I bought "Baby Wise" AND a James Dobson book.... - Page 2

[Belle]

Originally Posted by fruitfulmomma

I bough Ezzo at Goodwill to keep anyone else from getting it. I kept it for a while thinking I would read it and critique it myself, but eventually decided to throw it away as I figured it was a waste of my time and couldn't stomach the few pages I flipped through.

I was going to do that too. I was going to go through with a highlighter and highlight the bad info. My own copy that was a gift when my oldest was a baby mysteriously found its way into the garbage after about the 2nd chapter so I didn't have one to critique. I didn't bother though because I think my highlighter would have run out of ink.

[heidirk]

Originally Posted by OakBerry

I know you mean well, but that is censorship. What if somebody decided to do that to Dr. Sear's books?

Yes, this.

[Crafty]

I am a huge reader, a lover of books and the very idea of burning books horrifies me.


But when it comes to THOSE books, burn 'em. Torch 'em and don't look back. I've flipped through BabyWise and was horrified. Burn 'em or toss 'em in the trash, just don't let anyone else near them.

[Mama2Bug]

Originally Posted by SamI'mNot

to you for saving some poor sweet baby from the torture held within those pages!!! Don't burn them! Do you have a paper shredder? Recycle! Then again I'm a bit of a :

I agree. Shred them and recycle the debris. Maybe it will end up as something better- like toilet paper.

[AutumnAir]

It's only censorship if done by the authorities and effectively preventing people from buying/reading these books and possibly punishing them for owning/reading them into the bargain. Let's not get carried away!

Individuals are perfectly entitled to buy books and put them to whatever use they see fit (including burning or recycling them as TP!) without infringing on the right to free speech of the author or without infringing on the right of others to read the book. They might just need to look a bit harder to find it if they really want it.

I admit that much as I loathe these types of books I would not want them to be banned by the government. They should however come with strong warnings and a clear denouncement from the health authorities and other religious groups.

[AllisonR]

Very "on the fence" here, as I agree with both of these statements:

Originally Posted by trinity6232000

Burn em'.

Originally Posted by OakBerry

I know you mean well, but that is censorship. What if somebody decided to do that to Dr. Sear's books?

Would like to add, it isn't called Farenheit 451 for nothing. I literally tried to burn "What to Expect When you are Expecting" and IT WOULD NOT BURN. I tried matches, lighters, a blow torch..... if the pages were separated a lot, a few could be burned at a time, but the chemical smell was awful. I gave up.

Maybe peeing on it would solve the issue? Then it is still available for reading, if anyone REALLY wanted to.

[sapphire_chan]

Torn up paper can go into compost. But the inks mean you might want to save it for non-food plants.

[radishes]

Originally Posted by AutumnAir

I admit that much as I loathe these types of books I would not want them to be banned by the government. They should however come with strong warnings and a clear denouncement from the health authorities and other religious groups.

I just don't see how that is possible. It is an opinion and is totally subjective. As much as we might not like it, agree with it or believe it, there are many studies about sleep training that are totally opposed to each other and they all come from "experts." What if books on attachment parenting came with warnings from psychologists about how children may become rude, selfish brats, as per the recent msnbc article? I think the best activism against it is simply spreading the word and having a happy child.

[sapphire_chan]

Originally Posted by radishes

I just don't see how that is possible. It is an opinion and is totally subjective. As much as we might not like it, agree with it or believe it, there are many studies about sleep training that are totally opposed to each other and they all come from "experts."

Really? The studies I've heard about are ones like the Harvard study that shows increased cortisol levels in babies left to cry, studies that show cosleeping children have fewer anti-social tendencies and are more independent, and a study that I'm not finding at the moment where they finally tested whether responding or ignoring babies cries resulted in less crying which determined that babies cry *less* when their cries are answered.

On the sleep training side of things, there are a lot of "experts" spouting off theories, but no studies that I've seen.

There's also no evidence to support that babies "should" be able to go X hours without eating by age Y. Plenty of biological evidence, size of babies' stomachs, rate of digestion, that supports babies needing to eat frequently and throughout the night.

[BAU3]

I just can't help thinking that somewhere out there right now someone is taking books about cosleeping or attatchment parenting off the shelves and burning/hiding/destroying them so that some one with a different opinion than them can't read them.

I know that there's alot of book out there with info I find offensive or downright dangerous, but I've always been of the mind that educating rather than restricting would be a much more effective tool to share my opinion.

I also understand that the word 'censorship" is define in reference to gov't.. but when someone is hiding/burning/destroying books because they don't want other people to read them...it may not be censorship by definition, but it certainly is in the spirit of censorship. And I strongly oppose it.

[miss_yvonne]

Originally Posted by BAU3

I also understand that the word 'censorship" is define in reference to gov't.. but when someone is hiding/burning/destroying books because they don't want other people to read them...it may not be censorship by definition, but it certainly is in the spirit of censorship. And I strongly oppose it.

Agreed. The term "slippery slope" comes to mind. When I walk into a bookstore (or even a thrift store, as the case may be), I understand that there is a full spectrum of opinions being offered, and I, as a rational human being, am free to examine those opinions and choose the ones I want to learn more about. The thought that someone would be going around hiding books and/or buying up books just to "protect" me from an opinion they don't happen to agree with makes me shudder.

[Momtwice]

I object to censorship, but I object to child abuse manuals more.

I would keep them and then I could respond SPECIFICALLY to debates on the internet. But that's just me.

[sapphire_chan]

No one's out there buying every copy of these books from the book stores. For one thing, no one wants the authors to make any money. Buying 3 copies from a thriftstore supports the thriftstore and just makes it so people who want those books have to spend more to get them.

