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
<>
I don't find that very plausible, given the nature of pathogens.
The question you have not yet addressed is, how did the pathogens get here in the first place? And what did God intend them for, if they were not intended to affect other organisms?
Seems a lot like me strewing the living room with broken glass, and then telling my kids it's their own fault for getting cut if they go in there.
Really? That's news to me.
My employer did not tell me to stay home until my kids were whatever age because working while they were that young is bad. They insist on a recovery period after birth. That is something entirely differnt. And since they insist on it, they pay for it.
My guess is they insist on it to avoid someone coming back later and claiming they were forced back to work before they were medically able or someone else complaining about someone's doctor giving her 6 weeks when they only got 3. I can see why it would be better for them to offer a set amount of leave that covers the worst case to avoid issues.
Edited 8/28/2006 6:23 pm ET by kbmammm
"What are the clear results of SAH vs WOH that can be debated as bad or good?"
For our family, a less stressful home environment, more time for all of us to spend with each other (resulting in a more stable marriage--divorce has been shown to be devastating on boys, in particular), a healthier lifestyle (fewer processed/fast foods and more exercise=less illness/reduced risk of heart disease, etc.), and the benefits for me and DS of breast milk/breastfeeding (which would not have been possible for us given a very rocky start), as well as our (DH and my) feelings of well-being and contentment which make us better parents and individuals.
These benefits for our family can't be quantified like agricultural land use, but they are significant for us.
<<< My employer considered me medically unfit to work for 6 weeks after birth.>>>
Are you sure about that? Maybe they know that childcare for the most part isn't available to infants under 6 weeks.
I don't think it's that at all. They realize MANY want to spend time with their infants. This way they(the parents) get that time, and they(the company) don't loose key employees.
I see it as ensuring that they KEEP the workers that they value.
Pages