There's no way that anyone on DCUrbanmoms is this crazy (right?)

[Anonymous]

I didn't do this but I think it's about as gross or weird as the now average age that a US child is toilet trained.

[Anonymous]

I'd rather EC than have a 3-yo in diapers.

[Anonymous]

I don't have a 3 year old in diapers but didn't do EC. It isn't an either/or situation.

I am not sure why people would also identify themselves as "EC parents". It seems odd to me to take up an identity based on how one decides to take care of their offspring's waste (cloth diapering people also tend to do this!). I also have issues with their environmental claims but yet they still use things like computers, cars, and many other things that cause bigger environmental problems. We live in a developed and industrialized nation people are clearly doing this to be "unique" and "different"...like "look at me, I am a poop Luddite." As a SAHM, these women need to get a life. I don't care if you do this but why bother me with the details. Perhaps they need a hobby outside of their child?

[Anonymous]

Do you folks realize that mothers who do it in other countries also care for the house and older children at the same time? They're not all day sitting looking at the kid and running towards the bushes once the kid's face gets red...
Are you all this ignorant really? or you're just pretending to keep others entertained?

[Anonymous]

I'm the person who posted that I had used this method with my child starting at 3 weeks. I didn't identify myself as an "EC parent" and none of my friends knew what we were doing -- unless they were really close friends and happened to be around if I left the door open when my daughter was using the potty.

I don't know that I was all the wrapped up in doing this "method", but the communication aspect of it, was really neat. With my first child, the only thing he "told" me as an infant was that he wanted to nurse. At first, I heard his cries and fed him, but quickly realized that his rooting was a signal -- an early signal -- that he was hungry. And if I ignored that signal, of course, he'd escalate to short cries, and then full on wailing if I postponed the feeding long enough. And it was kind of cool when he got to be old enough to understand -- "You want some food, huh? OK, Mommy will be right there ..." and could understand I had heard him and was going to feed him... in just a minute! That's the very beginning of talking to your child, developing trust and all that -- and it was just a great step in our relationship!

Well fast forward to child number two. Already as an experienced nursing mom, I knew what the rooting sign was, so she never had to escalate into a full wail (well not as often). And by that point I had read the EC books and I'll be damned, they were exactly right. The baby has a certain cry, and circles her legs in such an obvious way, that I can now tell if I look at MANY newborn babies, that they are about to pee or poo. It's not a grimace or gunt as would occur when a child is actually having a bowel movement by the way. I saw those in my son, of course, as an infant -- you see the grimace and maybe the face gets red. So you know he is pooping, but of course what you want to know is ahead of time, that they feel the need to go.

When babies can tell you ahead of time that they need to go -- and can be put off a little bit and hold it, you can see their early signs, and tell them, "Oh, do you need to go potty? OK, just a sec....." and you finish your bit of dinner, excuse yourself from the table, unstrap the 4 month old from the baby swing or wherever she was hanging out while you eat dinner, and take her to the bathroom, let her use the potty, and then you wash hands and go back to dinner.

It's not that being able to communicate about a child's need to go potty is earthshattering. But it's just (to me) that there are really only TWO things a baby tries to tell you about in those early weeks -- I've gotta pee and I'm hungry. (Also of course I'm in pain, but that one you hope not to have to hea.r) And if you don't know that, the baby those first months will be trying to tell you he needs to pee... and you will thing he is just fussing, or he has gas, or he's constipated or whatever. SO eventually he stops signalling that he has to pee, and he just goes in his diaper. Then 2 or 3 years later you teach him the new way.

And that works, too. I just found this way fascinating.

Oh -- and to the person worried about the fact that it's always the mom who would be expected to be around the baby, watching for every grimace and so on -- this was our experience. Once the baby hit 6 or 7 months and was able to sit up well, we got her a tiny baby potty, very close to the ground. Anyone who was watching her (like ger Grandma) would just hear her signal, take her to the bathroom, and sit her on her baby potty. Really it was a lot easier than waiting for her to poop, and taking her to a changing table and putting her on that, and changing her diaper. Certainly it wasn't any harder than that. This was the infant potty we used: http://www.diaperfreebaby.org/shop/index.php?l=product_detail&p=31

I'm sorry to write so much; I haven't thought about this method in a long time as my child is now 5. But I felt like some people here were really misunderstanding the way this method works, and I wanted to clear up any misconceptions.

