Breastfeeding and attachment parenting - your thoughts

[awfulpersonme]

I've not posted on this board before but have lurked a lot.

I'm interested to see what you think about two things I have thought about a lot in recent weeks - breastfeeding and attachment parenting.

I breastfeed my 5 month old and as such was on a few Facebook groups for support. On these groups I have seen comments stating that women who ff should not have children, that formula should only be available on prescription for babies who need it medically, and asking for tips on how to persuade their female friends and relatives to breastfeed their babies. These groups are largely AP based.

So:

1. Is pressurising women to breastfeed essentially anti feminist? Isn't it just another way of telling us what we should and shouldn't do with our bodies, another way of making female bodies public property?

2. aren't a lot of the attachment parenting principles essentially quite anti-woman? Every AP group I've seen seems to place a mother's need for outside stimulation, sleep, and good mental health as far, far below the needs of her children (at all ages, not just newborns and young babies). The idea that you must be around your baby 24/7 just seems to me to be another way of keeping women firmly "in their place".

What do you all think??

I think hardliners are quite anti-feminist- on breastfeeding "support" groups I have seen women chastised for not wanting to breastfeed their toddler hourly overnight for example. In real life however I have only felt pressure to stop breastfeeding- once my DD turned 6 weeks I was told on a daily basis by my mother to stop martyring myself. I was beside myself with stress going back to work at 10months with a bottle refusing, food refusing child and I was told it was my own fault for "insisting" on breastfeeding.

I didn't subscribe to any particular school of parenting- I breastfed, but would have had no objection to some formula (DD had many objections however!), mostly DD slept in a cot but we co-slept safely on occasion. I had to do BLW as my awkward child wouldn't eat from a spoon (she wouldn't eat finger food either but it was less soul destroying!). I used a pram somedays and a sling others. Still do in fact. I went back to work full time at 10months. I didn't sleep train because I had a baby who slept well anyway, but I would have if DD was waking multiple times at night when I went back to work. DH and I alternate bedtimes and we stay with DD until she falls asleep. I'm very gently weaning DD now, at 2.4. I didn't use cloth nappies or do elimination communication; DD is dry day and night anyway.

What sort of parents are we?!

rinceoir, I think you're just "parents" ! DH and I don't classify our parenting, we're mostly just fumbling our way around to survive having twins and a toddler.

There's nothing new in attachment parenting, it's been around forever.

The point of both sides in an unpleasant and unproductive "debate" using distressing and emotive anecdotes to make their argument is a separate issue to the inaccuracy of the information they present

Hmm , you are assuming the reporting of " distressing and emotive anecdotes" is being used to try to win an argument.

Perhaps if you had experienced the hell of breast feeding not working you might find less judgemental wording to describe "anecdotes" (in itself a somewhat loaded term)

Although I suppose these anecdotes do end up being used as evidence , given the intransigence of certain posters to believe the issue is anything other than a conspiracy by formula manufacturers.

And again, as people seem to ignore this usually

Attachment parenting has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH ATTACHMENT.

The majority of children manage to be securely attached to a variety of people, male and female and sometimes even furry and inanimate. There are parents who "attachment parent" who will have children that don't have secure attachments, too because breastfeeding and co-sleeping and sling-wearing are no guarantee of attuned, responsive parenting.

So it is actually bollocks.

And as I had to explain to my gay male friend who is adopting, his kid will be fine even though they will miss out on breastfeeding... because a lot of this is just utter anti-feminist tripe.

Fusion, what has your post got to do with anti feminism?

Hmm , you are assuming the reporting of " distressing and emotive anecdotes" is being used to try to win an argument.

Lass, I give up. You're trying to see hostility where there is none. Time and time again, I have explained that my problem is with the anti-bf and anti-ff extremists who feel they have an argument to win and unscrupulously use anecdotes - usually other people's, and usually told in an emotive manner - to do so. I have no problem whatsoever with individual posters describing their own experiences. But you are apparently determined to misinterpret my posts to suit yourself. So go ahead. Knock yourself out.

