Swaddling: A Second Look - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 61 Old 11-09-2011, 03:07 PM - Thread Starter
 
Peggy O'Mara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico
Posts: 482
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

I'm posting my blog here as it may be a better place to encourage conversation about this important topic. I look forward to your comments.

 

 

 

Harvey Karp’s book The Happiest Baby on the Block has changed the landscape of parenting in the US. As a result of its irresistible title, easy to learn method and national network of 2500 teachers, most new parents in the US today are instructed to swaddle their babies. Despite this popularity, there are growing concerns that swaddling is not the cure-all parents hoped it would be.

 

Since the publication of the book in 2003, I have increasingly heard reservations from health professionals about its recommendations. A nurse practitioner wonders if the shushing sound recommended in the book can hurt the baby's ears. A renowned neonatologist worries that preventing a baby from flapping his or her arms to cool down might hurt temperature regulation. And, more recently I began to hear that routine swaddling had adverse effects on breastfeeding.

 

As a result of these concerns, I commissioned Gussie Fauntleroy to write an article on swaddling, which we’re releasing today. It is accompanied by a piece by renowned lactation consultant, Nancy Mohrbacher. And, our web editor, Melanie Mayo, has put together a special report on swaddling.

 

For even more coverage of the subject, read Mohrbacher's exceptional critique of swaddling and debate with Dr Karp on its merits in the International Journal of Childbirth Education. She looks at alarming research: Swaddling newborns delays the first breastfeeding and leads to less effective sucking. Swaddling during the early months puts an infant at risk for respiratory illness, hip dysplasia, overheating and SIDS. And, finally, a small, 2010 study showed The Happiest Baby interventions ineffective in reducing crying.

 

Take a breath. Many parents have found swaddling helpful and these articles are not meant to discredit their experience. This research comes as shocking news to us all. We do not mean to offend other parents; we all want our babies not to cry. Rather, we hope to shed light on a practice that has benefits, but that has become dogmatic and thus may interfere with parental instinct.

 

The first question one certainly asks is, “If I don’t swaddle, what else will I do.” Here are some things that have been shown to be highly effective:

Hold your baby.

Breastfeed your baby.

Walk around holding your baby.

Rock your baby.

 

According to neurologist Richard Restak, MD, “Physical holding and carrying of the infant turns out to be the most important factor responsible for the infant’s normal mental and social development.” Neural and neuroendocrine functions underlying emotional behaviors are responsive to early experiences in enduring ways. For example, the anthropologist Margaret Mead found in her research that the most violent tribes were the ones that withheld touch in infancy.

 

I realize that these swaddling articles are provocative; I hope they will also be helpful. We’ll be talking more about their findings in the community and on Facebook. Please join us to share your comments, concerns and suggestions.

 

 

Peggy O'Mara is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 of 61 Old 11-09-2011, 06:09 PM
 
kathrineg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 246
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Why compare swaddling with breastfeeding and babywearing continuously, as though they're mutually exclusive? Most mothers of new babies I know use whatever tactics work to calm their baby. Swaddling is in their toolkit along with babywearing, breastfeeding, rocking, singing...

And the idea that parents want their babies not to cry for their own selfish reasons is insulting. Good parents don't like to see their infants in distress, period. That's part of what makes them good parents. Besides, isn't crying stressful for the baby?

I also resent the implication that fathers are heartless and would rather have their babies quiet than healthy. Ridiculous.

Overall, ideology and guilt-tripping masquerading as fact. I am disappointed.
kathrineg is offline  
#3 of 61 Old 11-09-2011, 09:48 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,342
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

^^^What she said. We swaddle baby at night. Are we supposed to stay up all night and wear/feed/rock her? The idea is preposterous.

 

Also, I don't get what they are saying about swaddled=baby not crying and not having needs met. It's true our daughter sleeps longer and more soundly when swaddled (which is why we do it), but she still feeds every 4 hours or so at night, and her weight gain is fine. We don't swaddle her until she is already asleep--she won't abide it otherwise. And once she wakes up, she won't stand for being swaddled either. This reminds me of equally specious criticisms of pacifiers. Maybe other babies are different, but for our child there is no "off switch" that calms her crying without meeting her needs. Sometimes a pacifier meets her needs, sometimes not. Sometimes swaddling meets her needs, sometimes not. And when her needs aren't met, she'll let us know. There's no danger of giving her the wrong thing and having her be content with it.

