Babywise-Neoprimitivisitc? - Page 3

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by EdnaMarie

I think what he is probably referring to is the idea--which is quite popular on MDC, incidentally--that children can be damaged during birth, I mean psychologically damaged, that attachment is a fragile thing and that it can be damaged during and immediately after birth if certain AP practices are not adhered to.

I think babies can be damaged during birth. I also think attachment can be damaged in the early days. And, that may be what he's getting at...but it's not what he said, and I think that was deliberate.

The idea that if a baby is left to CIO, permanent trauma may be incurred.

So AP practices are advised to avoid said trauma.

I agree that CIO is damaging to baby's brains. But, again - that's not what he said. I think he quite deliberately put the AP view of things into the most psychologically screwed up phrasing he possibly could, and freely twisted the views people have in order to do so. I can assure you that my belief that CIO is damaging has nothing to do with a belief that birth is inherently traumatic to every baby, which is what Ezzo said.

I think he is partly right about AP, but also that these defenses of AP are partly correct. Children are resilient but repeated attempts to basically coerce them into submission / apathy towards their own needs are going to affect them in a negative way. However a one-time issue (baby in carseat so mom can take older sibling to doctor) is not going to damage them permanently.

And in fact you will see this debate go on on MDC over and over... People asking whether 30 minutes crying in the car for the sake of a need of another family member (and IMO socialization is a real need for many) and you will get answers ranging from, "It is sad but we all make sacrifices for family and you can make it up to baby, this won't turn them into an adult mass-murderer or anything" to "The Harvard study showed that crying releases the same hormones even if you are nearby... I wouldn't do it."

I personally try to avoid that (but have done it under certain circumstances), but not because of a Harvard study. I avoid it, because hearing my child cry like that is psychologically damaging to me.

You can complain to him all you want but moms are asking the exact same questions on Nighttime Parenting.

That doesn't make his assertion that these things are caused by AP valid in any way. I heard people talking about this 30 years ago, and they were far from AP parents. I've certainly known a boatload of children who want instant gratification, wake at night, are poor at self-comforting, independent play, etc. who weren't raised with AP principles. These things are valid issues with young children (or even older ones). My issue with him is that he puts the blame squarely on AP.

HOWEVER... there are defences of AP that could stand revision, IMO. Why not take this as a way to revise the way we put AP out there, so as not to stereotype ourselves?

People defend AP based on their own feelings/beliefs about AP. I, personally, don't even use the AP label very often. I parented ds1 basically the same way as my younger three (except that, for various reasons, I've breastfed the others longer, and ds1 coslept longer than the others)...and I never heard the term "Attachment Parenting" until I was pregnant with ds2.

AP does not have to be about "I do whatever baby wants because that's how primitive people did it and if I don't she'll be damaged for life," and if that's how it's coming across, we have a problem.

The "primitive people" thing makes me nuts, honestly. But, there are going to be problems putting across any ideology to people who don't follow it. If my take on AP were "I do whatever baby wants because that's how primitive people did it and if I don't she'll be damaged for life," then that's obviously how I would put it across. My take is different, so I put it across differently. I think the "problem" is that people who aren't AP will happily take one person who uses an AP approach, then decide that all AP families are exactly the same. That can be good or bad, but it depends on the one person whom people are basing their judgment on, not on AP as a whole.

[EdnaMarie]

Originally Posted by Storm Bride

I think babies can be damaged during birth. I also think attachment can be damaged in the early days. And, that may be what he's getting at...but it's not what he said, and I think that was deliberate.

No, that's really exactly what he was talking about. I mean, we all know children can be physically damaged at birth. Obviously. I think he's referring to a psychological imprint, so to speak.

I agree that CIO is damaging to baby's brains. But, again - that's not what he said. I think he quite deliberately put the AP view of things into the most psychologically screwed up phrasing he possibly could, and freely twisted the views people have in order to do so. I can assure you that my belief that CIO is damaging has nothing to do with a belief that birth is inherently traumatic to every baby, which is what Ezzo said.

I don't think so. He is just saying it really bluntly. He is definitely generalizing to a whole group. It's a caricature in some parts. But he's not pulling this out of his behind.

And I'm not seeing that he said birth was damaging to every baby according to APers, but that birth was a time that damage could happen, i.e. psychological damage.

That doesn't make his assertion that these things are caused by AP valid in any way. I heard people talking about this 30 years ago, and they were far from AP parents. I've certainly known a boatload of children who want instant gratification, wake at night, are poor at self-comforting, independent play, etc. who weren't raised with AP principles. These things are valid issues with young children (or even older ones). My issue with him is that he puts the blame squarely on AP.

