Help Define CIO - Page 3 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-13-2006, 07:39 PM
 
RockStarMom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: California
Posts: 1,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gem'sMama
You have obviously never been a situation where you felt you may harm your child then. Good for you. I hope you never are.
I haven't, and I was assuming that the OP was refering to non-potentially abusive parents. Most parents would never honestly abuse their child. And if they would, by all means, I fully support leaving the child to cry while they go get help. No one is disagreeing with that.

But we've all been at that "breaking point;" I could go on and on about how I'm a single mom with no support or help, been up for multiple nights in a row, baby has been screaming for hours...we've all been there. But usually when mom is most in need of a break, baby is most in need of his/her mom. My need for a break never comes before my daughter's need for me, and I do not agree with the opinion that a little extra cortisol in the brain is harmless. Plus, I, personally, cannot relax knowing that my child is crying in the bedroom alone.

Am I saying that I'm a superior mother and those who ever let their child cry for 3 minutes are as bad as the ones who let their child cry for 3 hours? Of course not! I'm just saying that it is my opinion that avoiding leaving a child to cry is possible for most moms, and preferable. As I said, I know that not everyone is so militantly anti-CIO, and there will never be agreement with this issue.
RockStarMom is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 09-13-2006, 07:48 PM
 
RockStarMom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: California
Posts: 1,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxye
I didn't say that either... CIO as sleep training is hopefully not crying for hours but often is done in small intervals...

We will not come to an agreement about this... like I said sometimes we are forced to choose the lesser of two evils... but personally I don't believe that making a "good" choice for us gets rid of the negative consequences that may occur because of it...

I'm done...
Very well said, and...
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatchyMama
There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that leaving the room while your baby is crying (even if its for a few minutes) is not IDEAL for that baby. However that doesnt mean it isnt necessary or something we don't have to do on occassion, but I do not think its something we need to advocate or suggest as a good option unless absolutely necessary.

People need to stop being so easily offended. A child screaming for 3 minutes, 5 minutes, 20 minutes is never what is BEST FOR THE CHILD. What is so offensive about saying that? It doesnt automatically imply you are a bad mother. We all make decisions every day that may not be ideal for our children, but that is because we have to live as a family. So if you have a physical need to step outside for a minute or 2, then do it. Catch your breath and then come back in. Was that best for your child, no.... but it was necessary and not something to feel guilty over.

I swear the biggest issue is our own insecurities as parents. We need to stop looking for approval from other people and take ownership of the decisions we make.
also very well said!
RockStarMom is offline  
Old 09-13-2006, 08:09 PM
 
moonfirefaery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Goose Creek, SC
Posts: 2,994
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
When you are going nuts, and the crying is getting to you, and you're on the verge of lashing out or breaking down, one or two minutes is not enough. Walking away, taking a deep breath, and returning isn't always enough to help a mama recharge.

How can it be crying it out unless the child literally cries the need out of them? What child cries only 5 minutes until they no longer have or care about the need? Crying 5 minutes while mom finishes taking a dump or goes in the other room to lay down, stare at the cieling, count to ten, call someone for support, or just clear her head isn't the same thing as crying until you accept the fact that mom is not coming or until you're so exhausted you zonk out, which is what crying it out is generally considered to be. Letting a baby cry for a few minutes isn't the same thing as forcing them to cry it OUT because you want to teach them a lesson or are just being lazy.

I agree there is no time limit for a mother who is taking care of a fussy baby alone and is feeling like she may do harm to herself or the child. Crying for 5-10 even 15 minutes is better than being slapped because mom lost it and was afraid to go away for 5 minutes because that's considered CIO and is evil.

Most of the time, if a mom is about to lose it and goes in another room for a few minutes, obviously whatever she was doing to help such as holding, rocking, or nursing wasn't helping the screaming child anyway. Otherwise, she wouldn't be all stressed out; she'd have a baby that was happily nursing.

I think we need to just remember that everyone has different situations. There are cholicy babies, for example, that just are not comforted by anything. Parents will do all they can, even drive around the neighborhood or sit in a certain position for hours, to keep their cholicy babies calm. Some babies with cholic, however, have no option but to CIO until they are done. Parents in that situation, especially single ones, if they cannot calm down the baby and it's getting to them, definitely need to just let the baby cry for five minutes so they can calm down, clear their heads, take some advil, or try to brainstorm for more ideas. In that situation the baby probably would be crying if she was in mom's arms just the same as she is in the crib while mom grabs a glass of tea to soothe her throat that is sore from crooning and singing.

If you could comfort your child, but aren't; if you're forcing your child to scream and cry until they accept the fact that mom is coming and fall asleep from exhaustion or just lay there because their cries are ignored; if you're letting the baby scream so you can watch a TV show... that's not good. But when you're tending to your own needs, the needs of other children, or protecting your baby from your own anger by leaving for a moment, or recooperating so you can come up with a new approach to soothing the infant... that's not CIO. Crying it OUT means crying the need out of you. That doesn't usually happen in 5-10 minutes. It may be a long time to cry, but the rest of one's life is a long time to have brain damage from mom shaking you because she's freaking out.

