This is a tag on to Attachment Parenting post just posted. I learned about attachment parenting a few years ago from some friends in an Attachment Parenting group/book club in our area. I also became familiar with Dr Sears Attachment stances while perusing his vaccine book and thumbing through his other books. I had already chosen my parenting style by then, and it wasn't Attachment Parenting, though I did carry and cuddle my babies a lot. What I thought was interesting about the "goals" of Attachment Parenting, such as building self-confidence through always being there in early stages the various ways the style recommends (for those familiar) were IDENTICAL to those in some other styles-only through opposite means!
For example, I come from a huge family in which most couples have at least seven kids. Some of these kids have grown up and had their own kids while I have known them. For generations, the first thing they do when babies are born, is get the babies to huge family parties and pass them all around. The babies may scream and holler (often they don't but sometimes they do), but everyone just cuddles them until they get used to it. If Gramps has the screaming baby, no one would dare come snatch him and grampa just cuddles away. They nurse on demand for the first few weeks, but then schedule feedings so the baby gets "secure in the fact" that they will always be fed, even if it's not when they first start to cry, and mom can keep the household running when dad's not home. They sleep in their own beds immediately (except for early nursing stages) "so they become secure sleeping on their own". Most of them sleep through the night by 3 months old by being fed to capacity and "crying it out". They do use firm discipline from very early ages, including spanking, and the parents are "in charge" so the kids never get the idea that "the world is all about them". They let very young kids play unsupervised with just older sibs in charge and never dote over injuries unless they're super serious. In other words-totally opposite of Attachment Parenting. The results are stellar, and I have never seen closer, happier, loving, more confident kids teens, young adults. This OF COURSE is because the general backdrop in ALL of their FAMILIES is love and devotion. Any of their "methods" could go awry in a mean detached household. Similarly, these are the results touted by Attachment Parents for handling all these situations in a completely opposite manner. I have heard AP succeeds just as well when parents don't veer too far into child-centered spoiling. My style with my kids is somewhere in the middle, I'm not QUITE as old school independence-ish as my relatives, but not as "attached" as my attachment friends, but my kids fit all the Dr Sears "signs of security" to a T.
So. Does anyone else think similar results are possible from completely opposite parenting techniques? It makes sense to me since kids have grown up successfully globally in loving families since the beginning of time. JFF, any other styles you have witnessed that are same/different/interesting in the past, present or future?
@Rosebud, Kudos to all parents raising well-behaved, happy, resilient, confident, respectful kids with nary a smack on the tush.
@Heather, All of my kids cried a little (not more than ten minutes because they were full) at a few months old. You being able to remember being left to cry sounds like you were much older. People with babies happily sleeping since a few months old would disagree that the babies feel defeated. No one lets them scream until exhausted or anything, it's just routine with a little crying in it vs holding and rocking and co-sleeping to avoid ANY crying. Same with letting the baby get used to other people holding it with a little crying at times. No one tortures the babies, but they really do get used to it quickly. That's great if others don't want the babies to EVER cry or get used to others at such a young age, but neither scenario is traumatic. I feel Dr Sears proposed results often stem from much harsher neglect than simply not being Attachment Parents. None of our relatives who are now adults are dysfunctional. Neither am I and I was raised the same way AND adopted at 8 months old having never nursed etc. There's many ways to skin a cat, and Dr Sears tries to convince people that unless they are Attached, their kids will have problems, which is unnecessary. It's an option, not the "right" way.
I think you hit the nail on the head with one of your comments...any parenting style that stems from love and devotion will succedd.
No one style is wrong, it might just not be the right fit for a parent's personality.
I think that if kids know love and discipline, and both are all around them, they'll grow up to be well adjusted and confident people.
I get so frustrated with proponents of specific types of parenting that try to make others feel badly about their parenting. I love the poster who said any parenting that comes from love will succeed. I know moms who are fabulous and have amazing, happy children because mom works. She would not be a happy mom without this lifestyle and has made it work wonderfully. And others who are more baby-wearing types because that's what works for them.
Usually, if someone I know is very defensive of their parenting style and critical of others, I assume they are actually quite insecure. They cling so tightly to whatever they are doing, they have no room to be accepting of others. It's too bad, really, and pretty sad.
I'm with you.
I'm not totally AP, and I'm not CIO. I'm somewhere in the middle.
My boys are 9 and 11...and both very smart, confident, respectful, kind, independent AND loving boys.
I've always parented with the mindset that whatever route I choose will affect them in the future. I've never really picked a theory, but pick and choose. Honestly, I ascribe to my own theory, and that is: "Raising babies is like raising puppies." You don't teach your puppy to do anything that isn't okay for them to do when they're fully grown. No biting, eating indiscriminately, peeing on he floor, being mean, etc. It's the same with kids. What we teach them is what shapes them.
My second theory is that we're raising adults, not children. So we have to equip them to be adults by using teaching moments and natural consequences.
It sounds like you're doing great, momma. Nobody is a perfect parent, and nobody has the market cornered on the perfect theory. We do what works in our families. :-)
God Bless You.
Yes, the style you describe can yield very successful results as there is a "villiage" raising children. In our current society, there is a lack of community and a detachment from others, often in our own nuclear family. Although I don't think letting babies cry, forcing them to become secure, and spanking are ideal in any way, the other facets you describe, where the child has a secure relationship with many, many loving adults makes up for the other stuff. Since most people don't have a billion relatives to help raise and care for the child, other parenting styles have to be considered. I think as parents we have to be flexible and respect and understand our children while at the same time finding a good compromise so we are happy as parents. If the parent is miserable doing attachment parenting then maybe that is not the style, or the particular component that works for them.
