Originally Posted by Brigianna
And I am keeping an open mind. One of the things that this thread has made me think about is that maybe I have an exaggerated sense of the risk of a free-roaming baby in a babyproofed room for a brief time. I had always assumed that babyproofing was not sufficient, but I'm reconsidering that.
Motherhood is about constant vigilance, sometimes exhaustingly so. But it's also about further developing that internal sense with which we seem to be infused at birth of where our children are, both physically and emotionally. We nurture this connection by encouraging our children to honor their instincts to attach to us, to follow us, to share their feelings openly (whether it's crying as baby or verbalizing later on). I think what you're seeing in this thread is people who are bothered by the idea that you are singing the praises of a practice that encourages children not to honor this natural inclination.
This is something I (and others, I believe) are very sensitive to. Perhaps overly sensitive, at times. Reality is, though, that society doesn't promote attachment on its own (discourages it, in fact), so it behooves us to do whatever we can to not thwart it in our own homes. What you see as a trust-building exercise, most of us see as a technique that forces children into self-reliance before they're ready for it; a technique that actually threatens the trust relationship by removing mom from baby's view during a time that he cannot understand that she's coming back (or how long it will be before she gets there) and during a time when he should be able to see her (or at least some primary caregiver) constantly.
This has been an interesting thread and I thank you for that. It's really made me think deeply about what attachment means to me and where it comes from.