So current advice is to not wean baby till 6 months old so does this imply that if you were parenting 'natural' that baby shouldnt be left for first 6 months

[MamaMaiasaura]

when dependent on mum for breast milk? And does this mean that nurseries who often offer places from 4 months (when babies were weaned) should change their policies to from 6 months? And that even more maternity support should be given to prolong mothers staying home with babies? Thought about this when feeding ds2 (4 months) earlier.

Also does this mean to leave baby before 6 months is wrong or indeed that babies under the age of 4 months when this was the recommended weaning age shouldnt have been left for a prolonged period in childcare?

Is the biological nature of the baby not being physically mature enough to cope with anything but milk till 6 months, natures way of saying dont leave baby? If so what if any damage is being done by doing so. Am aware of risks of formula which is one of the ways round leaving baby, but is there emotional damage too?

Can't answer your trickier questions, but as I understand it, paid maternity leave was extended to 6 (and I think now, 9) months for precisely this reason.

I don't think there is a right or wrong or natural way of parenting. Its whats right for you and your baby.

Lots of research about attachment, search it, makes interesting reading.

didnt know that was why the maternity leave was extended. That is good

Herecomes science - true re the childbearing age women would then be seen as unemployable. Shitty world eh? The emotional damamge and natural way arent menat to induce trouble, but can see how the natural way could.

Fairymum - def think you should follow your baby and yourself. Wasnt trying to draw a line between parenting. Actually am genuinely interested in this though and wonder wether their are long term implications for future generations. I dont know how else to define the difference between different parenting styles. I guess it is like births, people ask if youve had a 'natural birth'. With 1st i had section and 2nd was vbac. So you could say 1st wasnt natural and 2nd was.. however i had pain relief with both. Does that mean neither were natural.

Don't read all that crap.

Do what you want otherwise you'll be guilt-tripping yourself over something that will be old news in a short while, honestly just go with what feels right for you and your child.

serant - the attachment theory i read about was the rhesus monkey experiment. I thought that was really interesting and spoke volumes for the need of comfort. I think it is freud who has the cupboard love theory tho. Dont personally buy into that (well dont buy into to much of freuds stuff )

lol kitty

We've always weaned at about the time they snatch our toast at breakfast and shove in into their gaping mouths before we can catch them.

Oddly, this is never mentioned in books.....

Anwen I honestly think that what you do or don't do with your baby in the first six monthns (presuming of course they are cared for) has such a minimal impact in the longer term that it is so not worth the ansgt that goes into this. How you and the rest of the world speak/interact/teach/play/love/discipline over the next 10/15 years are far more likely to impact on future generations then whether you fed your baby their mid-afternoon feed at 4months or a nanny, nursery nurse or granny.

That is not a comment on the relative merits of types of feeding either as I don't think that is where you are coming from.

Also as I think has been covered before baby at home with mother is a fairly recent concept in the Western World - certainly for many working women so if your premise were to hold what are evidence do you think there has been in previous generations of emotinal damage.

Please excuse shocking spelling and grammar am studying (clearly!) and knackered....

ahh kittywise - Awen doesn't mean attachment perenting (which can be competitive and potty in the extreme) but attachment theory, which is an evidence based psychological theory, refined over about 50 years, by large scale studies,and experiments, the most famous being the rhesus monkey study, where baby monkeys were found to prefer a warm nurturing dummy which provided no food to a wire dummy which did - it's not the best illustration of attachment theory - google bowlby and ainsworth for an overview, it's really interesting

I think maternity leave should be extended to 12 months. I would not want to spend 12 months at home, but I think women should have the choice to do so. With our 4th baby I am taking 6 months and DH 6 months.

I breastfed dd until she was 11 months but went back to work (part time) when she was 3 months- having filled the freezer with expressed breast milk. And she wasn't being looked after by a wire dummy when I was at work either, but by a warm cuddling human being. Lots of monkeys carry each other's babies round and mind them, and the young monkeys seem to thrive on this.

But I am in favour of extended parental leave- preferably the way it is done in Scandinavia with an extra month for Daddy only.

Guilt guilt guilt.

I left DS at 7 weeks to go back part-time. No choice. He's adopted, I live in Singapore with only one month adoption leave (reluctantly given), had 1 month notice of his arrival and need to give 6 months notice to leave, so no choice. He's only ever had formula too, so is presumably doomed.

Try to make up for it by cuddling the hell out of him the rest of the time.

I'm sure you didn't mean to make others feel guilty but I do. Have been reading Hannah Pool's book about being adopted so am already feeling guilty for the trauma he'll suffer even though I didn't casuse it.

The basis of attachment theory is geese. I'm not sure it's that scientific.

I am pretty sure that hunter gatherer types would leave their babies for a bit with gran or aunts or whatever, many of whom would, of course, be able to breastfeed the baby, anyway.

oldnewmummy, please don't give too much credence to Hannah Pool's book - I'm sure her feelings are valid for her but I'm a bit about a lot of her writing - and you've given your ds the best possible start in life

I was bottle fed and I'm bloody marvellous

geese huh?

there we have it then

I have a good book on it somewhere, will dig it up.

If you want a reaasonable view on attachment theory, you want Mother Nature by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy. Hrdy is ace, a great writer, with a strong background in primatology and a feminist approach. You've probably already read her, bundle?

no I haven't but sounds v interesting

She's a very good writer with some interestingly controversial views - lots of them sociobiological.

I like many of the principles in AP. for me it takes a lot of stress out of parenting. Others might say the exact opposite. I don't like all the talk about "natural" parenting and "emotionally damaging" babies/children. It does put me off reading a lot about it tbh.

The trouble with theory is that we all latch on to theories that resonate for us - for whatever reason - and dismiss all the rest as bunkum!

IMO it is best not to over-theorise life because every time you find a theory that fits your life situation you'll find it makes someone else feel worse!

I like a lot of the ideas of AP, too.

But the principle of attachment in babies, assumes they are like geese, and will latch on to one caregiver at birth, and are best off being with that one caregiver, all the time. I think there's science showing children are a lot more flexible than geese.