What do you think of Attachment Parenting?

[LtlFirecracker]

By 10 months, I have seen babies manipulate their parents and have had to talk to them about it. I also see a ton of newborns, and they usually cry when they need something. Sometimes it is just to be held, or because they want to see what is going on. But those are all things necessary for a newborn's development. I am not sure when exactly they develop these skills, but I have seen plenty of babies testing their parents by 9-10 months of age.

 

[kennedy]

Date: 7/6/2009 12:06:55 AM
Author: neatfreak

Date: 7/6/2009 12:04:44 AM

Author: cara

Date: 7/5/2009 11:33:01 PM


Author: neatfreak

Date: 7/5/2009 10:48:36 PM



Author: maiyavel



But anyway, just in researching for my dissertation on Attachment, I know that for the most part, attachment parenting and attachment in general helps to create a more secure and confident child who can adapt more easily to what life will throw at him/her in the future, as opposed to an adult who has difficulty in maintaining or creating healthy relationships in the future (** according to research).

I very much would love to see real long term research that supports this that was not done by Dr. Sears or his cronies...have any article names or links? I also have access to the academic journals so I''d love to see articles from there rather than Dr. Sears''s website.

Heck, just tell me how one would hypothetically conduct a well controlled study on the subject! What would you do - put out an ad for parents of newborns that want to subject their brand new kid to a experiment that will entirely determine how they are raised and substitute the instructions from the study for any of their parental judgments? What would the instructions be for the ''control'' parents, and how would you separate out confounding effects like if the control parents didn''t breastfeed (are you measuring a breastfeeding effect) or were given such rigid instructions that they couldn''t exercise their judgment about when an attachment-style technique was needed and when it wasn''t.

Exactly...yet I often have heard ''research studies'' quoted that say attachment parenting creates more confident children, adults with better relationships, etc...


So either someone, somewhere has done these studies or Sears is feeding everyone a load of bull with the long term ''effects''. I know which way I lean on this...but if the research is really out there I would like to read it!

You might want to check out James McKenna''s research. He''s an anthropologist at the University of Notre Dame and has done extensive studies on co-sleeping. You can also check out Mary Ainsworth, a developmental psychologist who devised a procedure called, A Strange Situation, to observe attachment relationships between a caregiver and child.

 

[LtlFirecracker]

In at least her most famous studies Ainsworth describes the different types of attachments, and I believe she was studying parents in Africa and the united states. In Africa, co-sleeping is common, but they do not have big fluffy mattresses, and it is a lot safer than here. It is hard to generalize a situation in a 3rd world country to here. Her studies are famous for describing the attachment patterns. There are many different theories on how it develops.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 7/6/2009 1:20:03 AM
Author: kennedy

Date: 7/6/2009 12:12:04 AM
Author: TravelingGal

Date: 7/5/2009 11:39:08 PM

Author: kennedy






TanDog -- I agree with you 1000%!!! At that age, I absolutely believe that your baby''s wants and needs ARE the same thing. Not until my daughter was closer to 18 months did it feel right to start making those distinctions. Your baby depends on you for his survival and his only means of communication is to cry. I can''t imagine not trying to figure out what''s wrong because it''s ''inconvenient'' for me to do so or because he needs to learn that the world doesn''t revolve around him. He doesn''t even have the concept of self and other! Moreover, there are MANY legitimate needs other than ''sick, hungry, or wet''. What about if your baby is feeling scared, lonely, or sad? I have never understood people who think that infants know how to be manipulative. And, if they do have to resort to manipulation to get what they NEED, that''s a very sad state of affairs!!

OK, I have a break after dinner here...


Babies can manipulate to get what they WANT. If a parent doesn''t think so, they are being manipulated.

I will tell you right now, my girl is 15 months and I can definitely see what she NEEDS and WANTS. She no longer wants to go down to bed at 6:30 and she cries as SOON as I start taking her over to her crib. She wants to stay up and play. I put her down, stroke her hair and when I close the door, within 10 seconds she stops. Normally within 10 minutes she is out. So I know she NEEDS sleep, but she loves to stay up and play.


I think AP has been going on for awhile and there have been some articles in the press lately how it has produced a generation of pansies who have no roots in reality.


I do, however, think that children of AP and children of independent parenting both can turn out fine. And they both can come out messed up.


]

I specifically said that I didn''t think that INFANTS were capable of manipulation. Do you really think a 4-month old has the cunning to manipulate its parents into giving it something it doesn''t really need (not even sure what that would be at this age)? They don''t even have the object permanence to distinguish between self and other.

I agree that toddlers definitely want things they don''t need and it''s imperative that parents set clear boundaries so that children learn some degree of frustration tolerance. I''m not sure why you think this is at odds with attachment parenting. I would be interested to read the articles you''re referring to that suggest that children who were raised with attachment in mind are ''pansies'' and have no ''roots in reality''. Were they based on any research? Reason I ask is lots of people mistakenly conflate attachment parenting with being overly permissive and I''m really not sure why. Perhaps it has something to do with the misconception that co-sleeping and breastfeeding are indulgent or coddling practices that don''t teach children to be independent (something our culture is obsessed with). Attachment theory posits that children will actually be more secure and independent if their needs are reliably met as very young children. And, let me add, meeting your child''s needs IS NOT the same thing as giving them what they want whenever they want it (unless, of course, they''re infants). In fact, often, it can be just the opposite. I really think Dr. Sears has done attachment theory a disservice by simplifying it to the point that people think that breastfeeding and co-sleeping are all one has to do to be an attachment parent.

