![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 17 to 41 of 62. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on February 25, 2011, at 16:37:28
In reply to Re: New research on Depressed Mom's and their babies » Dinah, posted by floatingbridge on February 25, 2011, at 15:44:03
Anyone can answer!
I didn't either. I ask because a perfectly "healthy" mother strongly suggested it to me as the best thing that could happen to parenthood. While I, perhaps sensitized by a history of depression and with my own sensitivity to abandonment, rejected the idea of leaving a baby to cry until the baby gives up on the idea of crying to gain attention.
People in clinical depression likely have sluggish reward centers in general. I don't know that this causes any more ill to a baby than any other sort of emotional misattunement.
It seems hard to me to believe that an experience as common as postpartum depression would have persisted in an evolutionary sense if it was an unmitigated negative and harmful experience for offspring. The general thought is that it brought community support for the mother. But perhaps it also narrows the mother's focus to the smaller world of mother and child, and away from the world at large and its distractions. I'm not of course saying it's a good thing. It's nothing I would wish on anyone, having experienced it myself.
Posted by floatingbridge on February 25, 2011, at 18:24:48
In reply to Re: New research on Depressed Mom's and their babies » floatingbridge, posted by Dinah on February 25, 2011, at 16:37:28
> Anyone can answer!
:)
> rejected the idea of leaving a baby to cry until the baby gives up on the idea of crying to gain attention.
Yes. Me too. A newly graduated psychiatrist friend coined Ferberize as
she struggled w/ implementation. She opted for Ferber for convenience (not a trivial decision) because she was starting work.>
> It seems hard to me to believe that an experience as common as postpartum depression would have persisted in an evolutionary sense if it was an unmitigated negative and harmful experience for offspring. The general thought is that it brought community support for the mother. But perhaps it
also narrows the mother's focus to the smaller world of mother and child, and away from the world at large and its distractions. I'm not of course saying it's
a good thing. It's nothing I would wish on anyone, having experienced it myself.Interesting. A very self-actualuzed (imo)
friend described being raised by her depressed mom as 'cozy'. My own early experience was like being cocooned w/
my son. I worry about the effects of depression in my case more from a social modeling perspective (if that is the right word) as isolating for him--he's a fair part extrovert.However, depression wasn't deep enough to keep me from, ummm, you know, like smiling (just maybe less frequently and truly joyously).
And here we come back to reward centers lighting up. Truly joyous. Quietly joyous. I hate to think of my son missing that (quite foreign to me) early experience.
How many paths diverge before a single person? As the neurons proliferate and
are pruned....fb
Posted by Dinah on February 25, 2011, at 18:44:59
In reply to Re: New research on Depressed Mom's and their babies » Dinah, posted by floatingbridge on February 25, 2011, at 18:24:48
I have always regretted that my son missed out on the spontaneity that some mothers show. But I have never been spontaneous, even when not depressed. I haven't the gift of spontaneity and I haven't the gift of joy.
I'd like to see my son exhibiting joy. But I'm not sure he has that gift either.
Your son may be more extroverted than you are. But if you accept his friends and encourage him to enter into social engagements, I think you'll do fine. It's not a bad thing for kids to recognize that not everyone is the same. As long as your encourage your son to be the best him he can be, you'll be modeling acceptance and love.
Posted by floatingbridge on February 25, 2011, at 19:11:06
In reply to Re: New research on Depressed Moms » floatingbridge, posted by Phillipa on February 24, 2011, at 19:52:02
Phillipa, I have a flair for drama :)
For reals (as my son would say), o.k. So I don't deal with full blown borderline. The talk is that borderline (an awful misnomer/carry over) is on a spectrum (the latest model for describing everything). If I overlay the diagnostic chart for c-ptsd on borderline, there is a very near correlation as I see it. Am I
missing something really significant? So bad c-ptsd meets borderline?People don't believe how miserable I feel because, as my pdoc says, I 'present' so well. One of the big yucky things about aging, is that 'old' people (I like to say elderly) can be so disrespected and disenfranchised in United States' culture
that a very well-adjusted elderly woman could be suspect ("crazy old coot") just for speaking her mind. Like being old is on par with bad hygiene.Aaaanyways, let's say I'm used to not being believed until someone (outside my family) in a rare sees me full-on upset. In my family of origin, I always sucked it up, patched family quarrels, played good daughter, etc.