 

On an only somewhat related note, swaddling the legs tightly is risky. It increases the chances of hip problems. They should be able to froggy their legs when swaddled.

erigeron is offline  
#4 of 61 Old 11-10-2011, 08:09 AM
Banned
 
stik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,860
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Fauntleroy's article cites Rousseau on the practice of swaddling:

 

 

Quote:

Over the centuries, stated benefits of swaddling have included producing straight limbs and proper physical development, making babies stronger, preventing self-injury, allowing both parents to work in the fields, and providing babies with warmth and comfort. In 17th and 18th-century Europe the employment of swaddling by wet-nurses was often associated with neglect, with wet-nurses known to leave tightly wrapped babies unattended for hours.

 

Eighteenth-century philosopher Jean-Jacque Rousseau warned against some motivations for swaddling in his novel Emile: or, On Education: “A child unswaddled would need constant watching; well swaddled it is cast into a corner and its cries are ignored […]. It is claimed that infants left free would assume faulty positions and make movements, which might injure the proper development of their limbs.

“This is one of the vain rationalizations of our false wisdom which experience has never confirmed. Out of the multitude of children who grow up with the full use of their limbs among nations wiser than ourselves, you never find one who hurts himself or maims himself; their movements are too feeble to be dangerous, and when they assume an injurious position, pain warns them to change it.” 1

 

Rousseau never tested his theories on children.  Rousseau assumed that he himself would be a terrible parent, and abandoned his own children (all five of them) at foundling hospitals early in infancy.  He assumed that his kids would be better off at institutions where mortality rates routinely exceeded 60% than they would if he raised them (or allowed their mothers to raise them).  It is an ongoing mystery to me why anyone takes this man's parenting advice.  Certainly, his kids would have been better off swaddled then they were where he left them. 

stik is offline  
#5 of 61 Old 11-10-2011, 08:49 AM
 
greenmulberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Iowa
Posts: 661
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Peggy O'Mara View Post


 

The first question one certainly asks is, “If I don’t swaddle, what else will I do.” Here are some things that have been shown to be highly effective:

Hold your baby.

Breastfeed your baby.

Walk around holding your baby.

Rock your baby.

 

As a mother who had a very distressed infant who was very difficult to calm, I find this rather painful to read, as if I didn't try hard enough.

 

Are we to believe that new mothers are unaware that they can pick up a crying baby and instead jump from screaming baby straight into swaddling without trying to hold the baby? Parents swaddle when the above tactics don't work! Not everyone has an easy baby that will calm simply from being nursed or rocked.

 

My baby was often so upset in my arms or her fathers arms her first few days she wouldn't breastfeed. I recall being in tears trying to get her to latch while she just cried and cried. Swaddling helped her calm down and then she was able to nurse, and then fall asleep. It was a great tool for us.

 

We didn't use the swaddle much after her first week, and never again after the first two weeks, because things got better and she learned how to latch quickly, and I didn't really like the idea of wrapping her up tightly. But when we needed it, I am glad I knew about it.

 

 

Kelly1101 likes this.
greenmulberry is offline  
#6 of 61 Old 11-10-2011, 09:02 AM
Banned
 
contactmajik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I guess swaddling is too mainstream now?

 

This is a disappointment. Some parents get babies that are completely inconsolable, and they need as many tools as they get. Using swaddling when nothing else works is not failure. And most people I knew who used swaddling were doing it in conjunction with holding, nursing, or rocking their babies. 

 

The OP is full of assumptions, fear-mongering, and condescension. Please consider how what you post will affect the parents on this board before you post it, Peggy.

contactmajik is offline  
#7 of 61 Old 11-10-2011, 09:07 AM
 
JavaJunkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 251
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Great. Just what the Mommy Wars needs. Another battle. And now we can't even be sure our babies are actually happy/content when they aren't crying. Fantastic. 