ETA It''s actually very healthy for toddlers to test (or manipulate, if you will) their parents. It''s part of the separation and individuation process and needs to happen.

First of all, I was being cheeky with my manipulative remark.

I think most would say 4 months is young. But I do think they can start to manipulate before a year old. I''ve seen it with my friend''s kids as well as my own. I don''t know...maybe I think babies are smarter than they actually are?

Secondly, I said it was articles in the PRESS, so I don''t think they are academic studies, and to be taken with a grain of salt. Apologies if I did not make that clear.

I don''t think that attachment parenting means letting your kids have whatever they want. I''m not sure why you think I think boundaries setting is at odds with attachment parenting. I said that it is important that children know that the home does not revolve around them. I didn''t say that was only possible with non-AP parenting. However I did mention it in the same sentence as co-sleeping because I DO see that with it comes to co-sleeping, a lot of the parents schedule completely revolves around the kids, especially when bedtimes are all over the place. Trust me, I get the value of working around a baby''s sleep schedule. I do it. But I simply disagree with parents having to take a lot of time laying down next to the child because the chlid is used to sleeping in a family bed. But that''s me.

 

[TravelingGal]

BTW, here is why I think the AP philosophy is bupkus...

RE: this quote: "Attachment theory posits that children will actually be more secure and independent if their needs are reliably met as very young children. "

I agree that babies should be more secure if needs are met as a young baby. Amelia has never gone hungry, and I do make sure she''s OK when she cries, but I also know now what''s a protest cry and what is a need cry. When she was younger, I made sure she wasn''t distressed any time she cried, which really wasn''t that often. I made she she got rest and I made sure she got lots of love.

But I didn''t need to breastfeed her until she weaned, nor did I have to co-sleep with her to make sure her needs were met. I think the issue here is what the babies needs really are. Do they really NEED to be sleeping next to mom and dad? No, I don''t think so. Do I need to be that close to her to make sure her needs are met? Nope, I don''t.

I never had to CIO with Amelia. I sleep conditioned her from the beginning. She never needed me to soothe her to sleep with rocking or being near me...a swaddle and paci helped her beautifully. While I think there are lots of advantages to babywearing, I don''t think it''s necessary for the baby to feel secure and to bond and I do think for some babies it can create a dependacy on it - which is FINE as long as the parent is fine carrying a larger baby. My baby liked her paci for a long time, so it''s a matter of picking your "poison", IMHO.

So again, I think it''s certainly possible to meet your baby''s needs very well and create a "more secure and independent" human being without buying into the AP philosophy.

 

[kennedy]

Date: 7/6/2009 1:52:07 AM
Author: TravelingGal

Date: 7/6/2009 1:20:03 AM

Author: kennedy

Date: 7/6/2009 12:12:04 AM

Author: TravelingGal

Date: 7/5/2009 11:39:08 PM


Author: kennedy







TanDog -- I agree with you 1000%!!! At that age, I absolutely believe that your baby's wants and needs ARE the same thing. Not until my daughter was closer to 18 months did it feel right to start making those distinctions. Your baby depends on you for his survival and his only means of communication is to cry. I can't imagine not trying to figure out what's wrong because it's 'inconvenient' for me to do so or because he needs to learn that the world doesn't revolve around him. He doesn't even have the concept of self and other! Moreover, there are MANY legitimate needs other than 'sick, hungry, or wet'. What about if your baby is feeling scared, lonely, or sad? I have never understood people who think that infants know how to be manipulative. And, if they do have to resort to manipulation to get what they NEED, that's a very sad state of affairs!!

OK, I have a break after dinner here...



Babies can manipulate to get what they WANT. If a parent doesn't think so, they are being manipulated.

I will tell you right now, my girl is 15 months and I can definitely see what she NEEDS and WANTS. She no longer wants to go down to bed at 6:30 and she cries as SOON as I start taking her over to her crib. She wants to stay up and play. I put her down, stroke her hair and when I close the door, within 10 seconds she stops. Normally within 10 minutes she is out. So I know she NEEDS sleep, but she loves to stay up and play.



I think AP has been going on for awhile and there have been some articles in the press lately how it has produced a generation of pansies who have no roots in reality.



I do, however, think that children of AP and children of independent parenting both can turn out fine. And they both can come out messed up.



]

I specifically said that I didn't think that INFANTS were capable of manipulation. Do you really think a 4-month old has the cunning to manipulate its parents into giving it something it doesn't really need (not even sure what that would be at this age)? They don't even have the object permanence to distinguish between self and other.


I agree that toddlers definitely want things they don't need and it's imperative that parents set clear boundaries so that children learn some degree of frustration tolerance. I'm not sure why you think this is at odds with attachment parenting. I would be interested to read the articles you're referring to that suggest that children who were raised with attachment in mind are 'pansies' and have no 'roots in reality'. Were they based on any research? Reason I ask is lots of people mistakenly conflate attachment parenting with being overly permissive and I'm really not sure why. Perhaps it has something to do with the misconception that co-sleeping and breastfeeding are indulgent or coddling practices that don't teach children to be independent (something our culture is obsessed with). Attachment theory posits that children will actually be more secure and independent if their needs are reliably met as very young children. And, let me add, meeting your child's needs IS NOT the same thing as giving them what they want whenever they want it (unless, of course, they're infants). In fact, often, it can be just the opposite. I really think Dr. Sears has done attachment theory a disservice by simplifying it to the point that people think that breastfeeding and co-sleeping are all one has to do to be an attachment parent.


ETA It's actually very healthy for toddlers to test (or manipulate, if you will) their parents. It's part of the separation and individuation process and needs to happen.

First of all, I was being cheeky with my manipulative remark.


