Guest post: "I am an attachment parent because of my feminism, not in spite of it"

[MumsnetGuestPosts]

There's a pervading myth about 'Attachment Parents': that we're mostly evangelical and exclusionary, and that we believe there is only one set of rules for decent, wholesome parents to follow. Parenting practises closely associated with AP (babywearing, breastfeeding, bedsharing) all provoke much tortured discussion, too.

Attachment parenting is often said to place huge demands on new mothers (‘how can you ever have a minute to yourself!’ friends have exclaimed) - but I am an attachment parent because I am a feminist, not in spite of it. You may disagree, but I believe that attachment parenting is the most genuinely feminist ‘parenting philosophy’ out there.

It puts the mother first. It recognises how important the role of mother is, and it encourages women to do what feels right for them. It's about getting motherhood truly recognised as an important sphere, not a relegation role or something people do when real life isn't happening. What's more, there's no checklist etched onto the clubhouse door - AP is for anyone who wants to follow their instincts when parenting.

There are those who argue that motherhood shouldn't be put on a pedestal: that the idea that a mother has a unique relationship with her child is regressive; that it puts too much pressure on women, or excludes fathers, or discourages co-parenting. It's not very trendy, when politicians are busy discussing how we can get more women back to work and share the 'burden' of childcare more evenly with men, to argue for an emphasis on the instinctive relationship between mother and child.

It is important, though, because the role of primary care-giver has been undervalued in society in recent history, to women's detriment. Motherhood is held up as the most virtuous and self-sacrificing of roles, but also the lowest in the ranks simultaneously. Our politicians tell us they want to get women back into the workplace after having children, but rather than championing ways for that to happen whilst also honouring the importance of the primary caregiver's role, we're told that cheaper childcare is the only way forward, devaluing our labour again.

Attachment parenting, then, is political. But I also think it's important for emotional wellbeing, too. New parents are continually told about what is dangerous and prohibited. In every aspect of parenting, mothers go against what feels right – and what's easiest for them, more importantly – because it's ‘not what the book said,’ and self-doubt abounds. I wish I'd had someone there, with my first child, to tell me, 'you're not a terrible mother because your child sleeps in your bed'.

Contrary to telling women what to do, attachment parenting takes no stance on how parents should feed, sleep with (or not), carry (or not) or birth their babies. Instead, it advocates for better information to be made available to all parents and parents-to-be about all of their options. It wants women to have the best experience possible in their mothering, and wants us to be free to listen to ourselves.

Of course, no sensible AP advocate would encourage a woman to go against good medical advice - but women, and their mothering instinct, should be given more authority. Whether it's in labour or in the first weeks after birth, women should be treated with dignity - like people who know their own bodies, instead of just observers in their bodies’ processes.

Attachment parenting does what society doesn't: it tells women to take their time in easing into motherhood, to make their children’s infancy as relaxed as possible (for them and for their kids) and to just – if possible – take some time out. This doesn't necessarily mean time away from a beloved career or from your friends - it means just going easy on yourself, letting your body do its thing and making room to discover the new little person in your life without fear about doing this or that right.

Mothers matter – whether they are at home or at work full time outside of the home, whether they breastfeed, or co-sleep or babywear or none of the above. No one needs to prove themselves ‘mum enough’ at any point to make parent-child attachment at the forefront of their parenting.

perhaps this is what i find most irksome - we are all attachment parents ffs in this day and age unless you're a child abuser. ergo going on and on about AP as a thing is like implying others who don't parent like you are child abusers.

the research is based on traumatised children abandoned in a nursery without a secure replacement attachment figure, what bowlby found actually was that as long as the child was allocated a secure alternative whilst mum was in hospital for example the baby was absolutely fine.

it also ignores the realities found by say winnicot of the 'good enough mother' and how important actually it is to not go too far either way if you don't want to create issues in a child's development. ergo a smothering mother can create issues too because a child never has space to explore let alone begin to meet it's own needs.

the point was that a child needs a secure attachment figure and that is why with nurseries say nowadays or hospitals a child will be assigned a key worker who delivers the primary care or a baby will be sent to a foster parent rather than an institution where it's left to cry in a cot. the implciation of the research when you read it was NEVER what AP'ers have extrapolated from it.

Couldn't agree more HoneyBadger. I've actually seen parents on Mumsnet talk about doing AP as if they are warding off attachment disorders in their children, when of course their children are at absolutely no risk of an attachment disorder in the first place.

I agree with that too HoneyBadger. And also I want to point out that there are many attachment difficulties caused by overprotective, overbearing or intrusive parenting. I see this in my line of work all the time. Raising a securely attached child is about being emotionally available, but equally about providing opportunities for exploration and independence.

John Bowlby and William Sears did some interesting work, but they were men of the Fifties and much of Attachment Theory seems to be based on the assumption of a full-time stay-at-home mother prepared to give herself 100% to her child (and lots of scary outcomes if you don't). It is behind much of the parenting advice we read today, although not always acknowledged.

The innate 'mothering instinct' is a dodgy one, is it learned or just there? Is it dependent on situation and birth experience? - not all mothers feel it, and we can't know if there is an equally strong 'fathering instinct' while we structure society to exclude men from the early bonding experience.

Attachment happens, even for mothers experiencing post natal depression, and I'm suspicious of any model of parenting which claims 'better results'.
Each to her own, there's no evidence that any way is better than any other, parenting practices vary so widely across cultures.