I definitely agree that meeting their needs doesn't mean giving them everything they want. I think a lot of people confuse the two. I don't think a delayed response to a need is a good idea, but I do think a delayed response to a specific want is acceptable.

I have had the impulse, especially in the middle of the night when I'm sleep-deprived and going nuts from the crying, to strike out at my son. And to my everlasting shame, there were occasions when I did not put him down and leave the room or did not leave the room long enough. And I regret the outcome of that much more than I now regret letting him cry for ten minutes while I calm down.

Quote:
If that magically becomes OK then why isn't CIO for sleep training the same kind of OK? I don't get it.
Because there's a difference between doing something because you OPT to and because you HAVE to. Because CIO usually means leaving a child for 30 minutes, even longer, to scream--not for five mnutes while you rinse your hair or clean up another child's vomit. It's like being left out in the cold. You're a lot less likely to freeze to death being outside naked in the snow for 5 minutes than for half an hour. If you can't avoid something, there's no point in feeling guilty about it. It doesn't mean it's okay, but it does mean that it's just life, that you can't change it, and that you have to work around it.

Quote:
I beleive that it all has the same effect on the child... however, it can happen and it doesn't mean that the person is a bad mother etc... but it doesn't mean that because the intentions are different the results may not be the same
Better those results than the results of mom shaking the baby and causing brain damage because she was afraid leaving the baby for 10 minutes would cause irreversible damage. Most children are left to cry, for at least five minutes, at some point in their lives. It's unavoidable. Can you point me out the adults or older children that were left to cry for 5 minutes here and there and the ones that never, ever cried alone for a few minutes? I can't distinguish, but I can certainly tell the difference between a baby with shaken baby syndrome and a baby whose mother left the room for 5 minutes to get her head cleared. I can also tell the difference between a child/adult whose needs when young were ignored and an child/adult whose parents did everything they could to nurture their child.

Quote:
A child screaming for 3 minutes, 5 minutes, 20 minutes is never what is BEST FOR THE CHILD.
In the situation where it's either that or be shaken by mom because of her anger... I'd say that screaming for 3, 5, 20 minutes is DEFINITELY what's best for the child. What's truly best would be for the child to stop crying and feel better, but if that's not possible, you have to do whatever AVAILABLE option is best.

Quote:
My need for a break never comes before my daughter's need for me,
Mine does in the situation where I may lash out if I don't take a break. Mom's need for a break, in some instances, can be the baby's need as well. When baby needs mom, he definitely doesn't need mom in a state of mine so negative and nerve-wracked that she may not make the best parenting choice for him or may even hurt him or herself. My needs are my baby's needs in some cases. If I haven't got a clear mind, he's not going to get the best care. If I haven't been able to eat much, his meals won't be very nutritious. If I'm thinking about how badly I have to pee, he's not going to get the best attention. Moms do have to take care of themselves, because if they don't, they won't function as well...and baby suffers a lot more from that than from crying for five minutes while mom grabs a granola bar, after not eating all day, or sits down in a quiet room to try and analyze the situation to figure out a better approach of handling it or lies down on her bed, screams, counts to ten, and then comes back feeling more calm and less likely to be abusive.

fambedsingle2.gif Heather, 25, single mom to Corbin, 5, and Orin, 3  uc.jpg  delayedvax.gif  nocirc.gif
Oh how I miss the days of femalesling.GIF  nak.gifcd.gif  
moonfirefaery is offline  
Old 09-13-2006, 08:22 PM
 
PatchyMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Viva Las Vegas
Posts: 5,195
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
In the situation where it's either that or be shaken by mom because of her anger... I'd say that screaming for 3, 5, 20 minutes is DEFINITELY what's best for the child. What's truly best would be for the child to stop crying and feel better, but if that's not possible, you have to do whatever AVAILABLE option is best.
No what is best for the child is to be held and comforted by mom. There is no getting around that. But if that is not possible then you find an alternative. Obviously slapping your child would be worse than leaving the room while you gather yourselves. But neither options are what are BEST for your child or what is ideal. That is the entire point. We need to be able to accept the fact that sometimes we do things that are not best or ideal because of necessity. Maybe then we can all stop being so easily offended when someone suggests that maybe there was another way to do something in regards to parenting.

