# I bought "Baby Wise" AND a James Dobson book....



## kamilla626 (Mar 18, 2004)

.... so no one else would.

Actually, there were THREE copies of Baby Wise along with the Dobson book at the thrift store. I'm torn about what to do with them now, but I feel as though maybe I stopped 3 new moms from reading - and following - their "techniques".


----------



## Super Glue Mommy (Jan 4, 2009)

I always hide those books in the book store whenever I see them lol

put a new cover on them "how to be a rotton deranged parent" or "how NOT to raise happy healthy children"


----------



## trinity6232000 (Dec 2, 2001)

Burn em'.


----------



## katiesk (Nov 6, 2007)

i'm really curious - what does james dobson have to say about babies/parenting?


----------



## fruitfulmomma (Jun 8, 2002)

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


----------



## mamadebug (Dec 28, 2006)

Put them in the paper recycling bin!


----------



## chipper26 (Sep 4, 2008)

I'm not a big book burner but...


----------



## chipper26 (Sep 4, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *katiesk* 
i'm really curious - what does james dobson have to say about babies/parenting?

He is quite harsh, and all in the name of God.


----------



## jeanine123 (Jan 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamadebug* 
Put them in the paper recycling bin!

Don't do put them in whole though otherwise someone might fish them out and read them.


----------



## *Jessica* (Jun 10, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jeanine123* 
Don't do put them in whole though otherwise someone might fish them out and read them.

Yeah, I would rip all of the pages off of the binding before recycling them, making sure to spread them out over a few weeks worth of recycling days so that nobody could mend them.


----------



## MayBaby2007 (Feb 22, 2007)

Get a puppy and paper train him with the pages


----------



## wholewheatchick (Mar 1, 2009)

That is awesome that you bought those just to get rid of them! I'm going to have to start doing that...and hiding them in the bookstores; also a great idea.







My friend in college had a baby and was completely sold on the babywise books...at the time, I didn't know enough to discourage her from using them, but it always broke my heart when she wouldn't feed her baby when he was crying b/c it wasn't time. Sorry. Hope that wasn't too tangential.

Anyway, good for you!


----------



## TheTMommy (Oct 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wholewheatchick* 
...and hiding them in the bookstores; also a great idea.

Really, it isn't. It doesn't accomplish anything in the long run, and is quite juvenile.


----------



## chaoticzenmom (May 21, 2005)

You're awsome. Burn 'em


----------



## mamarhu (Sep 12, 2004)

Hee-hee. I've done this too!


----------



## jeanine123 (Jan 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
I always hide those books in the book store whenever I see them lol

put a new cover on them "how to be a rotton deranged parent" or "how NOT to raise happy healthy children"

I know some who put a business card or bookmark in them with www.ezzo.info on them.


----------



## Smalls181 (May 12, 2006)

Ive done that before as well.. and burned them....


----------



## OakBerry (May 24, 2005)

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


----------



## SamI'mNot (Mar 29, 2004)

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







:


----------



## NicaG (Jun 16, 2006)

Good for you! Those books make me so sad.


----------



## Belle (Feb 6, 2005)

Quote:


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

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


----------



## heidirk (Oct 19, 2007)

Quote:


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


Yes, this.


----------



## Crafty (Jan 13, 2003)

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

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


----------



## Mama2Bug (Feb 18, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SamI'mNot* 







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







:


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


----------



## AutumnAir (Jun 10, 2008)

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

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

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


----------



## AllisonR (May 5, 2006)

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

Quote:


Originally Posted by *trinity6232000* 
Burn em'.










Quote:


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

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

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


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

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


----------



## radishes (Mar 25, 2008)

Quote:


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

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


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


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

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

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

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


----------



## BAU3 (Dec 10, 2001)

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

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

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


----------



## miss_yvonne (Apr 17, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BAU3* 
I also understand that the word 'censorship" is define in reference to gov't.. but when someone is hiding/burning/destroying books because they don't want other people to read them...it may not be censorship by definition, but it certainly is in the spirit of censorship. And I strongly oppose it.

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


----------



## Momtwice (Nov 21, 2001)

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

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


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## radishes (Mar 25, 2008)

Quote:


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

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


----------



## LadyCatherine185 (Aug 12, 2008)

Quote:

all I'm saying is that when the head of the sleep department at a nationally renowned children's hospital (CHOP, for those familiar with Philly) writes a book about sleep training that involves some limited version of CIO and says it is totally fine
but this book doesn't involve LIMITED crying. he says to let the baby cry for an HOUR if they 'need' to, to be able to sleep alone. an hour of crying is NOT limited crying.

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

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

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


----------



## radishes (Mar 25, 2008)

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


----------



## faerierose (Jul 9, 2006)

Quote:


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

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


----------



## kamilla626 (Mar 18, 2004)

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

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


----------



## TheTMommy (Oct 31, 2005)

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

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


----------



## Rico'sAlice (Mar 19, 2006)

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


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Maybe our thrift stores are different, but they don't work like that. For one thing, they depend on donations. For another, they don't track inventory. So it's not like the person volunteering her time is going to say "Oh dear. We sold ten of those nice Ezzo books today. I'm going to go canvas my neighborhood to get people to donate more."


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Aside from the CIO issues, which is bad enough, isn't Babywise the one that strongly recommends a feeding schedule that can cause malnutrition, even starvation, in some infants? I seem to recall from another discussion about those books that they really push the scheduled feeding, to the point of implying that the mother is being weak and mistreating her baby if she "gives in" to their cries of hunger...and that the schedule is inadequate for many babies.

I have real qualms about deliberately taking books off the shelf, but I can certainly sympathize with the OP. I'm sure I recall diagnoses of Failure to Thrive, because of the Babywise feeding schedule. This stuff really scares me - not quite as much as the reigning king and queen of child abuse (pearls), but a lot.


----------



## Snuzzmom (Feb 6, 2008)

Quote:


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

If this were true, my baby should be a vegetable. He had colic for 10 weeks and screamed morning til night. The reality is, at 2.5 he is off-the-charts verbal, physically coordinated, etc. I am not getting any sense of brain damage at all.

Maybe the difference is that he was comforted/ held while he was screaming and not left in a crib alone to do so. I can see how that would be a different scenario. But the screaming in and of itself causing brain damage? I don't buy that at all.

As to the OT... I hate those books, too, but something about this doesn't sit well with me. It isn't technically censorship but it certainly is in that spirit. Just because a person reads those books doesn't necessarily mean they are going to buy into them and follow every tenent therein.


----------



## jeanine123 (Jan 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
Aside from the CIO issues, which is bad enough, isn't Babywise the one that strongly recommends a feeding schedule that can cause malnutrition, even starvation, in some infants? I seem to recall from another discussion about those books that they really push the scheduled feeding, to the point of implying that the mother is being weak and mistreating her baby if she "gives in" to their cries of hunger...and that the schedule is inadequate for many babies.

I have real qualms about deliberately taking books off the shelf, but I can certainly sympathize with the OP. I'm sure I recall diagnoses of Failure to Thrive, because of the Babywise feeding schedule. This stuff really scares me - not quite as much as the reigning king and queen of child abuse (pearls), but a lot.

Yes it is. So much so that the AAP has recommended against using the book and it's information.

http://www.ezzo.info/Aney/letterofconcern.pdf

http://www.ezzo.info/Aney/coversheet...uctorynote.pdf

http://www.ezzo.info/Aney/hcpsigners.pdf

http://www.ezzo.info/AAP/aap_media_alert.htm


----------



## Rico'sAlice (Mar 19, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie* 
Maybe our thrift stores are different, but they don't work like that. For one thing, they depend on donations. For another, they don't track inventory.

I guess they _are_ different. The ones here whenever I go in to donate stuff they tell me "We're not taking anymore 3-6mo clothes, we have too many and they are not selling but we really need more 12-18mo stuff." "We'll take all of these Stephen King paperbacks, but we don't have space for your biographies." Maybe the thrift stores near me are just spoiled.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *radishes* 
Well, people can debate all they want about expert opinions; if you want to FIND someone who is well-respected to agree with you, you will. I'm not advocating CIO in any way, all I'm saying is that when the head of the sleep department at a nationally renowned children's hospital (CHOP, for those familiar with Philly) writes a book about sleep training that involves some limited version of CIO and says it is totally fine, .

I wish you'd put down the name of the book and the author.
http://www.chop.edu/consumer/jsp/div...c.jsp?id=77607 So it'd be Dr. Mindell who addresses "non-pharmacologic treatment of sleep problems in infants and toddlers" or the head of the department, Dr. Marcus, whose work is exclusively in the area of respiration effects on sleep?

Ah, it's Mindell. And here's the relevant study: http://www.journalsleep.org/ViewAbstract.aspx?pid=26636 (full text downloadable to pdf through the link on the right side)

From the study, which, it occurs to me is actually a literature review:
"combining sedative medication (antihistamine) with Extinction may produce a more immediate
response with reduced infant distress." This is her magical sleep cure? Drugging babies?