 

I'm so glad I am an experienced mother of four now, and not just starting out on the road of motherhood. I'm much better able to see through fear-mongering.


Also? Swaddling a baby does not equate to not holding a baby. To assume such is absurd. Why do people take such all or nothing views, when good parenting involves a little bit of this, a little bit of that? You do what works. And often, what works with one baby will not work with another. So you adapt. 

 

Shaki and Kamiro like this.
JavaJunkie is offline  
#8 of 61 Old 11-10-2011, 10:21 AM
 
flightgoddess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 344
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I am dissapointed that the article leans so much to one side. Swaddling is a tool, to be chosen by the parent as wanted or needed, just like using a pacifier, or bottle/formula, cosleeping or not, etc. Parents need to use the tools that will work for them and for the baby.  I did swaddle my first, and I will swaddle my second if they tolerate it and it is needed. It really did help during the 'colicy' stage/nursing strike to let baby and momma get more night time sleep.

 

I can't see how someone would theorize that the 'baby is shutting down" when swaddled. (with neglect, yes) But as most posters say, swaddling is only one tool they use to help their baby.

 Even as an adult, I often LIKE to wrap a blanket around me and curl up on the sofa for a movie or nap, it feels nice, warm, and comforting.

flightgoddess is offline  
#9 of 61 Old 11-10-2011, 10:37 AM - Thread Starter
 
Peggy O'Mara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico
Posts: 482
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to offend you with the articles or my post. In my post, I hoped to make clear that I do not want to discredit your good experiences with swaddling. And, I agree that it is one of many tools. 

 

What I've done over the years at Mothering is to present new research to parents. This is just new information. You can also click through on my post to Harvey Karp's defense of swaddling. 

 

Also, I am experimenting with putting my blog on the forums for more conversation.

 

 

Peggy O'Mara is offline  
#10 of 61 Old 11-10-2011, 12:48 PM
 
kittenlamieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

People have very strong opinions on swaddling!   I am glad that Peggy opened a dialog on this subject because I have had such strong advice from both sides and I am thoroughly confused.  I intend to follow this thread to see what more people have to say.

 

We were taught about the benefits of swaddling in our birthing class.  My husband and I were unfamiliar with the practice as we were not swaddled as babies and we don't have very many friends that have children.  It sounded like a lovely idea, very loving and cozy. Our seven week old is our first and we swaddled him the first few weeks until i received VERY strong and informed advice against it (IE: lowers body temp, can hurt the baby's hips. can make him feel isolated...) so we stopped out of fear.  It is all very controversial!  I wonder what the final consensus will be.

kittenlamieux is offline  
#11 of 61 Old 11-10-2011, 01:07 PM
 
rinap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 466
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I think really the gist of all of this is that it is, like everything else, a tool. As such, it is useful, but can be overused. It's good to be aware of the issues it can have (overheating, hip issues, neglect), so we can make sure that if we use the tool we don't cause damage. Everything we do (carseats, babywearing, formula, breastfeeding, cloth diapers, disposable diapers) has good sides and bad sides, and if we're aware of potential issues it lets us make better decisions as parents as we decide what is best for our unique family situations.

rinap is offline  
#12 of 61 Old 11-10-2011, 01:17 PM
 
mamazee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: US midwest
Posts: 7,246
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

Swaddling was of the many things that didn't calm my colicky baby. The other things listed didn't either. I would have swaddled her if it would have helped, though.


I didn't swaddle the second because she was happy all the time anyway. Happiest baby on the block because she was born with the right temperament.

 

I did have people keep telling me to swaddle, insisting that would help over and over again, even when I'd tried enough times to know it wouldn't help, and that frustrated me. I guess from that standpoint I'm glad to see that it is questioned as a cure-all. But I don't doubt some parents have found it helpful or so many people wouldn't have told me it worked for them.

mamazee is offline  
#13 of 61 Old 11-10-2011, 01:21 PM
 
Baby_Cakes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NJ
Posts: 9,879
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

It's not difficult to stop swaddling if you realize your baby isn't benefiting.  I had home births, so I can't speak for mamas who birth in hospitals but it just seems to make sense that, like any other intervention, you could request no swaddling immediately after the birth.  Why not?  And if baby is swaddled, and they aren't nursing well, take the blanket off?