What works really depends on the childs personality. My dd is one of those kids that as she gets more tired she just gets wilder and wilder, and meaner. I always had to give a bottle at bedtime because she would bite me if I tried to nurse her to sleep. If I held or rocked her she would fight me for hours, kicking thrashing and scratching. The only thing that worked was to.lay her down in her bed, she would cry a little and usually call asleep within 5 minutes. CIO was a blessing with her.
Now my ds, he is a snuggler. I nurse him to sleep every night. Even without nursing, if my husband takes his onsie off and holds him skin to skin under a blankie he falls asleep within 5 min. If he wakes in the night he cries like wild until he is picked up. Then he relaxes right away. CIO would not work at all with him. He cries harder and harder until he is picked up.
There is no magic rule book for raising kids. If what you do is working, I would keep doing it. While attachment parenting would work great for one kid, it would turn a different kid into a total nightmare. Same with spanking.
I think a lot depends on a child's personality and temperament, and its a parents job to meet a child where he or she is. Clearly not all techniques work for all kids even in the same family born of the same parents. I come from a tradition of fairly large families where 4 - 7+ kids is the norm. Even in the most loving of families, when you have enough kids, there are definitely people with "issues" - whether or not those "issues" become things that derail their lives is, I think, often a result of how responsive and flexible the parents are to their children's needs. One size does NOT fit all, even in the same family.
It has been proven time and time again that "authoritarian" and "permissive" parenting are not good choices and that the approach that yields the best results is "authoritative." There's a wide range of styles and techniques that fall under that umbrella, from AP to whatever the opposite of AP is called.
Hopefully, parents and children match in temperament more often than not. I have friends who are very regimented people who fall apart when they can't adhere to their schedules. Luckily for most of them, their kids are the kind of kids who thrive on and require predictability day in and day out. Those kids would not have lasted long with me and I would have had a real hard time making sure that life came to a stop at X hour because my child had to be in a certain place, at a certain time, doing the same thing in the same order every day or he or she wouldn't sleep and there'd be hell to pay for all. Likewise, my friends would have gone crazy with kids who slept whenever they were tired and ate whenever they were hungry.
Likewise, I have a friend with lovely children who has never breastfed (mom thinks it's disgusting and an imposition) and would never, ever have a baby sleep in her bed. I would no sooner have a baby sleep in a crib in a room down the hall than I would leave an infant in the basement or garage. For me, that's too isolated and too far away, but she said her kids enjoyed sleeping in their own space from day one and who am I to disagree?
At the end of the day, the only kids I'm raising are my own, I do what works for us, change things up when they're not working, and hope that others do what works for them and are also open to the fact that our kids throw new stuff at us every day and our job is to adapt.
I think that it depends on the kid. I also think that much of what you mentioned does not fit into that category at all. For example, when babies stop crying after "crying it out", they are not seen as having become well-adjusted and secure in their environment. AP says that they have simply become defeated. They learn that no one will come for them, so they stop crying and suck it up. And that's what I remember learning from my mother letting me "cry it out". I'm not telling you not to do it or even that it's wrong. I'm just saying that is not "achieving the same goals through opposite means", or however you phrased it. That is something altogether different.
My personal belief is that they learn independence, but still feel lacking as they grow older. Dr. Sears believes that if you nurture them as they work through all of these needs, then they don't have to revisit those needs later in the form of some dysfunction. The idea of just letting my baby sit with someone he didn't feel comfortable with and cry is unsettling to me. If it's somebody that he needs to be around, then I encourage it in small doses to let him get used to the person. That works well for us.
ETA: Well, A., you didn't say that. Maybe my understanding was off, but it sounded to me like you were saying that you let your babies "cry it out" in those cases, which is not the same as letting them whimper and fuss a bit, which I take no issue with at all. I really don't care so much about any of it because I assume that you love your children and do what you think is best for them at all times. I took from your post that you were likening the results from two different parenting styles, and I offered that the results were not necessarily the same, based on documentation specifically addressing what you were talking about. Believe me, I'm no critic of someone else's house. I am a fan of Dr. Sears because what he says resonates with what I've believed for years. I am open to hearing anything that resonates with my spirit, no matter who says it. And, fyi, I have clear memories from before I was two years old. I am certain about the age because I know where we were living at that time and when we moved to the house that I spent most of my childhood in.
I do! I was raised similarly to what you describe:) I think raising children successfully really hinges on one thing: A nurturing, loving relationship between all members of the nuclear family!
I agree overall with what I think your point is and I think part of the variables are the size of the family and whether the mother works or not etc. In a huge family, a child likely quickly learns they have this huge family around... There's always someone to help etc. I read a book where the author grew up on a farm and a lot of the farm hands were like family and helped raise her. With a small family so not so much "backup" etc, needs might be different. As well, I've always worked full time so I can't figure my kids know "mom is always there." So when I'm home, I try to make it up to them in a way. Maybe that's wrong, maybe it'll work out ok. But things like letting them sleep with me when they need to - I've always said if I were a SAHM, I'd say forget it. You had me all day. As a working mom I say "I wasn't here every minute during the day so if you need me at night, you've got me." So yes, I do think similar results are possible from completely different parenting techniques and maybe different techniques are necessary or best depending on the family situation and availability of the parents. ie: passing a child around to random childcare providers who come in and out of a child's life doesn't seem the same to me as passing the child around to family members...
