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: 08-27-2005
Sun, 08-27-2006 - 10:29am

This was the best and most recent resource I could find.

http://lo.se/home/lo/home.nsf/unidView/F51136C18A5D87ACC1257080001B643A/$file/foraldraforsakring.pdf

Unfortunately, it's in Swedish so I'll see if I can list a few of the statistics. First, weekends have to be counted when taking parental leave in large chunks so the most that can actually be taken in 16 months, 3 months of which are paid at only $12 per day. So, in effect, the parental leave is about 13 months and 2 of those months are not transferable from one parent to the other. In effect, women can only get 80% of their salary for up to 11 months and those 11 months can be used at any time until a child turns 8. It is, therefore, perfectly possible to hire a nanny or au pair during the first year and still have access to those days later on (I know someone who did that). Some random statistics....

1) 7% of women do not return to work after taking parental leave.

2) In families in which the father earns more than than the maximum payout and the mother earns less than the maximum payout, fathers take 14% of the parental leave days and mothers take the rest (86%). In families in which the mother earns more than the maximum payout and the father earns less than the maximum payout, fathers take 40% of the parental leave. Some other studies indicate that the mother's level of education is most relevant to how much parental leave the fathers take. I've seen that myself in quite a number of couples who are both scientists. In nearly all cases, the parental leave was split evenly and each person took much less than a year before returning to work.

3) On average (overall, not taking into account education or income levels), fathers took approximately 20% of the available parental leave. This is an increase of approximately 10% since the early 1990s.

4)Younger mothers are at home for shorter times than older mothers (the speculation is that the younger mothers are less well-established in their job and don't feel they can afford as much time off.

5) As of 2001, 87% of all children from 0-17 have mothers who work or study. Only 6% study, the rest work.

I haven't found direct stastics to the average amount of time women stay at home (though from the link above it is likely somewhere between 12-18 months), but I found some statistics on when children start in dc on average. Since children are not allowed to have a dc spot in a publicly run dc (nearly all are publicly run) unless both parents are working at least 50%, I think this gives some idea....

http://www.scb.se/Grupp/allmant/BE0801_2006K02_TI_11_A05ST0602.pdf

Again in Swedish, sorry! Roughly...

30% of children up to 12 months start in dc. By roughly 18 months, 70% of children have started in dc. Since men on average take about 2 months off (much more than that in cases where women outearn men), one could guess that the vast majority of women are back in the office by 16 months after the birth.

What you haven't considered at all in your absurdly simplistic linking of the existance of parental leave with an attitude of "WOHMs are bad" include:

1) A government that officially offers equal amount of parental leave to both men and women can't possibly be trying to send the message that "WOHMs are bad", regardless of whether more women than men avail themselves of the leave. The official intention is clear: give parents some leave. If the same government is maintaining an open dialog on the existing disparities and actively taking steps to push the balance towards 50/50 leave taking, your charge becomes even more absurd.

2) You haven't considered the other possible motivations behind parental leave. In Sweden (as in the rest of Scandinavia), the number one motivation is to reward families who have children with extra leave time because Sweden desparately wants more children born, regardless of whether mothers work out of home or not. Getting mothers back to work is an added bonus as it means extra taxes paid into the system. Culturally, SAHMs are not particularly well-regarded in Scandinavia. Strangely, many Swedes consider that SAHMs do not contribute anything to society.

3) You also haven't consider any other regulations the government may have put into place that actively encourage women to return to work and create negative consequences for those who choose not to work....things such as individual taxation as opposed to joint taxation (which the U.S. has and which, in effect, punishes many families with dual WOHPs), or completely separated retirement systems (in Scandinavia, there is no such thing as a "widow's pension", each pension (similar to SS) must be earned individually...again unlike the U.S. where SAHMs essentially get rewarded with part of their husband's SS regardless of whether they have ever paid a dime into the system or not).

