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
Given the historical use of Laudanum by and on women and infants, centuries earlier, it's hardly a "new" problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laudanum
"Innumerable Victorian women were prescribed the drug for relief of menstrual cramps and vague aches and used it to achieve the pallid complexion associated with tuberculosis (frailty and paleness were particularly prized in females at the time). Nurses also spoon-fed laudanum to infants."
No, I didn't accept the bit that was quoted. But I clipped one sentence from it, pasted it into Google, FOUND the site (the only one that came up, so THAT was certainly difficult) and read the entire article. Including the part later on that ALSO references information from 1999, clearly putting the Canadian study as MUCH younger than is being erroneously claimed by you.
Interesting how you can continue to make claims about this study (its age and that you have actually read it) in order to discredit it when you haven't even bothered to read the entire original article correctly, let alone found the study.
"They had no particular axe to grind, either against infant formula or American companies."
And you know this, how?
"No, I didn't accept the bit that was quoted. But I clipped one sentence from it, pasted it into Google, FOUND the site (the only one that came up, so THAT was certainly difficult) and read the entire article. Including the part later on that ALSO references information from 1999, clearly putting the Canadian study as MUCH younger than is being erroneously claimed by you."
Well, that's the fault of the poster who originally posted it, I guess.
"Interesting how you can continue to make claims about this study (its age and that you have actually read it) in order to discredit it when you haven't even bothered to read the entire original article correctly, let alone found the study."
Lady, how do you know what I am doing in the privacy of my own house? Would I be able to tell you that when you woke up today, you didn't change your underwear? Come on, LOL.
"isn't that exactly what you've done AND OBJECTED TO with regard to your claim to know the drug habits of thousands of women in Brooklyn and the Bronx?"
That's exactly what I was getting at! I was challenged on that (my own personal experience) which is exactly what I am doing.
BTW, what's with the caps?
Pages