The REVISED AAP and a ditz in a newspaper article

[dukeswalker]

There was a really nice article in our paper (or so I thought) on the new guidelines put out by the AAP today...UNTIL the end when some ditz by the name of Stephanie Coontz made a lame statement -

"Half of American women go back to work before their babies are a year old. A woman might need a good night's sleep or to bond with her husband, and that's good for the baby."

Made me mad! Putting 2 adults needs before that of a helpless babe! : I mean I was a working mom and a fulltime student - that closeness at night not only HELPED me get that much needed rest - it HELPED me to bond WITH MY BABY - my husband and I agreed - we have YEARS to spend those nights together and our baby needed me NOW...

Here is the link to the article:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...feeding07.html
Here is her email:
[e-mail]

AND here is the link to the AAP statement - it is a REALLY good read! http://aappolicy.aappublications.org...rics;115/2/496

[Marsupialmom]

I will agree that a mom needs a good nights sleep but the assumption that the babies will further disturb a parent's sleep is wrong.

I defiantly agree that a couple needs time to bond. What good is it if the parents drift apart? BUT BE CREATIVE? I really feel sorry for people that think this is they only time or way for adults to reconnect.

[dukeswalker]

Agreed! As a couple we spend all sorts of time together...Sure it may not be in our bed or at night - but we find places to be and things to do....grr...

[chersolly]

If a momma doesn't want to cosleep because they have sex in the bed, then I am so happy I'm not her partner because she has a hella boring sex life.

[Kavita]

Okay. She's right that society does pile it high onto women, especially mothers. And sleep and marriage are both important. Agreed.

But whether you keep the baby next to the bed or in the crib down the hall, breastfeed or bottlefeed, babies still need to eat at night, which means that someone needs to feed them! What does she propose as an alternative??! You're right--what a dope!!! Perhaps the problem is not in babies' biology, but in society's expectations that women should do it all, all at once . . . For a family historian you'd think she'd be a bit brighter and realize that other countries actually have different ways of managing this issue of balancing work and motherhood--like paid maternity leave, for example.

Call me crazy--I don't have kids yet myself, but I think if you can't handle the idea that you might (gasp!) have to wake up at night to feed your baby and that you might not be able to "bond" with your partner where ever and whenever you want once you have kids, maybe you might want to reconsider your decision to have a baby and get a nice aquarium instead.

[Tiskin]

Originally Posted by Kavita

maybe you might want to reconsider your decision to have a baby and get a nice aquarium instead.

[hubris]

Originally Posted by dukeswalker

"Half of American women go back to work before their babies are a year old. A woman might need a good night's sleep or to bond with her husband, and that's good for the baby."

OK, yes, the needs of the mother/father ARE important to their being able to function well as parents...but the solution in juggling them is what, to WEAN? That's garbage. How unimaginative/uncreative/uninformed are people, anyway, to think that the only options here are to either be breastfeeding 24 straight hours a day OR not breastfeed at all? UGH.

[kaydee]

Originally Posted by funshine

OK, yes, the needs of the mother/father ARE important to their being able to function well as parents...but the solution in juggling them is what, to WEAN?

That's not what Coontz (who has actually written some very interesting books and articles on women's history and is not at all a "ditz," regardless of whether you agree with her statement) said. She said NOTHING about weaning. She talked about how there shouldn't be *blanket* recommendations to co-sleep, and tied that in to increasing pressures placed on mothers in general. Nor did she talk about sex (that is not at all clear to me that that's what she was referring to wehn she talked about "bonding"). Please, if we're gonna name-call and criticize, let's at least get our facts right! :

(FTR, we did co-sleep for much of our son's first year.)

[Girl Named Sandoz]

Ds is 2.5. We still happily co-sleep. No lack of marital bonding going on around here.

To me, the blanket statement comes from Coontz rather than the AAP.