"The data, however, appeared equivalent until approximately week 4 of treatment when Positive Routines continued to produce additional improvement as Extinction reached a plateau."

Still reading through, trying to find an indication of why sleeping through the night is something to be desired in babies over 6 months (the first age mentioned in the article, although it also deals with studies mentioning babies sleeping through the night at 3 weeks. I would prefer to find evidence that sleeping through the night at 3 weeks is a good thing, but I'll be happy with them just giving evidence that it's positive at 6 months.)

Oh, I see... "*sleeping through the night (5 hours or more)*"


----------



## alwayshappy (Apr 16, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kamilla626* 
.... so no one else would.

Actually, there were THREE copies of Baby Wise along with the Dobson book at the thrift store. I'm torn about what to do with them now, but I feel as though maybe I stopped 3 new moms from reading - and following - their "techniques".

why would you do that?? so you don't agree with the books teachings (as I dont either) but you have no right to stop others from reading them.

I don't agree with unschooling or dry nursing or EB past age 2 but I hardly race downtown and remove all books on the subject to save new moms from reading about it.

Its their free will to read what they want and parent as they want - as you do. I magine If I came to your house and removed all pucblications relating to parenting methods you use to "save you from reading or follwing those techniques" as I didnt believe in them.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alwayshappy* 
why would you do that?? so you don't agree with the books teachings (as I dont either) but you have no right to stop others from reading them.

I don't agree with unschooling or dry nursing or EB past age 2 but I hardly race downtown and remove all books on the subject to save new moms from reading about it.

Its their free will to read what they want and parent as they want - as you do. I magine If I came to your house and removed all pucblications relating to parenting methods you use to "save you from reading or follwing those techniques" as I didnt believe in them.

This makes no sense to me. Why doesn't she have the right to purchase whatever she wants from a shop? And how does that stop someone else from reading the book? I purchase tons of books, both new and used. Does that somehow unjustly censor others as well? Or is it just the intent that makes it bad?


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


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

Yeah it's the separation, according to the article.


----------



## dido1 (Aug 12, 2004)

I believe that buying a book with the intent of preventing someone else from reading it IS censorship. I loathe the teachings of Ezzo and believe it is child abuse. But free speech is a right in most countries. So is a person's right to read crappy parenting advice. Many people believe nursing a child past 1 is abusive, that homeschooling is neglectful, that not vaccinating is abusive. The list goes on. Parents have the right to choose what they read, regardless of how we feel about it.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rico'sAlice* 
I guess they _are_ different. The ones here whenever I go in to donate stuff they tell me "We're not taking anymore 3-6mo clothes, we have too many and they are not selling but we really need more 12-18mo stuff." "We'll take all of these Stephen King paperbacks, but we don't have space for your biographies." Maybe the thrift stores near me are just spoiled.









Very. And in thrift stores like that, I wouldn't buy the books to get rid of them. I'd donate, buy, redonate, rebuy, donate, rebuy, donate, rebuy, ask if they've got any, are they sure? I thought I saw a copy yesterday?, parenting books I wanted people to have.


----------



## alwayshappy (Apr 16, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Momtwice* 
I object to censorship, but I object to child abuse manuals more.


but thats YOUR interpretation of child abuse - not the laws.

I think that kids not getting a proper education is abusive, I think depriving children of toys and gifts at Christmas and birthdays is abusive, heck I even think dry nursing is abusive, but I cant go do anything about these either as its not against the law and the parents are within their rights to do it and read about it.

and to be honest - I thought everyone here was wanting kids and parents to be wordly, knowledgeable and informed .... if you dont read or see all sides how can you be making informed decisions ??


----------



## Bluegoat (Nov 30, 2008)

I wonder if a better course of action might have been to talk to the book-shop owner, if possible, and point out that those books have been warned against by the APP?

The owner might decide not to sell them, or at least have the information to pass on to those who might want to buy them.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alwayshappy* 
why would you do that?? so you don't agree with the books teachings (as I dont either) but you have no right to stop others from reading them.

I don't agree with unschooling or dry nursing or EB past age 2 but I hardly race downtown and remove all books on the subject to save new moms from reading about it.

If you think those things are abusive and you don't spend $1 to get a book on the topic off the shelves of you local thriftstore, I think you're morally wrong. I strongly disagree with your choice to not take simple action in the face of child abuse.

My apologies for being classist and assuming you have $1 to spare for something you feel strongly about.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dido1* 
I believe that buying a book with the intent of preventing someone else from reading it IS censorship. I loathe the teachings of Ezzo and believe it is child abuse. But free speech is a right in most countries. So is a person's right to read crappy parenting advice. Many people believe nursing a child past 1 is abusive, that homeschooling is neglectful, that not vaccinating is abusive. The list goes on. Parents have the right to choose what they read, regardless of how we feel about it.

OK, so buying a book with the intention to follow it is OK, and buying a book to learn more is OK, and buying a book to make one of those cute book purses is OK, but not buying a book that you plan on tossing in the bin? Because that somehow (a) impedes on the author's right to free speech and (b) stops other people from finding the same book in the bookstore or library? What about the OP's right to spend her money as she chooses? I'm not buying the censorship argument.







You could probably sell me on it being a waste of money though.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Bluegoat* 
I wonder if a better course of action might have been to talk to the book-shop owner, if possible, and point out that those books have been warned against by the APP?

The owner might decide not to sell them, or at least have the information to pass on to those who might want to buy them.

I've actually done this with a local Christian book store that sold the Ezzo books. I pointed out what it said, showed her, and she agreed that it wasn't the brand of Christianity she wished to sell in her shop. Alas, I'm sure that's censorship according to someone's definition as well.


----------



## alwayshappy (Apr 16, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie* 
This makes no sense to me. Why doesn't she have the right to purchase whatever she wants from a shop? And how does that stop someone else from reading the book? I purchase tons of books, both new and used. Does that somehow unjustly censor others as well? Or is it just the intent that makes it bad?

its the intent to stop others reading books SHE doesnt approve of.

Who presumes that the way they do things is the way EVERYONE should do things ..... thats how cults get started!


----------



## Viola (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:


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

For some reason, this cracked me up. I was thinking burning also, maybe in the winter when you use a fireplace, if you have one in your house.


----------



## kamilla626 (Mar 18, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alwayshappy* 
Its their free will to read what they want and parent as they want - as you do. I magine If I came to your house and removed all pucblications relating to parenting methods you use to "save you from reading or follwing those techniques" as I didnt believe in them.

Well if you were to come into my house and remove things that belong to me...? I'm pretty sure that's a felony.

What I did was _buy some books_ that I have no intention of using. Is it just as wrong to buy books and then never get around to reading them? (I do that all the time, too!) I didn't steal them. I didn't prevent anyone from finding the same information at a bookstore or on the internet. I didn't specifically confront ANYONE and say, "What you are reading is wrong". I did not infringe upon anyone's "free will". I don't have that much power.


----------



## alwayshappy (Apr 16, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
If you think those things are abusive and you don't spend $1 to get a book on the topic off the shelves of you local thriftstore, I think you're morally wrong. I strongly disagree with your choice to not take simple action in the face of child abuse.

My apologies for being classist and assuming you have $1 to spare for something you feel strongly about.

because its their right do do those things as parents - none of it is against the law, its not my right to impose my parenting decisions and choices on others. The fact I find them to be detrimental to a child is my personal view and one not shared by the law. In my eyes its wrong, but I wouldnt presume to ensure everyone raises their children as I raise mine.

No need to apologise for being classist - you hadn't reached that yet.


----------



## Viola (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alwayshappy* 
Its their free will to read what they want and parent as they want - as you do. I magine If I came to your house and removed all pucblications relating to parenting methods you use to "save you from reading or follwing those techniques" as I didnt believe in them.

I think you're off the mark here. People can always get those books from book stores, public libraries, borrow from friends or relatives if any have a copy; the original poster is not physically preventing someone from reading books, just because she sees them in a thrift store and decides she hates them enough to buy them and destroy them. It's a form of social protest, she's not lobbying Congress or physically restraining someone, or breaking into their homes or even destroying library books. I don't see what the big deal is.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alwayshappy* 
its the intent to stop others reading books SHE doesnt approve of.

Who presumes that the way they do things is the way EVERYONE should do things ..... thats how cults get started!

Is that how cults get started?









Extending the benefit of the doubt to the OP, I really didn't get the feeling she was trying to start a cult, but to protect babies. Personally, I find telling someone how they may or may not spend their money a lot scarier than buying an Ezzo book for kindling.


----------



## miss_yvonne (Apr 17, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kamilla626* 
MomTwice and sapphire - you get where I'm coming from. I'm extremely anti-censorship. But I'm not travelling the country pulling these books out of retail stores. I pulled FOUR books of the shelves in a thrift store.

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

I don't think what you yourself did is such a big deal. You bought the books, you can do whatever you want with them. End of story. I myself am way more creeped out by some of the posters who think it's perfectly reasonable behavior to hide books with which they don't agree on retail bookstore shelves. If these books are so hideously evil, let them speak for themselves and let other people make up their own minds about them. I am a new mom and certainly impressionable at times--I understand that sentiment--but that doesn't mean I want total strangers deciding what books I have access to.


