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
If you have information that backs up your claim, why not post it?
The point, at any rate, was not about the how many adoptive mothers BF, but that they *can* BF if they choose to. If they choose not to, that is their business. However, the OP claimed that an adoptive mother *can't* BF, so they would be forced to comfort their child in ways other than BF. This is simply not true.
I'm a sahm and attachment parenting is a total turn off to me. Not saying others shouldn't do what works for them, it's just totally not me.
Angie
Excuse me? Where did I say anything remotely similiar to that?
Interesting debate tactics you have.
The soy thing is interesting, considering my son's ped told me to avoid it while breastfeeding (since there have been studies linking it with testicular issues).
"The most serious problem with soy may be its use in infant formulas. "The amount of phytoestrogens that are in a day’s worth of soy infant formula equals 5 birth control pills," says Mike Fitzpatrick, a New Zealand toxicologist. Fitzpatrick and other scientists believe that infant exposure to high amounts of phytoestrogens is associated with early puberty in girls and retarded physical maturation in boys.5
A study reported in The Lancet found that the "daily exposure of infants to isoflavones in soy infant-formulas is 6-11 fold higher on a bodyweight basis than the dose that has hormonal effects in adults consuming soy foods." (This dose, equivalent to two glasses of soy milk per day, was enough to change menstrual patterns in women.6 In the blood of infants tested, concentrations of isoflavones were 13,000-22,000 times higher than natural estrogen concentrations in early life.7 )"
"Infant feeding with soy formula milk: effects on the testis and on blood testosterone levels in marmoset monkeys during the period of neonatal testicular activity." (pubmed, from the NIH)
"CONCLUSIONS: Based on the average isoflavone content of the SFM brand used, intake of isoflavones was estimated at 1.6-3.5 mg/kg/day in the SFM-fed marmosets which is 40-87% of that reported in 4 month human infants fed on a 100% SFM diet. It is therefore considered likely that similar, or larger, effects to those shown here in marmosets may occur in human male infants fed with SFM. Whether the changes described result in longer-term effects is under investigation."
Pages