedings. We did CIO-lite at 8 months (with him in the crib) and he STTN no problem. At 2.5 years he transitioned to a bed with no issue. Right around 3.5 he started coming to "visit" most every night between 2-6am and continues to do so do this day. Attempts to "bring him back repeatedly" have resulted in ALL of us up for hours and him grouchy and unbearable at school the next day. For now we accept that he visits and everyone is happily SLEEPING.
DS 2-coslept in our bed for about 6 months then moved to his crib when his night wakings increased rather than decreased. A few nights of before bed fussing but overall smooth transition. Nightweaned at about 12 months (he was down to one feeding that I would get up for but easily fell back to sleep). He STTN great-we'll see what the pre-school years bring.
I think every child is different and even if you put your child in a crib and they STTN before a year, some will always still want to be in bed with Mommy and Daddy.
From Jamie:
No, I think extroversion is a different (though relevant) issue.
I'm still convinced that newborn humans (like all other newborn mammals) are biologically predisposed to seek close contact. *They* don't know, as newborns, whether or not it is necessary for *their* survival, because they have not yet been socialized as humans.
The part I conceded earlier is that the persistent human newborn is less favored today than it would have been 100 years ago, because in *our* culture, the survival of nearly all healthy newborns is more or less assured. But that doesn't change the biological hardwiring for the majority of newborns.
In addition, it is different to give an obviously overstimulated space and downtime than to simply -say- that they 'must' be overstimulated without any cues from them.
Now, right now, I just turned on a DVD for my 4y/o because his friend just left, he was clearly getting agitated with her, and I know that vegging out with some Dora helps him relax (he's a very easily stimulated kid). But you know what? I can happily admit that *I* need some space from him too, and that suggesting a DVD was not purely for his benefit.
If you (gen) as an introverted parent need some space from your child, that's fine. Go ahead and meet your needs -- I'm all for that. Just don't justify it as the child's need if the child isn't actually presenting the need, kwim?
From Jamie:
"I'd probably feel more sorry for the mother, who (naturally) finds it upsetting. I'm not so sure that I can conclude that it is as bothersome to the baby as it is to the mother."
Why is the mother's upset 'natural?' What if she doesn't have instincts, as you insist not all mothers have?
Anecdote: Three days before I gave birth to Caleb (DS2), I was in the grocery store. I heard an infant squalling. Newborn squall. I left my hubbie, mother, and son in line, and sought out the baby. His mother was bagging her groceries, and I jumped into help her, convinced that her stress level must be going through the roof with such a tiny baby in distress when she couldn't really do anything for him.
Nope. She was all smiles. She chatted with me about my belly, told me her baby's name, and observed, "Oh, you're crying real tears now!" with some real enthusiasm.
I was flabbergasted. Maybe she was just exceptionally good at hiding her stress, or maybe her baby was exceptionally colicky, and she was accustomed to hearing that kind of cry, or maybe she really experienced no distress. I have no way of knowing, obviously, but it clearly stuck with me.
From Jolene:
"Maybe Jolene, when she writes: Those of us with Biology degrees (myself included) see the world through eyes somewhat different than those with ... um, dare I say... "softer" ones?
So you're saying you acquire different cultural lenses by virtue of your training as a biologist as opposed to someone with training in the humanities, and this affects how you interpret data? Because... well, yeah. Exactly."
Yes! Yes!
"Only if your biology studies have conditioned you to be too enamoured of biological determinism. I've noticed more anthropologists than biologists falling for that one, frankly."
HA HA HA! You caught me! I have a long background of biology/chem/micro but my current interest is anthropology. I concede whatever point was still being challenged!
Perhaps it is my own task to reconcile the differences between the two lenses, as I become more immersed in the "soft" science of anthopology.
From Caryn:
according to all the epidemiological evidence we have - and it's replicable - is simply not true
It's also true that obesity is correlated to preeclampsia, according to a bunch of replicated epidemiological studies. Does that mean that obesity causes preeclampsia? Or might an underlying condition trigger both, especially given that the majority of obese women don't develop it and a non-trivial number of normal or under-weight women do?
However small the risk is, it's still possible to reduce it to ZERO by providing a separate sleeping surface for the baby and still cosleep (either with a sidecar or one that fits in the parents' bed)
Reduce the risk of SIDS to zero by doing this? Reduce the risk of being overlaid by the mother by doing this? Reduce the risk of strangulation in the blind cords by doing this? And how does this resolve the problem of a baby with a temperment such that if you stop touching him, he wakes up?
As you note, the really big problem with this argument is that *people aren't careful*.
They're particularly not careful about what, precisely, it is that they're claiming. Then they take umbrage at the suggestion that they've abandoned their baby in another room and walked off for the night, or at the suggestion that they just aren't psychologically tough enough to handle a little whimpering.
And there is absolutely no need to broadly and falsely characterize other people's psychological conditions or the temperments of their babies as poor in order to deal with the empirical claims.
From Esther:
Caryn:"It's also true that obesity is correlated to preeclampsia, according to a bunch of replicated epidemiological studies. Does that mean that obesity causes preeclampsia? Or might an underlying condition trigger both, especially given that the majority of obese women don't develop it and a non-trivial number of normal or under-weight women do?"
Yes? And what "underlying condition" would predispose women not to cosleep and reduce SIDS/SUDI in their babies?
Given the study in the OP and other information gathered over the years, there is some kind of a plausible cause-and-effect mechanism to explain the data. There is NO empirical or epidemiologic evidence that cosleeping reduces SIDS/SUDI.
"Reduce the risk of SIDS to zero by doing this? Reduce the risk of being overlaid by the mother by doing this? Reduce the risk of strangulation in the blind cords by doing this?"
You're right, I should have been more precise. It reduces the excess deaths caused by sharing a sleep surface with an adult. Even ardent cosleepers admit this risk exists, hence the rules about safe cosleeping. Putting the baby on a separate sleep surface (at least for the first few months) sidesteps this problem completely.
"And how does this resolve the problem of a baby with a temperment such that if you stop touching him, he wakes up?"
It doesn't, though you don't have to stop touching a baby who's right next to you, albeit on a different surface. Either way, one can try to alter the baby's behavior as mentioned upthread, or seek professional help if this isn't satisfactory. (Sorry, Caryn, but you did ask).
From Jamie:
"I have a long background of biology/chem/micro but my current interest is anthropology."
That's interesting. I have a background of Biology, a strong personal interest in Behavioral Pysch and a degree in Child Development.
Who knows what's instructing me at any given sentence?
From Jamie:
"You're right, I should have been more precise. It reduces the excess deaths caused by sharing a sleep surface with an adult. Even ardent cosleepers admit this risk exists, hence the rules about safe cosleeping. Putting the baby on a separate sleep surface (at least for the first few months) sidesteps this problem completely."
Ah, thank you clarifying this. I took issue with you upthread because I believed you were suggesting that the risk of SIDs (specifically) increased with bedsharing babies in the first few months, and the idea that more babies simply die in the arms of their parents than do in cribs made absolutely no sense to me.
From Susanne:
"I was flabbergasted. Maybe she was just exceptionally good at hiding her stress, or maybe her baby was exceptionally colicky, and she was accustomed to hearing that kind of cry, or maybe she really experienced no distress. I have no way of knowing, obviously, but it clearly stuck with me."
I think it's quite possible it simply didn't bother her at the level that it bothered you. Which is neither good nor bad, simply different.
From Susanne:
"I was flabbergasted."
I'm kind of flabbergasted that you're flabbergasted .
From Jamie:
"I think it's quite possible it simply didn't bother her at the level that it bothered you. Which is neither good nor bad, simply different."
It didn't appear to her bother her at *all.* I hope the greater possibility is that she can hide her stress better than I can, because I have a lot of trouble seeing how a mother who has *no* stress response to her squalling NEWBORN represents a completely neutral situation.
From Jamie:
"I'm kind of flabbergasted that you're flabbergasted."
Really? Maybe you're being sarcastic. Though I must admit, I'm far less of a tender heart with my kids than you think I am.
From Susanne:
Well, then she's different from you. That's all. She maybe doesn't get as worked up about squalling as she does about full-on crying.
From Jamie:
"She maybe doesn't get as worked up about squalling as she does about full-on crying."
...I thought squalling *was* full on crying...
From Jamie:
From dictionary.com:
squall 1 (skwôl) Pronunciation Key
n. A loud, harsh cry.
intr.v. squalled, squall·ing, squalls
To scream or cry loudly and harshly.
Basically, this baby was going hoarse. You could hear him all over the store.
From Susanne:
Oh, okay. I was thinking of it in more of a fussing manner. Maybe I'm using the word incorrectly.
From Susanne:
See, my natural instinct would be to quiet the baby if for no other reason than not to disturb people around me
From Jamie:
"See, my natural instinct would be to quiet the baby if for no other reason than not to disturb people around me."
What a beautifully socialized human you are, Susanne.
She really couldn't quiet him because she had bag her groceries. It was just a yucky situation for both of them (I assumed).
Like I said, I *hope* that she could simply compartmentalize her stress better than I could in the situation.
From Jamie:
"See, my natural instinct would be to quiet the baby if for no other reason than not to disturb people around me."
I'm also finding it funny that you believe that your 'natural instinct' is to be socialized in this situation.
From Caryn:
Yes? And what "underlying condition" would predispose women not to cosleep and reduce SIDS/SUDI in their babies?
The mechanism I've heard proposed (and linked to upthread) is an early failure of autonomic self-regulation, leading both to more sleep disturbances *and* to breathing issues.
In other words, the mothers who cannot get their babies to sleep via any other method *also* have babies predisposed to SIDS.
It doesn't, though you don't have to stop touching a baby who's right next to you, albeit on a different surface.
Yes, but again, mine woke if I shifted my weight. For months.
Either way, one can try to alter the baby's behavior as mentioned upthread, or seek professional help if this isn't satisfactory.
And when both those options fail, an awful lot of people will resort to the thing that allows them to sleep.
From Ericacrochets:
Esther wrote, "Mind you, after they learned how to STTN by themselves, I would treat any middle-of-the-might cries as indicating distress (with my second son - who was and still is my best sleeper - it was usually an ear infection) and attend them immediately."
Thanks for answering my question, Esther. That makes sense.
From Jamie:
"But you have defined biology as the *assumption* that babies innately need the presence of mother in the same sleeping quarters to sleep well, and that such is a biological truth - and that using a crib or other location is subverting biology (even if baby seems happy enough, etc.)."
Susanne -- going back a little.
You had missed my point: You are talking purely about outcomes here, ie: how well the baby sleeps. I'm talking about the biological drive that *all* newborn mammals have to seek close contact for food and warmth. I'm talking about the need, not the results of meeting or ignoring the need (though I do believe that *everyone* benefits from meeting the need).
In addition, I think you're being sneaky. You imply that *I* would take issue with a happy baby in a crib or a few minutes of fussing, but then defend the choice to leave a baby crying alone for 30 minutes, or that a newborn should be quieted so that he doesn't disturb a bunch of strangers at the grocery store. I'm sure there's a debating term for this sort of behavior, and I don't know what it is, but I thought I would point it out.
From A Sarah:
Jamie, have you yet addressed the point that the whole notion of "natural" is a cultural construction? And one that's particularly trendy right now? I'm genuinely asking. I've read the thread and there are points where I think you're addressing it, but I'm not sure because I've had a hellish day and I've got a stabby headache. I guess what I'm wondering is: would you even consider the possibility that this is the case - i.e. that "natural" is a kind of coding that's cultural in origin and use? Or do you have an a priori assumption that "natural" and "cultural" are two discrete spheres with no overlap?
From Liz:
In other words, the mothers who cannot get their babies to sleep via any other method *also* have babies predisposed to SIDS.
Well there's a terrifying thought for any mother with a child who won't sleep. Whether co-sleeping reduces the risk I wouldn't know, but I can see that it could reduce the fear. Is it possible to rescue a baby from quietly losing its grip on life?
To be honest, given that my eldest had uncontrolled, life threatening nocturnal epilepsy for a lot of years I did feel that I kept her alive out of sheer will-power. And given the crisis state we lived in through those years, I was very glad my younger daughter slept well.
From Jamie:
A Sarah...
I don't think I have addressed it. Obviously, I'm a fairly socialized adult. It would pretty arrogant for me to insist that my 'vision' of biology is pure and adulterated by my own socialization, right?
I guess though, that I'm not really sure how your question applies, because I'm not making cultural assumptions when I insist that newborn humans have the same biological drives as other newborn mammals.
Maybe I just don't understand what you're asking (I'm not nearly as smart as just about everyone else who posts here).
From Jamie:
"Is it possible to rescue a baby from quietly losing its grip on life?"
That's why apnea monitors are so popular.
I know a couple of co-sleeping mothers who insist that they've roused their still infant who appeared to have quietly stopped breathing.
From Caryn:
Well there's a terrifying thought for any mother with a child who won't sleep. Whether co-sleeping reduces the risk I wouldn't know...
Me either. But it is a possible explanation for a higher rate of SIDS among cosleepers.
This is interesting, given that a lot of the likely causes of preeclampsia are also related to autonomic control.
From Susanne:
Could someone really obtain an apnea monitor without medical cause? Mine were on them, but obviously they had medical cause to do so. BTW, ain't nothing natural about no apnea monitor
From Caryn:
Oops, sorry for the serial posting; broke my link.
There's also a potential connection between placental abnormalities and SIDS, again interesting given what we now know about the aetiology of PE, and this, which says The strong association between mild preeclampsia and childhood SDB underscores the importance of research aimed at understanding in utero risk factors for neurorespiratory development", but while I'd like personally to see some research into the frequency of sleep disorder among children who were born of pregnancies known to be ones where the placenta was pathologic, I'm unaware of any such data.
From Esther:
*knock knock*
Hello? Is this thing on?
From Liz:
Ah, yes, apnea monitors. I remember those. Not fondly. How it would go off as one tried reluctantly to leave NICU for a while. False alarms, most of the time.
I wonder if perhaps the NICU experience is not quite what the uninitiated might suppose? To learn both the terrifying vulnerability of your child and the tenacity of the will to live doesn't leave you unmarked. Maybe what you learn is a degree of realism and a lesson in powerlessness, so that you start out knowing that an infant left to fuss is not the end of the world, mother is not, in reality, all powerful and that disaster is often sudden, unpredictable and unavoidable. Does that harden your heart? I don't think so. On reflection, I lived in a state of hyper-vigilance and awareness with my daughter - maybe still do - but, somehow, calmly, without exaggerated fears. Not an experience I would recommend, but maybe not entirely negative.
From Mama Liberty:
"I wonder if perhaps the NICU experience is not quite what the uninitiated might suppose?"
Are you directing this comment at a particular group here? What do you think the unitiated suppose and how does that affect their parenting choices?
From Caryn:
An analogy for Jamie, one that might be pretty close to the point she wants to make:
My cats are terrified of the hairdryer. They don't like the noise. When my son was an infant, he was terrified of the hairdryer too, but nowadays, he asks me to blowdry his hair, because he prefers it to being cold.
He outgrew his prior response without conditioning. I didn't blowdry his hair against his vocal objections when he was a baby on the grounds that he'd need it if we moved from AZ to PA and it got colder outside. As he grew older, his cognitive capacity to learn and adjust his behavior matured(something my cats will never have happen to them) and at that point, I started blowdrying his hair.
From ElizabethP:
That analogy makes sense to me and I have to say I agree with Jamie (sorry for following this all without posting, I didn't really want to get involved but I'm going to share my anecdata anyway since everyone else is).
I was the total over-the-top AP parent with my daughter in regards to co-sleeping and I never let her make a peep when she was an infant. Yes, this did mean that when she was 18 months old she had very bad habits as a sleeper. But when the co-sleeping didn't work for me any more I was able to put new routines into place with very little difficulty. Now she is nearly 4 and she goes to bed in her own bed in her own room before 7 every night and sleeps straight through until 6:30.
IMO there are two principles that apply to most children: 1) if you really want to change your routines and are committed, you absolutely can do so and there may be crying but it will be quite temporary and 2) if you don't change a thing your child will most likely change of their own accord, but you might not want to wait that long.
These principles aren't sacrosanct, which is why I qualified my statement. I've definitely heard of babies for whom sleep training doesn't work - i.e. they cry for hours night after night after night. (Probably the parents are just trying too soon.) And sometimes a child will *not* change without nudging from the parents, at least not on a timescale that the parent can accept.
But at one point I was so scared that I'd "ruined" my daughter's sleep habits for good because I was so indulgent of her as an infant. It wasn't true. When the situation stopped working we changed it. I think most first-time mothers feel like whatever they do with their babies sets the tone for years to come, and although in some vague sense that may be true, children are really so flexible and I've seen enough CIO'd-babies-who-become-co-sleeping-toddlers and co-sleeping-babies-who-become-independent-
sleeping-toddlers, and members of both groups who go on to be good OR bad sleepers as kids...that I just don't think there are many more specific generalizations to be made about this issue.
I do have to agree with Jamie that babies are born seeking physical closeness and if they end up happy without it, that is the conditioned response, not the continued presence of the mother. I can't believe that is even up for debate? It presupposes no judgment on someone who would gently condition their infant to sleep alone, it's just a biological fact that babies seek proximity to their caregivers/food source. As to the well-baby nurseries, of course all babies go into a very sleepy phase after birth and will happily sleep anywhere for the first 24-48 hours - it's not relevant to the rest of their babyhood that they may have slept contently in an isolette in the hospital!
From Lies_DamLies_and_stats:
"I wonder if perhaps the NICU experience is not quite what the uninitiated might suppose?"
Hmmmm.... it occurs to me that "NICU" could be replaced in this sentence with many different words or phrases, including:
unmedicated birth
homebirth
breastfeeding
co-sleeping
cloth diapering
attachment parenting
... you get the idea. Of course, it applies to medical complications and the like too. I have found, however, in this forum and IRL, that it appears to be easier and more common for people to express judgment about the above concepts than about medical complications and NICU stays - probably due to our socialization and cultural constructs. Extracting tongue from cheek here, I think it's important to point out that there are comments from "uninitiated" peanut galleries that can often seem uneducated, crass, and rude to the "initiates" of any parenting choice or circumstance. There are just some that it's more socially acceptable to razz.
From Susanne:
I think that's a fair point, LDLAS. I surmise that Liz perhaps meant it in the sense that once you've seen your child in NICU, you just can't get worked up about the "problem" of having a crying child, if that makes sense.
I also want to go back to Jamie's observation about the lady in the grocery store who flabbergasted her by being relatively sanguine about her crying child. I didn't take Jamie to believe that this woman was otherwise a "bad mother" (neglectful, etc.) but that Jamie was surprised that the woman didn't have the all-compelling instinct that she did.
And it made me think about situations I've encountered, let's say a baby shower or other situation where there are lots of women / mothers and a baby or two.
I've always observed that there is a vocal minority who just coos and goos over the baby, anyone's baby, with all the isn't-that-cute? and can-I-hold-him? and isn't-he-so-darling? Taken to the extremes, some of these women can be cloying and over the top. And then there's another group who does so, but in more of a subdued manner. And there's there's another group who don't love their own children any less, but they're just not all that interested in other people's babies, aren't really all that interested in holding them, and just aren't the stereotypical I-love-all-the-little-babies-of-the-world types. And this latter group sometimes wonders if some members of the first group are a put-on because there's a meme that All Mothers Just Adore Scrumptious Little Babies and Can't Get Enough of Them. And there is tremendous social pressure to adhere to that meme, IMO. And I think Jamie may have simply encountered someone from that third group and gotten flabbergasted that this woman wasn't All Over Her Precious Baby. IOW, one person's gushing is another person's fake put-on for show; one person's matter-of-factness is another person's coldness, know what I mean?
From Susanne:
Linked to the moment of All Mothers Adore Scrumptious Little Babies is also the meme that All Mothers Just Melt Into Puddles When Their Babies Cry. And again, one woman's immediate-responsiveness is another woman's smothering, and one woman's measured reaction is another woman's detached.
From Caryn:
I surmise that Liz perhaps meant it in the sense that once you've seen your child in NICU, you just can't get worked up about the "problem" of having a crying child, if that makes sense.
Yes, but this is precisely the false dichotomy Elizabeth was objecting to.
Which is it, that my son was never in NICU, or that I didn't get worked up about the "problem" of having a crying child? Or am I somehow exempt from the characterization of a Mama Whose Lower Lip Quivers At The Thought Of A Crying Baby *because* I had a NICU baby? Or am I just all that difficult to stereotype?
From Mama Liberty:
Susanne, I seem to defy many of your musing in your preceeding post. I was a NICU mom and I am extremely sensitive to the cries of my children. What I brought away from the experience was a sense of the fragility of life. My son cried so much that he had to be sedated. The nurses said he was one of the worst criers they had ever seen. That experience made me want to do everything I could for him when he did come home... I wanted to take care of him in the moment... nursing him, sleeping with him, holding him close. It seemed the right way to take care of him.
Also, even though I am a physically affectionate mother and do many "AP" things, I am not gaga over all babies or children. Truthfully, I adore my own children, but I don't much care for other peoples children. I mean they are cute and everything, but I don't feel compelled to hold them or play games with them like I do with my own children. The cries of other chilren do bother me, though... particularly if I am away from my own.
From Susanne:
Mama Liberty, Liz was doing the musing about the NICU. I merely surmised what I thought she was thinking; I may be completely off base. I don't personally see a lot of linkage.
"My son cried so much that he had to be sedated. The nurses said he was one of the worst criers they had ever seen."
That sounds horrible. It's quite possible that my opinion is informed by having reasonably low-needs, content babies who may have cried now and then as all babies do, but for the most part were sunny and cheerful and fell asleep with a minimum of fuss.
"I wanted to take care of him in the moment... nursing him, sleeping with him, holding him close. It seemed the right way to take care of him."
WADR, though, I'm sure I wanted to take of my children in the moment too - it was a long haul getting ours home, to be sure. But I don't see how taking care of a baby all day and then at nighttime, here's your lullaby and your bedtime story and your tuck-in and off we go represents "not taking care of them in the moment." It's that dichotomy I object to.
From Jamie:
Taryn and ElizabethP, thank you! That's exactly what I'm getting at. ^_^
"BTW, ain't nothing natural about no apnea monitor."
I want a t-shirt that says: "I am my baby's apnea monitor."
From Esther:
Caryn:"The mechanism I've heard proposed (and linked to upthread) is an early failure of autonomic self-regulation, leading both to more sleep disturbances *and* to breathing issues.
In other words, the mothers who cannot get their babies to sleep via any other method *also* have babies predisposed to SIDS."
It's an interesting idea, but couldn't possibly account for the overwhelming majority of SIDS/SUDI cases. Was it true in the case of your son? Was your son one of those kids who were extremely excitable as a result of the placental insufficiency he suffered in utero? Maybe. Is it clear he was a baby who "couldn't get to sleep" using any other method? Not clear, since you would have refused to use some methods I would have tried (because I'm a 'mean mama' or because the resulting lack of sleep would probably predispose me towards infanticide or suicide, whatever was easier ). Which was your choice and utterly legit, but is still far from being a baby who 'can't get to sleep by any other method'.
Look, the common theory that SIDS/SUDI stems from a combination of a vulnerable baby (and we can't always tell which baby is vulnerable) who meets a respiratory challenge they can't rise above in the manner a normal baby does. In which case, an adult bed environment, which normally presents more such challenges (head covering by blankets, wedging etc.) should be even worse for such a baby.
From Esther:
Elizabeth:"IMO there are two principles that apply to most children: 1) if you really want to change your routines and are committed, you absolutely can do so and there may be crying but it will be quite temporary and 2) if you don't change a thing your child will most likely change of their own accord, but you might not want to wait that long.
These principles aren't sacrosanct, which is why I qualified my statement. I've definitely heard of babies for whom sleep training doesn't work - i.e. they cry for hours night after night after night. (Probably the parents are just trying too soon.) And sometimes a child will *not* change without nudging from the parents, at least not on a timescale that the parent can accept."
ITA.
From Susanne:
"I want a t-shirt that says: "I am my baby's apnea monitor."
I know that's cute and you mean it tongue-in-cheek, but it's not cute to those of us who really needed them. BTW, the monitors monitored heart rate dropping, not merely breathing movements. There was also a mechanism for checking O2 sat levels. Even the most hands-on of mothers isn't a substitute!
From Jamie:
"It's quite possible that my opinion is informed by having reasonably low-needs, content babies who may have cried now and then as all babies do, but for the most part were sunny and cheerful and fell asleep with a minimum of fuss."
I think a NICU stay is an example of a contemporary setting where the behavior of the more intense or persistent baby is not favored (in the biological, not the cultural sense). And NICU babies, in general, have fewer resources to spare in an effort to get their needs met.
I never meant to imply that meeting *every* baby's innate biological needs represents the same challenge, which may be part of why Susanne has trouble swallowing what I'm saying. I've worked with infants and toddlers for almost a decade now, and I really have met incredibly easy babies. My new baby is much 'easier' than my firstborn. I'm not suggesting that I know, specifically, what makes those babies easy, and other babies 'hard.' I'm only saying that *all* mammals, whether human or mouse, are born to seek close contact for warmth and food. Period. That's it.
My *preference* as a parent and caregiver is to respect the child's biological drives as much as possible. It is an approach that both makes sense to me intellectually and works for me well in practice. It's what I choose for my family, and what I recommend if I'm approached for advice. I don't see any need to defend that.
From Jamie:
"I know that's cute and you mean it tongue-in-cheek, but it's not cute to those of us who really needed them."
I was afraid I would offend someone. I'm sorry, Susanne.
My understanding of apnea is limited, but I've recently that a large percentage of babies experience apnea, but that the 'vulnerable' babies (as Esther mentioned above) can be endangered by it.
From Caryn:
Is it clear he was a baby who "couldn't get to sleep" using any other method? Not clear, since you would have refused to use some methods I would have tried (because I'm a 'mean mama' or because the resulting lack of sleep would probably predispose me towards infanticide or suicide, whatever was easier ). Which was your choice and utterly legit, but is still far from being a baby who 'can't get to sleep by any other method'.
Au contraire -- I *tried* all of the techniques you would have tried, as I said above.
Look, the common theory that SIDS/SUDI stems from a combination of a vulnerable baby (and we can't always tell which baby is vulnerable) who meets a respiratory challenge they can't rise above in the manner a normal baby does. In which case, an adult bed environment, which normally presents more such challenges (head covering by blankets, wedging etc.) should be even worse for such a baby.
You asked about *SIDS*, not suffocation, and not adult overlayment.