----------



## alwayshappy (Apr 16, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kamilla626* 
Well if you were to come into my house and remove things that belong to me...? I'm pretty sure that's a felony.

What I did was _buy some books_ that I have no intention of using. Is it just as wrong to buy books and then never get around to reading them? (I do that all the time, too!) I didn't steal them. I didn't prevent anyone from finding the same information at a bookstore or on the internet. I didn't specifically confront ANYONE and say, "What you are reading is wrong". I did not infringe upon anyone's "free will". I don't have that much power.

your whole point of this thread and you original post is that your sole purpose for buying them was stopping some new moms reading them.

I fully agree with your position on thinking their methods are awful - I did not and will not parents my kids like that - but I also don't try and ensure other moms don't read about it.


----------



## LadyCatherine185 (Aug 12, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
I wish you'd put down the name of the book and the author.

I believe the book is Healthy Sleep Habits, Happy Child by Marc Weissbluth.

Lots of CIO, and if baby doesn't get X amount of sleep at Y age, then they are "irregular" and will have ADD, etc. The book contradicts itself so many many times... I wish I could remember it all, I just read it. But alas, sleep deprivation has gotten the better of me..


----------



## radishes (Mar 25, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
I wish you'd put down the name of the book and the author.
http://www.chop.edu/consumer/jsp/div...c.jsp?id=77607 So it'd be Dr. Mindell who addresses "non-pharmacologic treatment of sleep problems in infants and toddlers" or the head of the department, Dr. Marcus, whose work is exclusively in the area of respiration effects on sleep?

Ah, it's Mindell. And here's the relevant study: http://www.journalsleep.org/ViewAbstract.aspx?pid=26636 (full text downloadable to pdf through the link on the right side)

From the study, which, it occurs to me is actually a literature review:
"combining sedative medication (antihistamine) with Extinction may produce a more immediate
response with reduced infant distress." This is her magical sleep cure? Drugging babies?

"The data, however, appeared equivalent until approximately week 4 of treatment when Positive Routines continued to produce additional improvement as Extinction reached a plateau."

Still reading through, trying to find an indication of why sleeping through the night is something to be desired in babies over 6 months (the first age mentioned in the article, although it also deals with studies mentioning babies sleeping through the night at 3 weeks. I would prefer to find evidence that sleeping through the night at 3 weeks is a good thing, but I'll be happy with them just giving evidence that it's positive at 6 months.)

Oh, I see... "*sleeping through the night (5 hours or more)*"

It's pretty clear to me you absolutely aren't interested in the point I'm trying to make or that you are completely misunderstanding me. Or maybe you are just interested in discrediting all CIO experts. Hey, that is fine, but nobody here agrees with CIO so I can't understand your point in doing so. I DON'T ADVOCATE CIO. I DON'T AGREE W/MINDELL. SHE IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT SOME PEOPLE (NOT ME, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD) CONSIDER AN EXPERT. And this is why I don't believe warnings would work. And again, do you believe in putting warning on everything one group of people believes is bad or wrong? Because if you did that than it wouldn't be a hot minute before Jame Dobson and cronies crap themselves with joy over putting warnings on AP books. Or warnings on Gay and Lesbian literature: Warning, reading this may turn you and your loved ones homosexual. And yeah, they would find some expert to back them up. I'm not big on experts of any kind. Anyone can be paid to say anything. Of course, you don't seem interested in debating the merits of warning people, you just want to point out how bad CIO, which EVERYONE on here already agrees with you on.


----------



## LadyCatherine185 (Aug 12, 2008)

Quote:


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

I have a high needs baby as well... find some of my posts and u will see..









the point of the article was that when babies were left ALONE to scream, that the cortisol levels were significantly increased, and that is what caused the brain damage.


----------



## Viola (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alwayshappy* 
your whole point of this thread and you original post is that your sole purpose for buying them was stopping some new moms reading them.

I think her sole purpose for buying them was to remove those particular copies from distribution. She is legally allowed to buy them and keep them in her home so that they are not available to others. That is not the same as stopping new moms from reading them. You may have issues with her doing this, but it's her legal right to express herself in this manner.


----------



## alwayshappy (Apr 16, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie* 
Is that how cults get started?









Extending the benefit of the doubt to the OP, I really didn't get the feeling she was trying to start a cult, but to protect babies. Personally, I find telling someone how they may or may not spend their money a lot scarier than buying an Ezzo book for kindling.

Its her intent on stopping others making a free will choice thats wrong.

and cultism - yes thats exactly how cults get started by bringing in people to believe in your set beliefs, to remove information of anything outside of what the cults beliefs are, therefore totally restricting their free will to read and be informed of all points of view. And of course she isnt trying to start a cult - no need to be sarcastic with your reply.

If I were to buy up all the books I could in my town relating to unschooling - which I don't believe in - to stop moms reading them .... I'm sure you would have a different outlook on that - infact I'm pretty sure you'd vilify me for that!.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:

Its her intent on stopping others making a free will choice thats wrong.

and cultism - yes thats exactly how cults get started by bringing in people to believe in your set beliefs, to remove information of anything outside of what the cults beliefs are, therefore totally restricting their free will to read and be informed of all points of view. And of course she isnt trying to start a cult - no need to be sarcastic with your reply.
I wasn't being sarcastic.







I really have no experience with starting cults, but I'd never heard of one being started by buying a couple of used paperbacks at the Salvation Army.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alwayshappy* 
If I were to buy up all the books I could in my town relating to unschooling - which I don't believe in - to stop moms reading them .... I'm sure you would have a different outlook on that - infact I'm pretty sure you'd vilify me for that!.









I'm not out to villify you. I would think it was pretty silly of you to waste your money like that when I could just order the book from Amazon.com or a billion other places.


----------



## alwayshappy (Apr 16, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Viola* 
I think her sole purpose for buying them was to remove those particular copies from distribution. She is legally allowed to buy them and keep them in her home so that they are not available to others. That is not the same as stopping new moms from reading them. You may have issues with her doing this, but it's her legal right to express herself in this manner.

read the OP - it says "to stop new moms reading it"

It cant be any clearer.


----------



## Viola (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alwayshappy* 
Its her intent on stopping others making a free will choice thats wrong.

How is her purchase of these books impeding the free will of others? And why is your belief that she not be allowed to purchase these books paramount to her belief that she should?


----------



## jitterBug mom (Aug 26, 2008)

Quote:


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

As a librarian I have to strongly disagree with this. Most efforts at book banning/ censorship nowadays come from individuals or groups of individuals who attempt to get items removed from libraries etc. through petitions, defacement, stealing, or other means. With a thriftstore, it is a little more "grey" to me (especially since Ezzo has revised his methods and books in thriftstores are likely to be extra problematic). But I still would not personally do what the OP did. And I think it is easy for those of us who frequent an AP board to forget that there is strong public opinion that things like cosleeping and extended breastfeeding are abusive.


----------



## Viola (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alwayshappy* 
read the OP - it says "to stop new moms reading it"

It cant be any clearer.

Yes, but she probably wasn't careful with her word choice. The bottom line is that she cannot stop new moms from reading those books just by buying them from a thrift store. All she can do is see a book that she thinks is wrong, and buy that copy hoping that some new parent doesn't happen to come across it and buy it without knowing much about it. If people want to read those books, they can find them at the public library or in a book store.

Ahh, I just looked back. She said: _but I feel as though maybe I stopped 3 new moms from reading - and following - their "techniques"._ I think the key for me is I don't believe she did what she said she did--stopped 3 new moms from reading the books and using them. I think very likely even if a new parent came across this book and bought it, they wouldn't necessarily read the books and follow the techniques. So for me, I see it more as a kind of social protest, as I said earlier. There is no way to remove all of these books from circulation, and honestly, I would never advocate that sort of thing. But I truly believe she has a right to do what she did that is as strong as anyone's right to read the book in the first place. They are both kinds of free speech.


----------



## alwayshappy (Apr 16, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie* 
I wasn't being sarcastic.







I really have no experience with starting cults, but I'd never heard of one being started by buying a couple of used paperbacks at the Salvation Army.








I'm not out to villify you. I would think it was pretty silly of you to waste your money like that when I could just order the book from Amazon.com or a billion other places.

I would say we have a healthy difference of opinion









I am a very strong supporter of freedom of speech and will - many of which I do find abhorent, but I believe its right to allow it as a person can see it and make decisions on their issues themselves. I think having ALL the information availbale to us gives us the best position from which to make our lifestyle choices.

I read those books - and from them I knew this was not a way I could ever parent, but I made my choices from a huge amount of information I collected from many sources. Every mother should be allowed the same.

If we all did what the poster did we would be restricting access to that information.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alwayshappy* 

If we all did what the poster did we would be restricting access to that information.

But only in thrift stores.

And only in thrift stores that happened to have this book donated.