I think most would say 4 months is young. But I do think they can start to manipulate before a year old. I've seen it with my friend's kids as well as my own. I don't know...maybe I think babies are smarter than they actually are?

Secondly, I said it was articles in the PRESS, so I don't think they are academic studies, and to be taken with a grain of salt. Apologies if I did not make that clear.


I don't think that attachment parenting means letting your kids have whatever they want. I'm not sure why you think I think boundaries setting is at odds with attachment parenting. I said that it is important that children know that the home does not revolve around them. I didn't say that was only possible with non-AP parenting. However I did mention it in the same sentence as co-sleeping because I DO see that with it comes to co-sleeping, a lot of the parents schedule completely revolves around the kids, especially when bedtimes are all over the place. Trust me, I get the value of working around a baby's sleep schedule. I do it. But I simply disagree with parents having to take a lot of time laying down next to the child because the chlid is used to sleeping in a family bed. But that's me.

Hmmm, I really don't think a toddler is capable of true manipulation. They're certainly capable of demanding what they want and having tantrums in order to get it, but do they actually have the cunning to actually manipulate? That said, my 2.5 year old just started the old trick of asking one parent if she can do something. If that parent says no, she'll ask the other. Her only mistake is asking when both of us are in the room. It's pretty funny.

I wasn't sure if the articles you were referring to were reporting on current research.

I think the reason I thought you were suggesting that AP and boundary-setting were at odds is because of your comment about AP kids not being rooted in reality and also your comment that it's important for kids to know that the household doesn't revolve around them (I agree with this, by the way). Maybe it was a bit of a kneejerk reaction on my part because I do think that many of the practices typically associated with attachment parenting are seen as indulgent by much of mainstream society. I'm sorry if I misunderstood you.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 7/6/2009 2:14:46 AM
Author: kennedy



Hmmm, I really don''t think a toddler is capable of true manipulation. They''re certainly capable of demanding what they want and having tantrums in order to get it, but do they actually have the cunning to actually manipulate? That said, my 2.5 year old just started the old trick of asking one parent if she can do something. If that parent says no, she''ll ask the other. Her only mistake is asking when the both of us are in the room. It''s pretty funny.

I wasn''t sure if the articles you were referring to were reporting on current research.

I think the reason I thought you were suggesting that AP and boundary-setting were at odds is because of your comment about AP kids not being rooted in reality and also your comment that it''s important for kids to know that the household doesn''t revolve around them (I agree with this, by the way). Maybe it was a bit of a kneejerk reaction on my part because I do think that many of the practices typically associated with attachment parenting are seen as indulgent by much of mainstream society. I''m sorry if I misunderstood you.

No need to apologize! AP can be a heated subject and I am known for being opinionated.

As for toddlers being manipulative...I guess it depends on the definition. I am off to bed now so I will have to come back with the story of my daughter being pretty darn manipulative at 14 months.

 

[kennedy]

Date: 7/6/2009 2:07:55 AM
Author: TravelingGal
BTW, here is why I think the AP philosophy is bupkus...


RE: this quote: ''Attachment theory posits that children will actually be more secure and independent if their needs are reliably met as very young children. ''


I agree that babies should be more secure if needs are met as a young baby. Amelia has never gone hungry, and I do make sure she''s OK when she cries, but I also know now what''s a protest cry and what is a need cry. When she was younger, I made sure she wasn''t distressed any time she cried, which really wasn''t that often. I made she she got rest and I made sure she got lots of love.


But I didn''t need to breastfeed her until she weaned, nor did I have to co-sleep with her to make sure her needs were met. I think the issue here is what the babies needs really are. Do they really NEED to be sleeping next to mom and dad? No, I don''t think so. Do I need to be that close to her to make sure her needs are met? Nope, I don''t.


I never had to CIO with Amelia. I sleep conditioned her from the beginning. She never needed me to soothe her to sleep with rocking or being near me...a swaddle and paci helped her beautifully. While I think there are lots of advantages to babywearing, I don''t think it''s necessary for the baby to feel secure and to bond and I do think for some babies it can create a dependacy on it - which is FINE as long as the parent is fine carrying a larger baby. My baby liked her paci for a long time, so it''s a matter of picking your ''poison'', IMHO.


So again, I think it''s certainly possible to meet your baby''s needs very well and create a ''more secure and independent'' human being without buying into the AP philosophy.

I agree with you that parents don''t need to co-sleep, babywear, or breastfeed until a child self-weans in order to have a securely attached child. This is exactly the point I was trying to make about Dr. Sears -- he makes it seem like AP is only about those practices. It isn''t. It''s a philosophy that posits that a secure attachment is critical to healthy development. In my opinion, as both a mother and a mental health professional, how you create that attachment really depends on what works best for mother and baby. If a mother is co-sleeping only because she thinks she should but really she resents the baby because of it, that is NOT going to help in creating a secure attachment with her child. Her child will sense that mom is angry and probably internalize that to mean she/he is doing something bad or wrong.

I also want to reiterate that reliably responding to your child''s needs is not the same thing as giving them what they want. In fact, there are probably many times when what they want is the opposite of what they need.

