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
Every country does it differently. I can describe how it works in Sweden...
At the birth of a child, the mother and father each get 220 days of parental leave. 90 of those days (for each parent) is paid at a very minimum level (something like $14 per day if I recall correctly). The rest of the days (130) are paid at 80% of the salary up to a maximum amount, which often ends up being much less than 80% of the real salary. The parental leave days can be taken at any time up until the child turns 8 (or the end of first grade) and can be taken in increments of full day, half day and quarter day. The days, in other words, are permanently given and completely flexible for use. One parent can transfer his/her days to the other parent with the exception of 60 days that are not transferable. In any case, there are no limits on the parental leave based on number of children. Each child starts with a fresh slate of 440 days for both of the parents.
A company is obliged to hold a position for someone on parental leave for up to 1.5 years. After that, the company is free to let that person go and hire someone new. The pattern of parental leave taken tends to depend on the amount of money each person makes. In many cases, husbands still make significantly more than wives. In such cases, mothers tend to take more of the parental leave than fathers, though fathers generally still average at least 2-4 months of parental leave. In cases where the jobs (and incomes) are more equal, the leave tends to be taken more equally (usually the mother takes the first 6-8 months off, then each parent works pt for a few months, then the father takes a few months off).
If children are spaced very closely together, the parents in theory have the option of just continuing with the parental leave at the birth of the next child as long as the days are not yet used up for the first child before the birth of the second child (and I think the time allowed away from the job increases if there is a certain space between children). However, in my experience most women (and men) return to work in between children even if they know that the next child will be coming soon. Most people, especially those in more career-oriented type of jobs, try not to be away from the workplace for too many years and generally keep in touch even during their parental leave (I once attended an important meeting, for example, that was also attended by two mothers on parental leave...both brought their babies, who were still nursing, for the day). The main advantage of having children closely spaced together is that there is a better chance that one can use the parental leave days of one child to cover time at home for both. This saves the days from the second child for use later on.
When they require both parents to take the leave to get the pay or it's just as likely that men will take it as women, then I'll call it parental leave, until then, it's pretty much paying mothers not to work. Either way, the message is clear that both parents working is bad. It is usually the mother who takes such leave though not the father so the shadow of doubt is cast on the mother by societies who have declared DWP's so bad they'll pay, usually, mom to SAH.
Personally, I'm happy my country does not take such a position. I don't think it's the governments place to decide that something is so wrong that they'll pay people not to do it unless it is something that is really bad and not doing it is good for society. WOH is not bad and avoiding doing it is not good for society.
Ask them not me. My guess would be that it's working during the first year they consider a bad thing. That's a pretty common belief. You're talking about an illogical belief here and how a society has latched onto it. Why would you expect me to know why they made this declaration for only the first year?
Personally, I'm just glad I live in a country that hasn't declared being a WM at any point a bad thing. I don't care if the baby is 6 weeks, 6 months or 6 years old, governments should not be declaring working parents a bad thing because it's not. Whether both parents work (though it's usually mom who takes the pay to SAH) or not kids pretty much turn out the same. It's not better to SAH for a year or whatever. It's pretty neutral. Yet these countries have declared SAH, during whatever period they declare it, the right thing to do. So much so that they'll pay you to not work during the right period of time.
Edited 8/26/2006 2:29 pm ET by kbmammm
"I don't think it's the governments place to decide that something is so wrong that they'll pay people not to do it unless it is something that is really bad and not doing it is good for society. WOH is not bad and avoiding doing it is not good for society."
Please post some links showing that governments provide parental leave because they think it's really bad for a mother to work. Your assertion is simply absurd, particular with regard to the parental leaves provided in Scandinavian countries.
"My guess would be that it's working during the first year they consider a bad thing. "
Well naturally you are welcome to guess, but your guesses have absolutely nothing to do with reality. They, in any case, completely ignore a much more complex set of reasons behind parental leaves in some countries.
"I don't care if the baby is 6 weeks, 6 months or 6 years old, governments should not be declaring working parents a bad thing because it's not."
You're argument is so laughable its ridiculous. Find me some sort of proof that Canada has declared working bad. Can you find it? Not just a description of maternity leave in canada, some proof the canadian government has released a statement saying it's bad.
"Whether both parents work (though it's usually mom who takes the pay to SAH) or not kids pretty much turn out the same. It's not better to SAH for a year or whatever. It's pretty neutral."
I dont really argue that. It's not 'better' to SAH. It's O-P-T-I-O-N-A-L. You seem to keep missing that point. We dont have to stay at home. Women can, and do, go back to work before a year. We're not going to bring our country back into the 1950s because we are able to take the time if we wish.
"Yet these countries have declared SAH, during whatever period they declare it, the right thing to do. So much so that they'll pay you to not work during the right period of time."
Its optional! Hello? You have to apply for it yourself. The checks do not just start showing up.
You're so blinded by your own bias, that is glaringly clear. If you lived in Canada you could return to work. No one is going to send police to your house to keep you barefoot and in the kitchen. Just because you dont like to, and do not want to SAH doesn't mean that we should force all women to go back to work.
DO you beleive a child should be BF for 6 mos or a year? Many here do. And in canada it's easy to acheive that.
Edited to add: one canadian news site released an article finding that more women work, and more women bring home more than their husbands in Canada. Show me where we are being pressured to stay home? please?
http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2006/08/23/women-breadwinner.html?ref=rss
Edited 8/26/2006 2:40 pm ET by sunkistmom22
Making it a requirement would be forcing ppl to stay home. That would be declaring working bad. An optional leave is not bad.
"WOH is not bad and avoiding doing it is not good for society."
Well Duh
At first I was furious at your small minded comments, and ignorance about our country. But now I just laugh. You are very biased against women who sah and just because you dont like to stay home, doesnt mean we all need to change to fit your beliefs.
Once you become more informed about daily life in Canada, then you will be better equipped to debate the subject. For now you are talking about things you know nothing about, and you're not worth the time I spend here.
Pages