I don't think borderline is far from the mark. A more accurate diagnosis is helpful--I just want my symptoms addressed, get the right therapy and
meds. Borderline implies intense suffering, a bereft and empty sense of identity, experiencing the self broken beyond repair. Many conditions create these feelings, however in borderline (and c-ptsd), these feeling persist.Many folks w/ borderline or borderline
features do not act out. The poster children for BPD are absolutely raging, self-serving before every loved one, abusive, sadistic, deny all culpability in a relationship, and basically f*ck up everything around them.I had a boss once who sexually molested all the waitresses on their paydays. He was also a gangster, rapist, perhaps murderer. Was he borderline? Maybe he was. (You know, a Sopranos-type guy.) Btw, I never finished the Sopranos. Was Tony's problem ever revealed?
Is the big difference a total lack of self-reflection?
Thanks for being surprised, Phillipa :)
> FB what is this about borderline? That's new isn't it? I was depressed when third born as she cried 24 hours a day and had to be held this whole time which was done. I did the day shift, husband at time did night shift. She projectile vomited each feeding on the floor. When from breast to goat's milk with lots of others inbetween. So she received more than first two who slept through night age two weeks. Phillipa
Posted by floatingbridge on February 25, 2011, at 19:13:03
In reply to Re: New research on Depressed Mom's and their babies » floatingbridge, posted by Dinah on February 25, 2011, at 18:44:59
Dinah, you're a gem :)
Thanks.
Posted by emmanuel98 on February 25, 2011, at 19:23:49
In reply to Re: New research on Depressed Mom's and their babies, posted by Dinah on February 25, 2011, at 14:18:25
My daughter never fell asleep easily and woke constnanly until I put her in our bed at 6 months. I tried Ferber, but it didn't work. Every time I came into her room to reassure her (as Ferber suggests) she cried harder. She cried all night, every night for a week until I gave it up because I was falling asleep on my feet during the day. She needed physical contact. Whe she started crawling at 7 months, I got rid of her crib, put her to sleep on a futon on the floor. My husband and I got a futon on our floor and she would wake and crawl into our bed, attach herself to my breast and everyone slept well. She continued coming into our bed late at night until she was nine years old. I don't think sleeping alone is normal for small children. I read this book by Penelope something and she found that almost all US mothers said their child slept alone, but when questioned more closely, 50% said their child had slept with them the night before.
Posted by floatingbridge on February 25, 2011, at 20:25:43
In reply to Ferber, posted by emmanuel98 on February 25, 2011, at 19:23:49
I could kiss you :). Besides that, somehow I did not imagine you are a mom. I don't know why....
Our son just started wanting to sleep in his own bed. He's newly seven. He slips into 'our' bed every night. I'm glad both to have the bed to myself if hubby works late and cuddle with him, too.
You're not in the States, are you? (Our 'euro-rep', eurorep is on hiatus.) Many cultures have a family bed. In the States, it's considered to be somehow harmful. A NYT article last year or prior found a similar if not higher number of unreported co-sleeping.
Then there is the issue of breastfeeding past a year....
Posted by Phillipa on February 25, 2011, at 20:59:02
In reply to on the borderline » Phillipa, posted by floatingbridge on February 25, 2011, at 19:11:06
FB sounds like that boss was more a psychopath than borderline but just an opinion. The Borderlines I cared for split staff and some did try to cause trouble but some were extremly complaint. I must do my searching and see difference between c ptsd and borderline. Just a question has bipolar been brought up before? Love Phillipa
Posted by Dinah on February 25, 2011, at 21:06:28
In reply to Ferber, posted by emmanuel98 on February 25, 2011, at 19:23:49
My son liked to be held when he was an infant. All the time. My mother could get him to sleep and lift him into his crib without waking him. No one else could manage that on a regular basis. Snugglies were a lifesaver for us.
