Remember when being special meant you were good at something? Like a sport, piano, knowing a second language.
These pathetic girls think being sick makes them special, it’s a substitute for being good at something. They must have enabling parents.
When you are a child or adolescent, most of your motivation comes from simply trying to find your place in the world - family, friends, community. You usually do not have the mental skills or strength yet to question whether or not that acceptance is good or bad for you in the long run. Children assume that anyone older than them who accepts them are doing so for good reasons.
I think this is where parenting comes into play. From birth, parents need to teach children to overcome difficulties. Starting with crying yourself to sleep as an infant rather than rushing in to coddle, to letting them know that the skinned knee is nothing to worry about, to helping them understand as a little league baseball player that sometimes the other team is just better right now, to telling them "sticks and stones...", to helping them through their first heartbreak. Maybe the first line in any parenting advice book should be "and this too shall pass".
Babies crying themselves to sleep is a way to hardwire our nervous system for all kinds of attachment disorders. I know because I am the product of this and through trauma based therapy, I realize that what my parents were told to do trained my nervous system negatively. As far as when a child falls and bumps himself and looks to mom or caregiver and her face is not in terror of danger and she says, let me see, you are okay...go play...that's a whole different system. You are teaching some form of resilience (assuming there is not problem and the child is fine). But crying to sleep or not having a child's cries heard and attended to is a bad idea. And a lot of people don't know this and wonder why they feel ungrounded or lost or can't regulate themselves. You as the parent are teaching the child how to calm and sooth. A child does not know how to do this for their own self. That is why we would ideally have nurturing caring parents who are present, well mentally and emotionally, available (not on a cell phone or smoking dope or drinking or drugging or overworking). It breaks my heart to think of how many kids were robbed of the human connection so vital to what makes us humans. So sad. So tragic. No wonder our society is filled with overworking, overspending, untethered souls.
We followed the recommendation of Dr. Weisbluth (or something like that) in his book, Healthy Sleep Habits, Happy Child (or something like that). He advocated letting a baby cry for a limited length of time starting around 4 months (I think). My kids came out just fine.
I guess I need to be really clear and really detailed and really specific so that folks will understand what I mean.
I never meant to imply that from the first day an infant is brought home from the hospital they should be ignored when they cry instead of sleeping. OF COURSE one of the parents should comfort the infant when they need it.
At some point in time, and I think most parents recognize when an infant is crying out of distress or crying to get a reaction. My reference to letting the baby cry themselves to sleep regards the latter.
I am sure there are reasons people do what they do. Coming from a theory of letting a child cry themselves to sooth themselves to whatever place is not crying )that was the guidance my parents got in their day) is something I have learned doesn't strengthen attachment which is crucial for our human ability to be relational. I just hope people realize this. Obviously there are nuances...and then there are not.
That generation seemed to just fine in the attachment department - probably better than the current generation with the exception of attachment to their 'smart' phones. I'm fairly certain that if human attachment could be measured retroactively, going back to the 50's, 60's and 70's, I'm pretty sure you would find much higher levels of personal engagement than you do now. Heck, you never even see block parties any more and we had one in my neighborhood every year. I knew every neighbor personally on either side of our street (except for the one with the spooky house). I'd go "back" to that culture any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
And to be perfectly, abundantly, and agonizingly clear: I never said parents should never comfort crying infants or children. I will, however, stand by my belief that at some point, maybe its 18 months, maybe its 2 years...that parents need to let their babies figure out this on their own, and only intervene when necessary (that's a skill that most parents have - determining what is a real problem vs what is not).
We've also gotten extremely good at "intellectualizing" everything, and have lost the truly human side of relationships. Despite our "enlightenment", we are a much colder society than we used to be. I once had a highly educated person, a PhD with a high level position at a respected University, once say to me "You know, after you account for all the variables, the two groups of people are the same." And this person did not seem to have an inkling about what he really was saying. Intelligence without wisdom is abundant.