Since I've paid full price for all the parenting books I've gotten, it doesn't affect me if someone buys them up from the thriftstore. If the book wasn't important enough to me to buy from a bookstore, it wasn't important enough to me to whine about someone "censoring" it from a thriftstore.

If a book isn't important enough to me to move a few other books out of my way to find the copies the store's computers say are on the shelves, it isn't important enough to me to whine about people "censoring" it by putting it behind other books.

If the topic isn't important enough to me to do some research into what books are available on the topic, it isn't important enough to me to whine about not seeing all the books on the topic easily at the bookstore.

If someone truly believes that co-sleeping and breastfeeding are abusive, then I would hope that they would actively try to make those books less likely to be picked up by a casual browser. (Okay, really my first hope is that they'd do some research into actual studies instead of just going with whatever "expert" sounds best to them at the moment.)

[radishes]

Originally Posted by sapphire_chan

Really? The studies I've heard about are ones like the Harvard study that shows increased cortisol levels in babies left to cry, studies that show cosleeping children have fewer anti-social tendencies and are more independent, and a study that I'm not finding at the moment where they finally tested whether responding or ignoring babies cries resulted in less crying which determined that babies cry *less* when their cries are answered.

Well, people can debate all they want about expert opinions; if you want to FIND someone who is well-respected to agree with you, you will. I'm not advocating CIO in any way, all I'm saying is that when the head of the sleep department at a nationally renowned children's hospital (CHOP, for those familiar with Philly) writes a book about sleep training that involves some limited version of CIO and says it is totally fine, I don't really see how it is going to be possible to have a disclaimer on these books. Experts say it is okay, experts say it isn't okay. I don't think you can go around putting disclaimers on things according to a particular agenda. That is like if vegetarians or eco activist/locovores etc. demanded that the labels on beef products say that by consuming these mass produced meat products you were directly contributing to the structure that puts out greenhouse gasses, which will eventually warm the planet to such a degree that future generations don't have a chance in hell. Is it true? Probably. There are experts on both sides. I'm just merely pointing out that I don't believe it is possible. And like others here, I really shudder over censorship, I too believe education is the way.

[LadyCatherine185]

all I'm saying is that when the head of the sleep department at a nationally renowned children's hospital (CHOP, for those familiar with Philly) writes a book about sleep training that involves some limited version of CIO and says it is totally fine

but this book doesn't involve LIMITED crying. he says to let the baby cry for an HOUR if they 'need' to, to be able to sleep alone. an hour of crying is NOT limited crying.

also, he cites studies on how/why sleep is important. then makes his OWN conclusion that babies need to learn to sleep alone, and most will have to CIO, to get the "right" kind/amount of sleep.

the studies sapphire cited are studies that show DIRECT links between CIO and brain damage, etc. not just an 'opinion' from an 'expert.'

just my .02 on HSHC, someone let me borrow the book because my mom told them i was having 'sleep trouble' with Liam... i was curious what the book said so i read it. and i was completely horrified and disgusted.

[radishes]

I sort of assumed people were upset about CIO books in general, not just Babywise, but I get your point. I totally understand the damaging psychological affects of CIO, but I really have to question the brain damage issue. I have a high needs baby. She is 7 months now and getting much easier in some respects, but when she was younger, she could and would scream. For hours. While I was holding her, rocking, on top of me, next to me, on dad, in the swing, getting a bath, shushing, patting, babywearing, you get the idea. High needs babies have a notoriously difficult time falling asleep. They are intense and easily overstimulated. Sometimes you can do everything, hold that baby close, and they still scream their brains out from exhaustion. For hours. Are all those babies brain damaged?

[faerierose]

Originally Posted by radishes

I sort of assumed people were upset about CIO books in general, not just Babywise, but I get your point. I totally understand the damaging psychological affects of CIO, but I really have to question the brain damage issue. I have a high needs baby. She is 7 months now and getting much easier in some respects, but when she was younger, she could and would scream. For hours. While I was holding her, rocking, on top of me, next to me, on dad, in the swing, getting a bath, shushing, patting, babywearing, you get the idea. High needs babies have a notoriously difficult time falling asleep. They are intense and easily overstimulated. Sometimes you can do everything, hold that baby close, and they still scream their brains out from exhaustion. For hours. Are all those babies brain damaged?

I believe the damage referred to is a result of crying alone for long periods of time. The baby believes itself abandoned and it's brain produces too much Cortisol.
At least I hope so, I too have had two very high needs infants that cried for long stretches of time.

[kamilla626]

MomTwice and sapphire - you get where I'm coming from. I'm extremely anti-censorship. But I'm not travelling the country pulling these books out of retail stores. I pulled FOUR books of the shelves in a thrift store.

I know how impressionable new moms can be, and some new parents will grab up any parenting book that looks like it might have something to offer, especially if it's only $1 at a thrift store. Maybe what I did was childish or borders on censorship, but what the books advocate borders on abuse and neglect. My childishness and censoring is certainly the lesser of those evils IMO.

[TheTMommy]

I think what you did is fine. You purchased the books, which makes them your property, to do with what you will. To me, what you did seems like a reasonable, thoughtful action.

I take exception to those who advocate hiding or mutilating them while they are in the book store.

[Rico'sAlice]

While I salute the intent, I personally wouldn't feel comfortable buying those books even from a thrift store. While it may get "that copy" off of the shelves, I think it tells the thrift store owner that those books are popular and he will buy more used copies, give them good shelf space, etc. Sort of like 'saving' the poor, sad puppy from the pet store. Sure, that one is happy, but you're encouraging the practice to continue.