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.

mummymagic - "independence comes gradually and with gentle guidance"

Couldn't agree more

Message withdrawn

There are also plenty of ideas in modern cultures that I think are excellent when taking care of babies - nappies, babywipes, vaccination, daily baths, washing machines... Personally I like lots of science and supporting evidence for my childcare decisions

Ah, but Pruners, breastfeeding on demand and sling didn't stop my baby crying! It's no good, whatever you do, there will always be someone who it didn't work for - which is why we should all just get on with what suits us best!

my dd slept best only if I held her, standing up! or in the pram

For my sanity, and getting some rest, we took the pram option of time.

You do what you do.

Also the 'Look at tribal societies' slant fails to take into account that we are no longer in a tribal society. And wheras a woman in a long house may well do very well with attachment parenting, she also has her own sisters and mother on hand to help her out. We in the west often do not.

i have never used a parenting book and i dont intend to. we are very laid back with cade. we do what we think suits him and us and tbh bugger anyone who doesnt like it.

although saying that i can understand how a book would help if you have a demanding baby or a baby who wont sleep.

omg i sounded so up myself there im really sorry.

what i meant was every baby is different and i have read a certain book which was onmy friends shelf and it was just to demanding. i think if i was going to use a book i would take different bits from different ones and incorporate them into my life.

i truly am not up myself i am a first time mother who just takes it as it comes

I think with your first child you can get really wrapped up in reading parenting books. I read more than I should have and the Baby Whisperer is the only one that I would recommend. From skimming the thread it looks like most people agree on picking and choosing what works best for you and your baby - and of course each baby is different. Ds2 does really well with routines for napping. Ds1 never has gotten on with a routine. I love babywearing, not crazy about co-sleeping although I am doing so atm with ds2.

And good for you goldenwings, to feel so confident with a first child I wish I had trusted myself more with ds1.

As a first time mum we were in a mess until we used the gina ford routine. Breastfeeding on demand wasn't working and DS cried lots. The routine suited him on the first day and saved us from going mental. Just as long as you go what you're happy with and what suits you and the baby then it's ok. If I didn't have a routine then we'd be in chaos! It would be very dull if we were all the same .

objective debate?
attachment v. ford?
it's insanity.

Totally agree with Martianbishop, I picked and chose from various methodologies and found that that worked best for my DS's.

It is sad that the act of bringing up babies/children has to have a label.

Personally flexibility and a sense of humour were the key.

Nah, Goldenwings, I am a laidback-very proud-of-myself-no-books-just-instinct first time mum too. In fact I am bricking it that next time I'll have a nightmare baby and find out it wasn;t all down to my wonderful parenting skills. (Or of course, she will grow out of dream baby stage...)

I love being a mum! (the house looks like shit though... My baby has never done the '2 and a half hour' nap on schedule in her cot thing...)

I had a list of ideas which I thought I would follow when I was pregnant but when my daughter turned up, I found that a lot of my plans didn't work for her, so I ended up doing a lot of things I didn't expect to do or in some cases had never heard of.

For instance. My lovely pram is barely used as a sling instantly calms my DD. Cloth nappies/Potty was essential in curing and preventing the reoccurance of the nasty infected nappy rash the wearing Pampers gave her as a newborn. Co-sleeping with a sidecar cot let me sleep.

I read a few pages of Gina Ford's book and I got as far as 'Feed for 10 minutes from the left breast and express 2 ozs from the right breast' or something similar and I knew that kind of rigid routine would never work for us, we are more eat when hungry, sleep when tired folk.

I honestly think the successful Gina babies are those who would naturally fall into that routine anyway without the book but if people get comfort from her book, that is good. Though I have no idea how it could work with two or more children.

I think that attatchent parenting is a more relaxed philosophy. For example, my friend went back to work when her baby was 8 weeks old, but I (and she probably) would consider her an attachment parent. She co-sleeps with her baby, carries her in a sling when with her, breastfeeds, rocks her to sleep at night...
I would consider this scenario to be more "attachment parenting" than a SAHM who has her baby in a routine, even though the baby is spending more time actually with mum present in the second scenario.

I personally am a SAHM, who practices a more extreme form of attachment parenting, and I believe in it strongly for various personal reasons. I donT think Id have anything in common with a SAHM who followed the routine path.

