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: 03-27-2003
Sun, 08-20-2006 - 10:56am

No. It wouldn't. Prior to the domestication of cows, human babies had no access to anything but breastmilk. Even if they could have survived on the milk of another animal, that milk was unavailable since the domestication of farm animals didn't happen until thousands and thousands of years after the human race evolved. So what happened in those first thousands of years before animals were domesticated and only human breastmilk was available? The babies all drank breastmilk exclusively- their mom's or another lactating woman's. If none was available, they died. But enough of them lived for humanity to continue.

Did you seriously think that humans have had access to the milk of other animals for our entire existence? Evolutionarily speaking, that's a pretty recent development.

If human babies were able to survive only on human breastmilk then after the domestication of animals they'd be in exactly the same boat as they were for the thousands of years before the domestication of animals. Some starving to death but enough living to keep humanity going.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sun, 08-20-2006 - 10:58am
The enviromental things that can affect human breastmilk affect the milk of cows too. It's not like they get a healthier diet than humans. They have the same (or probably worse) exposure to pesticides and drugs- although the drugs they are exposed to are different than the ones humans are exposed to.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Sun, 08-20-2006 - 11:56am

Your response does not rebutt my point. Just because domesticated animals were not available for additional milk does not mean that the ability to be nourished by milk other than exclusively breastmilk has not been a successful evolutionary advantage. Sure, humans *existed* prior to domestication, but civilization and societies did not flourish until both farming and domestication occurred. Childbirth probably did not safer (in fact, with increases in disease/infection with group living if probably got more dangeous) yet populations grew. That had to be in part due to the fact that infants could be nourished in ways other than exclusively from breastmilk. An inability to be nourished by anything other than breastmilk would likely have been a significant barrier to population growth.

Bottles have been found in archeological sites from very very early civilizations. As they say, necessity is the mother of invention. Bottles being present suggests a need for alternatives (ie due to an inability for some infants to breastfeed) and the fact those civilizations were successful in population growth suggests those alternative means worked.

"If human babies were able to survive only on human breastmilk then after the domestication of animals they'd be in exactly the same boat as they were for the thousands of years before the domestication of animals. Some starving to death but enough living to keep humanity going."

Which, clearly, they are not.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Sun, 08-20-2006 - 11:57am
What does this have to do with anything?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Sun, 08-20-2006 - 12:04pm

I know - we've had this identical exchange before. And, as I said last time, acknowledging that breastfeeding can pass risks on to babies is not an argument FOR formula. It is an argument for cleaning up our food supply and advocating for better environmental regulations. However, it is an illusion to assume that breastmilk is perfectly healthy and carries absolutely no risk. Women must judge for themselves. Take mercury, for example. Studies are finding a wide variety of mercury levels in women - some of them dangerously high. Combined with the fact that some infants and young children appear to be particularly succeptible to mercury poisoning, the possibility of inadvertantly passing toxic levels of mercury to babies via breastfeeding is one that women should be aware of. Again, not for the purpose of chooseing not to breastfeed, but rather as motivation to watch how much potentially mercury-containing foods they consume and possibly having their levels tested.

I would also like to point out that not only do cows not tend to eat fish, they are also not the only source of formula. For those that need it or would benefit from it, soy is another alternative.

Avatar for kerry88
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2003
Sun, 08-20-2006 - 12:17pm

Since you said this:

"As the percentage of overweight and obese mothers continues to rise, the exposure of breastfed babies to fat-soluble chemcials/hormones/etc will increase. What the exact effect of these things is is certainly debatable and remains to be answered. But assuming and asserting with no qualification that diet has no impact on the superiority of breastmilk is foolish..."

which I interpreted to be diabetes related since that is the normal association with obesity and fat-soluble chemicals, etc. If you weren't referring to diabetes wrt the obesity debate, then what were you getting at?

BF has been proven to prevent diabetes AND obesity in mothers and babies alike. Thought I would post one thing about it. But hey, if it doesn't have anything to do with anything in this debate, so be it.

Kerry with Campbell Elizabeth 11.03.06 and Benjamin Brady 12.10.03
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-02-2006
Sun, 08-20-2006 - 12:48pm
What?
Avatar for kerry88
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2003
Sun, 08-20-2006 - 12:49pm

"According to archeological evidence, breastfeeding has been the primary source of infant nutrition for over 10,000 years."

"During the 1600s and 1700s, socioeconomic class had a definite influence on the use of a wet nurse in middle and upper class Europe. Often times, parents never saw their infant from birth until weaning. Fortunately, wet-nursing declined over the next century."

- History of Breastfeeding, Town and Country Pediatrics

"These results show that efforts to prevent obesity must start at the earliest stages of human development, even before birth," says Gillman. "These efforts should include avoiding smoking and excessive weight gain during pregnancy, preventing gestational diabetes, and promoting breastfeeding, all of which researchers have shown to be associated with reductions in childhood overweight."
This study was supported in part by grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Seiden-Denny Scholarship fund for Maternal and Child Health, Harvard School of Public Health, the Berkowitz Fellowship in Public Health Nutrition, the Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Foundation, and Harvard Medical School.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060803000314.htm
"Breastfed Babies Cope Better With Stress In Later Life Than Bottle Fed Babies" - Science Daily, Aug 2, 2006

Kerry with Campbell Elizabeth 11.03.06 and Benjamin Brady 12.10.03
Avatar for kerry88
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2003
Sun, 08-20-2006 - 12:50pm
Isn't soy exposed to the same amount of chemicals that other agricultural foods are?
Kerry with Campbell Elizabeth 11.03.06 and Benjamin Brady 12.10.03
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-02-2006
Sun, 08-20-2006 - 12:53pm
Sorry, just not seeing the difference. A generalization is a generalization, period. And yes, I agree with pebbles, a drug using mother should not BF. If an FFer wants to use that as a claim that F is better than BM, that's just super.

Pages