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: 03-27-2003
Fri, 08-25-2006 - 3:49pm

I've done your work for you. Googling turns up only refernces to the study but not the study itself. So you should be complaining about the lack of traceability (or at least the lack through Google) which makes it impossible to know anything about this study other than the excerpts for that. Had you Googled, you'd know that this whole subthread's weak spot is how the study is only ever called "the Canadian study" and neither its' name nor its authors are given. (Or at least I couldn't find them with Google, or the name of the periodical it was published in, not the Google is the be-all and end-all index but it's hard to go any further with no study name or author names or periodical name.)

After reading this post, you should latch onto this angle and drop the whole "done by Canadians instead of Americans" angle because that's just making you look uninformed. Attack the weak link, not the strong link. Rejecting a study on the grounds of where it was done just makes it obvious you know zero about scientific research.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-09-2006
Fri, 08-25-2006 - 3:52pm

"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."

Well, if anything, the American study might have included the information that it should've had and then been more persuasive for me to believe.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-09-2006
Fri, 08-25-2006 - 3:54pm

"After reading this post, you should latch onto this angle and drop the whole "done by Canadians instead of Americans" angle because that's just making you look uninformed. Attack the weak link, not the strong link. Rejecting a study on the grounds of where it was done just makes it obvious you know zero about scientific research"

Thank you. As you've told me before, I'm a little old dum-dum and you're much smarter than I am!

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-04-1997
Fri, 08-25-2006 - 3:57pm

You are absolutely right. You shouldn't take my word, or anyone's word for something just because of WHO is saying it. Nor should you discount a study JUST BECAUSE of who did the studying.

But if you want to verify that I am who I say I am, it's easy. Go to Google, enter my first name and what I do for a living. You'll find me. And you can e-mail me and ask me whether it's me or whether some nut-case on I-Village is impersonating me.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-05-2004
Fri, 08-25-2006 - 4:05pm

"Well, if anything, the American study might have included the information that it should've had and then been more persuasive for me to believe."

Why is that?

Do you think that a canadian study would not find any information relative to an american? Or are we just not able to perform a study to US standards?

Our forms of government might be different, but i would bet that the average CDN citizen cares and worries about the same things that a US citizen does. We read US studies all the time, sometimes there isn't a CDN one to compare it to. Doesn't mean we wont take it seriously.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2005
Fri, 08-25-2006 - 4:06pm

"Well, if anything, the American study might have included the information that it should've had and then been more persuasive for me to believe."

The OP may or may not choose to properly referenced another study, but it doesn't matter a whit whether or not the study is American. The fact that the reference was not provided has absolutely nothing to do with the "nationality" of the study. It has everything to do with the failure of the OP to provide proper references for the study. She most likely would equally fail to provide proper references for an American study.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-04-1997
Fri, 08-25-2006 - 4:10pm
The original Candandian study probably did, too. It's the fault of the person quoting or referencing the study that they didn't include the citation, not the original study itself.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Fri, 08-25-2006 - 4:13pm
AAAARRRGGGGHHH. You missed the point. The Candian study wasn't posted and can't be found by Google. What was posted were excerpts from it- excerpts that didn't include its name, where it was published or who did it. The flaw is not the study per se but the fact that it can't be found by Google and so there is no way of finding out if it even exists or if it was some random bit of fake data made up by people with a website. This has NOTHING to do with it being Candian (or "Canadian" if it was invented by website liars.) You've got to stop attacking what you THINK is the weak link because it isn't. What you are actually attacking is the strong link in the argument (that research protocols are international) and it just makes it obvious that you can't tell the strong link from the weak one because you didn't KNOW that research protocols are international.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Fri, 08-25-2006 - 4:15pm
I know more about research protocols than you do. Now do you finally believe that they are international? I'm not the only one saying they are. And if you continue attacking the strong link in the chain rather than the glaringly weak one, well...
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2003
Fri, 08-25-2006 - 4:47pm
My my my, top of the google list...Color me impressed ;)

Pages