Accept your decisions that you make, realize what they are, how they affect your children, and then grow from them. Plugging your ears and saying it isnt CIO cause its justifiable doesnt lessen the effect on your children. And that isnt to say anyone is a bad mom, because I don't believe that. But seriously what is the harm in recognizing that we sometimes make decisions that do negatively effect our children because its unavoidable and calling it what it is?
PatchyMama is offline  
Old 09-13-2006, 08:23 PM
 
North_Of_60's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Beautiful British Columbia
Posts: 7,108
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxye
Also, I stand by my definition of CIO to include those 5 min of leaving, or even in the car... I believe that it all has the same effect on the child... however, it can happen and it doesn't mean that the person is a bad mother etc... but it doesn't mean that because the intentions are different the results may not be the same... If that magically becomes OK then why isn't CIO for sleep training the same kind of OK? I don't get it.
The phrase "crying it out", to me, means that there is something to conquer. "It" being an ulterior motive, or some sort of manipulation on the baby's part. Ava was not manipulating me, and she had no ulterior motive in crying, therefore, my setting her down so that I didn't loose my freaking mind was not "crying it out". It was "crying while mommy clears her head so we don't end up jumping off the roof". The two are totally different. At least to me.

But, I'm just curious, if you think "CIO" for 5 minutes to spare your sanity is the same as the sleep training, then please explain what the "it" means to you. When I set her down so I don't shake her, what is it that she's "crying out"? At least with sleep training it can be argued that the "it" that they're crying out is a need for comfort, or food, or love. But since I'm not with holding any of that, what is it that she's "crying out"?

Frankenstein never scared me. Marsupials do. Because they're FAST.
North_Of_60 is offline  
Old 09-13-2006, 08:33 PM
 
moonfirefaery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Goose Creek, SC
Posts: 2,994
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I understand what you are saying but I'm still waiting for you to tell me to how to tell from a child or adult's behavior whether or not they were left to cry for 5 minutes here or there or held the entire duration of every single whimper. I can distinguish between a person who was abused and neglected and those who's needs were met and lived in loving homes. I cannot, however, tell whether or not a person's mother left the room for 5 minutes to gather her head or held the baby every second of every scream. Please tell me what the negative effects of being left to cry for five minutes while mom finishes washing her hair are in comparison to a child left to CIO for an hour to sleep train. Are they the same, or less? What should I be looking for in my child as he matures as a result of his being let cry for five minutes so I wouldn't do him harm?

What is best for a child is to have every need fulfilled before crying even becomes an issue, but if that's not available, if you can't do that, then there's nothing else you can do but whatever is second best. Your job is not to do what is best, to achieve the impossible, etc. Your job is to chose the best AVAILABLE option, not to keep trying to do something that clearly isn't going to work when there are other options that may not be as good but would prevent other harm. I'd rather let a baby cry for five minutes than leave an older child covered in vomit while I tend to the hungry child. You have to do what is best for the family as a whole, and if you can do what is best for the child, you should but it shouldn't take away from your attention to your other children. No one should be made to feel guilty or told they are harming their child because of a differnece of five minutes.

I'd like to know what "it" is that a baby is crying "out" of them and how crying for five minutes could possibly be crying. IT. OUT.

fambedsingle2.gif Heather, 25, single mom to Corbin, 5, and Orin, 3  uc.jpg  delayedvax.gif  nocirc.gif
Oh how I miss the days of femalesling.GIF  nak.gifcd.gif  
moonfirefaery is offline  
Old 09-13-2006, 08:33 PM
 
Elyra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 443
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I just had a very interesting (and disturbing) conversation about CIO with a mother whose children are grown. She was talking about a woman she knows who adopted a child from another country, Russia I believe. She was telling me how children who are left to cry become very adaptable and that was great. Of course I was appalled by her attitude. The point I am making is that the children in the place where that child was were left to CIO. There was not enough staff to take care of everyone's needs and to quote what the mother I was speaking to said "they learned very quickly that there was just no use in crying because no one would come, so they just don't cry." That to me is the meaning of CIO. Five minutes does not teach a baby that no one will come. In fact, I think most of the moms who have posted here would coming running full force after two or three minutes and that a babe would learn that when they have to wait they will be met with more comfort than usual.

So defining cry it out to me would be "they learned very quickly that there was just no use in crying because no one would come, so they just don't cry."
Elyra is offline  
Old 09-13-2006, 08:34 PM
 
moonfirefaery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Goose Creek, SC
Posts: 2,994
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Five minutes does not teach a baby that no one will come.
EXACTLY!!!

fambedsingle2.gif Heather, 25, single mom to Corbin, 5, and Orin, 3  uc.jpg  delayedvax.gif  nocirc.gif
Oh how I miss the days of femalesling.GIF  nak.gifcd.gif  
moonfirefaery is offline  
Old 09-13-2006, 08:37 PM
 
PatchyMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Viva Las Vegas
Posts: 5,195
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
just curious... how does a baby know the difference between being left to cry "it" (tho i won't use the word manipulation in regards to babies) and being left to cry because mommy needed a break. Do we really think they understand the difference and that their brain reacts to being left alone any differently? Babies do not know your intentions or what you are thinking, they only know what they feel. I imagine the baby left to cry itself to sleep in a crib doesnt feel that much different than a baby left to sit in a room for 5/10 minutes while mom gathers themselves.

