¿Por qué los niños no quieren dormir solos? ¿Por qué tienen celos? ¿Por qué tienen rabietas? ¿Por qué lloran? ¿Por qué llaman nuestra atención?

This book had been sitting around at home for a few months, since even before our little baby was born. A workmate of my girlfriend's had lent it to her, together with a few others related to pregnancy, babies and child-rearing. I had not paid much attention to it because its title and appearance put me off, frankly: “Kiss Me! How To Raise Your Children With Love”. Seriously? It totally looked like some bland, self-help-y, silly book for emotional mothers-to-be full of prolactin. (And there goes your politically incorrect comment of the day, you're welcome).

But then, a colleague of mine (physicist, PhD, mother of two, damn smart) recommended to me two other books by the same author, saying that they have a good scientific basis and that she had learnt something from them. I didn't have those other two, but I happened to have this one at hand. So I started reading it a couple of months ago.

These are the thoughts of a practising paediatrician about raising babies and children today.

First of all (and because I have a fixation with the form, the medium, the use of language) I have to say that it is very well written, with an elegant but approachable style, avoiding clichés. I spotted only one or two typos or punctuation errors (and that is quite unusual). The subject is treated in a very humane and understandable way, with plenty of day-to-day examples and some real testimonies from parents. It is quite funny sometimes, and often touching.

Another thing I liked is the emphasis on evolutionary psychology. The first part of the book is dedicated to explaining why children are the way they are: they want to be cuddled because not feeling any movement probably means that the entire tribe is gone and they are now in danger; they cry as soon as they are left alone because it's the best way for their mothers to find them again; they need to be fed every few hours at night because… etcetera. That is all interesting, and indeed explains much of the behaviour of babies nowadays.

The author dedicates the last part to criticising pedagogical theories or fads that he finds false or even cruel or offensive: whimsical methods of discipline, corporal punishment (even the mildest forms of it), overtly rigid approaches to sleep, food, play time, etc. Most of that criticism sounds right to me, too.

The overall message of the book is: kids are the way they are for good (evolutionary) reasons; trying to bend their will is pointless at best, and often harmful; in most scenarios, simply do what feels right to you (comforting the baby, feeding it, letting the kid sleep in your bed); give them time and don't be angry at them, and they'll learn all important things by themselves sooner or later (eating, walking, going to the toilet); parents should mind the interests of their children first, and then their own; expressing unconditional love is the most important thing; violence (of any intensity) is to be completely avoided, as are insults, deprecating comments, threats, and even punishment (grounding).

Most of that is comforting to parents, because it feels good and it takes some burden off their shoulders (because they can mostly follow their instincts and not feel guilty). And I like a lot the loving attitude, the simple ideas about caring for children and attending to their needs as the basic, most important principle.

But I have some issues with the ideas in the book.

One problem I have is that explaining why babies are the way they are does not help resolve the question of whether/when it is necessary/good to let them be that way in the 21st century. And that dilemma, I think, is at the root of most difficult situations about parenting.

For example. Yes, babies cry a lot and demand to be held and rocked because it's the best way for them to stay alive in cold nights, among hyenas and wolves. But, when I'm absolutely certain that the night inside the bedroom will be warm, and that there will be no predators around, what reason is there to (almost?) always give up and hold a baby? Is the baby going to suffer some trauma if I restrain from doing so, say, half of the times, because I want to do other (reasonable, necessary) things? Where is the evidence for that? In fact, often I would hold my baby pursuing my own interest (because it feels nice to me, and because I would feel guilty otherwise), not its own. So, what's the reason to treat babies as if we were still a naked tribe rummaging the savannah, combating predators and famine?

To most day-to-day situations that the author explains away using evolution and biology, one could reply: “Sure, 100% agree, that's how it came to be. Now, what is the advantage of this or that adaptive behaviour in a safe environment in a developed country in 2020?”. There are many obvious examples: babies hate getting shots; they cry and complain. One can imagine that feeling that acute sting hundreds of thousands of years ago could only be a sign that a scorpion is nearby, that one has injured their leg with some thorns, or that rats are biting. It made perfect sense, back then, to kick around and to try to avoid that pain. Should parents be mindful of that, respect their babies' instincts, do what feels good immediately, and thus stand between their child and the needle? Of course not. Lots of other day-to-day situations would be like that. So, what's the value in understanding why babies can be so annoying, irrational and demanding, if at the end of the day it is absolutely desirable to override many of those behaviours by force, for their own benefit?

Another issue is that the author assumes that little kids are incredibly generous and moral by default. As if Rousseau were right and man were good from the crib, unless forced to be otherwise. The book is full of passages detailing how some selfless and thoughtful baby is misunderstood and finally reprimanded by their egotistical parents:

“Es notable que muchos niños muestren en esta época [la época en que pueden caminar un poco solos] una especial delicadeza de sentimientos: el mismo niño que exige con llantos desesperados que sus padres le lleven en brazos será capaz de caminar junto a sus abuelos, porque percibe que estos no tienen ya la fuerza y la agilidad para llevarle. […] Y no lo ha hecho para obtener ventajas y alabanzas, […] sino por pura bondad, porque tiene una conciencia moral y desea hacer el bien siempre que le es posible.”

