is attachment parenting "conservative"? - Page 4

[bluedotsmom]

So many eloquent posts, but I'll throw in my random thoughts:

-while pregnant with dd1, i first heard about the 'family bed' and remember telling my dh that "those people are crazy!!" ahem, we now have a family bedroom and ds (9mos) sleeps with me & dh...just like his sisters did (they're in their own bed in our room)
-my husband was a sahd to dd1 & dd2 (for 5 years) as a professional musician, he would have had to be on the road 360 days a year to support us and we absolutely believed that our children needed both of us.
-I found The Baby Book when dd1 was about 2 months old and finally found a name for what we were doing - it was AP!!!!! once dd1 came home, it just seemed natural to hold her all the time and breastfeeding was planned from the beginning. and, my dh was/is an enormous component of any success I might have as a mother, from leaking breasts to staying home after the birth of our third child last November.
-I always liked Sears' books because he seemed to always come back to mothers' intuition. women have spent too many years in this country being told by allopathic physicians that *we* do not know what's best for our babies or ourselves!
-and, I could give a Sears book to a non-AP type person and they would read it! are their books perfect? of course not, but they're pretty good for a start.
- my dh *loathes* the label Attachment Parenting, he thinks it sounds stupid and believes that labels can turn off other folks. he's funny that way, but he always encourages homebirth, breastfeeding, slings, etc...to people he meets.

Conservative or liberal? Well, I personally am conservatively liberal! Wait a minute, was that liberally conservative?!? D&*#n, I can't ever remember.

Who knows...I'm Christian, I'm 39 years old & dh is 49, our 3 kids range in age from 5 down to 9 months and my dh wants more!!! I like to wear lipstick, occasionally shave my legs, wear skirts mostly because it's easier to pee when slinging a 20+ lb baby, breastfeed in public as much as possible just to stir up trouble, am trying to live a more natural lifestyle (even making dh eat buckwheat waffles which he says taste like grass: ) and have been spending much time lately having an internal debate as to whether 'natural' living is the same as 'simple' living (it seems to me that 'simple' leads to 'natural', but not necessarily the other way.)

hhhmmmm, this post makes no sense. oh well, maybe I'm an independently, conservative liberal AP'er!

luv ya moms!!

[mum2sarah]

Mamawannabe, you are totally misconstruing what I said and mixing it up with what someone else said. Reread what I said, please. I never said that staying at home was the natural thing to do. I never said that all aspects of AP are necessarily the natural things to do. I said that the breastfeeding relationship with the bonding that takes place is natural, and that the AP mantra of the importance of mother and baby bonding stems from the breastfeeding relationship that nature designed. Roll your eyes all you want, but it's the truth.

I can see what you are saying about mothers emotionally distancing themselves in the past because of infant mortality, and perhaps that may have been the case to some degree. But I'm talking more of a physical bond than an emotional one that is natural. And if there's anything to roll eyes about it's your argument that the existence of wetnurses means that bonding with your baby was not what nature intended. The popularity of wetnursing was a fairly recent phenomenon in the scope of human history and it has nothing to do with the way we evolved as human beings. The fact that we are able nurse another mother's baby does not mean that nature didn't intend for the baby to be nursed by it's own mother. Perhaps this was a survival mechanism in case the mother died in childbirth, but it seems totally illogical to argue that it isn't natural for a mother to nurse her own baby

I am not pro-SAHM for everyone. I know plenty of moms who are better off working. I am not pro-WOHM for everyone because some of us feel not obligated but fulfilled by a choice to stay at home, which is just as valid as a choice to have a career. What I am pro about is pro-baby and pro-nature. A baby was designed by nature for physical contact and breastmilk. If these things can't be provided in the "traditional" way, I suggest a network of support in our society to approximate them as closely as possible. That has nothing to do with being conservative or liberal. It has to do with meeting the infant's needs as ideally as possible when they enter the world knowing nothing of political ideology, or feminist rhetoric. They only know what humans have evolved to know. That they suckle. That they feel safe when enclosed in warm arms, surrounded by love.

[mum2sarah]

I guess another way to summarize what I'm saying is that while you may be able to argue that it isn't always natural for a mother to want to be with her baby constantly, it's very hard to argue that it isn't natural for the baby to need to be with it's mother constantly. And actually, regardless of an emotional need that the mother may or may not feel, she still does have a natural physical need for her breasts to be relieved on a regular basis. I guess it's all in how you define "bond" and how you define "natural" and who it is you're referring to: the mother or the baby. But that does not make the bond I'm referring to any less natural.