I do not put those two actions on the same level at all, but it would be silly to think that they affect our children differently. I personally would feel horrible doing the first as its not a necessary action, but If I needed to do the second I would not feel guilty as it was necessary for right then. However that does not change what the action or the affect on the child.
PatchyMama is offline  
Old 09-13-2006, 08:43 PM
 
PatchyMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Viva Las Vegas
Posts: 5,195
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Your job is not to do what is best, to achieve the impossible, etc.
We will have to disagree on this. I do believe that my job is to do the best for my children. It is not always possible and it doesnt always happen because I certainly am not perfect, but it is always on my mind and I am always aware of what the ideal situation would be.

Quote:
I'd rather let a baby cry for five minutes than leave an older child covered in vomit while I tend to the hungry child. You have to do what is best for the family as a whole, and if you can do what is best for the child, you should but it shouldn't take away from your attention to your other children.
Um that is what I have been saying all along. I agree with that. However that doesnt change the fact that one child is still left crying and that it does affect the brain and does affect them. It doesnt make anyone a bad parent, but it is still being left to cry.


Quote:
No one should be made to feel guilty or told they are harming their child because of a differnece of five minutes.
No one can MAKE anyone feel guilty. I have made choices where I had to deal with an older child and the baby had to cry. Or I got in the shower while the baby cried with daddy. I don't feel guilty about it but that doesnt mean I don't recognize it as a time where I did not meet my child's needs even tho I could have. I chose what was best for me (or another family member) in that moment, not what was best for my DD. But just because I can justify it doesnt mean that her crying for 10 minutes (even while being held by daddy) affected her brain any differently than if i had left her in the crib to cry.



ETA - my point, LOL I swear I have one. We need to stop trying to define the term CIO as something evil and talk about how our actions (whatever they may be) affect our kids. Stop the labeling and guilt, just think about what we do and come to terms with the fact we are humans and we sometimes do not always choose the best option. That doesn't make anyone a lesser parent. It also doesnt put someone who lets their child scream for an hour on the same level as someone who sets a baby down for 5/10 minutes to pee.... but ultimately they all have a negative affect on our children and its worth thinking about in that way instead of sitting here debating what is CIO and what isn't. Just because something isn't labeled CIO does it really make any mom feel better about letting their child cry for ANY amount of time? Does it really change the action because it has a different name?
PatchyMama is offline  
Old 09-13-2006, 08:50 PM
 
moonfirefaery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Goose Creek, SC
Posts: 2,994
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think a baby can tell the difference between five minutes and thirty. I think a baby can tell the difference between 'mommy sure is taking her time' and 'I guess mommy isn't coming.'

I believe my job is to do what is best for my whole family. I think that IS what is best for my child. I try to focus on what the best thing that I am capable of doing is, rather than the impossible ideal.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what I should be looking for in my son as negative results of being left to cry for five minutes while mom takes a dump and how he'll compare to children who were held for the entire duration of every whimper.

fambedsingle2.gif Heather, 25, single mom to Corbin, 5, and Orin, 3  uc.jpg  delayedvax.gif  nocirc.gif
Oh how I miss the days of femalesling.GIF  nak.gifcd.gif  
moonfirefaery is offline  
Old 09-13-2006, 09:14 PM
 
PatchyMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Viva Las Vegas
Posts: 5,195
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I didn't say that a baby can't tell the difference between 5 and 30 did I? I said the baby can not tell the difference between left to cry to sleep and left to cry because mommy needed a break. Obviously the longer a child cries the more they are affected negatively. I was speaking in regards to some who say it is about intentions and that CIO is purposefully ignoring your child to teach them something.

Further, you seem to not be reading my posts. I have no problems with you leaving your child to cry while you take a dump. That is your choice to make. I personally have made that choice as well. But physically the same things that happen to a child left to cry to learn a lesson (and many babies do give up after 5 minutes) is happening your child.

Who knows if there are any long term negative effects of being left to cry for 5 minutes while we take a dump every day, there aren't exactly studies about that. But there is something to be said for thinking about the long term affects of our parenting AS WELL as how are our children are feeling on a daily basis. I mean my kids could probably never go to a park for the rest of their lives and be fine, but I still choose to take them to the park cause it makes them feel good.
PatchyMama is offline  
Old 09-13-2006, 09:20 PM
 
liawbh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: got the boo-less blues
Posts: 2,805
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
If baby can't tell the difference between mom being gone 5 vs. 20+ minutes, how is crying-in-arms any better? If you have a colicky babe who spends hours on end crying regardless of what you try?
liawbh is offline  
Old 09-13-2006, 09:22 PM
 
liawbh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: got the boo-less blues
Posts: 2,805
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
So, the parent of the colicky babe should just accept that their babe is all kinds of damaged from all the crying? And that they haven't done the best job because they haven't fixed the mysterious ailment?


