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
You need to catch up, as numerous studies have already been posted in this thread. For example, in post 905, this related to IQ:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/70/4/525
And in post 923, several studies related to obesity and diabetes.
Nobody is calling you a bad mother, so there's no need to be so defensive. Very rarely is breastfeeding not the best choice for a baby. It might be the best choice for the mom, or the best choice for a particular family, and sometimes best for the family or best for mom trumps best for baby.
As I said in another post you apparently haven't gotten to yet, I'm not saying you can take a BF child and a FF child and the BF child will always be "better" than the FF child. Your FF child may well have a higher IQ or be sick less often than my BF child. However, a FF child would have been even "better" had he/she been breastfed.
<<<>>>
I've had the same girlfirends since I was three years old (there are 5 of us). We pretty much know everything about all of us (not pretty much, we DO know everything about each and every one of us). We all went to the same daycare, elementary, junior high, and high school, and up until college, never lived more than about 5 minutes from one another. I can see how it would seem obsessive that I know my friends were FF, but it's just something that came up when I was pregnant (I'm the first one with a baby), we were all together talking about it, and it just kinda came up, so anyway, that's how I know they were all FF.
It's not that I have a close minded attitude, and I do take into consideration what reserach has proven, I just don't live by it. I've seen too many examples that could argue it. While I would never debate that Formula is better than BM for a baby, as I know there are many things in breastmilk that man just can not copy, I don't think formula is a horrible thing at all. I don't think I would be any smarter had I been breatfed, and I don't really think it would have been possible for me to be any healthier than I am. In K-12 grades, I missed MAYBE 3 days of school due to being sick. I have not ever had the flu and no, I don't get flu shots due to my absolute terror of needles (with the esception of the year my son was born, I got one then because I didn't want to even chance getting the flu and passing it on to him), and the only times I have thrown up in my life were due to pregnancy, and in my wilder days, drinking (and I have to say, I don't miss those days AT ALL!!!!!). I just don't agree that these findings are true all of the time, with every single baby that is born to this earth.
But science isn't saying this, and I think I've said pretty clearly that I'm not saying this either. In fact, in my last post, I said it may very well be that your FF child has a higher IQ that my BF child. I'm saying, and science is saying, that breastmilk can increase IQ (I believe up to +10 points). Of course there are *lots* of other factors, so your FF child might have an IQ of 125, and my BF child might have an IQ of 115, which might have been 105 had I not BF. Never did I say that BF children always had higher IQs than FF children.
<<>>
Hey again different strokes. I do disagree that it is easier to take away the breast. You can easily throw a toy, a pacifier, or a blanket away. You can't do that with your breast.
Are you seriously suggesting that asing for someone's qualifications to make such a generalized statement is a generalization itself? Isn't part of debating backing up on'e statments when questioned? You are too funny....
For the record, thr OP never bothered to say she had proof of her claim. If she had responded with proof, when questioned of her stance (as is traditional in good debating) then this would have never even been an issue.
This whole subthread is really rather boring.
Pages