Babywise by Gary Ezzo - Read Me If You're Thinking About Reading This Book

Gary Ezzo from Babywise... he was ostracised from his own religious group from his teachings.

I strongly recommend you read this before trying it:

Ezzo.info: Babywise Concerns

:

---

Babywise / Prep for Parenting / Along the Infant Way
Babywise is the secular version of Ezzo's Christian church class curriculum, Preparation for Parenting -- which has also been published under the name Along the Infant Way. Since the original publication of Babywise in 1993 and of Preparation for Parenting in approximately 1987, there have been numerous revisions of both. Critics continue to be concerned about inadequate feeding advice, faulty concepts of child development and a manipulative presentation.

These are explored on the following pages:

Feeding Issues

Child Development Issues

Concerns About Divisiveness

For a general overview, you might want to read Ezzo 101

---

:

---

Babywise and Preparation for Parenting (also known as Let the Children Come: Along the Infant Way) have been criticized by hundreds of professionals in pediatric medicine, human lactation, psychology, anthropology, child development, and theology. Problems have been associated with these programs -- cases of slow weight gain, failure to thrive, depressed babies, even hospitalization. Its feeding recommendations were the subject of a warning sent out by the AAP.

---

:

---

The primary authors of the material, Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo, are self-proclaimed experts. Gary Ezzo has no background or expertise in child development, psychology, breastfeeding, or pediatric medicine, and holds neither an associate's nor a bachelor's degree from any college; his master of arts degree in Christian ministry was granted through a program that awarded credit for life experience in lieu of an undergraduate degree. Anne Marie Ezzo worked only briefly as an R.N. decades ago. It is unclear what, if anything, Babywise co-author Dr. Robert Bucknam contributed to that book, since the earlier religious versions are essentially the same with additional material and do not have his name on the cover.

---

:

---

Insults parents who hold other views. Ezzo teaches a host of insulting things about parents he disagrees with. A sampling of insulting beliefs Ezzo passes on to his followers about parents who don't follow his teaching: they are "in their thinking, [only] Christian up to a point," they are naive, they frequently fail to notice when their babies are sick, they respond to their babies' cries without rational consideration of why the baby is crying, their children never learn to accept delayed gratification and eventually shoplift, push other children off swings, and their children are academically disadvantaged.

---

:

---

Insults health care professionals. The book says that health care providers who don't support Babywise are not up-to-date enough to grasp Babywise's breastfeeding benefits, or are biased because of their professional training (2001, p. 100).

---

:

---

Rhetoric that plays on fear, shame and guilt. The material often seeks to persuade the reader not by providing reason, facts, and logic, but by playing on their fears of sleepless nights and unmanageable children, shaming them for not seeking "God's way," and creating guilt when they face challenges most parents recognize as normal stages of child development and parenting. As parents absorb and then reflect these messages to their friends and church community, it alienates them.

---

Could go on and on and on and on... the website also has a list of recommended Christian reading for parenting.

i wish i had read this before i actually read the book. I was recommended this by my sister-in-law and because its sold in christian stores, i was naive enough to trust it. reading this book was one of the worst mistakes i made, i wish i could have my time again with my daughter in the first few weeks as the book made us parent from a perspective of fear - God doesn't want us to live in fear either. The first few weeks were awful - we felt like failures, breastfeeding was going awfully and she just screamed and screamed; we were too scared to cuddle her to sleep from what we'd read. Thanks to the guidance on bellybelly and on a gentle christian mothers website though, we are able to parent from a place of grace, gentle shepherding and love instead and we thoroughly enjoy being a mummy and daddy now :D we can co-sleep, demand feed, baby-wear, without any fear!! :dance: we read the aba's book and i became more confident about breastfeeding and finally felt like we were doing the right thing.

I have looked at both sides of the story, and have read the material itself - 'Growing Kids God's Way' and I have made up my own opinion about it and I really do question Gary Ezzo's right to give parenting advice.

I find it particularly disturbing that he has called his program 'Growing Kids God's Way' when I do not believe that a lot of what he suggests is God's way at all. He is making a pretty big call there.

I also do not think that his model of a family is really all that biblical. He works under the pretense that fathers are involved with their family. My DH is a great dad - his role every night does not include coming home and sitting down with me for a patronising session of 'couch time' where I give an account of all my daily decisions for his approval. Although Ezzo claims this is not the purpose of 'couch time' at all, it is exactly how it plays out.

I think Gary Ezzo severly underestimates and down plays the role of the mother in children's lives. Really, GKGW set women up as a go between for fathers and their children but does not put any real emphasis on the importance of her role. There is a whole chapter of GKGW devoted to 'Right Beginnings' (which emphasises 'couch time') and a whole chapter devoted to 'The Father's Mandate' but there is really no emphasis put on women. I actually find this to be offensive and I am sick to death of Christian literature playing down the role of women. God doesn't so why does the literature!

Another point of Ezzo's that I am particular unhappy with is his concept of 'First Time Obedience'. Children are not dog. I don't think his process of First Time Obedience puts any value on the feelings of the child. It also goes against EVERY decent parenting strategy I know. The first step of First Time Obedience is to call the child over to you - all parenting strategies say that you should go to the child, and get down to their eye level. This is a highly dominating power play to expect a child to drop what they are doing and come running. I think parents need to show respect for their children (God shows respect for us so we should do the same for our children) and that means that if we want something from our children, respect that they may be busy doing something important to them, go to where they are and talk to them.