Yeah, I know no one can MAKE anybody feel anything, but they sure do try.
liawbh is offline  
Old 09-13-2006, 09:35 PM
 
loraxc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In the Truffula Trees
Posts: 4,388
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Moonfirefaery:

Quote:
But just because I can justify it doesnt mean that her crying for 10 minutes (even while being held by daddy) affected her brain any differently than if i had left her in the crib to cry.
So now we're saying that crying in a loving father's arms "affects their brains"? : It's really not at all a far leap from that to "Babies who cry at any time for any reason for any length of time are being damaged by the crying." : Too bad about those high-needs, colicky babies, huh? Brain-damaged for life. If only they had had BETTER mamas! (I'm being sarcastic here. Actually, there is research showing that colicky babies are NOT affected in later life.)

grateful mother to DD, 1/04, and DS, 2/08

loraxc is offline  
Old 09-13-2006, 09:35 PM
 
PatchyMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Viva Las Vegas
Posts: 5,195
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
wow, I should just stop posting because no one is even reading what I actually said.

I am not comparing a baby crying for 5 minutes against a baby crying for 30. I am comparing a baby being left in a crib to cry to sleep train for 10 minutes versus a baby being left to cry while mom takes 10 minutes to gather herself. The physical affects on the baby for those 10 minutes of both situations theoretically are the same because a baby has no understanding of intentions. Because of that it is silly for us to sit here and debate what is CIO and what isnt. Just because one mom has better intentions than another mom doesnt make that baby feel any differently.

Nor did I say that any baby was damaged. I definately never said that "Affects their brains" = brain damaged. I simply said it affects them, it can affect them in how they are feeling in that moment or if left to cry on a continual basis studies there is an issue of stress on the baby (http://www.naturalchild.org/guest/li..._palmer2.html). I know that on days when my DD has been crying more often than usually (because I needed to work at my older daughters school or something like that) she is clingier than usual. It absolutely affects her, at least temporarily. It doesnt matter that her loving daddy is here.. she is still physically crying and it still affects her physically.

Also I never said anyone wasn't doing the best job they could. I simply said that we as parents do not always choose what is BEST FOR THE CHILD. Myself included. We choose what is best for that situation taking into all factors of what is going on.

I seriously don't understand the issue, I am saying that no one is a bad parent because they took 5 minutes to pee. No one is a bad parent because they can not figure out while their child is crying. I have never said any of that nor would I cause that has been me many times. So I don't get why everyone is up in arms over me suggesting that a baby may not be able to discern the difference between being left to cry in a crib for 10 minutes and being left to cry while mommy showers or regains herself. I just think that trying to define this term CIO just allows us to be more judgemental instead of talking about situations in terms of how babies are feeling and what the affect of them are.
PatchyMama is offline  
Old 09-13-2006, 09:43 PM
 
North_Of_60's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Beautiful British Columbia
Posts: 7,108
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatchyMama
(tho i won't use the word manipulation in regards to babies)
I used the word manipulation because that is a common theme among sleep trainers. To "teach" a helpless infant that they do not need the loving comfort of a human being so they can sleep for 12 hours implies that a baby communicates out of manipulation. Manipulation is something that must be stopped. Tending to the needs of a baby must be encouraged. The difference between us and sleep trainers is that we feel we must tend to the needs of our baby's because they NEED us, not because they are manipulating us. I do not believe that babies are capable of manipulation, but I think many people do believe this. Sadly enough.

Quote:
Babies do not know your intentions or what you are thinking, they only know what they feel. I imagine the baby left to cry itself to sleep in a crib doesn't feel that much different than a baby left to sit in a room for 5/10 minutes while mom gathers themselves.

I do not put those two actions on the same level at all, but it would be silly to think that they affect our children differently.
I agree and I disagree with this. LOL. If that's even possible. No, they don't know our intentions, and our intentions mean little to them when they need us most. However, crying for 5 minutes does not invoke feelings of abandonment and hopelessness. I don't think. At least not in comparison to crying for 30 minutes, therefore I don't think the two can be compared (even though I realize your point was about intentions and not time frames).

A child who cries himself to sleep has given up hope. Over time this causes them to loose trust in his care givers, and as we all know, this causes a whole slough of consequences both immediately, and long term. I don't necessarily believe that 5 minutes can cause the same emotional damage. But because I don't think 5 minutes is the same as 30 does not mean I am dismissing it. I don't think 5 minutes of crying alone is what's "best", even though it may be what's best at the time.

True, they have no idea what our intentions are, and they have no comprehension of what we're doing or why we're doing it, BUT, I have yet to see my daughter give up hope and cease her crying because she feels defeated and abandoned, which I think are the most damaging side effects of "prolonged CIO".