And one more thing. As a parent when you attend to a baby crying you are teaching them the cycle of connection-rupture (why the baby is crying, there has been some rupture in their experience)-reconnection. Its how we relate as humans When you don't do this as the parent, your child never learns....and guess what, we have a society of people filled with anxiety, depression, addiction from this inability to move through this perpetual cycle that we experience as humans. Watch the Still Face Experiment (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK3MJd7Aeyk Ed Troncik studies this extensively) and then reconsider ever letting a baby cry themselves to comfort.
And guess what - helicopter parenting has resulted in a society filled with anxiety, depression, and addictions. So I guess either way we are all doomed. The end of our species is nigh!
Perhaps the question is: "At what age is it alright to let a baby cry themselves to sleep?" It could be that I have a different definition of baby than do you.
No, helicopter parenting and letting one's baby cry himself to sleep are neither mutually exclusive nor necessarily going together. There are plenty of parents who let their babies cry it out and then over-schedule them as children, permit them no freedom, and step in every time they have a problem. Other parents, like me, didn't make them cry alone, then allowed them free time, their own mistakes, etc. I think my son was about ten months when I gave him a steak knife to play with (I'd talked to him about safety, he was sitting next to me at a restaurant, and I kept me eye on him but he really loved knives); he was 12 when I gave him a loaded subway fare card and told him go have fun, don't go anywhere too dangerous. And then there are parents who don't let their babies cry, and overschedule, helicopter themselves around, etc. We knew kids who weren't allowed to go more than two blocks from home on their bikes in middle school! But they weren't required to wear helmets; my boy had to wear a helmet, but he could go anywhere he could get to. It helped of course that he believed mommy had friends all over the city who would text me if they saw him misbehave . . . lol. But the two phenomenon are not related in practice.
There are always exceptions. I guess I need to qualify my statements with "While not absolute..." to make sure no one is mislead. While not absolute, such a rule would minimize misinterpretation.
I'm all for teaching children to be independent, but please, don't encourage people to let babies cry themselves to sleep. A baby's nervous system isn't able to self-soothe. He needs a caregiver to do it. When little babies are left to cry themselves to sleep, they are shutting down, not relaxing into sleep. It does NOT help them grow up to be strong and secure. Irene Lyon, nervous system specialist, explains it better than I could: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_ZrlZ1lkAs
At what age do you stop training them that when you cry you get rewarded? For the first six months or so, I can see your point, but after that I am not so sure. Certainly by 2 years old they should be able to get to sleep on their own. White noise also a help.
I wouldn't put an age on it. I don't see it as "rewarding" a cry - the person can't speak! A cry is his way of communicating "I need help!" and so I help because I understand the communication. This is how I raised my teenagers, who are very well-behaved, socially well-adjusted kids and very good students: I tried to help them with their legitimate needs, and not give in to things they shouldn't have. I think affection is a legitimate need. I think a baby should be loved and spoiled with affection and attention, as much as possible. Once he learns to walk, he should be taught how to be helpful. I remember between the time he learned to sit up and the time he learned to walk, my son got into shrieking in public - it was an exercise in power for him - he seemed thrilled at the ability to make this noise. If we were in the library, I'd run out with him and say "outside loud" very loudly, and go inside and whisper "inside quiet" and he seemed to understand. If we were in the market and he shrieked, I'd smack the back of his hand, not enough to harm him, but to show him shrieking isn't ok inside. Once outside, I'd get loud and if he wanted to shriek I'd let him. I didn't often go to restaurants, but if I did go with extended family, I'd explain to the kids that they need to be quiet in a restaurant and sit down. But I would also take them outside and chase them around while the rest of the family sat and waited for the food - I don't think it is reasonable for kids to have to sit still for a long time. So it was a compromise - we'll run around, then you sit quietly. When my dear son got an adorable little baby sister, he was understandably peeved at the displacement, so I taught him how he could make her laugh by tickling her feet, and I told him that she wanted him to pick out her clothes because she liked his taste better than mine, and I got him a baby doll to strap onto his chest so we