From Lies_DamLies_and_stats:
Caryn -
You asked about *SIDS*, not suffocation, and not adult overlayment.
Thank you, thank you, thank you! It drives me _nuts_ when people conflate these things.
From Esther:
"Thank you, thank you, thank you! It drives me _nuts_ when people conflate these things."
See, the problem is that they are probably entirely conflatable. There's no way to tell them apart other than by death scene examination. Even an autopsy won't often give an answer (which, to remind you, was mentioned in the OP). Which is why the medical community is not calling it SIDS/SUDI and suspecting at least some of the cases are due to suffocation (though for all we know, all of them may be via various mechanisms, inadvertent overlaying being only one of those mechanisms).
From Esther:
Sorry, should be "Which is why the medical community is calling it SIDS/SUDI".
From Ericacrochets:
I have an idea for preventing ALL SIDS during naps. And that is to do what I did. Hold them. I held my older son for all his naps while I read on the couch. I kept my younger one in a front carrier while I did other things.
I did not do this to prevent SIDS directly but because it was too hard to get them go down for naps on their backs when they were very young and at risk for SIDS.
With me, awake, holding them, it seems reasonable to say that their riks of SIDS was 0. But if you go to the SIDS website, all they will say is put baby on back in crib with no blankets, pillows, stuffed animals, bumper pads, etc. Oh, by the way, babies still die this way.
But as far as I know, babies don't die of SIDS with awake parents holding them. But this violates some deeply held sleep hygeine principle so would never be recommended by a doctor.
And maybe the argument would be that then the baby is not conditioned to go in the perfect crib situation (which babies still die in) at night.
Just a thought. I'm not sure what it means.
From Liz:
...Are you directing this comment at a particular group here? What do you think the unitiated suppose and how does that affect their parenting choices?...
Not really. Though there has been a whiff of “You can’t know what a real mother, properly bonded, feels” aimed at Susanne. I thought. As for the rest, I am guessing. A bad outcome, NICU is, I would have thought, something that every pregnant women dreads and hopes to avoid. Me too. We were shown it on our hospital tour, and I can remember my feelings of horror and silent prayer: Please, not me. Like most disasters, it is never quite what you expected. But it does mark you and change you.
I wasn't using "uninitiated" in any derogatory sense. If you haven't experienced something personally, you cannot know how it will affect you. I haven't had a blissful, painfree homebirth. I have had a disaster, and an infant I didn't see for two days, and one where I was not separated, baby put on my chest in seconds, and I can, and of course do, compare the two.
My first was like Mama Liberty's. In my case, I heard the nurses say "How is this poor mother going to manage this terrible baby?" Well, I did. Besotted, glad to have her home, and very, very attentive. Emotionally labile was one name for it. Managing meant not freaking out when she screamed. Accepting that holding and feeding did not calm her. Accepting that she would get very distressed if I was out of sight/touch. Except when she was asleep. I can remember, vividly, the first time she got the idea that my absence didn't mean abandonment. Between two and oh, 16 or so, she had frequent short stays in hospital. I had two children. It was tough. (The nurses just loved it when I left the ward briefly to take care of my younger daughter) When she was about three, maybe four, I returned to the absence of the usual shrieks. She was on her knees, chanting "Mummy come and get me" Oh, the relief that we had finally got there!
I do understand the feelings of mothers who cannot bear their infants to feel any stress. I don't for a moment deny the biological imperative for closeness and protection. Just, maybe, in extreme adversity, a more complex and evolved approach comes into play as well. We are adaptable creatures.
From Jamie:
"I have an idea for preventing ALL SIDS during naps. And that is to do what I did. Hold them. I held my older son for all his naps while I read on the couch. I kept my younger one in a front carrier while I did other things."
And yet, babies still die in slings. Most likely, IMO, from suffocation.
Don't get me wrong -- my little man is asleep on my chest in carrier that I (*gasp*) made myself -- obviously not cleared by the CPSC. His head is within six inches of my head. I can feel, see and hear him breathe.
There's an excellent 'study' going in the babywearing community that measures the oxygen saturation levels of newborns in various positions and situations. Certainly not enough data to reach any level of significance -- it's a very small effort, but I find it fascinating when thinking about apnea and arousal thresholds and room/bed sharing, etc.
From Jamie:
I've also been thinking a bit about young children and nightwaking.
My 4yo started voluntarily going to sleep in his own bed with no help shortly after his 3rd birthday. Before then, one of us would stay with him until he was asleep. We did this, not because we worried about him feeling abandoned, but because he was very much in a phase where everything turned into a game or power struggle, and *I* knew that having to put him back in bed for the 16th time in a row was very likely to result in toddlercide. I just did not want bedtime to turn into a game, so we made sure he fell asleep the first time.
(Now, for the opponents, I know many families use a baby gate or shut their toddlers in their rooms to avoid the same issue -- perhaps this is where my aversion to leaving him alone came it -- I was not willing to do either, though I would have considered a gate across his doorway for safety reasons if he had been a nighttime wanderer)
Late this past year, he started wanting someone stay with him again (he turned four last month, if anyone cares), and calling out to us when he woke up alone.
Was it a regression? Was it him remembering that he had previously been comforted to sleep? Was it conditioning that he needed to next to a warm body?
We didn't think it was any of these things, as it correlated with a massive burst of imagination. He started being *able* to fear unseen things in his room that it simply never occurred to him to fear at 3yo. His nighttime 'regression' was actually an age appropriate developmental leap.
So, where was the pathology? Was it in the nightwaking? Nope -- adults wake at night quite frequently. Was it the developmental increase in imagination? Gee, I hope not. Was it the seeking aid from his parents? I doubt it, since I can't imagine *another* situation where we would consider it inappropriate for a 4yo child, upon finding himself disoriented, frightened and alone, to seek the help of a trusted adult. Can you think of one?
From Liz:
I don't understand the idea of dichotomies - false or otherwise. We are all different, infants have very different temperaments from the start. If you have a child that will not sleep no matter what you do, it doesn't help much when other women imply that you are doing it wrong, or give you "advice" which you know doesn't anywhere near meet the complexities of the situation. My lower lip has forgotten how to quiver, if it ever knew. My reaction to the unresponsive mother in the supermarket would be "I wouldn't do that", not "You shouldn't do that" We can all feel smugly superior, and we can all feel very uncertain, I should imagine. I did slightly envy the mothers who were supremely confident that their way was the right way, they had all the answers - but never all that convinced they were right.
From Jamie:
"I did slightly envy the mothers who were supremely confident that their way was the right way, they had all the answers - but never all that convinced they were right."
I've noticed there to be an inverse correlation between 'number of right answers' and 'number of children' myself.
I had far more right answers before I had my first baby.
From Ericacrochets:
"And yet, babies still die in slings. Most likely, IMO, from suffocation. "
Yikes. I guess that is true. Mine always preferred to be positioned upright...
Sometimes it seems like a miracle anyone makes it to age 3.
From Jamie:
"Yikes. I guess that is true. Mine always preferred to be positioned upright..."
The 'study' I'm talking about suggests that newborns who are worn upright against their caregiver have the best oxygen saturation levels. And that positional asphyxiation is likely caused by poor positioning (no different than making sure that a premie is not endangered by a prolonged trip in a carseat before discarge).
From Ericacrochets:
Interesting, Jaimie.
I have to say I'm surprised that the total number of infant deaths haven't been reduced by the "back to sleep" campaign and all of its recommendations, which seem like they would be really good at least for preventing suffocation (keeping blankets, stuffed animals, bumper pads away from face, no water beds, no pillowtop mattresses, no pillows).
It seems like there are several possibilities:
1) The recommendations work. Fewer babies are dying of SIDS but more babies are being suffocated by parents who are either neglegent, too poor to afford cribs, or have decided to follow Dr. Sears' advice, balancing it out.
2) The recommendations don't work/ have any effect.
3) People aren't following the recommendations, so we don't know if they work.
One thing that's interesting to me is that compliance with these recommendations is checked using surveys, which are very unreliable because people lie on them for all sorts of reasons.
From Ericacrochets:
Also, Esther, I read some of your blog entries on sleep a while back and found them very compelling. What I took away in particular is how can an individual parent know that she is capable of sleeping lightly enough not to smush her infant before she actually attempts co-sleeping? And, of course, all it takes is one slip-up... It made me decide that I will most certainly use a side car arrangement.
From Susanne:
Jamie upthread - I wasn't offended; I was just pointing out that even the most attentive of mothers can't detect heart rate slowing! Unless, I suppose, one held a stethoscope to baby's chest all day!
I can't imagine the advice to hold the baby during naps is serious. How would you ever get anything accomplished? I don't mean write the great American novel - I just mean take a shower, do the dishes, set the table for dinner (even if it's takeout), attend to older children, be a functioning member of the household.
Here's my dirty little secret: When mine came home, they were on a general 4 hour schedule bc that was part of the premie gig - they had to indicate that they could cry to signal hunger, and they had to explicitly be able to feed WITHOUT falling asleep (to ensure they had enough). While I surely can't say there were a lot of advantages to having premies, that was one of them. It was so much more manageable to have a general idea that they were going to eat at these intervals (and no, this wasn't "too bad you're screaming at 2:53 pm, you won't get fed til 3 pm", so don't go there). Especially with multiples.
From Caryn:
I can't imagine the advice to hold the baby during naps is serious. How would you ever get anything accomplished? I don't mean write the great American novel - I just mean take a shower, do the dishes, set the table for dinner (even if it's takeout), attend to older children, be a functioning member of the household.
*raises hand* (One consequence of not being able to put my baby down without his screaming is that I actually know the answer to this one.)
Slings, and help.
I would put DS down and let him scream long enough to shower, or whatever it was that I needed to do without a baby in a sling. If I could do it with a baby in a sling, I did it with a baby in a sling. And if someone else could do it for me, I asked for help.
Luckily typing (and reading, and setting tables) is entirely congruent with holding a baby in a sling.
When mine came home, they were on a general 4 hour schedule bc that was part of the premie gig - they had to indicate that they could cry to signal hunger, and they had to explicitly be able to feed WITHOUT falling asleep (to ensure they had enough).
By the time DS came home from NICU, that was no longer a requirement -- in fact, as was the case for someone else upthread, I was encouraged to leave him on the breast even if he was asleep and nursing in his sleep, because I needed to build a milk supply and he needed to gain weight.
From Caryn:
I can't imagine the advice to hold the baby during naps is serious. How would you ever get anything accomplished?
Oooh! I know this one -- slings, and help. Since I couldn't put DS down without hysteria from him, I did a lot of stuff with a baby (awake or asleep) in a sling, and I didn't do a lot of other stuff, because someone else did. (And he screamed and sobbed for half an hour or so every day or two while I took a shower, and then I cleaned up the vomit afterwards, but that's a different problem.)
Luckily typing and reading and setting the table are entirely congruent with holding a Velcro baby in a sling.
Here's my dirty little secret: When mine came home, they were on a general 4 hour schedule bc that was part of the premie gig - they had to indicate that they could cry to signal hunger, and they had to explicitly be able to feed WITHOUT falling asleep (to ensure they had enough).
Not a requirement any more -- in fact, I was supposed (as was someone upthread) to leave DS latched on even if he fell asleep at the breast, because he might nurse in his sleep, he needed the calories, and I needed to boost my milk supply. (I was also told not to let him cry unnecessarily, because it would burn calories he needed.)
Hope this doesn't post twice; Haloscan is glitchy today.
From Jamie:
"I wasn't offended; I was just pointing out that even the most attentive of mothers can't detect heart rate slowing!"
I'm glad you weren't offended. I'm thinking, though, that the heart rate wouldn't start to slow until after the baby had stopped breathing? I could be wrong...
"I can't imagine the advice to hold the baby during naps is serious. How would you ever get anything accomplished?"
It's dead serious. With my first, having no more compelling obligations, I held him for his short frequent catnaps until he started consolidating -- maybe 10 months? It was *far* less stressful than trying to put him down awake (where he simply wouldn't sleep, just roll around happily for a while) or transfer him once asleep (he never slept long enough, either in arms or in bed, to make it worthwhile).
Now I have other compelling obligations, so I have an army of good quality, comfortable baby carriers (though you really just need one -- maybe two with a very spitty baby). Right now, my baby is asleep on my chest for his second nap of the day while I argue with you. ^_^ I can count on one hand the number of times in nearly four months that he's actually napped off of me, and I care for a 4yo and 2yo during the day as well.
But my dirty little secret -- I'm not a great housekeeper. I *can* clean with him on me -- but it's not a priority.
From Jamie:
And I did use slings with my poorly napping first son -- just didn't discover the good ones until he was 5 months old or so, and *then* my life got much more mobile. ^_^
From Emma B:
With me, awake, holding them, it seems reasonable to say that their riks of SIDS was 0.
Robert Cringely, the well-known tech pundit, had his son die of SIDS while lying in his lap -- no suffocation involved. So the risk might be very small, but it's still not zero.
Cringely's son was a preemie with preexisting apnea issues, so that might not be so applicable to the general majority. However, the point is that even being in an awake parent's lap isn't necessarily enough to keep an apnea episode from turning fatal. If you're doing something else like reading or surfing where you're not actually watching the baby, you won't necessarily notice until it's too late.
A lot of the discussion about co-sleeping preventing SIDS puts me in mind of how people used to be resistant to car seats because they felt safer holding their babies, or how our parents' generation worried that babies sleeping on their backs might choke on their own vomit. It might be intuitive and plausible, but that doesn't necessarily make it true.
From Jamie:
I'm wondering if maybe my high level of confidence in my ability to co-sleep safely with even my tiny baby (not that he's 'tiny' anymore) has anything to do with the fact that I wear my baby in a carrier for the vast majority of the day.
For us, co-sleeping at night is only different from the arrangement we share almost all day because I'm asleep as well. Our positions, relative to each other, are almost identical when either co-sleeping or babywearing.
I wonder too, if *knowing* that I wear my young baby for the better part of the day, makes it a little more understandable why putting him in a crib at night, even one connected to my bed, doesn't make a good deal of sense to me.
I'm not saying that you need to personally understand or accept *any* of my decisions, just wondering if this could be a source of disconnect with this debate.
From Elizabeth:
Au contraire -- I *tried* all of the techniques you would have tried, as I said above.
But you didn't really try them properly unless you persisted in them regardless of the child's subjective feelings about it, in which case you would have succeeded.
From Jamie:
"But you didn't really try them properly unless you persisted in them regardless of the child's subjective feelings about it, in which case you would have succeeded."
Well, of course. Aren't you supposed to do it until it works?
From Elizabeth:
I wasn't using "uninitiated" in any derogatory sense. If you haven't experienced something personally, you cannot know how it will affect you.
Um, did you miss the part where several mothers of NICU babies said they don't line up on your/Susanne's end of the attitude-toward-babies differential, and what's more, that they take exception to your presuming that they would?
Though there has been a whiff of “You can’t know what a real mother, properly bonded, feels” aimed at Susanne.
ROTFLMFAO. Susanne has made a hobby out of coming on here and proudly advertising herself as a possessing (what she clearly considers) the virtue of relative indifference to the feelings of little ones, and jeering at anyone who feels differently as weak, pathetic fools. You can hardly fault people for thereby concluding that she is, perhaps, relatively indifferent to the feelings of little ones. (Or big ones for that matter, what with the jeering.)
See, I don't spend hundreds of hours posting online about how devotion to grandparents is overrated, and the tradition of the Sunday phone call is a cultural construct contingent on arbitrary long-distance rates, and Granny should be grateful to get a card from me once a year - after all, I work long hours to keep her in Florida's finest retirement village, don't I??????......
...and then get all shocked! and indignant!!!! when a few brave souls occasionally call me out as a granny-hater, or at least as someone with a funny little hair up my butt. Especially once they find out that my gran actually passed away over a decade ago.
My lower lip has forgotten how to quiver, if it ever knew.
NOBODY'S DOES. That's NOT REAL. It's just some bullshit Susanne made up out of spite.
Seriously, now.
From Jamie:
"Susanne has made a hobby out of coming on here and proudly advertising herself as a possessing (what she clearly considers) the virtue of relative indifference to the feelings of little ones, and jeering at anyone who feels differently as weak, pathetic fools. You can hardly fault people for thereby concluding that she is, perhaps, relatively indifferent to the feelings of little ones. (Or big ones for that matter, what with the jeering.)"
I didn't come here to pick a fight about co-sleeping, but Susanne is a pretty deliberate target for me. She has a tendency IMO, to decry us 'mamas' as judgmental while simultaneously mocking everything we do that she wouldn't do.
*shrug*
From Caryn:
It might be intuitive and plausible, but that doesn't necessarily make it true.
Exactly.
I think what's going on here is primarily that people hold beliefs about how to get babies to sleep congruent with their observations but at variance with the observations of others -- which is obviously because we have *different children*. And then that gets tied up with SIDS, because obviously safety is a primary concern for everyone, along with, you know, sleeping sometimes.
From Ericacrochets:
"Robert Cringely, the well-known tech pundit, had his son die of SIDS while lying in his lap -- no suffocation involved. So the risk might be very small, but it's still not zero."
How sad. I had never heard of that.
From Liz:
"Um, did you miss the part where several mothers of NICU babies said they don't line up on your/Susanne's end of the attitude-toward-babies differential, and what's more, that they take exception to your presuming that they would?"
Well yes, I did rather. Obviously NICU mothers are no more identical in their reactions than anyone else, but I do think that they may react differently than mothers of more robust babies. Caryn and Mama Liberty both seem to have fragile infants with high needs, and they have my sympathy. If they have found a way of dealing with those needs that works for them, and co-sleeping is part of it, fine.
As for your view of Susanne, don't you think it is a little distorted? And not exactly conciliatory in tone yourself, are you? As far as I read it, she expressed a view that sleeping in a crib or a cot, or tolerating a small amount of fussing didn't exactly constitute child abuse.
Not quite sure what your excursion into elder abuse or elder neglect has to do with anything, really. Unless it is meant to imply that hard-hearted bitches like me and Susanne are likely to be abusive at both ends of the age spectrum. It does cause me a certain amount of amusement. Don't think either of my children would recognise me as a stoney hearted rejecting mother because they slept, some of the time, in cribs alongside my bed.
From Elizabeth:
Could somebody please explain why it's weak and pathetic and the mark of a sure loser when mothers of actual babies obsess over their own baby-care techniques, but totally cool and normal when women whose babies are long-grown obsess over others' baby-care?
I mean, WRT Susanne particularly (leaving you aside, Liz, except inasmuch as you've unfortunately chosen to make common cause with her, quivering lips and all), if mothering babies is such a limiting and useless identity for a woman, why are you still obsessed with it, years later? My kid is all of two and a half and I already can't remember half of what I did when she was newborn. Who's blowing the issue out of proportion, really?
And no Liz, my tone isn't conciliatory. Why should I conciliate with people who've called me dumb and pathetic in a thousand different ways (including all the times I've bit my tongue, because I'm more interested in stopping ill-advised homebirth, as women were attacked for harmless lifestyle choices I myself have made)?
And is the "tone" really a matter of hypocrisy on one side - or of dishing out but not wanting to take it, on the other?
From Susanne:
"Luckily typing and reading and setting the table are entirely congruent with holding a Velcro baby in a sling."
Having twins is not congruent with holding a baby in a sling. Especially when said babies have apnea monitors the size of big-city phone books hanging off them .
I'm beginning to think that apparently, having twins is not congruent with most aspects of good parenting and all these multiples these days are just plain out of luck! It's surprising, then, that twins in general aren't more emotionally dysfunctional than average, given how they're more likely than singletons to not have every need immediately met as babies .... (tongue in cheek)
From Caryn:
Suzanne, I never claimed that what I was providing was generalized Good Parenting. I was taking care of my son in a way that made him stop screaming sometimes. That's it. I certainly never claimed that Esther was a mean mother, or that you were doing a poor job.
In fact, IIRC, I replied to a query about how one managed to function and still hold a baby for naps. Which, since I had a baby that wouldn't be put down at all without hysteria, I happen to know something about. I made no claims about your parenting skills.
I got involved in this thread when you asked, What, no such thing as a normal, content baby, who enjoys his bath, feeding, playtime, lullaby and then contentedly settles in and goes to sleep? Maybe fusses a minute or two, but no big deal?
And I said, no. Not at my house.
That is *in no way* making claims about *your* parenting.
From Susanne:
Caryn, I wasn't taking it seriously; I was rather amused! Apparently I had insufficient smiley faces!
From Susanne:
"I wonder too, if *knowing* that I wear my young baby for the better part of the day, makes it a little more understandable why putting him in a crib at night, even one connected to my bed, doesn't make a good deal of sense to me."
Actually it doesn't, because I wonder when you get personal space to yourself. Or maybe that's not important to you (which is cool). I think I would feel quite touched-out at some point, and I think I would feel that I was beginning to lose my identity if I didn't have me-space or me-time. This is a really strong instinct that I have for my own mental health .
From Esther:
Emma B:"A lot of the discussion about co-sleeping preventing SIDS puts me in mind of how people used to be resistant to car seats because they felt safer holding their babies, or how our parents' generation worried that babies sleeping on their backs might choke on their own vomit. It might be intuitive and plausible, but that doesn't necessarily make it true."
Wow. I was thinking exactly along the same lines. (BTW, I was a NICU nurse- med student when Israel started the 'back to sleep' campaign. Many mothers resisted initially.).
From Esther:
Caryn:"I certainly never claimed that Esther was a mean mother"
Oh, that's OK. My kids tell me that when I deny them treats before supper or commit similar offenses. I'm used to it :lol .
From Esther:
I see Susanne as decrying the Myth of the Vulnerable Child that our generation has bought into - that everything we do or don't do, every "infant subjective feeling" (or is it our subjective feeling, projected onto the infant?) we do or don't respond to, has profound psychological ramifications for the future. And while I might not put it in such stark terms, I think that she's rightthat if we stepped away from that mindset, we would all benefit - kids and parents.
From Myriam:
"The Myth of the Vulnerable Child" is from Frank Ferudi's book "Paranoid Parenting" isn't it? I haven't read that yet, but it's on my "to read" list.
From Liz:
Elizabeth, your question about mothers of older children is valid.
I don't think I am obsessed - I am interested though. Make that a bit fascinated - for the parts of the day when I read the comments here. Hard to say why. The comments are so diverse, and to some extent revealing of cultural shifts, different attitudes, methods of argument. A lot of the things I read on here I had never heard of before. I was interested in child care/development AND the difficulties of mothers before I had my children, and I still am. I wouldn't give advice, nor spend time on the kind of boards where young mothers talk to each other. I don't advise my daughter. My general attitude, if asked, is "Well this is what I did, but it wasn't as if I knew what I was doing, and every child is different." So, Elizabeth I shall continue to read, and learn, and ponder.
From Esther:
Myriam:""The Myth of the Vulnerable Child" is from Frank Ferudi's book "Paranoid Parenting" isn't it? I haven't read that yet, but it's on my "to read" list."
Indeed it is, and it's a decent but somewhat unsatisfying (IMO) read. It describes the problem well (though there are other books that do it better) but isn't very big on solutions. A better, similar read on the subject, though less scientifically referenced, is Anne Cassidy's Parents Who Think Too Much.
From Jamie:
"Actually it doesn't, because I wonder when you get personal space to yourself. Or maybe that's not important to you (which is cool)."
Thank you for ignoring my point completely, Susanne. ^_^
"Or maybe that's not important to you (which is cool). I think I would feel quite touched-out at some point, and I think I would feel that I was beginning to lose my identity if I didn't have me-space or me-time."
Interestingly enough (and perhaps having a biological component) I never feel touched-out with my baby. Perhaps because I don't feel obligated to wear him all day -- it's my choice for my own convenience, he naps well in a carrier, and he's not, in general, particularly fussy.
My preschooler, OTOH, can quite easily trigger a touched-out reaction in me. It started late in my pregnancy, but is more pronounced now that the baby is here.
And not to be a complete pain, Susanne, but I know at least two mothers of young twins who parent more or less the way I do, for very similar reasons.
From Jen:
"Having twins is not congruent with holding a baby in a sling."
I assume it is more difficult, and of course, you'll be carrying double the weight, but I've seen many moms online with twins in slings. Having twins doesn't necessarily rule out using slings
"Especially when said babies have apnea monitors the size of big-city phone books hanging off them"
That, however, would rule out slings, I would think, lol! Until they're off the monitors anyways
From A Sarah:
Jamie, I think I get what you're saying... You're saying that you dig having your baby on your body all day long, so why would you suddenly not dig that at night? Makes total sense to me.
I think you are obviously parenting the way that works best for you. I don't think that the way that I parent is, by comparison, some kind of deviation from any biological default. So I think that's one point of disagreement.
But the broader point of disagreement -- and I do believe that it's a reasonable and civil point of disagreement -- is that, again, in contrast to what I understand you to be saying, I don't believe there's any meaning of "natural" that's NOT constructed through a cultural lens. But ESPECIALLY, it's important to realize the opposition of "nature" to "culture" is not only a cultural construction but a longstanding and (IMO) malevolent one. It has been used to oppress women -- with women being mapped onto "nature" and men being mapped onto "culture." This myth has legitimated treating women like children denying women education, and insisting that they stay at home and bear and care for children even if they'd rather do something else.
Now before someone insinuates that I am a Hater Of Mothers: I think staying home and caring for children is great *if* it's what you want to do. It should be valued as hard, skillful work and it's a symptom of the whole damn problem that it isn't. (And the whole "natural" rhetoric, btw, isn't helping much here IMO. Why should someone see my work as hard or valuable or requiring imagination and prudence if it's what I'm "designed" to do? In the same way that a Kitchenaid mixer is "designed" to mix? Why, I'm practically a brainless nurturing machine. Is THAT what we really want to affirm?)
But, no --- I don't think that the possession of a vagina should force someone into a particular life path. Nor should it render someone automatically good at childrearing such that if they just tune out and observe "cues" they'll meet with success and fulfillment. If you want to parent in that way, say that it's because you like it and you want to. You're allowed. You really *don't* have to say that you are hardwired or programmed to and you're just obeying your inner workings. You don't have to be obeying your feminine "nature." You can really just dig it, and BE GOOD AT IT. Not because your DNA or your lady bits demand that you be good at it; but because you are thoughtful and prudent and you have a certain personality that causes you to be GOOD at parenting in a certain way. Just like I can really dig doing it differently and be good at doing differently.
And other people who roll their eyes at either of us and proclaim themselves So! Sad! For! Our! Families! can frankly just go f&^k themselves. They are not even worth spending two seconds thinking about. My rule is, if someone has never changed my kid's diaper or brought us a meal after a new baby was born, they don't get a vote in how we do things. I may graciously listen to them if they have good ideas, but they don't get to demand that I find their way most appealing for our particular family.