Does that make sense? :

Quote:
No one can MAKE anyone feel guilty.
Now this I agree with! I don't feel guilty for doing what is necessary to make me a better mother. It's not a perfect situation, it's not what's best for her over all, but it was the best I could do at that time, and I know that's all she would expect of me.

Frankenstein never scared me. Marsupials do. Because they're FAST.
North_Of_60 is offline  
Old 09-13-2006, 09:46 PM
 
PatchyMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Viva Las Vegas
Posts: 5,195
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
North of 60 - yep, I agree with all of that as well. I agree there is absolutely a difference between being left to cry for 5 minutes or for 30 minutes or however long. When I first posted along those lines I was more or less just throwing out something for discussion. I was just talking in regards to if the time limit is really the same is there really a difference, kwim? I am just long winded today, LOL I obviously have too much time on my hands because my kids are actually playing together peacefully, for once
PatchyMama is offline  
Old 09-13-2006, 09:52 PM
 
Storm Bride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 25,597
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatchyMama
Also I never said anyone wasn't doing the best job they could. I simply said that we as parents do not always choose what is BEST FOR THE CHILD. Myself included. We choose what is best for that situation taking into all factors of what is going on.
I don't get the distinction here. If I had a child who required surgery to save his/her life, then the best thing I could do for that child is to have them get the surgery. That doesn't mean that's the hypothetical "best thing" for a child in some other situation. Doing what's best for you child means doing what's best for your child in your situation...any other situation is irrelevant.

In an ideal world, I wouldn't have had a colicky baby to care for while recovering from a cesarean. In my situation, I had a wonderful dh who was fortunately not working. So, my precious dd cried in her daddy's arms every night (for four hours) when nothing else worked. In our situation, that was what was best for our child. If I could have made her feel okay by nursing her, that would have been best in that situation.

How can you isolate doing what's best for your child from doing what's best for your child in your situation? We're all in our own situation - nobody else's.

Lisa, lucky mama of Kelly (3/93) ribboncesarean.gif, Emma (5/03) ribboncesarean.gif, Evan (7/05) ribboncesarean.gif, & Jenna (6/09) ribboncesarean.gif
Loving my amazing dh, James & forever missing ribbonpb.gif Aaron Ambrose ribboncesarean.gif (11/07) ribbonpb.gif

Storm Bride is offline  
Old 09-13-2006, 09:58 PM
 
PatchyMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Viva Las Vegas
Posts: 5,195
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I am talking about general parenting ideals.

In the case of me wanting to take a shower by myself. My DD is seriously attached to me and hates for me to be out of sight. But I really wanted to take a shower by myself for once, LOL. So I gave her to dad and got in the shower. She cried the entire time... obviously what would have been best for HER is to get out and meet her needs so she would not need to cry. I obviously chose to finish my shower because I personally would benefit from me taking a shower.

Ideally (for the best health of a child) all children should be nursed til 2 years old. Obviously this is not always what is best for the family/mom/etc and it sometimes doesn't happen. That doesnt change the fact that breastmilk is nutriionally best for a child til 2 kwim? But you make the best choice you can for you.

The ideal solution for our children is sometimes not possible because we have other people to consider. That doesnt change that it is the ideal, it just makes it so we have to choose a different option. But overall as a theory on a parenting board we often set up ideals that we like to promote. We as parents sometimes have to come to terms with that fact that we are not able to follow through on those ideals. That doesnt make us a bad parent, it just is a fact of life.

ETA - sorry for all the editing and typos. My carpel tunnel is being a pain today lol.
PatchyMama is offline  
Old 09-13-2006, 10:23 PM
 
Jennisee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,168
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Brilliant posts, PatchyMama!
Jennisee is offline  
Old 09-14-2006, 12:05 AM
 
moonfirefaery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Goose Creek, SC
Posts: 2,994
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
I said the baby can not tell the difference between left to cry to sleep and left to cry because mommy needed a break
I don't think that difference would make as much of a difference as the amount of time he was left to cry. Moreover, I think he could figure it out based on how long he was left to cry. My child knows that even if it takes a few minutes I eventually come, and that's how HE knows the difference.

Quote:
But physically the same things that happen to a child left to cry to learn a lesson (and many babies do give up after 5 minutes) is happening your child
And I am still waiting for you to tell me what those things are, as well as what negative effects I should be looking for because of it in my child.

Quote:
Who knows if there are any long term negative effects of being left to cry for 5 minutes while we take a dump every day, there aren't exactly studies about that.
If there aren't any then what's the problem? Who cares how it affects their brain if those effects don't cause any negative results? There's no proof, just a bunch of theories, so why act as if it's got all these effects on the brain that might make it harmful if there's nothing solid?