[mamawanabe]

Oh I wasn't responding to any particular post. Just to the general idea that the way we are raising out kids (AP) is the way that "nature traditionally intended." (that is not a quote from another post; the quotation marks are used to bracket off an idea)

I am thinking through this idea now (which part of me buys into). How far back should we go, historically, to find out what nature traditionally intended - ya know? Humans have always lived in civilizations that prescribed different social structures, and they have always called these social structures "natural." In hunting and gathering societies, I imagine it didn't seem natural at all for a woman to play with her babies much of the day, but it certainly feels so to us now.

Breastfeeding your own child seems 100% natural now, so much so that practices entirely common in the middle ages (sending kids for the first couple of years of life to peasant wetnurses) are unthinkable. In fact we find the idea of breastfeeding a child not our own were "weird," when for thoudands of years this was the norm among whole classes of people. I don't know if we know if wetnurses were common in hunting and gathering soceities, but I imagine they were - It would allow for more work to get done if one mother feed two or three mothers' kids.

So my only point is that "natural" is a social conept.

And as a social being brought up in this soceity, I too believe breastfeeding your own child to be the "natural" way. But I still question that belief.

[mamawanabe]

Ah you posted your second post while I was writing.

Hmm, the mother(cargiver)-child physical bond that comes from breastfeeding.

Does the "naturally" baby desire to be with a single caregiver constantly? Any caregivers who nurse? Only Mom?

I wonder if any social science studies have been done on this. If this has been measured?

A lot of interesting questions. A lot we should explore. The way not to explore this seems to me to proclaim "natural"

[mum2sarah]

Those are very good questions, mammawanabe. I guess you are right in that it's hard to say how humans would behave "naturally" in isolation of any social context such as society, or clans, or tribes, etc.

I suppose I'm just looking at the baby's need for physical touch and nourishment and the mother's need for physical relief of full breasts. And that breastfeeding helps deliver her placenta, stop postpartum bleeding, and shrink her uterus back to its prepregnancy size. And that her milk changes as the weeks and months go by to exactly fit the needs of the age of her particular baby. And looking at all those physical factors, it would seem to me that nature designed the system for the mom to be the one accessible frequently to her baby to nurse him/her often, especially in the early months.

Now that's not to say the needs of mother and baby cannot be met in other circumstances. In our society a mother can pump milk to relieve engorgement and provide for her baby. Another loving caregiver can give the gentle touch and warmth a baby yearns for. I guess all I'm saying is that if we take a look at the system that it seems was designed by nature, then we can look at ways of parenting that most closely fit the needs of mother (or other parental figure) and baby. Does that clarify?

Oh, and I apologize if I took your post personally. I thought that you were referring mostly to my post, since I did talk at length about what is "natural." Forgive my defensiveness...

[DAR mama]

Amandzia, while I have no desire to “bop” you on the head, I would like to make one more comment and then I will stop before this gets any more off topic.

I would like to point out that while the majority of the posts have focused on the many ways we agree about how to raise our kids – breastfeeding, cosleeping, mutal respect, etc -- and how amazing it is that ideas relating to attachment parenting can transcend so many boundaries, you seem to want to condem mothers who, for whatever reason, do not stay home full-time. Whether to stay at home is a complicated decision made by complicated women in a complicated world. Please leave room for others to make their own difficult decisions without painting them with the broad brush of greedy materialist, self-centered egotist, oblivious idiot, or unfit parent.

It is true that you know nothing of what my work/home situation, or my caregiver situation, so you should not presume to give me advice based on the extremes of bad mainstream parenting. I don’t park my ds in daycare 12 hours a day, I do not work in order to own an expensive new car, I do not trust my child to idiots. Please don’t assume that because I work that I love my child any less than you love yours.

OK, sorry to everyone else for this semi-rant. I will respectfully withdraw from this thread now.

[*Erin*]

Originally posted by mamaduck
Someone I know wrote Sears a letter asking for clarification about some of his assertions about the role of a "mother." His reply was pretty starkly anti-feminist. To the effect that *all* women are made for to purpose of having and nurturing babies and should recognize the blessedness of this calling.

I like Dr. Sears and am willing to disagree on some points because it makes me happy to hear a Christian voice advocating gentle discipline, etc. I really think he is a hugely valuable resource in conservative communities who will *only* listen to a Christian voice, etc. I recommend his books and articles without hesitation!!!!