[Anonymous]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I think it's fine to make a joke about something that is not a common practice. No one was hurt anyone who was offended needs to get a thicker skin. If you do it great, be fine with it, educate us and move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm the person who posted that I had used this method with my child starting at 3 weeks. I didn't identify myself as an "EC parent" and none of my friends knew what we were doing -- unless they were really close friends and happened to be around if I left the door open when my daughter was using the potty.

I don't know that I was all the wrapped up in doing this "method", but the communication aspect of it, was really neat. With my first child, the only thing he "told" me as an infant was that he wanted to nurse. At first, I heard his cries and fed him, but quickly realized that his rooting was a signal -- an early signal -- that he was hungry. And if I ignored that signal, of course, he'd escalate to short cries, and then full on wailing if I postponed the feeding long enough. And it was kind of cool when he got to be old enough to understand -- "You want some food, huh? OK, Mommy will be right there ..." and could understand I had heard him and was going to feed him... in just a minute! That's the very beginning of talking to your child, developing trust and all that -- and it was just a great step in our relationship!

Well fast forward to child number two. Already as an experienced nursing mom, I knew what the rooting sign was, so she never had to escalate into a full wail (well not as often). And by that point I had read the EC books and I'll be damned, they were exactly right. The baby has a certain cry, and circles her legs in such an obvious way, that I can now tell if I look at MANY newborn babies, that they are about to pee or poo. It's not a grimace or gunt as would occur when a child is actually having a bowel movement by the way. I saw those in my son, of course, as an infant -- you see the grimace and maybe the face gets red. So you know he is pooping, but of course what you want to know is ahead of time, that they feel the need to go.

When babies can tell you ahead of time that they need to go -- and can be put off a little bit and hold it, you can see their early signs, and tell them, "Oh, do you need to go potty? OK, just a sec....." and you finish your bit of dinner, excuse yourself from the table, unstrap the 4 month old from the baby swing or wherever she was hanging out while you eat dinner, and take her to the bathroom, let her use the potty, and then you wash hands and go back to dinner.

It's not that being able to communicate about a child's need to go potty is earthshattering. But it's just (to me) that there are really only TWO things a baby tries to tell you about in those early weeks -- I've gotta pee and I'm hungry. (Also of course I'm in pain, but that one you hope not to have to hea.r) And if you don't know that, the baby those first months will be trying to tell you he needs to pee... and you will thing he is just fussing, or he has gas, or he's constipated or whatever. SO eventually he stops signalling that he has to pee, and he just goes in his diaper. Then 2 or 3 years later you teach him the new way.

And that works, too. I just found this way fascinating.

Oh -- and to the person worried about the fact that it's always the mom who would be expected to be around the baby, watching for every grimace and so on -- this was our experience. Once the baby hit 6 or 7 months and was able to sit up well, we got her a tiny baby potty, very close to the ground. Anyone who was watching her (like ger Grandma) would just hear her signal, take her to the bathroom, and sit her on her baby potty. Really it was a lot easier than waiting for her to poop, and taking her to a changing table and putting her on that, and changing her diaper. Certainly it wasn't any harder than that. This was the infant potty we used: http://www.diaperfreebaby.org/shop/index.php?l=product_detail&p=31

I'm sorry to write so much; I haven't thought about this method in a long time as my child is now 5. But I felt like some people here were really misunderstanding the way this method works, and I wanted to clear up any misconceptions.

That all sounds pretty cool! Thanks for sharing.

[georgiegirl]

I did post a link for entertainment purposes, yes. It was funny . . . to me - and perhaps to others.

Your "ignorant" comment was not necessary, however, as we do realize that unless a mother has as many hands as an octopus, she will not be able to care for her entire brood at the same time.

But you did mention that mothers in other countries were responsible for the house as well as for the other children, which means that they stay home. So although these mothers may not be clucking after each kid 24-7, they are indeed SAHMs, which helps with this EC process.

I can't see myself doing this as a working mom.

