Archive

Living with Children: It’s not rocket science | TribLIVE.com
More Lifestyles

Living with Children: It’s not rocket science

Talking today’s mother through her first experience with toilet training is akin to talking someone off a ledge. Both situations involve massive anxiety, high drama and lots of yelling and screaming. Now, I am obliged to point out that whereas talking someone off a ledge has always involved drama, that did not describe toilet training until a pediatrician named T. Berry Brazelton convinced himself that this relatively simple process was fraught with the potential for psychological apocalypse. During his medical school days, Brazelton had come to believe that Sigmund Freud, the so-called “father” of modern psychology, was a genius when in fact he was mostly just deluded. Freud had made a big deal of toilet training, so Brazelton followed suit.

Brazelton came up with a list of “readiness signs” that he claimed had to be present before a parent commenced toilet training. Mind you, the only indicator of readiness in the pre-Brazelton era was a mother’s readiness to be done with diapers. In those benighted days, almost all children were fully trained (according to a 1955 Harvard study, accident free!) prior to their second birthdays. The process, start to finish, usually took three days to a week.

Without a shred of evidence, Brazelton also claimed that training children prior to their second birthdays — which, keep in mind, was the norm before the media began helping him disburse his toilet-babble — required “force” and that said pressure could cause dire damage to a toddler’s psyche, even permanent dire damage. (My wife claims that where I am concerned, this explains a lot.)

Thinking that people who are published must know what they are talking about, pediatricians began parroting Brazelton. Telling moms to wait until their kids were nearly 3 became the industry standard. That activated the “Old Dog” principle: to wit, the older the dog, the more difficult house-training is going to be. The same is true concerning children, unfortunately.

Brazelton is why toilet training is now fraught with anxiety, drama, and lots of yelling. More than a few mothers have told me that it nearly brought on full-on emotional collapse, and not in their children, mind you.

In 2012, I wrote a book on toilet training in which I simply described how it was done before T. Berry convinced himself and others that he had a better idea. The gist of the book can be summed up thus: teaching a toddler to use the toilet is not rocket science; it is in fact no different than teaching a child to feed himself; there are no readiness signs; Freud was a fraud; and you can do this.

On Sept. 7, a North Carolina mom wrote me through my website. After reading my book, she had started toilet training her 17-month-old daughter and needed some advice. Said toddler was very cooperative. At her mother’s direction, she would sit on the potty for a few seconds, then get up and promptly pee on the floor. That last part was most definitely not at her mother’s direction, by the way. Mom and I exchanged a few emails during which, unbeknownst to her, I was simply going into a trance and channeling my great-grandmother.

On Sept. 13, mom reported “100 percent success.” That’s right, folks, six days later with a child one month shy of being a year and one-half old! No force, high anxiety, drama, yelling, and no psychological apocalypse. By Sept. 20, said mom reported that her daughter was going all but completely on her own.

This 17-month-old child’s success proves that toilet training is not rocket science, etcetera, and you, whoever you are, can do this!

Visit family psychologist John Rosemond’s website at www.johnrosemond.com; readers may send him email at questionsrosemond.com; due to the volume of mail, not every question will be answered.


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.