# Down on AP (and very suspicious)



## Viola P (Sep 14, 2013)

I have two children who are just under 2 years apart, the oldest being 2.5. When my son was first born i was pretty hardcore AP. I wore him ALL the time, cloth diapered, nursed on demand (happily so), etc... When I went back to work when he was 16 weeks I'd rush home during my lunch break to bf and care for him, rush back to work, then back home to bf him again. I think I was pretty hardcore. I judged moms who could but didn't bf, I judged those who used disposable diapers, I judged women for using a stroller. I was a bit judgy. Then, with my second I started to think really critically about AP. I started to wonder about all the expectations that are put on mothers now days. The more i thought about it, and the more i looked into it, the more i started to believe that AP is really a theory that values a highly traditional view of what a mother's role should be - a role that also is not reconcilable with working outside the home. And then i started to think it's okay to use a stroller, and to baby wear. I decided F- it, I have two children under three and i work two very demanding jobs, my husband also works a very demanding job, I'm NOT spending more of my precious weekend time doing laundry. We now use earth friendly disposables. I decided immediately that there was no way in hell i was running home during my lunch hour to bf, instead dd got bottles (of bm of course, but still). I'm small and my children are heavy and I heard another woman who was fed up with carrying say that she got a stroller to save her back and I looked at her with such envy, then started using my stroller a lot more. My back is important too. Then, when dd stopped sleeping during the night i did something i thought i'd never do and I started ferberizing her, using the actual Ferber schedule, which was so much more humane than i previously believed. Now I'm so much more free as a mother. Sometimes I get upset, and that's ok. Do I have to be super happy and have a plastic facade all the time too for the sake of my children? Sometimes life is hard. Sometimes I have to tell my son "no" in a firm way, and just pull pure rank, refuse to reason. And now, after all these months I'm pretty sure that both of my kids are going to turn out awesome. And, I'm pretty sure that we women are more oppressed than we like to think. My counselor said when she had babies the mothers would just sit outside the bedroom while they cried themselves to sleep with a glass of wine and a book. Maybe that's too extreme one way, but it seems as though we've gone too far the other way. Where now, instead of "children are to be seen not heard", it seems that it's "mothers are to be seen not heard". By which I mean that there doesn't seem to be a lot of room for our needs to come into consideration anywhere. For us to say, my need for sleep is important, I am important. My baby may be more important, but i'm important too. I feel so sorry for our generation of mothers. And I hope it's so much better for my daughter. I'm sure it will be. If we know anything its that ideas about parenting are generational. What will our children think of our approach when they have children?


----------



## katelove (Apr 28, 2009)

I'm sorry you've had such a negative experience. Are you looking for a discussion of AP practices and the oppression of women or are you just venting? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Viola P (Sep 14, 2013)

katelove said:


> I'm sorry you've had such a negative experience. Are you looking for a discussion of AP practices and the oppression of women or are you just venting?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thanks for responding.

I would totally like to see if other mothers think that AP is oppressive, especially wohm. I don't know, I find it v confusing because on the one hand it seems like feminism to say this is what mothers do and doing it is awesome (carrying, responding to cries, etc..) but on the other hand it seems really to promote this puritanical (?) view of mothers that's very traditional. But maybe not?

I think some parts of AP are awesome, like responding to baby, baby wearing, - really all of it i guess. I just personally think those goals have to be weighed against other factors - like mom needing to sleep and mom not wanting to have a bad back later. I guess that's where it's weird for me too - like it doesn't seem to think a mother's needs are important.

I don't know. I think, like I said, as a woman who recently returned to work with 2 very littles i feel excluded from being an AP parent.


----------



## transpecos (Sep 12, 2014)

I didn't realize there were "rules". My husband and I wanted to have our kids with us most of the time, and for the first six years we were able to do this, with each of us working half time. We had a stroller...both we and baby seemed to like it better than the front pouch. We also had a couple of baby backpacks that worked well. After the first 8 months or so of being waked up for nighttime feedings, we put junior in bed with us...the second was in our bed from the beginning. A lot easier. We used cloth diapers...easy with a washer. I expressed milk at work, for freezing for the next day. A baby is a baby, with its little baby needs, for a very short while. (It seems like a lot longer when it's happening, but it is no time at all in the long run.)

Best,
Deborah


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

Viola P said:


> I think some parts of AP are awesome, like responding to baby, baby wearing, - really all of it i guess. I just personally think those goals have to be weighed against other factors - like mom needing to sleep and mom not wanting to have a bad back later. I guess that's where it's weird for me too - like it doesn't seem to think a mother's needs are important.


