attachment parenting
Find a Conversation
| 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
Ok, nice to see you! But are you not afraid to post all of that info about yourself? There are some wacky people out there.
I had pictured you different.
<>
Yes, which would be quite a goof, don't you think? It would be akin to letting your baby play in the cleaning cupboard.
If God made the rules, He absolutely created a system that would eventually and inevitably lead to things like tumors and AIDS.
<>
Oh, so God only intended for a FEW people to get tumors?
What I don't get is why people take the stance that disease is some sort of mistake. It's all just part and parcel of physical existance.
Not buying it. How can an omnipotent God not foresee exactly what would happen? And if He knew it would happen, how could it NOT be what He intended?
Diseases - such as tumors and AIDS - are just biological processes. Processes which God created. They are part of the plan. That we don't like the plan shouldn't give us license to claim that they must be some sort of mistake. We should acknowledge all of God's creations, even if we find them unpleasant.
"For example, Canada and many european countries have declared being a working mom so bad they'll pay moms not to do it."
Canada believes, no sorry, *declared* a WM is bad??? This is news to me.
We have an awesome maternity leave program, but it doesn't mean the government wants us canadian women to stay home. That is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard. Our program allows mothers to stay home for 1 full year, if they want it. We do not have to accept it, and a mom can go back to work in 6 mos or less if they really wanted it.
We're not that backwards of a country.
Huh?!?! A peer-reviewed scientific article that meets the internationally accepted standards for scientific research is a peer-reviewed scientific article. Have you ever published a scientific article? Do you know anything about scientific publications or how articles are peer-reviewed? Do you know anything at all about the very international nature of labs doing scientific research?
I'd also LOVE to know where you got the idea that
"For example, Canada and many european countries have declared being a working mom so bad they'll pay moms not to do it. "
You've gotten a few facts in error. The formula studied were not only American products.
Nestle is a French-owned company.
Further, the Canadian Study was not conducted in 1992; an FDA-sponsored study that supports the Canadian Study was. Further the Canadian study references a press-release from 1999 (http://www.truthinlabeling.org/formulacopy.html), clearly bringing that study to sometime later than that. Hence, the OLDEST this study could possibly be is 6 years old.
Furthermore, this study was not conducted as a means of trashing infant formulas, but rather the widespread use of MSG in a diverse number of manufactured foods. They had no particular axe to grind, either against infant formula or American companies.
Pages