to find the buzz-phrase 'attachment parenting' and the way it's thrown around fucking annoying?!

[hearthattack]

Don't get me wrong. Attachment theory has lead to massive positive developments in the way we understand and therefore respond to infants and their mothers. I've worked with young people who have experienced truly poor attachment with care givers and seen the damage it can do. And seen kids with great attachment thrive. BUT.

'Attachment Parenting' seems to have become a pseudonym for never spending a moment physically detached from your child, meeting every single one of their demands however impracticable and never saying 'No'. I come across so many mums who call themselves 'Attachment Parents' and seem to see this label as a justification for why their nine year old still sleeps in their bed.

How many people who bandy this trendy phrase around have actually ready any of Bowlby's work from which current theories of attachment derive? Or have balanced this with Winnicott's theory of the 'good enough mother' and see how intrinsically linked they are?

Mothers don't need some Psychologies Magazine lite psychological theory to make each other feel guilty, inadequate or smug. There's enough of that going on in motherhood as it is.

I bet in 10 years or so people will look back at this trend and wonder why so many people busted their arses to achieve something so far on the pendulum swing of parenting styles.

Anyone with me?

I find the term 'gentle parenting' especially irritating.

It seens so smug, as if the rest of us are parenting in an aggressive way.

Ohh < realisation dawns >

I actually did not have a clue that the phrase "attachment parenting" originated from theories on babies forming attachments to their caregivers. I thought attachment parenting meant an emphasis on being physically attached to your baby more often than not. God I'm dim.

Shit, maybe I am one then

I'm with you op. Like mrsjamin I've a proper grown up qualification that encompasses an in depth understanding of attachment (the psychological concept). Attachement parenting strikes me as completely missing the point of attachment theory

It seems to me that people need a camp to belong in. You cannot belong to more than one camp. You need to decide what parenting camp, feeding camp, weening camp, sleeping camp and soothing camp you belong in, you have to make these decisions within days or weeks of meeting this brand new human, and most important of all you must remain in your camp. It's ridiculous! Because if there is one thing that I have learned in the past 11 months of parenting it's that nothing works all of the time. You have to be adaptable, you have to listen to your child, you have to compromise. Luckily I had a lovely trainee MW who told me that I don't have to be the best mum, I just have to be good enough. And it turns out that I am!

I'm with you op, one of my best friends likes to have a 'rule book' to follow with everything, and she decided to do attachment parenting. She sticks ridigly to I even though her baby hated the sling and still does at 9 months old, she ties herself down so much with it but carries on posting the 'babies are not meant to be away from their parents' memes on fb..

Why do people have to follow 'rules' why not try out a few things and see what works.

DD is blweaned, exclusively bf'd and we co sleep occasionally, only because it works though! She hates the sling and sometimes she just wants to play be herself on her mat! I used to feel so guilty leaving her to play that I would constantly sit with her and try to engage her, she was fine on her own!

I don't understand the whole never say no thing. A no is needed if a child is about to touch a hot cooker, or run across the road.

No is also a powerful word that I want my DD to be equipped with.

No is also a powerful word that I want my DD to be equipped with.

Couldn't agree more.

Its funny when you realise that your own parenting style (or in my case styles) have "proper" names when you use a different name.

BLW = picnic/leftovers/tapas
Baby in sling = hands free
Positive parenting = child is given an explanation of choices and steered in the desired direction.

I hold my hand up to using the "this is going in the bin if you ignore me" option at least 40 times a day.

"Attachment parenting" has NOTHING whatsoever to do with real theories of attachment so YANBU at all."

This ^^ The main difference being: In attachment theory, the baby is understood to natuarally seek out attachment. Attachment parents, Otoh, are encouraged to view attachment as this increadably delicate thing that will only happen if they painstakingly follow all the correct instructions. Its actually an appropriation of attachment theory.

I had my DS 25 years ago. It turns out that we did some of this attachment parenting and some of it we definitely didn't do. And guess what ? We have managed to raise a secure, happy and fulfilled DS who wants to spend time with parents, family and friends. And all without any knowledge of theories of parenting. Just a willingness to adapt to whatever life threw at us ( and believe me, it has thrown plenty). Tolereance, kindness and a sense of humour goes a very long way!!!

I find the word no quite useful in my classroom. :)

I don't understand the whole never say no thing. A no is needed if a child is about to touch a hot cooker, or run across the road.

On the flip side if you say no all the time, your child won't know what rules are important and which ones aren't.

I only use no for serious things, like running into the road. Or touching the stove (which unfortunately, she had to learn the hard way one tragic day for her finger tips). I do mostly positive parenting, but I have a few other tools under my belt. Running into the road is serious enough to warrant a swat on the bum, and she hasn't done it since. But generally I do a "Don't go past that bush" so she knows where she can play.

OMG, I'm properly agog, agog agog at this thread (could a MN-er please insert the appropriate emoticon for me?).

I've done "attachment" training (note - different to parenting). It's run by a woman who has adopted 3 children with major issues. She describes attachment with the following exercise - she gives out post it notes to everyone in the room and splits us into groups - one group is foetus-es, one group is 0 - 6 months, one group is 6 to 12 months, the next group is 1 - 2s and the last group is 2 -3s.
She then tells us to write down the most basic needs - one per post-it note.

then we go up in our groups and put them (the post-it notes) up and it looks like a brick wall. Then she goes and take out random post-its = the wall has huge holes which are basic needs. This is attachment theory.