I can really see where you are coming from. I was a SAHM with closely spaced babies and it nearly drove me to insanity as well. In my case, AP combined with my DH's crazy career, which required long hours and lots of travel and multiple relocations, so I did the AP thing with no support system and while being lost where I lived. That lead naturally into homeschooling. I finally had a melt down when my kids were 10 and 12. I put them in school, and started doing things for myself.

I don't know what the answer is. Many aspects of AP I believe in -- like responding to a child's cues and using GD. I believe in treating children with respect as actual human beings.

None the less, I think that the child centered, no boundaries portrayal of AP isn't healthy for mom or for many marriages. (honestly ladies, putting your marriage on the back burner for years isn't a good thing for anyone, not even for your kids).

I wonder if women who are naturally more balanced and have better models for an emotionally healthy family naturally find the middle ground with their own children, husbands, and homes, but for me......

I was neglected and abused as a child. I have no healthy role models in my family. I just wanted to get everything right, so I took things too extreme in the opposite direction. I'm not sure if people realize how they can come across to someone without a good foundation for self-care and boundaries.

My kids are now nearly grown. If I had it to do all over again, I would some of the same things, but not all. I would be so much more relaxed. I would have more faith that they would be fine -- that they would be emotional healthy and know they are unconditionally loved AND that I could set some boundaries, leave them with sitters, tend my marriage, and take some time *just for me*.

At times, I made myself a martyr to the cause, and I didn't need to. I didn't need to put myself last for years on end. My kids would have turned out to be who they are anyway. My marriage might have missed a huge crises it went through, but mostly, I think I would have enjoyed being a mother so much if I had allowed it be part of me instead of swallowing me whole.


----------



## MyFillingQuiver (Sep 7, 2009)

Oh I can't agree with you more, Linda On The Move

We have to do what works for us, and living up to an image isn't healthy..whether the image is self-imposed or put on us by anyone else.

Being a parent is hard work, and when marriage is second to children, things are simply out of whack. I am glad our children see their dad and I as united and best friends and still very much in love. There is no greater security for them, in that.

I am AP in many ways, because I believe I am blessed with children, and their needs are very important. There are many AP things I do not practice, either. I don't really pass judgement on parents, because a) I don't have time for that, b) We all have to raise our children the way we see fit. I really thought I knew it all before I was a parent! The proof is in the "pudding" however, and being complimented and asked for advice, due to older children that are somehow remarkable because they are respectful of others/responsible/thoughtful, is more telling than any parenting-isms that we strive to live up to.

It seems guilt can run the show in a lot of ways, and that can't be a legacy we intentionally leave.


----------



## sierramtngirl (Jun 19, 2013)

I struggle with this too sometimes. While a lot of my instincts are toward AP, I can't do it all, all the time. So, I do the best I can. I cosleep with DS out of necessity for everyone to sleep. I wear him bc he prefers it, but have no qualms about stuffing both kiddos in the jogging stroller so I can get some exercise (& thus feel better/ be refreshed). He is nursed whenever he wants but does get about 4 bottles per week for the 2 days I work (I just cut down the # of days I work). I do run over and feed him at lunch, but that's more for me so I don't have to pump more than 3 times per day! 
But, I think your bigger point is spot on and heard loud and clear. The expectations are crazy on our generation (as I'm sure all generations in the past feel). We are expected to go to college, possibly grad school and/or professional school, then work (to pay off the student loans incurred). Once we decide to start a family, then the expectations include not only working, but cooking (from scratch), keeping house, being a good partner, a good parent who does it all "right". I know some of these expectations are self imposed, or from mommy guilt....but the bottom line is that it is there. 
I was actually having a similar conversation with my grandma. She confirmed that in her opinion it's a lot harder on our generation. She said that we have a lot more to worry about and "the damn internet doesn't help matters". I guess bottom line is that we can only do our best...


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

MyFillingQuiver said:


> We have to do what works for us, and living up to an image isn't healthy..whether the image is self-imposed or put on us by anyone else.


I was never trying to live up to an image. I was trying to change very deep family patterns. And I did.

My regret is that I did it at my own expense. I didn't understand that there was another option, a way to truly be a good mother while still taking care of myself. I really didn't understand that it is possible to have balance.

Honestly, even today if I had to choose what was best for my kids or what is best for myself, I would always pick what is best for my kids. That's just out it is. The problem is that I thought that is what I was doing when in reality, it wasn't so. My kids would have been fine eitherway. I could have had a greater degree of balance the whole time AND STILL HAVE BEEN A GREAT MOTHER.