So as a basic philosophy, attachment parenting is flexible, because you can take from it what you want and bend it in any way you choose. The main idea is responsiveness and not being child-centred ( If a baby is in a sling while you carry on with your business, the baby is just there for the ride. Babys feel comfortable with a busy mum going about her business, and a sling is the best way to do this. THis is the <span class="italic">opposite</span> of the child-centred idea where mum plays with baby on the floor and makes the baby the centre of her attention). A Ford-style routine is a <span class="italic">non</span> responsive parenting style (more like coercive), and its basically a black and white philosophy i.e parentss needs are more important than babys. Attachment parents sometimes end up finding that their babys needs and their needs become one and the same.

Sakura - I definitely agree with the non child-centred approach. My daughter spends most of her time with me, but we mostly follow my agenda.

Her negotiation skills are growing rapidly

i think there is a lot of mis interpretation of what is a child centered approach - it does not mean no boundaries, it does not mean do what ever a child wants, that would be neglecting your parental role.

however it is important to understand the child's 'world view' see where she is coming from understand developmental stages and so on.

i used to managed care homes for people with learning disabilities and a person centered approach is essential to the development of the individual, and that means tailoring care to the specific needs of the individual, care to suit the person not the carer but within the normal constraints.

i found that it is easy to do once there is a will to follow that philosophy.

with my child i work on the premise that i wanted to have her so it is my responsibility to nurture and help her develop, that sometimes means adapting my pre baby ways

You have one thing in common with this routine-centred mum, Sakura - we both love our kids and do what we feel is right for them.

Yeah, thats true krang. I dont mean it like that of course. I just mean as far as parenting styles go. People sometimes assume that all SAHMS have lots more in common regarding parenting philosophies than a SAHM and a W(full-time)OHM could have, but Ive found that this hasn`t been the case. The AP/Ford philosophies are wider gaps.

It would be interesting to know how many SAHMs favour the AP way over routine. One of the main reasons I started my routine is that I work, and I work from home. I had to start working again when my DS was two months old as I'm self-employed - no maternity leave for me and the self-employed maternity allowance is a joke! So a big part of the choice was that I had to know roughly when DS would sleep so I could get some work done. It was either that or put him in childcare, which I thought he was two young for.

Jabberwocky, totally agree which is probably why I started this thread. I don't think there's any shame in think a little support from books is useful because as a first time mum, I just didn;t know what to expect. However on reflection and reading all these posts, what I've realised is what I have done is none of these so called methods to the letter, it's been an approach which I would choose to call 'family centred' as opposed to 'child centred'. We look at how we all need to work as a strong loving family unit, that know how to have fun, love and cuddlesm with our baby's nurture and development at the centre, whilst thriving in our society and community (which for us also means working and getting on with our day to day lives). We are blessed with a little girl that really goes with the flow and I know for others, their little ones have different needs. I think on the day I posted this, I was going through one of those 'but am I getting it right'. The point is, the 'it' in that statement is different for everyone and I found myself getting caught up in the 'labels' as someone on this post very assutely put it.
This is the first post for me on MumsNet (so whoever said I had changed my name to post this, not sure what there were on about!) and it's show me just what a great resource it is. Thank you everyone, I feel much better about how I'm doing as a mum!

Leave the books alone.....and do what feels natural to you and your family.

Think we are all saying similar things
but am enjoying the different nuances!

My advice is to read as much as you can from both camps.

BUT: Don't take it literally.

Appreciate it as guidance, rich source of ideas but -
Ignore the dogma;
Laugh at the rigidity;
Blow raspberries at the scaremongering.

There is no such thing as a definitive baby manual
underpinned by science. (Sorry, Margot..will read your book anyway!)

i think its very natural to find a middle ground and if you are sensitive you will probably reach one (based on your beleif and value system and ecological considerations) anyways. anyone who can follow the guidance of a book religously must have some strange ability to overlook the natural balances in life and think that their child and their lifestyle is ruled by strict laws.

by the way i didnt read this thread as no time, but i wanted to say that i read an intersting article on ap that thought ap was misconstrued by us westerners who thought it meant attaching yourself to your baby 24 hours a day, when in fact the idea came from women who had no choice but to stick their child onto them while they worked and did other things,

Can you post a link? Ta!

Rarrie & Frances5 - you seem to be into facts and figures. In response to poor old Harpsi's posts, and her insistence on breastfeeding, I have tried to find facts on age of lactose tollerance. I have read only that lactose cannot be digested by humans after the age of 2. I got this from nakedscientist.com. Any other ideas? I'd like to find the answer myself but am obviously looking in the wrong place for it. This may give us some bite to our breastfeeding arguments.
Ta
schoolrunnow...