He often slept with us, or one of us slept on the rocker in his room, until he was maybe two years old. We got him a racing car bed, and with that enticement he willingly slept in his own bed. We let him lead us in setting up a bedtime ritual that made him feel safe and secure in sleeping on his room, although one of us usually read to him and sat with him till he fell asleep for a while after the transition.
I could certainly understand his desire to feel safe and held.
Posted by morgan miller on February 26, 2011, at 1:34:45
In reply to Re: Ferber » emmanuel98, posted by floatingbridge on February 25, 2011, at 20:25:43
If we look at things from an evolutionary perspective, it might make sense that it is fairly norma and healthy for a young child to sleep with the parents often. I'd have to do a little research on this.
I think the pressing issue here when it comes to mothers suffering from mental illness is the potential for and likelihood of neglect. When parents neglect their children, it is usually done so in ways that the parents are completely unaware of or in denial of. There are many types of neglect, all of which have great potential for damage.
Posted by Dinah on February 26, 2011, at 8:07:21
In reply to Re: Ferber, posted by morgan miller on February 26, 2011, at 1:34:45
Neglect can cause harm, certainly. But not all misattunement is neglect. Neglect is a loaded term, often implying carelessness or indifference. That's an implication depressed mothers aren't guilty of just because they're depressed.
My point is that even the "healthiest" of parents, and even under the best medical advice, can do things that could conceivably cause psychological damage to a vulnerable infant. And I'm assuming that both by genetics and the soup of placental stress hormones, a depressed mother is more likely to give birth to a child likely to be particularly vulnerable.
Parents let children down. Even babies. The myth of the all nurturing mother is a myth. "Healthy" mothers can and do bring their infants to day care where there is a less than one to one ratio, usually through necessity not indifference. "Healthy" mothers might drink or smoke or take drugs, and there is both physical and emotional repercussions for the child. "Healthy" mothers are separated from their infants for reasons beyond their control, just as depressed mothers may be separated in some ways from their infants, for reasons beyond their control. "Healthy" mothers leave babies feeling the pain of loss and suffering the fear of abandonment alone to cry until they throw up and give up the hope of having their cries bring the succor of a parent's arms and cease to cry for attention and become more "agreeable". To the parents they're more agreeable of course. And they do this on the advice of doctors, who seem to be working under the assumption that a baby crying in loneliness and fear and for consolation is doing so as a manipulation. And frankly, some "healthy" mothers will look at their babies without joy because babies are not always a joy on a minute by minute basis. Of course they are as a whole. But a colicky baby or a fretful baby or even a perfectly normal baby does not elicit feelings of joy all the time from any but the most saintly of mothers. A particularly fretful baby may elicit joy on an infrequent basis, and may even elicit a conditioned negative response. Heck, the reward centers may be no more than a biological urge to let down milk, not a call to joyous interaction. Healthy parents can and do cause harm to their babies with no more intent to harm than depressed mothers.
Obviously mothers who are suffering from post partum psychosis or who are so depressed that they are unable to care for their child are in need of assistance, and their child should be properly cared for. But for milder forms of depression, I'd pick a depressed mother over a selfish, self centered, or immature one. In fact, I suspect one evolutionary advantage to depression in mothers may be to make them more aware of their potential deficiencies as parents, and more anxious to provide proper care. Even if it's without a spark of joy. Given the historically young age of parents, that may be even more of a possibility.
And again frankly, where the h*ll are the fathers in these studies. Only mothers can give the proper nurturing to infants?