Perhaps if you had experienced the hell of breast feeding not working you might find less judgemental wording to describe "anecdotes" (in itself a somewhat loaded term)

Who says I haven't experienced hell bfing?? I did, as a matter of fact. DS's first few months were a freaking nightmare of tongue tie, thrush, mastitis, expressing, poor weight gain, bullying HVs, and generally piss-poor bfing information and support that included one HCP telling me that bfing had "failed". I haven't recounted my own anecdote in detail here because I don't think it contributes anything to the debate at hand, although I do go into detail on specific issues if I'm answering a query on the infant feeding board, for example.

All personal stories are anecdotes. They're self-selecting, biased by hindsight, and shouldn't be taken as representative of anything. That's as true for my own personal anecdote as anyone else's. It doesn't mean my experiences aren't important to me or valid in their own right! But it does mean that my bfing anecdote shouldn't be given the same weight as objective information on the pros and cons of bf and ff.

I BF DD til she was 3, I'm very supportive of BFing and would like it if BF rates were much higher. I believe that breastmilk, by large, is a better substance than formula.

However, I am a feminist first and foremost. I support the rights of women to use their bodies how they see fit, more than I support the uptake of BF. It is a bit of a conflict of interest, but deciding to FF 'because I just don't want to BF' to me is a perfectly valid choice

One of my pet hates is when rabid breastfeeding advocates talk about the supposed faff of formula. An ordinary dishwasher cleans bottles perfectly, and mixing takes seconds. Quite a different thing to spending up to an hour breastfeeding every other hour while staring at a growing pile of filthy dishes I didn't have time to deal with and crying, like I did for five months before starting mixed feeding.

Yes, and that's right for you, and that's fine. For me, the idea of having to fill a dishwasher, rather than sit there, feed the baby and re-use my tea mug is much worse, because I'm me - we're all different.

For my first I bought all the stuff - I had formula on standby, I tried the expressing thing when DS wasn't gaining wait etc. Eventually we got there (we were one sleep away from formula when he just seemed to figure it out). For DS2, I knew I wasn't a milker, so I bought literally nothing, and that's what I'd do for a 3rd, because, for me, it's easy.

Except afterpains.. By God.. I'd forgotten afterpains. Feeding through those was worse than the c-section recovery.

I don't get this AP excluding father either - with DS1, he was either feeding with me, or sleeping/bathing with one or both of us. With DS2, who was more chilled and a better feeder, he still spent a lot of time with one of us - and it didn't matter which.

Admittedly I've not read any of these books, but if a mother is taking it all on herself, then she needs to be supported to let go a bit, not blamed for excluding the father surely.

However, I am a feminist first and foremost. I support the rights of women to use their bodies how they see fit, more than I support the uptake of BF. It is a bit of a conflict of interest, but deciding to FF 'because I just don't want to BF' to me is a perfectly valid choice

I think this reflects my position. I BF myself and do think BF is a Good Thing. But if a woman doesn't want to, I will unreservedly defend her right to make that choice. In fact, I find the 'all women could BF if they were better educated/had more support' a bit patronising. Maybe someone women just don't fancy it, and in this country, where a safe alternative is available, that is absolutely fine, they don't need any other reason.

Likewise, what

Has anyone else listened to the podcast linked earlier. It is excellent and has answered some of my questions about attachment. In light of this it seems that what has happened is that Sears has conflated his parenting method with terminology used by child development researches in order to sell a parenting style. I felt pretty bad for the mother interviewed. She'd gone to such lengths to BF in the belief that is was the best way to 'attach' her child. She sounded quite shocked in the final part of the interview.

That is my main problem with any kind of parenting strategy that is sold as a silver bullet to parents. I think that parents, particularly educated ones, see parenting as another test to study for. They look for the pass/fail system to give them something to work with. Ultimately, they're being exploited by people with an agenda and a book to sell.

