BTW, I understand now what you were referring to with the miles/inches thing. Tone is a pain in the butt in these discussions.
|I was suggesting that our children have always had miles (upon miles endless infinite miles) BUT it's not like they USE it all. They don't need to keep "checking" to find at which point we are going to say "no, I DO own you" (not in those words) They are likely to think - eh, I'm sure we'd find a way for me to do that if I wanted, and sometimes just knowing that is enough.
|This isn't a concern for the child who doesn't feel the need to "get things while they can"
|It's much like attachment parenting in that sense. The child who is left to cry becomes more clingy/needy because they want to get that attention before its gone. They are afraid its going to run out, and when it does they are desperate to get it back to know its not gone for good (even though it comes back, children don't understand that in the same way which is the same reason for seperation anxiety). Where as the attached baby knows mama is there. So they go about their way, stop in for quick refills, and then continue on again. There is not feeling of "get it while I can because time is running short"
I know you do not mean this, well, I assume you don't, but these things tend to hit nerves in parents, any parent doing any kind of parenting. We all have issues we are dealing with, and when we are told that a child won't have such issues if they were parented differently it is going to raise shackles and it amazes me when it is dealt with as politely as this thread is in general.
All those things you said that I quoted above sound like the hopeful attachment parent ideals but the reality is, again, just not so predictable. My daughter was raised for almost two years in a mainstream way. Separate room, bottle, controlled comfort, no slings, mechanised comfort items like swings, the whole gamut. My son was raised from CONCEPTION as an extreme AP baby. Once born, 24/7 skin on skin contact for weeks, then 24/7 body contact with the mother, rarely any other, breastfed on demand, cosleeping, the whole gamut.
My daughter doesn't have a clingy bone in her body and never did. My son is SO freakin' needy it almost kills me. As I've illustrated throughout this thread.
My DD was a highly secure baby and is now a very secure child. She is intellectually gifted and very creative and imaginative. She was AP'd from the age of two, but that important foundational time, she wasn't.
The fact is, there are people, including children, out there who will take every last mile you give and still pull for more. There is a positive side to all character traits, and this one would have many. But it is still something that is a possibility no matter how a child is treated. I also used to think I was very clever with my well behaved rule follower who never took more than she needed - I also felt it was because she had no rules that she learned intrinsic discipline. Give her a mile and she'll take an inch. I've watched her give and give and give to everyone around her. She often reaches for the smallest piece of cake and I thought it was because when cake is around it is my usual stance to not cut pieces but put the whole thing on a plate and grab a spoon
:. I really thought it was me. In some areas, it might be.
But really, it's HER. I give the credit back to HER
. SHE's the special one, not me. It's not how she was raised because I know in my heart of souls that she would be this way if raised by a pack of wild dogs.
I used to also say “they” are this and that and “ap'd kids are...” (insert ideal here) "CL kids are..." (insert ideal here) with very little proof other than what other parents, like yourself, promised me here, and in books I read. The truth turned out to be much more variable.
Therefore, the fact that my son, for instance, is clingy has absolutely nothing to do with how many miles or inches he has. The fact that my daughter is Miss Independent from birth has absolutely nothing to do with how securely or insecurely she was attached at birth. Sure we can speculate about attachment issues, deep psychological damage (and what parent doesn't think about that?) and buried baggage I cannot see. But that would all be an individual thing, not something we can blanket statements about. Again, the whole thing is a generalised fallacy designed to entice an otherwise mainstream mother to become more in tune with her child.
I do not doubt, not for a second, that it is better for the mother and the child to practise natural parenting. I do however, think that all the icing that goes on that cake is bullshit. I don't think it shapes them quite as much as we are promised, as I have seen too many mainstreamed kids at playgroup and in my own family, and AP'd kids in my AP mother group this last 5 years to think it has quite that bearing anymore. I also see too many threads here by mothers with the same issues as mainstream mothers, and vice versa.
It is another piece of “false advertising”, based on anthropological factors that we simply cannot emulate satisfactorily, if for no other reason than the fact that WE were not raised that way. That is a HUGE factor, our own prejudices, beliefs, patience, needs and desires all weigh on how we parent.
It is like the way I used to say that organically, non processed, no additive food is the best way to feed children and such children will never be sick and blah blah blah... only to find that that isn't true either. It's as frustrating as the 90 year old chain smoker who breaks all the rules we set for how and when they should get sick and die. Yet I still believe the healthy food will set a child up stronger for life, as I have seen that, I just don't see it as immediately as I used to think I should. One of the only things that has delivered my preconceived idea is vaccination. Most vaccinated children are more sick more often than non vaxed children. Most, not all. But so far, that's the only one delivering on the promise.
And, let's not forget, they are their own people. They will choose to be who they are no matter what life throws at them. One person's tragedy is another person's opportunity.