 

[purrfectpear]

Admittedly my experiences weren''t the norm. Ryan came home from the hospital and slept through the night from the get go. He didn''t try to cry when I put him to bed until he was already 5 months old. That was a temper tantrum, not a need. He just didn''t feel like being in the room alone when mom and dad were still up. He only lasted two nights of crying, then we were back to sleeping through the night like normal. In short, I lucked out with a very, very, easy baby. All he did for the first year was drink milk, smile, burp, and fall back asleep on my chest. He went to bed at 8 and slept through until 6 or 6:30. I''d get up and feed him and he was back to sleep for another 2 hours. He was breastfed until 6 months, and if we were out and I left a bottle of formula with his grammie, he was just as happy to drink that. Weaning wasn''t even an issue. I just started giving him bottles all the time and he could care less as long as he was drinking. If I had believed that all babies were like him, I''d have been tempted to have a dozen

Blind luck, and I was extremely grateful. I had friends dealing with colic. OMG

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 7/6/2009 2:26:25 AM
Author: kennedy

Date: 7/6/2009 2:07:55 AM
Author: TravelingGal
BTW, here is why I think the AP philosophy is bupkus...


RE: this quote: ''Attachment theory posits that children will actually be more secure and independent if their needs are reliably met as very young children. ''


I agree that babies should be more secure if needs are met as a young baby. Amelia has never gone hungry, and I do make sure she''s OK when she cries, but I also know now what''s a protest cry and what is a need cry. When she was younger, I made sure she wasn''t distressed any time she cried, which really wasn''t that often. I made she she got rest and I made sure she got lots of love.


But I didn''t need to breastfeed her until she weaned, nor did I have to co-sleep with her to make sure her needs were met. I think the issue here is what the babies needs really are. Do they really NEED to be sleeping next to mom and dad? No, I don''t think so. Do I need to be that close to her to make sure her needs are met? Nope, I don''t.


I never had to CIO with Amelia. I sleep conditioned her from the beginning. She never needed me to soothe her to sleep with rocking or being near me...a swaddle and paci helped her beautifully. While I think there are lots of advantages to babywearing, I don''t think it''s necessary for the baby to feel secure and to bond and I do think for some babies it can create a dependacy on it - which is FINE as long as the parent is fine carrying a larger baby. My baby liked her paci for a long time, so it''s a matter of picking your ''poison'', IMHO.


So again, I think it''s certainly possible to meet your baby''s needs very well and create a ''more secure and independent'' human being without buying into the AP philosophy.

I agree with you that parents don''t need to co-sleep, babywear, or breastfeed until a child self-weans in order to have a securely attached child. This is exactly the point I was trying to make about Dr. Sears -- he makes it seem like AP is only about those practices. It isn''t. It''s a philosophy that posits that a secure attachment is critical to healthy development. In my opinion, as both a mother and a mental health professional, how you create that attachment really depends on what works best for mother and baby. If a mother is co-sleeping only because she thinks she should but really she resents the baby because of it, that is NOT going to help in creating a secure attachment with her child. Her child will sense that mom is angry and probably internalize that to mean she/he is doing something bad or wrong.

I also want to reiterate that reliably responding to your child''s needs is not the same thing as giving them what they want. In fact, there are probably many times when what they want is the opposite of what they need.

In which case we are on the same page.

Off to bed, more tomorrow.

 

[gailrmv]

Date: 7/6/2009 12:07:08 AM
Author: cara

Date: 7/5/2009 11:17:53 PM

Author: TanDogMom

I don''t know. At my son''s age now (almost 4 months), sometimes I have trouble discerning his needs and his wants. In fact, by and large I think his needs ARE his wants, at this age. For example tonight, he breastfed for a very long time, and I thought he was satisfied, however I could not get him to settle down for bed. We tried nursing again and he continued to fuss - I was out of milk. Finally I offered him a bottle of pumped milk that was in the fridge, and he took 3 oz (almost a full meal for him). He was hungry! If I had let him CIO, he would have eventually given up and slept (or maybe not, my boy is stubborn!) but I was able to satisfy his legit need by feeding him.


Sometimes it''s much harder to figure out why he is crying, but just in this small example, I am very glad that I did not attempt CIO.


When he is older, I certainly do not want him thinking the world revolves around him, but for now, it kind of does

TanDog- this is just a totally academic, threadjack question from a non-parent re: your example of your hungry son. 100 years ago there would be no extra breastmilk in the fridge - what would have happened and would your son have been harmed by it? I assume he would cry more that night, and then either get more calories in a couple of days when your supply adjusts or just miss those calories b/c of mismatch between your supply and his hunger. Is the idea just that you do what you *can* to meet his needs at any time, but if you can''t (ie. no more breastmilk at that instant) then you would just try to calm him rather than cry it out because that''s what you can offer?

hi Cara,
Yes, that''s what I would do. I would comfort him since that is what i can offer (and try to continue to breastfeed even if I am out of milk because that is what stimulates the body to make more milk.) I don''t follow any one parenting school of thought so I don''t claim that as the official position of anyone except myself!

 

[gailrmv]

This has turned into quite a lively discussion! A couple thoughts and then hoping to catch a few more zzzs -

I agree with Tgal about not cosleeping. We tried it one or two nights because I was desparate to get some sleep. It didn't especially help, and it's not a habit I want to establish nor did seem very safe. My little guy now sleeps happily in his crib at night (naps are another story!) I agree it is good for our marriage to have some couple time including sleeping as a couple.

I agree with the people who said that children can manipulate at some age. Can't comment on what age, but we're not there yet. I will not be an overly indulgent parent - I want my child to know there are boundaries, etc. But he's not there yet. At 4 months he cries when he needs something, and I respond. And if I respond when maybe he could have eventually sorted himself out? Oh well. I can live with that.

As I mentioned I wear my guy in a carrier because it calms him and feels right for us (not because a certain book or philosophy told me to). I am glad to hear from Ltlfirecracker that other pediatricians do the same! We use a different brand besides the bjorn, but it is a similar style (soft carrier). It does really seem to work for us.

