Confessions of a Failed Babywiser
submitted January 2003
This essay is written
both as catharsis and restitution. I regret that I encouraged
many parents to use the Ezzo materials and feel compelled
to warn against it. I also want to share how level-headed
parents can be allured by this program.
There are many other resources online that outline the
medical, Biblical and character problems associated with
Gary Ezzo and his parenting programs. With this, I hope
to offer a personal view of how these materials can negatively
effect a family.
I cradled my six month old son in my arms. J***** was
peacefully sleeping. Tears were streaming down my face,
and anxious thoughts raced through my mind. For the first
time since he was born, I was watching the video my sister
had taken of his birth. I was reliving the joy of a new
life coming into this world. But at the same time I was
so fearful this miracle would be taken from me. Something
was wrong with my baby. I cried more. The doctor had not
yet determined if it was something that could be treated
easily, or if my precious first born was facing a terminal
illness.
That morning I had taken J***** in for a routine six-month
well-baby visit. My pediatrician asked at each visit,
"And are you still breastfeeding? Good job, Mom!"
I glowed at her praise each time we were in the office.
Of course I was breastfeeding-my Mom had modeled it for
me when she nursed my younger siblings and I just assumed
that's what was done. Only later did I realize there was
any "controversy" over breastfeeding or formula
feeding. From birth, J***** nursed like a champ. We teasingly
called him "Baby Sumo" and could count the chubby
wrinkles on his legs. At a well-baby appointment at 3
½ months he weighed a hefty 16 lbs--the 95% percentile
on the baby charts.
That is why the drastic drop to 14 lb 2 oz, caused red
flags to go up at the pediatrician's office. I could see
the concern on our doctor's face throughout the visit,
but she remained calm as she talked to me. Before we left
the office, the doctor had scheduled an appointment for
us with a specialist in Tampa for the following Monday.
We had firm instructions to call her immediately if J*****
had certain symptoms before then.
Waiting through that weekend for our appointment was agony.
They were some of the longest days of my life. Waiting,
worrying, not knowing--scared I was going to lose my baby,
my firstborn.
On Monday my husband took off work so we could go see
the specialist together. We drove the two hours to All
Children's Hospital in Tampa. The specialist was laid
back and tried to calm our fears. He reviewed the very
serious possibilities we were facing. Likely suspects
included a gastrointestinal birth defect, missing enzymes
needed for metabolism, and other possibilities that ranged
from the more minor to life-threatening. Our doctor recommended
we take a conservative diagnostic approach, rather than
bombard our son with tests right away. The first step
in finding the root of the problem was to measure the
calories he was taking in, observe him, and do weight
checks. I saw the doctor notate on the medical forms that
the diagnosis was "Failure to Thrive."
The doctor suggested that I could pump my breastmilk and
notate the amount the baby ate through the bottle, and
follow up with super-concentrated formula. Whenever I
had tried pumping before, I couldn't get more than an
ounce. I was so worried about knowing the exact amount
my son was eating that we decided that I would just stop
nursing cold-turkey. My baby had his very first bottle
of formula on the way home from Tampa. I kept a journal
and wrote down exactly how much he ate and when.
J***** was weighed every other day that first week, and
then once a week for several months. Follow up appointments
with my pediatrician and phone consultations with the
specialist led us to forego further testing. It was determined
that J*****'s FTT was due to insufficient caloric intake.
I had starved my baby.
"Whatever happened to common sense?"
Often people defend Gary Ezzo's parenting materials with
"The materials are great! As long as you use common
sense and don't follow the books legalistically. . ."
The assumption is that there is no inherent problem with
Babywise, just in parents not using common sense.
All I wanted to be when I grew up was a wife and mother.
I remember telling people, in part truthfully and in part
for shock value, "I want six boys!" From the
time I was in high school, I read everything I could get
my hands on about educational theories, child development,
pregnancy and childbirth, and parenting. In college I
volunteered at a Pregnancy Care Center. I read all I could
about reproduction, birth, child care. I checked out nursing
texts from the library to read the sections related to
this, and even considered getting a specialized degree
in reproductive studies. Much of it was from libraries,
with dated collections of books from the '70s and hippies-flavored
natural parenting. I planned on home birthing of course--my
mother had home birthed and so would I. Breastfeeding,
home schooling, healthing eating--all of these things
might be considered part of "Attachment Parenting"
today, but at the time had no real name. It seemed right.