could both "wear our babies" and take walks together (he'd begged for a baby doll). I put her (sister) on his back for tummy time, so she would coo and giggle and drool on his back and grab his hair, and he'd laugh and wiggle, so she'd shake (cause she was on his back) and laugh harder, and so on and so forth and it was good for their relationship. In other words, he had a legit need to have a place in the family and to be well-loved, so I taught him how to relate well to his sister so she'd be a bonus and not a threat. I didn't let him hit her (which was his first instinct.) I was stern but not terribly punitive when they misbehaved. If I were taking my child somewhere, I'd first explain how he needed to behave, and then I might give him one reminder, and if he still misbehaved, I'd leave immediately and explain why. My son remembers me telling him sternly "You are two years old, you aren't a baby anymore. Time to act like a big boy." I'm not a softie or a sucker at all. But love and affection, in my opinion, are necessities, and crying is how we communicate, especially when we can't speak. As for sleeping, I just let them snuggle with me until I couldn't take it anymore. I figured they'd get sick of me soon enough. I don't know that pushing them out of bed earlier is a bad thing - I wasn't sure how to do it. But it didn't seem to harm them (but I wished they would have slept alone sooner.) Maybe incentives, like "If you can sleep in your own bed all night, mommy will be so well-rested in the morning that she'll take you to the park really early! Even before breakfast!" or something like that. When people feel good, they act good. Or just little encouragements, like "You stayed in bed last night until 4 am, that is so good! Let's see if you can stay in bed til the clock looks like this (5 am) - maybe you could tell your stuffed animal stories to help you be brave until the clock looks like this." That kind of a thing. It should be about the child recognizing other people's needs and growing accordingly, not simply denying his own needs. Or, "If you can stay in bed all night, in the morning I'll be in a good mood and you can snuggle with me alone and I'll tell you a story!" That kind of thing.
That all sounds reasonable. How do you tell when it is authentic and when it is not? What do you do when it is apparent the child is using the "cry" simply because they don't think they are getting enough attention?
We live in the country, and twice a year is burr season. So our dogs collect them, sometimes in their paws. Most of our dogs simply lay down and pull the burr out with their teeth. But we have one dog who learned she could garner attention by feigning "burr foot". It was always the same foot (front right) and we never found burrs in it after the first couple of times. We learned to ignore her and she has stopped this act.
We are bound to make mistakes, that's a certainty. Again, I think kids need attention. As do dogs. If they are trying to get it in pathetic, annoying ways, the adult human would be best, in my opinion, to figure out a way for them to get attention in a positive way. Like folding the laundry, or reading to a younger sibling (for the kid, not the dog, of course). Or visiting an elderly neighbor. You can always lecture them about current events, philosophy, whatever you are interested in, and then ask their opinion. That will either be engaging for you both, or the kid will find something more age appropriate and leave you alone. But the need for attention and affection is as real as the need for air, for optimal functioning. I remember being too exhausted to give my son attention, so I lay down and let him run his plastic truck all over me. We called it truck massage and the truck wasn't allowed on my head. But he felt attended to, and I got a restful massage of sorts. And sometimes you just can't give anything, so you just explain look, I'm exhausted, I need time alone, you need to do something with your truck alone. Your dog sounds very cute, btw.
Our kids each slept with us until they were about 2 (breastfeeding is infinitely easier when you co-sleep). Then they had a toddler bed in our room for another year.
Our kids *never* had an attachment meltdown. Unlike other kids in the nursery at church, who screamed and cried for their parents the moment they left, our kids were happy to go play with a new set of toys they didn't have at home.
So true Celia. Also, I used to volunteer in the church nursery and noticed that the parents who made a show about leaving, or lingered and made worried faces often made it harder for their toddlers to divert their attention to the toys and other kids
It seems to be any sort of identity that is used to be special, not just illness. So convenient to be able to just declare that you are something, rather than put in hard work to develop a talent.
Remember when being special meant you were good at something? Like a sport, piano, knowing a second language.
These pathetic girls think being sick makes them special, it’s a substitute for being good at something. They must have enabling parents.