Well we share that issue, then. What I'm saying is, he is hearing this from somewhere. It is hard, when you are afraid of permanently psychologically damaging your baby, to set limits even when your baby turns into a young toddler, or when baby's habits are causing you to spiral into illness. So I do think that some AP beliefs can result in failure to set limits for women who do not have a robust network of friends who are experienced moms to help them navigate their personal limits.

Again, not to mention a particular post, but on nighttime parenting, just do a search for "hell". You will get a myriad of posts of mamas waking with a 3 - 36 month-old-child. And I'm going to be honest. I have never seen so many people in sleep hell as I've seen on this board (and this is NOT my only mommy board... LOL!)

People defend AP based on their own feelings/beliefs about AP.

Some do, but there are a lot of parrots out there, and a lot of new parents in particular that really do not have the experience that allows them to fill out their knowledge beyond their one child or what they've read in Dr. Sears. That is not their fault! It is easy to caricature a new mom, and unfair. It still happens.

I think the "problem" is that people who aren't AP will happily take one person who uses an AP approach, then decide that all AP families are exactly the same. That can be good or bad, but it depends on the one person whom people are basing their judgment on, not on AP as a whole.

Certainly! Worse, Ezzo has probably met only families disillusioned with attachment parenting and ready to try anything. But what this highlights is how a shallow understanding of GD, and a lack of community to help you work out creative solutions, can really cause problems that will push you over the edge and get you ready for any tactic, however harsh.

I think that the lesson we can all learn is to listen and help people find solutions, not just to tell them again and again what worked for us.

Not that you do that... I've not seen any of your posts along that line. But it happens everywhere.

[Storm Bride]

I think we're in agreement on almost everything, except what Ezzo was actually saying in the excerpt upthread. To me, it was very clear that he was saying that 1) babies don't have psychological needs, except the imaginary ones created by "birth trauma" (which he doesn't seem to believe in), and 2) attachment parenting is all about creating a second womb, in order to heal said "birth trauma". I really haven't come across this particular view of AP before, not here or anywhere else. And, he also seems to imply that all AP is about healing that "birth trauma", with a secondary implication that all AP parents believe their children experienced said trauma. (I actually think mine did experience some, but not because I belief birth is inherently traumatic.)

I also agree that AP parents are more likely to have a really bad time of it during the night. I disagree that this is caused by AP, though. I've known people who left their children to CIO at well under a year of age, and wouldn't even know if their children were waking at night at 36 months. The parents lack of sleep may be caused by AP...but that doesn't mean the child's needs are caused by AP.

I really, really dislike Ezzo, and the way he looks at and frames things. This is a really good example of why.

[SaoirseC]

Originally Posted by Learning_Mum

I only got about half way through because I got bored, but am I the only one that doesn't believe every time my baby cries I need to offer the breast? Maybe when they're a newborn and estabishing milk supply but not when they get a little bigger.

No you're not.

[EdnaMarie]

Originally Posted by Storm Bride

I think we're in agreement on almost everything, except what Ezzo was actually saying in the excerpt upthread. To me, it was very clear that he was saying that 1) babies don't have psychological needs, except the imaginary ones created by "birth trauma" (which he doesn't seem to believe in), and 2) attachment parenting is all about creating a second womb, in order to heal said "birth trauma". I really haven't come across this particular view of AP before, not here or anywhere else. And, he also seems to imply that all AP is about healing that "birth trauma", with a secondary implication that all AP parents believe their children experienced said trauma. (I actually think mine did experience some, but not because I belief birth is inherently traumatic.)

I also agree that AP parents are more likely to have a really bad time of it during the night. I disagree that this is caused by AP, though. I've known people who left their children to CIO at well under a year of age, and wouldn't even know if their children were waking at night at 36 months. The parents lack of sleep may be caused by AP...but that doesn't mean the child's needs are caused by AP.

I really, really dislike Ezzo, and the way he looks at and frames things. This is a really good example of why.

It sounds like you've read much more of him than I have (my reading is limited to a few quotes in Parents' magazine at the peds, and this...) so I will trust you on his views.

And again... I'm not saying he's right, I'm saying, it's a common perception (it really is) and beyond Ezzo's own propagation of it, we should ask why.

[Bluegoat]

Neoprimitivism is an interesting idea - I think we see it in a lot of areas besides child rearing. Diets come to mind - "Eat like a Caveman", and that sort of thing, because it is "natural" and therefor healthy. It's primitivism because it is looking to copy primitive behavior, and neo because it is actually "copying" our modern interpretation and valuation of that behavior.

I think there is actually some value to looking at what is biologically normal in things like child development, or diet. But that is not quite the same argument.

Notwithstanding all that, Babywise is awful.