From Caryn:
I see Susanne as decrying the Myth of the Vulnerable Child that our generation has bought into - that everything we do or don't do, every "infant subjective feeling" (or is it our subjective feeling, projected onto the infant?) we do or don't respond to, has profound psychological ramifications for the future.
But some people cosleep because everyone sleeps best that way.
From Caryn:
Parents Who Think Too Much.
Hah! Well, I expect that's an occupational hazard at most of the households belonging to the posters here.
Or does the book talk strictly about parents who think too much about *how to parent*?
From Jamie:
"My rule is, if someone has never changed my kid's diaper or brought us a meal after a new baby was born, they don't get a vote in how we do things. I may graciously listen to them if they have good ideas, but they don't get to demand that I find their way most appealing for our particular family."
I think that is an excellent rule, A Sarah. I may have to adopt it.
BTW, I will read the rest of your post at a more convenient time and see if I can't give you a somewhat satisfactory answer.
From A Sarah:
No rush. I realize I wrote a book.
From Jamie:
"No rush. I realize I wrote a book."
Quickly, before I forget:
Are you asking about the possibility that my cultural conditioning is what *makes* me believe that biology plays an important role in human mothering?
From Jamie:
As well as being concerned about the misogynistic potential of my mindset?
From Jamie:
"Are you asking about the possibility that my cultural conditioning is what *makes* me believe that biology plays an important role in human mothering?"
With regards to this, I will repeat what I said above, that it would be highly arrogant of my to claim with 100% assurance that my opinions and beliefs are not shaped by culture. I think it very challenging for any socialized adult to be fully aware of where nature stops and nurture begins -- for themselves. To look it objectively as a biology enthusiast; sure, everything is very cut and dry. To compartmentalize my own behaviors -- not so simple.
But I'll try to offer a little background to let you judge for yourself (since you seem genuinely interested and not merely combative ):
When my first son was born, I had been working with infants and toddlers (and teen mothers and their babies) for about five years (it may be relevant to this point or others that I am involved with small children by profession).
In retrospect, most of my opinions about how *I* wanted to parent were informed by how easy or challenging my young charges were for *me* to care for as a non-parent, and how each kidlet's preferences set him up for 'success' in caregiver setting.
My first conviction was that I would *not* breastfeed, because some bf-ed infants were very challenging to feed and soothe in the absence of their mothers. (By the time my first came alone, I had given up this particular notion.)
My second conviction as a fledgling parent was that independent sleep was highly desirable, and that co-sleeping was a 'horrible trap' best to be avoided. I do not recall if, at the time of my firstborn's arrival, I was willing to CIO in order to achieve independent sleep. I vaguely recall that I was *not,* and it's quite likely that I had a very optimistic confidence that he would simply be the sort of baby who goes to sleep happily in his own bed, or with a minimal amount of fussing.
(As an aside on the 'before sleep fussing' -- my new baby, as mild-mannered as he general is, fusses a little before drifting off -- in arms or a sling. I am well acquainted with the phenomenon. It's sort of a half-hearted gurgle-whine with a little physical protesting, and then he zonks. No, I don't think he's in any real distress, or that he *would* be in any real distress exhibiting the same behavior in a nice warm crib.)
My profession as a caregiver set me up to handle my newborn son with perhaps more confidence than the average first time mother, but made it quite clear to me that I had absolutely no idea how to be a mother. Having my *own* baby was an emotionally intense experience that I had simply not anticipated, and that aspect of mothering had me literally quaking for the first few weeks of my son's life.
(I'll pause now, as I am writing my own book and my 4yo calls...)
From A Sarah:
I'm saying that, when you talk about something called "biology" and its capacity to give clues about what a baby needs, you're doing some interpreting. And since you're doing some interpreting, the meaning you assign to the thing called "biology" is also a cultural meaning (as all meanings are.)
I'm also saying that the nature/dichotomy has a long history, and has very often been used to:
1. overidentify women with their sex organs and reproductive capacity.
2. Deprive them of opportunities, because women are seen as biological creatures that mother and nurse just like cows moo and eat grass. Men - who have historically been identified with the "culture" part of the dichotomy - are seen to be the creative ones who use their founding inventiveness and individual gifts in unique ways.
3. Devalue kinds of work that are coded as feminine. Again, the nature:culture::male:female construct allows so-called "feminine" work not to be seen as something you work hard at, make judgments about, and get more prudent at over time (which is exactly how it SHOULD be seen, IMO). Rather, it's seen as something that you do only by virtue of your "hard wiring" or the baby's "hard wiring," and your reproductive parts. This is not how we talk about men's work, generally. Especially men's work that's respected. We don't say that Barack Obama was "hard wired" to be president. We respect him for how hard he's worked and how clever he is.
It's probably silly to try and answer in advance those who may set out to deliberately misunderstand me here, but: Again, this is not to say that stay-at-home moms are stupid or their lives are so dreary, etc. It's about being forced to do a kind of work by virtue of your sex organs, and then having that work be devalued because -- well, hey (says the patriarchy) you were hard-wired to do it anyway by virtue of your sex organs so you're practically a household appliance, right?
Sort of like, I think that surfers are awesome. Do I think everyone with sandy straight hair, a winsome smile, good balance, and a capacity to get a suntan should be forced to be a surfer because they have obviously been designed/evolved to do so? no.
From A Sarah:
Eep! Jamie, when I wrote:
It's probably silly to try and answer in advance those who may set out to deliberately misunderstand me here, but:
I did NOT mean you. I just meant that in general in coversations about motherhood when one says anything negative about being FORCED into the role of primary caregiver, people tend to say, "Oh, you HATE SAHMs." Not all the people who feign this misunderstanding, I think, do so in good faith. But I certainly didn't mean you!! Sorry!!
From Jamie:
"1. overidentify women with their sex organs and reproductive capacity."
Honestly, I'd rather be overidentified with my reproductive capacity than my capacity to fill out a bikini. Maybe that's a personal preference.
I'm not taking any offense to anything you've written, btw. Just trying to give some background so that you may better understand where my POV comes from (since it's impossible for me to simply say: "No -- all of my beliefs are purely empirical. Duh!") in reference to your question.
Does that make sense?
From A Sarah:
Ha! Jamie, we were cross-commenting. Thank you for your background. It's funny, in some ways our stories are the exact opposite - or maybe mirror images - of each other?
And now my 4 y.o. is requiring my attention. Anyway, just wanted to say thanks.
From A Sarah:
Honestly, I'd rather be overidentified with my reproductive capacity than my capacity to fill out a bikini. Maybe that's a personal preference.
They're part and parcel of each other, though. That's the patriarchy talkin' -- saying, "Ladies, don't pretend you don't have options. After all, we'll identify you with your boobs and vadges as a sex object, OR we'll identify you with your boobs and vadges as a MOTHER! You totally have options."
I'd just like to be seen as the unique, inculturated, uniquely-embodied person that I am without needing to bother with anyone else's idea of The Kind of Body An Ideal Woman Should Have And What Behaviors She Should Accordingly Manifest By Virtue Of Her Having Been Designed. Sorry, I'm just as unique a person as (for example) my husband; nobody looks at him, scratches their head and says, "Yes, but how can I tell what this fellow should think/feel/do/care about based on the fact that he has a penis and testicles? I MUST KNOW."
From Jolene:
A Sarah,
I agree with what you are saying. Biology has been used as an excuse to opress not only women, but people of color. (and lots of other things)
But shall we toss all atempts at interpreting biological needs because it has been used as a tool for oppression in the past?
I think it is an equally valid way to parent, to make choices based on our interpretation of biological needs.
From Jamie:
"And now my 4 y.o. is requiring my attention. Anyway, just wanted to say thanks."
Thanks to you too. I'm really enjoying this conversation. ^_^
An easy answer to your second point: I am chronically insensitive to misogyny. I often joke that my hubbie is a much better feminist than I am, as he'll often pick up on sexism long before I do.
After talking to my close female friends, I've concluded that I'm simply too young and American to perceive sexism as a serious threat to myself or generations of women to come, and conversely, to appreciate the struggles of women before me for anything approaching equality.
Not entirely sure if it applies (info-dump!), but my mother was very anti-feminism (despite working long hours in a very dangerous, highly male dominated field and leaving behind a very young baby to do it).
From A Sarah:
By ALL means, interpret biological needs!!! Absolutely! But what I heard you to be saying was that there's some kind of Biology, Uninterpreted that we have any kind of conceptual access to. As long as someone says that they are *interpreting* -- and therefore drawing upon not just the body they see but the cultural lens they bring, not that that's a necessarily bad or even avoidable thing -- then I have no beef with it. I may not find it a compelling reason to do X vs. Y, because at that point it's just rival subjective interpretations. But I won't see anything to take issue with.
(Caryn, I can hear you seething. I do believe that some things are provable, I promise! Please don't hit me. But not The Inherent Meanings of Bodies, nor The Most Natural Way to parent.)
From Caryn:
(Caryn, I can hear you seething. I do believe that some things are provable, I promise! Please don't hit me. But not The Inherent Meanings of Bodies, nor The Most Natural Way to parent.)
Oh no, I'm with you on that. Like most people who deal with this routinely I'm really tired of the naturalistic fallacy.
From Jolene:
"By ALL means, interpret biological needs!!! Absolutely! But what I heard you to be saying was that there's some kind of Biology, Uninterpreted that we have any kind of conceptual access to. As long as someone says that they are *interpreting* -- and therefore drawing upon not just the body they see but the cultural lens they bring, not that that's a necessarily bad or even avoidable thing -- then I have no beef with it. I may not find it a compelling reason to do X vs. Y, because at that point it's just rival subjective interpretations. But I won't see anything to take issue with."
Oh yes. I agree 100%.
As you point out, we have NO way of looking at biology without a cultural lens. We actually know that, BIOLOGICALLY! ha ha. The Human Brain is hard wired to fall for cultural training. There is not such a thing as "soft culture", cuz it's "hard-wired". (if that makes sense)
From Jamie:
"But what I heard you to be saying was that there's some kind of Biology, Uninterpreted that we have any kind of conceptual access to."
Well, this may be where we disagree, then. I previously referenced a background in biology, and I want to clarify, in part of avoid overselling myself. I was a farm girl. My biology was animal science, and I raised a small flock of sheep while in high school.
Obviously, I received instruction on *how* to raise sheep, read books, etc. There's some interpretive culture right there.
But this experience *may* have set me up, as Jolene commented above, to think about mothering through a unique lens.
An anecdote (that you may do with what you wish...): When Susanne was talking upthread about a culture that believed that colostrum was not good for newborns, my immediate thought was: well, obviously they didn't consult the farmers, who could have easily told them that the death rate of young mammals who do not receive colostrum is nearly triple that of those who do. Farmers have a seriously invested interest in following biology rather than random suppositions that make no practical sense. Failing to interpret biology correctly would cost them their livelihoods.
I guess I'm just not sure where 'culture' comes into that example...
From Jamie:
And just to head off anything -- it's entirely likely that *had* the Powers That Be of that society consulted the farmers, they may have simply failed to identify *themselves* as mammals (having anything in common with the herds and flocks).
But no farmer has that luxury. Nobody involved in animal husbandry and sexually active themselves could possibly fail to see the similarities, no matter how far back in The Way Back machine you go...
From Jamie:
*serial posts!*
And NO, I'm not saying that the way they farmed in the Mythical Way Back is identical to the way they farm now, or that they farmed the same way in India as they did in France.
Obviously, farming practices are also instructed by culture. My point of contention is that I doubt that farmers bought into cultural fallacies as much as the general population might have -- or that farmers who clung to wildly inaccurate biological interpretations were able to keep their animals alive for very long.
From Caryn:
well, obviously they didn't consult the farmers, who could have easily told them that the death rate of young mammals who do not receive colostrum is nearly triple that of those who do.
Right. What you're saying is: there are empirical facts about infants. What A Sarah is saying is: how you choose to prioritize those empirical facts in conjunction with the other facts about your situation is a value, and values aren't facts.
From Jamie:
And a shaky point for you, Sarah, on whether or not a mother is uniquely qualified to care for her small infant by virtue of her biology:
I believe that she is, in the same way she is uniquely qualified (or designed) to gestate and bear the infant.
You contend that mothering the way I do is something that *I'm* good at, and should not be attributed to my instincts or ability to read biological cues, yes?
If I were to flip that around to suggest (which I'm NOT, for the record) that because I've had two very easy pregnancies resulting in two very healthy babies after two very easy, uncomplicated labours, childbearing is something *I'm* good at, rather than my biology being especially effective, I would have Dr. Amy and Susanne (and who knows who else) completely (and rightfully) up in my grill.
And this may be where we disconnect -- I don't draw that line at birth. I buy into the 4th trimester, when I think newborns are largely (as Liz put it) a bundle of biological impulses and their mothers are uniquely qualified/designed to respond to them as such.
From Jamie:
"Right. What you're saying is: there are empirical facts about infants. What A Sarah is saying is: how you choose to prioritize those empirical facts in conjunction with the other facts about your situation is a value, and values aren't facts."
Ah! There you go. Thanks Caryn. Now I get it. ^_^
From Esther:
Caryn:"But some people cosleep because everyone sleeps best that way."
Indeed. In which case those same people (general people, not aimed at anyone specific here) should just come out and state that was the reason, not because it's Natural to do so, and babies who cosleep end up with extra eye sparkles, and it's safer, and what not.
Incidentally, in the most timely manner possible, a woman came to see me tonight about her back pains from nursing her 7 month old all.night.long, and asked for advice about night weaning and getting him (and incidentally, his older brother and sister) out of her bed at night. It was hard not to chuckle...
From Jamie:
"Indeed. In which case those same people (general people, not aimed at anyone specific here) should just come out and state that was the reason, not because it's Natural to do so, and babies who cosleep end up with extra eye sparkles, and it's safer, and what not."
Alright, what about those people (specifically me) who theorize that everyone sleeps better *because* co-sleeping is the biological norm for mammals?
Is that when I get into it with those of us who don't sleep better that way? Alright, I can see that.
But is it different to say:
"I believe that cosleeping *works* for us because it's 'natural.'"
...than to say:
"I believe that I *should* cosleep because it's 'natural.'"
From Caryn:
Indeed. In which case those same people (general people, not aimed at anyone specific here) should just come out and state that was the reason, not because it's Natural to do so, and babies who cosleep end up with extra eye sparkles, and it's safer, and what not.
You know, given that *I* never said any of those things, and yet multiple people objected to me on the grounds that they had *read in* those claims, I'm going to guess that when they do say that it worked best for their families, people explain to them that they were Doing It Wrong, and didn't really try right, or try hard enough, or something along those lines. Which is also bringing values into it, no?
From Caryn:
"I believe that cosleeping *works* for us because it's 'natural.'"
What does that make the people for whom it doesn't work, though -- unnatural?
How about, "Cosleeping works for our family because our baby complains more than we are willing to tolerate if he sleeps alone."
From Caryn:
Put another way, would adultery work for you because serial monogamy is natural for our species?
From Jamie:
"How about, "Cosleeping works for our family because our baby complains more than we are willing to tolerate if he sleeps alone.""
But that's not true for us.
I could just as easily speculate that co-sleeping works well for us because I have a relatively low need for personal space, more ease getting back to sleep after short, frequent disturbances than after long ones, not much of a sex drive when nursing, and prefer/practice a very similar style of parenting during the waking hours.
But that doesn't mean that co-sleeping is *not* the biological norm for all mammals.
From Liz:
Well, no farm girl here - I grew up in an area so industrialised and urban I still have trouble believing apples grow on trees - but who's the boss in those huddled heaps of animals? Does the mother learn not to disturb her young, or is it the other way round? And how does weaning work?
From Jamie:
"Put another way, would adultery work for you because serial monogamy is natural for our species?"
For me personally? A loaded question. I'm someone who had to work hard to commit to a long-term relationship, but I suspect psychological rather than biological causes.
From Liz:
Maybe it is "natural" to get pissed off with a toddler when a new baby arrives - how do farm animals do that bit? But in our more complex world, handling the competing demands of children at different ages - what does biology say on that one?
From Caryn:
But that doesn't mean that co-sleeping is *not* the biological norm for all mammals.
But again, that doesn't mean that any particular individual or family *should* cosleep, any more than the fact that serial monogamy is the biological norm for homo sapiens means that I *should* go get another lover.
From Jamie:
"Does the mother learn not to disturb her young, or is it the other way round? And how does weaning work?"
I dunno. This mother avoids waking up her young because he requires more effort to parent when he's awake. Not to say that she doesn't *enjoy* him when he's awake, but she is often working with limited resources -- night is one time where that is not true.
As far as weaning in the 'natural' world, I see mothers set very appropriate limits with their older nurslings -- stepping over them and walking away, or even shooing them away if they are being persistent, but very little (if any) cold-turkeying. A mother mammal does not feel obligated to 'win' or fear 'giving in.'
From Jamie:
"But again, that doesn't mean that any particular individual or family *should* cosleep, any more than the fact that serial monogamy is the biological norm for homo sapiens means that I *should* go get another lover."
No, but it doesn't mean that long term couplings don't pose certain challenges to humans *because* our biological norm is serial monogamy.
Our biological norm is co-sleeping. *Not* co-sleeping may pose certain challenges.
No moralizing here.
From Caryn:
Our biological norm is co-sleeping. *Not* co-sleeping may pose certain challenges.
And they may be ones that people are perfectly willing to meet, in exchange for, oh, sleeping better.
Another example: it's the biological norm for many of the posters to this forum (me, Suzanne, Lori, Liz1, Fiona) to be dead of preeclampsia. Not being dead posed certain challenges, but ya know, we just didn't care.
From Jamie:
"And they may be ones that people are perfectly willing to meet, in exchange for, oh, sleeping better."
I never said that they shouldn't be willing to meet those challenges, any more than I suggested that certain mothers should be dead.
In FACT, I was specifically asking if there was a difference between suggesting that co-sleeping 'worked' (ie: avoided certain challenges) because it was the biological norm v saying that we *should* co-sleep because it's the biological norm.
I feel like we're going in circles.
From Jolene:
"Maybe it is "natural" to get pissed off with a toddler when a new baby arrives - how do farm animals do that bit? But in our more complex world, handling the competing demands of children at different ages - what does biology say on that one?"
I think I can say with realitive certainly that tandem nursing is not a biological norm.
From Caryn:
I never said that they shouldn't be willing to meet those challenges, any more than I suggested that certain mothers should be dead.
It's an analogy; the structure of the argument is the same.
In FACT, I was specifically asking if there was a difference between suggesting that co-sleeping 'worked' (ie: avoided certain challenges) because it was the biological norm v saying that we *should* co-sleep because it's the biological norm.
There's a difference between saying that cosleeping works because it avoids certain challenges, and saying that cosleeping avoids certain challenges.
I made the analogy to death in childbirth precisely because sometimes it *doesn't* work, because not all other things are equal.
From Ericacrochets:
Because something is normal for our species does not mean we should do it, but it explains things. For instance, it explains why it is very hard to get a fair percentage of babies to adapt to sleeping alone in a room.
If serial monogomy is the norm for our speciies, it might explain why so many people cheat on their spouses. Isn't it about 50% for both sexes? (I'm in the faithful 50%, of course.)
From Ericacrochets:
"I think I can say with realitive certainly that tandem nursing is not a biological norm."
Before agriculture child spacing was more like 4 years, and I think the theory is that infants would get thrown out if the toddler was too young to wean.
From Jamie:
I think I can say with relative certainly that tandem nursing is not a biological norm.
I would agree. Two breasts are for redundancy, not for tandem nursing.
Typically, nursing (esp night nursing) delays fertility, and pregnancy, in an effort to conserve resources, tends to dry up the milk supply.
I do think, though, that I've read about gorillas tandem nursing. I could be wrong...
From Jamie:
...as well as nursing during pregnancy being fairly uncomfortable for most mothers.
Biology seems to put a good deal of effort into avoiding tandem nursing.
From A Sarah:
Right. What you're saying is: there are empirical facts about infants. What A Sarah is saying is: how you choose to prioritize those empirical facts in conjunction with the other facts about your situation is a value, and values aren't facts.
Caryn, can you please write all of my comments from now on? Everyone else would thank you too, I suspect.
From Ericacrochets:
You know, even the term mammal has an interesting history. The guy who chose it was a lactivist and disapproved of mother's using wet nurses. Not all the animals known as mammals breastfeed, in fact. At least that's what I remember from What it Means to be 98% Chimpanzee by Jonathan Marks, which is a wonderful book that discusses biology versus culture.
From LDS:
Kind of related to tandem nursing, biological norms etc.
When my cat had kittens two survived. She nursed them for months! We have pictures of these two huge kittens still nursing. But as soon as she came into heat again she weaned them right away. Hissing, snapping, jumped up and ran away when they came near her. And she had 8 nipples, lol.
From A Sarah:
At least that's what I remember from What it Means to be 98% Chimpanzee by Jonathan Marks, which is a wonderful book that discusses biology versus culture.
DUDE! I KNOW that guy!!! I worked for him in undergrad.
*boggles*
Ericacrochets, you wouldn't happen to know where he ended up, would you? Last I heard he was in NC.
From Susanne:
Esther: "In which case those same people (general people, not aimed at anyone specific here) should just come out and state that was the reason, not because it's Natural to do so, and babies who cosleep end up with extra eye sparkles, and it's safer, and what not."
"Alright, what about those people (specifically me) who theorize that everyone sleeps better *because* co-sleeping is the biological norm for mammals?"
What about thoss people? They are then proven wrong by just one example of a family in which the baby and mother sleep better without cosleeping.
From Susanne:
"But shall we toss all atempts at interpreting biological needs because it has been used as a tool for oppression in the past?
I think it is an equally valid way to parent, to make choices based on our interpretation of biological needs."
Sure. As long as you understand that your particular interpretation may be that baby needs mother to wear him during the day and co-sleep with him at night, and another mother's particular interpretation of biological need is that everyone, babies included, needs their own space to call their own to sleep well. And both of them can find observations that prove themselves right.
BTW this made me think of the flight attendant put-your-mask-on-first schtick If baby's biological need for co-sleep depletes mother's biological need for sleep, because she is hardwired such that cosleeping doesn't give her adequate sleep at all, is she justified in putting her own mask on first?
Though I just realized that I posted an assertion which itelf trumps the discussion, because if some women are hardwired such that cosleeping gives them good sleep and some women are hardwired such that cosleeping is disturbing to their sleep and they wind up sleep deprived, then by definition there is no "should" when it comes to sleep.
From Susanne:
"Biology seems to put a good deal of effort into avoiding tandem nursing."
I have no opinion one way or the othr about tandem nursing, because hey, not my breasts, but it does beg the question, Jamie: If a mother came to you and said she was interested in tandem nursing, would you tell her that in doing so she was violating a biological norm? Would that or should that play into her decisionmaking?
From Esther:
Ericacrochets:"What it Means to be 98% Chimpanzee by Jonathan Marks"
Hallelujah, it's on Google Books!
Jamie:"Alright, what about those people (specifically me) who theorize that everyone sleeps better *because* co-sleeping is the biological norm for mammals?"
As Susanne pointed out, everyone doesn't sleep better. And in any case, I'm for what's objectively better (or, barring a clear winner in a given situation, what's better in the specific circumstance). I amd very much against biological determinism, mostly but not solely due to its rather sordid history.
From Esther:
BTW, child-led weaning is not the norm either in the animal world and among the oh-so-natural 'primitive peoples' (it exists, but is rare, in the latter). So why are all the AP/NPers so sweet on it?
From Liz:
I don't know why, but I do find biological determinism a very unconvincing argument for anything very much. I don't for a moment deny that there are strong, non rational, biological impulses at play in mother/child relationships, and that it can be useful to consider/understand them but I am in favour of the rational myself and think that biological imperatives can just as easily be a trap and a snare.
Neverhtless, I assumed that you young well informed women may well know more than I do. In my usual bored, dilettante fashion I went to Google to see if I could learn more about the fabled mothering of chimps. Now Google is not very satisfactory for even the dilettante scholar - but really, I have never read so much sentimental anthropomorphic claptrap. I am sure there are more reliable authoritive resources available, and if anyone wants to point me in the direction of then, I will read them.
One thing I found is this:
"The results show that for a ♀ great ape to demonstrate good maternal skills, the most effective experience is to have been reared by her own mother and to have observed maternal behaviour in a social group comprising mature individuals and infants. This gives ♀♀ the opportunity to observe and learn how to care adequately for their own offspring."
Not quite so innate, then? Mothering learned by observation and example, not all instinct.
The most hilariaous was a review of a book written by an anthopogist Professor Blaffer Hrdy(sic). The review was by By James W. Prescott. It was the same old naturalistic claptrap that informs NCB. It ended with this “moving” quote from Professor Hrdy:
“After the first weeks of living with a baby girl whom mostly slept or quietly nursed through seminars, it became increasingly apparent that in the world I lived in, caring for a baby was incompatible with concentrated work. A new baby's terrifying vulnerability, the magnitude of the responsibility, and the insatiable demands that kept me on-call twenty-four hours a day, came as a shock. Yet, as a primatologist in the post-Bowlby era, what could I do but turn my life over to her? (p. xiv).”
Well I have no problem accepting that the conflict between a mother’s needs and those of a child are central , I am damned if I will accept that that is the only, or best, solution.
And I speak as a mother who has, to a large extent, done just that. A disabled child makes high demands; the needs of others in the family are heightened. I chose to do it. Doesn’t mean I think everyone else should – or shouldn’t.
Just one last bit from my Google researches. One example that found that Chimps removed from ALL contact and raised in isolated cages didn’t do as well as those who weren’t. Well, fancy that! Is this what passes for science nowadays? And is anybody researching the 21st century decline in the ability to think?
What is the objective here? To do as most mothers have always done – the best we can for our children? Or to believe that this generation holds the secret to a Superrace?
From Esther:
James W. Prescott also asserts elsewhere that if all cultures were to breastfeed for at least 2.5 years, world peace would reign or something like that. I kid you not.
From Esther:
And I'm arguing with someone on my blog who claims the 'Back to Sleep' campaign is of teh debil *sigh* ...
From Jamie:
"As long as you understand that your particular interpretation may be that baby needs mother to wear him during the day and co-sleep with him at night, and another mother's particular interpretation of biological need is that everyone, babies included, needs their own space to call their own to sleep well."
Alright, it's just before 6am and I'm up (and shirtless) with a sick baby who cried and coughed so much that he threw up all over me. So much for the accusation that I cosleep because I can't bear to hear his Widdle Tiny Tears.