 

I didn't swaddle my first b/c she didn't like it.  It didn't soothe her at all, it infuriated her.  However, my 2nd LOVES it.  I think if you listen to your baby, and use it as a tool when/if it works, then you're doing your best as a parent!


Carrie SAHM to Nora Caitlyn (5) and Finnley Dax (2) homebirthing, breastfeeding, babywearing, intactivist, doula mama!         
Baby_Cakes is offline  
#14 of 61 Old 11-10-2011, 01:29 PM
 
Red Pajama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: climbing a mountain of laundry
Posts: 1,346
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I'm having a hard time believing that swaddling is somehow controversial.  Much of the one article about the "dangers" of swaddling are more about separating newborn infants from their mothers. And the idea that swaddling increases sids risk-- but only in a prone position.  

 I appreciate that not everyone would want to swaddle their babies, but babies like closeness. Babies own startle reflex can wake them out of sleep, causing very fragmented rest for all involved. And as others have pointed out, one can  hold a swaddled baby. It's not an either-or situation.

 

Swaddling certainly was my "secret" to happy babies. One of my twins requsted to be "wrapped" until well into his 3rd year.  As babies, both were swaddled for sleep long-term.  Little sister was swaddled for at least a year, too. And I certainly didn't find it interfered with nursing-- if anything, it helped baby settle down and relax.

 

As someone upthread mentioned, this will just be one more weapon in the mommy wars: you think that baby is happy, but really he's just shutting down.


Twin boys (2/05) and little sister (10/07)
Red Pajama is offline  
#15 of 61 Old 11-10-2011, 01:32 PM
 
Baby_Cakes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NJ
Posts: 9,879
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Pajama View Post
And the idea that swaddling increases sids risk-- but only in a prone position.


I thought that was odd too.  Who would swaddle a baby and place them on their tummy?  That seems completely insane.  (But maybe that's just me?  Idk.) 

 

 

 


Carrie SAHM to Nora Caitlyn (5) and Finnley Dax (2) homebirthing, breastfeeding, babywearing, intactivist, doula mama!         
Baby_Cakes is offline  
#16 of 61 Old 11-10-2011, 01:39 PM
 
gussiefaunt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

As the author of one of the swaddling articles in discussion, I can wholeheartedly second Peggy’s statement that the sole intent of these articles is to offer new and additional information and perspectives for parents to thoughtfully consider. If anyone has deep respect for the value of parents discovering what is best for their own child, it is Peggy. The decades she has dedicated to parents and children through the magazine and website, not to mention her own family, is proof of that.

 

Good parents, as many of the comments here point out, do pay close attention to their babies’ communication; these parents are sensitive to baby’s responses and needs; they are intuitive about what feels right or nor right for their child. Yet even very good parents and their babies can benefit from information they may not have been aware of. If none of the concerning outcomes of cited studies and research related to swaddling (particularly tight, full-body swaddling, routine neo-natal swaddling, and swaddling that replaces other comforting methods) were true, there would be no need for disseminating information.

 

Clearly, some babies in some situations are fine with swaddling, especially when it is used as one tool among several for calming an inconsolable infant. The danger is always in the extreme: when swaddling routinely replaces skin-to-skin contact, holding, walking and other soothing methods; when a baby seriously overheats because a mother doesn’t realize her baby needs to wave her arms around to cool down; when thinking that tighter is better contributes to hip dysplasia in a susceptible infant; when quieting a crying baby routinely takes priority over paying careful attention to baby’s signals and needs. Thankfully, the extreme is not the norm. But because it exists, the more educated we can all be, the better the outcome for all babies and families.