What is this about for you? You've brought it up more than once. Is this about deciding whether or not to have children for yourself? Is it reflecting on the harm you may have done to your own child? Or is it about explaining your own emotional distress in terms of what others did to you, instead of in terms of what biological vulnerabilities you have? Even though those biological vulnerabilities were completely beyond your control and the result of faulty genes or prenatal experience? Does it give more hope to assume that the reason is post birth experiences, because those can be corrected through therapy? While more intrinsic causes imply that one is flawed forever? Everyone is flawed forever in one way or another. It doesn't mean they are doomed.
Have you read Daniel Goleman's work on Social Intelligence. I think that's the one. In which he says that research is showing that a mother's interactions with a baby are in part influenced by that baby's own personality? That babies aren't small blank slates ready to be formed by the world, but come into the world with a fair amount of personality already made?
If you try hard enough, you can find reasons why an adult can be the way they are. Every child, if they go back to infancy and speculation on what their moments of attunement were like with their parents, will find reason enough for any psychological distress. If that's important to you, then that's fine. I could do it too, if I liked. I *wish* that my mother was merely a dedicated and conscientious mother who was depressed herself when I was an infant. If that's all my son has to complain of when he's older, I consider myself to have given him a far healthier childhood than I had myself. Which is the evolutionary ideal I think. Will it lead to a better outcome? That depends on him and his own inborn characteristics as much as it does on me. Mind you, I doubt that's all he'll have to complain about when he's older. "She's too smothering." "She's too distant." "She's too odd." "She's overly concerned with convention." "She never trusted me." "She always trusted me." And if I was a perfect mother - which I'm not "It was too much pressure to be so perfect." Ideal mothering for one child doesn't suit another. And any child, in a therapist's office, can find some reason why their mother is to blame for them being there. If that child has to look back to their infancy and the way their mother looked at them without a spark of joy, their mother has reason for pride, not shame.
I doubt I'll be that lucky. I continue to be imperfect to this day.
Maybe instead of saying that mentally ill parents are harmful to their children, it could be generalized to "imperfect parenting is harmful to children." And since perfection is sadly lacking in this perfect world, the unnecessary modifier could be removed leaving "parenting is harmful to children." How harmful it is seen to be may be more up to the child than the parent.
Posted by Phillipa on February 26, 2011, at 11:33:38
In reply to Re: Ferber, posted by morgan miller on February 26, 2011, at 1:34:45
Never knew there was a name for it but I guess used the Ferber method for first two children and it worked like a charm at two weeks both slept through the night from ll pm til 9am. And today they are very successful adults both doing extremly well. Third child had problems and couldn't self sooth had to be held but by l8 months healthy and sleeping fine. Just my personal story. Phillipa
Posted by floatingbridge on February 26, 2011, at 14:19:47
In reply to Re: Ferber, posted by morgan miller on February 26, 2011, at 1:34:45
> I think the pressing issue here when it comes to mothers suffering from mental illness is the potential for and likelihood of neglect. When parents neglect their children, it is usually done so in ways that the parents are completely unaware of or in denial of.Yes. Unaware I would put in one category, and denial another. Relatively healthy people use denial. That's a key element in some of the finest literature and drama (thinking here of Oedipus Tyrannous aka Rex).
I think the study you posted was interesting and important. I'm pleased by your use of 'parents', because there is incredible focus on the maternal bond. Since the majority of PB posters are from the US or other Western modeled cultures, that our social reality.
Sometimes I try and imagine various tribal systems. Some do not place the maternal bond above others in regards to a child's (and future 'citizen's) healthy adjustment to adult tribal life.
So I offer that the importance of maternal bond may not be hard-wired,
as long as a child's needs are met by (emphasis here) consistent caregivers so that reliable bonds form.(I think that is why many children, despite studies suggesting otherwise, are really fine in some daycare situations. Like my psychiatrist friend's child, who was in daycare from 8-5. Fortunately, my friend was able to find and afford a daycare with practically zero turnover.)