So, I'm tired and cranky, but this caught my attention. I don't think it's possible to interpret 'biology' to suggest that any given baby *needs* to sleep alone.
First, the notion that a baby who sleeps for longer stretches sleeps 'better' is false, as the AAP suggests that the lower arousal threshold of a breastfed infant (replicated by a pacifier, according to them) offers some protection SIDS. A mechanism not well understood, but all of the recommendations go to promoting lighter, not deeper sleep for infants, particularly young ones.
Some breastfed infants start STTN very early with no supplementation, even while co-sleeping. One might wonder if these babies can do so safely, while babies who snack all night might be in a different place on the 'vulnerable baby' continuum.
It might also be noted that bfing infants have a lowered risk of SIDs in comparison to formula fed babies. It is reasonable to doubt that this has anything to do with the Magickal Elixir of Breastmilk and perhaps more to do with formula promoting deeper sleep cycles.
Second, cosleeping *is* the biological norm -- whether or not you *like* to co-sleep; whether or not your baby sleeps just fine without you -- I can't imagine that this is still in dispute. We are mammals. Mammals co-sleep.
Yes, it is in our biology to create and adapt to culture, but nobody is bothering to dispute that serial monogamy is not *still* the biological default for our species, despite an exceptionally long history of creating and adapting to culture that promotes lifelong partnerships.
But what I'm really curious about -- how are you using the term 'needs,' Susanne? Are you saying that I feel my baby 'needs' to be worn and slept with because of his biological hardwiring (which would be more or less the same for any 3.5m/o infant) or because of his individual temperament (ie: I keep him close so that I don't need to hear his Widdle Tiny Tears).
Because I've already said that I both wear him and sleep with him for my own convenience and enjoyment. Not because I see in him an overwhelming need (biological or otherwise) to be in constant contact. I don't live in the jungle. I can safely put him down (though then there's always the risk that his brother will squish him), and he shows that he often enjoys being put down -- perhaps because it offers him a different perspective. Clearly he's getting some other need met, but it's not for personal space from me -- after all, he's still operating under the belief that we're the same organism. He has no concept of personal space (which is, btw, a wildly varying CULTURAL construct).
And before I start really rambling -- Susanne, if a mother told me that she really wanted to tandem feed, why on earth would I argue with her? So far, I haven't argued with a single mother on the grounds that she really wants to sleep train, have I? And I'm no more likely to personally choose either practice.
From Caryn:
I don't think it's possible to interpret 'biology' to suggest that any given baby *needs* to sleep alone.
Is it possible to interpret biology to suggest that any given baby *needs* to be delivered by Caesarean, even though vaginal delivery is the biological norm for our species?
From Liz:
Any chance of a clear definition of co-sleeping? At one end of the specturm we have the baby chimpanzees who spend the night on mother's chest, and at the other the abandoned screamer at the end of the hall. Don't any of you have more complicated lives where things are a good deal more muddled? In my day, a baby who STTN was greatly looked forward to, but the definition of that was very flexible. If you did put a baby in a separate space, it was generally on the understanding that you spent a fair bit of the night to-ing and fro-ing, maybe accepting in extremis that this child would not be put down anytime soon, and sometimes sleeping alongside anyway. So what is this big and illusory divide? I was heavily conditioned (brainwashed) to regard co-sleeping as dangerous, the practice of poor mothers. Now, the wheel has turned full circle. I like the idea of co-sleeping, as I like the idea of carrying a baby in a sling (and I did do that - but because it was nice, and convenient, not out of some belief that my child would fade away if I put her down.)
Enough paranoia comes in with your milk anyway - do we really have to manufacture more?
From Caryn:
Any chance of a clear definition of co-sleeping?
No. Nor will you find a clear definition of biological need.
If that was Hrdy's _Mother Nature_, there's a whole chapter in it on alloparenting, and how she went back to work by finding one.
From Jamie:
"Is it possible to interpret biology to suggest that any given baby *needs* to be delivered by Caesarean, even though vaginal delivery is the biological norm for our species?"
If a baby *needs* to be delivered by c/s, doesn't a pathology exist?
(independent of the conversation that there's no way to know which babies will *need* the c/s and which ones won't...)
From Caryn:
If a baby *needs* to be delivered by c/s, doesn't a pathology exist?
No. A *variation* exists that is perfectly survivable in a culture/ environment that includes Caesareans.
Similarly, variations in babies can be respected in an environment where safe crib sleeping is possible. And in an environment where you can plausibly argue from data that safe crib sleeping is safer than safe co- sleeping, the selective benefit will shift in favor of the babies who *will* sleep on their own, because fewer of them will die.
The environmental landscape is very, very relevant here.
From Jamie:
"Enough paranoia comes in with your milk anyway - do we really have to manufacture more?"
But we haven't actually come full circle, Liz (and no, I'm not about to say that coming full circle would be an unqualified 'good' thing). There is still plenty of paranoia about co-sleeping and plenty of attempts to restrict the practice.
My real objection is to recommendations that paralyze families into fearing that they must behave one way or another, adverse to their preferences, adverse to *their* notion of common sense, and finally, at odds with Simple Empirical Facts about what small babies are likely to prefer.
You were paralyzed against co-sleeping when it may have suited you well and simplified your life. It happens frequently with mothers today.
Just like with homebirth, I don't see anyone here (or anywhere else, really, and I do hang out with a fairly crunchy crowd) insisting that everyone *should* co-sleep.
What I do see is the gentle suggestion, when the exhausted mother of a 3-4 month old asks what on earth she can do to get some more sleep with her night snacking baby, that they might try co-sleeping. If she doesn't want to, that's fine.
From Jamie:
Similarly, variations in babies can be respected in an environment where safe crib sleeping is possible.
That makes sense. As I pointed out earlier, the persistent baby is less favoured in our culture because the survival of nearly all babies is more or less assured. I used the example of NICU, where a baby who drifts off happily swaddled is favoured over the baby whose needs are much harder to meet to the point where he requires sedation.
Are we saying the same thing, more or less?
From Caryn:
Sorry, that was sloppy -- in an environment where you can plausibly argue from data that safe crib sleeping is safer than safe co- sleeping, the selective benefit may have shifted already in favor of the babies who *will* sleep on their own, because fewer of them will die.
The line about evolution is that it equips us to win the *last* war, like the Prussian military academies. The observation what worked best for chimps was cosleeping doesn't necessarily imply anything at all about what will work best for us, because the fitness landscape changes.
It may be the case that we have some human babies, and some mothers, or even the majority of human babies and mothers, who prefer cosleeping and who are carrying genes that predispose them to cosleep, because their ancestors survived. That doesn't mean that it is safest for them to cosleep -- and because that's an empirical claim, we can go check. That doesn't mean that they'll be harmed if we don't let them cosleep -- and because that's an empirical claim, we can go check. And that doesn't mean they'd *prefer* to cosleep, because preference has to do with more components than just what it is that we are predisposed to do.
From Caryn:
Jamie, we were crossposting -- but if that makes sense, then we're probably in agreement.
From Jamie:
"Sorry, that was sloppy -- in an environment where you can plausibly argue from data that safe crib sleeping is safer than safe co- sleeping, the selective benefit may have shifted already in favor of the babies who *will* sleep on their own, because fewer of them will die."
I don't know if I necessarily agree with this -- in part because this is happening in conjunction with more and more babies who would not have survived pregnancy and childbirth -- and those babies are considered to be most vulnerable.
I don't have much time left (my borrowed toddler gets here soon), but I guess I'm picturing two scales, one sliding up and one sliding down. I'm sure this is something that looks right in my own head and makes no sense to anyone else...
From Ericacrochets:
"BTW, child-led weaning is not the norm either in the animal world and among the oh-so-natural 'primitive peoples' (it exists, but is rare, in the latter). So why are all the AP/NPers so sweet on it?"
I don't quite understand this either. I know people who have done it and been happy with it, especially if the baby self-weaned at age 1. Disturbing is people who say that nursing a preschooler gives them the "willies" or they feel like they can't stand it. It's great with me if the mom is still nursing a preschooler at bedtime, and both are happy with the arrangement, and I've known mothers such as this. But if the mother is not feeling good about it, that just seems like a bad sort of relationship.
I weaned my son at 2 during a time when he was not as interested in nursing. He would ask, but if I said, "Oh, why don't we just snuggle here," he didn't mind. It's nice if you can find a window--I realize it isn't as easy for everyone.
I think it is perfectly "natural" for the mother to take an active role in weaning!
From Ericacrochets:
"Ericacrochets, you wouldn't happen to know where he ended up, would you? Last I heard he was in NC."
No, I checked his book out from the library several years ago--that's all I know of him. I wouldn't mind reading it again.
From Caryn:
I don't know if I necessarily agree with this -- in part because this is happening in conjunction with more and more babies who would not have survived pregnancy and childbirth -- and those babies are considered to be most vulnerable.
It doesn't matter if they would have died in an environment that didn't include Caesareans and apnea monitors. All that evolution cares about is the survival and reproductive fitness of the individual.
From Caryn:
*sigh* And *this* was sloppy -- I was editing myself and forgot to delete --
It may be the case that we have some human babies, and some mothers, or even the majority of human babies and mothers, who are carrying genes that predispose them to cosleep, because their ancestors survived.
(was trying to get at the idea that this didn't mean they'd prefer it)
From Liz:
Well, looking up Prof. Hrdy turned out to be a good deal more interesting and less irritating than the Chimps. But that is because I find it congenial that she focuses on what mothers need to be good mothers, not what babies need.
From Jamie:
I think I was looking at what you're calling normal variations as complications, missing the significance of the environment (or perhaps just mislabeling it).
With sheep, I was taught that since we breed for twins, a trait that is not 'naturally' favoured as the incidence of both twins surviving birth is low, we wind up with ewes that often need help to lamb.
I was not connecting that their environment, in that situation, included help.
From Esther:
Ericacrochets:"I don't quite understand this either. I know people who have done it and been happy with it, especially if the baby self-weaned at age 1."
I was thinking about women who, either while still pregnant or when the baby is tiny, announce their intention to let the baby self-wean. Why see this as an ideal if you are the type of person who parents by 'biological norms'?
I also know women who take Kathy Dettwyler's 'normal range of weaning' so seriously that if a baby does self-wean earlier than 2.5 years old, they refuse to see it as such, proclaim the nursling must be going through a nursing strike (even though all the hallmarks of normal weaning are present), and treat accordingly.
From Myriam:
"And that doesn't mean they'd *prefer* to cosleep"
Last year's discussion about the Motrin focus group regarding baby wearing showed us that there are people out there perserving with practices that they do not really enjoy simply because of ideas of naturalness and so that they could feel and seem to others like "proper" mothers.
I guess it's fair to say, well that's their problem, but it's also reasonable to suggest that not everyone who co-sleeps does so just because that's what works for them.
From Ericacrochets:
"Why see this as an ideal if you are the type of person who parents by 'biological norms'? "
Doesn't make much sense, does it?
From Ericacrochets:
"Last year's discussion about the Motrin focus group regarding baby wearing showed us that there are people out there perserving with practices that they do not really enjoy simply because of ideas of naturalness and so that they could feel and seem to others like "proper" mothers."
I think this is where the Sears went very wrong. They had a 3rd or 4th child who was very difficult, and found that co-sleeping, baby wearing, etc. worked very well for her. Instead of saying, "Hey, everybody, these are useful parenting tools," they said, "Hey everyone, these are the BEST parenting tools, and everyone SHOULD use them."
From Jolene:
Susanne asked: "Jamie: If a mother came to you and said she was interested in tandem nursing, would you tell her that in doing so she was violating a biological norm? Would that or should that play into her decisionmaking?"
Not Jamie. But If you are asking if she was interested in tandem nursing because she subscribed to a method of "biological parenting" and asked me what I thought.... I would mention that I didn't think tandom nursing is a biological norm.
Would it or Should it play into her decision making totally depends on how she, personally, prioritizes. I think A Sarah put it very well, upthread. You can recognize a biological norm/drive, and then decide for yourself how to prioritize that.
tandem nursing isn't a biological norm, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't do it. Just don't claim that it IS. Co-sleeping is a biological norm. We can recognize that it is, and choose not to co-sleep. Landscape matters.
There is a difference between recognizing the biological norm, and translating that into "should-do's" I think that is where the conversation gets muddled. Just because I choose to do something BECAUSE it is a biological norm, doesn't automatically mean I am judging you for not doing it, nor should I then be judged by you. It's just my personal motivation for [some of] my choices.
Ah well. That's what everybody has repeated in different ways over and over. We need a different topic.
From Jamie:
"I think this is where the Sears went very wrong. They had a 3rd or 4th child who was very difficult, and found that co-sleeping, baby wearing, etc. worked very well for her. Instead of saying, "Hey, everybody, these are useful parenting tools," they said, "Hey everyone, these are the BEST parenting tools, and everyone SHOULD use them.""
See, I think they went wrong by popularizing substandard baby carriers. The Nojo is kind of down there with the Fisher Price frontpack that I used for a couple of months with my firstborn. Next to useless/and or quite uncomfortable.
There are much better options easily available.
From Caryn:
I guess it's fair to say, well that's their problem, but it's also reasonable to suggest that not everyone who co-sleeps does so just because that's what works for them.
Yes. It's also reasonable to suggest that not everyone who crib-beds, or whatever you'd call having an infant sleep in a way that isn't co-sleeping , does so just because that's what works for them. Maybe they did it because they were supposed to, and the baby did the sobbing- every- night- for- hours routine, and banged his head against the headboard, and the parents gritted their teeth from 8 to 11 every night for four years. That's how my ILs describe parenting my DH, when he was a baby. They didn't like it, but they "weren't allowed" to try any other strategies.
From Caryn:
I was not connecting that their environment, in that situation, included help.
Yep. We're a social species with culture and technology that change our environment. DS and I are only alive because of Caesareans and drugs and MFMs, but that means we're well-adapted to the environment with Caesareans and blood pressure drugs and MFMs in it.
From Liz:
All of us, as mothers, are vulnerable to being controlled by some versions of the prevailing orthodoxy. I avoided co-sleeping because I was uncertain about its safety. It seemed, and still seems, that the risk of overlaying or other accidents were likely and that was reinforced by other theories of what was good for babies. Now, I find that other views prevail, and would re-think my view. Does that mean I believe I did it wrong? Not for a minute. The current prevailing orthodoxy that a child can be irreperable damaged by anything other than a totally self sacrificing mother seems to me both wrong and very unwise - and not to have a whole lot to do with babies,either.
From Caryn:
The current prevailing orthodoxy that a child can be irreperable damaged by anything other than a totally self sacrificing mother seems to me both wrong and very unwise - and not to have a whole lot to do with babies,either.
Sure. But there's not a one-to-one correspondence between such an ideology, and cosleeping, either. I hardly qualify as a totally self-sacrificing mother just because I coslept.
From Liz:
Agreed, Caryn. Like me, you do what you have to do. I did start to "co sleep" with a fitting toddler, but never called it that - just what I had to do to make sure she didn't die in the night. And that required me to put her infant sister in the room next door, and adopt all sorts of strategies that were a matter of survival, not ideology.
From Jamie:
"The current prevailing orthodoxy that a child can be irreperable damaged by anything other than a totally self sacrificing mother seems to me both wrong and very unwise - and not to have a whole lot to do with babies,either."
I know a lot of very crunchy mothers. APers, ECers, UPers, unschoolers -- you name it. I can think of three mothers who are immensely patient and giving with their children -- even they don't ascribe to this model of parenting. I don't believe it exists.
I believe it to be a charge laid on certain parenting choices by those observing them -- that either the purpose or result *must* be complete maternal self-sacrifice, and if a mother choosing such practices dares to suggest that she has some glimmer of self remaining, or that her feelings are anything other than abject obligation, then she must not be doing 'it' (whatever it is) correctly.
My mother (who I talked to on the phone today) seems to think that I ought to be devoting more of my energy into making my boys into less work for myself (kinda circular, yes?) We have different priorities, of course. She also thinks that I ought to devote myself to washing my floors daily, like she does.
I sincerely doubt that she considers herself a slave to her housekeeping. I'm sure she does it because of a certain amount of social conditioning, and a certain amount of pleasure and pride that she takes in a clean house. Does she wash her floors daily because she has no other identity or because someone once told her that they will rot beneath her if she doesn't? Not likely.
From Liz:
I don’t know a lot of crunchy mothers. Indeed I would go to some lengths to avoid knowing them, as I believe we found find each other mutually dismaying. However, I would say that the majority of mothers I have known are patient and giving with their children – for most of the time, and on principal. All children need both of those qualities, and if you are unable to provide them fairly consistently , you should stay away from children. If I observe a mother displaying these qualities, I don’t jump to the conclusion that she is a human doormat or that she has no glimmer of “self” left. I just assume she is a normal loving mother who does her best for her children, and cheerfully accepts the necessary sacrifices . But if a mother wants to tell me that she has never, for a moment, felt like selling her child to the gypsies, that every moment is bliss and no sacrifice is too great or even that the conflicts of motherhood are easily resolved and should invariable be resolved in favour of the child, or that whatever she does, for whatever reason, is automatically in her child’s interests, because she is Mother and she Knows, then I am not so convinced.
As you say, your mother’s devotion to clean floors is a mixture of social conditioning, pleasure, and pride. We are probably the same generation; I still, to some extent, suffer from the clean floor fetish, but somewhere along the way, I figured out that housework was a pretty dumb task for a grown woman – mindless, repetitive, unfortunately necessary. I think quite a lot of mothering is too. So, what to do? Elevate it to some form of secular sainthood? Turn it into an art or a science? Deny that there is anything even slightly problematic about it? Hedge it about with a constantly shifting, constantly argued set of imperatives? Do I take pleasure and pride in my children? Not that sure, really. Not like the pride I might take in a gleaming floor in the short interval before it gets dirty again. I love them. They are the centre of my life, they are my life. They are human and fallible, and I have done my best for them. I don’t claim or believe that it was THE best. I did some things right, maybe, and as much by accident as design and there were probably others I could have done better. I understand very well the drive to be a good mother and the uncertainties that go with it, but paranoid parenting and smug complacency designed to undermine others I don’t understand. It brings out the harridan in me.
From Jen:
This appears to be an interesting study:
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Jan 9. [Epub ahead of print]
The changing specter of uterine rupture.
Porreco RP, Clark SL, Belfort MA, Dildy GA, Meyers JA.
Presbyterian/St. Luke's Medical Center, Denver, CO.
Their conclusion includes the statement that "Patients with previous cesareans represent only half of true uterine ruptures in contemporary practice."
Thoughts, anyone? (I'm no good at reading studies or doing statistics...I should learn, I know)
From Susanne:
"See, I think they went wrong by popularizing substandard baby carriers. The Nojo is kind of down there with the Fisher Price frontpack that I used for a couple of months with my firstborn. Next to useless/and or quite uncomfortable."
Is it the biological norm to go to Target and buy a baby carrier? I don't know any chimpanzees who frequent Target, and I'm positive my great-great-great-grandparents never went to one. Tee hee, just joshin' ya Jamie
Angela's blog has a very interesting post on baby carriers (check archives) which brings up among other points the fact that in other societies, baby was carried on the back so mom could have her hands free to do physical work; today's front-carriers are, indeed, more for the woman who isn't doing manual / physical work beyond light housekeeping. It's a must read.
From Susanne:
"Their conclusion includes the statement that "Patients with previous cesareans represent only half of true uterine ruptures in contemporary practice."
Looking at Bad Thing X and looking at what percent of different groups account for Bad Thing X (called a horizontal) is not a meaningful statistic because it's all relative to the size of those different groups in the population. What's more relevant is the rate AMONG various groups, expressed in some sort of per capita basis. What's the RATE of uterine rupture among women with previous CS compared to the RATE of ur among women with no such CS. Not what % of all uterine ruptures are accounted for by the previous-CS women vs non-previous-CS women, because that's solely a function of the size of the previous-CS and non-previous-CS groups in the first place.
Example made up for illustrative and ease of computing purposes only. Let's say the rate of ur is 20% among those with prior CS and 10% among those without prior CS. With me so far?
Society A is comprised of 50% women with past CS and 50% women without. Assuming 1000 women, here are 150 ur - 100 from CS and 50 from no-CS. 66% of all ur are from women with prior CS.
Society B is comprised of 25% women with past CS and 75% women without.
Assuming 1000 women, now you've got 125 ur - 50 from CS and 75 from no-CS. In other words, 40% of all ur are from women with prior CS.
See what I mean? You can draw zero conclusions about "who makes up the greater size of the ur pie" because that size is just dependent upon the proportion of the groups in the first place. In my example, CS is still twice as dangerous than non-CS when it comes to ur -- even though in one society, 66% of ur's are from women with a previous CS and in the other society, only 40% of ur's are from women with a previous CS. It is the rate that matters.
You see this in natural-birth advocacy all the time with things like "95% of all infant deaths occur in hospitals"! Well, duh, that's because 99% of all infant births occur in hospital.
From Jamie:
With all respect, Susanne, there's probably not much you can tell me about the ancient or recent history of babywearing. I'm a moderator at http://www.thebabywearer.com/
Front carriers are *doubtlessly* an adaptation to the socially conditioned fear 'modern' mothers have of putting a baby or toddler on their backs. Of course, you are neglecting those societies, like CANADA, which lack Target complete.
Liz...
I'm not going to bother you any longer, but I suspect that we are more similar than we are different. I can very easily read the love you have for your girls.
From Susanne:
I know a lot of very crunchy mothers. APers, ECers, UPers, unschoolers -- you name it. I can think of three mothers who are immensely patient and giving with their children -- even they don't ascribe to this model of parenting. I don't believe it exists."
I do. It's all over the Internet. Look at the flap over Motrin - that points to the very heart of the issue.
A) When Motrin pointed out that moms mentioned to them that babywearing hurt, Motrin SAID continue to babywear and take my product. Yes, because god forbid a woman just actually stop DOING something that causes her pain.
B) The mommybloggers who responded to the Motrin campaign were very upset at the fact that the curtain had been pulled back and it revealed that babywearing hurt some women. Because, you know, if you let it be known that something might hurt, then other mommies might not DO it and OMG-what-if-other-mommies-didn't-babywear-too, civilization would come to an end?
Biological fact: Pain from babywearing.
Motrin Response: Keep on self-sacrificing, mom, but take our product to help.
Mommyblogger Response: Don't take Motrin to relieve your pain - what kind of mother relieves pain with MEDICATION? Just, uh, buy a different sling, that'll cure it ... besides what kind of mommy doesn't babywear, even if it causes pain to herself, isn't baby worth it? Bonding blah blah blah.
With either response, note how mommy counts for shit.
From Jamie:
That flap in my neck of the woods (above URL) was over Motrin perpetuating some myth that babywearing *had* to be painful.
We get new moms and dads all the time complaining about their carriers (mostly front-packs). They are NEVER told to suck it up. Nor do I see, all that often, mothers wearing their babies through pain. More often, they state that they would *like* to wear their baby, but find it painful and DON'T.
The advice is most typically to adjust the carrier or try a new one.
From Jamie:
And I will explain myself (despite being thoroughly tired of doing so), as I alluded earlier to using an uncomfortable carrier for a while when my first son was very wee.
It hurt, and I persevered. Why? Because the alternative was hauling my stroller up and down the stairs of my apartment. The crappy carrier was a better fit for my convenience than the bulky stroller.
What? No tender widdle tears or quivering lips in my explanation? How will you ever believe me?!
From Myriam:
Susanne had insider information about the focus group that informed the advert. Members of the focus group were saying that they weren't sure about babywearing and that it hurt, but that they wanted to continue because, among other things, it marked them out as an "official mom". My point is that there seems to be a degree of social pressure at play to babywear and co-sleep in some circles in some cases at least. Not all by any means.
From Jamie:
Susanne's information means nothing to me if she didn't do enough research to find an English-language babywearing resource and community with nearly 90,000 members.
From Susanne:
"My point is that there seems to be a degree of social pressure at play to babywear and co-sleep in some circles in some cases at least. Not all by any means."
Right. And part of that social pressure is "well, it's the biological norm."
Well, it's also the biological norm to start having sexual relations shortly after menarche and to bear whatever babies resulted for the rest of one's life. Why is there little social pressure to do that? Why are there not groups of "natural mothers" proposing that our 12 and 13 yo daughters who have reached physical sexual maturity should start having babies? It's just as much of a biological norm. I suspect you'd be horrified, Jamie, and rightly so, if I said my teenage daughter was being encouraged to have sex and have a baby at this stage in her life and that her twin brother was being encouraged to impregnate a classmate or two .
Which gets back to - people do what they want because they favor it and it works for them. Which is great! Whether it's the "biological norm" is just a rationale they use when it suits them and they feel they need to bolster their preferences with an appeal to rightness. Because it appears very important to you to babywear / cosleep Because It's A Biological Norm, but not to start reproducing shortly after menarche when that's equally - if not MORE so - a biological norm.
From Susanne:
"It hurt, and I persevered. Why? Because the alternative was hauling my stroller up and down the stairs of my apartment. The crappy carrier was a better fit for my convenience than the bulky stroller."
Great! It was a BETTER FIT FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE. That's all the reason you needed! I didn't live in an apartment, so a stroller worked just fine for me. See how neither option is better or more right than the other?
From Jamie:
Do you have any idea how horribly patronizing you are, Susanne?
I'm done here. Really and truly. Maybe next year's cabin fever will drive me back -- I'm a creature of habit like that.
Read back (if you care) to find where I insist that I do things because they are biological norms. I don't remember saying it. I remember identifying certain things *as* biological norms and suggesting that respecting an organism's biology might result in less conflict than fighting it. See, that last statement is actually a FACT, but I'm softening it with a 'might' because of all that culture and personal preference stuff.
As far as babywearing -- I'm not remotely surprised by your reaction. You like to have strong opinions in areas where you have no direct experience (ie: you've never co-slept or used CIO, but it doesn't stop you in identifying one as superior for yourself and probably everyone else if they could just pull their heads out of their brainwashing), and you have a similar take on breastfeeding.
If it hurts, it doesn't work. You probably don't think that there is any more value in *fixing* babywearing so that it doesn't hurt anyone than you do in fixing breastfeeding. The value for me *is* the mother's choice. If she says that she wants to breastfeed (or babywear) but that it's painful, my inclination is to believe that she really *wants* to, not that she's been pressured into it by evil mothers like me and is really asking for permission to quit.
You, on the other hand, having no earthly clue why she *would* want to (for whatever reason) assume the latter.
