Would someone like to have an objective debate on attachment parenting vs. Ford?!

[ljhooray]

Hi everyone,
I know there are lots of passionate supporters of attachment parenting just as there are passionate supporters of very routine based parenting (i.e. Gina Ford). As Mumsnet knows well, its easy to find debate on Ford, but what I've been totally unable to find is a proper debate on Attachment Parenting. Having read Dr. Sears and others, I would find it difficult to follow what in a way is also a very strict approach. Although its the exact opposite of Ford, I feel it also puts lots of pressure on the family.

Please please please, can we find a middle ground somewhere? I think that's what I'm trying with my lovely daughter Sophie. We occassionally dip into Rachel Waddilove's Baby Book and Penelope Leach You and Your Child and although things feel right for us< i would love to get some thoughts from others.

Bittyyyyyy

It doesn't matter which book you read (if you decide to go down the route of following Ford, Sears or any other so called guru). At the end of the day I suspect very few people follow these books to the letter. Most people will find some middle ground which suits them.

I didn't use Gina Ford (whose book I was leant) as I didn't like the approach of the book and my baby had reflux meaning he could not have followed the routine in any case. I DID though like GFs advice on feeding a baby with reflux and felt it helped.

I also co-slept with DS becuase instinctively this felt right and cuddled on demand. He's 4.5 now and we still enjoy long and cosy cuddles. He sleeps well at night in his own bed and comes in with me if his Dad is away. A contented child - no problem.

For me attachment parenting is based on attachment theory........I have read John Bowlby and Donald Winnicott........... Bowlby's trilogy Attachment, Separation and Loss is the best reading for anything on this subject.
The rest is instinctual, I go with the needs of my baby and I follow a good routine with both of my children which includes plenty of sleep followed by activity. The activities would be creative, musical, messy, noisy,energetic and relaxing.Being spontaneous, using your intiative and instinct is the best way to parent.

Message withdrawn

I love the fact that there's a conspiracy theory going on here and that I am in fact an undercover reporter. Although that makes my life sound much more exciting, I really am just a mum and I've not being trying to provoke extreme reactions, just looking for what the middle ground might look like, as I thought I was the only one there!

In the spirit of sharing rather than just stirring up debate, with my little one, we have the same little riutals at bedtime every night and where possible, she has her long morning nap in her cot so she can get some good quality sleep in. Besides that its whatever the day holds for us, talking and lots of fun. Oh and I should mention I work for myself so Grandma helps we 2 days a week and has done since she was 3 months but I'm sure that going back to work warrants a whole new thread!

Zactly, Oonagh Bhuna. I didn't have a *&%$ing clue when my first was born. I felt my way and did what felt right. I was when I found the whole AP thing online on US sites (this was in '99), I couldn't believe 'what we did' had a name iykwim.

I've read Bowlby & Winnicott too (I love Winnicott)- raising a baby of mine in any other way than one which acknowledges and embraces attachment theory and is therefore intrinsically developmentally appropriate is never going to happen.

I am not having a particularly bad day
but I am sorry if I upset anyone, I genuinely was interested and I genuinely don't there is ever a reasoned debate about it.
I think the response "well it just isn't necessary" is deeply insulting tbh in its implication. I.e. we carry on for some other reason, that you should only bf when it's "necessary",that anything else is a Bit Suspect.
although after four years of bf I suppose I should be immune to it.
but I'm not somehow.

I bf my dd til she was three and I don't have a problem with "necessary". I think you do have to distinguish between bf to 6 months, which imo is necessary (although I understand that some people can't) because babies that tiny should have nothing but milk,bf to 12 months, which, (again imo), is still necessary, because a baby should still be getting most of its nourishment from milk, and bf beyond 12 months. Beyond 12 months, bf is not nutritionally essential. There are lots of reasons for doing it - but it is not essential for healthy development of the baby. Feeding a baby milk to 12 months is not a matter of choice - after 12 months it is.

Oh, and has anyone read "The Continuum Concept"? Or am I showing my age again?

