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
Sabina
Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song,
Why would I be able to use your help? My sister is a lawyer, if I need legal advice. Plus, I have access to PBA lawyers.
???
"Is THAT the question you wanted me to answer? Or were you just at a loss for what else to say"
Yes, that was one question. Funny, you dodged it.
Also, what is the relevance of me having black friends?
Motive doesn't matter when the outcome is the same:
Paid time off. Period.
Many things:
Baby is born premature and Mom and or Dad cannot work for 6 months - they would lose their job.
Baby is born and Mom needs a long recovery time - Mom loses her job
Baby is born and Mom dies in childbirth, Dad needs to be home - Dad loses his job.
There are HUNDREDS of scenerios. The jobs are protected.
<>
Of course it is. It's your opinion that the nature of God necessitates that bad things like disease weren't created by Him.
<>
But that's not the question here. In your last post, you talked about things God might not have been able to foresee. That is about the nature of God, not the future. Whether God chooses to intervene or not has nothing to do with how disease got here in the first place.
Edited 8/28/2006 1:38 pm ET by taylormomma
The idea I am defending is that at the time of creation, God created a perfect world, and he didn't even intend for people to die. It was only when mankind rejected God's plans for him that God allowed people to go their own way, and that death, disease, etc, are all processes that were not part of God's original plan for mankind. Many diseases, if not most, are caused by environmental and genetic factors that have developed over time as a result of actions caused by man's free will. God, for whatever reason, usually does not interfere with mankind's exercise of free will.
I am not arguing that God didn't create ANY diseases or ways of death. He may have at some point -- only that there is a valid religious/philosophical position that says that these things aren't Gods first choice for his creation.
If god created man, created man's nature, and didn't intend for things to have turned out as they have, why create a man who would reject God's plans.
If God is truely all powerful, he could have created a mankind that would not have rejected God no?
Pages