From Jamie:
And as an example, when I brought up my early experiences with an uncomfy baby carrier, I wasn't looking for any kind of validation from you.
I was presenting a perspective that it seemed unlikely you had considered.
From Ericacrochets:
I think the Motrin ad was dumb, and I also think that the reaction to it was overkill.
However, I can undesrtand the frustration of someone who sold high quality carriers watching an ad that tells women to medicate while wearing a baby carrier. I can carry my 25+ toddler comfortably in the Ergo for more time than I actually do carry him in it. However, one 20-minute walk with my much smaller son at the same age in the Playtex Hip Hammock gave me some of the worst pain I have ever experienced--horrible nerve pain. My much larger and stronger husband could use that carrier, but someone could really hurt themselves with it. It does not do a good job of distributing weight.
The odd thing is that the difference in price between a good carrier and a terrible one is sometimes only about $20 or no difference.
It would be like a commercial for going backpacking with a packpacker wearing a regular book backpack instead of a hiker's backpack and taking pain medicine. It's absurd.
I'm so tired of hearing sling vs. stroller, like it's some sort of real thing. After the past 5 years, I have accumulated 6 baby carriers and 3 strollers. It's not one or the other--they have different uses! I guess there are a few nuts who don't have any stroller at all for their toddler, but I've never met one IRL. I do see a lot of women struggling to hold their babies/toddlers in their arms at parks, and I've seen people who appeared to be in great pain, lugging around their infant carseat. When getting on an airplane, and the stroller needs to be folded up, I can just pop my toddler's bum into the hotsling and carry him without killing my bicep.
From Jamie:
I've been putting far too much thought into this, and I realize that the disconnect is very simple:
When someone suggests to a mother with an uncomfortable sling that ought to try another one, it is because that other sling Worked For Her, not because because she feels that Suffering is Better.
The thought process is, "Well, it worked for me -- why wouldn't it work for you?"
Which was exactly your reaction, Susanne, to Emma's account of sleep-training her twins. "Well, it worked for Emma -- why *wouldn't* it work for someone else?"
There are plenty of perfectly valid reasons why neither the sling nor the sleep training would work universally, but *you* find one suggestion personally nonsensical at best and harmful at worst.
The only difference between the two suggestions is *your* filter.
From Ericacrochets:
I wonder if this has something to do with auditory sensitivity versus tactile sensitivity (in the mother?) I go crazy listening to babies crying. It's painful. Not so much that it hurts me "emotionally." It hurts my ears and head. Maybe other people are bothered by their children touching them so much.
From Jamie:
Er... there's no difference in *intent* between the two suggestions.
From Jamie:
For the record, my 3.5m/o is comfortably and safely asleep on my back right now.
My thought process: "How on earth could I get anything done if I had to worry about my older son trying to pick up, sit on, and manually roll his brother over all day?"
Right -- I should just set up one of my three pack'n'plays in the front room and put the baby in that. Or better yet, put the preschooler in ... preschool... where he can be better socialized and I can devote more attention to ... not holding the baby. Or maybe washing my floors...
From Ericacrochets:
Jamie,
A proper baby happily plays in the pack and play all day. If you just put them in there for several hours every day, they'll get used to it. And you can spend your time THINKING DEEP THOUGHTS, as befits a woman of this era, rather than singing nursery rhymes, reading board books, playing peek-a-boo... I pity your unliberated lifestyle and hope you will learn to take better advantage of these innovative tools in baby rearing.
From Alexis:
Shoot, Jamie, I probably know you from TBW...
And yes, Susanne loves to patronize those she sees as "mamas".
From Jamie:
I appreciate your concern, Erica. It was really really hard for me to carve out this time to yell at Susanne on Teh Interwebs, and perhaps More Effective Baby Gadgets will free up more time for me.
If I may, Susanne -- is Erica a Real Enough Mom for you respect her experience? She has observed a) that some carriers are better than others and b) that she can wear a 25lb child with no discomfort.
And I really LOVED the backpack/hiking analogy, Erica. That is it exactly. True too, that lots of people genuinely *want* to hike -- they don't feel pressured into hiking by the Forest Service, though they might feel inspired by some random commercial, try it out once, and conclude that it's just not for them.
From Jamie:
Probably, Alexis! I'm enfpea. ^_^
From Alexis:
Oh, I do know you then, though not well! I'm alexis_r, not posted much lately. Shoot, now you're not just Faceless Interwebz Person and I can't be half as mean.
From Liz:
Jamie, I appreciate the sentiments, but I don't think we are at all alike. We may share some values, but our approach couldn't be more different. If someone were to prove to me using sixteen different kinds of affidavit that if I didn't "wear" my baby all day, co-sleep, and breastfeed into pre-school I was irreparably damaging my baby's full potential I still wouldn't do it. I would decide that said child would have to make do with whatever potential was left after being sujected to a regime that had my needs factored into it somewhere.
Susanne's posts may on occasion by acerbic; clearly, like me, she has no great desire to be a "mama" and win the best ever mother prize. But the sneery posts above about the use of a "pack and play" (presumably what I would call a playpen)are to me far worse. If you are not wonderful, you must be terrible. Call the authorities. So much of what goes on now seems like a form of group bullying and a depressing need for conformity.
From Jamie:
Going back to Liz's observation about mothers and patience...
I don't know a single mother who doesn't regular give more of herself than she has to spare to her children.
I don't know of a single mother who doesn't give far more of herself to her children than she ever imagined giving to anyone in the days before she became a parent.
No matter what these mothers actually do, or call themselves, or where they like to post. All mothers (besides those few, who Liz alluded to, maybe shouldn't be around children at all).
So your assertion, Susanne, that I'm 'allowed' to make a choice for my own convenience, but not out of respect for my child, doesn't make much sense.
From Jamie:
I honestly sad that I've left that impression with you, Liz. I wish I persuade you to hold me in higher esteem, but it's probably impossible.
I could try to explain that I was trying to head off the potential alternatives to wearing my baby in this situation in an unhelpfully defense and sarcastic manner, but it's likely futile.
I am sorry.
From Jamie:
I was being insolent. That's the word.
Again, I am sorry.
From Ericacrochets:
I am sorry for being rude too. It is annoying to me to hear (over and over) an outdated, behavioralist model of child development over and over, that conditioning children to like certain things is a simple matter, especially when it comes from someone who has repeatedly said she has no interest in other people's children. I have studied child development quite a bit, and I actually like small children better than adults. If I weren't raising my children, I would prefer to be working with children.
From Liz:
Jamie, it isn't at all a question of holding in low esteem. You, like anybody else, are absolutely entitled to form your own opinions, and act on them. And then, not to care a jot whether other people share them. To me, your certainty jars. To be honest, all certainties jar. Simply a question of temperament, not weighing values.
From Jamie:
I thought my behavior had offended you, not its content.
The reason I suggested that we are more alike than not is because to me, the worst possible outcome is the mother who feels like she *must* or *can't* based on any unfounded external fear. I think a mother's decisions should make sense to her, and make her feel good, as you said, either by accident or design.
I talk about Biology because it make sense to me. No other reason. When I try to focus on 'parenting' as 'raising a living creature' I get to ignore my mother's dire warnings about 'breaking' my children of 'bad' habits and the AAP's position that my baby shouldn't sleep next to me. It more easily frees me to make choices that *feel* right to me.
I don't think of myself as a 'good mother.' I think I'm probably good enough, in that my children will likely survive to ponder the question themselves (though some days, it's a close thing, and I feel bad when I know I can do better. Not when my mom or my friends *might* think I could have done better, but when I know it. At those times, I wish my kids had a better mother. They didn't get to pick me, and I feel the unfairness of that, though there's nothing to do for it.
But what prompted me to comment that we might be alike was that I have a lot of trouble identifying with mothers who don't admit that they struggle to keep from tossing their children out the window at times.
From A Sarah:
I remember identifying certain things *as* biological norms and suggesting that respecting an organism's biology might result in less conflict than fighting it.
It's interesting you mention conflict. Maybe let's take "biological norms" out of it and focus on the conflict. Suppose it was in my child's clear best interest to be breastfed for the first year. (I realize this may be the case.) Suppose it were clearly in my best interest to go back to classes after a couple of months and not bother with the pumping. Well, we have a conflict. Before we've even talked about biology, or figured out which need was more biological.
When you keep honing in on biology, characterizing the possible responses as ones that either "honor biology" or "fight biology," I think you're privileging - perhaps without realizing so - only the infant's needs, and making invisible the mother's needs for grownup time, income, career advancement, etc. Mom's staying home with the kids is a fine arrangement for those whom it suits, but there are workable other arrangements. And people come up them with to meet other legitimate needs, which (it seems like) you'd designate as "cultural."
To keep zeroing in on biology is, I suggest, a little bit question-begging. The baby's needs have a kind of "default" status given by virtue of "hard wiring," and relegating the latter to something particular, contingent, unnecessary, and fleeting.
But I think, well, needs are needs. Sometimes mine are in conflict with my kid's. Very often their needs trump, not because the needs are "biological," but because I love my kids and would do a lot for them. But I won't give myself away entirely; so sometimes my needs trump. And those sorts of conflicts are very personal and can't really be decided in advance or in theory.
From A Sarah:
Okay, I edited my 2nd to last paragraph and ended up accidentally relegating it nonsensical. No time to fix now, sorry...
From Liz:
Like someone else commented above, I find children in the abstract interesting, and in another life might have adopted some kind of academic study of development as a career. But my sympathies are largely with the mothers! It is a tough job, made more difficult than it needs to be by society's indifference. As a new mother, I read the books, and can remember the feelings of depression and confusion caused by Bowlby's views. I followed this with Winnicott's Good Enough Mother, and had little difficulty in deciding that was what I would be. Yes, we all feel sometimes that we are horrible mothers who fail our children but I think such feelings should be strongly resisted.
From Jamie:
"Sometimes mine are in conflict with my kid's. Very often their needs trump, not because the needs are "biological," but because I love my kids and would do a lot for them. But I won't give myself away entirely; so sometimes my needs trump. And those sorts of conflicts are very personal and can't really be decided in advance or in theory."
Is this what didn't make sense? Because it makes perfect sense to me... which might be a problem. ^_^
I, too, would not prioritize a need on the grounds that it was biological, or because it was my child's. I'm regularly trying to meet the needs of three small humans and myself. It's not easy. I tend to reason that I'm the adult -- I have, by definition, more patience, self-control, capacity for logic, etc. But I can very easily over-extend myself. When I *do* struggle to get my own needs met (coffee and bathroom breaks come to mind), everyone suffers.
Which is, incidentally, why I have trouble believing that *anyone* with an ounce of brain actually believes that a mother's complete self-sacrifice is ever a reasonable model for parenting. It makes no sense.
What I don't believe is that a child's needs are less important my own needs, and I try to be mindful of how much power I have over whether or not those needs will be met.
In terms of child development, I see behaviorism bring families into conflict quite a bit. I am, of course, thinking purely of how the family functions, not of conflicts resulting from adults (or kids) having needs that are external to the family.
From Caryn:
I remember identifying certain things *as* biological norms and suggesting that respecting an organism's biology might result in less conflict than fighting it. See, that last statement is actually a FACT...
So what if the mother finds that she sleeps better if there's no baby in her bed? Shouldn't we respect her biology instead of fighting it, to minimize conflict?
From Caryn:
(Oh, and A Sarah, I shot you email about job market stuff yesterday -- did you get it?)
From Caryn:
Jamie, we cross-posted. But if you say What I don't believe is that a child's needs are less important my own needs, and I try to be mindful of how much power I have over whether or not those needs will be met
then you have no reason whatsoever to bring biology into it. What you're saying is, I do things because they work for my family given my family's needs.
From Jamie:
I'm all for reducing conflict -- whether it respects biology or not.
From Jamie:
"then you have no reason whatsoever to bring biology into it. What you're saying is, I do things because they work for my family given my family's needs."
I've gotta run. But I don't understand why.
Much of what makes sense to me as a parent is informed by my understanding of biology.
That's different (IMO) from my belief that children deserve the same amount of respect as adults.
From Caryn:
Much of what makes sense to me as a parent is informed by my understanding of biology.
Much of what makes sense to *anyone* in *any respect* is informed by his or her understanding of science, because that's how we understand the world generally.
But it doesn't always tell you, or even reliably tell you, how to prioritize needs. Put another way, regardless of *why* needs exist, they're needs, and they've got to be accomodated. If you're going to respond to the total set of needs, then the origin of the needs is irrelevant.
I think you may be wanting to get at the idea that biologically determined needs might be less flexible than socially determined ones, but that isn't necessarily the case, and besides, it doesn't matter whether or not the need is *biological*, but whether or not it's *flexible*.
Sometimes, instead of satisfying a need, you can change the need, and nothing about whether or not the need is of biological or social origin tells you if that is the case. (The baby needs to sleep, but how that need is met is somewhat flexible.)
From Caryn:
(And presumably the way you determine whether or not a need is flexible is *observation*. Sometimes, my son fell asleep in the car.)
From Susanne:
"Right -- I should just set up one of my three pack'n'plays in the front room and put the baby in that. Or better yet, put the preschooler in ... preschool... where he can be better socialized and I can devote more attention to ..."
You say those things with obvious sneers. I never used one myself, but what on earth would be wrong with a loving parent occasionally making use of a pack and play / play pen? You seem to think "use a pack and play" is some kind of insult. Sorry, that's a particular CULTURE that you've bought into, hook line and sinker.
From Susanne:
"I think you may be wanting to get at the idea that biologically determined needs might be less flexible than socially determined ones, but that isn't necessarily the case, and besides, it doesn't matter whether or not the need is *biological*, but whether or not it's *flexible*."
Right. Even if, for example, you think there's a biological norm to cosleep, obviously my twins didn't participate in that norm, since they fell asleep easily in bassinet / crib. Anyway, you've offered no proof for baby "needing" to cosleep other than it worked for you.
From Jamie:
"You say those things with obvious sneers. I never used one myself, but what on earth would be wrong with a loving parent occasionally making use of a pack and play / play pen? You seem to think "use a pack and play" is some kind of insult. Sorry, that's a particular CULTURE that you've bought into, hook line and sinker."
I was being a smartass, Susanne. Why would I have a problem with putting my baby in a PnP -- AS I SAID, I have THREE of them in my house right now.
I was anticipating what someone (like you) might suggest if I tried to *insist* that my only option for keeping my baby safe from his brother was a carrier.
Putting him a PnP is no different than putting him down on a blanket, which I do regularly (when I'm there to make sure his brother is gentle).
I'm a little shocked that you feel free to take exception to someone else's sarcasm, though... or I really to believe that you let the floorplan of your split level dictate how you parent?
From Myriam:
This chimpanpanzee's head must be about to explode.
Sorry, I'm feeling frivolous. Carry on.
From Myriam:
I have a pretty materialist view of the world, but far from elevating biology to a useful guide to how to live my life I often use my admittedly crude understanding to dismiss things as "just biological".
For example, around ovulation I've noticed that random men in the street look strangely attractive. If I wasn't aware of what was happening I might think it was true love. As it is, I say, shut up my hormones and stop trying to get me into trouble.
Likewise, during the post-partum period I do feel a hormonal drive to have my baby close to me at night, which I understand to be a relic of my evolutionary past. So I have my baby sleeping close to me in my room in a cot largely for *my* benefit. But having done all the things that the latest research tells me will reduce SIDS, there comes a point where I have to accept that if SIDS is going to happen it is going to happen. So, I try to override the redundant hormonal impetus to sleep very lightly in case a tiger comes to snatch baby by stuffing earplugs into my ears so that I don't wake up with every whimper and end up yelling at the children the next morning.
That's just me though. Not trying to say this is better than any other way, just trying to illustrate that there is more than one way to interpret the biological.
Incidentally, I don't understand why people get so offended by Susanne all the time. I cannot remember an incident where she has said that her way of bringing up children is any better than any other way.
From Liz:
And my equally simplistic view of the biological imperatives is that a chimp mother's job is both difficult (given circumstances) and very easy: to ensure survival, because that is what she is programmed to do. As, of course, are we. But the chimp doesn't have to consider whether Junior will be popular in school, or caring as a husband. You want to make sure your child isn't snatched by a predator, by all means carry them 24/7. Alternatively, turn on your brain and figure out a more rational way of proceeding. Is this a human infant, a defective chimp or a grown up version of a comfort blanket?
On the link you gave, Myriam, was a story about a Burmese woman wet-nursing a pair of lion cubs. Strange, strange world.
From Liz:
I like snuggling babies. Any babies. (I am one of those women Susanne doesn't understand who can't resist a baby - though quite happy to give them back) That little thrill of delight as infant head nestles, infant gaze locks; and the fleeting feeling of rejection when, occasionally, that doesn't happen, and baby makes it clear it doesn't like you! And I am well aware that babies like, need to be snuggled. Except for my grandaughter, who didn't, much. She was very active and curious from the start, and didn't take kindly to being held for long. She would seldom fall asleep on anybody's lap, even when really tired. Why is that? At three, she is still a little dynamo, happy and determined. Round about two, she announced that she did not like nappies, and that was the beginning and the end of toilet training. Needless to say, not much in the way of sleep problems either.
When children are so different, so individual, what is the point of one size fits all theories?
From Myriam:
Oh, I didn't see that. I like her quote "I decided to feed them before their teeth grow" Ha, ha, ha.
Of course we do dismiss things as merely biological and nothing to take any notice of all the time: "oh, it's just teenage hormones" or "it's just PMT", etc. But not so much when it comes to the mother/baby relationship.
From Liz:
But, in a way, it seems to me a way of honouring our mammalian instincts that makes a kind of sense. A needy infant is a needy infant, regardless of species. I once temporarily lost a new kitten, and I was well aware that in searching for it, I turned into mother cat.
From Susanne:
"I was anticipating what someone (like you) might suggest if I tried to *insist* that my only option for keeping my baby safe from his brother was a carrier."
Sorry, Jamie - I thought you were being sarcastic about playpens. I don't care one bit if you want to carry! Really! Honest! What I'm objecting to isn't the carrying or the co-sleeping or what-have-you, it's the fact that it seems that women can't just say they chose those things because they liked the concept and it appeared to work well for everyone, but they have to convince others that they are "right" in doing so by appealing to authority or in this case to some Fixed Biological Norm.
"really to believe that you let the floorplan of your split level dictate how you parent?"
Well, "how I parent" has to do with the bigger issues in life - what (if any) religion we will bring them up in, how we will treat education, how our family resolves conflict, how we teach a work ethic, how we teach kindness and charity, how we teach caring for the environment, etc. "How I parent" has very little to do with the actual mechanics of parenting, as in crib vs bed vs breast vs bottle vs stroller vs carrier and all the other mechanics. Because those things are pretty irrelevant to the big picture of parenting, IMO.
But, since you asked. I have a pretty typical 2 story house set-up. We did not have living room furniture, so we just had a big, empty, sunny carpeted room centrally located and viewable from kitchen and family room. So, we covered the outlets and put in two old comfy chairs and all the babies' toys. They could crawl around to their heart's content and I could still accomplish things in the kitchen or family room and keep an eye on them if needed. Think of it as one big pack and play, LOL. So yes, that layout made a difference. If I had had a different house? Or a small apartment? Maybe I'd have done something different. I grew up in a rowhouse in a major city. I'm sure a Pack and Play would have been the solution in that setting since there wouldn't have been the option of creating a separate room. I fail to see how these are "parenting decisions," however. It's just logistics.
A "parenting decision" is whether the family will keep kosher or be vegetarian or eat only organic food (and what philosophies inform that). A logistics decision is whether the family will go out for pizza or Chinese tonight. We're talking logistics here, as far as I can tell. So yes, my physical layout did determine the logistics I chose.
From Liz:
And, just curious, but what do AP "logistics" have to say on the topic of usurped toddlers?
And Susanne, you sound eminently sane and rational to me. And interesting to think about how important the geography of a house is. I live in a Victorian terraced house - what you would call a row house, I suppose - much loved by North London Yummy Mummies. And not at all ideal for raising small children.
From Myriam:
Just trying letting your baby cry it out in a terraced house. I tried it once and the neighbours promptly banged on the walls.
I also met a woman in playgroup who the previous night had had two policemen turn up on her doorstep after letting her baby CIO in desperation They said that an anonymous passer-by had alerted them (she thinks it must have been neighbours). One or two constables duly trudged up the stairs to peer into the cot and satisfy themselves that nothing was amiss. It's this sort of busy-body paranoia that is the real blight on modern parenting in my opinion, not the sanctimommy stuff, which is merely annoying.
Anyway OT.
From Liz:
I don't think it is "busy-body paranoia" - I think it is the extreme selfish intolerance that implies that a mother's job is to contain their children at high cost to themselves (and the children) on pain of public disaproval. Wax sentimental about motherhood - then make it as difficult as possible. It seems to me that in England care and concern for children in general is conspicuous by its absence.
From Susanne:
I think what's also interesting about the discussion of biological norms is that it is interpreted as leading to extremely intensive, hands-on parenting style that requires someone (mother) available 24/7 - that presumably the other needs of the household for support and sustenance are already provided for. That doesn't reflect the vast majority of human history -- mothers may not have been "working" in the sense of going to the office, but for most of human history they were doing hard, back-breaking labor just to get food on the table and clothes on everyone's backs. It's seriously romanticizing the harsh reality of the lives of 99% of the humans who have ever existed to suggest that co-sleeping or babywearing or nursing were done for any other reason other than the people who did those things had absolutely no other choice in the matter.
From Esther:
Myriam:"It's this sort of busy-body paranoia that is the real blight on modern parenting in my opinion, not the sanctimommy stuff, which is merely annoying."
I would think that one inevitably leads to the other. In the summer months when windows were open all night due to the heat, I must have heard countless babies crying during the night. Despite the annoyance, it was pretty much assumed that either the baby was being sleep-trained or was having a rough night due to teething or illness, and that it would be over in a few nights. Child abuse or even "OMG that baby is being scarred by CIO!" didn't normally enter one's mind at the sound of a baby's cry. They would be, at most, likely to ask the baby's parents to close their windows for the duration, and certainly not call CPS or the cops on the family.
From Esther:
Forgot to mention that this was when I was growing up. It still happens, and I still wouldn't consider calling CPS...
From Caryn:
either the baby was being sleep-trained or was having a rough night due to teething or illness, and that it would be over in a few nights
Yeah, I apologized to my neighbors 'round about month 6...
From Jamie:
I'm not going back to biology right now because a) I don't think it really matters and b) I want to keep my thoughts organized.
But I think there are a couple of things going on here:
1) Mothers of a certain philosophy/preference insist that they are doing the *best* for their kids, therefore mothers not of that stripe/philosophy must *not* be doing the best. The Mommy Wars.
(not a behavior, btw, exclusive of crunchy moms -- note: the characterization of co-sleeping mums in Liz's generation as 'bad' or 'poor.')
2) Mothering that reflects a certain philosophy or preference, either by accident or design, that works 'well,' as defined by individual families.
Mothers exhibiting the first behavior *are* being bullies. There is likely an identity problem or lack of confidence at work. There is an element of personal choice in letting that behavior affect you which seems to be neglected here, but that's a different topic.
There is a problem, however, when someone uses the Mommy Wars to insist that someone who *enjoys* parenting of a certain stripe must have no identity, or must be brainwashed into it.
That's when someone like me gets offended. I enjoy parenting of a certain stripe. Mostly by accident. A little by design. It makes sense to me on an intellectual level, and it works for me personally. I do feel that parenting in a comfortable way makes me a better parent -- not better than anyone else, but better than *I* would be if I was trying to adhere to rules I found personally nonsensical.
I'm sure I have 'issues.' I'm sure those 'issues' play into the decisions that I like to make. I tend to suspect that all adults have 'issues' that affect them in small and large ways on a daily basis. I'm not exceptional in this regard.
But it is nothing more than another form of bullying to suggest that *I* must be fundamentally broken just because *you* can't identify with me.
From Jamie:
Susanne, would it surprise you to hear that I *don't* consider the way I parent my baby to be extremely intensive?
Far more intensive, for me, would be standing next to a crib to pat a child's back for an hour, or hauling myself out of bed to attend to my fussing baby.
I pretty much interact with my new baby when I change his diaper, or when he manages to catch my eye. As another babywearer commented recently about her baby of similar age -- "Poor thing -- if I had boobs on my back she'd never see my face!" She has seven other kids, and her baby is almost always in a back carry.
It seems to be the almost constant physical contact that you object to -- are you, by preference, not a touchy person?
From A Sarah:
Eep! Caryn, no, alas, I did not get your email. Hmmm... I wonder if my email client is being difficult again. I'll check.
From A Sarah:
Okay, I found it and answered. Sorry about that, Caryn... my filters thought it was spam for some reason.
From Jamie:
What is with this need I seem to have to justify all of my choices as self-interested? It's highly annoying.
I can't just say, "I like sleeping with my baby, and I think he benefits from it, as he's growing and thriving, and oh, it coincides with his biological urge to seek close contact."
It doesn't seem like I can admit that I feel my parenting practices are good for my baby without somehow insulting someone else.
Which makes no sense. Why would anyone parent in ways that didn't benefit their child?
I mean, didn't this whole thing start because mothers who choose CIO wanted to point out that being well rested benefited their families?
Nobody here is saying (not even Susanne): "I made my baby CIO because I didn't care a bit about his needs. I don't think he liked it much, and it certainly wasn't my last ditch effort to save my sanity."
What's with all this justifying? Is it just an attempt to find common ground?
I just find it a little obnoxious that *my* parenting can't be good for my baby, but *yours* can.
From Liz:
I think you are badly misreading here Jamie. Only the School Prefect type cares what other people do with their babies in the privacy of their own homes. The Sanctimommies make a pretence of caring, but only as a way of preening, drawing attention to their own superiority. It isn't what anyone DOES, it is the attempt at intellectual or rational defence of what is done. Tell me that you believe that biology is a rational reason for what you do, and I will shrug my shoulders and disagree. State as a FACT and the implication is that you have the one, the only answer and anyone who doesn't agree is wrong.
I happen to believe, quite strongly, that small children need the presence of their mother (or one consistent care giver) for quite a long time. I also believe that being a SAHM is problemmatic for a lot of women. I am no doubt greatly influenced by having had a working mother who didn't have much time for children. My children got lots of attention: end result, they are not good at doing without it, even as adults! When I started working part-time while they were at school, they were for a time quite resentful, and let me know about it. In plain English, whatever you do has a down side, there are no magic formulas and smug Mamas with all the answers should keep very quiet.