Message withdrawn

It would seems that the vast majority of all Mnetters pick and choose from different methods to suit different times in the dc's development. And different aspects of parenting.

I co-slept, but when the kids were older I used CC. I used Anabelle Karmels book, but, rebel that I am I didn' use Ice cibe trays

My probelms is when 'The Method' (whatever method) becomes the sole focus of parenting. When people only feel that BF/naps/catching the poo/cuddling/hand made food (whatever) is the way to produce a happy and contented child.

That way lies the 'lets look at the mad people' programm on C4

Moderation in all things. Particularly when dealing with kids.

I agree with every word that katelyle says.
And she bf till 3, so she knows. I think her chose of the word "essential" might be more acceptable to Harpsichordcuddler - I wish I had used that word.

No, breastfeeding a toddler isn't nutritionally essential

it is still nutritionally excellent however, and extremely beneficial for both mother and baby in many ways - physically, mentally, emotionally

(breastfeeding a newborn is not nutritionally "essential" though, where formula is available)

I think the gurus can be very useful because they tend to each have one very strong idea. So when you read what they say, it's easy to grasp that one basic idea. (v. appealing when you have a bad case of baby brain).

Then you can mull it over and decide where you stand, pick out the bits you like and chuck out the rest.

I've always found this easier than hearing the advice of someone sensible and middle-ground, because their middle ground isn't always going to be mine.

Looking at someone who's way over at one end of a spectrum is IMO a really good way of getting your own ideas clear.

Just had time to dip into this thread, but I have read (at leangth) both approaches and my thoughts on them are..

AP - Not convinced by Dr Sears. The evidence he uses to back up his theory is very selective and does not accurately represent the evidence that is out there (he leaves out the bits that does not support his theory). I can honestly say that that is true because after reading his book on AP, I looked up the actual research for myself, and found there to be a number of discrepancies.

My second concern is that AP parents seem to believe in some kind of myth that there is such a thing as non western parenting, and that it is better. They seem to suggest that all non western parents use slings, cosleep and do extended breastfeeding. This is at best naive, but in truth is completely at utterly wrong. Lets take a few examples, the Ik tribes force all their children to leave home at the grand old age of three, and they are left to defend for themselves. Another tribe (forget the name, but I think they are sub saharan Africa) allow the mothers to raise their children until one, when breastfeeding stops, the mother goes out to work the fields etc and the father stays at home to raise the kids. Another Amazonian tribe, does carry children in slings, but they don't actually talk to their children until they are about 2 or three. Therefore, in their society, you can see two year olds who are a pro with a machete, but who cannot talk (Seen a video of this myself, very odd from a western viewpoint!). The point is there is no such thing as 'traditional' parenting that the west has lost sight off, that is a myth and I don't think it is helpful for APers to be purporting such a myth that is so very difficult for parents to have as their golden standard that they feel as though they have got to live up to in western society.

On the other hand, I totally reject GF as I feel as though it does not respect the baby as a person, and I do not agree at all with controlled crying. If I was hungry at 3pm, I'd get some food. If a baby is hungry then, why must they starve just because some book says they should? Just don't get that myself.

Whilst the BW is not perfect (and there are some things that I really disagree with), like the other posters, I feel that it works from a premise of respect for the child, but also that it advocates a routine based around the needs of a child to give structure and order without clock watching. To me, that is a good compromise. I used it with both my children, and both slept through from 8 weeks (using the book) and I never had to use controlled crying with either of them.

"My second concern is that AP parents seem to believe in some kind of myth that there is such a thing as non western parenting, and that it is better. They seem to suggest that all non western parents use slings, cosleep and do extended breastfeeding. This is at best naive, but in truth is completely at utterly wrong. Lets take a few examples, the Ik tribes force all their children to leave home at the grand old age of three, and they are left to defend for themselves. Another tribe (forget the name, but I think they are sub saharan Africa) allow the mothers to raise their children until one, when breastfeeding stops, the mother goes out to work the fields etc and the father stays at home to raise the kids. Another Amazonian tribe, does carry children in slings, but they don't actually talk to their children until they are about 2 or three. Therefore, in their society, you can see two year olds who are a pro with a machete, but who cannot talk (Seen a video of this myself, very odd from a western viewpoint!). The point is there is no such thing as 'traditional' parenting that the west has lost sight off, that is a myth and I don't think it is helpful for APers to be purporting such a myth that is so very difficult for parents to have as their golden standard that they feel as though they have got to live up to in western society. "

Do you actually have any links to back up your statements about particular tribes. Otherwise I will assume its absolute bollox!