But you and I are born and bred US citizens. So any maladjustments are to this culture and are created, in part, by the lens of our culture which (imo) is male centered and the female can be, at times reduce to a symbol and fetishized. You know, join Uncle Sam and fight for
apple pie. Actually, the male is reduced to a symbl, too. Maybe a symbol in which more power is invested. Some of
my male friends confess to feeling the
variuos stings of cultural cues that question their manliness.w guys who feel less. (Know that is something to help my
son navigate. Luckily Dad is pretty comfortable with those issues.) An interesting question here would be what is our culture's correlative of not being fatherly enough.>
>There are many types of neglect, all of
which have great potential for damage.Yes, so true. As an anxious mom, the world seems riddled with pitfalls and dangers, some unintentionally put in place by myself.
Lunchtime. Enter my son shooting his playmobil cannon as a hand gun (since
we won't buy him guns--sticks, Lego, and now playmobil are fine. Now that's something that could send him to the couch as an adult in this country, lol.No time to proof-read.
Signed,
fb, mother in the wild, wild West
Posted by Dinah on February 26, 2011, at 19:06:23
In reply to Re: Ferber » morgan miller, posted by floatingbridge on February 26, 2011, at 14:19:47
I want to be clear that I didn't mean to be critical of daycare or even Ferber. The kids of the parent I know who recommended that to me seem perfectly fine.
I was just pointing out that these things happen whether or not a mother is depressed. And that any harm that can come from a lack of deep joy in a mother's eyes can come from any number of other causes that are perfectly normal to childhood.
I guess I just don't see the point of pointing out that something beyond a parent's control can be harmful. Sure. Any number of things beyond a parent's control can be harmful. I think it's more helpful to point out the importance of behaviors that are healthy for a child, and to reduce behaviors that may cause psychic harm. From the point of view of future children, that seems a more sensible approach.
From the point of view of a current adult child, is it necessary to assign blame for something unintentional? Different people have different needs. It can be needs that weren't met in childhood. It can be that needs were met but the ability for a child to meet those needs him/herself wasn't taught. For whatever reason, at this point it is perfectly reasonable to seek to fill those needs, or to seek to learn how to fill them ourselves.
I'm all for holding parents accountable for abuse or neglect. But I'm not sure I am in favor of holding well intentioned parents doing the best they can do to blame for things like not giving eye contact or not having joy or even for leaving them crying when they needed comfort because their doctor advised that that was what good parents do. What is the point? Doesn't that just cause more problems by holding parents to perfectionistic standards, and by extension holding those same standards to ourselves?
It's not ideal to be depressed and a parent. It's not ideal to be colicky and a baby. It's not ideal to have a physical infirmity that limits mobility as a parent. Long hours in daycare is not ideal. A lot more things are not ideal than are.
As long as we can identify our current needs and map out a strategy to have our needs met, does it really matter?
I'm not talking about gross neglect or abuse. I'm talking about not having joy in the eyes or having reward centers light up. I'm talking about responsible childcare or the ferber method.
Posted by Dinah on February 26, 2011, at 19:21:50
In reply to Re: Ferber, posted by Phillipa on February 26, 2011, at 11:33:38
I suspect that human infants were designed to be resilient. Conditions of life were hardly such over the period of time humans were alive to allow for perfect mother/child madonna bonding moments. It's only very recently we've had to worry about things like eye contact, when our ancestors were likely more worried about being able to feed their kids, or getting them out of town as the plague hit, or carting them along as they pursued game.
I think you've mentioned that one of your children was fussy as an infant. That must have been difficult. My son wasn't really. He just liked to be held, and when he was held he was perfectly agreeable. I have a deep understanding of what it feels like to call out and receive no comfort. I didn't mind his wanting to be held. It didn't seem unreasonable to me. Don't we all want to be held? I'm glad we were available to hold him. When he was ready to be alone, he managed it just fine.
Posted by Dinah on February 26, 2011, at 19:34:13
In reply to Re: Ferber » Phillipa, posted by Dinah on February 26, 2011, at 19:21:50
But I do apologize if I got a bit heated.
I know no one intended offense, and I hope everyone realizes that I didn't either.
