# John Rosemond: your thoughts?



## AmyY (Jul 22, 2004)

I am just not sure about this guy, he seems all over the map. My sainted MIL brings me articles from his column in a local paper (we don't subscribe to that one). Some of them I want to enlarge, frame, and send to everyone I know - for example, a recent column on the worthless waste involved in all the childhood "toys" that we have today. Some others I find simply shocking - for example, a recent one in which he stated decisively that if a child is not potty trained by 18 months the parents are not doing their job and are undermining their own authority as parents for the child's entire childhood. WHAT???!!!

Do any of you know about this guy and what do you know/think of him?


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

I think like most parenting "experts" he makes some really good points and some very very bad ones.


----------



## UnschoolnMa (Jun 14, 2004)

I mostly disagree with him (when I read his column), but every now and then we have some common ground. (Such as that not everything a kid goes through is a _disorder_ or a _syndrome_) I'd say the split is about 90% disagree/10% agree. But he isn't in business to please me I suppose lol.


----------



## onlyzombiecat (Aug 15, 2004)

I also most often disagree with him (or rather his attitude) but occasionally I do agree with something he says.
He tends to come off to me as saying parenting was way better in the 1950's and most problems a child has is because the parent is not strict enough. He is conservative and all about "traditional" parenting. I don't recall if he has said he is actually for spanking but from what I've read I get the impression he would not be against it. http://www.rosemond.com/

He is probably not someone I would turn to for parenting advice.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

I have not heard of this man, but his Bill of Rights for Children (can't link to it, for some reason - must go to website, see left-hand links)...makes me guh-guh-gag.

Excerpts:

"Because it is the most character-building, two-letter word in the English language, children have the right to hear their parents say "No" at least three times a day."

"Children have a right to scream all they want over the decisions their parents make, albeit their parents have the right to confine said screaming to certain areas of their homes."

"Children have the right to learn early in their lives that obedience to legitimate authority is not optional, that there are consequences for disobedience, and that said consequences are memorable and, therefore, persuasive."

It's a rather Dickensian existence he has mapped out there.

"Children have a right to gruel, but not MORE gruel. Because it builds character, and because I said so."

John Rosemond does not sound like he would like to be my friend. I mean, how much chutzpah does it take to be snarky against kids and the children's Bill of Rights (from the UN, USA won't ratify it).


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Oh dear, yes. In fact, he apparently wrote a whole BOOK on how spanking is OK. With cartoons!

To Spank Or Not To Spank
by John Rosemond
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...01436?v=glance

He has another book called "Raising a Nonviolent Child."

I am really enjoying this man's well-developed sense of irony...


----------



## bobandjess99 (Aug 1, 2005)

I'm about 75% agree/25%disagree......**donning fire-resistant suit** But then again, I seem to be a fairly unique mixture of NFL/AP/authoritarian parenting style, LOL!


----------



## AmyY (Jul 22, 2004)

Interesting - thanks for the links and info. I guess I had suspected he would be in the "children are born manipulators whose will must be broken" camp but I was thrown off by that FANTASTIC article on toys, as I mentioned in my OP. The more detailed info shows he promotes several of the things I was raised with/around and have determined to not repeat. :LOL

Drat! It really was a great article on toys...


----------



## UnschoolnMa (Jun 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
Excerpts:

"Children have the right to learn early in their lives that obedience to legitimate authority is not optional, that there are consequences for disobedience, and that said consequences are memorable and, therefore, persuasive."
.


Ok all of that made me gaggy too, but this is the big whopper.


----------



## atozmama (May 2, 2005)

He can have some really good insights into why children do what they do, after all they are children not adults, but what he does with those insights are way off. It is usually a case of I am the adult and that is why. I remember one article about a childs waking parents up during the night because she was scared. He was right in that the parents were not going to be able to talk her out out of her fear. he was way off in recomending the child go to bed an hour earllier the next night so the parents can make up thier lost sleep from the night before, and expected to stay there if she wakes again. This is all based on a child in her own bed and room too. Rosemound also makes a blanket assumption that all toddlers would be better behaved on airplanes if they had thier own car seat to sit in. It might help on an hour long flight with my toddler, but I would love to be on a cross country flight with him and show him that soon as she was tired of it and saw others up and moving around she would want to get out too.


----------



## LeftField (Aug 2, 2002)

I think Rosemond's pretty awful. He goes on about the 1950s a lot and how, supposedly, those kids didn't grow up to have eating disorders or any other issues (hello? What planet do you live on, Mr. Rosemond?)

