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: 11-11-2005
Sat, 08-26-2006 - 8:48am

That is exactly a question I have asked repeatedly, of ministers, missionaries, seminarians, etc. i uisually get told that I'm just trying to stir things up, that God is a good loving god who never intends to harm us,a nd that we just ahve to accept there are things we'll never know.

But I agree with you. If God is really omnipotent and omnicient, God must have forseen all that would happen, and in God's power during creation, could ahve created things diferently if God so chose.

(This is also the reason why I don't buy that the Bible is opposed to abortion based on scripture such as "I knew you before you were born." Well, duh, God knew everything and everyone before it ever happened. That doesn't mean God has an opinion, one way or the other, about any particular medical procedure that may be developed and used. It just means God knew everything that would happen before it happened, inlcuding the birth of those people who were born.)

Okaym, that was completely OT, I realize.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-31-2005
Sat, 08-26-2006 - 9:00am

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.>

Do you really want to get into a discussion of the fall of man, free will, and predestination? This is starting to sound like Sunday School.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-26-2006
Sat, 08-26-2006 - 9:06am
Umm the study was done on FORMULA not breastmilk.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-26-2006
Sat, 08-26-2006 - 9:09am
The OP didn't link the study. Whether this study was done in 1992 or 1999 isn't a real jump. That is still 7 years ago. Not to mention that I have provided links that state the strides formula has made in the last few years.


Edited 8/26/2006 9:11 am ET by mbanc17
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-26-2006
Sat, 08-26-2006 - 9:13am
Do you work in these areas? It sounds like you have first hand experience with drug users. What do you do?
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-09-2006
Sat, 08-26-2006 - 10:02am

What was the name of the study? Who were the authors? Who were the peer reviewers?

The study was never even NAMED on this board, so how could you have read it? It's not available online as others have already told you.

The *article* is NOT the study. The ARTICLE mentioned an FDA sponsored study conducted in 1992 *and* other information gathered in 1999. As my link proves.

I feel safe in doubt the accuracy of your claims wrt the article *and* the study.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-09-2006
Sat, 08-26-2006 - 10:08am

Sure I can tell what you DON'T do. You couldn't blame lack of information leading to false claims by you on the original poster if you actually *had* read the article and the study.

Unless it is now your contention that you deliberately and knowingly made false statements about the article. That certainly wouldn't have been the choice I'd have guessed, but I suppose it *is* possible--if you're still attempting to claim, without actually saying it, that you really did read the actual study and not just the except of the article posted here.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sat, 08-26-2006 - 10:12am

I grew up in a housing project. I don't need the field trip. Obviously you do. You were the one who claimed that the majority of mothers in those neighborhoods were drug users.

I won't even comment on your assumption that a majority of poor mothers of color are drug users (since the only neighborhoods you mentioned are black and Hispanic).

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-09-2006
Sat, 08-26-2006 - 10:13am
I actually *did* read the article.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-09-2006
Sat, 08-26-2006 - 10:17am

Actually, the study was done on MSG additives in processed foods of all kinds.

But yes, I misspoke and that particle *segment* of the article dealt with formula.

Pages