Those ideas seem exaggerated to me. One thing is to presume that kids raised with love and patience tend to become reasonable, pleasant adults; it is very different to exclude the possibility that kids misbehave on purpose sometimes, or are consciously disrespectful of the needs of others, and need to be reprimanded.

Finally, there's yet another bogus line of reasoning in the book, that appears regularly: Dr. González suggests from time to time that we replace “children” with “women”, “blacks” or “workers” in seemingly innocuous sentences about babies, to help reveal the latent evil in them. Doing so, one may end up with outrageous statements like: “John grounded his disobedient wife for the rest of the weekend”; “for their own benefit, it's good not to give blacks everything that they demand”; or “make sure you monitor what TV programmes your factory workers watch regularly, and exercise appropriate control”. Clearly wrong ideas (but very funny). The problem with this rhetorical device is that it's equally easy to produce outrageous sentences corresponding to actions by parents that are obviously right and fair! Consider, for example: “bathe your husband at least every other day and use moisturiser sparingly” (who has a right to bathe other people against their will?); “if your co-worker kicks you in the balls inadvertently for the fifth time this morning, don't be mad at him and shout; instead, explain to him politely, yet again, that you find that most inconvenient”; or “it's good for their development if you let Asian bartenders sleep in your bed with you when they wake up scared in the middle of the night”. ( )

Criar a tus hijos con cariño y respeto.Bésame muchoes un libro escrito en defensa de los niños y de los padres, de todos cuantos desean educar a sus hijos como se hacía antes, con amor, tomándolos en los brazos, acariciándolos, durmiendo con ellos cuando están desconsolados…Este libro nos enseña a respetar a nuestro hijo como ser humano, a no dejarlo llorar, a arrullarlo, amarlo y besarlo. El autor demuestra, a partir de rigurosos estudios y su propia experiencia profesional, que esa esla mejor manera de conseguir que crezcan sanos y felices

Gracias, es un gran libro ( )

http://lettureedintorni.blogspot.it/2013/03/besame-mucho-carlos-gonzales.html

Prometto solennemente che sebbene sia prossima ad incontrare la mia terza figlia, non mi lascerò sommergere dai libri di puericultura e psicologia infantile né tanto meno li propinerò a voi. Forse il rischio era più alto con il primo figlio... Questo libro mi è stato regalato da una cara amica ed è l'unico del genere che ho letto durante la gravidanza; diciamo che cerco di entrare un po' nell'atmosfera.

Premesso ciò, partiamo dal titolo Bésame mucho: mi fa subito pensare alle cantanti improvvisate che si incontrano in metropolitana. Il sottotitolo è: Come crescere i tuoi figli con amore. Se il titolo mi faceva sorridere, unito al sottotitolo trovo tutto l'insieme lievemente irritante: perché ho bisogno di un manuale che mi insegni come amare i miei figli?
Ad onor del vero bisogna però dire che la foto in copertina è molto bella.
Ammetto che non avrei mai comprato questo libro, ma fidandomi della mia amica, che reputo una persona meravigliosa e un'ottima mamma alle prese con la sua prima bimba, l'ho letto.
L'intento principale di Gonzales sembra essere quello di demolire le teorie dei suoi colleghi e di convincere le mamme a far dormire i loro figli nel lettone quanto più a lungo possibile.
Ora, io sono d'accordo con la filosofia di fondo: crescere i propri figli con amore, dolcezza e rispetto, dedicare loro tempo e attenzione. Ma perché questo deve passare necessariamente dal dormire insieme, portarlo in braccio fino ai tre anni di età, allattarlo fino allo sfininimento?
Io penso che ogni mamma debba trovare il proprio modo per vivere il legame con i figli, e anzi un modo diverso per ogni figlio perché non è detto che tutti abbiano bisogno o chiedano le stesse cose.
E se non ci sono dubbi che i metodi "educativi" repressivi, violenti e crudeli siano da condannare, perché condannare a priori quei genitori che cercano un po' di riposo notturno abituando i propri figli a dormire da soli o a camminare per tragitti proporzionati alla loro età per evitare di rompersi la schiena, o ancora a mangiare quello che viene loro preparato e a prestare un po' di attenzione ai consigli e alle richieste dei genitori?
Mi reputo una mamma affettuosa e amorevole, non ho mai seguito il "metodo Estivill" per far dormire i miei bambini, non li picchio e non li castigo, ma certo mi capita di alzare la voce e cerco di far seguire loro alcune regole e, non voglio negarlo, di avere anch'io una vita più semplice.
I diritti dei bambini vanno senz'altro tutelati, ma anche i genitori ne hanno qualcuno!

Perciò, cara Frenci, questo libro mi è sembrato eccessivo e poco realistico. Continua ad amare la tua bimba come tu sai fare e ricordati che i consigli vanno sempre presi con le pinze, primi fra tutti i miei! ( )