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 you've misunderstood what fusion was saying. If I understand them correctly- the attachment between parent and child cannot be ensured by using a list of proscribed tools ( BF, slings etc). The formation of attachment is based in the instant and upon the interaction between parent and child. You can do everything that Sears suggests and still not have meaningful interactions with your child to create secure attachment.

So how is Bowlby anything to do with AP?

To repeat myself:

"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."

Unless it is the idea that mothers are solely responsible for a child's mental development in the first few years.

I've said about seven times in this thread that attachment parenting isn't just about mothers, that it doesn't insist mothers be SAHPs, that it doesn't exclude fathers. I agree with you that women's needs and lives matter too and that we shouldn't subsume our identities to our children. I pointed this very thing out as something I disagree with Bowlby on. I'm not sure what else you are looking for me to say here?

If I understand them correctly- the attachment between parent and child cannot be ensured by using a list of proscribed tools ( BF, slings etc).

AP does not have a list of proscribed tools.

AP says that the things people think are AP proscribed tools (BF, slings etc) are things people can try as part of a general approach of responsiveness.

So: lots of small babies need to be held a lot. Slings are one way a parent can respond to this need while keeping their own hands free. So a lot of AP parents use slings. That isn't the same thing as saying "you must buy a selection of slings or your child won't be securely attached.

53 We are talking round in circles here. You appear to be a well informed person who looks at attachment through the lense of the studies that have been done over the years- even if many of the theories have been refuted by more recent research.

However, this thread is about the popular appearance of AP, coming through parenting books, especially Sears. This approach may have been more nuanced when first introduced as a new idea but has become very rigid and prescriptive over the years. So, while it is all well and good for you to give the high brow talk on what AP is, this is not how AP presents on most online forums, baby groups or even NCT classes. All these places are populated by people who know little to nothing of the roots of AP and who make fairly foolish proclamations of the power of adhering to AP standards to the letter.

As far as I can see, if you practice AP, as suggested by Sears, to the letter then it is indeed very anti-feminist. But it is down to each person to decide what they do and don't want to do. Women should not feel like their chances of attaching well to their babies will be hampered by not following the mainstream understanding of AP.

this is not how AP presents on most online forums, baby groups or even NCT classes.

It is how AP presents itself in a lot of AP groups and among a lot of AP parents, though (myself included).

I don't disagree with you that there are a lot of people who miss the point of AP, and who think it's some magic "stuff baby in sling -> securely attached child" recipe. I would disagree that they're the majority in AP circles, but they're definitely there. It seems unfair to let a whole movement be defined by its lunatic fringe and/or its detractors and condemned on that basis, though.

(Although, I think this has a lot to do with the whole "mommy wars" thing of a media-fuelled divide and conquer approach to mothers - "those mothers over there are judging you! Anyone who parents differently to you probably hates you and thinks you're neglectful!" But that's probably a whole other discussion.)

I think debating about the minutiae of the phrase AP is rather similar to having the argument that the word feminist means equal rights. 'Yeah but it presents like man hating' it literally just means equal rights between the sexes 'yeah but in this online forum I see people acting like bitches and hating men' yes well that may happen but it doesn't change the definition... On and on.

AP is being respectful and gentle in your parenting to respond to a child's innate need for physical and emotional closeness. Some arsehole on the Internet in an AP group may have looked down their nose at someone for not breastfeeding or using a sling but that doesn't change the meaning. Just like if I said I hate all men, that doesn't suddenly change the meaning of the word feminist.

evolutionarily designed

Evolution does not design.

That's the issue isn't it. The 'lunatic fringe' of AP is anti-feminist. The issue is that they can count one of the movements founders amongst them. Both of you have carefully sidestepped references to Dr. William Sears. The very man who popularised this parenting approach. His views are most definitely anti-feminist and he is the public face of AP, especially in America.

I haven't "carefully sidestepped" him - I haven't read enough of his stuff to comment on exactly what he does and doesn't believe. Of what I have read, I've read him hinting that mothers should try to avoid working when children are young, but I've also read him giving advice for working mothers of young children and talking about how his wife was a working mother, so, not exactly enough to get a coherent overview, if one is even out there to get. But it's not a religion; I'm not going to get excommunicated for not reading the right holy scriptures.