And Moo, your assertions about the benefits of BF are total balls. The key word is corrolation. There isn't a single study that has actually proven causation between BF and better health outcomes.

One of my pet hates is when rabid breastfeeding advocates talk about the supposed faff of formula. An ordinary dishwasher cleans bottles perfectly, and mixing takes seconds. Quite a different thing to spending up to an hour breastfeeding every other hour while staring at a growing pile of filthy dishes I didn't have time to deal with and crying, like I did for five months before starting mixed feeding.

I breastfeed whilst watching trashy TV and eating chocolate whilst somebody else fills the dishwasher.

Can someone who does attachment parenting explain what it involves, why they do it and how it has benefitted them and their children?

I'll try...

what it involves

I think the best description I can do is the overview here from Attachment Parenting International, which outlines the general philosophy. In very, very brief, it's an approach to parenting that focuses on responsiveness to a child's needs as the basis of promoting secure attachment.

A lot of the practices associated with AP come out of Bowlby's work on attachment in the 1950s and on, which say (again, in very very brief and I'm generalising here) that what helps attachment in young children is what they're evolutionarily designed to expect: a lot of close physical contact, quick responsiveness to crying, etc. So people who do AP with babies will be a lot more likely to carry them in slings a lot, feed them on demand, and not leave them to cry.

Many people will tell you that attachment parenting says you have to breastfeed, have to cosleep, have to give up work and be a SAHP. But really, it's not a list of rules, it's a general approach with a bunch of tools people pick and choose from to support that approach. I do some things people associate with typical AP (breastfeeding up to toddlerhood, co-slept) and don't do other things (I work full-time, I have no plans to homeschool).

why they do it

Because I agree with the general philosophy (responsiveness is important for attachment, modern Western parenting practices often don't suit the evolutionary needs of children). Because it suits me and my family.

and how it has benefitted them

As above, it suits my general approach to parenting, and it sits a lot better with the way I intuitively like to parent than, say, Gina Ford does. So that's a benefit.

Another benefit is that, since my child was a very tiny baby, I found attachment parenting approaches a lot less guilt-inducing than other approaches. My baby wanted to be held all the time, hated prams, loved slings, wanted to feed constantly. I had a lot of people (friends, family, books, HV/midwives) saying that I needed to train my baby not to do this - that my baby was snacking, getting into bad habits, I was creating a rod for my own back, she'd be horribly clingy, etc. The more AP people/books said that responding to my baby the way I and she preferred was fine, and she'd grow out of it in time.

AP approaches have helped me understand my child's perspective on things, and have helped me take a more thoughtful, considered approach to parenting than I would have had if I'd just reflexively gone with the way I was parented. (Which wasn't awful by any means but wasn't ideal in every way, either.)

and their children?

Well, my only child's still just a toddler, and besides I can't really say "she's like this because I parented this way and she'd be a serial killer if I hadn't!". But, she's happy, she's thriving, she seems pretty secure and independent, and she doesn't need to be carried round all the sodding time any more, glory hallelujah, so something's worked. And she isn't a serial killer so far

And can I ask if the other people you raise your child with also use attachment parenting - parents, siblings, friends, partners, professional child care providers?

Partner - yes, we value being on the same page when it comes to parenting.

Parents - I don't think they would call themselves "attachment parents" (and in fact thought a lot of the things we did when our DC was little were barking mad, although they've generally come round on that!) but they take the same kind of general approach we do when caring for DC - how to approach tantrums, and so on. I don't think it's essential for everyone who cares for a child to do things the same way, but I do think it's important that they're on the same page in general.

Professional childcare providers - same kind of thing. We didn't go out of our way to find a childcare provider who identified themselves as an AP follower, but we did turn down the nursery who dealt with tantrums by using time-outs from the age of 12 months, because that wasn't the kind of approach I wanted my childcare provider to follow.

53 it is interedting that you cite Bowlby, who's maternal deprivation theory has been criticised for putting an emphasis on women not leaving their child for the first two years of life, even to go to work.