Well, only in thrift stores that happened to have this book donated and happened to have it not bought by someone else. Because every thrift store I have ever been to has extremely fluid inventory.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy (Jan 4, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Viola* 
I think her sole purpose for buying them was to remove those particular copies from distribution. She is legally allowed to buy them and keep them in her home so that they are not available to others. That is not the same as stopping new moms from reading them. You may have issues with her doing this, but it's her legal right to express herself in this manner.

ditto. and I agree, its a form of protest. which I support anyone who protests these forms of legal abuse. For me its not a matter of one right way, but there are things that are clearly not safe or healthy for children that continue to be allowed because children are seen as property to parents. Much like women were once seen as property to men. We didn't overcome oppression by not protesting these things in one way or another. I am on board with you Viola









Perhaps the OP could have better worded it "so that these few copies will never reach the hands of well intentioned lost new parents" or something along those lines. I really like the idea of the ezzoinfo website though!


----------



## Viola (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alwayshappy* 
I
If I were to buy up all the books I could in my town relating to unschooling - which I don't believe in - to stop moms reading them .... I'm sure you would have a different outlook on that - infact I'm pretty sure you'd vilify me for that!.

You would just be increasing their sales, and they'd publish more. That's one reason why I would never buy books I hate, except maybe in a thrift store situation. I actually would like to read those books in order to know what they say, so that is the only way I'd buy them. Hey, kamilla, could you send them to me? I'll pay you for your cost and for the shipping.


----------



## chfriend (Aug 29, 2002)

If someone objects so strongly to unschooling and comfort nursing that they buy the books up from the thrift stores so be it.

I will continue to buy up books that advocate hitting babies and destroy them.

I'm a free speech advocate and firmly believe I have the right as a private citizen to do that. I'm okay with people buying up books on how to make bombs as well. And I think of them in the same category.


----------



## moondiapers (Apr 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alwayshappy* 
because its their right do do those things as parents - none of it is against the law, its not my right to impose my parenting decisions and choices on others. The fact I find them to be detrimental to a child is my personal view and one not shared by the law. In my eyes its wrong, but I wouldnt presume to ensure everyone raises their children as I raise mine.

No need to apologise for being classist - you hadn't reached that yet.

Actually, neglect is against the law. There are babies that have died because their prents believed everything in the Ezzo books.


----------



## Viola (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alwayshappy* 
I would say we have a healthy difference of opinion









I am a very strong supporter of freedom of speech and will - many of which I do find abhorent,

So am I, which is why I support the OP's right to do what she did, even if I don't agree with her reasons.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

You know, it's an interesting discussion though. Once I was at a Goodwill and there was a Holocaust denial book.







I went to the manager, showed her, and she removed it, but if she hadn't, I would have bought it and binned it. And I would have felt absolutely justified in doing so.


----------



## teale (Feb 20, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moondiapers* 
Actually, neglect is against the law. There are babies that have died because their prents believed everything in the Ezzo books.

THANK YOU. I'm sorry, but these books are on the side of the spectrum where children have died as a result of someone reading these books and practicing them to a tee. SURELY, you can understand that, and understand why another mother would want to save a new mom the possibility of not only damaging her child for life emotionally, but possibly saving that child from death.

Extreme, yes. But those books are literally an instruction booklet on how to abuse an infant.







:


----------



## flower01 (Aug 1, 2007)

OP can do whatever she wants with her money and her beliefs. I personally hate the Babywise books, but TBH I have read a number of Dobson's books and have really gotten a lot of great info from them. I choose not to spank my children, so I understand why some of you disagree with some of his parenting approaches...but his mission is not to promotoe physical punishment. He has a great book on self-esteem, and many others. Just because I disagree with some of his beliefs, doesn't mean he's a horrible, evil person that shouldn't be allowed to give parenting advice.

Even with the Ezzo books, I'm not sure I'd do that form of protest...there are lots of things I disagree with AND that I believe to be morally wrong...but I'm not going to go my thrift store to buy EVERY book I think is wrong.


----------



## BAU3 (Dec 10, 2001)

I suppose my biggest problem with this particular form of "protest" is that the 3 (hypothetical) women whom the op stopped from picking up this book at the thrift store have no idea that ezzo books are bad..whereas..I don't know maybe a business type card or ssomething stuck inside each copy would perhaps make those three women aware that there are many experts who strongly disagree with ezzo.

No one is being "censored", the 3 women are (hopefully )educated, and could perhaps pass the info on, and the op is perhaps being more effective in her form of protest.


----------



## kamilla626 (Mar 18, 2004)

Is it not my free will to buy something and do with it what I choose?


----------



## Viola (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kamilla626* 
Is it not my free will to buy something and do with it what I choose?

Well, that's the key for me. It seems like you are being told that you are only allowed to buy these books for certain reasons, when your actions of buying the boook are going to keep others from reading those specific copies, one way or another.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

I'm still wondering where book purses and book birdhouses fall on the moral spectrum.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *radishes* 
It's pretty clear to me ...

Sorry about that. Thank you for providing an actual study backing up claims about CIO. I hadn't see one of those before and had begun to suspect they didn't exist. I should've have mentioned that in my reply, but got distracted. Everything after the part where I find Dr. Mindell's work is off-topic to this side discussion which is off-topic to the main discussion.









My comments on things I was finding in the study were not intended to be a criticism of you and I apologize that you felt I was accusing you of supporting CIO. I knew you were offering Dr. Mindell as an example of an expert who supported CIO because I had requested that you share the studies you had found for the pro-CIO side of things.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie* 
I'm still wondering where book purses and book birdhouses fall on the moral spectrum.









Both more moral than book bookcases.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
Both more moral than book bookcases.

OK, that's just freaking cool.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BAU3* 
I suppose my biggest problem with this particular form of "protest" is that the 3 (hypothetical) women whom the op stopped from picking up this book at the thrift store have no idea that ezzo books are bad..whereas..I don't know maybe a business type card or ssomething stuck inside each copy would perhaps make those three women aware that there are many experts who strongly disagree with ezzo.

No one is being "censored", the 3 women are (hopefully )educated, and could perhaps pass the info on, and the op is perhaps being more effective in her form of protest.

Oooo, there's the answer to what Kamilla should do with the books. Glue all the pages except the front covers together, "This book can kill babies, but regular breast exams might save your life!" and re-donate them. Then it'd be like triple good work.


----------



## kamilla626 (Mar 18, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie* 
...and book birdhouses fall on the moral spectrum.









They used "To Kill a Mockingbird"!


----------



## radishes (Mar 25, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
My comments on things I was finding in the study were not intended to be a criticism of you and I apologize that you felt I was accusing you of supporting CIO. I knew you were offering Dr. Mindell as an example of an expert who supported CIO because I had requested that you share the studies you had found for the pro-CIO side of things.

It's cool. I know this is a heated topic with people, I'm sorry for getting snippy.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

And Viola, your public library probably has copies.


----------



## Bluegoat (Nov 30, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flower01* 
OP can do whatever she wants with her money and her beliefs. I personally hate the Babywise books, but TBH I have read a number of Dobson's books and have really gotten a lot of great info from them. I choose not to spank my children, so I understand why some of you disagree with some of his parenting approaches...but his mission is not to promotoe physical punishment. He has a great book on self-esteem, and many others. Just because I disagree with some of his beliefs, doesn't mean he's a horrible, evil person that shouldn't be allowed to give parenting advice.

Even with the Ezzo books, I'm not sure I'd do that form of protest...there are lots of things I disagree with AND that I believe to be morally wrong...but I'm not going to go my thrift store to buy EVERY book I think is wrong.

It seems to me that this is part of why the Babywise books are so controversial, and the controversy in this thread too. I mean, I don't think people are suggesting we go out and burn Ferber books we buy from thrift stores (I'm sure now that someone will think that is a good idea.)

It's because those books present things in a way that is not safe. And there are ways to get books with unsafe info off the market. Babywise really walks that line, it's not just a difference in philosophy.

OTOH, I would never remove a Holocaust denier's book and burn it. But I would make a book purse with it.


----------



## AllisonR (May 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *radishes* 
And again, do you believe in putting warning on everything one group of people believes is bad or wrong? Because if you did that than it wouldn't be a hot minute before Jame Dobson and cronies crap themselves with joy over putting warnings on AP books. Or warnings on Gay and Lesbian literature: Warning, reading this may turn you and your loved ones homosexual. And yeah, they would find some expert to back them up. I'm not big on experts of any kind. Anyone can be paid to say anything. Of course, you don't seem interested in debating the merits of warning people, you just want to point out how bad CIO, which EVERYONE on here already agrees with you on.

This was not addressed to me, but I will address it. I think some warnings are very beneficial. "Smoking causes death" is not going to get a chain smoker to instantly quit, but it will occasionally put a thought about considering quitting in their heads. That, along with lack of tv advertising how great marlboros taste....