When you are a child or adolescent, most of your motivation comes from simply trying to find your place in the world - family, friends, community. You usually do not have the mental skills or strength yet to question whether or not that acceptance is good or bad for you in the long run. Children assume that anyone older than them who accepts them are doing so for good reasons.
I think this is where parenting comes into play. From birth, parents need to teach children to overcome difficulties. Starting with crying yourself to sleep as an infant rather than rushing in to coddle, to letting them know that the skinned knee is nothing to worry about, to helping them understand as a little league baseball player that sometimes the other team is just better right now, to telling them "sticks and stones...", to helping them through their first heartbreak. Maybe the first line in any parenting advice book should be "and this too shall pass".
Babies crying themselves to sleep is a way to hardwire our nervous system for all kinds of attachment disorders. I know because I am the product of this and through trauma based therapy, I realize that what my parents were told to do trained my nervous system negatively. As far as when a child falls and bumps himself and looks to mom or caregiver and her face is not in terror of danger and she says, let me see, you are okay...go play...that's a whole different system. You are teaching some form of resilience (assuming there is not problem and the child is fine). But crying to sleep or not having a child's cries heard and attended to is a bad idea. And a lot of people don't know this and wonder why they feel ungrounded or lost or can't regulate themselves. You as the parent are teaching the child how to calm and sooth. A child does not know how to do this for their own self. That is why we would ideally have nurturing caring parents who are present, well mentally and emotionally, available (not on a cell phone or smoking dope or drinking or drugging or overworking). It breaks my heart to think of how many kids were robbed of the human connection so vital to what makes us humans. So sad. So tragic. No wonder our society is filled with overworking, overspending, untethered souls.
We followed the recommendation of Dr. Weisbluth (or something like that) in his book, Healthy Sleep Habits, Happy Child (or something like that). He advocated letting a baby cry for a limited length of time starting around 4 months (I think). My kids came out just fine.
That's good to hear...I am sure there are lots of factors in "kids coming out fine"...not one thing....glad it worked for you.
Wow...you really ran with that one.
I guess I need to be really clear and really detailed and really specific so that folks will understand what I mean.
I never meant to imply that from the first day an infant is brought home from the hospital they should be ignored when they cry instead of sleeping. OF COURSE one of the parents should comfort the infant when they need it.
At some point in time, and I think most parents recognize when an infant is crying out of distress or crying to get a reaction. My reference to letting the baby cry themselves to sleep regards the latter.
I am sure there are reasons people do what they do. Coming from a theory of letting a child cry themselves to sooth themselves to whatever place is not crying )that was the guidance my parents got in their day) is something I have learned doesn't strengthen attachment which is crucial for our human ability to be relational. I just hope people realize this. Obviously there are nuances...and then there are not.
That generation seemed to just fine in the attachment department - probably better than the current generation with the exception of attachment to their 'smart' phones. I'm fairly certain that if human attachment could be measured retroactively, going back to the 50's, 60's and 70's, I'm pretty sure you would find much higher levels of personal engagement than you do now. Heck, you never even see block parties any more and we had one in my neighborhood every year. I knew every neighbor personally on either side of our street (except for the one with the spooky house). I'd go "back" to that culture any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
And to be perfectly, abundantly, and agonizingly clear: I never said parents should never comfort crying infants or children. I will, however, stand by my belief that at some point, maybe its 18 months, maybe its 2 years...that parents need to let their babies figure out this on their own, and only intervene when necessary (that's a skill that most parents have - determining what is a real problem vs what is not).
We've also gotten extremely good at "intellectualizing" everything, and have lost the truly human side of relationships. Despite our "enlightenment", we are a much colder society than we used to be. I once had a highly educated person, a PhD with a high level position at a respected University, once say to me "You know, after you account for all the variables, the two groups of people are the same." And this person did not seem to have an inkling about what he really was saying. Intelligence without wisdom is abundant.
