I don't think tapping a behind (I'm imagining something very light to get attention) is the same as spanking. So I will reserve freaking out.
I can't believe OP was stupid enough to post that on the bump though.
You don't tap a fucking baby to get its attention.
And the whole idea that the baby was "misbehaving" is the truly damaging part here.
If they think a 5 month old is throwing a temper tantrum, what will their expectations be of an 18 month old? And how many "spank-worthy" offenses will there be?
I don't think tapping a behind (I'm imagining something very light to get attention) is the same as spanking. So I will reserve freaking out.
I can't believe OP was stupid enough to post that on the bump though.
For me the problem is that they are using a physical punishment for a behavior that is normal for babies and see no real problem with that. And it is starting when the baby is five months old? yikes
When my older sister was a new mom, her MIL told her that her kids (so my BIL and his brothers) never woke up crying because she (MIL) would wake up knowing that she'd be needed soon and would go stand by the crib until they woke up. She suggested that my sister learn to do the same.
I like TCHK a lot, but she's treading towards this type of impossibly superior mom lately.
But you fed your child when she was hungry. I am not saying you should feed your child every two hours I am saying you should feed your infant when he or she is hungry. Sometimes infants need to eat more often during growth spurts. We've already had this discussion on this board and almost everyone agreed that it was shitty not to feed your infant when he or she was hungry because you were trying to stretch out feedings. Someone on my BMB asked the same thing wondering how she could stretch out feedings to 4 hours. Um, you have a 20 week old infant, you don't, if that's not what your baby needs. You feed your baby when he or she is hungry, not when it's convenient for you (I'm speaking generally, not at you). If your baby was happy to eat every 4 hours that's amazing and I'm jealous! My friend has a baby 6 weeeks older than Harper and she eats every 3.5-4 hours. My baby can't go that long between feeds.
But to equate feeding every four hours to abuse is ridiculous. At 20 weeks (5 months) my kid was sleeping 6 to 8 hours at night. I wasn't abusing her.
Exactly this. When my daughter was 14 weeks, she was sleeping 6-7 hours, and we didn't wake to feed her. It's not abuse. She did it on her own. I do get the sentiment though, feed and discipline your child within reason.
To be fair, though, her baby is at that magical 4-10 month old range where they're largely delightful and it seems like one would enjoy nothing else than to be at their beck and call.
The #1 sign you are irritating the entire board and need a tone adjustment : post a thread in which everyone unanimously agrees with your point and you STILL end up pissing people off.
I don't even have kids and I've been here long enough to know you say THE LEAST AMOUNT POSSIBLE about parenting in order to gain commiseration with your point AND NOT A SINGLE WORD MORE. 1.) People spanked their 5 month old baby, wtf is wrong with them! << Totally appropriate, cue unanimous agreement, hair pats for the horrors you have stumbled across. 2.) People spanked their 5 month old baby, wtf is wrong with them! That is equivalent to feeding your baby every four hours! << Totally not appropriate, superfluous judgement, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars.
I'm getting annoyed with the teaching tone tchk has adopted as of late.
Right? It's as if she's the only person who has ever seen a baby, let alone taken care of one.
"Well guys, they're small because they're young."
::05 furiously scribbles notes::
Lol. My son is currently eating at 3 hour intervals, apparently happily and with my pediatrician's blessing. I'm very sad to learn that I'm doing it all wrong.
Right? It's as if she's the only person who has ever seen a baby, let alone taken care of one.
"Well guys, they're small because they're young."
::05 furiously scribbles notes::
Lol. My son is currently eating at 3 hour intervals, apparently happily and with my pediatrician's blessing. I'm very sad to learn that I'm doing it all wrong.
I guess I'm not getting the same thing from TCHK's post b/c I read it as "if your baby is hungry but you don't feed him/her b/c YOU want to wait 4 hours, then that's bad." not as "feeding your baby every 4 hours is bad."
I think some of you are taking her words personally and just want to jump over anything she says about parenting.
I guess I'm not getting the same thing from TCHK's post b/c I read it as "if your baby is hungry but you don't feed him/her b/c YOU want to wait 4 hours, then that's bad." not as "feeding your baby every 4 hours is bad."
I think some of you are taking her words personally and just want to jump over anything she says about parenting.
This.
I'm not a mom. I take it personal exactly never.
But, her mommy postings lately smack of "I'm not saying I'm doing it the best, but I'm totally doing it the best! And HERE'S HOW!"
I disagree kooshball. I like Verona and her blog and think she's a nice person and a good mother, but she is coming off with a smug superiority. I don't know, it's hard to put my finger on it exactly, but even when she posts "every baby is different, that's what works for my baby, how lucky your baby only eats every 4 hours blah blah" (paraphrasing), the sense is there that she really doesn't think that's what's best for other people's babies.
It's because it's the "to each their own, because I wouldn't be caught doing it that way" tone rather than a "to each their own, because babies are weird and different and parenting is hard so KOKO" tone. It's not a content issue, it's a tone issue. I also have zero kids lol.