Here is something closer to home. Formula. Here in Denmark, all formula is marked. Even the name is not formula - modermælkserstatning - literal translation "mothers milk replacement." And the box has a warning: "give to babies that can't be breast fed. Always talk with your doctor or nurse before using this product. The danish health department recommends only breast feeding for the first six months, and continued breast feeding for a year or longer...." and so on. ON every single box, carton, bottle of formula. The warning does not say you can not use it, or that it is bad or evil. But it also doesn't say it is for babies that you don't want to breast feed ... it assumes that you CAN and should breast feed, and that this other milk product is a substitute for the real thing.

Some warnings do work, and are beneficial. Now, a book is not the same as cigarettes or formula. Parenting books are opinion pieces. Often they are made to look like fact with poofed up, twisted statistics, but they aren't. They are "guidelines" "opinions" and "always ask your doctor blah blah blah...." all of them have a disclaimer. I don't think it is rational to have a warning about an opinion. You want to write a book about under water basket weaving, or how to make a bomb, or baby wise, or co-sleeping.... be my guest. I have a brain. I can chose whether to buy it or not. I might feel bad for a sleep deprived new mom who picks up a CIO book, but I should not be able to censor her option to do so. If I could, then someone could turn around and censor my book, feeling sorry for me, because I was a sleep deprived new mom picking up a book about AP.


----------



## Snuzzmom (Feb 6, 2008)

Looks like my last posted got deleted. Interesting. I have no idea why.

The idea of the OP buying books so others can't read them doesn't sit well with me, but of course she does have the right to do it.

All I know is, if I were looking for a particular book-- ANY book-- and found out someone had bought up all the copies because they disagreed with the contents and didn't want others to read it, I'd be pretty freaking annoyed.


----------



## kihei091604 (Jan 31, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *teale* 
THANK YOU. I'm sorry, but these books are on the side of the spectrum where children have died as a result of someone reading these books and practicing them to a tee. SURELY, you can understand that, and understand why another mother would want to save a new mom the possibility of not only damaging her child for life emotionally, but possibly saving that child from death.

Extreme, yes. But those books are literally an instruction booklet on how to abuse an infant.







:

Just wondering if anyone has actually read a James Dobson book? I have read several and I do not recall a recommendation to CIO or recommendations to abuse children (I wouldn't have read the book if these things were recommended).


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Snuzzmom* 
Looks like my last posted got deleted. Interesting. I have no idea why.

No posts have been deleted on this thread. Perhaps it was a snafu on your end?

Quote:

All I know is, if I were looking for a particular book-- ANY book-- and found out someone had bought up all the copies because they disagreed with the contents and didn't want others to read it, I'd be pretty freaking annoyed.
I'd be pretty in awe that someone had the money, time, and inclination to do that.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kihei091604* 
Just wondering if anyone has actually read a James Dobson book? I have read several and I do not recall a recommendation to CIO or recommendations to abuse children (I wouldn't have read the book if these things were recommended).

I have. I don't remember CIO, but I find his discipline suggestions to be pretty harsh.


----------



## kamilla626 (Mar 18, 2004)

I didn't buy "all" the copies of either book. I don't have that kind of time. Just 3 of one, and 1 of the other. I could have bought up the "What to Expect" books also, but my disdain for them is not as extreme. I don't think they are dangerous in the same way that the Ezzo & Dobson books are.

My thinking was that - because they were at a thrift store for $1 - they would more likely be bought by someone who wasn't sure what they were getting. ("Hey, cheap parenting books! My 1st baby is due any day now, I'm going to snag some of these!")

In a retail store, people are more likely to be looking specifically for a certain type of book. Thift stores (at least for me) invite more impulsive purchasing.

If I throw away a religious pamphlet (thereby preventing someone else from reading it), is that censorship?


----------



## Snuzzmom (Feb 6, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie* 
No posts have been deleted on this thread. Perhaps it was a snafu on your end?

WHAT!? You're suggesting user error?! NEVER!









Good to know it wasn't deleted. I was corn-fused.


----------



## AutumnAir (Jun 10, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jitterBug mom* 
As a librarian I have to strongly disagree with this. Most efforts at book banning/ censorship nowadays come from individuals or groups of individuals who attempt to get items removed from libraries etc. through petitions, defacement, stealing, or other means. With a thriftstore, it is a little more "grey" to me (especially since Ezzo has revised his methods and books in thriftstores are likely to be extra problematic). But I still would not personally do what the OP did. And I think it is easy for those of us who frequent an AP board to forget that there is strong public opinion that things like cosleeping and extended breastfeeding are abusive.

I can certainly see that it might be possible for a local group to campaign to have a certain book removed from the library in their town. I can even go so far as to imagine a radical group which went around systematically stealing or defacing copies of the book they disagreed with in the local book shops.

But that's still not censorship. It might make it marginally more difficult for me to come across that particular book by accident, but if I actually wanted to read it there's absolutely nothing to stop me from ordering it on Amazon or eBay. Unless said group is willing to tamper with the mail of everyone in their area ( a pretty serious crime and very difficult to manage!) there is really no obstacle to my being able to access that book. Even if I can't afford to buy it new I can probably get a used copy for half nothing online, or even borrow a copy from a friend outside the area.

Censorship happens when the authorities get involved - infringing on my rights to freedom, by opening my mail, by actually banning all copies of that book from the county/state/country and even enforcing it with punishments for the crime of owning/reading the banned book.

The OP has nowhere near that kind of power! She bought some books. Denouncing an act simply because of the intent behind it is a slippery slope too. The OP, and anybody else as a private individual, are perfectly entitled to buy books for whatever purpose they see fit without doing anything either legally or morally wrong.

Heck, I know someone who bought second-hand leather-bound books just to display on his shelves to make himself look cultured. He never opened a single one of them! While I find that silly, wasteful and pretentious I would never argue against his right to do that.

I do think moving books to the wrong section, or hiding them, in bookshops isn't a great idea, but mainly because of the shop assistants. They are the ones who have to take inventory and alphabetise or otherwise re-organise the books in their shop, so by doing that you're just making the job of a probably underpaid person a little bit more difficult than it needs to be.


----------



## felix23 (Nov 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
Both more moral than book bookcases.

Okay, so now I want to make one of those, along with the book birdhouse and possibly the purse.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jitterBug mom* 
And I think it is easy for those of us who frequent an AP board to forget that there is strong public opinion that things like cosleeping and extended breastfeeding are abusive.

All the more reason we can't just trust people to see how wrong the things in Ezzo are, even with a note about it in the book.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
Both more moral than book bookcases.

I want one.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kihei091604* 
Just wondering if anyone has actually read a James Dobson book? I have read several and I do not recall a recommendation to CIO or recommendations to abuse children (I wouldn't have read the book if these things were recommended).

I think the references to children having died were specifically with respect to the Ezzo books, not the Dobson books.

I haven't read any of them - just a few excerpts from Pearl & Ezzo...although a couple of the Ezzo excerpts were really long.


----------



## Mirrormonkey (Jan 6, 2009)

As a new frist time mom I bought baby wise without looking into it. The book horrified me!!!! Luckily it was winter and I was cold, it made good kindling.


----------



## BAU3 (Dec 10, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *felix23* 
Okay, so now I want to make one of those, along with the book birdhouse and possibly the purse.

I want to make the purse... in the shape of the birdhouse. wouldn't THAT be cute?


----------



## eireann (Sep 29, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chipper26* 
He is quite harsh, and all in the name of God.









ugh, stay off my side, sir.


----------



## emmalizz (Apr 14, 2009)

.


----------



## SparklingGemini (Jan 3, 2008)

Maybe we should feel good that someone(or several someones)was so horrified with the book/s that they gave them away.


----------



## soxthecatrules (Oct 20, 2008)

This post may very well get me banned....

Haven't read through all of the posts so this may have been brought up before....I wonder if there is a discussion somewhere out there in cyberland about how someone went into a thrift store and bought all the Dr. Sears books just so they prevent somebody from the dangers of co-sleeping, creating needy infants by babywearing, etc. Being a former 100% Ezzo-er....I by no means will EVER tell someone to blindly follow them. However, most families I know who took P4P do not follow the books hook, line, and sinker. They do have minds of their own and they are not idiots. I know a couple of families that practiced AP for years and couldn't take it anymore b/c they were wore out. Most chew on the meat and spit out the bones. Kind of like I did with the Dr. Sears books. Not that I think attachment parenting is bad (I have learned a great deal from AP sources that has made me a better parent), but, AP is not the end all be all of parenting styles. I have my own parenting style based on the needs of my family at this time. We should always learn about both sides and then decide what is right and what is wrong for our families. I thank God everyday that I have recently acquired the confidence to discern what is right and what is wrong for my family and that I no longer need a book to tell me how to parent.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

That is the point of AP, to meet the needs of an individual child, and do what is right for your family.

No one thinks you should force co-sleep a child that hates co-sleeping. Some kids need their space.

Each child is an individual and treating them like individuals and meeting those individual needs is what AP is all about, no checklist will define every child.










However this board does not support CIO, of *course* it is not the best thing for a baby to let it cry alone.









