Personally, I rather enjoyed the article... well, except for CIO, which just makes me absolutely sick to my stomach.
Originally Posted by Linda on the move
For the most part I liked the article(except for the Ferber bit). They aren't a detached family. They enjoy hanging put together.
My dh and I both had rough childhoods. He grew up in a war zone and I was neglected and abused. Our kids have had a blessed life -- extended nursing, gentle discipline, relaxed homeschooling, ect. They are freakishly like us, complete with the same quirks and anxieties. It turns out that some things that I thought were true about myself aren't just because my parents screwed up so much, but because of basic hardwiring.
I still think ap is the way to go, but not because it causes kids to turn out a different way. It just feels right in my heart.
I do think it's ok for parents to just relax and go for a swim or watch tv with their kids, and that seemed to be his main point.
Linda what you wrote really struck a chord with me. DH and I have both had some seriously traumatizing experiences in our childhoods (although we did also have loving parents at the same time so it's a strange dynamic). For much of my life I explained away my nightmares, my fears, my anxiety because of these events that happened in my childhood. However, as DD gets older I've founded that she exhibits much of my same behaviors and her childhood has been significantly LESS stressful. Yes, she has gone through some changes that other kids her age have not (move, giving up a beloved pet, different language) but her anxiety seems to be almost on par to what I dealt with. It's really made me rethink a lot of the nature vs. nuture in our children.
Originally Posted by Freeman
I only read the first article. As a parent of twins myself (plus two other young children) I can forgive the author for ten minutes of "Ferberizing." I don't think that this limited Ferberizing is likely to change the type of adults the author's twins are likely to become.
FWIW, I don't believe CIO is going to damage a child into adulthood. That's never been why I'm so against it. I simply believe it makes a parents connection to the child in the moment worst, which makes parenting more difficult in the immediate future (also I wonder if it might delay speech slightly due to a child's primary form of communication being ignored?). It's also something that I believe goes against our natural evolution/God-given instincts, so why would we ignore our instincts (basically, a similar thought I have to breastfeeding)? My best friend did CIO with her kids. It makes me cringe and it's a topic we've just agreed NOT to discuss. I still think she's a wonderful, loving mother and we're strongly considering having her and her husband be my child's godparents (but that's now, AFTER the baby stage is over! ).
I definitely have NO experience with multiples and I think everyone can understand that you can't necessarily parent the same way. I was in AWE of a friend of mine who was nursing TRIPLETS! I seriously don't know how she did that and I definitely can't say I would be able to pull off the same in her position. I never had supply issues but I found nursing to be extremely demanding emotionally for me with 1 so with 3, wow, I just can't imagine.
Originally Posted by Freeman
I've read this article before. While it sounds somewhat alarming at first glance, in the end:
"The differences between kids who logged long hours in day care and those who did not were slight. When answering questions that
measured their impulsiveness, teens rated themselves about 16% more rash in their behavior for every additional 10 hours they spent per week in
day care as a preschooler. In terms of risk-taking, the link to time spent in day care was more marginal: Ten more hours a week in daycare
prompted the average teen to answer one out of 30 questions with an admission of more risky behavior."
Also, 60% of the kids in the study were in low-moderate quality daycare. I don't begrudge the sharing of the research in the article, but I could do without the somewhat alarmist rhetoric implying that "daycare kids" are destined to have problems. There could be several other factors that could affect a child's behavior when the child has two working parents as opposed to a working parent and a stay-at-home parent -- not just daycare.
I know this is not what sapphire_chan meant but I just wanted to add that I've seen low quality daycare first hand. We went to a home daycare once to check it out for DD. It was SCARY (as in run for the hills scary). There were kids up to age 3 there, not a one said a WORD when we entered, they didn't interact with DD at all, and they barely moved the entire time we were there. I have no clue what those children were like before entering daycare but I can certainly believe that place adversely affected their growth! DD's been in daycare before for very brief periods of time and I can tell you those places were wonderful, they had loving caregivers and you better believe they formed strong attachments to those children. I DO think a daycare/schooling environment (even absolutely wonderful schools/daycares) can be enormously stressful on some kids (cough-my kid in particular-cough!) but I think those are immediate affects unlesss it's something where the child is seriously not getting their needs met (very advanced or delayed children, for example).
Originally Posted by sapphire_chan
Really the problem with looking at long term studies to shape parenting behavior is why should the child suffer in the moment? Whether doing CIO with an infant, or keeping a 3 year old home all day who desperately wants/needs more time with friends their age, they won't have statistically significant results over an entire population in 20 years, but for the individual kid all they know is that they are sad and there's no help.