Here's what I read from him recently that really left my mouth hanging open. It's a story about a boy named, "Johnny" who is having learning issues in 1st grade. His concerned parents go to the school and talk with his teacher; the teacher explains that he has ADD. Rosemond says that on the way home in the car, Johnny's mother says, "I don't think Johnny has A-D-D. I think he's just B-A-D.". Then, Rosemond says that she takes the matter in hand, literally, and Johnny is cured in 5 weeks. B/c, YK, in the 50s, people beat their kids all the time and they turned out just fine.

John Rosemond, IMO, is a child-hating, unenlightened know-it-all who lives in the glorious 50s and probably has very little direct parenting exp.


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

In some ways, he can be very common sense compared to a lot of people like that these days - he believes ADD is way overdiagnosed, for instance.

But when it comes to discipline, he's definitely got rose colored glasses on when it comes to the 50's.... which is one of the darker periods of parenting styles IMO.

If you go to his site, he does have a lot of common sense stuff that is very reasonable ... for instance, in his current column some parents are concerned because their son prefers "imaginative" play to sports, and he pretty much puts the kibosh on that (the kibosh on their concerns, that is).

He's a real mixed bag.


----------



## sistermama (May 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KristiMetz*

He's a real mixed bag.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

I think I am with him maybe 20 percent.

Like look at the answer to his website about the boy who does not like to play sports. I thought he gave a very intelligent answer about how the dad needs to not have his masculinity caught up in whether his son plays sports and how other children might react to non-typical behavior (hand flapping).

BUT I bet if he was answering what to do if the little boy was gay, he and I would have nothing in common with our answers. Since for me the only answer would be for the parents to support their child and understand that sexual preference is not something one chooses.


----------



## sparklemom (Dec 11, 2001)

I have nothing positive to say about him. His parenting advice is negative and harmful. If he gets a good point in here and there it's a fluke. And my dh happens to know of him personally in the professional world, and says he has a very nasty personal reputation for the way he treats other people. The way he proposes to treat children is shameful.


----------



## AmyY (Jul 22, 2004)

So - I presume we WON'T be seeing him on the last page of Mothering Magazine as a Living Treasure any time soon? :LOL Thanks mamas for the responses and insights.


----------



## crazy_eights (Nov 22, 2001)

: So can I say that something I read from him about teenagers really helped me with my teen? My oldest is one of those 'argue to the death just to keep from having to do what he needs to do' types. Always has been. Anyway - he has this whole thing about 'don't argue, either they do it or they don't'. If they don't do it, you do it and don't make an issue of it. But the next time they want you to do something for them - say, a ride to the mall or something of that nature, you tell them 'well, there are lots of things around this house that have to get done and I have to prioritize and make choices. You chose not to do 'x' the other day when I needed you to do it and that was a choice you made. Right now, I have other things to do and that is a choice I am making. We all make choices.'

I'll tell you, it has made a HUGE difference in my son's attitude/arguing/protestations that we are the cruelest parents on the planet (b/c we asked him to do the dishes or take out the trash). We could talk and talk (and talk) about how everyone in the house has responsibilities, everyone has to contribute, blah, blah, blah - but nothing was getting in until we tried this. We don't blind obedience, but it took the fight out of every chore and task that my son had to do.


----------



## merpk (Dec 19, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mom2six*







: So can I say that something I read from him about teenagers really helped me with my teen? My oldest is one of those 'argue to the death just to keep from having to do what he needs to do' types. Always has been. Anyway - he has this whole thing about 'don't argue, either they do it or they don't'. If they don't do it, you do it and don't make an issue of it. But the next time they want you to do something for them - say, a ride to the mall or something of that nature, you tell them 'well, there are lots of things around this house that have to get done and I have to prioritize and make choices. You chose not to do 'x' the other day when I needed you to do it and that was a choice you made. Right now, I have other things to do and that is a choice I am making. We all make choices.'

I'll tell you, it has made a HUGE difference in my son's attitude/arguing/protestations that we are the cruelest parents on the planet (b/c we asked him to do the dishes or take out the trash). We could talk and talk (and talk) about how everyone in the house has responsibilities, everyone has to contribute, blah, blah, blah - but nothing was getting in until we tried this. We don't blind obedience, but it took the fight out of every chore and task that my son had to do.











Huh.