I once heard a good analogy and I don't remember where it came from







Just imagine you are paralyzed in a foreign country and cannot speak the language. How could you tell them you are hungry or anything else?

Who would treat a *baby* in such a manner? If people would remember everything from when they were babies, would people treat them the same?


----------



## teale (Feb 20, 2009)

Quote:

I once heard a good analogy and I don't remember where it came from Just imagine you are paralyzed in a foreign country and cannot speak the language. How could you tell them you are hungry or anything else?

Who would treat a *baby* in such a manner? If people would remember everything from when they were babies, would people treat them the same?
I said that to my hubby when DS was just a baby and we were getting pressure from every end to just let him CIO! It's a fabulous analogy. I used it on my parents, and it shut them up


----------



## katelove (Apr 28, 2009)

Quote:


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

I am no expert on this by any means but earlier today I was reading the position statement on responding to infant cues issued by the Australian Association for Infant Mental Health and it says that there is likely to be benefit in comforting and responding to an infant's distress even if they are not able to be easily consoled. http://www.aaimhi.org/polsSubs.htm


----------



## flower01 (Aug 1, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kihei091604* 
Just wondering if anyone has actually read a James Dobson book? I have read several and I do not recall a recommendation to CIO or recommendations to abuse children (I wouldn't have read the book if these things were recommended).

I have read a number of books, but its been a long time. The one discipline thing I remember is that he does recommend 1 instance for corporal punishment, that is deliberate defiance. It is the ONLY time he recommends it, and IMO he's very clear about what crosses the line to abuse. Obviously, this is not the thread to argue spanking, but I think it is hardly fair to compare Ezzo and Dobson. There are LOTS of people that recommend spanking as a valid form of punishment (again, I am not condoning it), you can hardly single Dobson out - TBH, I am the only person I know IRL that doesn't spank...and my family does not read Dobson, I can guarantee. Ezzo, on the other hand, gives extremely dangerous advice to parents of infants.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy (Jan 4, 2009)

the word defiance just makes me cringe to be honest. I think its because so many times I have heard that term used as if being "defiant" were the same as being possessed by a demon or something. It's just seems to hold such a negative connotation for describing a child who will stand by what they believe.


----------



## churndash (Mar 25, 2009)

Quote:

Originally Posted by kihei091604
Just wondering if anyone has actually read a James Dobson book? I have read several and I do not recall a recommendation to CIO or recommendations to abuse children (I wouldn't have read the book if these things were recommended).
"Dare to Discipline" very explicitly recommends spanking to discipline children up to age 8 and making sure that it is hard enough to make the child cry.

He also recommends using a paddle or switch.

Here's a charming quote from Dr. Dobson:

Quote:

"If children cry for longer than five minutes, "the child is merely complaining...I would require him to stop the protest crying, usually by offering him a little more of whatever caused the original tears."
Oh and let me find the charming anecdote he wrote about beating his dog with a belt because it was defiant. After cornering the dog and beating it into submission, Dobson wrote:

Quote:

"But this is not a book about the discipline of dogs; there is an important moral to my story that is highly relevant to the world of children. JUST AS SURELY AS A DOG WILL OCCASIONALLY CHALLENGE THE AUTHORITY OF HIS LEADERS, SO WILL A LITTLE CHILD - ONLY MORE SO." (emphasis Dobson's)

"_t is possible to create a fussy, demanding baby by rushing to pick him up every time he utters a whimper or sigh. Infants are fully capable of learning to manipulate their parents through a process called reinforcement, whereby any behavior that produces a pleasant result will tend to recur. Thus, a healthy baby can keep his mother hopping around his nursery twelve hours a day (or night) by simply forcing air past his sandpaper larynx."

"Perhaps this tendency toward self-will is the essence of 'original sin' which has infiltrated the human family. It certainly explains why I place such stress on the proper response to willful defiance during childhood, for that rebellion can plant the seeds of personal disaster."_
_
_
_
IMO Dobson is just plain evil._


----------



## hippiemommaof4 (Mar 31, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alwayshappy* 
because its their right do do those things as parents - none of it is against the law, its not my right to impose my parenting decisions and choices on others. The fact I find them to be detrimental to a child is my personal view and one not shared by the law. In my eyes its wrong, but I wouldnt presume to ensure everyone raises their children as I raise mine.

No need to apologise for being classist - you hadn't reached that yet.


You are right about one thing its not against the law to be stupid by following those things in that parenting book but it doesnt make them ok or even right. Being stupid and ignorant isnt against the law but it should be when it comes to innocent childrens well beings. Anyway reguardless... I dont see what the big deal is either way and I see a lot of posters making mountains out of molehills about this. She paid for the books and she can do whatever she wants with them, end of story.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flower01* 
I have read a number of books, but its been a long time. The one discipline thing I remember is that he does recommend 1 instance for corporal punishment, that is deliberate defiance. It is the ONLY time he recommends it, and IMO he's very clear about what crosses the line to abuse. .

IME that only makes the "defiant" ones more defiant and at that point one has already lost.

I remember being on the receiving end of that quite clearly and I certainly did not care how many times I was hit, I wasn't giving in.


----------



## AllisonR (May 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *churndash* 
"Dare to Discipline" very explicitly recommends spanking to discipline children up to age 8 and making sure that it is hard enough to make the child cry.

He also recommends using a paddle or switch.

Here's a charming quote from Dr. Dobson:

Here's a charming quote from Dr. Dobson:

Quote:
"If children cry for longer than five minutes, "the child is merely complaining...I would require him to stop the protest crying, usually by offering him a little more of whatever caused the original tears."


This makes me sick. I just ate lunch and I want to vomit. Someone is crying out of hurt, shame, fear.... and this UV wants you to force the child to stop crying by spanking them more? This is just so sick.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy (Jan 4, 2009)

my problems are when rights of parents interfere with rights of humans.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy (Jan 4, 2009)

wow what a sick man that Dobson is









I think it would take an equally sick person to believe in what he says. He is suggesting plain abuse here, it's like the child abusers manual. sick.


----------



## Bluegoat (Nov 30, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AutumnAir* 
I can certainly see that it might be possible for a local group to campaign to have a certain book removed from the library in their town. I can even go so far as to imagine a radical group which went around systematically stealing or defacing copies of the book they disagreed with in the local book shops.

But that's still not censorship. It might make it marginally more difficult for me to come across that particular book by accident, but if I actually wanted to read it there's absolutely nothing to stop me from ordering it on Amazon or eBay. Unless said group is willing to tamper with the mail of everyone in their area ( a pretty serious crime and very difficult to manage!) there is really no obstacle to my being able to access that book. Even if I can't afford to buy it new I can probably get a used copy for half nothing online, or even borrow a copy from a friend outside the area.

Censorship happens when the authorities get involved - infringing on my rights to freedom, by opening my mail, by actually banning all copies of that book from the county/state/country and even enforcing it with punishments for the crime of owning/reading the banned book.

Now as a former library worker myself, I really have to take issue with this.

Libraries are one of the main venues for freedom of information in our society. It is a public institution for the free dispersal of information. Not everybody can go order a book they want from amazon, or have the internet in their home. but even a homeless person can go to the Library to use the internet or get a book, and if the library doesn't have it, it can almost always be borrowed through inter-library loan. (Don't get me started on policies where you have to have a home address to get a card.
















As soon as any group starts telling libraries that they can't have a particular book in them, that is censorship, whether it is government, industry, or citizens groups, and it is indeed the latter which seem to be the most active. A group in my old town tried to have Charlie and the Chocolate Factory removed, and for a time it was off the shelf while the case was reviewed.

Now, privately owned book stores are a different story, as I think it is really up to the owner what she sells. But I have found most book store owners try to be fair.

There are legitimate ways to get books out, and there may be some where that is appropriate. Anything that told people it was safe to eat cyanide, or that attempted to tell people that they should go out and kill all homosexuals, would be obvious candidates.


----------



## D'sMama (May 4, 2008)

Quote:


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

Dr. Sears has never caused failure to thrive.


----------



## seaheroine (Dec 24, 2004)

I've done that, too -- and tossed them.


----------



## Maggirayne (Mar 6, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Bluegoat* 
It seems to me that this is part of why the Babywise books are so controversial, and the controversy in this thread too. I mean, I don't think people are suggesting we go out and burn Ferber books we buy from thrift stores (I'm sure now that someone will think that is a good idea.)

It's because those books present things in a way that is not safe. And there are ways to get books with unsafe info off the market. Babywise really walks that line, it's not just a difference in philosophy.

Walks the line, um, babies have suffered from FTT. Have they actually died? There was that child that died who's parents followed Pearls.

Heh, and I did buy a Ferber book at my thrift store and tear the pages out and trash it. Just last week.









Quote:


Originally Posted by *kihei091604* 
Just wondering if anyone has actually read a James Dobson book? I have read several and I do not recall a recommendation to CIO or recommendations to abuse children (I wouldn't have read the book if these things were recommended).

