Attachment parenting just an excuse for letting kids do whatever?

[Bugsymalonemumof2]

Debate on a local mum page over 3 year olds being expected to sit at a table to eat dinner. One half expect their children to sit and eat and will remove the food if the child is up and down until they sit back down. The other is very much of the view that it doesnr matter if they are up and down as they are only little.

I seem to be seeing more and more examples of attachment parenting becoming an excuse for lazy parenting and it has detracted from the whole idea of it. At my daughter's childminders you can tell the two children who have very vocal attachment parenting mothers as they are the onea who wont sit and listen to stories, wont sit and eat lunch with other kids, have zero routines and zero consideration for any of the kids and not always getting what they want.

Surely you can attachment parent without also letting your child rule the roost and only have their feelings and wants considered.

Maybe I am just a dick with firm bed times (illness and certain circumstances excused) and simple boundaries over meal times.

Yeah I think true attachment parenting has been hijacked.

I want to scream sometimes when i see a parent (usually mum) on their knees with exhaustion and miserable bevause they allow their toddlers to fall asleep whenever and wherever or spend an hour negoiating simple things all in the name of whatever principle it is they think they are following, whereas I feel every member of the family is important and you can attachment parent whilst also having consistent boundaries and not being permissive to a toddler.

I spend far too much time at my childminders because my oldest has sen so there are quite long chats. It is really obvious the two little children who rule the roost.

Why is it called attachment parenting though? You create a good attachment by being responsive to your child’s needs. That happens in nearly every parent/child pairing even if they have strict boundaries and rules for behaviour

. Attachment is created by feeding your child when it signals it is hungry, giving it physical and emotional comfort when upset, creating an environment where it feels able to sleep when tired, or be mentally stimulated when it needs to be. Making sure it is physically comfortable so clean nappy and skin, the right temperature etc. Staring into your child’s eyes and being facially and vocally responsive to their coos and smiles. Nowhere in all the research is there stipulation that babies and toddlers need to do their own thing the way they want it when they want.

Yeah, this isn't attachment parenting at all.

Surely you can attachment parent without also letting your child rule the roost and only have their feelings and wants considered

Well, yes. Of course.

What you describe doesn't sound like attachment parenting to be honest.

Maybe I am just a dick with firm bed times (illness and certain circumstances excused) and simple boundaries over meal times

Come on, it's pretty obvious that you're not going to be told YABU for this?

What has attachment parenting got to do with whether you sit at table or not? I'd have thought you'd be more attached if everybody sat together at dinner.

Ime some of the laxest parents in the area of manners were the ones who would never have gone near attachment parenting because it impinged on their own comfort. And some of the most dedicated attachment parents have been absolute sticklers for old-fashioned manners.

OP I don't think you understand what attachment parenting is.

I would say I'm an attachment parent due to a needy baby/ toddler. He usually wants to sit on my lap to eat, which usually means I do try to keep putting him back on his chair. He doesn't wander off and again during stories he usually wants to sit on me. He has great manners !

We are training as adopters - and adoption is all about forming attachment.

But it also involves routines and boundaries - so the child knows the parent is in control and keeping them safe.

Not the same as letting them run riot at all.

i just can't get past anyone who uses the phrase "baby wearing"

ButAIBUtho
I think the OP does know what it is. Aren't they making the point that some people claim attachment parenting whilst using the label as a convenient way of explaining away the fact they are a permissive parent who lets the kids rule the roost because they think attachment parenting sounds better than 'lazy permissive parenting with no boundaries'?

At least that's how I've read it.

Agree with PP about the get in the car thing. Not everything has to be a negotiation in life (and believe me by school you can suss out which kids have been led to believe they only need to do things if they decide the adult has been persuasive enough).

I'd class myself as an attachment parent and believe me, my DDs have always had boundaries! Yes to bedtimes, yes to routines, yes to eating as a family.

But also yes to going to them in the night if they cried, feeding on demand when they were babies and babywearing. My two are 15 and 17 now, but they know that if something really, really upsets them at night they can still come to me. It happens maybe once a year and it's always something that needs attention.

It's about meeting their needs, and stability and boundaries are among those needs. Letting children have everything they want isn't attachment parenting - it's lazy and damaging.

@SoyDora
Yes, agreed. We have very firm rules in our house but attachment parenting refers to baby wearing and breastfeeding etc. All of which we do, alongside discipline, manners and so forth.

