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: 06-09-2006
Tue, 08-22-2006 - 11:50am

"Shouldn't a baby be attached to his/her mother rather than an inanimate object? I don't see it as unhealthy."

Sure, a baby should be attached to his/her mother. But, to be attached to one specific part of her body? No.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-05-2004
Tue, 08-22-2006 - 12:13pm

"Some kids who don't breastfeed get emotionally attached to a blanket or a toy. I'd rather have my kid attached to the breast than a blankie or a toy"

I dont know.. You're right that some kids may get attached to a toy, but its also true to say that some kids who BF could get attached to a toy as well... so I dont think we can say that if you FF, your child will be more dependent on inanimate objects.

My DD1 was FF, and shes not attached to a toy or blanket, nor does she suck her thumb. I've known other's children who were BF and are very attached to a certain toy and suck their thumb. I dont see an issue with it. Yes they will need to break from that habit at some time. But I dont think it's unhealthy.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-04-1997
Tue, 08-22-2006 - 12:32pm
I think it's less likely that a breastfed toddler will develop an attachment to an inanimate object or their own thumb -- I think one of the reasons that a baby would go on and nurse into toddlerhood is that he or she has already developed an attachment to the breast. I've never known many breastfed toddler who has a secondary attachment, but I've only known five or six dozen breastfed toddlers, so it's a rather small sample. I didn't want my kids becoming thumb-suckers if I could avoid it because several children in my extended family have continued sucking their thumbs past the time they got their permanent teeth and they ended up needed orthodontic work for their overbites. Call me cheap, but spending a couple extra thousand for something preventable wasn't something I was interested in doing....
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-05-2004
Tue, 08-22-2006 - 12:38pm

True. I still don’t think that BF into toddler-hood is going to be a guarantee. Its like so many other things we debate here; A BF toddler may be less *likely* to thumb suck, but every child isso different and their temperament may be more likely to lead them to thumb suck.

My first was FF and never wanted a soother even, and never Thumb sucked. She is very outgoing and not shy, which may be why she didn't like to suck her thumb, she didn't need that comfort when in crowds. My 2nd is BF and also doesn't like the soother, so I dont think she'll thumb suck either, but it's probably too early to tell.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Tue, 08-22-2006 - 1:02pm

While I agree with you in general as well, I think the extinction question is still moot - greater numbers certainly increased the likelihood that humans would have been able to withstand epidemics, climate changes, etc - and could therefore have been a key element to the survival of early human societies.

But you are right that it is more accurate to say that being able to survive on a variety of food sources in addition to breastmilk was a contributing factor to the expansion of early societes.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Tue, 08-22-2006 - 1:16pm

"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."

You forgot the qualifyer "in part" in that sentence. I did not say it was the only factor, but rather a contributing factor. Expansion of human groups took off for a variety of reasons - and at a time period that coincided with domestication of animals. Since maternal mortality has always been a population check, means to support survival of infants separate from mothers would be a necessary part of population expansion. The fact that infants can survive and thrive on other food source in addition to breastmilk seems, to me, to also be an adaptation that enabled this expansion. Any even poor survival rates due to aquired illnesses from articifial feeding would still be a positive population gain if the alternative is that the infants simply died with their moms.

"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?"

The availablity of another lactating woman? The fact that milk from other mammals (not just cows) was entering the food supply for everyone else making it a logical potential foodsource for infants as well?

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-26-2006
Tue, 08-22-2006 - 2:20pm
Please tell me you dont think FF babies aren't attached to their mothers? That they all need an object to be attached to because they are formula fed. Are you saying your son would be less attached to you if you didn't nurse? If so your DH must be very sad that his children aren't as attached to him as they are you.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2005
Tue, 08-22-2006 - 2:26pm

We aren't talking merely poor survival rates, we are talking absolutely dismal survival rates. That's known. My interpretation of the facts is the following:

A very few percent of artificially fed babies would have survived, hardly enough to contribute in any significant way to population growth. Also, given pregnancy rates before birth control, I can't imagine that it would have been too difficult to find a lactating female in a family group capable of taking on a second or even third child for nursing until solid foods were possible. In terms of work, finding another lactating human to take over the nursing would be less work for a family group than taking the extra time involved in feeding an infant artificially.

"Expansion of human groups took off for a variety of reasons - and at a time period that coincided with domestication of animals. Since maternal mortality has always been a population check, means to support survival of infants separate from mothers would be a necessary part of population expansion. The fact that infants can survive and thrive on other food source in addition to breastmilk seems, to me, to also be an adaptation that enabled this expansion. "

It isn't in the least surprising that expansion of human groups took off in connection with domestication of animals and agriculture. Those two innovations alone made it possible for a much higher density of human groups to live on a much smaller amount of land than the hunter-gatherer model. A more plentiful food supply for the whole population has always been associated with a solid population growth (and even population explosions). The couple of extra percent of babies surviving on cow's milk is just a blip on the overwhelming growth potential that farming enabled.

In a way, it's comparable to the population explosion just before and during the Industrial Revolution. Infant mortality in large parts of the world (even the industrialized world) was shockingly high, particularly for artificially fed babies. Most who were artificially fed simply didn't survive. Many who were breastfed didn't survive beyond the first year or so. And yet the population exploded. Those who did survive tended to live longer and have more children thanks to more plentiful food. In Britain, at least, food started to become more plentiful in the 18th century thanks, in part, to the enclosure movement...more plentiful food is thought to have helped fuel the population growth in England just before the Industrial Revolution hit in full force.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-31-2005
Tue, 08-22-2006 - 2:32pm

"Just trying to get a point across to all the militant BF'ers that not *all* BM is superior to formula. In your little supposed upscale world it might be. But, come down to the slums and you might be singing a different tune."

I still don't see how you justify calling every woman who is educated about the benefits of bf "militant." Are you a "militant FF'er" just because you chose formula?

Percentage wise, most American women live neither in a "little supposed upscale world" or "the slums."

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-04-1997
Tue, 08-22-2006 - 2:40pm
It's realy not that unusual for an infant to form a primary attachment to the primary caretaker, which in most cases, IS the mother, whether formula fed or breastfed. It's not sad at all -- it's the way most babies throughout history have bonded -- first to the mother, then to the father and then to the rest of the members of the family.

Pages