Oh well, at least I changed the pattern. And I don't think they will make the same mistake -- they turned out pretty balanced.


----------



## Sharlla (Jul 14, 2005)

I personally feel that AP is instinctive parenting and doing what is best for the child by following their needs not doing what society tells us to do. Some babies need more attachment than others. Some babies want to comfort nurse, some dont. Some need the closeness of cosleeping, some don't. I judge, It's true but I judge people for selfishness, not for doing all things AP because the fact is every baby is different


----------



## MyFillingQuiver (Sep 7, 2009)

Sharlla said:


> I personally feel that AP is instinctive parenting and doing what is best for the child by following their needs not doing what society tells us to do. Some babies need more attachment than others. Some babies want to comfort nurse, some dont. Some need the closeness of cosleeping, some don't. I judge, It's true but I judge people for selfishness, not for doing all things AP because the fact is every baby is different


So true. Some of my babies have been quite independent from a very early age, and recoil from quite young, against "too much" closeness, if that makes sense.

They are all individuals, and following their needs is what is really important. I think that the definitions sort of what are the problem here. AP is associated with a list of "do's" and "don'ts" and if a mother truly believes in AP, but doesn't necessarily follow the list, she can feel that she is failing the labels.

Instinct parenting maybe is a better term! 

Linda On The Move,

It makes sense you'd go the distance to change your family pattern...and how that could have brought you difficulty not feeling like you could relax with it at all. Balance is so important, and it can sure take a long while to realize that in practice.

Blessings!


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

Sharlla said:


> I personally feel that AP is instinctive parenting and doing what is best for the child by following their needs not doing what society tells us to do.


Some people's instincts tell them to smash a baby's head into a wall to get it to shut up when nothing else is working, so I don't buy the instincts thing.

What with my parenting and lack of other models for connected parenting, I didn't have any instincts, positive or negative ones. I just felt lost.

Perhaps if we all had had our own needs met before we became mothers AND lived tribal so we had good role models as well as support, then instincts would work for more people. I understand that they do work for some (many?) moms who practice AP, but I don't think they work for everyone.

"Doing what is best for the child" is what I did that drove me into the ground.

I now believe in a healthy selfishness for mom.


----------



## Sharlla (Jul 14, 2005)

We've been learning about the stages of socialization at school. Pretty interesting stuff, it has confirmed to me that my parenting style of making sure my baby's physical amd emotional needs are being met is providing them with a positive socialization process.


----------



## salr (Apr 14, 2008)

The things you're describing,OP, are things that have never seemed to me to be not-AP. Strollers, balancing work and breastfeeding...I think AP is about attachment as in whether or not you're fostering an emotional connection, not as in physical attachment via a baby carrier. If you're connecting without some of the trappings that are right of as AP, then that sounds reasonable.
Although I will say that my current knowledge of Ferberizing doesn't allow for it to be in that category.


----------



## salr (Apr 14, 2008)

I also wanted to add that I totally feel the struggle of working out of the home and trying to balance expectations, roles, and duties. 

It's just that, to me, it's not AP stuff that bothers me. The things that I think are holding me back from peace and happiness are things like work, and other things that keep my attention off of my family. I understand that's just the emotional component of it and not the practicalities like finances. But in my world I don't view AP and the ideals associated with it as the enemy. 

As far as becoming less judgey and simplifying things after having more than one kid...happened to me too. I'm ok with some things not being ideal, or different but just as good. Like the plastic diapers- whatever let's me be a better mom. Isn't it kind of AP to see that you're spending more time with your kids instead of that laundry?


----------



## Viola P (Sep 14, 2013)

This is such a great discussion. 

I agree with she who said that a healthy amount of selfishness for mom is a good thing. That's what i want to be able to celebrate - my life, me being alive. I want to remain a spiritual being and not have motherhood "swallow me whole". 

Also, I do wonder if our generation has it harder than the previous ones. I suspect we do. My mom could choose to stay home or work, with little fanfare. Neither of my parents had student loans. They owned a house when they were in their twenties and had us at that time too. It does seem so different now. With the amount I work i often wonder if this isn't how much the pioneers worked, and homesteaders. When I think about it really the 50s and 60s were the anomaly, and now this is a return to normalcy where women are worked to the bone with little reward and less recognition. 