Why do we think primitive, tribal practices are particularly relevant to anything much?

The WHO advocates, among other things, breastfeeding as being the most desirable form of baby feeding because scientific studies have proved it so. Ditto lots of cuddling and affection have been proven, scientifically, to have a beneficial effect on child development.

Don't look to ancient or primitive tribes that knew nothing much for guidance

God that was a bit full on frances, lets hope rarrie has some evidence.

I do think that Tracy Hoggs book is the most middle of the ground parenting book I have seen. This is my answer to the OP. She wants a middle of the ground book. I think this is it.
It offeres a routine, without clockwatching. Listening and understanding your childs needs/wishes/requirements are central to it.
No controlled crying (even the mention of the word makes me shake)
And time and the end of the day for mummy and daddy to have time together , which helps, to maintain a relationship. Or if a single parent, a little time to themselves that is not child centred - and I do believe this is an important thing.- there are many threads with people in distress and it is often advised that they do need atleast a little time for 'me time'.

I wonder which bits rarrie "really disagree's" with.
Are there many people who think that 'Baby whisperer- Tracy Hogg' -this is not the 'middle of the ground' ? - what bits do you particularly dislike ?

I can't help wondering if there is something a little more insidious going on here. We used to be mums. Now there seems to be increasing pressure to 'brand' ourselves - are you a yummy mummy, a slummy mummy, an Alpha mummy, a Gina mummy, an attachment mummy? Hell, we even have to 'brand' our birthing methods.

There seems to be this expectation that as a mother you should decide which particular marketing stereotype you fit and do nothing outside those parameters. I remember meeting one mum who was amazed that I, as someone who used GF methods, should also use reusable nappies. Weird.

And I can't help wondering if this is linked to the increasing commercialisation of birth and kids and everything that surrounds them, and that some advertising guru somewhere is making a Powerpoint presentation about how this particular 'brand' of motherhood is linked to this particular target market and so on...

I think you just have to find what works for you reallt, not take whole plans from a book- use specific ideas or strategies maybe, but the author knows neither you nor your baby.

I suppose I use a variant of attachment parenting, but AP with asd kids is far from the rpescribed norm. And I tried GF too, but my babies were born (well 2 of them) with needs that didn't fir ythe patterns of most abbies and they left us low and depressed, and me wondering quite why I couldn't manage to get them to conform. Now I relaise theya re biologically programmed not to conform.

I don't own a single aprenting book and I am pleased about that- I can come ehre for advice if needed, and at least my own circumstances will be part of the package then.

why does someone feel it is necessary to namechange before starting a thread on a topic like this?

There is lots and lots of anthropological research which suggest that child-rearing practices vary widly, even amongst (the few remaining) hunter/gatherer tribes. I got really interested in this when dd was a baby. I fully agree with rarrie that the idea that AP somehow goes back to some lost, more instinctual past is simplistic. And I do AP my dd!

krang, I love all that branding stuff!

I like the general concept of routine (GF light)
think breastfeeding (extended, too) is excellent (am with Harpsicodcuddler there)
love co-sleeping, particularly for the first 3-6 months (big up the AP massive)
think sleeptraining is a good idea with all options - NCSS, Baby Whisp Pu/PD, CC - on the table

And of course I am a yummy alpha daddy;
only those are allowed on MN, shurely?

No idea what to debate here, though.

Particularly when there is bum fun (say it in a Welsh accent!)
to be had on another thread

Googling tribes

IK Tribe See Point 3

They sound lovely people apparantly happy to let lion take and eat their children (see Amazon Book Reviewshere ) due to lack of food.

I don't think these people should be the ones, we look to for parenting advice