Lol. My son is currently eating at 3 hour intervals, apparently happily and with my pediatrician's blessing. I'm very sad to learn that I'm doing it all wrong.
I think she said you would only be doing it wrong if it was every four hours during a growth spurt.
i'm sure there's something i'm doing wrong.
i have raised up to almost age 4 a healthy, happy kid and didn't alter her feeding schedule one time when she was an infant. i mean, half an hour here or there in response to obvious (real) hunger cues, but there was no divine inspiration from the heavens that omg NOW she needs 2 hour intervals when up until 3 days earlier 4 hour intervals had done just fine. so i just KOKO with what worked for me. which was a schedule. that i set. in consultation with my pediatrician and various books. not my straight to the heart motherlove of insight. and, granted he's only 10 days old, that's my current plan for this guy.
But to equate feeding every four hours to abuse is ridiculous. At 20 weeks (5 months) my kid was sleeping 6 to 8 hours at night. I wasn't abusing her.
OMG. I think you are still not getting it. If it is natural and pleasing to YOUR child to eat every 4 hours and that's how often your baby wants to eat then that is NOT abuse. It is neglect if your child is hungry and you do not feed your baby because you don't want to or don't think they should be eating. I'm not sure how many possible ways I can explain it. I am not saying that feeding every 4 hours is abusive. Many babies can go that long between feeds. I'm saying that if a baby is hungry every 2 hours but you let your baby scream for two hours because YOU think they should be eating every 4 hours then that is a problem.
But is anyone in this post doing that or saying it's okay?
Veronika, I think one of the consequences of being decently internet famous like you are is that generally speaking, those people can get so used to tuning out all the pointless negativity they receive that they also sort of start to lose their radar for when they have actually hurt someone's feelings based on something they actually said. I think you've been hurting a lot of feelings lately in parenting posts because you're just making brief passing comments in a pretty black and white way. It is reasonable that someone like pagas would get frustrated with a passing accusation that scheduled feeding is abuse because that was how she thought she was best taking care of her baby, it had nothing to do with her own convenience, and your tone (especially in context to the multitude of other parenting posts you have been kind of weird in lately) was very much implying that any parent led schedule has to be because of parental convenience.
Everyone agrees with your content, so the only thing left that could leave hurt feelings is how you are saying things. Not everyone is omg misreading you, I think you are omg being kind of oblivious.
I guess I'm not getting the same thing from TCHK's post b/c I read it as "if your baby is hungry but you don't feed him/her b/c YOU want to wait 4 hours, then that's bad." not as "feeding your baby every 4 hours is bad."
I think some of you are taking her words personally and just want to jump over anything she says about parenting.
My issue is nothing personal with her, it is the fact she is equating scheduled feedings with spanking an infant.
BAH! No she didn't! She equated *trying to schedule feedings ON YOUR TIMETABLE DESPITE YOUR CHILD'S NEED/HUNGER* with spanking an infant.
I only skimmed though this. But a few things: 1. Obviously V missed the epic baby wise debate we had here recently. 2. I don't think she is acting superior although obviously disagreeing with pagas. It happens. We all have different parenting philosophies. 3. I didn't read half the thread
It's almost like making your baby go hungry during a growth spurt because you only want your baby to eat every 4 hours. NO. Your baby is hungry. Your baby can't help that he or she is hungry. FEED YOUR BABY.
to be an underhanded dig at people that fed their babies on a schedule instead of on demand (or what the fuck ever, I'm not a mom, not sure what it's called). And, people that did that - or do that - aren't abusing their babies.
But nobody was super duper annoyed until this:
She has a version cry she does only when she's hungry and I would not make her wait because there was still an hour until her next feed. Breastfed babies sometimes eat more often anyway because they digest it faster.
Which seems to say that TCHK knows *exactly* what baby H needs by the tone of her cry. All you moms that hold your screaming baby for an hour after a diaper change, feeding, snuggles, and whatever else makes babies stop crying and none of it worked? Sorry you suck so bad. If only you, like TCHK, knew what your baby wanted by the tone of the cry! Life would be so much easier.
And plus also throwing in what seems like yet another dig at/against FF moms. "Oh. Well, you probably had it easier with your FF baby because they don't digest as fast a BF babies, so no wonder you weren't stuck feeding every 2/2.5 hours! I wish I had it as easy as you and my baby only needed to feed every 2.5 hours...."
Then, of course, this is not the first thread in which TCHK has made superior sounding mothering comments, and you have people annoyed.
It's not personal to me, and I'm not a mom, but I absolutely see where people think TCHK has a superiority thing going on these days.
I guess I'm not getting the same thing from TCHK's post b/c I read it as "if your baby is hungry but you don't feed him/her b/c YOU want to wait 4 hours, then that's bad." not as "feeding your baby every 4 hours is bad."
.
That's what I got too. I haven't taken offense to anything tkhk said in this thread. I found saraandmichaels post more annoying - probably because I am paranoid that the other Moms at playgroup think I'm "terrible" for apparently not feeding my kid either. Despite the fact she's twice the size of most of theirs.