I didn't realize that the sears vaccine book was by a different sears (the son). As I mentioned I haven't read it, I just assumed because there WAS a book that there was some official position, and I had read on some AP website about not vaccinating. The trend towards delaying or avoiding vaccines troubles me very much. After doing a bit of my own reading and speaking with my pediatrician I feel 100% confident following the current AAP recommendations. But I did not intend to turn this thread into one about vaccines and I hope it will not go that way.

Back to bed - this is a great discussion!

 

[anchor31]

I plan on breastfeeding for as long as I can (which is probably going to be about a year - until I have to go back to work) and babywearing, but not on co-sleeping. I''ve been told by both pediatricians and mothers that there are risks and I don''t want to take the chance. It was hard enough for me learning to sleep with a husband (and I still usually sleep better alone), so it would make me very uncomfortable to add the baby to that. To me it seems important that a child should learn to sleep on their own, even at a very early age. I''m definitely not an expert, but it''s just not something I would do.

 

[LitigatorChick]

I am a fan of attachment parenting and use many aspects of it today with my 3 year old. I love the Dr. Sears books and find that they have a lot of helpful advise. That said, I also believe that you need to take bits and pieces of theories and not just blindly dive in. So for me, immunizations are a necessity, so I do that.

Sleeping - Miller slept with me here and there. My ex refused to let him in the bed, and I believe Miller needed the closeness at night. I think we all would have been happier together in one bed. But live and learn. He sleeps in his bed at night and naps with me on my bed on the weekend for extra snuggles. I never have done full cry it out (leaving him for the longest of 15 minutes at one point at my ex''s insistence). I don''t believe it is right for me and Miller.

Breastfeeding - Did it.

Baby wearing - Did it and loved it. Miller was the kind of boy that craved closeness and being held. I had him in a sling until he was about 2 1/2.

In short, Miller was the kind of kid who worked well for this type of parenting, and many of the ideas worked very well for us.

 

[Mara]

"Hmmm, I really don''t think a toddler is capable of true manipulation. They''re certainly capable of demanding what they want and having tantrums in order to get it, but do they actually have the cunning to actually manipulate?"

______

This comment stood out to me...and made me think ''well how do people learn how to truly manipulate others?'' To me it''s by demanding what they want and throwing tantrums to get it...and watching the effect that their behavior has on the people around them. Kids learn manipulation somewhere and to me this is a great example of how potentially at first the toddler''s behavior is just demanding but over time they figure it out based on cause and effect of their behaviors.

Funny I have a friend who thinks similar to some of the ladies here re: the kids don''t know so why would you deny them. But when do they learn cause and effect, even if they don''t quite know it as that ''term'' yet? Some people say like 3 years of age...that is way too late in my opinion. Interesting that LtF says 9-10 months. I tend to think that when they have that glimmer of understanding in their eye that (a) i cry and (b) i get picked up or what i want then that is when they start to learn the seeds of how to get what they want aka manipulate others.

 

[TravelingGal]

I think manipulation might be the wrong word, since it often implies deceitful, insidious behavior. I use it more as word to mean that they figure out what they need to do to get what they want.

Amelia is 15 months old. At somewhere in her 14th month, I just saw that she was not going to give me what I wanted until she got what she wanted. I''ve been going to OT for Amelia''s eating, as many know. The therapist said she did not mind distraction as a technique to get Amelia to eat. We sometimes put on the toddlers music channel (on TV) because she loves music and the pictures and she''ll open up her mouth to take food while watching. When we were really desperate, I''d turn on a few minutes of baby einstein.

A couple of weeks ago, I knew Amelia was hungry and set her up to eat. I went to feed her and she clamped her mouth shut and REFUSED to open. Then she looked toward the TV and kept staring while keeping her mouth tightly shut. I turned on the TV, and sure enough, she opened her mouth and was happy to eat. Turned it off and she refused.

I did not turn on the TV again and she whinged and whined and kept shaking her head when I attempted to feed her and kept looking at the TV. Fine. I took her out of her chair and put her food aside but did not turn on the TV.

30 minutes later I attempted again and she ate without the TV/music...obviously too hungry to play that game.

 

[Mara]

Date: 7/6/2009 3:01:25 PM
Author: TravelingGal
I think manipulation might be the wrong word, since it often implies deceitful, insidious behavior. I use it more as word to mean that they figure out what they need to do to get what they want.

Amelia is 15 months old. At somewhere in her 14th month, I just saw that she was not going to give me what I wanted until she got what she wanted. I''ve been going to OT for Amelia''s eating, as many know. The therapist said she did not mind distraction as a technique to get Amelia to eat. We sometimes put on the toddlers music channel (on TV) because she loves music and the pictures and she''ll open up her mouth to take food while watching. When we were really desperate, I''d turn on a few minutes of baby einstein.

A couple of weeks ago, I knew Amelia was hungry and set her up to eat. I went to feed her and she clamped her mouth shut and REFUSED to open. Then she looked toward the TV and kept staring while keeping her mouth tightly shut. I turned on the TV, and sure enough, she opened her mouth and was happy to eat. Turned it off and she refused.

I did not turn on the TV again and she whinged and whined and kept shaking her head when I attempted to feed her and kept looking at the TV. Fine. I took her out of her chair and put her food aside but did not turn on the TV.

30 minutes later I attempted again and she ate without the TV/music...obviously too hungry to play that game.