I dunno him.

This isn't about your approach to AP though, is it? It's about the generally accepted AP approaches and how they have anti-feminist leanings.

I'm trying to point out that the anti-feminist elements of AP are not the fringe but actually at the heart of the approach- an approach that has nothing more than anecdotal evidence to support it's effectiveness.

It is very well for you to say that your version of AP is not proscriptive in its approach but the books on the subject seem clear of what you should and shouldn't do to be a 'natural' parent who promotes good attachment. Of course they say that you can pick and choose. But the subtext is that a good parent would do all of it.

I'm genuinely not having a go at just AP. I just think that any labelling of parenting styles is divisive, reductive and, ultimately, exploitative of confused new parents. What is wrong with just bringing up your child the way that feels right without dividing into tribes and listening to bullshit experts.

I'm trying to point out that the anti-feminist elements of AP are not the fringe but actually at the heart of the approach

And I'm trying to point out that people who actually follow AP might have a better insight into what is at the heart of the approach than people who don't. I mean, if your starting point is "AP is fundamentally anti-feminist", and you dismiss the experiences of non-anti-feminist AP people as irrelevant because, after all, AP is anti-feminist, etc etc, then you're just going to go round and round in circles.

As for labelling parenting styles - I dunno, it's a matter of personal taste and what you do with them. For me, labels can be useful if you're trying to seek out like-minded people for discussion of particular things, and sometimes when those things are outside the mainstream (like breastfeeding toddlers) it's good to have that. Other people don't find it so useful, yet others find a sense of belonging and community by identifying as part of a 'tribe' of sorts. Different strokes, etc.

53rd I completely agree. When I felt like the only breastfeeding woman in the entire world, and all I got told was to quit, I found a group of like minded people online who reassured me that my desire to follow my instincts and keep my baby close were completely normal. In reality I was surrounded by formula feeding cot-users and I felt like I couldn't do anything right. For those first couple of years I needed those labels, I needed that online tribe, so I felt less of an outsider. I found the labels reassuring, like a blue print, and it eventually led me to the research and wider reading to make a really informed choice. I am not Michael Gove, I do believe in experts.

I don't need the labels now. I don't follow any set rules because I am confident to go against the mainstream and do what I know to be best.

But I remain thankful for those labels and those groups, for getting me to this point.

AP presents on most online forums, baby groups or even NCT classes. All these places are populated by people who know little to nothing of the roots of AP and who make fairly foolish proclamations of the power of adhering to AP standards to the letter.

I have attended NCT classes, I use online attachment/natural/gentle parenting groups, I go to local attachment based groups and most of the people and all of the ones I have regular contact with parent in q similar fashion to me and don't make the foolish proclamations that you have claimed. We have all tried breastfeeding for varying lengths of time ( one mother I know exclusively expresses). Most of the people who attend the group I go to are SAHP but that is because it is run in the day: the group is attended by men too - although they are in the minority. Most of us use slings, quite a few of us use prams as well. There is a variety of bed sharing and sleeping in the same room - most of us until 6 months - some longer. Some use cloth nappies - Most don't. We discuss different types of discipline. There is definitely not a hardline - this is how you should do it. The only cut and dry topics are hitting children ( most people would agree and not letting babies cry it out. There are parents with twins and triplets and they have to accept that even if they wanted to they could not immediately deal with multiple crying children. On the online groups there are working parents.

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.

This! This is what I experienced of the AP approach. "I could handle it, why can't everyone?"

Why, pp, do you suppose I didn't have it in me to even turn on the telly or drive to the nearest town to buy chocolate?

This! This is what I experienced of the AP approach. "I could handle it, why can't everyone?"

I never said that. You could equally say I could handle bottle feeding why can't everyone. I was stressing my inherent laziness and disorganisation. I had huge problems feeding at least one of my children and found bottle feeding a huge faff.

I am not a rabid anything

Why, pp, do you suppose I didn't have it in me to even turn on the telly or drive to the nearest town to buy chocolate

Because you are probably not as lazy as me.

53rdAndBird I will re-iterate, evolution does not design. This is of foundational importance to how you understand any notion of what is or is not appropriate for parenting. It is not correct to use the terms evolution and design together in the way that you are doing in this thread as a justification for AP as a parenting strategy.

