Originally Posted by contactmaya
I think the idea was, that if you lay a good attachment foundation in the beginning, you wont get the problems of peer attachment later.
I don't think he ever suggested that you won't get peer attachment, or even that peer attachment is undesirable. He was talking about orientation, not attachment.
Im not sure this is true. My then 2yo (ds1) seemed to be a case in point.
Many parents i know, and for some reason, more of them in the ap crowd ( im not sure why this is, maybe i just spend more time with them) struggle with children who wont separate, and who act asocial, but my son was always the opposite. He separated without a problem, and thrived on the company of his peers. For eg, on a playdate (usually spontaneous), he could not wait to share his toys. The sharing of toys and playing together with someone else, was part of the fun for him. This from the age of 1. I always thought he was an extreme extravert because of it. I struggled to find friends for him, not in order to 'socialize him' (which seemed to be the preoccupation of most other parents i met), but so he could have fun, laugh, run around, in ways that kids do with other kids. I still havent met another parent who values this as much as i do.
I was always trying to find playmates for ds1 (at least until his cousin came along), for the same reason. He loved it. I never felt he needed to be "socialized" by other children. I just felt that he needed to socialize, in the "hang out with people" sense. DS1 is also very, very extraverted.
I like the book because Neufeld seems to explain alot of things i have always wondered about, like the apparent amorality among some teenagers, and the lack of respect children develop for their parents. I found it a good explanation, but i still think there is more to it.
I was always respectful of my parents. So i never went through that stage. I also think that if parents were more respectful of their kids(in the consensual living sense), maybe this wouldnt happen? I dont think Neufeld addresses this. I could pretty much do as i pleased growing up, so i attribute that to why i didnt 'rebel'. I used to wish i had a reason to rebel, because it seemed like fun. But i didnt. I thought my parents were cool.
I rebelled, in a big way. But, not against my parents. They didn't let me do "pretty much what I pleased"...but they did let me be who I was. I rebelled against...well, pretty much everything else - school and school authorities, rules made just to have rules, expectations that I must have the same goals for myself that others had for me, etc. Mind you, I never thought that rebelling was fun. I just couldn't stand feeling pushed down all the time.
Jumping generations, what bothered me about the book, was the assumption that children who are extraverts must also have some kind of attachement disorder with their parents. I was with my ds1 24/7. He was just an extravert, not disorderly attached.
Also the notion that attachment to peers is unnatural, and a response to an attachement disorder with immedate family, seems to be a little far fetched.
I'm going to have to re-read the book, because I don't remember anything about this anywhere.
The solution to the dilemma of increasing peer attachement seemed to be that a parent has to get to know a childs friends-always host the parties, playdates etc. While i think this is a good idea, how is it workable for every parent? I mean if one parent is always hosting, when do the others get to host?
I think he was talking within a context where other parents don't necessarily want to host the parties, playdates, etc. If you host things occasionally, and the kids know who you are, and you know them, then the overall purpose is served, imo.
DS1 is almost 18. He doesn't socialize at home much. (We live in a small townhouse, with no yard, and he has three much younger siblings. Three of his closest friends have large houses, including space of their own - a rec room with recording equipment and a small fridge, a whole basement, etc. He can go to J's house and have dance parties and stay up until 1:00, which just can't happen here with the little ones.) But, I've still met a few of the parents and most of the friends (ds1, his best friend J and I went to see Iron Maiden together a few months back!). I have a good grasp of who his closest friends are, and what they do when they hang out together. Some of them have been here a few times to go swimming or have a sleepover. He's separating - heck, he may be moving out in a few months! - but I still know what goes on in his life, in a general sense. He still knows I'm here if he needs guidance. And, his friends also have parents who are involved and are around, as well. These aren't people who have just been cut loose to figure it out on their own. As far as I can tell, the parent orientation and solid family attachments they've all been blessed with have given them a very good foundation for healthy, positive peer attachments, as well. The two aren't mutually exclusive, but I do think peer orientation makes forming healthy, positive relationships - with friends and family - much more difficult.