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: 07-26-2006
Sun, 08-27-2006 - 5:29pm
Would you have returned to work after 2 weeks if they would have let you?
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-31-2005
Sun, 08-27-2006 - 7:16pm

"Sorry but it is a very strong declaration of what you believe when you will pay someone not to do something. We don't pay people not to do things unless we consider them bad things to do."

I believe my uncle was paid by the government not to use some of his farm land: does the U.S. government therefore think growing corn is bad? Or that the benefits of my uncle NOT growing corn outweigh the benefits of my uncle growing corn?

Your arguments come across as if you only see things in black and white rather than shades of grey--which make your points much less compelling.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-06-2006
Sun, 08-27-2006 - 8:32pm

No, the government thinks growing MORE corn is bad. If they wanted no corn grown, they'd pay everyone not to grow corn. The government deamed it a good thing not to have that land in use. That's a great example of a governement declaring something bad. Having all the farmable land in use means prices become unstable. Taking some out of use means prices stay up and supply doesn't out strip demand. Those are good things. However, unlike the SAH/WOH issue, there really are benefits to taking some farm land out of production.

Thanks, I couldn't think of another example where a government thinks something is so bad they'll pay you not to do it. Taking farm land out of production is a great example of this in action. The government is declaring that having all the farm land in production would be bad so they pay to have some taken out of production.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-06-2006
Sun, 08-27-2006 - 8:33pm
What do paid leaves protect them from? What bad thing happens if you don't have a paid leave?
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-05-2004
Sun, 08-27-2006 - 8:38pm

I feel like i'm trying to explain this to my cat.

Better yet, a ping pong table. Same thing gets bounced back over and over and over.




Edited 8/27/2006 8:39 pm ET by sunkistmom22
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-31-2005
Sun, 08-27-2006 - 9:51pm

"However, unlike the SAH/WOH issue, there really are benefits to taking some farm land out of production."

The benefits are debatable, though, just like the SAH/WOH issue. I was trying to remember why exactly the government paid my uncle for not using his land, and when I typed in agricultural subsidies I found quite a few articles that suggested the subsidies had dubious benefits. Perhaps there is research on both sides of the issue, but only a farmer--or someone impacted in some meaningful way by the subsidies--really knows whether the subsidies are necessary.

I guess I'm just trying to point out that the issue isn't as clear cut as I once thought, or as you believe now. You don't know whether SAH is beneficial to my family because you don't live in my household. I can't tell you that WOH benefits your children negatively because I don't live in yours. All the Canadian government is doing is adding options for families who otherwise wouldn't be able to have a SAHP. And they are in essence saying that caring for one's child full-time is an important occupation, one they are willing to help finance.

I don't see that wanting to nurture and care for one's child full-time is any less important than occupying a traditionally male gendered role. Just 'cause males do it, doesn't make it better. (If you doubt this statement, check out a history of war.)

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-05-2006
Mon, 08-28-2006 - 7:23am

Ok......I'm jumping in here. I've read enough. I'm about to have a baby. 8 months pregnant. My company provides a paid leave, but it's only 30% of your pay. It's called Short Term Disability. It's the same instance as breaking your leg and having to wear a cast for 6 weeks and having to be off of work. Why is it paid you ask? Because in America; we have to pay for healthcare. and if you are off of work. Regardless of the time you are off. You must still get your butt through the front door of the company that you work for to pay your deductible on health care otherwise; your healthcare is shut off and you will be placed on a COBRA plan; which is you pay 100% of the healthcare. Therefore; your leave is NOT paid. That 30% pays only about 50% of your healthcare deductible. When you go back to work after your leave; you are about 2 months financially in the hole and you must dig yourself out AND pay for child care at approximately $600 per month.

This is child #2 within 2 years by the way.....I've been through ALL options. I've even changed companies to get a more economical healthcare plan. Since I've only been at this new company for 10 months prior to my baby's delivery date.....my leave is 0% paid. So I don't want to hear why our leaves are paid.

sorry to go off.....Just a little bitter about the whole topic.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-04-1997
Mon, 08-28-2006 - 10:43am
Not ncessarily. my debate is not about the nature of God, or the nature of man. It's about the nature of the future -- is it totally closed? Totally open? Closed to some extent but subject to God changing his mind as a result of human action? Does God respond to intercessory prayer, for instance and change his mind -- Scripture would certainly support a "yes" answer to that question.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 08-28-2006 - 10:51am
Shame. You could use my help.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 08-28-2006 - 11:00am

The only question I see there is, "And again, what is the ethnic make-up of those areas? Wyandanch, Roosevelt, Hempstead? Or am I making that up again?"

Obviously I was giving examples of white areas with drug problems, which is why I also listed Howard Beach and the Upper East Side.

Is THAT the question you wanted me to answer? Or were you just at a loss for what else to say?

Pages