I am also very disturbed by the Ezzo's labelling of inappropriate behaviour as 'foolishness' (meaning the child was too young to know better or didn't understand the rule) and 'childishness' (meaning the child understood but still chose to disobey). I find both of these terms demeaning and patronising. I think when a child has not understood the rule a better way to say it would be to call it a misunderstanding and if the child was too young then the rule was not age appropriate. This does not make the child foolish. I also take exception to the term 'childishness'. If a child knows the rule and decides to break it, I think it is better being labelled as not following instructions. I find it a bit disturbing that there seems to be a bit of name calling going on with regards to children making mistakes and testing boundaries. Label the behaviour, not the child.

Another BIG concern I have with the material is how a tantrum is viewed - a child having a tantrum is usually because they are frustrated - either because they cannot express themselves or because they are not getting something that they want. It is not, as Ezzo claims, 'an absolute rejection of parental authority'. It is a child attempting to express their feelings. As parents, it is our job to teach children to express what they are feeling in an appropriate and acceptable way. There is nothing wrong with feeling angry or sad about something that you wanted and didn't get, but the expression of that feeling needs to be appropriate.

Ezzo tells parents to remove the child by putting them in a room by themselves, leave while promising to give a consequence, and come back when the child has calmed down and administer chastisement (previously defined as smacking). Who in their right mind would think that this was an appropriate way to deal with a tantrum? Stop thinking about this from an adult perspective and think about it from the child's perspective for a moment. If you are angry and upset about something, you do a few behaviours that are not appropriate. In this process an adult removes you to your own room and promises that when you calm down they will be back to smack you. WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU STOP THE TANTRUM? What does it achieve coming back and smacking after it is over???

I think we need to teach kids to regulate their own behaviours and part of that would be teaching them to self soothe during a tantrum. Why escalate the situation again by smacking. Often removing a child from where their tantrum is getting attention is consequence enough. When they have calmed down wouldn't it be more beneficial to talk to them about how they were feeling that led to them behaving that way and what they wanted out of behaving that way and work on a plan of things they can do that is an appropriate way to express their feelings next time they feel that way. They are still getting a consequence for their tantrum - they are not getting the thing they wanted in the first place. Their tantrum didn't work.

Obviously, I could point out many more issues that I have with the program and what I have written would be longer than it is now (well done if you have read this much) but they are SOME of the fundamental issues and flaws that I see in this program.

I have also spoken to parents who have done GKGW and Reaching the Heart of Your Teen who feel that Ezzo wrote this program based specifically on the personality of his daughters (apparently he doesn't have boys) and they found it very hard to have success with any of his methods with their own boys.

I think that if you are interested in what Ezzo does, by all means look into it, but don't assume it is a quick fix for behaviour problems or that it is entirely correct. Look at it critically and take into account all the issues. One thing to keep in mind is that there are lots of parenting strategies out there that will 'fix' all your problems very quickly (there are drugs that will do the same), but there are also the long term emotional and psychological issues to consider. Look into the issues and causes of Attachment Disorder because I think in the coming years, children raised in this kind of environment may be presenting with some of these psychological illnesses.

If you are interested in an overveiw of GKGW to have a look at, there link is: Growing Kids God's Way Chapter Summaries

Ezzo has been pretty much discredited in the US except the breakaway group he started up when he was rejected by his peers. Discredited by Christians and child health professionals alike. He has zero credibility.
I'm a disenfranchised raised-christian (no longer identify myself as Christian, not interested in coming back into 'the fold') so you can take my post with a grain of salt, but I did look into Ezzo after I started innocently reading the book, prior to first parenthood, and was very alarmed when I started to ask questions about the book. I even upset my mum (before teh questioning started) by asking her how she did things with me and thought I had figured out why i 'went wrong'. I was so angry with myself and Ezzo for leading me up the garden path.
The best book that transcends sect-ish trends is Unconditional Parenting by Alfie Kohn.

I just had another look over on the Ezzo.info website as I hear it popping up now and again, and there was a 2008 update, the Ezzo's children had aparently chosen not to interact with them - the Ezzo's have become estranged from their own children. How very sad it's gone this far yet they still cannot see the damage they are doing, not just to others but their own family. This is from the timeline on the website:

November 2002 -- Jennifer and Paul Luedke (one of the Ezzos' daughters and her husband) cut off contact with her parents after much prayer, consideration and counsel, based on their personal observation of the same types of issues raised by the LHEF elders. Their hope is that the relationships will be restored following the Ezzos' repentence.

June 2005--Grace Community Church staff pastor Adam Bailie, writing informally in a message board, reaffirmed GCC's position that Ezzo was under church discipline when he left GCC, confirmed that Ezzo's children (one of whom attends GCC) have chosen to limit their interaction with him, and referred readers to 2 official church statements which were attached to the posting. (One about issues with the material itself, and one about issues of character).

August 2008--In the wake of a rumor to the contrary, I verified that Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo remain estranged from their daughters.

Ezzo.info: Quick Start for Parents

Im so glad that I read this thread!