It was in line with what my mother had modeled for me
and it was full of love.
So how did a well-educated, widely-read woman disregard
previous information in favor of Ezzo's parenting books?
How did the 30+ documented medical misstatements in Babywise
fail to raise yellow flags for me?
Within just a few months of marriage, I found out I was
pregnant with our first child. From the beginning I had
a feeling it was a boy. I tried to be careful what I ate,
a la Dr. Brewer and his emphasis on good nutrition in
pregnancy. I wanted to do everything right. I contacted
a midwife as soon as I could, and began reviewing the
books I had collected along the way about pregnancy. It
wasn't just something in books anymore! Here I was living
it for real.
Then I received a couple of books in the mail from a dear
friend of mine. I had been her mother's helper when she
was working at home and had two small boys. One of those
books was Gary Ezzo's "Babywise." It was interesting,
a bit strange--nothing like the other books I had read
about infant parenting. But the way in which it was written
was persuasive and I found myself skimming over it again.
When another friend, a nurse who had worked in NICU units,
called me to congratulate me on my pregnancy, she raved
about a parenting program she took at her church. We had
known each other during our college activism days. "I'll
send you the philosophy section of Preparation for Parenting,"
she promised. When I read the photocopies she sent comparing
the Biblical worldview as it relates to parenting vs.
the secular humanist philosophers, I was convinced that
I needed to look into this more. After all, I was a Christian.
I knew I wanted to do the right thing for our child--no
humanistic philosophies for us.
So I read the turquoise-colored Babywise book carefully
before my son was born. Right before he was due, I discovered
that Ezzo's Preparation for Parenting classes were being
sponsored by our church! We began taking them the week
after he was born.
In his Preparation for Parenting books and videos Gary
Ezzo characterizes attachment parenting as in line with
the philosophies of Secular Humanism and extreme permissiveness.
He then asserts that his parenting ideas are derived from
Biblical principles. With our society filled moral ambiguity
and relativism, I wanted to teach my children right from
wrong and help them develop the character to make good
choices in life. The desire to give my children the best
start made me willing to accept what Ezzo taught.
"It seemed to work great!...I was
well rested. My baby slept well."
I remember my husband and I looking at what Ezzo was teaching,
and looking at the Bible. We could see the principles,
but just didn't see how they connected to the Bible. It
raised yellow flags, but we didn't look too closely at
the time because everything "worked" and seemed
to make sense.
And so my pre-parenting theories made a 180 degree turn--from
natural parenting ideas to Babywise schedules. Every family
we knew at our church was in a Prep or GKGW class.
It seemed to work great! J***** fell into a schedule,
for the most part. He latched on right after he was born,
and nursed like a champ from the beginning. I was thrilled
with the program and encouraged everyone I knew to read
the book or go to the class. I would even hand out our
church's name and phone number to pregnant women I met
at the grocery store! I was a confident mother, as Gary
Ezzo said I would be. I was well rested. My baby slept
well. We were doing the right thing and I felt so sorry
for all the frazzled mothers out there who didn't have
their babies on a Babywise schedule.
A whole video session in the Prep class
was devoted to breastfeeding. I still remember Anne Marie
using a teddy bear to illustrate how a baby should be
correctly aligned, stomach to stomach, when breastfeeding.
Breastfeeding was covered just enough with just enough
facts thrown in to make it all seem accurate. And yet,
much of the information is faulty, especially in the context
of Ezzo's eat-wake-sleep cycle.
One of the things that influenced me was their explanation
of the "demand/supply cycle" of breastfeeding.
They emphasized that it was a combination of frequency/duration/intensity
of the nursing sessions. Thus, the less frequent feedings
that result from an Ezzo schedule seem reasonable because
of course the babies would be eating more at that time.
Babies "snacking" at the breast was belittled
and the emphasis was on encouraging babies to eat full
meals at each nursing session. All of this information
seemed reasonable, and enough seemed accurate that the
things that were contrary to what I had read before in
"The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding" seemed to
make them all fit together okay.
However , Ezzo neglected to give a thorough explanation
of the physiology of breastfeeding. He neglected to factor
in that each mother's capacity for milk storage varies,
as does babies' stomach sizes. Those things in conjunction
can make for breastfeeding problems.