I agree re: the term manipulation being negative and maybe not quite the same thing, TG. And I am *slightly* playing devils advocate to my own post BUT when I read your post...I thought..well yeah, she could have been trying to get what she wanted... OR she could have just been going along with ''what was routine''. I don''t know the background, but if she got used to watching TV or if in the past you put on the TV when you wanted her to eat.....she might be associating eating with TV watching. Maybe not so much manipulation or trying ot get what she wants, but more like ''seriously mom, don''t you KNOW you have to put the TV on so that I can eat???''....

It''s all up to interpretation and I am more of the school of cynical thought thinking that kids just try to get you to do what they want. But all babies are blank slates and its my opinion that people color on their children with their actions, whether they mean to or not and create a routine or a reaction or a cause and effect.

So true about the last line because if they get truly hungry it may not matter what the routine is.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 7/6/2009 3:11:08 PM
Author: Mara

Date: 7/6/2009 3:01:25 PM
Author: TravelingGal
I think manipulation might be the wrong word, since it often implies deceitful, insidious behavior. I use it more as word to mean that they figure out what they need to do to get what they want.

Amelia is 15 months old. At somewhere in her 14th month, I just saw that she was not going to give me what I wanted until she got what she wanted. I''ve been going to OT for Amelia''s eating, as many know. The therapist said she did not mind distraction as a technique to get Amelia to eat. We sometimes put on the toddlers music channel (on TV) because she loves music and the pictures and she''ll open up her mouth to take food while watching. When we were really desperate, I''d turn on a few minutes of baby einstein.

A couple of weeks ago, I knew Amelia was hungry and set her up to eat. I went to feed her and she clamped her mouth shut and REFUSED to open. Then she looked toward the TV and kept staring while keeping her mouth tightly shut. I turned on the TV, and sure enough, she opened her mouth and was happy to eat. Turned it off and she refused.

I did not turn on the TV again and she whinged and whined and kept shaking her head when I attempted to feed her and kept looking at the TV. Fine. I took her out of her chair and put her food aside but did not turn on the TV.

30 minutes later I attempted again and she ate without the TV/music...obviously too hungry to play that game.

I agree re: the term manipulation being negative and maybe not quite the same thing, TG. And I am *slightly* playing devils advocate to my own post BUT when I read your post...I thought..well yeah, she could have been trying to get what she wanted... OR she could have just been going along with ''what was routine''. I don''t know the background, but if she got used to watching TV or if in the past you put on the TV when you wanted her to eat.....she might be associating eating with TV watching. Maybe not so much manipulation or trying ot get what she wants, but more like ''seriously mom, don''t you KNOW you have to put the TV on so that I can eat???''....

It''s all up to interpretation and I am more of the school of cynical thought thinking that kids just try to get you to do what they want. But all babies are blank slates and its my opinion that people color on their children with their actions, whether they mean to or not and create a routine or a reaction or a cause and effect.

So true about the last line because if they get truly hungry it may not matter what the routine is.

I could agree with that last part, but she does not always get TV/Music when she eats. She gets fed by 4 different people - my mom, the nanny, TGuy and myself, and none of us use the TV every time. Thus she hasn''t been conditioned to assume that eating=TV time. When I saw that she wanted it while she ate, I nipped it in the bud so she would not assume that was the case.

 

[vespergirl]

I think that if the mother can tolerate it, it''s fine, but my son was sleeping in his own crib in his own room from the age of 1 month. When he woke up, I would go in to nurse him, and then put him back in his crib, as frequently as 3 times a night. I think that it made him a better sleeper to always sleep in his own crib. I have several friends with kids the same age who kept the kids in their bed to nurse because they were too lazy to walk back and forth to the nursery, and now they''re tearing their hair out because their kids won''t go to sleep unless they are in bed with mommy and daddy, at 2 and a half.

I think that breastfeeding and carrying your baby around when it''s awake are great, and I''m a SAHM so I think it''s good to spend as much time with your baby as you can, but I think that the co-sleeping is not necessarily that good for kids - it makes them dependent on the parents to fall asleep, and ruins the parents'' sex life. However, if the parents are all on board with co-sleeping, then to each his own - every family has to figure out what works best for them.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 7/6/2009 3:39:41 PM
Author: vespergirl
I think that if the mother can tolerate it, it''s fine, but my son was sleeping in his own crib in his own room from the age of 1 month. When he woke up, I would go in to nurse him, and then put him back in his crib, as frequently as 3 times a night. I think that it made him a better sleeper to always sleep in his own crib. I have several friends with kids the same age who kept the kids in their bed to nurse because they were too lazy to walk back and forth to the nursery, and now they''re tearing their hair out because their kids won''t go to sleep unless they are in bed with mommy and daddy, at 2 and a half.

I think that breastfeeding and carrying your baby around when it''s awake are great, and I''m a SAHM so I think it''s good to spend as much time with your baby as you can, but I think that the co-sleeping is not necessarily that good for kids - it makes them dependent on the parents to fall asleep, and ruins the parents'' sex life. However, if the parents are all on board with co-sleeping, then to each his own - every family has to figure out what works best for them.

I''ll go a step further than this, with the disclaimer that if the husband and wife BOTH agree that co-sleeping is for their family, it makes what I am saying moot.

For the most part, I think it''s mothers who steer the family into co-sleeping, because it is easier for her in the beginning to have easy access to the child. I don''t think many fathers have any idea how long it can go on for. After awhile, it can make the husband feel like the mother is putting the needs of the child before his, and that can breed resentment.

Now, I certainly do believe that a lot of Amelia''s needs go before TGuy''s and my own. But there''s not a lot that causes resentment. TGuy doesn''t care if I prep her dinner before his. And I make sure he does have time to go out with the guys and vice versa...we just do less of it. But sleep is a big part of a guy''s life (not to mention sex) and he can feel like it''s being stolen from him because mom thinks it''s better for the kid. He''s probably not going to hate his own kid for it...the frustration will be directed most likely at his wife!

