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
Let's see, you commented that humans didn't truly flourish until animal domestication b/c we then used their milk for nourishment.
Then you didn't ask me a question, you just said
"And? Are you under the impression that I lack information about bfing? I assure you that is not the case."
So show it.
I try to be very precise in the language that I use. It is far easier to debate if you actually *read* what I write and stick to debating that. I never said that humans never breasfeed or that humans did not truly flourish until animal domestication b/c we then used their milk for nourishment. I cannot debate those statments because it is not what I said or what I meant.
For your reference:
"Sure, humans *existed* prior to domestication, but civilization and societies did not flourish until both farming and domestication occurred."
Anything debatable about this statement?
The following is my extrapolation based on that factual statement (please note the "probably" and "likely" hints that the statements are conjecure):
"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."
Would you like to add anything to that analysis other than your link stating that humans, did, in fact, breastfeed?
"'Childbirth probably did not safer (sic) (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.'"
No, I do not agree with that statement, considering that when mothers could not breastfeed (whether they were just unable to lactate, or dead, or whatever) there was a reliance, up until the early 1900s, on wet nurses.
What time frame are you talking about w/r/t population growth and correlation with other sources of nourishment? What sources of nourishment are you saying were responsible for this growth?
As far as I know, before the advent of the concept of viruses/bacteria (and, consequently, the development of more sterile techniques for feeding infants)and the growing interest of scientists in developing infant formulas that more closely matched human breast milk, infant mortality from feeding on anything other than human breastmilk resulted in alarmingly high mortality rates for infants. See, for example:
http://ironwood.cpe.uchicago.edu/CPE_Workshop/paper/Lee_Kwang_Sun_IMR_Milk.pdf#search=%22statistics%20mortality%20baby%20artificial%20feeding%20history%2019th%20century%22
I've also seen some studies that indicate that artificial methods for feeding babies only became significant, in terms of percent of babies fed, in the 18th and 19th centuries (essentially concurrently with the Industrial Revolution).
"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."
You aren't really making a "probably" or "likely" statement here. You are declaring (i.e. "That had to be...") that population growth was significantly hindered until artificial feeding of infants became established. Given the high mortality rate of infants fed artificially before the 20th century and the fact that the human population started to explode long before artificial feeding became well-established and reasonably safe, I'm highly inclined to doubt a connection between the possibility of artificial feeding and population growth.
Moreover, I'm not really sure why milking a cow to keep a baby alive would be any more convenient than, in effect, milking another human. What's the difference between using a wet-nurse and using a cow with regard to keeping alive infants that would otherwise die?
I don't understand what you find ridiculous about this. I've done both, and with my FF DD, I would have been walking up and down the hall with her. With my BF DS, nursing would always calm him down. What's ridiculous?
Pages