I do think it's important to do studies on what *actions* are good or bad for babies, long term. And on the interpersonal dynamics between parent and child. Otherwise we'd still be thinking we need to liberally apply the rod. The best advice for parenting changes over time. It's best that that change have good science behind them.
My husband used to laugh that he could see me mentally flipping through the parenting books when I was confronted with a challenge. That was likely true. I wish I could have been a perfect parent for my son. I ended up being not very spontaneous. :)
So carry on. I'm bowing out. I'm advocating acceptance of what is in a not very accepting way. I'm aware of the irony.
No offense at all intended, Morgan Miller.
Posted by Phillipa on February 26, 2011, at 20:13:57
In reply to Re: Ferber, posted by Dinah on February 26, 2011, at 19:34:13
Dinah correct third was in and out of hospital cried 24 hours a day despite being held whole time. And in the pediatrician's one time I think the doc didn't believe she cried and cried as he said put her on the table let her cry. Did and she popped a hernia at two months and had to undergo surgery. Sent to Yale New Haven peds ICU for two weeks and their diagnosis hyperkinetic. Legs never stopped moving, had to be changed second she urinated, isolette had to be covered to sensitive to light. Was told not one person could care for her and the nurses failed to put any weight on her. I got her home and managed to get three lbs on her in a month a miracle in itself. My other two were not born with this disposition or whatever. Roughest time of my life. Phillipa
Posted by Dinah on February 26, 2011, at 20:26:39
In reply to Re: Ferber » Dinah, posted by Phillipa on February 26, 2011, at 20:13:57
I imagine it was. Getting enough sleep is tough enough with an average baby. You and your family must have been sleep deprived *and* on sensory overload.
But those times pass, and the better parts of parenthood can take over. :)
Posted by Phillipa on February 26, 2011, at 21:22:38
In reply to Re: Ferber » Phillipa, posted by Dinah on February 26, 2011, at 20:26:39
Yes each time she entered the hospital home to sleep. The worst was when we went up later to visit she was sleeping peacefully. They never told us they were drugging her to sleep. So went through such guilt feeling I was a horrible Mother. l8 months it was all over and life back to normal. Phillipa
Posted by morgan miller on February 27, 2011, at 0:40:05
In reply to Re: Ferber » morgan miller, posted by Dinah on February 26, 2011, at 8:07:21
Dinah, just because a mother is depressed or has some other mental illness, does this negate the fact that not giving a child what they need is neglect?
In psychology, from my experience, neglect, just like criticism, is applied to a spectrum of things. Neglect is simply not giving children the love, attention and nurture they need for proper development. It is that simple.
And if your parents have let you down, on a consistent basis that negatively impacts your development, it is neglect.
Posted by morgan miller on February 27, 2011, at 0:43:02
In reply to Re: Ferber » morgan miller, posted by floatingbridge on February 26, 2011, at 14:19:47
>So I offer that the importance of maternal bond may not be hard-wired,
as long as a child's needs are met by (emphasis here) consistent caregivers so that reliable bonds form.I don't think the maternal bond has to be the strongest for a child to be healthy. But, there is so much research and evidence out there saying that the maternal bond is the one that has the greatest impact on development, for both girls and boys.
Posted by Dinah on February 27, 2011, at 1:02:14
In reply to Re: Ferber, posted by morgan miller on February 27, 2011, at 0:40:05
I don't believe I used a mother's depression as an excuse for neglect. That would be quite unlike me.
I think I said that the sort of thing you were describing could happen whether or not a mother is depressed, and is not actually all that uncommon. I don't see any particular reason to single out depressed mothers. Yes, it is a spectrum. I suppose we disagree on where on the spectrum it belongs, and possibly also on what constitutes what is necessary for proper development in general as opposed to what an individual might consider to have been necessary for their proper development.
Obviously this idea is very important to you. Is it part of your therapy? My therapist isn't an attachment therapist. I really can't even comprehend it in the same terms you do. Therefore I'm letting this conversation go.
I hope you are able to find what your mother was unable to provide for you.
