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

Avatar for mommy2amani
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 08-21-2006 - 11:25am

I'm behind on this thread, so someone might have already responded to this, but no one is stating that you can take a BF child and a FF child and the BF child will always be "better" than the FF child. A BF child will be "better" than he would have been had he been FF. So, if your FF child is on an honors student, etc., etc., great, but your FF child would have been slightly better had he/she been BF. Still, it's slight, so you aren't going to look at your child and "see" the 4-6 extra IQ points.

Avatar for taylormomma
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Mon, 08-21-2006 - 11:27am

Yes, I'm quite aware of how the thread has evolved.

My point is that you claimed someone else was making a broad generalization, without actually knowing 1) whether the statement was a statement of fact, and 2) whether the person making the statement had done the research.

I simply found it ironic that you accused someone else of making a "broad generalization" while doing exactly the same thing. That the "broad generalization" was actually a statement of fact is just gravy.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 08-21-2006 - 11:56am
I had to LOL, as many people would also describe me as "very regimented and stubborn."

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 08-21-2006 - 11:58am
MM had an eating disorder in her youth, so she's quite sensitive to food issues.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 08-21-2006 - 12:07pm

You're not tied down with a breastfeeding child if you do not BF exclusively.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 08-21-2006 - 12:09pm
Good thing you called them "extreme militants" and not "nazis."

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Mon, 08-21-2006 - 12:09pm

Your original claim (post 879) was that the human race would have died out if babies could only survive on breastmilk. I succesfully rebutted that point with a reminder of how long the human race existed prior to animal domestication. I'm glad to see you have accepted that rebuttal and have softened your point to be that the human race wouldn't have grown to its current numbers without ability to drink non-human milk, rather than the basurd claim that it would have died out.

BTW: I agree that the human race couldn't have grown to its current numbers w/o the ability to drink non-human milk. If you had made that claim originally- rather than the claim that it would have died out- I wouldn't have needed to rebutt it because I agree. Being omnivores is key in our ability to live nearly anywhere on the planet and in such great numbers.

edited to add: if you get tempted to say that you never claimed the human race would die off if confined exclusively to breastmilk, only that it wouldn't have flourished to its current numbers, go back to post 879 and you'll see that's exactly what you claimed.




Edited 8/21/2006 12:16 pm ET by susannahk2000
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 08-21-2006 - 12:12pm
Thank you.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 08-21-2006 - 12:16pm
Yes, I deliberately chose to feed my children inferior food.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-02-2006
Mon, 08-21-2006 - 1:26pm
Which broad generalization did I make again?

Pages