Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kellyb
Just so I can catch up...what's "cc"?
|
cc stands for "continuum concept" it's a style of parenting that, at least on the surface, resembles attachment parenting. Jean Leidloff is the author of a book called "The Continuum Concept" which documents her observations of a group of native South Americans called the Yequana. They live in a tribal society, and at the time of her visits with them, they were influenced extremely little by the outside world. Leidloff feels that such a way of life gives us a better understanding of how humans would have behaved in their originally evolved state before civilization made us all lose touch with our instincts through its many institutions, ideas, and "experts." Yequana babies are in continuous contact with their mothers and/or another caregiver (like AP babywearing), which Leidloff calls the "in-arms phase," which lasts until the baby begins to crawl. Upon crawling, the baby is always welcome back in mother's arms, but gradually starts making small excursions with his new mobility. They are first not far from mother, and then they venture off farther and farther as they get older. Leidloff noticed that there were relatively few accidents that occured even though toddlers were nowhere near as "supervised" as they tend to be in the West. Now there's a lot more to cc philosophy than what I've just described here, and I follow a lot of it, but I also tend to follow AP more on some things. But in a nutshell, cc basically says we, as humans, evolved into having certain expectations, a continuum of expectations, such as the expectation that we will breathe air, which is why in utero we develop lungs even though we encounter no air in the womb. Liedloff attempts to identify more subtle expectations that every baby is born with through observing humans living in a more natural setting. Being in arms is one, being social is another example. This is how our efforts at keeping our children safe can have a paradoxical effect. According to cc, since we are social creatures, we want to do what is expected of us. If it is suggested to us that we are accident prone without supervision, then we tend to want to follow that expectation, and thus, for better or worse, become accident prone.
It makes more sense if you read the book. I highly suggest it, even if you don't follow it, it gives you a neat perspective on things.... I guess what I am saying in not being able to prevent accidents with our children is that it is impossible to have your eyes on your toddler every second of every day. Sometimes you have to pee, sometimes you turn your head, sometimes if you have other little ones, your hands and eyes are occupied with a more helpless babe for a second. The only person who can honestly look out for your toddler *every* second is the toddler themselves, since they, by definition are with themselves every second. And since it does only take seconds for an accident to happen, it makes sense to teach the toddler to use their sense of self-preservation. No, I don't mean leaving them for extended periods of time, but showing them in small ways that what is expected of them is to *not* have accidents, perhaps they are more likely to follow suit....
If my husband is around, he watches her. We have a cupboard full of toys in the washroom, so she can keep herself busy while I wash myself, and then I bring her in and wash her. I wouldn't feel comfortable leaving her in another room, as I wouldn't be able to hear her cry over the shower noise if she hurt herself or got scared.
as I know many will disagree w/me. 
Follow Mothering