Seems pretty anti-feminist to me.

His work also doesn't mention anything about the ideas proscribed by AP groups. Nothing about extended BF, baby wearing etc.

Have you actually read the work?

Almondpudding, everything.

Cosmiccreepers more or less sums it up.

Attachment parenting is basically a branding of a natural process that has very little to do with attachment and trades on all of our naturally evolved fears around wanting what's best for our offspring.. only it makes it the woman's preserve.

You must breastfeed, you must co-sleep, you must babywear to guarantee your "secure attachment" with your offspring... when actually none of these things are necessary and/or ensuring of a secure attachment.

Breastfeeding success also has fuck all to do with attachment parenting nor does breastfeeding increase likelihood of secure attachment.

I should think it's quite perfectly obvious why pretending you need to follow a set routine of parenting practices that is disproportionately aimed at women is anti-feminist. Sort of limits women's options in many ways and feeds into a unidirectional notion of parenting where children are what their MOTHER does (and critically, chooses as a consumer) rather than individual beings in their own right who will evolve reciprocally and dynamically in relationship with a variety of people who love and nurture them.

(and I do lots of AP things but I refuse to call it "attachment parenting" because what I do is not owned by some white doctor in the States, it is what I choose to do.. and yet I would be lying if I said there weren't points especially early in motherhood where really all it really meant was that I was just a consumer of pretty slings)

To me AP is to do with respect.
About validating everyone's feelings, no matter how old, small or young.
I AP, hard work but benefits are wonderful.

But those are surely the exact same benefits other mothers enjoy! Dont you think other mothers have incredibly close and nuturing bonds with their kids even if they havent done a single AP thing?

Have you actually read the work?

Yes, thanks. And there are many things on which I would disagree with Bowlby on (role of the mother, idea of a single modern hunter-gatherer-type society, idea of said society as being how our ancestors parented...).

But I'm not mentioning him to say "Bowlby was right about everything and his works are holy texts!". While his ideas are flawed in many ways, and scholarship has moved on since, his work on attachment was groundbreaking. You can't talk about attachment theory and pretend like Bowlby never existed.

His work also doesn't mention anything about the ideas proscribed by AP groups. Nothing about extended BF, baby wearing etc.

Indeed. As I said - "Many people will tell you that attachment parenting says you have to breastfeed, have to cosleep, have to give up work and be a SAHP. But really, it's not a list of rules, it's a general approach with a bunch of tools people pick and choose from to support that approach."

Attachment has nothing to do with tools you pick and choose. It's intersubjectivity - presence... moment to moment reciprocal dynamic interaction. It's being.. not doing...

But that doesn't sell so well...

user You can respect each other and not do AP.

Attachment has nothing to do with tools you pick and choose. It's intersubjectivity - presence... moment to moment reciprocal dynamic interaction.

It's not "tool" in the sense of "spanner". It's "tool" in the sense of a metaphorical toolkit, of approaches and techniques. "Parenting toolkit" is hardly a term unique to AP - I've heard all sorts of people use it. They don't mean a literal toolkit of physical tools to sell.

53 So how is Bowlby anything to do with AP? Unless it is the idea that mothers are solely responsible for a child's mental development in the first few years.

Or have proponents of particular style of parenting just co-opted the word attachment to give their ideas some credence?

53bird that link was interesting and even though we would not call ourselves attachment parents we do most of those things. We haven't read any books on the topic but I am a member of attachment or gentle parenting groups both on the WWW and in real life and that will impact how I parent.

I do think that much of it is just thoughtful parenting which is why I would never give myself a label and why I am surprised that it causes such an angry reaction from some posters.

It is pretty standard to expect to have to hold a newborn baby. Very few if any parents would let a young baby cry it out. Slings , massage and co sleepers such as bednest are pretty mainstream. Most people think that breast is best but accept that it is not always that simple. Parents of young children who go to work look for consistency in childcare and in a multi user setting such as a nursery a primary caregiver is standard.