'The only way we've sorted a sleep prob in this house is controlled crying' - fuck off!!

[Smataya]

I text friend who has two under two how hard it's been of late with Ds 11 months just not sleeping. I've explained before he is just not a sleeper and likes to be close at night, wakes a lot for milk and that I'm doing attachment parenting. She knows how against cc I am and I will not ever leave my child to cry. Ds has not slept for longer than an hour since he was 5 months which is starting to take its toll, but as I say, he's just not a sleeper and it's tough.

Why the f is she doing this pa bull shit about cc over text?? She's been like eerr have you tried sleep training to me before and I just don't want to hear it. Her two sleep through and I just find it smug- she's got lucky and now claiming its all down to cc. Am I justified in texting back to say ftfo to the far side of fuck?!?!

Bit of an overreaction there scrumpy unless of course I've missed the post where four ripped into you personally.

Yes I know, I'm sorry. I'm just sick and tired of the superiority of the AP 'never let em cry' brigade.
I don't care what anyone else does. Co-sleep. Sleep train. Breastfeed. Formula feed. Whatever. It's not important. So stop the flippin' judging and let's support each other rather than berate. Some of us that have had to sleep train have had really valid reasons for this- such as not wanting to crash the car from tiredness, or end up as an impatient in a local hospital, psychotic from lack of sleep. If you haven't been in this position then you can't judge.

scrumpy- no need for that.

Surely this is a discussion thread.
I enjoy insights into the way that other people parent.

I have used methods that work for me, and I am glad that you have found methods which work for you.

I would have a think about your anger issues however.

Still, better a bit of controlled crying than a mother institutionalised in a mental health ward from severe sleep deprivation. Eh?

Are these the onn;t two options we have to choose from?

I don't think Muff's question is any particular dilemma for an AP-er, just a normal everyday situation where you try to find a compromise like everyone else does.

Then can you answer it for me, catkind?

My understanding of AP is that parents attempt to be responsive to a child's needs. This stems from a belief that it's the best thing for the child. Correct me if I'm wrong. Sometimes, a child needs undivided attention right now. If you have more than one, sometimes they need undivided attention at the same time. Characterising this as simply doing whatever your toddler tells you is minimising it, really: I assume you agree there are occasions when a child does need one on one even if they are, gasp, aged eighteen months to three. Naturally, it's impossible for both to get what they need when they need it, in this scenario. I don't view this as abandoning AP personally, but I can't see how it would be possible to follow AP principles with only one parent/carer present.

A shame to see scrumpybetty's experiences of a 3 year old and empathy deleted. That part of the post was within guidelines, and did make me giggle!

I visit a GP site. The shock horror if anyone leaves the baby or child to cry for an instant. Your abandoning it and causing lasting harm. Many of them only have one small baby and have no empathy or imagination for a struggling sleep deprived mum with several young kids or babies. Many are hugely sleep deprived but not seeing to a babies every need and cry straight away is horrific, selfish, cruel. It wasn't for me. Very judgemental of anyone not labelled as AP or GP.

What's GP?

With a tiny baby, not waiting for them to cry before you feed them/put them down to nap, if you can, is just common sense, I don't think that's even particularly AP. They feed and sleep better if they're not all het up. Lots of babies get colicky or unsettled in evenings anyway, if anyone can invent a parenting method that prevents that then write the book quick!

Muff, I thought I did answer. You compromise. One of them has to wait a bit - they don't have to do it crying on their own though, 3 people can be in the same room. And a 3 yr old is old enough to understand even if they don't like it.

I don't think immediate 1:1 is a need as such. With DS it was often attention - in which case a game of something with DD in the sling would work - or closeness, in which case I'd often end up popping him in the sling and taking DD for a walk in the pram. Guess if I was a proper AP-er that would be both in slings!

I don't think AP is about bringing up a diva who always gets their own way. Just letting them be close to you when they're small and they want to be. There are so many things we can't compromise on as parents, kids get plenty of being pushed around whatever we do.

I don't think the aim is being a martyr. Whatever parenting you do it needs to work for the whole family. So like in OP's situation, at some point you push back towards what the parents need (sleep!). We found ways of doing that while still letting them stay close. It's compromise again.

I also don't think never letting them cry comes into it; all children cry at some point. More just being there for them when they do and trying to avoid obviously upsetting things if they're not necessary.

GP- gentleparenting

Of course i never wanted my babies or children to cry and generally responded to them straight away if i could. It's just the level of horror that a baby/child must never cry and their needs always come first no matter what or you are an awful cruel parent. It's hard to describe but iit made me feel uneasy as often everything is do OTT. It's just such rigid thinking with no room for deviation. Obviously this isn't every gp/ap parent and i think that there is a place for much of the thinkibg behind it.

Thanks for that catkind. Compromise it is. I very much appreciate your answer, though not your continuing to reframe giving immediate attention to a child who needs it as bringing up a diva. I also suspect many of us would disagree that immediate 1:1 attention can't ever be a need as such. I have known a number of AP parents (of one, admittedly) who certainly felt that it was.

So basically, one child doesn't get their needs met in the scenario I outlined. Which is what I thought. I can't for the life of me see how a child having to wait 5 minutes because you're sorting out X is any different to a child having to wait 5 minutes for any other reason, where the child is either too young or older but too distressed (eg possibly my injured 6 year old example) to know the difference.

Reframing? It seems to be some people's image of what AP is. You do seem to be trying to say AP is about doing what your older child "needs"/says/wants instantly. I don't agree that's what it's about at all. A baby needs more instant responsiveness - though even they have to compromise a small amount, I don't think the most avid AP mum is going to breastfeed on the loo!