I have a friend who said she sent her children to stay with the grandparents who weren't very fun so that her and her husband could go on a fun vacation and be alone for a while. Then she said "sometimes you have to throw your kids under the bus" (metaphorically obviously). That comment rang through my mind so many times over the past few weeks. I wonder if she's right. Sometimes is it okay as mothers to be selfish? Obviously I don't mean making decisions that would harm the children, just making decisions that clearly prioritize the mother's needs/wants ahead of the child's. Any theory that says that a woman can never prioritize her own needs makes me uncomfortable (especially when it's started by a man!)


----------



## salr (Apr 14, 2008)

I think that a mom prioritizing her needs above others occasionally is actually looking out for her children. If getting done time to yourself makes you a better mom, then that's what you should do, right? It may be a choice that isn't awesome for the kids in that moment, but it's what makes for a happier family overall.


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

Viola P said:


> Also, I do wonder if our generation has it harder than the previous ones. I suspect we do. My mom could choose to stay home or work, with little fanfare. Neither of my parents had student loans. They owned a house when they were in their twenties and had us at that time too. It does seem so different now.


I was reading something yesterday about how much debt has increased in the last 20 years, and a big chunk of it is school debt. The article was focused on things that "middle class" people used to be able to afford, that now they can't. (like vacations, a new car, and even health care).

I also think that in some ways the internet and social media makes things worse. I think it is too easy for people to present an idealized view of their lives which then other people compare their actual lives too and feel inferior.


----------



## Nazsmum (Aug 5, 2006)

Linda on the move said:


> I also think that in some ways the internet and social media makes things worse. I think it is too easy for people to present an idealized view of their lives which then other people compare their actual lives too and feel inferior.


I do agree about social media. I also think that people look at stars and reality shows and compare themselves to them.


----------



## Viola P (Sep 14, 2013)

Linda on the move said:


> I was reading something yesterday about how much debt has increased in the last 20 years, and a big chunk of it is school debt. The article was focused on things that "middle class" people used to be able to afford, that now they can't. (like vacations, a new car, and even health care).
> 
> I also think that in some ways the internet and social media makes things worse. I think it is too easy for people to present an idealized view of their lives which then other people compare their actual lives too and feel inferior.


I agree that debt has increased massively. Our household spends almost 30k/year on student loans and childcare. If i didn't stay home 1 day a week and we didn't get free care from the il's another day a week it would be closer to 40k a year. It is blatantly unreasonable to expect people to pay 30-40k per year in student loans and childcare.

I see the value in AP but i do believe that it expects a lot of women. I think the expectations of women these days are pretty unreasonable overall. That's just my 2c!

Thanks to all who responded. I'm going to go enjoy a glass of red wine.


----------



## sewchris2642 (Feb 28, 2009)

Viola P said:


> I have two children who are just under 2 years apart, the oldest being 2.5. When my son was first born i was pretty hardcore AP. I wore him ALL the time, cloth diapered, nursed on demand (happily so), etc... When I went back to work when he was 16 weeks I'd rush home during my lunch break to bf and care for him, rush back to work, then back home to bf him again. I think I was pretty hardcore. I judged moms who could but didn't bf, I judged those who used disposable diapers, I judged women for using a stroller. I was a bit judgy. Then, with my second I started to think really critically about AP. I started to wonder about all the expectations that are put on mothers now days. The more i thought about it, and the more i looked into it, the more i started to believe that AP is really a theory that values a highly traditional view of what a mother's role should be - a role that also is not reconcilable with working outside the home. And then i started to think it's okay to use a stroller, and to baby wear. I decided F- it, I have two children under three and i work two very demanding jobs, my husband also works a very demanding job, I'm NOT spending more of my precious weekend time doing laundry. We now use earth friendly disposables. I decided immediately that there was no way in hell i was running home during my lunch hour to bf, instead dd got bottles (of bm of course, but still). I'm small and my children are heavy and I heard another woman who was fed up with carrying say that she got a stroller to save her back and I looked at her with such envy, then started using my stroller a lot more. My back is important too. Then, when dd stopped sleeping during the night i did something i thought i'd never do and I started ferberizing her, using the actual Ferber schedule, which was so much more humane than i previously believed. Now I'm so much more free as a mother. Sometimes I get upset, and that's ok. Do I have to be super happy and have a plastic facade all the time too for the sake of my children? Sometimes life is hard. Sometimes I have to tell my son "no" in a firm way, and just pull pure rank, refuse to reason. And now, after all these months I'm pretty sure that both of my kids are going to turn out awesome. And, I'm pretty sure that we women are more oppressed than we like to think. My counselor said when she had babies the mothers would just sit outside the bedroom while they cried themselves to sleep with a glass of wine and a book. Maybe that's too extreme one way, but it seems as though we've gone too far the other way. Where now, instead of "children are to be seen not heard", it seems that it's "mothers are to be seen not heard". By which I mean that there doesn't seem to be a lot of room for our needs to come into consideration anywhere. For us to say, my need for sleep is important, I am important. My baby may be more important, but i'm important too. I feel so sorry for our generation of mothers. And I hope it's so much better for my daughter. I'm sure it will be. If we know anything its that ideas about parenting are generational. What will our children think of our approach when they have children?