From Liz:
And oh, Jamie, not being able to identify with your intellectual defence of what you do does not mean anyone things you are "broken", or even that there is a problem with what you DO - the problem is with the assumptions behind your reasons for doing it. No-one can argue with "it works for me".
From Jamie:
Really, Liz?
So, Susanne doesn't think that I've damaged my 4yo by failing to adequately sleep-train him as a baby?
Esther isn't quite sure that I'm putting my baby at risk by sleeping with him?
SanctiMommies are not a product of my generation. I will concede that the Internet has really altered the face of how mothers connect with each other, and that's certainly a new development.
From Jamie:
That argument, that "whatever works" is fine around here doesn't jive with the whole point of this blog in the first place, either.
"It is in your child's best interest to be born in the hospital. Considering any alternative is reckless and selfish.... but once you get him home, by all means, do what works for *you.* We don't care."
From Esther:
Jamie:"Esther isn't quite sure that I'm putting my baby at risk by sleeping with him? "
Is there an added risk in the first few months when bedsharing with your baby vs. having the baby on a separate sleep surface designed for his needs? Yes.
Is the risk of such magnitude I'd call you a Bad Mommy who deserves having CPS called on her? No.
I can't speak for Dr. Amy, but the reason I looked into the cosleeping safety issue in the first place was because of Sanctimommies (and that Arch-SanctiDaddy, Dr. Sears) online who claimed that not only was it a biological and moral imperative to sleep with your baby, it was also safer. My curiosity piqued, I looked into the research claiming to support this, and found that those claims were either based upon a misinterpretation of what science actually found (e.g, McKenna), deliberate manipulation of stats (Tina Kimmel), or complete ignoring of the studies that were done on the subject.
I suspect Dr. Amy came to dealing with the subject of homebirth in much the same manner.
From Jamie:
And going back to Biology for a second:
Myriam, you and I are capable of recognizing our 'raging hormones' as biological reactions that are not particularly important for us to put stock in.
What about human babies? How does a human baby know that his urge to suck (for example) is no longer necessary for his survival?
It's kind of silly example, because babies, even in utero, can suck just fine with no facilitation from us, though my mom (I was raised in the eighties) felt that sucking was a bad habit that must be 'broken' by any means necessary. She hates pacifiers and tolerates bottles as a necessary evil (but one to be banished as soon as possible).
From Jamie:
Esther~
You may not call CPS on me, but you *do* believe that there is a better, safer way for me to meet my baby's needs, to the point that you would not consider personally doing what I do.
And yet, I am not offended. Not at all. Am I supposed to be?
From Liz:
Does it matter what Susanne thinks? I think you are misreading her response too, (or taking it very personally. What is the objective here? To do your best for your children, or to meet with universal approval? Whatever you do, there will be people who think you should be doing it differently AND IT DOESN'T MATTER. You really, really do get to choose.The objections of people like Susanne and me is that other people's choices, other people's ideologies, should be imposed on those of us who don't like those choices.
Your theory that it was ever thus doesn't hold water, I don't think, though it would take me some time to argue a case against it, but likening it to the argument over homebirth is easier to attack. Few of the decisions we take as mothers are a matter of life and death, or hugely significant. Part of the irritation of the not very AP mother is the excessive weight fairly trivial decisions take on. That isn't true of birth, were there is a reasonable possibility that it might be.
From Jamie:
Obviously, it does matter to me what Susanne thinks. I suspect that arguing with her has become some sort of analog for trying to get my mom to accept and love me without trying to change me. I have long since given up trying to get my mom to understand me.
I'm not offended by her belief that I've damaged my child, but there's obviously some other irrational pull at work here.
I do have to wonder, Liz, why it shouldn't matter to me what Susanne thinks, but that *I* am somehow responsible for some "fragile new mother" taking my opinions to heart.
From Caryn:
What about human babies? How does a human baby know that his urge to suck (for example) is no longer necessary for his survival?
So that's another fact about babies that you'd use in making decisions about what you want to prioritize, isn't it?
One of the things I considered when thinking about the safety of cosleeping was the fact that my baby Would. Not. Sleep. unless he was touching me. (You know that case study I linked above where the little girl woke up 6 times a night and screamed for an hour of night-terrorish unconsciousness and took an hour to warm up to the clinicians? Yeah. Like that.)
But that fact -- the fact that my baby wouldn't sleep unless he was touching me -- doesn't change the statistics about the broad population of babies.
The fact that babies can't intellectually comprehend their environments doesn't change the statistics, either.
From Jamie:
"The fact that babies can't intellectually comprehend their environments doesn't change the statistics, either."
No, it plays into their experiences.
Hrm... Maybe it's not so much that I would use empirical facts about babies as a way to prioritize needs, but that I find them helpful in interpreting behavior (which I think I've already said...).
So, it's not so much that I would rush to meet a baby's need to suck, but that I would be very unlikely to fight a baby's need to suck, because I understand it as a perfectly normal activity *and* fairly important to him personally.
Obviously, his need to suck doesn't have as much personal significance for me as his need for close contact, but my consideration of both needs is similar. I would need a very compelling reason to *force* him to sleep alone (CIO) because I see nothing wrong with the behavior. I see no reason to fear it in three months or three years.
He *will* develop the cognitive ability to understand his environment -- he will, one day, learn when he should trust his social conditioning more than his instincts. That's *normal* child development.
I understand that not every family has the luxury or inclination to wait for it. I guess, that if I have prioritized anything, it is waiting whenever I can.
From A Sarah:
Well, yes, but if his need to suck were so strong that your nipples were bleeding and you were in excruciating pain, then it wouldn't be an issue of, "Should I honor his biology or fight his biology, all other things being equal?" Because things are rarely equal. If the costs you incur for Way A aren't as high as the costs you incur for Way B, then you can just go ahead and say so. But I think you risk universalizing your own experience to say, "Way A was easier for me *because* it was the more natural/biological way from the baby's point of view, and the more natural/biological way is ALWAYS going to be easier." Because the things that get culturally coded as "natural" will not, for every single mother, be the easier option. In fact for many many many mothers they're not. And indeed, that very often -- though not with you, I think -- seems to be the point.
From A Sarah:
Also, you mentioned the point of this blog... And honestly, w/r/t homebirth I'd be THRILLED if more homebirthers would just say, "I realize that it may be riskier to my baby, and that we may find ourselves needing immediate lifesaving medical treatment but not have it available, but it's really important to me to be at home, so I'm choosing home. It's not better, and it doesn't make me a better mother, but it's what I'm doing because of what I want from childbirth."
But I've rarely seen a homebirther say that, either because they don't know the risks, or because the whole point is to do something that makes you a Better Mother.
From Jamie:
If my nipples are raw and bleeding (which they have been) I would rationalize that he doesn't need to suck on *me* at that particular moment, but yes, his need to suck would still be fairly compelling for him, and I would do what I could to help him meet it.
I have a rather sordid history with breastfeeding. It didn't come easy with either of my babies. I do think, ultimately, that it was easier than washing out bottles, and very high on my list of reasons was money. But my first baby would have died without assistance in the first weeks (our cultural assistance being formula, in another it might be another nursing mother).
From Jamie:
I also would not reason that my nipples were bleeding *because* of his high need to suck (though I understand that *can* happen), but because he has a poor latch and I have flat nipples.
Perhaps an irrelevant distinction, but I guess I see attributing *your* pain to *his* need as unnecessarily adversarial, and potentially untrue.
From A Sarah:
Well, that wasn't an example from my own experience, but we could choose another. Do you think that mother's needs and child's needs are unlikely to be in conflict, then? I'm asking, not baiting. I think they are very often in conflict, but we may fundamentally disagree here.
From Caryn:
I also would not reason that my nipples were bleeding *because* of his high need to suck (though I understand that *can* happen), but because he has a poor latch and I have flat nipples.
What if Suzanne would not reason that she was exhausted *because* she had a high need to sleep independently, but because she's genetically predisposed to become touched-out and that she had a medically complicated delivery requiring extra recuperation time?
From Jamie:
Well, I don't think a mother's needs are often diametrically opposed to her child's in that there is simply no way to meet both. Someone may need to wait, or adapt, or there may need to be compromise on both sides, at any given moment. In fact, I think that there is very often quite a bit of compromise on both sides, just like in any other human relationship.
I do believe that an adult is better equipped to compromise, wait, and/or adapt than a small child, and that inequality makes it very important (IMO/E) that mothers with small children get enough support from an interested society. A 'mama' might refer to this as 'the Village.'
From Jamie:
"What if Suzanne would not reason that she was exhausted *because* she had a high need to sleep independently, but because she's genetically predisposed to become touched-out and that she had a medically complicated delivery requiring extra recuperation time?"
I dunno -- does she care what I think? ^_^
If we're talking about Susanne here (I think there is another one who spells her name with a Z?), then she already stated that she never actually used CIO (which is what I would consider *actually* fighting against a child's biological urges, rather than sleep training that the baby shows no aversion too). It was easy for her to meet both her own need for independent sleep (however she reasoned it) and her babies' need for close contact.
Maybe I'm missing the point of the question...
From Susanne:
"But I think you risk universalizing your own experience to say, "Way A was easier for me *because* it was the more natural/biological way from the baby's point of view, and the more natural/biological way is ALWAYS going to be easier." Because the things that get culturally coded as "natural" will not, for every single mother, be the easier option. In fact for many many many mothers they're not."
Yes. And then you come up with the interesting dichotomy that often, mothers try to sell the benefits of what they code as natural in terms of ease and convenience (e.g., it's so easy, no bottles to wash, no stroller to lug, no need to get out of bed to feed) because they assume (rightly so) that ease and convenience are things most people look for. Yet when for other women, those things aren't easy or convenient, then being easy and convenient become *bad* values to have in decision-making (e.g., she took the easy way out and went to formula instead of persevering, she put the kid in a playpen instead of interacting with him). Well, wait a minute - you were just "selling" these things based on being easy and convenient, and now women shouldn't take easy and convenient into account? It's an interesting irony.
From Caryn:
which is what I would consider *actually* fighting against a child's biological urges, rather than sleep training that the baby shows no aversion too
Ah, so is your objection that we *shouldn't* fight children's biological urges, but *should* just wait for them to reach the developmental stage where we can reason with them? Or that we *shouldn't* fight children's biological urges *unnecessarily*?
I've flagged those words because they're the ones that are all about values.
And I can never remember how to spell Susanne's name. (Nor the word hemorrhage, which I look up every time.)
From Jamie:
"Yet when for other women, those things aren't easy or convenient, then being easy and convenient become *bad* values to have in decision-making (e.g., she took the easy way out and went to formula instead of persevering, she put the kid in a playpen instead of interacting with him). Well, wait a minute - you were just "selling" these things based on being easy and convenient, and now women shouldn't take easy and convenient into account? It's an interesting irony."
Not an irony that I'm guilty of. I *actually* find my ways easier for me, and feel no need to characterize 'easy' mothering as negative.
But to be fair, Susanne, I suspect that you feel I'm taking 'the easy way out' by not sleep-training now. You think I'll pay for it later (because parenting must be hard).
From Jamie:
"Ah, so is your objection that we *shouldn't* fight children's biological urges, but *should* just wait for them to reach the developmental stage where we can reason with them? Or that we *shouldn't* fight children's biological urges *unnecessarily*?"
My opinion is that this reasoning works for me. I have no opinion on what *you* should do, or how you should think about it.
What is offensive here? Is that my opinion exists, or that I choose to share it?
From Susanne:
"I do believe that an adult is better equipped to compromise, wait, and/or adapt than a small child, and that inequality makes it very important (IMO/E) that mothers with small children get enough support from an interested society. A 'mama' might refer to this as 'the Village.'"
I personally think the father is or should be the frontline person in this village (isn't it half his child too?), and I think it's quite interesting that the emergence of a "female village" lets fathers off the hook, once more.
From Susanne:
"Few of the decisions we take as mothers are a matter of life and death, or hugely significant. Part of the irritation of the not-very-AP mother is the excessive weight fairly trivial decisions take on."
If I were the conspiracy theorist type (which I'm not), I'd think that men made this all up, because if you keep women arguing amongst themselves over these trivial decisions, you can keep them out of ever developing influence in the world.
From Jamie:
Alright, off the hip: This is my overwhelming impression when I read Susanne's posts. I'm not picking on her specifically -- she's just the one that I get the vibe from the most.
You think that the way I parent is hard. You perceive it as physically intensive and personally limiting. It doesn't appeal to you, and seems completely unnecessary.
Instead of being able to imagine that *I* don't find it intensive and limiting, you reason that I must be forced into it, by fear, philosophy, or both.
If I insist that I'm acting of my own free will, you then reason that I'm deluded, denying, or outright fabricating.
You actively devalue my preferences because they aren't your preferences.
From Jamie:
"I personally think the father is or should be the frontline person in this village (isn't it half his child too?), and I think it's quite interesting that the emergence of a "female village" lets fathers off the hook, once more."
Well, sure he is. But he's also bringing home a paycheck, and may not have any sick days to spare. The other SAHMs in my circle, on the other hand, might be more readily available should crisis strike M-F. ^_^
From A Sarah:
Ha! I can never remember hemorrhage either.
Actually, maybe I'm universalizing my own experience too. So I'll just say, in my own unique particular experience, my needs for grown-up conversation and time out of the house and income were in conflict with the benefits that would be available to my children were they to nurse exclusively for six months and sleep according to whatever schedule suited them if my husband or I didn't interfere. So we made a bazillion judgement calls -- we squidged on the BFing by a bit while also not being as productive for work as I'd otherwise have liked to so I could get four good months in there; hired a college student to help us out but then also rearranged our schedule so we could minimize babysitter time (mostly because we couldn't really afford it); tried co-sleeping because we found it convenient at first but in short order were all exhausted and so let them each cry a bit, etc. Sometimes we tried things that didn't represent a net gain in convenience, so we dropped them. Sometimes we tried things that represented a short-term gain in convenience -- letting our older son get in the habit of napping in his swing -- but ended up being more headache in the long term than was worth it, and we wished we'd known at the time that we were setting a bad pattern. So we learned. We muddled through, with philosophies mostly just getting in the way by filling me with guilt that I'd dare make a decision without a known method to back it up, or without looking to the arrangement of my distinctively-female organs as a key to what priorities I should have in any particular daily decision. Anyway, we learned together, and both boys adapted fine, as far as we can tell now.
So maybe less than out-and-out conflict it was just a lot of judgment calls, with give and take, as you say.
But, you know, here's why I want to be able to just call it conflict. I was also inundated with motherhood rhetoric that said various versions of, "There CAN BE no conflict between mother's needs and baby's needs or SOMETHING IS WRONG. Or more specifically, someONE is wrong, i.e. Mom. She *should* be blissed-out at breastfeeding for as long as possible, staying home, wearing the kid, etc. She *should* find this to be not only convenient but fulfilling. Because if she DOESN'T, why that means she is treating non-mothering-related needs as legitimate WHICH CANNOT BE BECAUSE THEN THE WORLD WILL END AND WON'T ANYBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?!"
So that's what I have at stake in saying, No, the conflict is not between honoring the baby's needs or fighting the baby's needs. (Which formulation makes the mother invisible, as well as being kind of a no-brainer -- I mean, if that's all it was then who would say, "Um, I think I'll *fight* the baby's needs, thanks!) The conflict is between what the baby seeks and what the mother seeks... and if that's how it feels it's not necessarily because there's ANYTHING wrong, least of all the spectre of the selfish mother who can't be bothered with her kids. And also, there's one HELL of a conflict between mothers' *and* fathers' *and* children's needs on the one hand; and the desires of a misogynist society that likes to spin charming tales about mothers finding joy in erasing themselves to fit an ideal. (Hmm, women finding meaning and purpose in erasing themselves to fit an ideal... why, I nearly feel an anti-diet rant coming on!)
Sooo... I think some compromise, sacrifice, and give-and-tak -- and, yes, conflict -- in my family well and good, as well as none of most people's business. So, conflict in my household? No problem, we love each other, we deal, and everyone counts.
However, that's different from the conflict I experience with malevolent philosophies of motherhood. Because those intrude upon my life and limit my options, and those of all women, I think. Plus, I don't owe anything to the Motherhood Storytellers, and if they're doing something to make my life more difficult, then you can bet I'll give them an earful about it.
From Susanne:
"The odd thing is that the difference in price between a good carrier and a terrible one is sometimes only about $20 or no difference."
It would seem to me that if it were truly the biological norm to wear your baby, one would be able to do without need of a specially designed artificial carrier, no? Our ancestors didn't have "good carriers."
From Jamie:
"Our ancestors didn't have "good carriers.""
Actually, the *good* carriers are based largely on an old Chinese design.
That said, I've used an 'authentic' Chinese mei-tai and it hurt like hell. I'm sure that it was an acceptable alternative to leaving the baby in the hut alone or carrying him in arms all day while trying to work, but very uncomfortable.
But, I kinda feel like you should have known all of this ... being so involved with the Motrin thing. ^_^
From A Sarah:
I personally think the father is or should be the frontline person in this village (isn't it half his child too?), and I think it's quite interesting that the emergence of a "female village" lets fathers off the hook, once more.
Some fathers are! My husband works part-time from home, does all the laundry and most of the dishes and cleaning. I clean the bathrooms, do almost all of the cooking, and have the career priority. If I get a job out of my PhD -- which, you know, seemed likely before the economy turned into fertilizer -- I will be the primary wage-earner and he'll stay home with the kids. He has more of the patience necessary for it, and he hates the workaday world, and he keeps the house clean and organized far better than I do. He has singlehandedly turned "Moms Group"s into "Play Group"s. This is an awesome arrangement for us. It would be terrible for many people, I'm sure. I feel really good about having hit upon it, though, because it makes such good use of our strengths. A lot of the cultural myths surrounding motherhood - as well as surrounding masculinity -- would have trained us not to consider, or even think of, our present arrangement. Thank God we'd fallen in with weirdo anti-sexists, or we might never have considered the options that, it turns out, work best for this little collection of people that live together under our roof.
From Jamie:
"No, the conflict is not between honoring the baby's needs or fighting the baby's needs. (Which formulation makes the mother invisible, as well as being kind of a no-brainer -- I mean, if that's all it was then who would say, "Um, I think I'll *fight* the baby's needs, thanks!)"
Well, a behavioral model of child development *does* fight the baby's needs. That's what I'm getting at.
I think we are probably contemporaries, A Sarah, and that the behaviorist approach to parenting was largely not advocated when we started having babies. I still see vestiges of it -- especially in families highly influenced by previous generations, as well as in mothers slightly older than myself who seem to struggle more with issues of feminism and identity (and no, I'm not saying anything negative about it -- I just don't identify well with it personally). I could be completely wrong, of course.
But I do think, when it comes down it, that this argument (like many) is one largely of semantics and perspective.
From Susanne:
"I was also inundated with motherhood rhetoric that said various versions of, "There CAN BE no conflict between mother's needs and baby's needs or SOMETHING IS WRONG. Or more specifically, someONE is wrong, i.e. Mom. She *should* be blissed-out at breastfeeding for as long as possible, staying home, wearing the kid, etc. She *should* find this to be not only convenient but fulfilling. Because if she DOESN'T, why that means she is treating non-mothering-related needs as legitimate WHICH CANNOT BE BECAUSE THEN THE WORLD WILL END AND WON'T ANYBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?!"
Yes. Yes yes yes! That's exactly it, A Sarah. Jamie - just consider me a snarkier and slightly older version of A Sarah .
It's the Mask of Motherhood. Because heaven forbid a woman say - I love my children, but after so many bites of the pretend hamburger it's time for them to go play on their own, 'kay? I love my children, but when it's time to go night-night I'd like to be able to have them go night-night and then have some time alone with my spouse. I love my children, but I feel pieces of me slipping away the more I hang around other mothers and hear all this talk about parenting logistics and nothing about the bigger, wider world. I think the pressure on women has gotten far worse in the past few years -- I'm glad I had my children when there wasn't this uber-natural-parenting trend -- and it's very disheartening to see that all the progress women have made is being moved back, because now parenting has to be 24/7 intensive and mommy has to be self-sacrificial at all times or Disaster Will Result.
Because it's only mothers who are asked to be self-sacrificial. Ever notice that?
From A Sarah:
Well, a behavioral model of child development *does* fight the baby's needs. That's what I'm getting at.
Right, but what I'm getting at is that you're locating the conflict in a way that makes the mother's needs invisible. The *conflict* does not come up because people are scratching their heads and saying, "Gee, should I keep the baby in bed with me when that's obviously easier, or should I just do some arbitrary other thing that's really difficult and time-consuming? I just can't decide." The *conflict* arises between the needs that can't both be accommodated equally at the same time. And in some houses, truly, the mother's mental health and/or earning power and/or quality of life is incompatible with the baby's wanting to sleep close. That's the conflict.
It's sort of the difference between these two ways of framing it:
a) Here's the conflict: You can take Road A, which is paved and low-traffic and has no puddles and smells of vanilla; or you can take Road B which is pothole-ridden and smells of sewage and is full of traffic. Which one is better? Hmmm.
and saying:
b) Here's the conflict: Road A is more pleasant, but Road B takes you where you more urgently need to go.
See what I'm getting at? The *conflict* isn't between "honor biology and have convenience and ease" or "fight biology and endure a lifetime of struggle" Mothers aren't idiots; if that were an accurate characterization then it wouldn't be hard to adjudicate. The *conflict* is between "My child will cry if I put him in a crib, but dear God, if I don't get some sleep, not to mention some time when I'm not touching a baby, I swear I will put my motherf%&king fist through a window." it sounds like it never came down to that for you. Awesome. You're lucky! But for some women it does come down to that. It's not an answer to say, "Oh, you must not really feel that way; surely you're mistaken," and it's not an answer to say, "Well, just try to put the baby's needs above your own a little more, like the good mothers do, and the problem will go away." Sometimes it really is the choice between a certain culturally-privileged form of parenting, or the mother's mental health and happiness.
From Jamie:
"I think the pressure on women has gotten far worse in the past few years -- I'm glad I had my children when there wasn't this uber-natural-parenting trend -- and it's very disheartening to see that all the progress women have made is being moved back, because now parenting has to be 24/7 intensive and mommy has to be self-sacrificial at all times or Disaster Will Result."
Alright, Susanne. I *need* you to acknowledge the possibility that I do not find the way I parent 24/7 intensive and self-sacrificial. I find it easy, intuitive, and comfortable. Yes, I need breaks from time to time, and I find ways to get them. Yes, I want to toss my 4yo out the window on an almost daily basis, but I do enjoy his company.
A friend of one, upon becoming pregnant, feared sitting at a table with another mother at the company party. She didn't want the conversation to be all baby all the time. I pointed out to her that I don't often have much else to talk about. That observation might be sad to you, Susanne, but unless it is sad to me, it can't be self-sacrificial, can it?
As far as being asked to sacrifice as a woman -- I don't feel it, I'm sorry. I feel like I am more tied to my kids because I am the primary caregiver, a choice that I made. Maybe I don't feel the great bondage of my own ovaries because I *do* have a choice, I don't feel obligated, and I'm too removed from the fight to win me the choice.
From A Sarah:
Jamie, what do you think of when you think of feminism? Do you like it being illegal for your husband to beat you? Do you like voting? Do you like being able to hold property? I'm guessing yes. But you don't identify with feminism?
From Jamie:
"The *conflict* arises between the needs that can't both be accommodated equally at the same time."
I'm not arguing with this at all, A Sarah.
As I said when I started posting here, what I object to is universally prescribed CIO -- when it has nothing to do with anyone's needs, but is suggested simply because the baby is six months old, or has reached 15lbs, or whatever.
From Susanne:
"I feel like I am more tied to my kids because I am the primary caregiver, a choice that I made."
More tied than whom or what? I'm wondering why you chose the comparative.
More tied than your husband? More tied than other mothers? More tied than you would have been if you had decided to parent in some fashion other than the way you are?
From Susanne:
"Alright, Susanne. I *need* you to acknowledge the possibility that I do not find the way I parent 24/7 intensive and self-sacrificial. I find it easy, intuitive, and comfortable."
I acknowledge that. Indeed, I fully believe it. You are nothing if not honest and forthright, and I appreciate that.
Can you likewise appreciate that what your intution tells or told you to do is not the same as what everyone else's intuition tells them to do? And that your intuition is not any better at decoding Nature's Original Intent than anyone else's?
From Jamie:
"But you don't identify with feminism?"
I don't know how to explain any better, A Sarah.
I don't feel that my personal freedom is under any challenge because of my gender. I mentioned it above -- I do wonder if I'm just too young and American (read: privileged) to see gender inequality as a serious threat to me.
Also, I've never worked predominantly in a male-dominated arena or environment. Maybe that has something to do with it?
Obviously, I enjoy my freedoms, and understand that women before me did not have them, but I recall no personal experiences that I link to the struggle itself.
From Jamie:
"Can you likewise appreciate that what your intution tells or told you to do is not the same as what everyone else's intuition tells them to do? And that your intuition is not any better at decoding Nature's Original Intent than anyone else's?"
I am getting a migraine, so I can barely see my text box. Please forgive any sloppiness.
As a Myers Briggs enthusiast, Susanne, you should be able to appreciate that some of use are better at following our intuition than others. ^_^
But intuition, by definition, is incredibly personal.
I find it a bit annoying, however, that I'm being asked (again) to deny that I'm applying some universal truth to all mothers. Haven't I been clear enough on that front?
From A Sarah:
As I said when I started posting here, what I object to is universally prescribed CIO -- when it has nothing to do with anyone's needs, but is suggested simply because the baby is six months old, or has reached 15lbs, or whatever.
No problem from me on this. None whatsoever. I agree with you.
And I appreciate your answer about feminism. I do feel tied to the struggle, of course, but I came to it primarily by way of feeling shat upon in patriarchal religion. If you haven't had that pleasure, then so much the better.
From Caryn:
"Ah, so is your objection that we *shouldn't* fight children's biological urges, but *should* just wait for them to reach the developmental stage where we can reason with them? Or that we *shouldn't* fight children's biological urges *unnecessarily*?"
My opinion is that this reasoning works for me.
That's because the things that you call "unnecessary" are things that you don't value. You might very well get agreement from absolutely everyone that frustrating children unnecessarily is wrong, but that could lead to completely different behaviors, because people have completely different understandings of what is, and what is not, necessary.
What is offensive here? Is that my opinion exists, or that I choose to share it?
In this particular instance, I think it's the same thing that pissed you off, coming from other posters -- the characterization of other people who don't hold those values as "fighting with children's obvious needs".