gussiefaunt is offline  
#17 of 61 Old 11-10-2011, 01:51 PM
 
Megan73's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,488
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I did swaddle my first - we'd learned about it in childbirth classes and the nurses in the hospital really pushed it - but it was yet another thing that didn't work to soothe inconsolable DS1. I was sad to read that there's now evidence that swaddled newborns don't nurse as often or as well as unswaddled babes. I wonder now if it was one of the (many) reasons we struggled so much.
Before DS2 was born, I read about all the benefits of skin-to-skin contact for breastfeeding (and interestingly our hospital room was full of posters urging us to skin-to-skin with our newborn) and did that instead, including wearing him, shirtless, in a wrap, and sleeping with him on my bare chest. It certainly FELT more natural and, for want of a better term, mammal-like, than putting a swaddled newborndown and breastfeeding did go better although who knows how much the skin-to-skin had to do with it.

Megan, loving her sweet rainbow1284.gif boys, born Aug. 2008 and Feb. 2011, and their sister, born still March 2007 candle.gif
Megan73 is offline  
#18 of 61 Old 11-10-2011, 02:06 PM
 
Adaline'sMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,757
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gussiefaunt View Post

 

As the author of one of the swaddling articles in discussion, I can wholeheartedly second Peggy’s statement that the sole intent of these articles is to offer new and additional information and perspectives for parents to thoughtfully consider. If anyone has deep respect for the value of parents discovering what is best for their own child, it is Peggy. The decades she has dedicated to parents and children through the magazine and website, not to mention her own family, is proof of that.

 

Good parents, as many of the comments here point out, do pay close attention to their babies’ communication; these parents are sensitive to baby’s responses and needs; they are intuitive about what feels right or nor right for their child. Yet even very good parents and their babies can benefit from information they may not have been aware of. If none of the concerning outcomes of cited studies and research related to swaddling (particularly tight, full-body swaddling, routine neo-natal swaddling, and swaddling that replaces other comforting methods) were true, there would be no need for disseminating information.

 

Clearly, some babies in some situations are fine with swaddling, especially when it is used as one tool among several for calming an inconsolable infant. The danger is always in the extreme: when swaddling routinely replaces skin-to-skin contact, holding, walking and other soothing methods; when a baby seriously overheats because a mother doesn’t realize her baby needs to wave her arms around to cool down; when thinking that tighter is better contributes to hip dysplasia in a susceptible infant; when quieting a crying baby routinely takes priority over paying careful attention to baby’s signals and needs. Thankfully, the extreme is not the norm. But because it exists, the more educated we can all be, the better the outcome for all babies and families.


Sure. I cant imagine anyone arguing that. Swaddling shouldnt replace any form of comfort for an infant, it should just be used along with other things.

Holly and David partners.gif

Adaline love.gif (3/20/10), and Charlie brokenheart.gif (1/26/12- 4/10/12) and our identical  rainbow1284.gif  twins Callie and Wendy (01/04/13)

SIDS happens. 

Adaline'sMama is offline  
#19 of 61 Old 11-10-2011, 02:12 PM
Banned
 
stik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,860
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Has there been a recent epidemic of harmfully swaddled babies?  I guess I don't really understand the goal of bringing this information up to parents.  Swaddling isn't really controversial for babies past the immediate neonatal stage.  Peggy's OP and the articles linked didn't look like neutral presentations on the pros and cons of swaddling babies, especially in the absence of substantiated concerns about parents misusing swaddling.  It's just one more thing that most people are making rational decisions about based on their babies' reactions and that we really, really don't need to worry about.  I was particularly struck by the following bizarre assertions:

 

- The problem with mid-century maternity wards was swaddling babies who were separated from their moms.

- swaddling shuts a crying baby up when the baby's needs are not being met

- swaddling tells babies that no one cares about them

- swaddling is somehow exclusive to holding, talking to, and nursing a baby

- babies who are swaddled in a blanket are somehow having the same experience as babies who are placed in a vibrating crib

 

The end result of all this was an article that seemed intended to frighten parents into worrying that a seemingly contented baby is actually consumed by inner agony.  