I think it's more about what the child learns because of the crying than the 'effects of the crying on the brain', especially considering crying is a normal part of infancy and childhood and some experts even say babies need to cry at least a little bit, just not too much. I don't think crying for five minutes is going to have much of a negative effect on the brain. Being left alone for five minutes doesn't teach a child anything other than that mommy cannot always come immediately, whereas being left alone for longer periods of time teaches babies that their needs will not be met period because mommy is not coming at all. As another poster stated that a child who cries himself to sleep has given up hope... a child left to cry for five minutes probably has not. These are what I think are a lot more important than imaginary or presumed negative effects of crying for any period of time on the brain. It is the effects of long periods of crying that cause a child to learn his needs are not important or mommy does not care or to give up hope. If the effects of crying for any amount of time at all were harmful to the brain or changed who a person becomes, I think we'd all be pretty messed up because no one has a cry-free childhood.

fambedsingle2.gif Heather, 25, single mom to Corbin, 5, and Orin, 3  uc.jpg  delayedvax.gif  nocirc.gif
Oh how I miss the days of femalesling.GIF  nak.gifcd.gif  
moonfirefaery is offline  
Old 09-14-2006, 12:11 AM
 
PatchyMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Viva Las Vegas
Posts: 5,195
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
If there aren't any then what's the problem? Who cares how it affects their brain if those effects don't cause any negative results? T
I very much care how my child feels on a daily basis in addition to the long term affects of my parenting on my child.




Jennisee, I love your signature. I think that is a great goal to live/parent by
PatchyMama is offline  
Old 09-14-2006, 12:47 AM
 
moonfirefaery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Goose Creek, SC
Posts: 2,994
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I care as well, but I'm still waiting to hear what the long-term effects of letting my baby down to cry sadly while I take a dump are. My duty is to my whole family, putting the family first not just whoever is crying loudest or is the youngest. My job isn't to give my child shiny happy feelings all of the time to prevent him from ever feeling anything commonly perceived as negative, but to meet his needs and raise him to be a functional, happy adult. I cannot protect him from every moment of sadness, fear, or doubt, an I'm not going to let 'he might be sad for a few minutes!' prevent me from tending to the needs of my entire family. Once again if there are no negative results, and if you're doing all you can to meet your child's needs and keep his feelings in good order without neglecting the needs of others in the family, I don't see the problem.

fambedsingle2.gif Heather, 25, single mom to Corbin, 5, and Orin, 3  uc.jpg  delayedvax.gif  nocirc.gif
Oh how I miss the days of femalesling.GIF  nak.gifcd.gif  
moonfirefaery is offline  
Old 09-14-2006, 01:20 AM
 
PatchyMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Viva Las Vegas
Posts: 5,195
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Again I question whether you are fully reading my posts. I agree with you that I have no problem with any of that and have done that myself. I just said that I don't think it is without its affects on the child and those are worth of considering through out the day and when discussing it on a board such as this, regardless of how minimal or long term they are. It is worth thinking about and discussing this in regards to how a child feels in both a "cry til you learn to sleep" situation and a "cry while i take a dump" situation.
PatchyMama is offline  
Old 09-14-2006, 04:59 AM
 
moonfirefaery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Goose Creek, SC
Posts: 2,994
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm reading your posts, and I am asking what those effects are, more specifically what the negative ones are, that you keep talking about.

As for my child's feelings, he's not going to learn that I am not coming, give up hope, or become depressed because I took a five-minute dump, though he might if I leave him alone to cry to sleep. I'm not going to lose sleep over my son feeling sad for five minutes because I had to fulfill a need of my own in order to relieve him of that sadness. I don't think rocking a baby with diarrhea leaking out would be very sanitary.

fambedsingle2.gif Heather, 25, single mom to Corbin, 5, and Orin, 3  uc.jpg  delayedvax.gif  nocirc.gif
Oh how I miss the days of femalesling.GIF  nak.gifcd.gif  
moonfirefaery is offline  
Old 09-14-2006, 07:50 AM
 
Cujobunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,409
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Patchy Mama, I agree with you. I know that crying for 5 minutes would have an effect on my child. Not long term, brain damaging effects, but some effect nonetheless.

I also agree that, for during that 5 minutes, he would have no idea if I was coming back or not, so for him the feelings are the same, whatever my intention.

I have thought about this, and here's what I have come up with:

The ACT of Crying It Out has a different meaning from the PRACTICE of letting your child Cry It Out for the purpose of "training" them.

Most children, at some point or another, will have to be left to cry for a few minutes while Mama tends to something else that REQUIRES her attention. If, during those few minutes, the baby stops crying because he/she fell asleep or comforted him/herself, sorry, but your baby just Cried the need right out of him/her. No it's not great, but it was necessary and DOES NOT MAKE YOU A BAD MOTHER. It does not make you someone who practices CIO. There is no need to beat yourself up over it. If there were any feelings of abandonment by ds during that time, IMO, they would be quickly erased when he woke up, or when I went in and got him and lovingly spent the rest of the day (or my life!) trying to make up for that, and nursed him, rocked him to sleep next time. It would take more than a few times of leaving him to cry by himself to have long term feelings of abandonment or mistrust. And I say that as someone who is pretty anti-CIO, but have been fortunate to have a baby who didn't cry very much.