As far as I knew before I saw this thread, this is the most desperate of children. The ones who have not had their most basic needs addressed and - therefore - don't give appropriate responses in situations because they don't know them.

And, btw I do know
How many people who bandy this trendy phrase around have actually ready any of Bowlby's work from which current theories of attachment derive? Or have balanced this with Winnicott's theory of the 'good enough mother' and see how intrinsically linked they are?
I do know his work and I've seen dis-accreditation of Bowlby's work (the brain pics) which stands for me. I haven't read Winnicott, but I have a very good friend who stands by "good enough" parenting.

I would argue for "good enough " parenting on AIBU. or anywhere This is about basically doing your best, but not beating yourself up if you fail.
Attachment is different. But it's absolutely not about the already-good-enough having an off day. Attachment is about children who've not had their very basic needs met. I'm talking about food/water/shelter.

"Attachment" is not for the middle-class parents, unless they've had such a horrific birth, they've not had time to see or connect to their baby.

And I'm honestly shocked any of you think of this as a childrrearing ploy.

On the flip side if you say no all the time, your child won't know what rules are important and which ones aren't

Really? Has there been any study into that or is it just an idea someone came up with and decided makes sense?

No is no, whichever the context. All rules I impose are important. I'm not making them for the fun of it.

To convey things like in your examples I would use a different tone of voice, another tool that we as humans have at our disposal rather than going round the houses to avoid using a very simple and useful word.

And I'm honestly shocked any of you think of this as a childrrearing ploy.

Can't speak for the others but I didn't connect the phrase "attachment parenting" with "attachment" as in a child's bond with their primary caregiver.

Joking aside I think it's bonkers that anyone would think that the latter process relies on any props. What, do advocates of attachment parenting believe that the DC of others actually lack or have an inferior bond with their parent/s because they weren't carried about in a sling? Really?

Totally agree! We call ourselves attachment parents because otherwise we get called hippy weirdos!

And we get abuse from family members because they seem to think AP is about never being apart etc.

I'm rarely apart from my DD because I DONT WANT TO BE!

I co sleep (because it's the only way I get any sleep)
I breastfeed because I want to.
He hates the sling. I hate the sling
I started feeding him mush. He liked mush. Now he likes picking stuff up and eating it himself
I say no. He understands what no means at 8 months
We use disposable nappies.

He's safe, loved, warm, dressed, fed, comforted, cuddled, played with, nurtured and adored. None of those things would be altered if he was in a cot, bottle fed, in the sling, baby led weaned or in cloth nappies.

Love your kids, keep them safe and secure, warm and fed. Everything else is just more shit to feel guilty about.

I was once told I was an attachment parent, I think my baby was in a sling, and I just did that no I was a parent.

I used slings (still do), co slept, didn't use puree, breast fed etc. It's not attachment parenting. It's the path of least resistance

I had to unfollow a friend on FB because all she was spouting was how wonderful Attachment Parenting was and how all other forms of parenting broke children.
I parent completely differently and was made to feel like I had ruined my kids for life.
It's just sad because all these labels do is divide us when all of us are just trying to make it through the day parenting our kids the best we know how.

"Can't speak for the others but I didn't connect the phrase "attachment parenting" with "attachment" as in a child's bond with their primary caregiver."

That's rather how I think.

AP is what people used to call 'paying attention to your baby'. Just like BLW used to be 'giving your baby finger food'. Essentially t's just normal parenting wrapped up in irritating jargon.

Personally I think that every child is different and how you parent in those early years - especially with things like weaning etc - changes. 5 kids and we're still figuring it out. But I despise all these fancy new labels that every action apparently must have now.

Oooh, I've read Bowlby! And I've read William and Martha Sears explaining why they went with "attachment parenting" as a term, based on Bowlby's work on responsiveness and hunter-gatherer childhoods. (Which have their own 1950s-era ishoos but, come on, it's not like Bowlby wrote nothing about nurturing attachment through particular childrearing practices.) Am I allowed to say I do attachment parenting now, or do I need a special certificate?

It's a useful term for describing a particular school of thought on parenting. It's often misunderstood on MN because people get into frothing rages about how it means stapling yourself to your child and never having any boundaries. I know lots of people thing that there's no need to follow any school of parenting because they just Get On With It, but - yes, you do. We all do. Parenting practices are cultural. You aren't raising your child the same way you would if you lived in, I don't know, 15th-century rural Japan.

Love your kids, keep them safe and secure, warm and fed. Everything else is just more shit to feel guilty about.

This ^^

I dislike 'labels' on parenting. I think following only one parenting style and never veering from it is often not great for parent or child. All children are different and you need to adapt and change things up. I have 2 kids, so different they couldn't be parented in the same way.

I also hate how attachment parenting is deemed, by some AP parents, as the only way and everyone else is shit and not forming a bond with their baby.

Also, what the fuck does 'crunchy' mean?

ROFL at not using the word "no" but happily using "don't". As if "no" has nagical esteem destroying powers that "don't" doesn't have.

And I absolutely agree with the PP who said that children need to understand the power of the word "no: that there are lines and boundaries in life which need to be respected.

"Crunchy"? I'm going with cornflakes, surely.

In relation to parenting styles: bugger all.