From the rest of the thread, I never want to read this guy's stuff ... but THIS post hopefully I'll remember a few years from now ...


----------



## philomom (Sep 12, 2004)

This fellow is way off base with potty training and little kids. He does however, have great ways of dealing with older, defiant children. In a world where parents "negotiate" their kids into doing anything, I find his parent -in- charge attitude refreshing. Honestly, some kids I know are huge brats and their parents say, "well, we Ap our kids and respect them". Okay, but when do they respect you? If your kid walks on you 24-7 as a big kid, its time to make some changes. You can bet your kid will not get far in the real world without once in awhile being told what to do and when to do it.

I'm not talking about spanking, I'm talking about boundaries and limits. There are plenty of ways to get a kid in line without raising a finger to them.

Steeling myself for flames now.


----------



## nonnymoose (Mar 12, 2004)

I think it's silly to ignore everything someone says because you don't agree with each and every one of his philosophies. I happen to like Rosemond. If you read a little deeper about his potty training philosophy, for instance, he points out that children now are no less able to control themselves physically than the ones fifty years ago - that's the basis of his opinion. He also has a major problem with pediatricians like Terry Brazelton, who writes books about potty training (encouraging parents not to "rush" their children) without mentioning that he's on the Pampers payroll. In that respect, I don't see where he's any different from MDC members who rant (rightfully) about pediatricians keeping formula literature in their offices and handing out free samples.


----------



## AmyY (Jul 22, 2004)

Hmm, more and more interesting! As the OP, may I just say I specifically did not intend to begin a debate and I appreciate the clarity and politeness with which this thread is being conducted. Thanks! I appreciate all points of view of this fellow, who seems a bit of an enigma. I do recall a comment he made on potty training which I did agree with, that disposable diaper companies seem to be the only ones who benefit from folks like Dr. Brazelton/Pampers saying not to rush potty training. Though in my case Mr. Rosemond would have to say Fuzzi Bunz is getting the benefit. :LOL


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

If it's so awful for kids to potty train early, then why is EC so popular around here? It's pretty obvious that kids _can_ learn to control their elimination from a young age. I think it just depends on whether or not parents feel they can and should "teach" the kids rather than let the kids do it all on their own. (FWIW, my kids trained at 22 and 25 months, with some self-motivation and some encouragement from me.)

Also, the Children's Bill of Rights is a rather tongue-in-cheek document. If you read John Rosemond's books, you see that his philosophies go much deeper than what you glean from his weekly columns.

I agree with John on some things and disagree with him on others. I think sometimes he has great ideas and sometimes he's way too harsh. I don't agree with his ideas on attachment problems in adoption, for example. But I also don't agree with Dr. Sears or Katie Allison Granju on everything, either.








I think John is right on when he says that kids have to respect their parents. I think that's vital. I see a lot of AP/GD/TCS-or-something families where life revolves around what the kids want at the expense of what the parents want/what is best for the family as a whole, where the kids are allowed to tantrum and throw fits and be totally egocentric far past when it is developmentally appropriate, and that really turns me off.

I have read four of John Rosemond's books and, while I don't think I would actually like him, I have gotten some really good ideas from him.

Namaste!


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nonnymoose*
I think it's silly to ignore everything someone says because you don't agree with each and every one of his philosophies. I happen to like Rosemond. If you read a little deeper about his potty training philosophy, for instance, he points out that children now are no less able to control themselves physically than the ones fifty years ago - that's the basis of his opinion.

Very true. I was amazed to see a photo of my Russian co-worker's son on the potty at less than one year old. He told me that it is the norm to start toilet training in Russia as soon as the baby can sit securely, and almost all are toilet trained well before 18 months.

Another Russian friend told me that it was because diapers were expensive and hard to get in Russia, and was surprised to hear that someone would do that in America, where diapers are more easy to come by :LOL


----------



## mommyofshmoo (Oct 25, 2004)

I think a lot of people who write columns and various child-experts just write stuff to be shocking and confrontational. That's why i hate Dr. Phil and the various supernanny shows.

Sex and freedom have become passe- not so hot and exciting anymore. The new fascination is with power, restraint and control. Much hotter in today's market.

It's all the same bullsh*t and it's all just about money.