I think some people mistake attachment parenting for permissive parenting.

With attachment parenting there absolutely are boundaries. It's just that you handle discipline differently. Rather than punishing you would redirect and explain things. You don't allow your child to cross boundaries, but the way you handle it is just different.

I think the issue here is that people hear about "gentle discipline" and they think it means "no discipline". So that's what they do.

But pointythings, I did all those things too and my teens also know they can come to me in the night etc but I didn’t feel the need to give it a name. It was just “parenting” and doing a good job of it!

I don’t think letting kids do what they want is the definition of attachment parenting is it?
And other people may well have rules that they enforce but are different to yours. Some people may not be bothered about their young child sitting at the table but might raise an eyebrow at some of the things your children are allowed to do.

I do attachment parenting along with most adoptive parents I know and what you describe is not attachment parenting. I am incredibly firm, and with my son's special needs that is not always easy and results in massive meltdowns but I believe kids need boundaries. Most kids might have a 5 minute meltdown when my child has an hour, but I believe in time it makes an enormous difference and it's incredibly important.

Why on earth do you care how other people parent their children? It has no impact on you personally. If they want to spend 45 minutes negotiating with their child to get in the car, let them. They're not asking you to do the same.

I’m not a fan of permissive parenting. However I’ve had kids who found it very difficult to stay at the table at mealtimes. Amongst other things! Turns out both have special needs and are hyperactive.

So I did the right thing not enforcing sitting at the table for long periods until they were developmentaly ready.

However my kids are polite, considerate, and have a lot of structure. Much to their annoyance!

I don’t think what you’ve described is attachment parenting? Am I missing something?

What you describe is not attachment parenting. Nor do I think that the philosophy underlying attachment parenting has been hijacked.

Does this thread remind anyone else about that thread ages ago with the crunchy mom that wore jeans to church and let her dc run around during the sermon? The dc was apparently "wild" but she was "crunchy." I don't think I ever laughed as much as I have on MN reading that thread.

I'm on (or was, I assume I've been removed now) a "Gentle/Attachment Parenting group and the members claimed to be experts in parenting.

They weren't.

The whole page was full of eye roller posts, like one whining that their child likes to walk down the middle of the road and they feel that they would like to convince little Tarquinius that it's perhaps not the better option.
Or the one who was so hurt and couldn't understand why her 4yo little girl would head butt and bite her when she tried to "suggest a different course" or simply couldn't carry her any further when out an about. That woman was a belter. She was apparently a fully qualified child development co-ordinator or some shit. Her mother was manager of a nursery. She eventually allowed her DD to attend the nursery when she needed to go back to work but was constantly crying to the group about them stifling her little girl's spirit and how dare they institute barbaric punishments such as a time out when the spirited child had punched or stomped on another. After a few months of constant crying about that awful place and her own mother not following her parenting choices she was moaning about the fact her child's place had been withdrawn and she was to find child care elsewhere. She didn't as far as I know. That kid was blacklisted I reckon.

That group did not like it when I told them that they had attachment parenting and shit parenting mixed up.

I have no idea what attachment parenting is or permissive parenting. If these things exist whatever they are the world has gone mad. Parenting is about bringing children up to behave respect others around them and you obviously take care of their needs as you do it. This is all pretty ridiculous and hilariously stupid. A bit of common sense parenting is all that’s required.

As others have said, what OP has described us not attachment parenting. If anyone’s interested in info www.gentleparenting.co.uk

Am guessing you're a teacher coolwalking?

I would consider a lot of things I did pretty attachment led (bf past 1, baby in a sling 90% of the time when out, co-sleeping) but I am fairly strict on other things. For me when my son was a baby I followed his cues and saw his crying as wanting his mother and 99% of the time he settled as soon as he was in my arms. This would have meant that cry it out wasn't for me (no shade to those who do it, I totally get it).
However we have had a 6.30/7pm bedtime since birth and while I comforted my son during the night it was always 'nighttime', no chatting and dim lights. From our very first time weaning we have our meals as a family and all sit at table until meal is complete. He is almost 2 and we have just started time outs and he must apologise and cuddle when he is rude or deliberately disobeying me. He helps me with at least 1 or 2 simple chores a day. We certainly don't let him run riot.
I don't think the two need to go together, but I guess the personality type of parents who are more 'attachment' tend to be a bit more laidback and therefore not as strict as the parents who are more routine led who are possibly more type A.