Which is, after all, what the separate-sleep advocates were doing with co-sleeping, particularly with respect to safety. I mean, it's a pretty bad thing if you're compromising the safety of children to avoid conflict, isn't it? And it's a pretty bad thing if children thrive maximally when their developmental needs are met and you're failing to meet them, isn't it?
I'd venture to say that most disagreements of this nature -- and I'm lumping the abortion fight in here, and religious fights in here -- come down to *annoyance with proselytizing*.
I know perfectly well that cosleeping raises the mortality risk to a young infant slightly, but I only cared very very slightly, because I wanted to sleep. And everybody makes tradeoffs.
People who sleep train know perfectly well that there are empirical facts about what babies are adapted to, and they don't really care either, because they want to sleep.
And people and their babies are different.
From Jamie:
Susanne, I used the word 'tied' because I felt it properly reflected the issue you were getting at.
An example though: It is much harder logistically for me to make an appointment where I don't bring the kids along -- harder than it is for my husband. This is an area where meeting my own needs is often very difficult, but I attribute it to my unwillingness to ask for help and my general dislike of committing to dates and times.
From Jamie:
"People who sleep train know perfectly well that there are empirical facts about what babies are adapted to, and they don't really care either, because they want to sleep."
I don't know if I agree with this. Not when babies who cry are labeled as 'stubborn' or 'manipulative.' Not when a very intelligent woman can faithfully insist that a baby who cries is in less real distress than the mother who listens to him.
It seems to me that the potential reasons for the baby's distress are being completely disregarded.
From Jamie:
"You might very well get agreement from absolutely everyone that frustrating children unnecessarily is wrong."
Not from the blanket trainers, or rotten tomato-ers (or whatever it is), and it is easy for me to perceive a continuum between blanket training and other behaviorally based parenting choices.
I am not at all saying that there isn't an appropriate point on the continuum for any one parent to say, "Ok, that's right for us," but just that there's a connection.
Is it weird that I see most things as continuums?
From Caryn:
It seems to me that the potential reasons for the baby's distress are being completely disregarded.
It seems to me that all sorts of facts about the world are completely disregarded all the time by practically everyone.
Not from the blanket trainers, or rotten tomato-ers (or whatever it is), and it is easy for me to perceive a continuum between blanket training and other behaviorally based parenting choices.
Sure they would. It's just that they think it's necessary to train the baby to sleep on a blanket or else consequences follow, ones that they don't value.
From Susanne:
"As a Myers Briggs enthusiast, Susanne, you should be able to appreciate that some of use are better at following our intuition than others."
Touche! I'm an N, though. I actually think the natural-parenting-AP thing is more of the F vs T dichotomy, not the N vs S.
"I find it a bit annoying, however, that I'm being asked (again) to deny that I'm applying some universal truth to all mothers. Haven't I been clear enough on that front?"
You may not have applied a universal truth to all mothers, but you have stated that there is a universal truth to all babies, namely their need to co-sleep. If I misunderstood that, I apologize, but I thought you were clear on that.
From A Sarah:
Not from the blanket trainers, or rotten tomato-ers (or whatever it is),
Of course they think frustrating children unnecessarily is wrong. They think that they're doing something that's necessary or beneficial.
I don't know if I agree with this. Not when babies who cry are labeled as 'stubborn' or 'manipulative.' Not when a very intelligent woman can faithfully insist that a baby who cries is in less real distress than the mother who listens to him.
Okay, what about the people who sleep train but don't label? They just say, "Yeah, I want sleep, and plus it's none of anyone else's business."
I'm confused, Jamie. Do you want your way to be acknowledged as empirically better? Comments like these seem to indicate yes. But then you say you've never advocated one universal standard for all mothers, and you just do what works. I can't figure out which you really think.
From Susanne:
"I don't feel that my personal freedom is under any challenge because of my gender. I mentioned it above -- I do wonder if I'm just too young and American (read: privileged) to see gender inequality as a serious threat to me."
It's possible. I'm in my early forties (ouch that hurts, lol) and I remember when it was assumed that a woman became a nurse and a man a doctor. The generation right before mine fought long and hard for women to burst through all kinds of glass ceilings, my generation did so, and now women are back to arguing about diapers, LOL. Parenting choices are the new ring-around-the-collar whereby women try to compete with one another, it seems.
From Susanne:
"She didn't want the conversation to be all baby all the time. I pointed out to her that I don't often have much else to talk about. That observation might be sad to you, Susanne, but unless it is sad to me, it can't be self-sacrificial, can it?"
I'm reading in between the lines here, but I would surmise that very thing -- that your interests are all-baby-all-the-time -- is a source of conflict between you and your mother?
From Susanne:
"An example though: It is much harder logistically for me to make an appointment where I don't bring the kids along -- harder than it is for my husband. This is an area where meeting my own needs is often very difficult, but I attribute it to my unwillingness to ask for help and my general dislike of committing to dates and times."
And, you don't value it. Because hiring a babysitter is not rocket science; you don't value the benefit of the freedom a babysitter might afford you enough to overcome your unwillingness to ask for help and your dislike of committing to dates and times. Which is fine! As long as you own it. Meanwhile, I can point to tons of SAHM's I know who have sitters or co-ops on a regular basis, because they value those things. For some women, their *intuition* tells them that they should be the one taking care of baby at all times unless there's an unusual emergency situation. For other women, their *intuition* tells them that achieving balance between Mom and Self is an important thing, and if that requires finding a sitter or trading with a friend, then that's the better thing.
From Jamie:
"I'm reading in between the lines here, but I would surmise that very thing -- that your interests are all-baby-all-the-time -- is a source of conflict between you and your mother?"
It could very well be. Whenever she asks me "What's new?" my response is always about the boys.
And then she feels obligated to offer an opinion, or 'fix' something that I don't see as broken.
From Susanne:
I am watching a document called History of Sex on the History Channel right now talking about the Puritan era, and the custom of family bed, which might include the parents, all the children, and even the beau of a teenager (separated from the teen by a bundling board inserted between them). And that the parents might very well have intercourse in the same bed with all of them. I guess all of you who sneak out to go have sex on living room couch aren't following a biological norm .
Seriously, what that tells me is that mom-dad-baby is just as much of a cultural construct as mom-dad-teenager-teenager's-beau-other-children.
From Jamie:
"The generation right before mine fought long and hard for women to burst through all kinds of glass ceilings, my generation did so, and now women are back to arguing about diapers, LOL."
Ironically enough, my own mother pioneered careers for women in a field considered very dangerous and male-dominated (Corrections), working long hours away from her young child, yet was loudly ANTI-feminist when I was old enough to bring the term home from school.
I am, for reference, turning 30 this year. I consider myself a child of the 90's.
From Jamie:
"And, you don't value it."
You're right -- I don't. When I *need* to get it done, it happens. When I *need* to get it done and I *can't* there's a fairly obvious disturbance in my ability to function.
From Caryn:
For other women, their *intuition* tells them that achieving balance between Mom and Self is an important thing, and if that requires finding a sitter or trading with a friend, then that's the better thing.
I suspect all women would agree that achieving balance between Mom and Self is important; it's just that some don't find that it requires finding a sitter or trading with a friend. Again, that's setting up a false dichotomy, in this case between the women who Have A Tiny Clue and the women who Don't Realize We Can Have Jobs Now.
From Jamie:
"Of course they think frustrating children unnecessarily is wrong. They think that they're doing something that's necessary or beneficial."
A spin I had not considered. Thank you. ^_^
"Do you want your way to be acknowledged as empirically better? Comments like these seem to indicate yes. But then you say you've never advocated one universal standard for all mothers, and you just do what works. I can't figure out which you really think."
Maybe this is why I dragged biology into it? To refute the suggestion that babies don't have real needs? As you rightfully pointed out before, there are trade-offs. I do think that a baby's parent can more correctly interpret how much distress a baby might be in at any moment than I can as Faceless Online Stranger, and is certainly better equipped to decide whether or not they've reached a point where their distress at not sleeping is greater than their chiid's distress in being left to cry.
From Jamie:
"I suspect all women would agree that achieving balance between Mom and Self is important; it's just that some don't find that it requires finding a sitter or trading with a friend. Again, that's setting up a false dichotomy, in this case between the women who Have A Tiny Clue and the women who Don't Realize We Can Have Jobs Now."
I agree with this, and it is comments like this that make me think that a bit part of the problem lies in someone (like Susanne's) inability to identify with someone else (like me).
Because I don't suspect Susanne of any devious intent here, she seems to constantly (and probably inadvertently) put herself, shoes and all, into my situation, rather than putting herself in my shoes. My shoes don't fit her, but she seems to assume that they probably don't fit me either, and that I'm just less prone to blisters.
From Jamie:
"Touche! I'm an N, though. I actually think the natural-parenting-AP thing is more of the F vs T dichotomy, not the N vs S."
I haven't thought much about it, actually. I'm an ENFP. I'm a bundle of disorganized emotions who loudly resists anything that doesn't feel good. Hrm... maybe this is why I identify with toddlers so much... ^_^
You may not have applied a universal truth to all mothers, but you have stated that there is a universal truth to all babies, namely their need to co-sleep.
I *do* think that every baby is biologically driven to seek close contact, and that co-sleeping is the biological norm developed, in part, to meet this need. This does NOT translate into every baby *needing* to co-sleep, however. For some babies, very likely yours, for example, the need for physical contact can be met without co-sleeping.
But I think there's some trouble here in defining the word 'need.' I do think that my baby, like any other, has a biological need to seek close contact, but I don't think that he, specifically, *needs* to co-sleep in the sense that he cries if I'm not around or wakes up if I leave him alone.
Even my older son, a very 'hard' sleeper, did not *need* to co-sleep in that he slept no other way, but for him, specifically, co-sleeping was a very good fit -- I think his sleep would have been far more challenging to address without co-sleeping than my new baby's would probably be.
Does that make more sense?
From Caryn:
Sure, and I would not be surprised if most people would agree with you that cosleeping avoids certain challenges. It's just that such a claim doesn't mean much given the totality of some circumstances.
This is why I was referring to medically complicated pregnancies. It's quite true that for me a vaginal delivery would have avoided certain challenges, but that didn't matter even a tiny bit given the circumstances I was in.
You can't get from "is" to "ought".
From Myriam:
I think parenting is ALL about putting your children's needs before your own. I struggled with this in the early days of motherhood, but quickly grew up.
However, I think it's exactly this whole "needs" rhetoric in parent advice rhetoric and modern discourse in general (sorry, sound like an old fogey) that is so insiduously harmful.
My babies don't *need* to sleep with me, be carried around all day or offered the breast every time they cry (I fell for this the first time around because after all why not and you can't overfeed a baby. I was miserable and my naturally skinny child swelled up like a balloon - never again). My three-year-old doesn't need to be with me all day, or even most of the day (let's not get into the thorny issue of infants in childcare) or eat organic food.
But time and again, co-sleeping and baby-wearing is couched in the language of needs rather than say drives or preferences - incredibly loaded language that naturally gets people's backs up.
From Myriam:
Correction: should have said "you can't overfeed a breastfed baby".
And I realise that last post is basically a repetition of what Jamie said about "needs". So yes, I agree with you Jamie.
From Esther:
Jamie:"You may not call CPS on me, but you *do* believe that there is a better, safer way for me to meet my baby's needs, to the point that you would not consider personally doing what I do.
And yet, I am not offended. Not at all. Am I supposed to be?"
Of course not, and I'm not beating you over the head with "you MUST CIO", either. In fact, I can't think of a circumstance, during casual conversation, in which a mother has to discuss her sleeping arrangements with another mother unless she were exhausted by them...in which case, the suggestion to CIO might be raised. But if cosleeping is working fine and you're all happy and rested, why would it come up in the first place? Unless you took the opportunity to proselytize, that is.
BTW, there is most definitely a conflict between the mother's interests and that of the baby's. Trivers coined the term "Parent-offspring conflict" 35 years ago (I discuss it here).
And just because a child evinces distress about something doesn't mean he's expressing that a biological need is being denied her. Not even at the age of a few months.
From Esther:
And if I'd seem Myriam's post before I sent my own, I just would have agreed with her:
"But time and again, co-sleeping and baby-wearing is couched in the language of needs rather than say drives or preferences - incredibly loaded language that naturally gets people's backs up."
From Liz:
In following this, I have been mildly mystified by an absence of clairity between letting a child cry in extreme distress for hours and letting it grumble for a few minutes. I had felt somewhat confused by an implication that a baby should not cry, and a well-mothered baby doesn't. I had assumed that you well informed young women had access to some modern research on the terrifying hormonal and neurological consequences, and in an idle moment, I went to Google to look for it. I have said before that Google is pretty useless as a research tool - but, boy, it is revealing as a source of cultural attitudes. What I found was the "There, There, mother" articles of pop science, patronisingly assuming we scarcely know one end of a baby from the other and the faux outrage of the NCB brigade masquerading as the definitive guide to mothering. Not very fruitful. I am temperamentally disposed to like the comment that "some babies cry because they like the sound" - but anyone want to tell me where the scary science is?
From Liz:
Actually, if you want to meet your baby's needs, killing off the next one is quite sensible. Not too many human infants give out a message that says "I need a rival." do they?
From Myriam:
"anyone want to tell me where the scary science is"
I think Oliver James is one sciency and very influential person who has popularised the idea in his book "They F*** You Up" that leaving a baby to cry can cause irreperable brain damage, but I haven't read the book. Perhaps Esther, can give us a review of that one too, or anyone else that has read it
From Esther:
I've never heard of Oliver James, but Margot Sunderland (who believes all children should sleep with their parents until age five) and the ubiquitous Dr. Sears are huge pushers of the "CIO causes brain damage" line of thinking. There's also the notorious "Harvard Study".
http://mainstreamparenting.wordp...handout-on-cio/
http://mainstreamparenting.wordp...-apnp-research/
(Dr. Amy is probably going to kill me for all but posting my own blog over here. It's just that it's more quick and efficient to refer to something I've already written about at length than cut-and-paste, attempting to keep all the links intact).
From Liz:
Esther, as far as I can see Dr. Amy has abondonned us, and I am delighted to have your links. Now, this is REALLY scary "science" - the kind that drives me nuts. I haven't read all of it yet, but a quick scan provokes both delight and disgust. Not sure that delight is the word really, but it is always nice to have your prejudices confirmed. They are prejudices though. With selective quoting it is easy to distort in support of a point of view, but that doesn't necessarily undermine the original arguments.
I am particularly interested in the arguments on "brain damage". I know a bit about brain damage, and two things that I know is that it is by no means easy to match cause and effect. What shows up on a scan does not necessarily have much to do with which child has CP, which has ADHD, and which is seemingly a shining example of perfection. The second thing I know is that brain damaged babies can cry. A lot. So maybe they have that one quite backwards. Mysterious and wonderful things, brains, and as far as I understand it, the new technologies that allow better research are throwing up as many new theories as certainties. Abused and neglected children grow up to have problems, and for all I know over-indulged children grow up to have problems too, but I doubt brain damage from crying is one of them.
From Jamie:
I really think the difference between a baby who grumbles a bit and the baby who screams until he vomits is one of common sense.
My own sweet baby, who just feel asleep in one my crazy slings, grumbled himself to sleep -- within the last 30 seconds or so. I can't imagine that he was in any sort of distress -- certainly not any acute distress.
I don't know why he grumbled. I have no idea. He does it quite regularly. I don't think he's old enough to 'fight sleep' as I surmised with my older child.
I did mention this upthread, btw, Liz. My baby who sleeps TIED TO MY BODY grumbles before drifting off.
I wouldn't assume that a baby who does his grumbling in a crib is any more distress than my baby was.
From Jamie:
"The second thing I know is that brain damaged babies can cry. A lot. So maybe they have that one quite backwards."
Liz, I took similar exception to a study I read in my early parenting days. It was sponsored by a crib manufacturer, if I recall correctly, and observed that babies who were brought into their parents' beds before four months of age were described as 'poor' sleepers at 12 months of age.
I scratched my head and thought: "Well, maybe they were brought into their parents' beds at four months because they *were* poor sleepers, and other four month old babies, being 'fair' sleepers already, were simply left in their cribs to sleep happily."
From Jamie:
"In fact, I can't think of a circumstance, during casual conversation, in which a mother has to discuss her sleeping arrangements with another mother unless she were exhausted by them...in which case, the suggestion to CIO might be raised."
Well, no, the opposite can often be true. A mother is exhausted because she's going down the hall multiple times a night, and spending a hour or so getting her small baby fed, changed, and back to sleep before trudging back to bed. Maybe, for her, co-sleeping -- or even proximal sleeping space -- would be a favorable suggestion. The problem here is that you are seeing only sleep training as a 'fix' for a family's broken sleep.
But actually, this point of privacy is interesting and one I've considered. After all, does a mother have any need to 'open herself' up for 'attack' by telling anyone how she sleeps at night? Babywearing *might* be some external badge of Momness for some (something I blame on Toyota, not other mothers), but co-sleeping? How on earth would anyone know?
"And just because a child evinces distress about something doesn't mean he's expressing that a biological need is being denied her. Not even at the age of a few months."
Yes, this is very true. I don't know why any specific child cries. But at the same time, I don't think you know why either. You may have the closer relationship with her, and your interpretation may be more accurate. No argument there.
From Jamie:
And what about the mother who asks for help getting more sleep, who specifically states that she does not want to use CIO?
Am I, a co-sleeping mother quite happy with the arrangement, obligated to bite my tongue (or sit on my fingers) for fear of accidentally proselytizing? Or am I allowed to give her advice?
From Liz:
I think there is a huge and easily identified difference between comparing notes, suggesting alternatives and proselytizing. If one is enthusiastic about a particular course, or convinced that your reasoning is sound, it can be hard not to over-sell. I get upset when people trivialize the real risk of childbirth - but child rearing choices are much less clear cut - more an art than a science. As I said earlier, not often a matter of life and death.
From Jamie:
"I think there is a huge and easily identified difference between comparing notes, suggesting alternatives and proselytizing."
What I'm trying to get to, Liz, is whether or not Esther can perceive a suggestion to try co-sleeping *as* real advice. She stated above that she couldn't think of a circumstance where I would need to tell anyone that I happily co-sleep, unless I wanted to proselytize.
Earlier, Susanne could not see how one mother suggesting a different sling to another mother was nothing more than simple advice, so she attributed foul intent to it.
I guess I'm smelling a bias, and I want to find it.
From A Sarah:
Well, shoot, if a friend of mine with a baby specifically asked, "WHAT has worked for you? I need some sleep or I'm going to go insane!" I'd ask, "What's your arrangement currently?" And if she said, "The baby's in her room down the hall," I'd probably say, "Have you considered having her in your room or even bed?" And if she said, "She's in our bed," I'd say, "Have you considered moving her to her own room?" And if the answer to either question was, "No, absolutely not," then I'd probably just empathize, KWIM? Or offer to do night duty some night. Isn't a lot of parenting just trying various stuff out of desperation and/or convenience until something works?
From Jamie:
"Well, shoot, if a friend of mine with a baby specifically asked, "WHAT has worked for you? I need some sleep or I'm going to go insane!" I'd ask, "What's your arrangement currently?" And if she said, "The baby's in her room down the hall," I'd probably say, "Have you considered having her in your room or even bed?" And if she said, "She's in our bed," I'd say, "Have you considered moving her to her own room?" And if the answer to either question was, "No, absolutely not," then I'd probably just empathize, KWIM? Or offer to do night duty some night. Isn't a lot of parenting just trying various stuff out of desperation and/or convenience until something works?"
That is more or less what I would do, A Sarah. I think it makes perfect sense.
I'm still wondering why Esther can't think of an innocent situation where I might publicize that co-sleeping works for me, but that it would be perfectly reasonable to publicize that CIO worked for her.
From Esther:
Jamie:"What I'm trying to get to, Liz, is whether or not Esther can perceive a suggestion to try co-sleeping *as* real advice. "
Probably, though the situation I usually encounter is a family who, out of desperation, has already tried that route and found it didn't (sufficiently?) improve their sleep quality.
I also think that suggesting a parent cosleep with their very tiny baby (under 2-3 months of age) w/o a separate sleeping surface, w/o mentioning the 'rules' of safe cosleeping, and making claims about the benefits of cosleepng beyond what has been proven (e.g., causes babies to be extra sparkly) is NOT good advice. That doesn't mean recommending cosleeping is never a good idea, though.
From Jamie:
Thank you, Esther.
"I also think that suggesting a parent cosleep with their very tiny baby (under 2-3 months of age) w/o a separate sleeping surface, w/o mentioning the 'rules' of safe cosleeping, and making claims about the benefits of cosleepng beyond what has been proven (e.g., causes babies to be extra sparkly) is NOT good advice."
Are you automatically assuming that *I* (gen) offer advice in this fashion, or simply clarifying a behavior that you object to?
From Esther:
I have no idea how you offer advice, Jamie, or even *if* you offer it. So we are definitely talking about the latter.
OK?
From Jamie:
"I have no idea how you offer advice, Jamie, or even *if* you offer it. So we are definitely talking about the latter.
OK?"
OK. ^_^ As long as we are agreed that it is *possible* for me to offer advice, not just pat myself on the back.
From Jamie:
Hey! I might be brilliant. I think I just had an epiphany.
WARNING: The following post contains Behavioral Psychology.
I was thinking about the situation where I tell 'someone' that I wear my baby to keep him safe from his older brother.
Someone: Well, why don't you try a pack and play?
Me: Brother would probably just climb in himself, or toss things that might hit Baby.
Someone: It sounds like Brother might like to be in preschool during the day.
Me: ...
The problem with the advice to use a PnP or preschool was not the content. Both are highly reasonable solutions ... if the problem actually existed. The real issue here is that I wasn't looking for advice in the first place. As I touched on above -- 'someone' was trying to fix something that I did not consider broken.
So, I guess this gets us to the question: Why was the advice offered?
Did I open myself up to unsolicited advice by using dysfunctional language (ie: was I justifying my solution in a way that made me sound cornered)? Does 'someone' feel a dysfunctional need to give me advice (a number of possibilities here)?
Or is it a combination? I am fully aware that I bait my mom (for example) into disapproving of me (or my parenting, or my husband, or my housekeeping) by using *slightly* dysfunctional language to describe situations where I know she has no personal experience but feels obligated to comment. Then I get to reject her disapproval (often for nothing more than my own internal satisfaction).
But enough about me: Susanne seemed to jump on the notion that using a PnP 'offended' me, which made me wonder if this is a behavior she sees often. What if mothers exhibiting this behavior are not objecting to the content of the advice, but simply aren't looking for advice at all?
Maybe they are feeling the need to justify their choices (which I was finding highly annoying earlier), for a number of mostly irrational reasons), unaware that their language was soliciting advice. Advice is offered -- they get annoyed.
From Susanne:
Could you help me underwstand what context are you telling someone that you wear the baby to prevent brother from getting at him in the first place. Did the person ask "Why are you wearing your baby?" in the first place? Or did you spontaneously say, "Hey, I wear the baby because ..."?
Otherwise, I can't think of too many other decisions we all make where we walk around explaining to others why we make those decisions, kwim? I mean, for most daily decisions we make or observe others making, it's a pretty fair bet that they fall into one of two categories: 1) That's how it suits the person; or 2) They have no choice in the matter. Unless the person is asking for advice or suggestions, I'm going to assume that their decisions are working well for them. If you cosleep / babywear / etc and you're all happy, you don't need to justify it one iota to anyone else. Nor do you really need to "explain" it either. "It works for us" is all the explanation needed. Which is why some of us are interested in knowing why you also appear to have a need or desire to justify your explanations with "it's the biological norm." What if it is or it isn't? Isn't the bottom line whether it suits you and yours?
From Susanne:
"In fact, I can't think of a circumstance, during casual conversation, in which a mother has to discuss her sleeping arrangements with another mother unless she were exhausted by them...in which case, the suggestion to CIO might be raised. But if cosleeping is working fine and you're all happy and rested, why would it come up in the first place?"
EXACTLY!! And the only reason CIO comes up in the first place in any discussion is that obviously co-sleeping DOESN'T work for everyone!
And people differ, of course, as to whether every baby's cry is Potential Brain Damage Not Worth Risking Lest He Become a Serial Killer or Worth Dealing With to Get the Baby to Sleep Elsewhere.
From Susanne:
"I suspect all women would agree that achieving balance between Mom and Self is important; it's just that some don't find that it requires finding a sitter or trading with a friend."
I agree with your point that for some women it doesn't require a sitter (etc), but I don't agree that all women would agree that achieving balance between Mom and Self is important. I think there is a huge deny-your-role-as-anything-but-mama trend these days -- MDC is part of the vanguard, but it's all over, and it's a hell of a backlash, IMO.
From A Sarah:
The problem with the advice to use a PnP or preschool was not the content. Both are highly reasonable solutions ... if the problem actually existed. The real issue here is that I wasn't looking for advice in the first place. As I touched on above -- 'someone' was trying to fix something that I did not consider broken.
One of the things I find helpful about a feminist critique, is that it gives some critical leverage on precisely this problem. Why is it that being a mother in public seems to give other people license to not maintain appropriate interpersonal boundaries, treat you like you're an idiot, and offer advice when none was asked for? Well, because of assumptions about women, about women's bodies, about women and children, and about the intelligence necessary to do work coded as feminine.
From Caryn:
I don't agree that all women would agree that achieving balance between Mom and Self is important.
They do. They just define them as roles with much more overlap than you (or I) would.
Insofar as such a definition is the *consequence* of the Mommy Warz, I happily object to it myself, but try to do it in a way that doesn't assume that I can tell on inspection of someone else's lifestyle what it is that they're thinking. That's precisely what *you* objected to upthread, when people were assuming that you were cavalier about letting your babies cry it out down the hall.
I got enough crap from people about living apart from my husband for career reasons ("What's wrong with your marriage?") because they thought they could tell by looking that it must be in horrible shape simply because we lived in two different states. (*snort* Well, welcome to academia.)
You can't tell, just by looking, anything about other people's expertise or beliefs on the grounds that they don't book a sitter for infants. In my case, DH and I organized our schedule so that *I* worked while *he* carried a crying baby and *he* worked while *I* carried a crying baby. It's a little annoying to have people on the internets group me in the category of "incapable of recognizing a distinction between Mom and Self" simply because I coslept, or didn't book a sitter for my high-needs offspring when he was an infant.
I am suggesting *not* imputing motives simply on inspection. People are fond enough of announcing their motives, at which point -- have at it; I certainly do.
From Liz:
Quite interesting, really, to think about this disconnect as a continuum, with the totally abnegating Mom at one end and the escaping, non-maternal Self at the other. I think a version of a feminism that concentrated less on women as imitation men, and more on making it possible for Mom and Self to coexist without guilt would be nice - and not that impossible, either.
