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?

Yes I agree. At the same time I think the current trend is very much towards "managing" your baby and getting into routines, sleep-training, food routines etc etc I think AP can be a breath of fresh air in the jungle of parenting books and parenting gurus, but it is very dogmatic.

I remember when I first heard detail of the monkey experiments. Valuable for our understanding of bonding and need for love and nurture, but it broke my heart for those poor little creatures

But Awen, if you are really talking about nature and what is natural, babies are not weaned onto sausage and mash and a pint of lager at 6 months - if it weren't for formula milk, almost all babies would continue to be breastfed until 12 months when they can have cow's milk and eat almost entirely off our plates. So yes I guess it is natural for a mother not to leave a baby (except for short amounts of time between feeds) for the first year and yes we are lucky to live in a society where women are allowed up to 12 months off work!

Plenty of communities have done wet nursing. Look at the UK in the 1500s. Look even at the FLDS mothers in Texas today whose children have been taken away from them. So no. Also remember naturally most children under 5 always died so nature isn't always the best thing to go on. Even if you go to the 1800s you'll see many many children dying.

I went back to work at 2 weeks each time (5 babies) and always breastfed to over a year and with the first three expressed. They ave lovely and the 3 oldest are at university. You cannot see in them any sign their parents worked. They certainly all liked a lot of feeding at night too and liked to be held as babies too.

I would have thought that 'natural' was that women lived in communitites and all fed and looked after each others' babies as was needed.

sadly nature doesn't take into account high taxes, overpriced goods, and high interest rates and mortgages

or granparents who bugger off to the costa..

my mum left me and went back to work after 6 wks and that had an impact on me. I cried solidly for 6 months.

I make up for not being there in the day by lots night time cuddles, i took a year off.

Not just geese - read The Continuum Concept.

i can't bear the thought of 6mo DS1 going into FT childcare but I'm lucky, he doesn't have to. He's in 2 days a week (from 6mo) and LOVES it. He clearly doesn't miss me and that, I think, i something to be proud of (even if I secretly want him to miss me!!). I'm sure he'd be happy in FT childcare but I would miss him too much.

I did a mix of AP. Carried him in a sling for 12 weeks, barely put him down, bf on demand, co-slept for 3 mo. Never did CC (even tho have been tempted as people reading my sleep posts will know).

I've always had a 'policy' of offering him round to viiting friends and families for cuddles, and still bf him. Am lucky in that MIL comes once a week, my mum comes every month for 4-5 days, BIL is often round and I have lots of groups I can take him to. And his CM cuddles and kisses him like I do.

As a result (I think, no proof), he's a happy, independent, engaged little chap who spends most of his days beaming (and most of his nights awake!!).

You've just got to do what's right for you and your LO. They're all different, we're all different.

Yes, you do what's right for you. Babies tend to be happy with stability and routine, cuddles and constant people in their lives. That can be granny, or in our area here the extended family, the cousin brothers Indian type set up or in my family the very much older siblings but of course in our case the nanny who stayed 10 years etc too. I used to call the twins the happy babies. That set up was best - I was back at work as I wanted in a week or two but mostly at home and they were brought to me to breastfeed. That was much easier than with the first 3 me commuting to the city but you do what you need to do at the time an they have hugely benefited from those 10 years in the city in terms of their life and lifestyle now and don't seem damaged by separation anxieties because they had the constant of mother, father and nanny all 3 very involved in their lives 20 years ago on a daily basis very very consistently plus all those hours of breastfeeding at night.

Remember the red indians strapped the baby to a board and tended to leave it in a corner or hooked on the wall. The idea that native peoples always had perfect childcare arrangements is not always true when you look into it and most babies died.