For myself, I have felt inclined to read things written by women lately. I'm not saying it is better, just that I find women often do a better job speaking to *my* reality. KWIM?

omg. that wouldve made my head explode.

i am right there w/ you on wanting to read womyn also. i started reading everything i could get my hands on about feminism and the womyn's movement, and modern womyn, and that desire for the female voice just stayed right with me with everything i read. esp. irt babies, children, childcare, birth, pregnancy, breastfeeding, and ect... i find the same thing, that womyn speak my reality better.

[mamawanabe]

For as long as I can remember, my mom has ONLY read books by women. Dectective fiction or nonfiction, whatever, it has to be by a woman. She says there are too many good books by women, that male authors have nothing to say to her.

[Piglet68]

mom2sarah: excellent post back there!

mamawanabe: excellent points raised!

re: "natural"...this is how I look at it:

Think about a breeder of dogs: wouldn't it seem bizarre if that person took the newborn pups away from their mother immediately after birth and placed them in individual incubators? Wouldn't it seem strange to feed them, let's say, milk from a goat rather than milk from a dog? And every breeder I know recognizes the importance of colostrum. Yet hundreds of thousands of mothers in this country can't even be bothered to give their human child colostrum, while breeders of horses go out of their way to get it for their foals.

And you wouldn't feed your pet cat a diet of raw carrots any more than you'd present your Bunny Rabbit with a diet of worms. You don't need to explain to people why dogs need to be taken for a walk but your pet spider doesn't.

Yet somehow when it comes to babies all common sense goes out the window. Of course babies will sleep better when mama is holding them close and walking around. Of course they want to be held all the time. Of course they cry when layed down alone without any human contact. Of course human milk is far superior than cow's milk (even when your kid is a toddler!). I mean, when we look at other mammals what are they doing? And especially look at primates...what are they doing?

Millions of years of evolution mean that the conditions which human babies evolved in are the ones in which they are designed to thrive the best. It doesn't mean they aren't adaptable and it doesn't mean that occaisonally some babies will be anomalies (like the babe who just really doesn't want to be held all the time, or really doesn't like cosleeping). But IMO, I up the odds considerably in my favour when I parent my child as naturally as possible. And, when you've got three different parenting "experts" telling you three different things, I always come down to this question..

"What would Mrs. Caveman do?"

Mrs. Caveman almost certainly didn't bother herself with whether nursing her baby to sleep was creating a "bad habit". She would probably be horrified at the thought of her baby sleeping alone without her. She would probably laugh herself silly at the notion that babies need to cry to exercise their lungs. She would never bother with a schedule (and lugging that sundial around would be a real pain, now, wouldn't it?). So when I hear advice like "babies should be fed every 3 hours, no sooner" I can't imagine why anyone would think that makes sense!

Like mom2sarah said: mothers today have different needs and circumstances, but babies are the same as they were 100,000 years ago.

stepping off soapbox now....hee hee.

[melixxa]

What a wonderful thread. This is some of the most thought-provoking stuff I've read in awhile.

I wanted to add that I love how this community, though self-professed AP, remains inclusive. I, for one, don't necessarily consider myself a good AP-er (not that I believe it's necessary to have labels), mainly because I'm new at all this - my baby is just six weeks old - and don't yet know how I'll end up choosing to do things. Will I EBF? I don't know. I am just going to keep going and not think about six, eight, 12 months down the line. Will the combination co-sleeper (Arm's Reach)/in-the-bed arrangement my DP and I have settled into for now end up being a longer-term thing? I don't know. Will we refuse or delay vaccinations? We haven't decided yet!

When I first got pregnant, I was so ignorant (and squeamish) that I told people I *would not be breastfeeding my baby* (gasp!). As the months went by, I grudgingly accepted the fact that I *must* breastfeed for the health and welfare of my baby, even though the whole thing horrified and repulsed me. I was sure it would be an incredible ordeal for me. Well, now I am bf-ing up a storm and it has all gone off without a hitch. I wouldn't say I "loved" bf-ing, but I wouldn't say I didn't. I am happy to be able to make this unique commitment - unique as in with my specially engineered milk - to my baby's wellbeing. And to his comfort level.