 

Peggy, I'm sure that wasn't actually your goal.  I miss the comforting, reassuring voice MDC offered when my older dd was tiny.

stik is offline  
#20 of 61 Old 11-10-2011, 02:51 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,342
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

The nurses in the hospital when my daughter was born advocated swaddling but they discussed it more as a way to keep her warm--particularly at night, since you aren't supposed to put loose blankets on newborns when you put them down. I held her for a while right after she was born, and then when I was ready for a break they took her and weighed her, diapered her, etc. and then swaddled her and let her dad and grandparents have a turn holding her. We'd take the blanket off and do skin-to-skin when breastfeeding, but at other times we'd frequently swaddle her. It didn't replace holding her. We have countless pictures of someone holding her when she's wrapped up like a little bunting. We did it less often after we went home, because we kept the AC at a more baby-friendly temperature than the hospital did.

erigeron is offline  
#21 of 61 Old 11-10-2011, 03:59 PM
 
JavaJunkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 251
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

Has there been a recent epidemic of harmfully swaddled babies?  I guess I don't really understand the goal of bringing this information up to parents.  Swaddling isn't really controversial for babies past the immediate neonatal stage.  Peggy's OP and the articles linked didn't look like neutral presentations on the pros and cons of swaddling babies, especially in the absence of substantiated concerns about parents misusing swaddling.  It's just one more thing that most people are making rational decisions about based on their babies' reactions and that we really, really don't need to worry about.  I was particularly struck by the following bizarre assertions:

 

- The problem with mid-century maternity wards was swaddling babies who were separated from their moms.

- swaddling shuts a crying baby up when the baby's needs are not being met

- swaddling tells babies that no one cares about them

- swaddling is somehow exclusive to holding, talking to, and nursing a baby

- babies who are swaddled in a blanket are somehow having the same experience as babies who are placed in a vibrating crib

 

The end result of all this was an article that seemed intended to frighten parents into worrying that a seemingly contented baby is actually consumed by inner agony.  

 

 

Exactly. And the justification of trying to educate against the extremes rings hollow, and just sounds patronizing.
 

 

GoGoGirl and DoubleDouble like this.
JavaJunkie is offline  
#22 of 61 Old 11-10-2011, 05:30 PM
Banned
 
SneakyPie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Somewhere around here . . .
Posts: 1,192
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Oh, Peggy.  It's time for you to hang it up.

 

When a practice is something only great-grandma and '70s hippies do, you love it and write magazine articles extolling its virtues.

 

When you successfully promote that practice into the mainstream, you hire an art writer to write a terribly-researched article denouncing it.

 

Sadly, you are no longer a credible source of information about parenting.  You aren't even good at hiring writers any more.  It's a sad decline to witness.

SneakyPie is offline  
#23 of 61 Old 11-10-2011, 05:33 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,342
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:

Originally Posted by JavaJunkie View Post

And the justification of trying to educate against the extremes rings hollow, and just sounds patronizing.

 


 

It's like running an article on how because some horrible people leave their babies home alone for hours, it's therefore terribly wrong to leave baby in their pack-n-play while you go throw a load of laundry in. I mean, everything in moderation.

erigeron is offline  
#24 of 61 Old 11-10-2011, 05:42 PM
 
prothyraia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Borean Tundra
Posts: 2,211
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

The end result of all this was an article that seemed intended to frighten parents into worrying that a seemingly contented baby is actually consumed by inner agony.  

 

yeahthat.gif

prothyraia is offline  
#25 of 61 Old 11-10-2011, 05:43 PM
 
SilverFish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Montreal
Posts: 865
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by SneakyPie View Post

 

When a practice is something only great-grandma and '70s hippies do, you love it and write magazine articles extolling its virtues.

 

When you successfully promote that practice into the mainstream, you hire an art writer to write a terribly-researched article denouncing it.

 



Word.

 

You'll pry my swaddling blankets from my cold dead hands.

SilverFish is offline  
#26 of 61 Old 11-10-2011, 06:05 PM
 
cyclamen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,294
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)

I gotta admit, I was skeptical of this part of the article too:

 

 

Quote:
“Crying is the baby’s language, his voice; it’s the only way he has to tell you he needs something,” stresses internationally-known breastfeeding advocate, pediatric nurse practitioner, and educator Kittie Franz. “Newborns are about need, not want. Before you use this tool (of swaddling), find out what he needs—don’t just shut him up.”