Yes, I didn't care for him as a child. I read all of my parents' parenting books.
Dobson's, Campbell's etc, etc. I was labeled a strong-willed child and my my mom tell me I was being defiant/stubborn/disobedient/hateful/backtalking, etc. I could not talk when she was mad without getting one of those. Now, She was raised very authoritarian, and moved away from that a great deal. But, Dobson made it okay to spank for 'defiance/disobedience'. I remember thinking "I might as well backtalk if I'm going to be accused of it."
Our relationship is still very rough.
Oh, and thankfully my parents did not read Ezzo/Pearls. They did read Jean Lindhoff's Continuum Concept and for them and their upbringings, followed a pretty amazing AP-style of raising kids that just included spanking. Okay, it wasn't much AP, but it was radically different from their childhoods.

Here are a couple links of reviews with quotes of The New Dare to Discipline and The Strong-willed Child:
http://www.stoptherod.net/dobson.html
http://www.stoptherod.net/new-strong-willed.html

He views the 'relationship' between parents and children as adversarial. Which is the wrong place to start for building a relationship.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *abimommy* 

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flower01* 
I have read a number of books, but its been a long time. The one discipline thing I remember is that he does recommend 1 instance for corporal punishment, that is deliberate defiance. It is the ONLY time he recommends it, and IMO he's very clear about what crosses the line to abuse.

IME that only makes the "defiant" ones more defiant and at that point one has already lost.

I remember being on the receiving end of that quite clearly and I certainly did not care how many times I was hit, I wasn't giving in.

Me too.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dare to Discipline*
by simply forcing air past his *sandpaper* larynx.

bolding mine.
The book is worse than I ever thought. When I think how much crying Lina had to do (in the car, no I wasn't about to pull over to the side of the highway at night while driving alone with her) to sound raspy, and THAT'S what that UAV Dobson calls "a little peep"??


----------



## Snuzzmom (Feb 6, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
bolding mine.
The book is worse than I ever thought. When I think how much crying Lina had to do (in the car, no I wasn't about to pull over to the side of the highway at night while driving alone with her) to sound raspy, and THAT'S what that UAV Dobson calls "a little peep"??

Dobson sounds like he hates children.







Makes you wonder why he even bothered to write a book about how to raise them.

We got a Dobson marriage book from my DH's Fundy Xtian brother... it was







but not really horrible. At least not that I can remember. I don't think I actually finished the whole thing.


----------



## eireann (Sep 29, 2007)

_"If children cry for longer than five minutes, "the child is merely complaining...I would require him to stop the protest crying, usually by offering him a little more of whatever caused the original tears."
_

that gives me a sick stomach.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Me, too...and I utterly fail to understand how being in pain, probably shamed, probably scared that mom/dad doesn't love one, anymore, etc. constitutes "protest crying".


----------



## mommy68 (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


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

well, not only that, but, most people I know of buy these type of books online at Amazon or Ebay anyway. This was just a thrift store where the people who would buy that type of book may not even go to shop.







There are still plenty out there to be had.









I for one have never understood why "men" write a lot of these books in the first place.







I saw quite a few for sale at children's consignment sales at churches I shopped at back in the spring. Most had male authors.


----------



## KestrelDream (Jun 3, 2005)

In the beginning of my parenting journey, I was introduced to James Dobson. I had quite a few books from him. My son was such a challenge, & I thought at the time he was just very "strong-willed" & "defiant". At the time, I never heard of AP....Lord knows how I wish I had. Dr. Dobson's methods are straight up dangerous, & teaches that you can, & should control your child totally 100% of the time. To me, his methods were a huge failure (duh, I want to smack myself now) & caused so much strife in our family.

My heart just aches that I followed this jerk in the beginning. I remember reading in one book how his son prayed at the dinner table "Dear Dad......" What does that say??? His son was equating his dad to God & Dobson got a kick out it!!

I also remember reading about how a teenage girl beat the heck out of her mother, & left her bleeding on the bathroom floor. His reason why the child was so troubled? Very strong willed & never disciplined (spanked). How disgusting is that??? As a psychologist, he is pretty ignorant when it comes to major mental disorders, as obviously this teen had...you have to be pretty messed up in the head to beat up your own family members....being a strong willed, "undisciplined" brat does not produce that level of violence!!

I think we should donate more AP style books to libraries, churches & thrift stores than trying to remove horrible books like the Ezzo's, WTEWYE, & Dobson....there is plenty of the bad out there, but not enough good for most people to know about!

Thankfully, I saw the light before my third child was born. I tossed my Dobson books. He just makes me SICK.


----------



## BroodyWoodsgal (Jan 30, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *churndash* 
"Dare to Discipline" very explicitly recommends spanking to discipline children up to age 8 and making sure that it is hard enough to make the child cry.

He also recommends using a paddle or switch.

Here's a charming quote from Dr. Dobson:

Oh and let me find the charming anecdote he wrote about beating his dog with a belt because it was defiant. After cornering the dog and beating it into submission, Dobson wrote:

IMO Dobson is just plain evil.


Oh.My.Gosh....I can just never get over the number of people who can look at a little baby, and see a manipulative defiant brat. I....I just can't. I have never, not one single time, no matter how upset she was or how tired I was....I've never looked at my crying child and seen anything but a little creature in need of comfort.

What's MORE....I've never, not ONE single time, ever NOT wanted to comfort her. I've never experienced anything but pleasure while rocking her, patting her little back and shhhhhh-ing her little tears away. That's the BEST feeling, being able to soothe her. Then, she is happy again, and all snuggled up in me. I never feel like more of a mother, than when I have been successful in soothing away her little tears. I cannot imagine, it breaks my heart to THINK of, little babies crying alone in their crib....no one coming to get them. Parents sitting on a couch, thinking "listento him trying to manipulate me!" - is that even REAL? Do these parents REALLY feel that way...or do they WANT to feel that way?

I can't imagine a mother really thinking that....really feeling like her babies cries for her warm touch, were no more than forced, manipulative defiance.

OP....I understand why you did what you did. I think if you made regular habit of going around town, say, weekly, to buy out ALL the Babywise/Dobson books at ALL retailers, in a true effort to ry and stamp them out...or if you were trying to have your state government place a ban on them...THEN I would have a problem with you, for sure! But a couple of $1 books, because you happened upon them?? As long as you don't burn them, that;s okay in MY book.


----------



## Viola (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kamilla626* 
They used "To Kill a Mockingbird"!









That's an evil book, with step-by-step instructions on how to kill birds! I'm so glad they are using it as a way to help feed birds now!

Is it OK to buy Dobson and Ezzo books if you make nursing pillows or slings out of them?


----------



## Viola (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
And Viola, your public library probably has copies.

Yeah, they probably do. But I might be embarrassed to check them out--what would the librarian think? I'd probably have to go around and get a bunch of other books to disguise the Dobson book, kind of like when I'm buying . Wait, I can use a machine to check stuff out, that might work.


----------



## St. Margaret (May 19, 2006)

I recently got the ezzo online pamphlet and printed up several copies. I'm going to stick them in the copies at my libraries and bookstores. I HAVE bought copies of Babywise at the library friends' book shop (you know how the library has a little room with used books for sale, to profit the library programs?) and specifically told the clerk there why I was buying the book (to benefit the library but remove the chance that some parent would pick it up and be mislead and misinformed, to the misfortune of their baby). They were really interested in what the book actually said, and the failure to thrive issues, the excommunication of the Ezzos by the church and their own children, lack of real academic expertise in any relevant way... I figure it's a few more people out there who can share the info with their own (grown) children if nothing else.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jackie75* 
I also remember reading about how a teenage girl beat the heck out of her mother, & left her bleeding on the bathroom floor. His reason why the child was so troubled? Very strong willed & never disciplined (spanked). How disgusting is that???

It's not only disgusting - it's mind-boggling. I personally knew three teenagers who beat up a parent. They were all boys, and two were brothers, who beat up their dad together. Both incidents were actually the "snap" that occurs when someone has been abused too long, and they were absolutely "disciplined" (if one can call it that), physically. The incident with the two boys happened when the second youngest in the family walked in to see his "little" (actually the biggest in the family) taking yet another beating...and he jumped to his brother's defense...and his brother then jumped to _his_ defense. It was brutal and ugly - and it certainly had nothing to do with a "lack of discipline".


----------



## Super Glue Mommy (Jan 4, 2009)

I, like Lisa, know a few children who beat up their parents (my husband, my brother in law, and a friend - girl - in middle school) All of whom where physically disciplined. Then you see on the news a child who shot and killed his father for spanking him (it was a predetermined thing, something like once he reached x amount of spankings he was going to kill him, then he did) anyway, not saying people who aren't spanked are never violent, but I just haven't had that personal experience yet - so far my personal experience has been that people who hit their parents are teens who finally "snap" after years of being hit themselves. That being said, I was spanked and I never hit my parents - in retrospect though, I do wish I had... I don't think physical discipline alone is the cause for a child to do that, but I find it even less likely that not being violent with your child will cause them to be violent. I think there was something else going on there... or perhaps Dobson is just full of it.