What do you all think of that?

Amanda - wife to DH Kellyjog.gif, Mummers to Trentreading.gif born 03/03/05 Bridgetdust.gif born 08/08/07 and a IT'S A BOY! Kennedy babyboy.gifborn 02/20/11!
Cujobunny is offline  
Old 09-14-2006, 09:23 AM
 
paxye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Quebec, Canada
Posts: 2,836
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
this is a part of one of my favourite articles that was in the Globe and Mail earlier this year by Gabor Maté.
Quote:
"As a family physician, I used to advocate the Ferber technique and, as a parent, practised it myself. Since then, I have come to believe that the method is harmful to infant development and to a child’s long-term emotional health."

"People cannot consciously recall what they “learned” in the first year of life, because the brain structures that store narrative memory are not yet developed. But neuropsychological research has established that human beings have a far more powerful memory system imprinted in their nervous systems called intrinsic memory. Intrinsic memory encodes the emotional aspects of early experience, mostly in the prefrontal lobe of the brain. These emotional memories may last a lifetime. Without any recall of the events that originally encoded them, they serve as a template for how we perceive the world and how we react to later occurrences."

"As psychologist and leading memory researcher Daniel Schacter has written, intrinsic memory is active “when people are influenced by past experience without any awareness that they are remembering.”

The implicit message an infant receives from having her cries ignored is that the world — as represented by her caregivers — is indifferent to her feelings. That is not at all what loving parents intend.

Unfortunately, it’s not parental intentions that a baby integrates into her world view, but how parents respond to her. This is why, if I could relive my life, I would do much of my parenting differently."

I won't quote more of the article because I have already quoted enough...

I do beleive that somehing actually changes in the brain when a baby is left to cry without a caregiver... and that in some circumstances this can happen wih a caregiver when denied a need.

Babies cry, sometimes they cry a lot and sometimes we try everything and baby keeps on crying... it happens.... but leaving them doesn't make it better for them, like Gabor Maté says... it is not the parents intentions but the parents actions. IMO a 6 month old baby does not know if you are coming back or not... especially if they are in the middle of a crying fit...
And please do NOT tell me that I have not been there! I have!
I just have a different way of coping with certain situations. I was abused and neglected as a child and I learned at a very young age how to retreat into myself in order to cope... I know that others may not be able to do this and that walking away is what is needed but it doesn't mean the effects that may happen will dissapear because your intentions are in the right place...
And YES, my baby has cried and I couldn't get to them right away... but I have accepted that I couldn't do anything different at that time and then I deal with it... I don't negate what hapened into saying that it didn't harm them at all because my intentions were not there...

 
~paxye~
Mama to Xavier (July 02) , Colin (Sept 04), Khéna(Nov 06) & Wilhelmina (Jan 10)
paxye is offline  
Old 09-14-2006, 09:39 AM
 
HelloKitty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Next door to the possums
Posts: 11,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by boongirl
Maybe I am just extraordinarily literal, but I take CIO to mean crying it out. In other words, being left to cry the need for a parent out of you. Leaving a child for a few seconds or minutes when you WANT to return to them and understand that they need you but you need this time to think, pee, poop, eat, find the car keys, find the aloe vera gel or benadryl, or whatever little thing that is happening NOW that you must do NOW even though you really want to also be attending to your child IS NOT CIO. Because, this is not leaving your child to cry it out.

Extremists may dicker this point with me, but literally, I think it means leaving your child to cry their need for their parent out of them. They learn that mama is not coming and so they cry and cry and eventually the cry is out of them and they learn to just deal with being abandoned in their little cage.
:

I think "fussing it out" also qualifies.

That's why they call it "sleep training" - parents are trying to "train" their children not to cry when they go to sleep. I'm always against things that treat children like pets. I train my dog, not my child. I did CIO with my Saint Bernard. Sorry but I'm not going to co-sleep with him no matter how much I love him.

Great for nature studies! http://www.pleinairkids.com
Plein Air Kids - Handmade wooden art boxes for Budding Artists.
HelloKitty is offline  
Old 09-14-2006, 09:40 AM
 
North_Of_60's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Beautiful British Columbia
Posts: 7,108
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxye
I don't negate what hapened into saying that it didn't harm them at all because my intentions were not there...
And I did? Since you didn't address anyone specifically, I'll assume you are referring everyone, myself included. Please be careful with the blanket statements.

Frankenstein never scared me. Marsupials do. Because they're FAST.
North_Of_60 is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


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