Posted by morgan miller on February 27, 2011, at 1:09:07
In reply to Re: Ferber, posted by Dinah on February 26, 2011, at 19:06:23
>But I'm not sure I am in favor of holding well intentioned parents doing the best they can do to blame for things like not giving eye contact or not having joy or even for leaving them crying when they needed comfort because their doctor advised that that was what good parents do. What is the point?
The emotions you express to your child have great impact on the way they feel about themselves. A child learns to love themselves through the ability of a parent to express their love for a child. I remember my therapist(phd in clinical psychology) saying that a parent is supposed to be happy and excited to see their child after being separated for a period of time. This helps create a stronger bond and tells the child how much you care about them and their presence, which then creates an environment in which they can learn that they really truly matter. Also, parent's emotional reactions also help children develop the same emotions. There's a reason why there is such intensive therapy applied to autistic children that involves animated emotions of joy, happiness, celebration, etc.
Why is it important to make a big deal out of things like this? One reason is to help more people realize that often times we are not simply born certain ways. Sure there is a genetic predispostion, but environmment is just as much a factor or more in a child being able to develop the healthiest way possible giving what they are born with. As parents we can and do make a huge difference. The more we keep saying, "Oh I was just born this way", or, "My child was just born this way", the better and better the chances that we do not make progress and continue to think that there is/was no way to prevent or influence, and medication is the only answer. Additionally, raised awareness over the impact parents have on their children would hopefully translate to more people deciding to make sure they have done what they can to be as psychologically sound as possible before having children in the first place.
Please don't take this as a criticism or like I'm being harsh. I'm not someone that plays the blame game. I love my parents to death and totally forgive them for all their mistakes and shortcomings. But, I will never say, "it's o.k. that my parents fell far short of giving me what I needed because they were well intentioned and didn't know any better". Do things like this make it easier to forgive them, yes. Does the fact that I know they really do and did love me make it easier to forgive them, yes. Still, they were responsible. My parents didn't realize it while they were doing it, but they f*ck*d up big time. That's usually the case when we are f*ck*ng up, we have no clue how much we are doing so while we are doing it.
Morgan
Posted by morgan miller on February 27, 2011, at 1:21:07
In reply to Re: Ferber » Phillipa, posted by Dinah on February 26, 2011, at 19:21:50
>I suspect that human infants were designed to be resilient.
Dinah, I'm really sorry, but I find this kind of statement made my people that are parents to be a way of shedding responsibility and staying in denial so as to protect our own feelings of guilt.
This belief is also very counterproductive to making progressing beyond what has been the prevailing conditions for a long time, and getting back to how things were and were meant to be. I'm talking about before we starting making things complicating and began the cycle of hurt. It is a cycle by the way. Hurt does not just go away and children are not so resilient as to be able to recover from hurt on their own. If you want to refer to resilience as denial, or behavior deviations, or relationship troubles, or artistic expression, etc., then I guess children going through development to adulthood are very very resilient.Scott said this same thing. I believe he said it as a way to minimize the impact that his early years may have had on the development of his mental illness.
Again, Sorry Dinah. I'm sure you are a very good mother. My previous post was not meant to insinuate that you were not a good parent. I was simply arguing why it matters that we break things down, analyze them as much as possible, and begin to place more responsibily on parents, both mother and father.
Morgan
Posted by sigismund on February 27, 2011, at 1:38:34
In reply to Re: Ferber, posted by morgan miller on February 27, 2011, at 1:21:07
Some kids are easy and others not. Given enough kids there might always be enough to overtax any parent's abilities.
And this is the real world, unamenable sometimes/mostly to remedy from existing therapies.My experience has been that it is less important to satisfy a kid's needs than it is to avoid making a bad situation worse, and to refrain from impingement.
Other than that, I agree with DH Lawrence's 'Leave them alone, leave them alone, leave them alone', which meant, given C19 child rearing practices, refrain from impingement.
But give interest, attention, clear boundaries and what love you can, and forget your own needs as far as possible.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.