Mom2all said:
I dutifully followed the pediatrician advice and bought "sids pillows' because studies showed they were less likely to die from SIDS if they slept on their sides. By 1998, studies show that sleeping on their side was dangerous and I was told my new born had to sleep on his back. I understand from my friend who had a baby this year.. we're back to the side again.
In the area of SIDS, the reason it's going back and forth is that, as off my knowledge (I could be wrong!) the scientific community has really NO fraking idea what cause SIDS. SIDS means "Sudden Infant Death Syndrom", which is a fancy name to say "We have no idea why it's happening so we are giving it a generic name that means nothing".
As research is still going on about this, each and every answer you get is a tiny piece of an incomplete puzzle. In my courses I had learned that they think it's mostly related to sleep smothering because of pillows or co-sleeping, since the breath is shallow and they don't have the strength to move around much in their sleep when they are so little. But again, that's not really proven, to my knowledge.
Mom2all said:
As infants.. the oldest were feed rice cereal to help them sleep better at night, by the youngest.. feeding him rice cereal could cause SIDS so don't do it... oh and it takes away needed nutrition that only the milk could bring.
First time I hear SIDS could be associated with nutrition.
As for breast milk vs formula, the <I>
consensus</I> is that both are useful, depending on context. This being said, my field of experience is with parents, not with babies. So I might be completely off.
Mom2all said:
When I breast feed my older kids, I covered up with a blanket or went to a bathroom out in public. By 1998, they had breast feeding rooms and ps by the way, covering their head or feeding them in a nasty bathroom was akin to child abuse.
I think the idea here is more that the men and the institution who are trying to force you to cover up your child with a blanket or have the child eat his dinner in a toilet are the one who are acting like abusers. It's a natural and beautiful thing, why should it be seen as a taboo or anything shameful? This, however, is a discussion that has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics and society...
Mom2all said:
Holding them spoils them.
A concept that was launched onto the medias several decades ago by people with absolutely NO credible background and backed by absolutely no fact or no science, and which stuck into our society.
As an educator I am constantly fighting this ridiculous notion. A fruit can spoil. A child is not a fruit. You cannot spoil a child by holding them! Which does not mean, of course, that they shouldn't eventually learn to walk...
Mom2all said:
Not holding them causes insecurities.
It's actually proven that mammals who are not held DIE, even if they are fed. Several well known experiment have shown the deep importance of the physical bond between child and caregiver. Insecurities is only part of it. That one is solidly documented and the consensus is very clear within the professional community, but old ideas die hard.
I think there is also a counter-logic idea here in appearance, because people often think that to help a child become independent you have to train them to be alone. And it's all wrong, it's actually the contrary: a secure child will naturally want to explore the world and become independent; the clingy children are the one who are not fully secured.
Mom2all said:
Feed them on a schedule. Don't feed on a schedule.
Can't say for that one. Although the principles of attachment would tell you that the human body is wonderful and that there is no-one better than the infant to know when she is hungry, so you should respond to her needs on her own schedule, to meet her needs in security. Of course, this is in context of the parent's own limitations and challenges, whenever possible.
Mom2all said:
Give them sugar free candy.. sugar free= cancer
There is no doubt that refined sugar is bad for health.
The big food industries know this and they came up with artificial sugar as a replacement. There are not many studies on these, as the industry isn't very interested to fund them - so who knows if the stuff isn't worst than natural refined sugar? (I am no nutritionist though, so maybe this has been proved? I don't know).
In doubt, I'd go with natural sugar, and reasonable quantities, IMO...
Mom2all said:
The oldest.. expert advice was to use time out and be stern.
Actually, older than that was that "being stern" meant to beat the shit of them using whips and belts etc. Which was absolutely NOT scientific. It really was just a way of controlling through fear and power.
Timeout was the latest "alternative" from behaviorist to continue trying to change children's behavior (without even wondering about their deeper issues) while not hitting. It's using psychological manipulation instead of physical threats, but it's just the same thing.
What's striking (no pun intended), again, is the simplistic "advice". Be stern and use time out?!? What expert will ever advice that? No context? No questions? No inquiery as to what's going on with the child?
My point is: the scientific community may have found that, for instance, the use of timeout tend to have as much compliance on short term and tend to have better results (read: less measurable negative effects) than spanking. It's the media and the society that steal these studies and then come up with those huge generalizing advices such as "Be stern and use timeout!".
Mom2all said:
Now.. being stern, showing disappointment, using time-out is damaging to their self esteem.
Or rather, it has always been damaging to self esteem, only other studies over a decade or two has constructed a solid consensus about how important self-esteem is to a child's development.
This being said - AGAIN! the studies may show how important self-esteem is, or how the use of time out or punishment without addressing the deeper issue is related to several negative effects. But the so called "advice" not to use or to use them, that's not the same... especially when a suitable alternative is not provided.
Mom2all said:
Some of the things that as the time I bucked the system on that came back making me appear brilliant...
But you are brilliant
No surprise there!
Mom2all said:
Southern USA. We teach our children "manners" that include greeting almost everyone they know with a hug.
...which stems from the idea that children are inferior beings who must be all quiet and well mannered and submit to adults. Which is not a scientific idea, but a society-based idea. No proof whatsoever.
Only with the work of Carl Rogers and his school of thought are we starting to see new idea emerges about self-respect and boundaries and mutual respect with children.
Mom2all said:
I was actually told that my children weren't as loving as others because I had taught them it was their body... they could hug whomever they wanted. Nervous butterflies in the belly meant they could stand behind me and I'd stop said customary hug. I never wanted my children to feel uncomfortable with someone and be made to accept hugs.
Yeah, but who told you that? A child care professional? Doubtful... (although their are bad ones everywhere! People are after all, a product of their time). I'd like to see a study that pretends to measure "love" by looking at hugging habits...
Mom2all said:
Now.. studies show us that its important to teach children about about bad feelings when adults touch them. In our area.. I was the pioneer... that everyone thought was raising unloving children.
That would be more social studies, rather than studies on the child development, but yes. And yes, you were brilliant
Or, you listened to your instinct, and decided children shouldn't have to do what we know in our gut would not be okay for adults to do (like being forced to hug everyone).
Mom2all said:
In my area, we were the first to invite other races over so my children could learn all people are the same.
Cybele, we may not always agree on everything, but you have all my respect for this and I mean it when I say you are a person right by my heart.
Mom2all said:
This one caused, oh I can't tell you all, the animosity among the people in the area. I was teaching them lack of self respect..
I can imagine the reaction in your area about this...
But again, this is not scientific.
A key here is to make the difference between "expert" advice (which can still be wrong, mind you, but are based on science) and popular or social advices, which are based on culture, habits, taboos and other pressure...