 

My uncle told me to watch closely so that my daughter wouldn't have to cry all the time to communicate.  He said if I paid attention to her signals, they would come to make sense and that her trust in me would be deep because she would know that I could tell what her needs were.  My mom said the same thing.  Now, we come from a high context culture, so maybe that's why no one in my family ever talked about babies only being able to communicate by crying... but then again, I think it's a little myopic to suggest that if a baby isn't crying he or she isn't communicating.

 

Vice versa.... if the baby is really upset, they let you know.  Even a swaddled baby.  Maybe my kid was stubborn but I could not ever "shut her up" ... I'm hard pressed to figure out how that happens?


DD1 6/2009 DD2 5/1/2013-5/5/2013 (HIE) DS 3/2014
cyclamen is online now  
#27 of 61 Old 11-10-2011, 06:13 PM
 
indigosky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 511
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
What puzzles me is how this article departs from Mothering's historical approach that treats parents as intelligent, caring adults who can be taught to care for their babies safely.

Mothering has published wonderful articles that acknowledge the real risks -- as well as the real benefits -- of bed-sharing / co-sleeping. Mothering has been a leader in teaching parents how to bedshare safely if they choose to do so, so that the benefits might outweigh the risks.

When certain kinds of babywearing carriers came under attack, Mothering led the way to acknowledge the risks as well as the significant benefits of babywearing, and teach parents how to select safe carriers and wear their babies safely if they choose to do so.

Why, on the subject of swaddling, has Mothering abandoned this approach? There is so much common ground here, as many commenters before me have pointed out. An article educating parents about the risks and benefits of swaddling, that teaches parents how to swaddle safely and what to avoid, could be perfectly appropriate.

This article came across as missing the mark completely. Its description of swaddling was completely foreign to me, a parent whose happy, healthy daughter loved being swaddled as an infant (only when she was asleep or falling asleep, not during breastfeeding, not during the many hours a day she was being worn, always with her legs and hips completely loose and free to move, and always right alongside us, where we could see and hear each other all the time).
Shaki, maeby, JavaJunkie and 2 others like this.
indigosky is offline  
#28 of 61 Old 11-10-2011, 08:25 PM
 
treeoflife3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: tennessee/kentucky
Posts: 1,484
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Oh for god's sake... now moms need to feel guilty about using swaddling to stop a baby from crying because they might still be crying on the inside and they need to feel guilty for having the DAD swaddle so mom can do something besides be attached to a baby 24/7?  This is the most ridiculous article I've read in awhile.

 

being a mom does not freaking mean being a martyr... it is really okay to have the dad actually help take care of a baby and swaddle if that is how baby will calm for dad.  If the baby stops crying, it is probably because the baby is feeling better, not because they are just crying on the inside after being tricked into not crying.  Every baby I know will continue to cry if what you are offering isn't what they need.  if they are crying in hunger, swaddling won't do much to stop their crying request.

 

it is ridiculous to write an article about how swaddling is like, SO TOTALLY dangerous and bad and shit, and then try to back track saying you only mean it's bad when used to the extreme such as cases of parents who just ignore their kid.  This entire article is a damn good way to help aide along a nasty case of ppd thoguh.  Gently mama, don't swaddle your baby because they might die of SIDS!  besides they are only stopping crying to appease you, they still are desperate for mommy!  because you only swaddle your baby to put them down and walk away, not to continue to hold and cuddle them!

 

Clearly this is all only done to start a controversy and get more traffic to mdc.  It's obvious how downhill this website has gone.  Peggy you should seriously be ashamed of yourself for implying someone is doing something terribly wrong by using swaddling as a tool to help their baby.  you should feel ashamed for trying something so ridiculous just for more members and traffic.  you know why mdc has gone so downhill?  because it is fraught with constant guilt about how mommy is always doing it wrong if they dare get help from the father of the baby or anyone else and constant guilt about whether they birthed wrong or fed their baby wrong or didn't martyr themselves out enough for baby.  For god's sake, being a mom doesn't mean ALL you are is a mom, constantly attached to your kid, never sleeping and never resting.  It is perfectly reasonable to assume that if swaddling helps a kid sleep, it means they were crying because they were freaking exhausted and sick of the reflexes causing their arms to flail.