As they get older they are more able to understand compromise and having to wait, and I would expect that, younger siblings or not. I actually just went and looked it up on wikipedia as I wondered if I'd been misunderstanding, but not obviously so, "Balance and boundaries" is even one of the Dr Sears 7 B's.

I think the essence of AP is more about not forcing separation when it's not necessary, hence the cosleeping, slinging etc. My 3 yr old still wants to cosleep, I'm fine with that; so does my 6 yr old sometimes. 3 yr old only recently (I think) stopped breastfeeding. They definitely have to wait for things, both of them, even if only one of them is around at the time.

I wouldn't keep an injured 6 yr old or a distressed baby waiting any longer than was necessary, would anyone? Sorry, didn't follow your point there.

Well explained catkind.

I didn't say AP is about doing what older children want instantly, at all. That's a strawman. I said my understanding is that it's about seeking to be responsive to a child's needs. Wouldn't you say that's accurate? The stuff about not forcing separation etc is advocated because it's seen as part of meeting a child's needs.

Anyway, nobody is suggesting children don't generally get more able to understand the concept of waiting as they get older. However, it's quite possible that a parent would have more than one child who isn't old enough to get it, or who is but is unable to do so at this particular moment. In this case, if there are two children needing immediate attention, someone has to wait- that is, to not have their needs met. If you accept that AP is about meeting a child's needs, you can't AP in this situation. The parent is not able to be responsive to all the needs. What you're doing instead is compromise. I think it's quite telling that both the APers who've responded to me here have had to claim that immediate 1:1 attention couldn't be a need of a child's.

Muffmuff... The whole idea of AP just seems to make you really angry. Maybe you need to stop worrying about how AP parents would respond to some totally made up situation that you have imagined in your head and ask you self why it upsets you so much that other parents want to be AP. Seriously, you are being to sound a little obsessed and almost unhinged!

I meant... Beginning to sound obsessed

I don't think I did ap, I just went along with my own philosophies based on my wealth of experience of baby and juvenile development in animals.
My theory just was that if there is a solution that gets the same overall results that doesn't involve the child being upset, then I prefer it. So if I could ward off a tantrum by explaining eg we are leaving the park but will come tomorrow, that was best. And if it didn't ward it off, then unfortunately ignoring the tantrum was the only alternative solution that got the result of her learning a tantrum doesn't get your own way. Likewise I wouldn't leave a hungry newborn crying for 5 minutes to eat my dinner, but faced with a toddler that's really hurt itself and is screaming in pain, I would leave the newborn a few minutes. And as far as sleep routine goes I just believe there are other alternatives that don't involve cc.

Nope dinosaur there is nothing in my posts that could be remotely construed as anger. It's laughably pathetic that you would get so defensive about anyone asking questions and seeking to understand, though. Especially when it's in response to an AP poster previously having berated others for not understanding. You clearly want to silence any dissent or questions on the matter, though. Hence the desperate use of 'unhinged'. Maybe you should ask yourself why it bothers you so much that anyone might dare to wonder whether AP is actually possible in certain situations!

Also, why do you think the situation I outline is totally made up? Who told you it had never happened?

But Muff, you're still saying that if you don't respond instantly then you haven't met the child's need, and you still seem to be saying you're not doing AP if you don't respond instantly. I disagree with both those points.

I mean, what? Bin the slings and stop cosleeping now, I failed to pick the baby up the instant she cried, therefore clearly I'm not doing AP.

I have sern Gp/ap parents say exactly that though - that there is never an instance to leave your baby crying - it's abamdonment snd cruel - they often have one young baby and don't seem to be able to imagine or make allowances for those with more thsn one baby / seversl young children etc. one mother had 5 children so if she could manage it - there is no excuse. One member said that the (dick) ex parner of one mum was probably a victim of Cc/ cio as shown by his his unreasonable behaviour and lack of empathy. Fortunately they threw me out of the group for saying i could see why some parents resort to control crying of older babies/toddlers and i wouldn't judge those parents. The way some of them talked about non ap/gp parents did insult and annoy me.

No catkind, I'm not saying that failing to respond instantly always means you haven't met a child's needs. Not all needs a child has are immediate. I'm saying that there are occasions when this will be the case, because even toddlers and older children sometimes require immediate attention (and of course, plenty of people have more than one baby at once, not necessaruly multiples). This doesn't happen always, but it's likely to happen more than zero times. Hence what you described as a compromise, which I'd agree is how most people would do it, but this does mean that there'll be occasions when not all the children will get their needs met. I didn't actually think this was particularly controversial?

If a child needs attention, getting attention 5 minutes later is still satisfying their need, they just had to wait a bit. Unless it's an actual need need like they're about to fall off a cliff, they won't be broken, they'll still be needing you in 5 minutes and they'll know you came as soon as you could. If you think that's failing to satisfy their need and therefore not AP then I don't know a single family that have successfully done AP with one child let alone two. You seem to be holding AP parents up to impossibly high standards. Or I'm completely failing to follow the point.
Hey forget the sibling, sometimes DS had to wait when he needed attention because in my judgement his need for dinner on the table was greater.

A child will know you came as soon as you could, really? All of them, all the time? I think not! My youngest hasn't long worked out that she and I aren't the same person. You must realise that's just not true at all. You're attributing a level of knowledge and understanding to children that there's no way some of them have. This idea that eg a baby would understand a distinction between a delay because you were sorting some unavoidable problem and a delay because you're doing CIO is utterly implausible.

Anyway, this isn't about me holding AP parents to impossibly high standards. It's about me wanting to know how, given the principles of AP which have nothing to do with me and were being followed by some before I was born, parents manage to meet the needs of all their children when those needs are competing. It seems that you either accept that it won't always be possible to meet those needs, which to be fair is pretty much what you did when you mentioned compromise, or you're forced to deny that children might ever have a need for attention now that you're not meeting if you delay.