And as I''ve said, IMHO, I believe that marital harmony is key for familial harmony. Co-sleeping is one that I was not about to mess with. No way, no how.

 

[LtlFirecracker]

TG- As always, I think you have a lot of great interesting points.

I agree that the word manipulate is too harsh, and many the wrong word choice. I have seen my friends kids testing their parents at about 9 months of age. In the clinic, I had this 10 mo old who was >95% for weight and the mother was complaining about his reflux. As she was complaining, she gave him an 8 oz bottle of formula. He downed 4 oz in 30 seconds, and she tried to take it away and he cried. She gave it back and he downed the rest in less than 30 seconds. I looked at her and told her that was the cause of the reflux and that she needed to give him smaller amounts if he was not going to slow down. She told me she couldn''t because he cried too much. At that point I have her the she is the parent and he is the child and she needs to be the one in charge. I told her growth wise, he was more than good and that he could handle it. But I told her at some point she needs to set limits with him, and the longer she waits, the harder it will get.

I have also seen toddlers to things to other kids to get attention from their parents. My BF''s sister had an 8 mo old and an 18 mo old. I noticed that the 18 mo old came over and took a toy, than another one, than another one. Than all his toys were gone, she did it so quietly and slowly, that I didn''t even notice what she was doing until the last toy was gone even though I was sitting with the baby. I looked at his mother who shook her head and said, "yeah I know."

 

[D&T]

Date: 7/6/2009 1:24:45 AM
Author: LtlFirecracker
By 10 months, I have seen babies manipulate their parents and have had to talk to them about it. I also see a ton of newborns, and they usually cry when they need something. Sometimes it is just to be held, or because they want to see what is going on. But those are all things necessary for a newborn''s development. I am not sure when exactly they develop these skills, but I have seen plenty of babies testing their parents by 9-10 months of age.

hmmm, I''m approaching the nine month mark, and I"m definitely going to observe more closely to see what my DD is doing if infact is a want vs a need thing. Interesting thread. I did the slinging babie for only about four months though. My second DD is a little more needy than my first but I don''t give in to everything so I don''t "baby" her like my SIL does with her DD where her DD has manipulated my SIL for every thing... drives me nuts.

 

[Pandora II]

''Manipulation'' - I don''t see this as a particularly concious or negative thing, and I reckon with Daisy it''s the same as what my parent''s cats do. They learn an action/response scenario very quickly and will then repeat this to get what they want - one cat used to sleep in my bed at night but when he wanted to get up in the morning her used to get on top of my chest of drawers and knock things off onto the ground deliberately because he knew I would get up to stop him. He found out that I would get up pronto for this by complete accident but learnt to repeat it very quickly to get the response her was after. In the same way for example, when a baby starts to smile they quickly learn that smiling at people elicits a positive reaction and so they are more inclined to smile in order to receive this positive attention.

I''m co-sleeping with D in the sense of her being in a cot attached to my bed - although she does come in with me when she wakes up around 8am for an hour or so. I don''t really like trying to sleep with her in with me as I can''t sleep at all when she is there - I had to do it on Saturday when we were staying in a hotel and the cot they gave us was way too big for her and was completely flat with no way of inclining it (she goes ballistic if you lie her completely flat).

I plan to keep her in with us for around 6 months and then gradually wean her into her own room.

Baby-wearing is a problem because of my back - a couple of hours is about all I can manage, but she is always in close contact with me when she''s awake.

I will NOT be trying CIO - the most she has to do is wait till I''ve finished shoving clothes in the washing machine, had a shower or finished the dishes before I will pick her up. In the car she can manage 3 hours non-stop screaming with little effort so I don''t want to see how long she could scream for at home. In the car I have no option but to leave her in her carseat - even if I sit next to her it makes no difference - but she can hear me and we stop regularly for changes/feeding etc so I know she''s fine and she is not alone like she would be in her cot.

I really don''t like the idea of CIO and so I have already started trying to implement measures to prevent the need in the future.

I''m breastfeeding - and do really enjoy it now (first 3 weeks - uggghhh). I plan to do Baby Led Weaning at 6 months straight onto adult food and will gradually swap the mummy-milk for solid food (I''ve already done it the other way round with stopping formula). Ideally I''ll stop breastfeeding around the 1 year mark.

Vaccinations - she''s having all of them at the recommended times. I live in an area that has had a measles epidemic every year for the last 3 as so few kids are vaccinated round here.

So much in parenting depend on the child - I''m lucky that Daisy is really pretty easy. The problems we have had - like her staying awake for 14 hours at a go - were all due to me not reading her signals. Now I''m starting to learn it''s plain sailing - however some children are difficult however well you read them, or have colic or other problems.

I''m not convinced that it''s a good idea to stick rigidly to any parenting style - I particularly like The Baby Whisperer for good sensible advice and huge flexibility...

 

[Mara]

RE : CIO...it seems like some kids respond to it and others don''t....aka crying for hours. I know it''s QUITE the same but when we got our puppy years ago, we tried to let her CIO the first few weeks as she got used to the new environment, and she could scream and shriek and yelp at a piercing level for HOURS. We thought oh she will tire herself out. Nope. She just didn''t respond to that kind of treatment. We figured out if she could ''see'' us even through wire or gate she was more content and wouldn''t scream at all...so it was a small compromise to make.

 

[hlmr]

Date: 7/5/2009 9:41:36 PM
Author: neatfreak
I think just like anything there are some good parts and some bad...