I have two points to make. One is that, even though I don't think I am as "committed" as many of the people who post here regularly, I feel welcome here. I am thrilled by the fact that this is seemingly one of the few forums left where left and right, liberal and conservative, committed and casual, etc. etc. etc. - whichever labels I need to use to paint a picture of the broad spectrum of ideas represented here - can come and debate and discuss, support and encourage, ask and inform, agree and disagree - in a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect, with minimal rancor. Isn't this a rare, precious thing in today's polarized, contentious society? For this, I truly value the Mothering boards and the AP community in general.

My second point - well, I suppose it's not a point, more just an observation of my own. I have come to value bf-ing (beyond nutrition) exactly because my partner and I are both so intensely attached to our DS. We both work out of the home, are both freelancers in our chosen professions, though obviously right now I'm not working at all (I'm barely sleeping here....). As a result, his schedule remains flexible and by design includes no early mornings - so he can soothe and spend time with our son during the nights, waking me only to nurse. This system allows us both to get more sleep and to both become "attached" to the baby. I would say that we spend nearly equal time with the boy, mainly carrying him around, holding him in our arms, playing with him on the bed, the couch, the floor. As a result, my DP is pretty much a better soother for our DS than I am - he is "naturally" (there's that word again) a more "maternal" person than I am, it seems. I have to admit that I'm a little jealous I could never just rock my son to sleep, or cuddle him on my chest until he drops off. And so I've come to appreciate bf-ing as my special contribution.

I don't fit all of Dr. Sears' prescriptions for an attached mother, and neither does my DP. Together, we are both equally there for our DS - he has two "attached," full-time parents. We're lucky we have it like this. We are doing it in the way that not only works best for us but also feels most right to us. Though we may not fit the mold, what we're doing is more or less in line with the AP world. Whether the Sears approach can be labelled conservative or not (I happen to consider myself politically and socially liberal) - what does it matter? I have taken from the books and the ideas the things we can use and benefit from. I don't like or support Sears' ostensible opinions on gays as parents, etc. And it's possible that Sears advocates the SAHM out of a conservative and/or restrictive idea of women's roles in addition to the medical grounding. I don't approve of that if true, but whatever. I'm just doing what feels best and seems best for my child. And I sorta like that devoted childrearing (to avoid the "attached" label for once - I really don't even like using the word but it has come in handy in this discussion, obviously) is where opposite ideological poles come together in agreement on so many things.

What a ramble ... sorry.

[mum2sarah]

melixxa, I totally understand where you are coming from. When I first got pregnant with dd, I thought I'd have every drug possible during labor, and I never thought I would breastfeed. I happened upon some of the AP principles by accident; an accident which began with my randomly choosing the Sears' "The Birth Book" from among tons of books on the shelves at the local book store. After reading that book I was so intrigued I searched for more books. I guess that's why I so staunchly defend the Sears. I look at their advice as what "saved" me and my dd from blindly following the mainstream ways of society. I guess I just have trouble understanding how some people view the Sears as being so conservative. That's not at all what I took away from reading their books and browsing their website. I always thought that they kept their personal/religious convictions separate from their parenting advice. I always felt they gave a balanced picture of things, and simply encouraged parents to follow their instincts and make decisions that were right for their family.

Even still, I hesitate to label myself AP, just as I hesitate to label myself liberal. These labels mostly fit me, but there are finer points where they don't. For instance, even after I "saw the light" from all the reading I did while I was pregnant, I still only thought I'd "try" to breastfeed for a few months or so, but 17 months later, we're still going strong. This is because it was right for us, not because some AP philosophy told me to do so. Another example: there has been discussion on other threads about taking AP too far, and I see that this can be the case if a mother coddles her child and makes him the center of attention all the time, and meticulously babyproofs every inch of the house, all in the name of "attachment." I tend to favor the CC end of the spectrum when it comes to these issues. I call it loving neglegience. In other words, as my dd became mobile, I let her have the run of the house and do what she wanted to do, no gates, no mommy hovering over her telling her what to play with. I just let her explore. Of course I make sure there is nothing terribly dangerous that she can get into, but if she manages to find my purse and pull out every little slip of paper and credit card, well I just smile and say, "she's working on her fine motor skills," and clean it up later.

I guess my point is that while I don't consider AP to be conservative, I also think that very few of us would label ourselves AP and say that we agree with every aspect of it, just as "conservatives" or "liberals" may not agree with everything that is considered to be conservative or liberal. I just feel that we are all individuals who should try as best we can to follow our instincts, because I feel they are the connection to what is "natural" and best in how we raise our children.