This is a derail compared to the feminist/anti-feminist/what is AP debate, but it is a hot-button topic for me.

The use of phrases like "being respectful, thoughtful and gentle" about particular parenting practices gets peoples backs up and makes people sound like they think their chosen approach is superior IMO.

The use of phrases like "being respectful, thoughtful and gentle" about particular parenting practices gets peoples backs up and makes people sound like they think their chosen approach is superior IMO.

I have never said that my approach is superior, I don't consider myself a superior anything - I made very clear that I have just chosen the path of least resistance because I am quite frankly too lazy and inadequate to do anything else. Despite that somebody accuses me of being a rabid breastfeeder who wants to make other women feel shit - I am unbelievably pissed off.

If a breastfeeding mother developed rabies, she would have bigger concerns than whether or not to continue to breastfeed her baby.

If a breastfeeding mother developed rabies, she would have bigger concerns than whether or not to continue to breastfeed her baby.

Although if course because I am a fanatical breastfeeder I would continue breastfeeding my baby whilst foaming at the mouth because is breastfeeding nazis know that nothing matters more than getting our tits out to make other women feel inadequate - even the health of our children.

I am so fucked off, I haven't criticised anybody else's parenting and yet others take delight in attacking me.

To all of you who are so vociferously defending AP. If it is just being more gentle then why the need for a label? And also why the need to associate with the label attachment parenting? Why not just say that you don't smack, or that you bed share- without having to pick up the whole label? You are saying that your experience of AP is not what I've described but mine is. And coming on here and making emotive points about the benefits of AP and its associated practises only proves my argument. Telling people that AP gives you a better bond with your child and that it is a more respectful style of parenting is guilt inducing rubbish aimed squarely at mothers.

Parent your children however you want to. Join groups of other parents. But don't limit yourself to creating a group based on one parenting style that becomes an echo chamber for opinion dressed up as fact.

I use a baby carrier sometimes. She slept in a co-sleeper to begin with etc but I would never pigeon hole myself with a label that had connotations of supporting other things that I didn't agree with.

Ah the old "I'm lazy really" chestnut!

I read the range of parenting your new baby books, from She Who Must Not Be Named to Dr Sears.

From across the board, they can be equally proscriptive, limited and antifeminist. Personally I found Sears liberating because he at least gives you permission to let your baby decide when it is going to be fed. Also there is a lot of equation between being a 'good feminist' and 'going back to work as soon as you can walk'. It's a bogus equation, but, you know, you're vulnerable, isolated, haven't a clue what you are doing etc. It depends what your personal poison is, innit? Some women worry that they aren't earth mothery enough, some women worry that their earth motherlyness is masking a desperate need to keep them dependent. Just read any discussion about full term breastfeeding if you need any of that poison in your life.

I think the problem with parenting advice is that it comes from a patriarchal society that treats women like they need to be monitored and regulated and are in danger of killing their babies. My midwife tried to convince me I would kill my perfectly healthy newborn by failing to wake them for a feed. When I asked how often newborns died because their parents haven't woken them, she told me it happens 'all the time'. What bullshit.

At least Sears seems to value the actual processes of being a mother and isn't insisting that your feelings of wanting to be with your baby are a huge indication of the way you are failing as a feminist. Agreed, you can use what he says to make women feel shit about wanting to have a bath on their own. But that's the patriarchy innit? If womanhood didn't feel like such a fucking minefield, if being a mother wasn't such a public process that everyone feels they have permission to critique you on, nowt Sears could say would bother you.

Everything ever written about how to care for your baby can be used to make people feel shit about their parenting. I reckon that's because making women feel shit about themselves is a crucial mechanism of the patriarchy. I think you have to keep that in mind when you are reading baby books. You have to keep in mind that you are a grown adult who is in the actual relationship with the actual baby, and it's likely that you will be able to figure out what to do because, you know, you aren't an effing idiot. It's one of six options: eat, sleep, chat, soothe, change, take to the doctor. You're allowed to get that mix wrong until you have a bit of experience with that baby. Any time that you are feeling like an idiot, you can chalk that feeling up to the patriarchy and get on with your life.