[Clarity]

what surprised me is that a woman with so much background in the area forgets how very long women have worked, both in and outside the house - in very physically strenuous jobs. And for how few years children were expected to have their own bedrooms. Especially in middle and lower classes where parents did work more. Women have been finding a way for a very very long time. And we've allowed social convention to interfere. A need for sleep or sex, and outside demands on women are not exactly 20th/21st century inventions.

[kaydee]

Originally Posted by Clarity

A need for sleep or sex, and outside demands on women are not exactly 20th/21st century inventions.

Perhaps not, but the "New Momism," to which I believe Coontz is referring, is a recent trend. I think it's arguable that co-sleeping be lumped in with that phenomena, but regardless, it seems a positive thing that families be encouraged to find the sleeping arrangement that works best for *all* family members, no? I see nothing wrong with examining and questioning convention--be they recent conventions or long-standing ones.

[mama_kass]

Does this mean that the AAP now reccomends co-sleeping?

[dukeswalker]

I guess I took issue with several things...

1st - as a previous full time working mom and student - those nighttime hours were CRUCIAL to bonding with my son - seeing how the daytime hours were spent away from me. And while my relationship with my dh is EQUALLY important - he is an adult (ok most of the time he's an adult! ) and is able to understand and see how important that time of day was for us to reconnect with our lil' one - we had many other times/locations to "bond" (take that however you want too...) When a working mom spends 8+ hours a day away from baby it is even more important to be an attentive nighttime parent.

2nd - nobody said the early months/years are easy when you choose to have a child. Lack of sleep comes with the territory. But as a previous poster said - for YEARS, women have been "working" - be it at a desk in some computer tech firm - or on the family farm. Countires around the world have working moms and yet the need to have a baby sleep someplace other than near mom is not commonplace.

Having your babe sleep in close proximity to you (it doesn't have to be in bed with you) HELPS with nighttime parenting. You are able to attend to babe before they get frantic and that in turns allows you to get more sleep. Less time consoling = more time getting down to the business at hand. Less time waking/walking/retrieving/sitting/rocking/replacing = More time sleeping....it is just common sense...

[kaydee]

Originally Posted by dukeswalker

I guess I took issue with several things...

1st - as a previous full time working mom and student - those nighttime hours were CRUCIAL to bonding with my son - seeing how the daytime hours were spent away from me. And while my relationship with my dh is EQUALLY important - he is an adult (ok most of the time he's an adult! ) and is able to understand and see how important that time of day was for us to reconnect with our lil' one - we had many other times/locations to "bond" (take that however you want too...) When a working mom spends 8+ hours a day away from baby it is even more important to be an attentive nighttime parent.

2nd - nobody said the early months/years are easy when you choose to have a child. Lack of sleep comes with the territory. But as a previous poster said - for YEARS, women have been "working" - be it at a desk in some computer tech firm - or on the family farm. Countires around the world have working moms and yet the need to have a baby sleep someplace other than near mom is not commonplace.

Having your babe sleep in close proximity to you (it doesn't have to be in bed with you) HELPS with nighttime parenting. You are able to attend to babe before they get frantic and that in turns allows you to get more sleep. Less time consoling = more time getting down to the business at hand. Less time waking/walking/retrieving/sitting/rocking/replacing = More time sleeping....it is just common sense...

Yes, I can see where it would have been good for those factors (that make co-sleeping so positive and, for some people, easier to parent) to have been noted. However, it seems like you are making a blanket statement of your own. Co-sleeping worked well *for you*, but that is not the case for everyone. And what Coontz spoke out against was blanket recommendations (that what works for some parents is what all parents should do).

[MamaPear]

How is the AAP recommending that breastfed babies sleep in close proximity to their mothers a blanket "should" statement and an added pressure to new mothers?? Honestly, I am relieved by this statement as are MANY new and old breastfeeding mothers. Their attitude is that it's about time! I would think that the AAP recommending co-sleeping in some form would help to take a ton of pressure off of moms. Now, instead of having to constantly defend co-sleeping arangements, parents can simply give the "aap recommends it" statment. Very nice, imho.