But no I do not practice AP because I think a lot of their theories are over the top and I also don''t appreciate the guilt trip either.

ETA: I should also say that I think it''s dangerous to attach yourself to one ''type'' of parenting. I think it''s best for everyone to take a bit here and a bit there and use what works for your family-which most of the time isn''t EVERYTHING from one school of thought KWIM?

Very true! And what works for one child will not necessarily work for another.

 

[jas]

Date: 7/6/2009 10:16:04 PM
Author: hlmr

Date: 7/5/2009 9:41:36 PM
Author: neatfreak
I think just like anything there are some good parts and some bad...

But no I do not practice AP because I think a lot of their theories are over the top and I also don't appreciate the guilt trip either.

ETA: I should also say that I think it's dangerous to attach yourself to one 'type' of parenting. I think it's best for everyone to take a bit here and a bit there and use what works for your family-which most of the time isn't EVERYTHING from one school of thought KWIM?

Very true! And what works for one child will not necessarily work for another.

Right on, hlmr and neatfreak! Even with my 10 month old boys, who are certainly trying to figure out how to, uh, control their environments by playing with cause and effect, I see this. While I pride myself on consistency and non-emotional re-direction (tough when detangling two babies with big smiles on their faces from the dog food or as they head toward the fireplace lava rocks), I see already that the boys may need different approaches to parenting.

The key I think for me and DH will be the consistency in message, and hopefully positive reinforcement.

On topic -- I tend not to be comfortable with Attachment Parenting (because it isn't my style). With 2, it's almost as though a more "independent" style is necessary. My boys are very very good at coping and working things out between themselves.

Obviously, I have not a lot to contribute here, but I find the discussion interesting!

 

[Skippy123]

I thought i would ask for this thread to be opened because it seems like people are talking about it because of the Time cover. I like some ideas behind it but others not so much. I feel whatever works for you because as a parent I know how tough it can be and didn't always think I would do something and then ended up trying something else.

 

[Pandora II]

Hah! Just re-read my post from nearly 3 years ago when Daisy was 6 weeks old!

Well, shortly after I wrote that post we moved to full-on co-sleeping and are still all in the one bed 3 years later. I had huge support from medical professionals and child development experts here over the co-sleeping - if certain rules are followed it is a safe way of sleeping... in countries where it is the norm SIDS is almost unknown, in countries like China where the population is moving towards the Western style of independent sleeping SIDS is on the rise. Both my husband and I are completely on board with co-sleeping and were from the time we began doing so.

I see I intended to breastfeed until D was one... 3 years on we are still going strong (although she's more into it at this point than I am, but I think I will let her self-wean).

I never have done CIO. I think it would have been very harmful to MY child and certainly harmful to my psyche - it physically hurt to hear her cry and still does.

I became a big fan of AP - it just made sense to me. I don't include anything to do with vaccinating in AP - vaccinating or not has nothing to do with attachment parenting. I don't follow any book religiously, I take bits from a lot of different books and mainly from what feels right to me.

Daisy had terrible separation anxiety from 5 months till around 18 months and we saw a number of child development specialists through the maternal mental health team I am under (I have bipolar disorder) and spent 2 years seeing a child psychotherapist. Their advice was to continue what I was doing and not to push her to become more independent. Today she is one of the most confident children I know. I have NEVER left her in tears at nursery once, unlike the vast majority of the other children there.

I understand that a lot of AP makes no sense to others or isn't something they want to follow. For us it makes sense and I am a firm follower of Bowlby's theory. I also look to evolutionary childrearing, the way other primates rear their offspring and the way infants are reared in developing countries. Where I grew up everyone co-slept, baby wore and did extended breast-feeding on demand as a matter of course. And yes the children did eventually wean and move out of their parents bed - in their own time.

For me the idea of schedules, CIO, independent sleeping etc are just anaethema. It reminds me of those experiments where the baby monkeys get the choice between a warm cuddly mummy or a cold wire mummy with milk - they all choose to hug the warm cuddly monkey for the majority of the time - it used to break my heart watching and I feel the same way about the idea of letting Daisy CIO.

I also don't believe that it is necessary for a child to self-soothe - my daughter doesn't have loveys or other inanimate objects to which she is attached, she is attached to her parents. I take her to bed, read her a story and then she snuggles down and falls asleep - I then go and spend the evening with my husband. There is never a battle about bedtime, she doesn't have nightmares, she sees bedtime as a happy time.

Yes I have a child who is extremely wilful, independent and challenging - but so did my MIL... D is my husband's daughter in every way. I don't think it's down to my AP parenting.

Some people I know IRL say that I am a slave to my child... however they are the ones whose lives are organised round schedules of naps and fixed bedtimes and who can't go and do what they would like to do. I consider that to be just as much a slave to your child and a lot less fun!

 

[Skippy123]

I actually did Not have to CIO with my twins!!! I thought for Sure I would have to CIO to get them to sleep through the night. I still see nothing wrong with CIO though when they are at least 8 months. I think the 9 months of no sleep for me (getting up every night was tough). The reason I never tried to get them to STTN earlier is because they were preemies and were on the low side for weight and knew they needed their bottles at night.

 

[Pandora II]

But that is where it comes down to individual choice...

CIO at 8 months was fine for you, but for us when D was at the height of separation anxiety I would never have done CIO.

If we ever left Daisy with a baby-sitter she would often scream for 4 hours straight - my brother refused to baby sit again, my BIL who must be a saint did, paid baby-sitters never returned and the cleaning-lady said she was too frightened to. She only stopped screaming the entire time in the car at around 18 months, so I am very, very glad that I never decided to even try CIO at home.