Anonymous wrote:Do you folks realize that mothers who do it in other countries also care for the house and older children at the same time? They're not all day sitting looking at the kid and running towards the bushes once the kid's face gets red...
Are you all this ignorant really? or you're just pretending to keep others entertained?

[Anonymous]

19:41 - thanks for your thoughtful explanation of this. My experience with two kids is similar to yours. It's a very ecological way to go, too!

[Anonymous]

Eh, not so much. Because here is what you wrote, in actuality. Your post was snarky and mocking from the get go, about the whole shebang, so please spare us the "I was only talking about the communication aspect," which is lame in itself. Look, you were an asshole, AP. Just own it.

"Basically these people stare at their babies until they're ready to crap, hold them over a potty, and then coo about the great communication that this fosters.

Wow. "

AdequateParent wrote:From the original article:

Responding to your baby's elimination patterns provides many wonderful opportunities for you and your baby to communicate and to become more in-tune.

Does anyone agree with this? If you read the Tuteur article and you read what I've said, this is the thing-- not where the child pees- that I consider bizarre.

That's it. Do you agree with the quotation above? Do you believe that this communication bonus is the driving factor in countries where it is the routine? Do you believe that there is any research to indicate that this method has emotional or communication benefits? If someone on the street told you that monitoring your child's eliminations would bring the two of you closer together, what would you think? Would you believe them?

I don't. The question is not whether it's an okay way to deal with poo or if the Latin American cultures have it right. The question is what possible explanation there can be for the claim above, and for grown women giving themselves a label --"EC Parents" -- that is based upon their toileting choice.

None of the responses here addresses that question, one which I find really fascinating. This "better relationships through bowel movements" concept is not the only one of its kind. The various schools of parenting have invented pathologies, illnesses, and disorders that result from not adhering to that expert's guidelines. So do we think critically about what we're being sold or not? Is it more respectful to base choices on facts or to accept anything peddled in the name of motherhood?

I find these to be interesting questions, but apparently they are not as interesting as my own on-line personality, which I regret but which I signed up for.
[/quote

[Anonymous]

georgiegirl wrote:I did post a link for entertainment purposes, yes. It was funny . . . to me - and perhaps to others.

Your "ignorant" comment was not necessary, however, as we do realize that unless a mother has as many hands as an octopus, she will not be able to care for her entire brood at the same time.

But you did mention that mothers in other countries were responsible for the house as well as for the other children, which means that they stay home. So although these mothers may not be clucking after each kid 24-7, they are indeed SAHMs, which helps with this EC process.

I can't see myself doing this as a working mom.

Anonymous wrote:Do you folks realize that mothers who do it in other countries also care for the house and older children at the same time? They're not all day sitting looking at the kid and running towards the bushes once the kid's face gets red...
Are you all this ignorant really? or you're just pretending to keep others entertained?

ignorant, according to the dictionary, means:
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3. uninformed; unaware.
that's what you all are when you start talking about a subject that you don't know.
sorry if it sounds harsh but it's true. if you don't know something you're ignorant re to that issue.
and nobody is asking you to do EC with your child. my comment was addressed to the person who thought that EC was done in underdeveloped countries due to lack of financial resources to afford hygienic products like diapers what is not true. what's known as EC here in the US has been common practice in other places for centuries, long before pampers and huggies were invented.

[Anonymous]

georgiegirl wrote:
But you did mention that mothers in other countries were responsible for the house as well as for the other children, which means that they stay home. So although these mothers may not be clucking after each kid 24-7, they are indeed SAHMs, which helps with this EC process.

I can't see myself doing this as a working mom.

Mom who used this method with her daughter here.

Yes, certainly to use this method someone would need to stay home with the infant in the first 3 months to get this method established. After that, I think if someone wanted to continue using this method instead of diapers, you would need SOMEONE to be the primary caretaker of the baby -- doesn't need to be the SAH mom or dad, could be the granny, the nanny, or a daycare teacher -- and that person would need to be interested in the method too. So that's an added factor.

Also, I'm thinking that if the daycare had a 1:3 or 1:4 ratio, it probably would be a little too hard for them to be able respond to the infant all the time, though, and they'd probably prefer to have the child in diapers so they could change the babies on their schedule and not have to worry about it. I've head of moms who use this method with twince just fine, but I imagine that with triplets and quadruplets, everything just gets harder, and the diapers would just make things easier on everyone.

