attachment parenting

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-19-2004
attachment parenting
1781
Mon, 08-14-2006 - 3:17pm

A woman I know (I used to work with her dh) practices "attachment parenting". Here is a definition (for those who don't know what it is):

"Attachment Parenting includes respecting your child's needs, feeding on demand, and answering your baby's cries. Other parts of Attachment Parenting include co-sleeping, nursing on demand, sling or other baby carrier wearing, and cloth diapering. Not all Attachment Parents practice all of the above, but never the less love the idea of Attachment Parenting and comforting their children.

Attachment parenting uses mild discipline methods and avoids all physical or emotional punishment, such as inflicting shame on a child for inappropriate behavior. Children are encouraged and allowed to sleep with their parents, and you treat your bed as the family bed. Meeting your child's needs according to the child's time frame during the early years of development is an essential part of attachment parenting. Children will be allowed to grow and learn at their own pace and not according to standard time frames."

What do you all think of attachment parenting?

I don't see attachment parenting as something a WOH parent could do, or could they? What do u think?

I am also curious to see if SAHPs vs/ WOHPs will have different opionions on this topic.

If anyone here practices attachment parenting - was your decision to do so closely linked with your decision to be a SAHP?

josee

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-09-2006
Fri, 08-25-2006 - 2:22pm

"I honestly cannot for the life of me comprehend dismissing a peer-reviewed paper simply because it happens to be a Canadian study on an American product. It seems completely irrational."

Was that study peer reviewed? Did it meet the criteria for you, (as a scientist?), to be taken into account?

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-09-2006
Fri, 08-25-2006 - 2:27pm

"You just have to take the words of people like Lois who know what they are talking about on this topic."

Oh, gosh, LOL. I should go along like a sheep with the herd, right? How do I know that she's even who she says she is?

If someone brought up something about what I do for a living and I being an *expert* in my field said that "I know what I am talking about, just believe me". Would that fly with you? No. Posters would be challenging away, just like they have a right to do.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-31-2005
Fri, 08-25-2006 - 2:35pm

"So, what if the mother has a drug habit, kicks it while she's pregnant and then resumes after the baby is born? Will it show up in the baby's system? I doubt it."

If your hypothetical drug user is educated and concerned enough to kick the habit while she is pregnant, she's likely to be educated and concerned enough to use formula rather than contaminated breastmilk if she wants to resume her drug use.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2005
Fri, 08-25-2006 - 3:01pm
I have no idea whether that particular study meets my criteria for a study worth taking seriously. I do know that the fact that it is Canadian has absolutely no bearing on the question of whether it is worth considering or not. In your OP, you rejected the study solely on the grounds that it was Canadian.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-09-2006
Fri, 08-25-2006 - 3:12pm

"I have no idea whether that particular study meets my criteria for a study worth taking seriously."

Why do you have no idea?

I didn't reject it solely on those grounds. I would have preferred to have also read an American one.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-09-2006
Fri, 08-25-2006 - 3:25pm

"If your hypothetical drug user is educated and concerned enough to kick the habit while she is pregnant, she's likely to be educated and concerned enough to use formula rather than contaminated breastmilk if she wants to resume her drug use."

One should hope.......

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 08-25-2006 - 3:32pm

Jumping in here.....I dont belive that anyone has said (and please forgive me if I am wrong) that feeding a baby formula is on the same level as feeding a baby poison. What I have heard said and what is medicaly correct is that breast milk is almost always a better for a baby than formula.

They have linked BF to lower SIDS incidents, lower body weights, less illness, less ear infections and quite a few other things. I can get you the studies if you would like one of them being by the FDA. www.fda.gov/fdac/features/895_brstfeed.html

All of that being said I dont belive anyone has said that a mother who FF is trying to poision her child. Nor have I heard them trying to make a mother feel guilty or what not. Personaly I have ff and bf all of my children.

edit for a spelling issue(yes I know I probably missed others...LOL)




Edited 8/25/2006 3:34 pm ET by subswife
Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Fri, 08-25-2006 - 3:41pm

Through Googling, I was unable to find out who did this study. All I found were articles that referenced "The Canadian Study" but I was unable to find the study itself and therefore also unable to find who did it. So THAT is what you should be jumping on. Not the fact that it was done by Canadians.

BTW; it's not a compliment to be called ignorant of how research is done.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-09-2006
Fri, 08-25-2006 - 3:45pm

"Through Googling, I was unable to find out who did this study. All I found were articles that referenced "The Canadian Study" but I was unable to find the study itself and therefore also unable to find who did it. So THAT is what you should be jumping on. Not the fact that it was done by Canadians."

Thanks for your time and effort.

"BTW; it's not a compliment to be called ignorant of how research is done."

I know it's not a compliment. I should be angry that you called me stupid. LOL.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2005
Fri, 08-25-2006 - 3:48pm

"Why do you have no idea?"

Because I haven't looked up the study and no links were provided in the OP. I would certainly understand you rejecting the study on the basis that you were not able to look at the original source to determine whether the study was reasonably conducted or not. Without proper references (journal publication, data published etc.) making it possible for me to look up the study, I certainly wouldn't be inclined to take it seriously.

However.....

"I didn't reject it solely on those grounds. I would have preferred to have also read an American one."

You didn't say that you would prefer to *also* read an American one, you specifically said:

"I'd rather (my preference only) read an American study" (post #1159)

In any case, prefering to read an American study over (or even in addition to) a Canadian study simply makes no sense. It is irrational preference with regard to scientific research.

Pages