[fireflies~for~me]

We are soo eclectic!

This is such a great thread...I even printed it. Wether it is natural childbirth or attachment parenting, I see these "philosophies" as what you find in nature. Really...
I am blessed to have a DH who often finds himself looking to the animal kingdom to figure things out. He is totally supportive of EBFfeding, cosleeping, etc because it just makes sense.

I really love Sears AP book...I often go back to it for reference and support. I think he too looks at AP as an extension of what is natural for our bodies and children. Martha is a great example of a natural mama but who also found ways to use her intelligence and experience as an RN while being a SAHM...I guess she was more of a WAHM.

So...here's my profie. We are believers (husband has some Jewish heritage) but you won't find us in Mainstream Church USA. DH is a Desert Storm vet, so we are conservative politically and vote Republican. I am a SAHM occassionally WAHM who does consulting-I left a high profile career and love my current "Job".

It gets funnier...we live in a rural mountain area, but DH drives in for his 9-5 techie job...we have an organic garden but also own a big loud pickup. We play tournament chess but also love country music.

What else...I am a Surrendered Wife (great book) and see DH as leader of our home...We eat no refined suagar or flour due to DH hypoglycemia,

we do not vax
we exclusively Breast Feed
We cosleep
We sling, bjorn, back carry all day


Labels Schmabels!!!

Thought of some more: we after loooong deliberation, decided to circ, I am a Bradley mama and LLL member, we honestly don't know if spanking (NOT OUT OF ANGER) is OK or not-we lean to think that it is necessary under certain circumstances. and let's see we have read many times Eckart Tolle's The Power of Now...

[melixxa]

Labels schmables indeed!

Still ... I have to say that I love "loving negligence," so this one's a keeper.

[Foobar]

Wow, this IS an old thread!

Labels! Ha! Sorry Piglet- time to toss the labels..right?

Anyway, I agree with the animal analogy to a certain point. In the wild, if an animal CAN'T nurse, then what happens to the pup? Does it die? Does another animal in the pack feed the pup? I am curious.

I am one of those who failed at bf. Sorry, couldn't do it. I had planned to, but it didn't work. However, I have a great bond with Goo. So the milk thing didn't seem to hurt her there.

Also, DH and I share the parenting. We really do. We have different ideas on the minor stuff, but we are really together in this 100%. I really don't read too many books because they are silly after a while. I have some confidence in my own thoughts and how I want to see Goo raised.
But it is sad that Dads are sent to the corner to go do the "dad" stuff, isn't it?

[Piglet68]

Originally posted by Foobar
Labels! Ha! Sorry Piglet- time to toss the labels..right?

Absolutely.

Labels are great for general discussion, and the human brain does love to categorize things. But when labels start being used to force people into a mold, rather than to bring together those with similar philosophies, then they become destructive, IMO.

AP is a great catch-all term to distinguish certain parenting practices from the "mainstream" (ie. the default situation seen by most people) but I think these boards are proof-positive that AP is not so much in what you do, but how and why you do it.

[Periwinkle]

Wow this is one of the most thought-provoking threads I've come across in a while.

I have not noticed that AP mamas tend to be more conservative vs. liberal.

But it's interesting, b/c I have frankly often felt that I don't "fit in", since I'm not totally liberal or "crunchy", but I also don't fit in with other "mainstream" mamas all the time. I'm sort of in between, and my political / social views represent a mix as well. 2 years ago when dh and I were getting ready to start "trying", if someone had told me that I would parent in this way, I would have said they were crazy. Mothering and related books, mags, etc., have opened by eyes so much, and I am a totally different mama than I would have been.

I am particularly facinated to read the comments in this thread about Sears. I haven't been able to give it a lot of thought, but I have definitely had issues with some of the things he has written. Plus I find it so "holier than thou" that it's a little hard for me to take (e.g., the chapter in The Baby Book about whether or not to return to work), and I definitely agree it's anti-feminist (whether or not this is a bad thing). When I consult his books, I tend to go straight to the meat of it or answer my question, because I do find the vast majority of his writing so informative and helpful. But I could do without the heaping dose of guilt and fear thank you very much... it does remind me of the conservative Christianity of my upbringing at times.

Anyway, I'm rambling. I think this thread was really interesting, and wanted to thank Piglet for starting, and to second what others have said about AP in general being inclusive.