Add into this that the friend who endorsed Prep was a
NICU nurse with children slightly older than mine. With
her endorsement and experience, I never imagined that
it wouldn't be medically sound. Also, this was mid-1996
when the outrage over Ezzo's teachings were still in their
infancy. I was not aware of any legitimate problems with
Ezzo's teachings-I was under the impression that the only
ones who would oppose what he taught were those with a
"humanistic" philosophy of life.
So here I was, still sold on the Ezzo materials even after
my firstborn was diagnosed FTT. I quit breastfeeding cold-turkey
when the doctor recommend switching to a calorie-dense
formula. My fertility returned and our second child was
soon on his way. We moved to another state. There were
no churches in our area offering Prep classes, so we approached
the pastor of the the church we were attending and told
him how great the materials were. It was a "seeker"
church and wanted to offer more resources to the community,
and so was willing for us to facillitate the Prep classes.
Looking back, I wonder how my husband and I had the gall
to lead a parenting class! Our oldest child was barely
a year and a half old-definitely not the voices of experience!
But we were thrilled with our experience with Ezzo (we
thought) and wanted to help other young parents.
Modifying the schedule as needed?
But because of J*****'s FTT, we did caution during the
two classes we led that it was VERY important to continue
to use the "healthy baby growth charts" and
to modify the schedule as needed. With our second, we
decided to stick to a 2 ½-3 hour schedule religiously-and
not go longer than three hours between feedings during
the day. I didn't want to have the milk supply problems
I had before, and thought this would help.
It was during this time that I was first hearing of objections
to the Ezzo materials. I dismissed them pretty easily--they
just don't understand the materials, I thought. They must
be permissive parents feeling defensive about their parenting.
Even though we experienced major problems ourselves, we
were blind to the fact that the fault lay with the philosophy
of the materials. We thought the problems we had with
the materials were because of us, not the basic ideas
Ezzo taught.
I thought T*****, our second child, had started sleeping
through the night early--as Babywise promised and as J*****
had done. It was only because my sister was staying with
us for a few months that I found out I had become immune
to his nighttime cries. I just didn't hear and register
them--she occasionally woke me up to take care of the
baby or would ask "Didn't you hear him crying last
night?"
Preparation for the Toddler Years (Babywise
II)
Meanwhile, with J***** we began implementing the "Preparation
for the Toddler Years" program. In essence, it led
to me controlling his actions and activities throughout
the day. While child development experts agree that routine
and rhythm is healthy for young children, the Ezzo material
schedule tends to be rooted in control. My parenting at
this point was influenced not only by the Ezzo printed
materials, but by contact moms both in real life and on
the internet. Room time, playpen time, highchair time,
blanket time. . . These were to teach the child self-control,
but were really a way for me as a parent to control my
child. I remember teaching "Come to Mommy" as
suggested by Ezzo mothers, and "chastising"
him (Ezzo-speak for spanking) when he didn't. My sister
was watching and I remember her flinching. Looking back,
I see I set up false conflict to teach him this through
spanking. We could have taught that same concept in another
way, a way that was not setting my child and me up to
be adversaries.
Many things were taught this way, and all of it it was
me, as a parent, controlling my child in a way that set
up an antagonistic relationship.
Still it didn't "click" that something was wrong
with Ezzo's programs.
Low supply, early weaning in spite of a modified schedule
T***** didn't have the weight gain problems J***** had,
but my breast milk supply was always precarious. Getting
the flu led to my sister giving him a few bottles, less
nursing, and again and early return of fertility. When
I becamed pregnant, it further affected my milk supply
and T***** was not satisfied while nursing. I remember
him latching on and then crying because he wasn't getting
much. Except for those few bottles while I was sick, he
hadn't had any formula or solids-we were trying to exclusively
breastfeed. When I found out I was pregnant and that was
influencing my supply, I began supplementing with formula.
He soon completely weaned. He was only 7-8 months.
Still, I thought a schedule was good. With this third
baby, though, I was determined to breastfeed successfully.
I was (and still am) convinced that our bodies are designed
to breastfeed. If what I had been doing with the schedule
was undermining that, then it must not really be what
we are intended to do. That was the first chink in the
armor of my closed mind. For R*****, I thought I would
try a eat-wake-eat-sleep cycle. With a move and an extended
vacation with relatives, the cycle became less defined.