From Jamie:
"EXACTLY!! And the only reason CIO comes up in the first place in any discussion is that obviously co-sleeping DOESN'T work for everyone!"
NO, Susanne. I offered a perfectly good example above where the suggestion to co-sleep would be *more* helpful than the suggestion to continue sleeping apart in order to resolve a family's broken sleep.
You see ONLY sleep training as any kind solution, which is a strong personal bias.
From Jamie:
"Quite interesting, really, to think about this disconnect as a continuum, with the totally abnegating Mom at one end and the escaping, non-maternal Self at the other. I think a version of a feminism that concentrated less on women as imitation men, and more on making it possible for Mom and Self to coexist without guilt would be nice - and not that impossible, either."
I was thinking of something similar this morning, Liz. I was wondering how someone (Susanne, in particular) imagined that I spent my day. Did she think that I 'mothered' 24/7 (whatever that means)?
I mused to myself that I *am* a mother all day, but no more or less than she is, or you are, or Beverly's mom (my borrowed toddler), who drops her off every morning is.
Not really going anywhere with it -- just my idle pre-coffee thoughts.
From Susanne:
"NO, Susanne. I offered a perfectly good example above where the suggestion to co-sleep would be *more* helpful than the suggestion to continue sleeping apart in order to resolve a family's broken sleep."
I was thinking about your babywear-to-prevent-brother-from-getting-at-baby scenario. If that's all the info one had on hand, one might reasonably infer that you were babywearing to solve a problem you had (e.g., you were just tolerating it) as opposed to babywearing because you enjoyed it. People (in general) can argue with the former but they can't argue with the latter. I'm still trying to get why these decisions get brought up in real life conversation in the first place, though. I wouldn't start disclosing what I did or didn't do unless I was explicitly asking for input or advice. Because otherwise, what's the point? Justifying things I'm happy with? About as silly as walking around saying "This is why I took this job" or "This is why I married this man" or "This is why I painted my living room blue." Presumably it suited me.
From Jamie:
As for the justifying bit --
Susanne, I feel no need to justify my choices as congruent with biology. My choices are, largely, congruent with my understanding of biology, which Caryn tells me is not anything special. Science is how we understand the world. Sure. I'll buy that. The science I understand best and have the most experience with is biology.
I do, however, feel the need to justify my choices to *you* as my choices, not some willful self-sacrifice or example of paranoia or misogynistic brainwashing. I find that highly irrational and annoying, but I certainly don't blame you for it. I mean, I didn't need to come here and take issue with you, did I? I could have remained in the happy arms of my village where I don't need to struggle to feel understood.
And frankly, *my* village doesn't sit around congratulating itself on its superior parenting. It offers support, advice, and empathy.
But I really do think that I'm done here (probably). As long as there is one 'mainstream' mom crowing on babycenter about how she will *only* entrust her baby's precious life to the latest Britax, and how she will *never* turn it forward-facing until he's 40lbs, as long as there is a market for $800 strollers, I feel confident that SanctiMommies are not a crunchy phenomenon.
And I will be able to happily doubt that the current cultural beliefs about 'good' parenting put parents on some paranoid 'hook' until someone proves to me that past cultural beliefs about 'good' parenting were specifically intended to take parents off the hook.
There are only two things that have changed, in my estimation. The *content* of the cultural beliefs has changed, as it is always has, and the means by which mothers like me with far too much time on their hands can publicly theorize about the shift has changed, via Teh Interwebs.
From SarahNicole:
@Jaime: "Did she think that I 'mothered' 24/7 (whatever that means)?"
Heh. That's why I find the phrase "full-time mother" to be annoying. Of course, I see the identities and the actual tasks of the various roles I fulfill as different things -- I am always and ever particular things, but whether those things are particularly relevant at any particular time is what needs to be teased out. Identities like mother tend to be master statuses that are also often embedded in false dichotomies...
And: "I feel confident that SanctiMommies are not a crunchy phenomenon."
You're not wrong there. As motherhood is and has been understood as sanctified (as in the false dichotomy of the virgin/whore), the struggle for whose version is the most holy/natural/correct/destined is ongoing, IMO...
From Jamie:
"I was thinking about your babywear-to-prevent-brother-from-getting-at-baby scenario."
Well, in that case, you had specifically attacked babywearing by asking how anyone could ever get anything done that way, and I had challenged that I wouldn't be able to get anything done *without* babywearing, and then offered a specific example of why.
It's almost as if you can tolerate babywearing (or cosleeping, or breastfeeding) *as long as* I'm doing it because it makes it makes me Happy Shiny People, but if I propose that doing so might represent a real solution to a real challenge -- a solution that works for me, you take issue.
It's hard for me to isolate, exactly, but it's like I'm being put in an impossible situation. You object to me parenting in ways that don't make me happy, but characterize the Happy Shiny Mommy as completely ridiculous.
You don't seem to think that I *can* like the way I parent if I have real challenges during the day.
It's weird...
From Jamie:
Alright, I figured out that I am in an impossible position (and it's not Susanne's fault, unless she is in charge of the Universe At Large).
"If that's all the info one had on hand, one might reasonably infer that you were babywearing to solve a problem you had (e.g., you were just tolerating it) as opposed to babywearing because you enjoyed it. People (in general) can argue with the former but they can't argue with the latter."
This is exactly wrong, and the difference between parenting and other personal choices, like career or marriage, is the welfare of the child.
I *can't* say, "I do this because *I* like it" if it is a decision that involves my child, because then the question is, "Shouldn't you do things that are good for the child, too?"
I can't give a reason why it might be good for the child, without running the risk of insulting someone who *doesn't* do 'it.'
So I'm left with justifying it on some practical grounds, like the baby-brother-playpen issue.
And no, Susanne -- I don't know why this happens in the first place. I don't know what happened to just insisting that it's nobody business (besides Grandma's, of course), but I'm going to blame it all on the Internet.
From Jamie:
And just stating that the child seems to like it too isn't good enough.
Looking back at this conversation specifically, I have Susanne wondering if co-sleeping is really ok for children if it results in a 'damaged' 4yo who doesn't sleep independently.
We are *required* to sell our choices, especially to other individuals who have managed similar situations with different choices, which sets up crappy language and poor communication.
Look at that! We've busted up the Mommy Wars! Somebody call MDC...
From A Sarah:
I *can't* say, "I do this because *I* like it" if it is a decision that involves my child, because then the question is, "Shouldn't you do things that are good for the child, too?"
Lots of things are good for a child, and it's really not a stranger's beeswax what you've prioritized. (Unless you vocally suggest that the things you've prioritized are better for everyone at all times and in all places in which case people are entitled to get a little peeved by the implication that they are doing it wrong.)
A hypothetical example:
WHY IS YOUR HUSBAND NOT EARNING $400K a YEAR?! Doesn't he KNOW that children who grow up in wealthy households have BETTER HEALTH AND DO BETTER IN SCHOOL?
Why would you even spend two seconds thinking about someone shouting at you for this? Would you feverishly go on the internet looking up evidence for how children who grow up in households earning $400K a year or more do well in some areas but fall behind in others? Would you go join internet support groups based on the innate superiority of raising children in a household earning between $100K and $200K?
No, because the rhetoric surrounding fatherhood is not frakking insane like it is around motherhood.
Ah, but then we need feminism again.
From A Sarah:
We are *required* to sell our choices, especially to other individuals who have managed similar situations with different choices, which sets up crappy language and poor communication.
You really aren't though. "This is how I do it, and I don't care to justify it further at the moment," rinse and repeat.
From A Sarah:
Sorry, that second chunk of text was not supposed to be italicized.
From A Sarah:
Of course, the tradeoff is that if you just say "It works best for me to do it this way," then you are removing your mothering from the discourse of Bestness and Optimality. If it's important to you (gen.) to be recognized as not just doing it the way that works best for you, but as doing it better than others, then saying, "This is how it works for me, and I need no further justification" won't get you where you need to go.
IOW, saying "It works for me and I need not discuss it further, end of conversation" disengages you from a power struggle/competition over whose mothering is best. I think this is totally worth it, but some people disagree... it's really important to them to think that they're objectively getting it right. And you know what? They still end up being loving parents, even if I find them tiresome IRL. (Again, not talking about you here Jamie.)
From Jamie:
"Lots of things are good for a child, and it's really not a stranger's beeswax what you've prioritized."
I agree with this -- I do.
But I do think that the Internet has changed the definition of 'stranger' and made a lot of beeswax (of all kinds) far more public than ever intended.
(there may also be a new excess of 'over' educated women sitting around at home desperate for a little mental stimulation. Susanne laughed above that we're *back* to arguing about diapers, but we've been educated to argue about politics, ethics, science, etc. In the past, women were educated to argue about diapers, not the geo-political ramifications of diapers.)
Ideas about *what* is good for kids is incredibly variable. I think this problem mostly comes up when talking to Grandma. Grandma obviously did things differently (except in that Mythical Way Back and Where when we learned how to parent from our mothers, rather than from books and doctors and peers), and Grandma obviously has reason to question whether or not these 'new-fangled' ways are good for the baby.
But I don't think the problem is any different when talking to online strangers. I think it's the same issue. All that is required is for Mother A to identify Mother B as making a different choice in a similar situation.
There are certainly differences in *who* wants to post their beeswax all over Teh Webs, but that's based on temperament, not philosophy.
In an office, there are people who dawdle in the breakroom, getting an extra cup of coffee, waiting for someone new to come in to chat with.
In a library, one student goes to look up something in a specific book, and leaves, probably in part because another group of students at a table over are doing more chatting than reading.
At Ye Olde Watering Hole, some women sit around and dish for a while, enjoying their time before heading back home, while another gets her water and gets the heck out.
From Jamie:
I do agree with you, A Sarah, that Step 2 (Well, why is it good for the baby?) is the point of dysfunction.
Whether the mother feels that she must have a reason (number of causes) or whether she is directly asked for a reason -- the issue lies here.
From Susanne:
"Looking back at this conversation specifically, I have Susanne wondering if co-sleeping is really ok for children if it results in a 'damaged' 4yo who doesn't sleep independently."
If the 4 yo doesn't sleep independently and needs to be cajoled / forced / whatever to stay in his own bed, I still don't think that there is "damage" (unless I suppose the parents are beating him senseless to stay in his room, but I think we're all agreed that we're not talking about abusive situations). I just think it's a hassle I'd personally rather avoid by at least starting the concept of you-sleep-in-your-own-room as the norm from the get-go, versus starting it and then having to change course midway through. Of course, there's no guarantee that the crib-slept 4 yo isn't suddenly going to develop a case of want-to-be-in-mommy's-bed, and then you just have to deal with it, I suppose. No guarantees in life!
But no, I don't think that there's really permanent "damage" to the co-slept 4 yo who now won't sleep in his own room. Just inconvenience to the family.
I think some people who co-sleep may be rather naive to that risk, but hey, if it's a risk they're willing to take, then it's not my problem or my business, really.
From Susanne:
"Of course, the tradeoff is that if you just say "It works best for me to do it this way," then you are removing your mothering from the discourse of Bestness and Optimality. If it's important to you (gen.) to be recognized as not just doing it the way that works best for you, but as doing it better than others, then saying, "This is how it works for me, and I need no further justification" won't get you where you need to go."
EXACTLY. An example:
Breastfeeding mom comes to a parenting board and says Grandma don't think I should be breastfeeding junior as long as I have or plan to. What should I do?
Note how the advice invariably becomes: Well, here are ten thousand links to show them that breastfeeding is indeed superior and better and makes healthier, smarter and sparklier babies!
But IMO THAT"S THE WRONG ADVICE. Because it presupposes that grandma needs to be convinced that breastfeeding is best, as if grandma's opinion is relevant to mom's decision. And if all the links in the world don't convince grandma, then what? Mom shouldn't breastfeed? Of course not.
The right advice in that situation is exactly as A Sarah says: "Thanks for your concern, but what we're doing works just fine for us and we're happy with it. How about that Super Bowl?" Lather, rinse, repeat.
Because grandma can argue the merits of bf/ff, but grandma simply can't argue that if you say what you're doing works for you, then it works for you. It puts the discourse on a whole different playing field.
And more women would (IMO) benefit from changing the discourse from "But I am SO right! See?" to "We're happy with our course of action, thanks for your concern."
From Susanne:
"I *can't* say, "I do this because *I* like it" if it is a decision that involves my child, because then the question is, "Shouldn't you do things that are good for the child, too?""
Why the heck can't you? (again assuming you're not talking about letting your child play with broken glass) I can think of tons of parenting decisions that I did simply because they suited me! I didn't send them to preschool, for example, because I had a Deep Philosophy That Preschool Was Best For All Children At All Times and in All Situations. It just suited me to do so and I liked the preschool affiliated with our house of worship. Done! If my husband and I were happy, who did I need to "justify" that too? If someone else doesn't want to send her child to preschool, why would I need to convince her?
From Susanne:
"I do agree with you, A Sarah, that Step 2 (Well, why is it good for the baby?) is the point of dysfunction.
Whether the mother feels that she must have a reason (number of causes) or whether she is directly asked for a reason -- the issue lies here."
Using my preschool example, though, why do I have to feel it's "better for the child"? Why can't I just feel it's just fine for the child and it suits me? See the difference? Why do all of the decisions have to revolve around optimality?
One of my children plays tennis. Not because I think tennis is superior to any other sport - it was just a sport that suited her / us. Isn't that enough? One can have a belief that it's good for a child to get physical exercise - but there can be tons of ways to execute that, from bike riding to swimming to organized sports. Why does one option have to be painted as inherently superior?
From Jamie:
Eh... I give up. I thought I was being brilliant, but it seems I was just being dysfunctional (which I already knew).
From Elizabeth:
I don't agree that all women would agree that achieving balance between Mom and Self is important. I think there is a huge deny-your-role-as-anything-but-mama trend these days -- MDC is part of the vanguard, but it's all over, and it's a hell of a backlash, IMO.
Susanne,
One thing that doesn't seem to have occurred to you is that many women temporarily "deny" or minimize roles other than mother while their kids are tiny because they only have so much energy. I made a decision not to let myself get pulled in several different directions while parenting a small child because I knew I couldn't handle it. The "balance" that persons of different temperament from myself describe - holding down a paying job, active social life, keeping up with one's hobbies, big chunks of non-parentish husband-and-wife time - all on top of parenting a little baby, sounds to me like being sentenced to the salt mines. (This isn't even all that gendered; it was all my husband could do to keep up the first item on the list for the sake of everyone's survival, and even so, we probably wouldn't have had a baby in the first place if he hadn't owned his own business, which allowed him near-unlimited flexibility.)
It's not that feminism is reversing - it's that it's progressed to the point where women don't feel the need to "have it all," particularly not to have it all ALL AT ONCE RIGHT NOW, to prove that they are as good as men. I spent over ten adult years working on "me" stuff before having a kid; after she reaches a certain age, I'll spend another thirty-five or forty, Heaven willing, doing the same. What's the big panic if I allow myself to get ass-deep in the mom thing for a few years in between? It's a new era; no need to wow the judges with some '80s style juggling act, complete with floppy bow tie blouse, undocumented nanny, and Jane Fonda workouts on VHS. Surely, if girls can do anything boys can do, one of the things we can do is devote ourselves to a major project and let other "roles" fall by the wayside until we're finished. If I were scruffy and distracted and enjoying less time with my friends for a couple of years straight because I was busy writing a comprehensive history of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, I presume you wouldn't wring your hands over my "denying my role as anything-but-legal-historian." But taking care of an actual human being doesn't qualify? Why? Because it doesn't pay? Neither does most academic scholarship. Because the public sphere doesn't reward it with status? Cultural construct. Because it's not what a man would do - or at least not what a successful man in the pre-feminist era would have done? Ah.
What does seem very gendered to me is the idea that a woman is allowed to undertake demanding stuff, but only as long as it doesn't lead to her neglecting her social relationships, her husband, her business connections, her personal appearance, ......etc. It's the late-twentieth-century of vacuuming in pearls and high heels. Not a hair out of place!
But the twentieth century is over.
It's not that women don't balance Mom and Self, it's that they don't feel obligated to balance Mom and (actual, individual) Self... AND The Kind of Self You Think They Should Be. Especially not when they never had any hope of or interest in being that kind of self in the first place. And that makes them losers, right? You've said so, in as many words, in many previous discussions.
From Jamie:
Elizabeth, I love you. I could kiss you. Hell, I *am* you -- just with a cheaper education and smaller vocabulary.
From Susanne:
Fair points, Elizabeth, and far be it for me to want to go back to the 80's of having it all (BTW, I've deliberately limited some roles in life to be able to concentrate on others, including that of mother; I dropped out of grad school, I consciously changed career directions to a job enabling me to work at home most days, etc.).
I think there's a difference between actively wanting / desiring to just inhabit 1 or 2 roles, and feeling guilted into doing so.
From Susanne:
Drat, sorry if this posts twice, blame Haloscan if it does.
Elizabeth, I challenge you to find where I've said that Self must include Gorgeous Physical Appearance (with requisite Hot Bod), Copious Quantities of Husband/Wife Date Time, Paid Work Outside the Home, Volunteering, or for that matter The Sparkliest and Best-Kept House. Because I've gotta tell you, I pretty much stick with the 4 roles of mother, employee, wife and self 99% of the time, with some daughter / sister / friend thrown in - that's all I can do to maintain whatever sanity I claim to have. I think you're mixing up inclusion of Self in the mix with creation of Superwoman.
From Jamie:
Nope, I'm still brilliant.
Let's suppose that Mother A, being a Psychologically Whole Person, never wonders *why* her choice is good for her baby, effectively blows off Mother B, and forgets about the whole thing.
What does Mother B do, keeping in mind that she must have been fragile enough in the first place to set the cycle in motion? If she is unsatisfied by her exchange with Mother A, she going to go seek validation elsewhere.
It just takes one mother to wonder if her choice is good for her baby (and again, don't we all want to do things that *are* good for our babies?) to get here, and I think that some ridiculous percentage of my generation is on some kind of anti-depressant.
I've got to go, as I hear a preschooler and toddler conspiring upstairs to pour their own milk, and I do not wish to be over-identified with my ability to clean up a giant spill.
From Jamie:
"I think there's a difference between actively wanting / desiring to just inhabit 1 or 2 roles, and feeling guilted into doing so."
But where, again, are these mothers who are guilted into it?
And why are they not responsible for their own fragility the way that I'm responsible for blowing off Grandma?
I don't understand this part -- I'll own my dysfunction. If I feel guilty because my son watched TV before the age two, that's not the fault of my best friend who kept the TV off with her own young toddler.
From A Sarah:
Well, again, there's "wanting to make the best possible life for our family given our unique circumstances," and "wanting to show that every little decision we make is inherently better than its alternative." The former needs little justification beyond, "It works for us," and invites little competition. Of course you want to do what's right, but it's like saying, "What is the RIGHT way to behave toward my husband, in general?" or "What is THE RIGHT income to earn?" People who don't know you almost certainly have no idea, exactly because they don't know you. It all depends.
From A Sarah:
It just takes one mother to wonder if her choice is good for her baby (and again, don't we all want to do things that *are* good for our babies?) to get here
This is exactly why it was so exciting for me to realize that I can indeed say, "Hey, maybe *I* am the expert on what's best for my actual own personal life - given that I know its limitations and opportunities - and not some idealogue who wrote a screed because s/he needs for 'motherhood' to mean something very specific in order for her/him to feel okay."
From A Sarah:
Um, that comment got truncated, and I don't have time at present to make it make more sense, sorry... (Two words: glitter glue.)
From Elizabeth:
Susanne, literal appearance is a small part of it. But I couldn't show up in a professional environment the way I look now, which also happens to be the way I look at least 350 days out of the year. And presumably you don't show up to your professional environment looking anything like that either. I didn't always look like this. I "let myself go." Something relevant to my non-mothering identity was sacrificed as I entered more deeply into the SAHM role. The standards of appearance to which I am currently failing to live up are far more modest ones than "hot bod" and "awesome wardrobe." And my ability to be psychologically comfortable with myself in this state has a lot to do with my cultural "crunchiness." There's no way it's a coincidence that I fail to regulate my female body according to the prevailing standards of suitability for public presentation AND that I am content to mostly keep my female body and self at home, chillin' with the kid that came out of said body, entering public space only when it's convenient to that relationship.
In other words, I'm a mama. (And yes, my kid calls me that. I'll save my rant on the mean-spiritedness of your repeatedly trashing such an innocent and intimate personal choice for another time.) I'm everything about contemporary womanhood you're on such a warhorse against, and anyone who lays eyes on me knows it right away.
"Appearance" also has another meaning. It's can mean what you look like, but it can also just mean showing up, as in "making an appearance." For women these two meanings are largely linked. A good deal of what you and others have criticized "mamas" like me for is literally and metaphorically this not-showing-up for a wider range of social interactions, professional or otherwise. The culture has somewhat loosened the requirements for how women appear - the pearls and heels aren't literal - but it hasn't really loosened the expectation that women put their best foot forward, in a range of senses. You spend a lot of time transmitting that expectation to other women on this board.
From Jamie:
"Well, again, there's "wanting to make the best possible life for our family given our unique circumstances," and "wanting to show that every little decision we make is inherently better than its alternative.""
No, this isn't the conflict. The conflict is that Mother A made a different choice than Mother B in SIMILAR situation.
Perhaps the dysfunction is that Mother B doesn't see herself as a beautiful and unique butterfly, with her own abilities and limitations, and a beautiful and unique child, with his own abilities and limitations. She can't see it as a unique situation.
She's comparing notes, and she doesn't like her conclusions (again, not Mother A's responsibility -- she's that Psychologically Whole Person who never realized that there was an issue). Mother B starts hunting -- she starts looking for a way to justify the why she didn't make the same choice as Mother A.
Let's go back to Grandma. Suppose I sufficiently blow off Grandma. She's no longer raising small children, but she's probably going to complain about me at Bridge with her peers, or call up her sister.
From Liz:
It isn't only young women who evolve, you know - grannies do as well. And as a granny, I reject totally the idea that how you bring up the children should be of major concern to your mother. I am very well aware that things change; also aware that these big decisions - how to sleep, how to feed, when to wean, when how to toilet train, even cloth v disposable, which presumably has more to do with saving the planet than ruining the baby, are seldom as big a deal in the long run as they seem at the time. I had very little desire to stand over my daughter; some of the things I was slightly conscious that I would have acted differently - but, simply, it is not my child, and not my life. And, most of the time, I think she is doing pretty well without my input. I think if I were to interfere, I might, like Jamie's mum, say: Don't sweat it so much. Let yourself off the hook for small compromises, small failures - perfection is not possible, and seeking it a problem. But then, my daughter, as far as I know, does not have any Grand Encompassing Theories of perfection. And I had a very domineering mother to act as an Awful Warning. I used to think that all of us tried to avoid the mistakes our mothers made, and then ended up making a whole different set of our own.
And I also know quite a lot of grannies, who, having got their lives back, are not all that anxious to be back in the thick of childcare.
From Jamie:
I would also point out that the prevailing cultural beliefs regarding what's best for small children has never been, in the last century, "whatever works best for your family -- we trust you."
It has always included specific practices and specific things to avoid.
From Jamie:
"I think if I were to interfere, I might, like Jamie's mum, say: Don't sweat it so much. Let yourself off the hook for small compromises, small failures - perfection is not possible, and seeking it a problem."
Liz, do you think that's what my mom is trying to say? I'm honestly curious.
From Myriam:
I'm not sure anyone thinks that focusing on raising children for a few years or even a few decades to the detriment of other activities is a problem. It's the degree of obsession with motherhood that is a problem, or at least annoying.
I was buying shoes today for my son and the shop assistant called me "Mum". It was totally unnecessary, she wasn't even trying to attract my attention or anything, she was talking to me about shoe sizings and decided to call me "Mum" because she must have thought I'd like it. I know I'm not alone in finding this sort of impudence extremely annoying. A recent survey of women put being called "Mum" by midwives and doctors at the very top of their list of gripes. But with a substantial proportion of the new generation of women apparently unable to talk or think about anything but motherhood (yes, I know I'm as bad as anyone else) is it any wonder that some people think calling us "Mum" is perfectly acceptable?
The way people call themselves such and such's mama on the internet reminds me of the way some Arab women lose their names and become Umm such as such once they have children (yes, I know men become Abu as well). The only difference being that I bet the average Umm doesn't talk about motherhood and all things baby half as much as the average mama.
From A Sarah:
It has always included specific practices and specific things to avoid.
Well, and I'd say part of that's due to sexism.
Jamie, I must be missing your question. Who cares if Grandma complains about you at Bridge? Is the problem that some woman might think something that I can't give an account for? Why is this a problem? I'm honestly confused.
From Elizabeth:
It's the degree of obsession with motherhood that is a problem, or at least annoying.
OK. So when I occasionally emerge, painfully blinking, into the light of day for a brief respite from work on my jurisprudential monograph, it's equally "a problem" and "annoying" if I want to talk a lot about what I've been working on, if I mostly choose companions who will be interested in hearing such talk, and if I have difficulty switching to topics unrelated to my research?
I suspect not. Annoying, perhaps, if I'm bad at choosing companions who are interested in the subject. But noone would call it "an obsession" and "a problem" (shades of psychological pathologization) that I was heavily focused on such work.
I'd be interested if someone could come up with an account of this "unhealthy obsession" charge that doesn't rely on the hidden premise that full-time childcare is shit work fit only for the stupid. I've never heard one. Certainly not here.
From Elizabeth:
Also, if I regularly turn up at the local coffee shop with a pile of books and papers and sit there furiously scribbling away at my magnum opus, how outraged should I be if the regulars sometimes jokingly address me as "professor"?
There are problems of assumed intimacy, etc., with the "strangers calling you Mum" thing, though nothing that doesn't crop up in one way or another with other awkwad social interactions. But what kind of internalized misogyny is it to take allusion to one's motherhood as a grave insult, or as a sign of deficient self-esteem if a woman does it herself?
From Elizabeth:
Forgive the serial posting, but...
Part of what I am getting at is that women are expected to tend to others' social needs by submerging their individual peculiarities in a kind of generic, universally appealing congeniality. You can't simultaneously cultivate the ability to keep a wide variety of people interested in you, like the "gracious hostess" of a former era, just because they're there and it's your job not to be boring, and cultivate deep, not-necessarily-interesting-or-meaningful-to-
others, specialized interests. This is why women were traditionally given light, broad, humanities-heavy educations. Hermione Granger is a sup