[georgiegirl]

Find me credible statistics that show this is a prevalent practice in other "developed" countries. I only find connections to "less industrialized countries" and "hunter-gatherer cultures."

I did come across Ingrid Bauer but unfortunately will not be purchasing her book, Diaper Free: The Gentle Wisdom of Natural Infant Hygiene. Does she perhaps include statistics on this practice?

If you do respond, please spare me any Dictionary.com definitions.

Anonymous wrote:

georgiegirl wrote:I did post a link for entertainment purposes, yes. It was funny . . . to me - and perhaps to others.

Your "ignorant" comment was not necessary, however, as we do realize that unless a mother has as many hands as an octopus, she will not be able to care for her entire brood at the same time.

But you did mention that mothers in other countries were responsible for the house as well as for the other children, which means that they stay home. So although these mothers may not be clucking after each kid 24-7, they are indeed SAHMs, which helps with this EC process.

I can't see myself doing this as a working mom.

Anonymous wrote:Do you folks realize that mothers who do it in other countries also care for the house and older children at the same time? They're not all day sitting looking at the kid and running towards the bushes once the kid's face gets red...
Are you all this ignorant really? or you're just pretending to keep others entertained?

ignorant, according to the dictionary, means:
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3. uninformed; unaware.
that's what you all are when you start talking about a subject that you don't know.
sorry if it sounds harsh but it's true. if you don't know something you're ignorant re to that issue.
and nobody is asking you to do EC with your child. my comment was addressed to the person who thought that EC was done in underdeveloped countries due to lack of financial resources to afford hygienic products like diapers what is not true. what's known as EC here in the US has been common practice in other places for centuries, long before pampers and huggies were invented.

[Anonymous]

georgiegirl wrote:Find me credible statistics that show this is a prevalent practice in other "developed" countries. I only find connections to "less industrialized countries" and "hunter-gatherer cultures."

I did come across Ingrid Bauer but unfortunately will not be purchasing her book, Diaper Free: The Gentle Wisdom of Natural Infant Hygiene. Does she perhaps include statistics on this practice?

If you do respond, please spare me any Dictionary.com definitions.

Anonymous wrote:

georgiegirl wrote:I did post a link for entertainment purposes, yes. It was funny . . . to me - and perhaps to others.

Your "ignorant" comment was not necessary, however, as we do realize that unless a mother has as many hands as an octopus, she will not be able to care for her entire brood at the same time.

But you did mention that mothers in other countries were responsible for the house as well as for the other children, which means that they stay home. So although these mothers may not be clucking after each kid 24-7, they are indeed SAHMs, which helps with this EC process.

I can't see myself doing this as a working mom.

Anonymous wrote:Do you folks realize that mothers who do it in other countries also care for the house and older children at the same time? They're not all day sitting looking at the kid and running towards the bushes once the kid's face gets red...
Are you all this ignorant really? or you're just pretending to keep others entertained?

ignorant, according to the dictionary, means:
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3. uninformed; unaware.
that's what you all are when you start talking about a subject that you don't know.
sorry if it sounds harsh but it's true. if you don't know something you're ignorant re to that issue.
and nobody is asking you to do EC with your child. my comment was addressed to the person who thought that EC was done in underdeveloped countries due to lack of financial resources to afford hygienic products like diapers what is not true. what's known as EC here in the US has been common practice in other places for centuries, long before pampers and huggies were invented.

I never said it was common practice in other developed countries. I said it's common practice in other places around the globe. Some of them were big empires centuries ago like China for example.

And what's wrong with a dictionary definition? I meant to clarify my point calling some of you ignorant. What you're still showing you are. You lack knowledge in the subject so you're indeed ignorant.

[Anonymous]

@ 22:20
in some orphanages the ratios are way higher than that and still caregivers can handle EC just fine. it all depends on the caregiver's priority.
my friend adopted a child from China and she was fully PT at age 10 months. she held her feces and urine until after meals when she was used to be placed over the latrine to do her business.
it took them quite a while to get her used to go in her diapers and she was never really happy with it. she was not comfortable in a wet/dirty diaper.