Sears vs. Ezzo deathmatch

[ocelot]

Someone on a mailing list I'm on brought up Babywise.

Babywise is a method of parenting which advocates putting the baby on a relatively strict feed/play/sleep schedule. The biggest criticism of this method is that, when taken too seriously, it can lead to problems with breastfeeding, dehydration, and failure to thrive, as well as potentially interfering with the parent/child relationship.

It doesn't surprise me that this particular person is using this method, since we tend to disagree about just about everything. If it were just her, I wouldn't bother saying anything, since neither of us is likely to take what the other says seriously. However, I have a hard time letting it go without comment, since there are a lot of other future parents on the list.

At the same time, I haven't actually read the book, and don't have any practical experience one way or another, so I don't really feel it's my place to say anything, especially seeing as it was a passing mention, not a full-on advocation.

I really should read it, so that I can at least respond to it from a firsthand perspective. So many of the negative reviews on amazon.com are basically "I haven't tried the ideas described in this book, or even read it, but here's all the bad things that other people say about it!" I don't doubt that many of the bad things are true, but honestly, the majority of good reviews sound more credible than the majority of bad reviews.

The polar opposite of Ezzo and Babywise is Dr. Sears and Attachment Parenting. Attachment parenting advocates the idea that babies, especially very young ones, cry to express their needs, not to be manipulative or to get what they want, and that crying should be responded to in a quick and appropriate manner. They also advocate a lot of physical contact - breastfeeding, wearing the baby in a sling for large portions of the day, and having the baby sleep in the same bed.

So these two groups are basically at eachothers throats. Reading through the amazon.com reviews for both books at 6:00AM in the morning, I find this terribly amusing. The followers on both sides claim that their children are the happiest, healthiest, most well adjusted babies that anyone they know has ever seen, and that all the children they know that were raised by other methods are whiny, fussy, unhealthy brats.

I'm reading The Baby Book by Dr. Sears right now, and honestly, it's bugging me a bit. Intuitively, attachment parenting seems sensible to me, while what I know of the babywise approach really doesn't. But I'm not in love with this particular book. I expected to, since I really liked The Pregnancy Book. Not that it's an awful book. There's just too much that is rubbing me the wrong way. Specifically, I find the parental gender roles described in the book to be constricting and occasionally condescending, and the constant reiteration of attachment parenting as a cure-all for everything gets a little tiresome after a while.

Back to the deathmatch... the most sensible sounding people on both sides claim that they used the book in question as a guideline, not a bible, taking what seemed practical and leaving the rest. Makes sense. I think that just about any parenting method, used intelligently and compassionately, can probably produce happy, healthy kids.

The problem is that too many people don't do things intelligently and compassionately.

Pretty much the worst thing that was said about The Baby Book from people who had tried it was that it made people who couldn't live up to the ideal feel guilty.

The worst that was said about Babywise from people who had tried it was that it had led to breastfeeding problems and a poor relationship with the baby.

The latter seems like the worse potential outcome to me, especially since guilt can be easily alleviated by accepting that Dr. Sears isn't god, and not everything is going to work for everyone.

Both sides claim that the other is medically unsubstantiated and potentially harmful. Both are probably right to varying extents.

Ezzo's teachings (especially the earlier ones - he's apparently taken a softer stance in the newer books) have been widely condemned by medical professionals, as they have led to malnourishment and failure to thrive when followed too strictly by unknowledgable parents. His advocates say that of course babies should be fed when they're hungry, and that Ezzo never says otherwise.

The main complaints against Sears are that carrying babies in slings is bad for their backs, and that sharing a bed with the baby leads to an increased risk of suffocation. I don't know about the slings, but the co-sleeping research is a little contradictory. It seems that, when done right, sharing a bed decreases the risk of death from SIDS, both because parents are more aware of the baby's breathing, and because the parents' breathing helps the baby regulate her/his own breathing. However, if the parents have their natural instinct to not roll over on the baby inhibited by alcohol, medication, or whatever, or if the bed is not properly baby-proofed, there is an increased risk of suffocation. This is mentioned in the book, but perhaps not as strongly as it should be.

Most of the people who are happy with the Babywise method say that the core ideas about an eat/play/sleep cycle are good, and to ignore the details. "Yes, of course it's dangerous if you follow it to the letter, but the core ideas are sound. You just have to be sensible about applying it!" doesn't really seem like a great recommendation to me. Books, especially when dealing with potentially life or death matters like baby feeding, should be written with the assumption that people will take them as gospel.

So...my final opinion... both methods can produce happy, healthy kids. Both methods work best if you use what works for you, and leave the rest. If either side is "wrong", attachment parenting errs on the side of parental guilt and overwork, while babywise errs on the side of neglect. I'd personally rather risk potential guilt and overwork.

And I'm going to stay quiet on the mailing list unless people start talking about it in more detail, in which case I'll send a summary of what I've written here. The people on the list are, for the most part, pretty intelligent. Given reason to question the validity of a belief, they most likely will do so.

On a related note, I started crying in the parenting aisle of a bookstore the other day, thinking about how many different books there were, and how I was obviously going to be a terrible parent because I would never be able to read them all. Aren't hormones fun? I think perhaps I should stop reading parenting books entirely until I think of a specific question I need answered.

Speaking of sleep schedules, I really need to find something that works for me. Sleeping when I felt the need would probably work fine if koyote didn't exist, but fortunately he does, so it doesn't work. I'm sleeping lightly, can't sleep for more than about an hour without waking up, and can't sleep for more than about 5 hours without a significant awake period in between. I get grumpy and depressed in the hours before I fall asleep (hence the crying episode in the bookstore). I'm not sure if that means I should be asleep at that point, if it has more to do with blood sugar fluctuations from eating, or if it's just the way things are when you're 8.5 months pregnant.