----------



## KestrelDream (Jun 3, 2005)

There are a lot of people who where spanked as kids. We didn't kill or beat up our parents. I think there is more to it than being spanked. Plus, the point Dobson was making in his book was that she didn't discipline her kid. It would be interesting to know how this kid was raised, why she had so much anger.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy (Jan 4, 2009)

yep that was Dobsons point. I didn't see where anyone missed that...


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Actually, Dobson's point is the same mysonginistic crap that's been flung at women since time began-- kids mess up? It's gotta be the mother's fault. Obviously she didn't (discpline him enough, love him enough, feed him enough, clean up after him enough, fill in your blaming tactic here).


----------



## KestrelDream (Jun 3, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
yep that was Dobsons point. I didn't see where anyone missed that...

Geesh! Well I did. I don't know if it was your post or not...since you edited.

Scratching my head wondering why that comment was posted.....sarcastic much?


----------



## Super Glue Mommy (Jan 4, 2009)

no not sarcasm, just trying to figure out if I was the one you were misunderstanding. my post was edited to add the "that being said..." part, in case it was me who you possibly misunderstood.

ETA for clarification: nothing was REMOVED from that post. I only added to it.









Well put annette!


----------



## angelamariebee (Jun 20, 2008)

I haven't read the whole thread yet but I'm kind of on the "non-censorship"-"slippery slope" side of the fence. Reading this thread, and talk of burning books makes me nervous no matter how much I hate what is written inside.

I really, really like the "ezzo.info" warning/card-slipped-inside idea. I think that's probably the most effective solution since the CIO mentality is so prevalent among parents, they are bound to hear it from someone sooner or later. At least this way we are countering with the right information, instead of leaving them with none at all.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jackie75* 
There are a lot of people who where spanked as kids. We didn't kill or beat up our parents. I think there is more to it than being spanked. Plus, the point Dobson was making in his book was that she didn't discipline her kid. It would be interesting to know how this kid was raised, why she had so much anger.

Maybe one day, I'll read the book (although I doubt I could stomach it).

In any case, _I_ was spanked, and I've never had any desire whatsoever to hit my parents (okay - once - but only to get through mom to beat my sister to a pulp...and I didn't do it). None of my friends who were spanked ever hit their parents, either. The kids I knew who did that were beaten - badly. What I'm wondering is who this woman was, and whether Dobson actually knew whether the child was disciplined/spanked/beaten/whatever. Or, was he just jumping to conclusions that fit his "you have to spank them" philosophy? I've also known people who weren't spanked/physically disciplined...and none of them beat up their parents, either. (A couple of them were disrespectful and somewhat verbally abusive, but never physical.)

Incidentally...imo, spanking a child for crying because they were spanked goes past spanking and into physical abuse. (I don't share the general MDC belief that spanking is inherently abusive...but it certainly can be, and that's a perfect manifestation of that.)


----------



## 1littlebit (Jun 1, 2008)

ok first.. i think any book the aap actually bothers to warn people about should have to have a warning on its cover.. there are lots of books that contradict the AAP and they dont put out warnings about those books... yk?

and i dont consider hitting your children with a switch a parenting choice.. i consider it child abuse.. and conveniently enough so do most judges. i think comparing it to comfort nursing, extended bfing, and un schooling is absurd and demonstrate a lack of understanding on all three subjects. since there are studies that show CIO may lead to brain damage that may one day be considered child abuse as well.

lastly every single advertisement on the left hand side of this page is for focus on the family, and has been ever sense i opened this thread. apparently google thinks that if i am reading this page i would enjoy that one.. i think google might need an upgrade.


----------



## jitterBug mom (Aug 26, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *1littlebit* 
ok first.. i think any book the aap actually bothers to warn people about should have to have a warning on its cover.. there are lots of books that contradict the AAP and they dont put out warnings about those books... yk?

Well.. again, I wish to point out that the AAP has made very strong statements against cosleeping (and directly blame it for infant deaths). The AAP has also published a journal article in _Pediatrics_ attacking the Sears alternate vaccine schedule. The AAP officially condones certain levels of CIO - just not Babywise. As someone who delays vaccines, cosleeps, does not believe in CIO etc., I do not want to side with the AAP on rare instances that I agree with them, and I certainly don't want warnings showing up on AP books.

I do not like Babywise or Dobson at all. Never read them, because I read about them beforehand and knew to stay away. But I feel like there is a lot of misinformation in this thread that reminds me too much of how the "other side" reacts to MY parenting. That is why I never think it is a good idea to resort to book banning, warning labels and so on, because it could just as easily go the other way.


----------



## 1littlebit (Jun 1, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jitterBug mom* 
Well.. again, I wish to point out that the AAP has made very strong statements against cosleeping (and directly blame it for infant deaths). The AAP has also published a journal article in _Pediatrics_ attacking the Sears alternate vaccine schedule. The AAP officially condones certain levels of CIO - just not Babywise.

thats the thing though they make statements against tons of things i do.. in fact by their standards i sort of suck as a parent. their thoughts on CIO and scheduled feedings are basically 'to an extent' so they condone it on some level. but babywise takes scheduling and CIO to such an extreme that it can lead to Failure to thrive ... i think people have a right to know that.

do they actually have good research about co sleeping contributing to infant deaths? b/c all of the research i have read says that co sleeping may help prevent infant death as long as you go about it safely. the article in the washington post that made me throw things called the dangerous kind of co sleeping 'chaotic co sleeping' i think it was the only actual fact in the whole article since the rest of it was about how horrible co sleeping is and how only poor people do it.. it was awful but thats besides the point. man 3 months ago and i'm still mad about that. the last sentence basically contradicted the rest of the article it was weird.


----------



## nerdymom (Mar 20, 2008)

OK, the aap is kinda nuts, so that wouldn't deter me. However I think OP is totally awsome for doing what she did. FYI paper makes great weed block in a flower garden.







As a child of radical Dobson-ites, I can appreciate what this mama did. I know women who pick up parenting books at thrift stores, stockpile them, and give them to new parents-to-be.









Also, I now want a book bookcase!


----------



## 1littlebit (Jun 1, 2008)

it never occurred to me to buy a book telling me how to parent my child.. is that weird? i had pregnancy and birth books but no parenting books. now i probably wouldnt have done CIO either way ... my family is very anti spanking and CIO but CIO never occurred to DP until someone actually told him to do it. this makes me think that if left to our own devices people would respond to their childrens cries b/c not responding to them seems sort of stupid. why wouldnt you respond? yk?

its when people hear all this crap about training and independence that things get messy. DP's friend told him about it and how her sister never let her kids cry and always held them and they are spoiled brats now. he absolutely hates hearing ds cry and ds is the sweetest kid in the world so mostly he just ignores her.


----------



## hrsmom (Jul 4, 2008)

OP, I think that's kinda neat that you did that!


----------



## OakBerry (May 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rachel616* 
Dr. Sears has never caused failure to thrive.

I wouldn't know about that, but Dr. Sears recommends co-sleeping, which is often mentioned as contributing to SIDS.

I'm not saying I agree with that, as I co-slept myself. But it could be a reason why someone might want to buy up or hide his books to "protect" new mothers.

That's what I meant in my original statement.

I know from reading all the posts that most of you don't agree, and I don't mind.
I just think that buying books to prevent other people from reading them is wrong. Even if you are within your legal rights to do it.


----------



## SaraMum (May 17, 2009)

At least one less person will read Babywise


----------



## kalimay (May 25, 2005)

"I haven't read the whole thread yet but I'm kind of on the "non-censorship"-"slippery slope" side of the fence. Reading this thread, and talk of burning books makes me nervous no matter how much I hate what is written inside."

I agree with this.

"At least one less person will read Babywise "

What if it was the one person who was so disgusted by Babywise, who had the resources to do something about getting a warning on the cover or taking the author to task in court, they did something about it.


----------



## boysmom2 (Jan 24, 2007)

I haven't read this whole thread, but I just thought I'd add this idea: I have a friend who carries post-it notes with her. When she finds a book like that, instead of hiding it or buying it to burn or whatever, she writes a note and sticks it inside. She recommends other options depending what the book is: the No-Cry Sleep Solution, Gentle Discipline, etc., for Baby Wise, The Thinking Woman's Guide to Birth for mainstream pregnancy/birth books, etc. That way someone can still buy the "bad" book if they want, but maybe they've been given another possible resource that they otherwise would never have known about.

Sometimes when I'm in a bookstore, if there are enough copies of a book I like, I'll stick one in front of Babywise or some other awful book. That way, Babywise is still there, where people can find it, they just have to move another alternative out of the way to find it. Again, maybe they didn't know there were other options out there and maybe someone will consider reading Sears instead.

I think it's more important that people be exposed to other ideas so that they can make informed decisions. If you don't know any better and your MIL and best friends and ped are all telling you that you NEED to follow Babywise, why wouldn't you? But if you read that AND some more gentle resources, you might be more likely to not blindly follow the Babywise advice. Sadly, I think a lot of people just don't know what else is out there.


----------