3) Support in the form of parental leave for care of sick children, subsidised dc available for all children (which makes it worth the while of nearly everyone to work regardless of how low paying the job might be) and flexibility in most workplaces. All of these make it easier for everyone in the family to find a good balance between work and family.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-05-2004
Sun, 08-27-2006 - 10:44am

You are exactly right. The government here has decided that family is important. *GASP* what a horrible thing to decide eh? And if a women wants to take time... or a father... to be with her family... *GASP AGAIN* then she should be allowed.

Oh the horror.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2005
Sun, 08-27-2006 - 11:21am
Actually, in Sweden...yes. There is something in place called "friår" (literally "free year") which any employed person can take. They have to work out the timing with their employer, get paid approximately 80% (up to a limit as with parental leave) by the government and are supposed to use that year for recreation, discovering themselves, trying out a new career direction, starting a business etc.
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-15-2006
Sun, 08-27-2006 - 12:19pm

um,why don't you clear up who created disease...you can't have it both ways,tm - you can't believe in God and scripture then also believe he created something like aids and cancer. disease and turmoil is something God heals,not causes. if you don't believe that,fine. defend what you do believe and why!!

and furthermore,i may get nailed for this but i'm going to toss it out there anyway...science (like chemotherapy) doesn't always work. i think so many people rely on science over faith for their ills. while i put trust and faith too into a doctor's hand when a diagnosis is given,i think there comes a point and time when you have to believe in the power of prayer,too. my brother,a pharmacy and drug manufacturing vp,and i got into a big discussion about this not too long ago,lol - his beef was that there could have been the right drug,the right chemo out there for our mother who died of cancer. my beef was that faith and fate took over and it was mom's time to die.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-15-2006
Sun, 08-27-2006 - 12:25pm

p.s. to this:

>>People in many cultures pray, not just judeo-christian ones. I'm sure their religious texts and traditions support their reasons for prayer, as well. <<
of course cultures pray in different ways. heck,some people don't pray at all!! but the best instrument for your defense is the one you most believe in,too.

 

Avatar for taylormomma
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Sun, 08-27-2006 - 12:52pm

<>

I haven't been the least big vague about it. Why do I need to "clear it up"?

<>

Of course I can.

<>

Why can't He do both?

<>

I've been quite explict, from my very first post on the subject.

<>

Who says it does?

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-06-2006
Sun, 08-27-2006 - 1:04pm

Given that child care doesn't exist here until 6 weeks, I couldn't have either. Health wise I could have in spite of losing a lot of blood with dd#1.

Now what I don't get is if they consider mom too sick to work for 6 weeks, how come dad doesn't get 6 weeks off to care for his newborn? After all, you can't expect a woman who is too sick to work to care for a newborn can you? Seems odd to me to consider her too sick to work but quite well enough to care for the kids.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-06-2006
Sun, 08-27-2006 - 1:06pm
Now that's an idea I could live with. Something that is available to everyone to use as they wish (how does a woman work out the timing of having her children with her employer though?) does not carry the stigma of paid maternity leave which says, loud and clear, that working is so bad during whatever time, we'll pay you not to do it.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-02-2006
Sun, 08-27-2006 - 1:09pm

"When you will pay someone not to do something, in this case work when you have children under a certain age, you are making a very strong statement about what you think is right."

IF you want to go that route then not paying someone, in this case not working when you have children under a certain age, you are making a very strong statement about what you think is right too!!!!!!!!

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-02-2006
Sun, 08-27-2006 - 1:13pm
Done responding to your posts for real this time. You say the same thing over and over again and it really doesn't make any sense. Opinions are great but if you have no proof to back up what your saying then personally it doesn't hold much water. Thanks for the debate but I know where my country stands and they are for WOH and SAHM moms if you care to re read my posts (I am not repeating myself for the 100th time) and other ppl posts on here all the way thru not just pick lines you don't like and try to pick that apart.

Pages