----------



## Evan&Anna's_Mom (Jun 12, 2003)

I very rarely agree with him, especially relating to younger children. Take potty training, for example... Yes, it is very possible to potty train "early", as many here have done and as he advocates. But his recommendation for how to potty train an "older" child -- meaning any child over 24 months -- is to give them lots to drink and then "confine" (AKA lock) them in the bathroom until they produce in the toilet. He talks about that taking several HOURS for one "defiant four year old". According to him, older children (again, older than 2) who have accidents should be confined to their room for the remainder of the day, only allowed out once an hour to use the toilet. Accidents in their rooms should be responded to by immediate bedtime, even if it is mid-afternoon.

His recent column on biting toddlers suggested that parents should spank the child. This is the first time I had seen him directly advocate spanking in his published column -- though he is clearly pro-spanking on his subscription only website. He also suggested that biting the child back would be appropriate.

He routinely suggests that misbehaving preschoolers be confined in their rooms (rooms "cleansed" of toys) for hours at a time.

Yes, sometimes he has a good idea or two, especially in the areas of over-commercialization of children and over-medicalizing some issues. But his fundamental philosophy is non-AP, highly authoritarian, and highly punitive.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

I don't know. The child's bill of rights might have intended to be tongue-in-cheek, but it seemed really snarky to me. Sort of like, "ha, you don't have any rights at all, isn't that funny." He also is very much against the UN Rights of the Child, which you can find on his blog. Boy, he is really, really, really conservative. What is the difference between him and Dobson?

Regarding lax AP parents...I also know a lot of very authoritarian families as well where the children ARE very well behaved... when their parents are around. They are also very sneaky and duplicitous when no authority figure can be found or the punishment isn't as important as the fun. I think a balance is important, and I definitely believe in those MDC-hot-button issues like "boundaries" and "limits" and "consequences"...but this would be way too much for me.

He also gives tips on how to spank a 24-month old.
http://www.psychpage.com/family/library/spank.html


----------



## nonconformnmom (May 24, 2005)

I've been reading his column for a couple of years now, and I find that I tend to either agree with his perspective, or to vehemently disagree. I agree with previous posters who said he is better with the older age groups than the younger ones. I remember a recent column about teenagers and cars that I felt I mostly agreed with, even though it would probably be characterized as "authoritarian". One thing he said was, if a teenager asks their parents to purchase a car for them to use, the parent should take their teenager to the school faculty parking lot and say, "I'll buy a car for you to use, but not one that is any nicer than the ones found here in this parking lot." He goes on to say that he feels strongly that the teenager should pay their own car insurance and gasoline. I agree with that. My teenager uses my 1994 Saturn (I needed a larger car when I had my two dd's) and she pays her own gasoline, car insurance, and oil changes. I pay for any major maintenance, tires, etc. since the car still officially belongs to me.

However, I vehemently disagreed with a column discussing younger children in which he stated that "children have no rights".


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

I have sort of a funny story about a Rosemond devotee, who was lecturing at our high school. All the kids were annoyed at his attitude.

He was giving a seminarto the group of parents in the very affluent suburb in which I grew up.

He asked the kids for a show of hands for who had their own car and then asked for a show of hands for kids who had a Mercedes or Lexus. One boy (who is our neighbor) raised his hand.

The lecturer asked the kid how old he was "17" came the answer. And asked the lecturer "What have you done to earn that Mercedes"

And the kid said "I outsold evey other salesman in my dad's business three to one this year and that is the bonus he gives to his top salesman"

The lecturer was stopped cold in his tracks. BTY, the 'kid' is now a 30 y.o. who has grown his father's business 10 times over.


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *John Rosemond*
"Because it is the most character-building, two-letter word in the English language, children have the right to hear their parents say "No" at least three times a day.

I have been thinking of this quote (from John Rosemond's Bill of Rights for children, that someone quoted earlier in the thread) and it really chaps my hide.

The implication is that you should say no to your kids sometimes just because it "builds character". A lot of people seem to advise this and I think it is totally off base.

If my DS (when he's older) asks to go to the park and I say "No, I have too much to do this afternoon, honey", then according to many parenting "experts" DS should just accept that because when mama says no, it means no, right?

But if DS came to me and said "OK, since you have a lot to do, how about if I do X and X to help you, then will we have time to go to the park?" I would consider his character to be far better and will know I have truly taught him something as a parent (how to negotiate and compromise in a meaningful way).

I just wanted to vent about that. I do like some of what John Rosemond has to say, but in this area I disagree with him completely. And, he's totally wearing rose colored glasses when it comes how parenting was in the 50's.


----------