And one more thing. As a parent when you attend to a baby crying you are teaching them the cycle of connection-rupture (why the baby is crying, there has been some rupture in their experience)-reconnection. Its how we relate as humans When you don't do this as the parent, your child never learns....and guess what, we have a society of people filled with anxiety, depression, addiction from this inability to move through this perpetual cycle that we experience as humans. Watch the Still Face Experiment (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK3MJd7Aeyk Ed Troncik studies this extensively) and then reconsider ever letting a baby cry themselves to comfort.
And guess what - helicopter parenting has resulted in a society filled with anxiety, depression, and addictions. So I guess either way we are all doomed. The end of our species is nigh!
Perhaps the question is: "At what age is it alright to let a baby cry themselves to sleep?" It could be that I have a different definition of baby than do you.
No, helicopter parenting and letting one's baby cry himself to sleep are neither mutually exclusive nor necessarily going together. There are plenty of parents who let their babies cry it out and then over-schedule them as children, permit them no freedom, and step in every time they have a problem. Other parents, like me, didn't make them cry alone, then allowed them free time, their own mistakes, etc. I think my son was about ten months when I gave him a steak knife to play with (I'd talked to him about safety, he was sitting next to me at a restaurant, and I kept me eye on him but he really loved knives); he was 12 when I gave him a loaded subway fare card and told him go have fun, don't go anywhere too dangerous. And then there are parents who don't let their babies cry, and overschedule, helicopter themselves around, etc. We knew kids who weren't allowed to go more than two blocks from home on their bikes in middle school! But they weren't required to wear helmets; my boy had to wear a helmet, but he could go anywhere he could get to. It helped of course that he believed mommy had friends all over the city who would text me if they saw him misbehave . . . lol. But the two phenomenon are not related in practice.
There are always exceptions. I guess I need to qualify my statements with "While not absolute..." to make sure no one is mislead. While not absolute, such a rule would minimize misinterpretation.
🤪
You explain things well!
Amen.
I'm all for teaching children to be independent, but please, don't encourage people to let babies cry themselves to sleep. A baby's nervous system isn't able to self-soothe. He needs a caregiver to do it. When little babies are left to cry themselves to sleep, they are shutting down, not relaxing into sleep. It does NOT help them grow up to be strong and secure. Irene Lyon, nervous system specialist, explains it better than I could: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_ZrlZ1lkAs
At what age do you stop training them that when you cry you get rewarded? For the first six months or so, I can see your point, but after that I am not so sure. Certainly by 2 years old they should be able to get to sleep on their own. White noise also a help.
I wouldn't put an age on it. I don't see it as "rewarding" a cry - the person can't speak! A cry is his way of communicating "I need help!" and so I help because I understand the communication. This is how I raised my teenagers, who are very well-behaved, socially well-adjusted kids and very good students: I tried to help them with their legitimate needs, and not give in to things they shouldn't have. I think affection is a legitimate need. I think a baby should be loved and spoiled with affection and attention, as much as possible. Once he learns to walk, he should be taught how to be helpful. I remember between the time he learned to sit up and the time he learned to walk, my son got into shrieking in public - it was an exercise in power for him - he seemed thrilled at the ability to make this noise. If we were in the library, I'd run out with him and say "outside loud" very loudly, and go inside and whisper "inside quiet" and he seemed to understand. If we were in the market and he shrieked, I'd smack the back of his hand, not enough to harm him, but to show him shrieking isn't ok inside. Once outside, I'd get loud and if he wanted to shriek I'd let him. I didn't often go to restaurants, but if I did go with extended family, I'd explain to the kids that they need to be quiet in a restaurant and sit down. But I would also take them outside and chase them around while the rest of the family sat and waited for the food - I don't think it is reasonable for kids to have to sit still for a long time. So it was a compromise - we'll run around, then you sit quietly. When my dear son got an adorable little baby sister, he was understandably peeved at the displacement, so I taught him how he could make her laugh by tickling her feet, and I told him that she wanted him to pick out her clothes because she liked his taste better than mine, and I got him a baby doll to strap onto his chest so we could both "wear our babies" and take walks together (he'd begged for a baby doll). I put her (sister) on his back for tummy time, so she would coo and giggle and drool on his back and grab his hair, and he'd laugh and wiggle, so she'd shake (cause she was on his back) and laugh harder, and so on and so forth and it was good for their relationship. In other words, he had a legit need to have a place in the family and to be well-loved, so I taught him how to relate well to his sister so she'd be a bonus and not a threat. I didn't let him hit her (which was his first instinct.) I was stern but not terribly punitive when they misbehaved. If I were taking my child somewhere, I'd first explain how he needed to behave, and then I might give him one reminder, and if he still misbehaved, I'd leave immediately and explain why. My son remembers me telling him sternly "You are two years old, you aren't a baby anymore. Time to act like a big boy." I'm not a softie or a sucker at all. But love and affection, in my opinion, are necessities, and crying is how we communicate, especially when we can't speak. As for sleeping, I just let them snuggle with me until I couldn't take it anymore. I figured they'd get sick of me soon enough. I don't know that pushing them out of bed earlier is a bad thing - I wasn't sure how to do it. But it didn't seem to harm them (but I wished they would have slept alone sooner.) Maybe incentives, like "If you can sleep in your own bed all night, mommy will be so well-rested in the morning that she'll take you to the park really early! Even before breakfast!" or something like that. When people feel good, they act good. Or just little encouragements, like "You stayed in bed last night until 4 am, that is so good! Let's see if you can stay in bed til the clock looks like this (5 am) - maybe you could tell your stuffed animal stories to help you be brave until the clock looks like this." That kind of a thing. It should be about the child recognizing other people's needs and growing accordingly, not simply denying his own needs. Or, "If you can stay in bed all night, in the morning I'll be in a good mood and you can snuggle with me alone and I'll tell you a story!" That kind of thing.
That all sounds reasonable. How do you tell when it is authentic and when it is not? What do you do when it is apparent the child is using the "cry" simply because they don't think they are getting enough attention?
We live in the country, and twice a year is burr season. So our dogs collect them, sometimes in their paws. Most of our dogs simply lay down and pull the burr out with their teeth. But we have one dog who learned she could garner attention by feigning "burr foot". It was always the same foot (front right) and we never found burrs in it after the first couple of times. We learned to ignore her and she has stopped this act.
Dogs do it, kids do it, adults do it...
We are bound to make mistakes, that's a certainty. Again, I think kids need attention. As do dogs. If they are trying to get it in pathetic, annoying ways, the adult human would be best, in my opinion, to figure out a way for them to get attention in a positive way. Like folding the laundry, or reading to a younger sibling (for the kid, not the dog, of course). Or visiting an elderly neighbor. You can always lecture them about current events, philosophy, whatever you are interested in, and then ask their opinion. That will either be engaging for you both, or the kid will find something more age appropriate and leave you alone. But the need for attention and affection is as real as the need for air, for optimal functioning. I remember being too exhausted to give my son attention, so I lay down and let him run his plastic truck all over me. We called it truck massage and the truck wasn't allowed on my head. But he felt attended to, and I got a restful massage of sorts. And sometimes you just can't give anything, so you just explain look, I'm exhausted, I need time alone, you need to do something with your truck alone. Your dog sounds very cute, btw.
Our kids each slept with us until they were about 2 (breastfeeding is infinitely easier when you co-sleep). Then they had a toddler bed in our room for another year.
Our kids *never* had an attachment meltdown. Unlike other kids in the nursery at church, who screamed and cried for their parents the moment they left, our kids were happy to go play with a new set of toys they didn't have at home.
That sounds like a smart approach.
So true Celia. Also, I used to volunteer in the church nursery and noticed that the parents who made a show about leaving, or lingered and made worried faces often made it harder for their toddlers to divert their attention to the toys and other kids
It's the progressive way. A hierarchy of victimhood.
This is not normal.
Yep these women in the social media groups are predominantly progressive/liberals.
It seems to be any sort of identity that is used to be special, not just illness. So convenient to be able to just declare that you are something, rather than put in hard work to develop a talent.
Parents with money and good medical coverage to pay for their indulgence!