 

It wasn'tt enough that members here are told to feel like every freaking thing they do is wrong as a parent, that they also need to feel like they were also doing something so dangerous when they swaddled their kid?  This article most definitely wasn't about bringing to light any new research.  It was just about trying to be even more of a freaking crunchy hipster because if the mainstream swaddles now, then a GOOD mom would just hold their kid topless all the time constantly walking.  The article was just about creating a bullshit controversy.  Your head is on backwards peggy if you honestly want to try to claim that you actually think people should not swaddle their babies.

treeoflife3 is offline  
#29 of 61 Old 11-10-2011, 08:52 PM
 
marinak1977's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: somewhere
Posts: 1,986
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by treeoflife3 View Post

Oh for god's sake... now moms need to feel guilty about using swaddling to stop a baby from crying because they might still be crying on the inside and they need to feel guilty for having the DAD swaddle so mom can do something besides be attached to a baby 24/7?  This is the most ridiculous article I've read in awhile.

being a mom does not freaking mean being a martyr... it is really okay to have the dad actually help take care of a baby and swaddle if that is how baby will calm for dad.  If the baby stops crying, it is probably because the baby is feeling better, not because they are just crying on the inside after being tricked into not crying.  Every baby I know will continue to cry if what you are offering isn't what they need.  if they are crying in hunger, swaddling won't do much to stop their crying request.

it is ridiculous to write an article about how swaddling is like, SO TOTALLY dangerous and bad and shit, and then try to back track saying you only mean it's bad when used to the extreme such as cases of parents who just ignore their kid.  This entire article is a damn good way to help aide along a nasty case of ppd thoguh.  Gently mama, don't swaddle your baby because they might die of SIDS!  besides they are only stopping crying to appease you, they still are desperate for mommy!  because you only swaddle your baby to put them down and walk away, not to continue to hold and cuddle them!

Clearly this is all only done to start a controversy and get more traffic to mdc.  It's obvious how downhill this website has gone.  Peggy you should seriously be ashamed of yourself for implying someone is doing something terribly wrong by using swaddling as a tool to help their baby.  you should feel ashamed for trying something so ridiculous just for more members and traffic.  you know why mdc has gone so downhill?  because it is fraught with constant guilt about how mommy is always doing it wrong if they dare get help from the father of the baby or anyone else and constant guilt about whether they birthed wrong or fed their baby wrong or didn't martyr themselves out enough for baby.  For god's sake, being a mom doesn't mean ALL you are is a mom, constantly attached to your kid, never sleeping and never resting.  It is perfectly reasonable to assume that if swaddling helps a kid sleep, it means they were crying because they were freaking exhausted and sick of the reflexes causing their arms to flail.

It wasn'tt enough that members here are told to feel like every freaking thing they do is wrong as a parent, that they also need to feel like they were also doing something so dangerous when they swaddled their kid?  This article most definitely wasn't about bringing to light any new research.  It was just about trying to be even more of a freaking crunchy hipster because if the mainstream swaddles now, then a GOOD mom would just hold their kid topless all the time constantly walking.  The article was just about creating a bullshit controversy.  Your head is on backwards peggy if you honestly want to try to claim that you actually think people should not swaddle their babies.

Treeoflife - I think I love you. bow2.gif

 sleepytime.gif
marinak1977 is offline  
#30 of 61 Old 11-10-2011, 10:11 PM
 
Kelly1101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 3,801
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I don't even have words for how ridiculous I found this to be.

 

 

 

Seriously?  

 

 

 

Seriously?

 

 

 

ATTN NEW MOMS:  SWADDLE YOUR BABIES AND DO NOT LISTEN TO THIS NONSENSE.


Kelly (28), in love with husband Jason (38) and our awesome babies:  Emma 4/09, and Ozzy 8/10

Kelly1101 is offline  
Reply

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off