I felt guilty about not being "on schedule"
and still didn't subscribe to cue-feeding. I was worried
that I was feeding "on demand" and that would
lead to a demanding child. I was afraid I wouldn't get
good sleep, that the baby wouldn't get good sleep, and
that that would be bad for us. All of these things were
fears planted in my mind by Ezzo's false dichotomy set
up by his manufactured "biblical" philosophy
of parenting vs. the "secular mystics" of parenting.
Ezzo v. science, Ezzo v. doctrine of
grace
So what made me see the light?
Online resources, primarily. I read articles that explained
more fully the physiology of breastfeeding, including
researching on La Leche League's website about hormones
and breastmilk production. Funny, in a way, that it was
the dry and scientific that helped me cut through the
philosophical bullcrap of Ezzo. Also the "Evidence
for Cue-Feeding article." Heidi's article.
I visited the Parent's Place Ezzo Debate Board as a closet
ezzo supporter. I realized that the critics of Ezzo were
intelligent Christian mothers and fathers--not the permissive
parents of whiny children Ezzo portrayed them to be. I
read the theological concerns on Rebecca Prewett's page,
and that made a big impression on me.
My husband has told me the reason he left politics to
work in the ministry is that one day he woke up and realized
that even if he elected all the godly officials he supported,
and they passed the most wonderful legislation, and the
citizens of the land all obeyed the laws, his work would
have only created better behaved pagans. That is a lot
of what I see in Ezzo's materials. In the name of Christianity,
parents are taught to have better behaved children. But
only God changes the heart.
Concurrent with this, was some spiritual struggles of
my own, especially in the area of truly understanding
God's grace. I like legalism, I like following the rules
and being a good girl. Yet, there is sin in my life that
rears its ugly head on a daily basis. How does God deal
with me and the sin in my life? I realized that I was
not relating to my children the way that God relates to
me. I was expecting my children to "Obey, right away,
all the way with a happy heart!" I realized that
I do not do that. I procrastinate. I complain. I do jobs
halfway. I argue with God. Are these good things? No--and
I want better for my children. Yet God has dealt with
me, an adult, with more understanding and gentleness than
I have with my children. God is often described as being
"Slow to anger, abounding in love, full of compassion.
. ."
When I tried to make my children obey the Ezzo way, I
wasn't responding the way I see God respond to me. Of
course I loved my children! And some days I was slow to
anger. But I wasn't full of compassion and often anger
was just under the surface. God allowed me to starkly
see my sin, my disobedience, my need for Jesus every day,
my need for His grace--and that was really the key for
me to see that what Gary Ezzo teaches is not what I see
as being in line with Biblical parenting.
Cue-feeding brings breastfeeding success
at last
So where am I now?
My third I began to cuddle and nurse in the morning. We cue-fed and I was able to breastfeed him until he was about 19 months old. At that point, I was pretty "touched out" and expecting #4, and we were in the middle of another move.
With our fourth, from the beginning I wanted
to focus more on nurturing and less on controlling. He
has been cue fed. I got a wonderful mayawrap pouch and
dh and I jokingly referred to myself as a "marsupial
mom." That title was derisively applied by Gary Ezzo
to mothers who use slings frequently, but now it's a badge
of honor. I haven't struggled with my milk supply at all
and he's still nursing strong at 26 months. He does wake
to nurse at night or I rouse him before I go to bed. I
am not losing any sleep with it. We co slept-with him
in a pack 'n' play in our room or cuddling in our bed
until he was about a year. Now he sleeps in his brothers'
room.
Our boys co-sleep--piled together like puppies. Some of
them come to crawl in bed with me in the middle of the
night, and sometimes I welcome that and sometimes I groggily
tell them to make a bed on the floor. I'm still wary of
the label "attachment parenting" because of
the negative connotations it was given by Gary Ezzo. It's
hard to change those early impressions. But if you were
to look at how I parent now it would probably look like
"attachment parenting".
God has been working in my life in many areas, and I am
still not the mother I want to be. Yet I am thankful for
His grace and that He has used my mistakes and failures
in parenting to teach me more about Himself. I trust that
even my failures with my children He will use to make
them who He wants them to be.