AP isn't a set of rules. 
*Attachment Parenting is an approach, rather than a strict set of rules*

It's actually the style that many parents use instinctively. Parenting is too individual and baby too complex for there to be only one way. The important point is to get connected to your baby, and the baby B's of attachment parenting help. Once connected, stick with what is working and modify what is not. You will ultimately develop your own parenting style that helps parent and baby find a way to fit - the little word that so economically describes the relationship between parent and baby.

http://www.askdrsears.com/topics/parenting/attachment-parenting/attachment-parenting-babies

It seems to me that a lot of mothers who post about AP forget about Dr. Sears 7th point: Balance. And that using AP is a lot different between having only one child and have two or more children, especially if they are close in age. It's about knowing your child. I did what was best for each of my children, listening and responding to each of their needs whether it was sleeping in our bed or in their own bedroom. Being a stay at home mom or a working mom and using daycare. Going to art museums or historical re enactments. Home school or public school. I breastfed, used cloth diapers, and made my own baby food because I wanted to. Not because some parenting philosophy told me to. I carried my children and used strollers. Sometimes at the same time. Do what you need to and have to to raise your children. And remember, you are not raising children, you are raising future adults. Never lose sight of the goal of parenting.


----------



## bluedaisy (Sep 5, 2008)

Personally, I don't think AP is the problem. I think there are two other cultural issues that are much more problematic:

- the myth that we as women have to do it all. In most cultures around the world, women have practical support. A woman is not expected to be the one earning an income, doing the childcare, cooking, cleaning, driving everyone around, etc. I've lived in several different countries where having full time help is the norm - maids, nannies, cooks, etc. As an American, I resisted this at first because of feeling like I "should" be able to handle everything by myself. I had a "aha moment" when we were heading to my father in law's funeral with two young kids - my colleagues in Uganda insisted I bring my child care worker to Kenya with me. At first I was insulted, thinking that I am perfectly capable of handling my children by myself. But in their mind, the issue wasn't that I couldn't handle it by myself, it was that I shouldn't have to. In this emotional draining time for my husband I should be available to support him and be by his side and not have to worry about chasing my children around. I have come to deeply appreciate the help that I have available in this season of my life - we have a full time worker who cleans the house, does laundry, and helps with the cooking, and we have a part time childcare worker for when I am in the office (I work about 20 hrs/week). in the part of the world I live in now, this is the norm for mothers, and not just wealthy ones. 

- the lack of support in the corporate world for working mothers. If we could have maternity leaves that were at least 6 months, even better 12 months like Canada or 1-3 years like most European countries, it would be much easier to balance career and family and not feel like we had to choose either a career or being an AP mom. I recently read about a country (I forget which one!) where the majority of women worked 25 hour weeks. Working 40+ hours a week with a baby must be exhausting - it makes me angry that for many women that is their only option if they want to continue with their careers. If we could have more part time options and more flexible options it would be much easier to feel that we didn't have to choose between our needs and our children's needs, and that we could effectively meet them both.

And then when we struggle - we blame ourselves by feeling like we are being selfish and we can't keep our needs and our children's needs in balance, when really there are larger cultural and societal issues that are pushing us where we are and making us feel like we have to choose.


----------



## slammerkin (Nov 11, 2012)

I've read several "AP ruined me" articles recently and agree with commentors who say that it's a lack of balance that causes this kind of backlash - not the fundamentals of AP itself. But it's interesting to hear someone here (Linda I think?) saying that it's hard to find balance and parent "instinctively" when you have no positive frame of reference from your own childhood. I never really thought of that.

I'm a WOHM and, while I really don't feel the need to label my parenting style, AP would be the most appropriate term for how I have raised my baby so far (13 months old). I feel I've fallen into a healthy groove for the most part, and I think it's possible to be very "AP" while still working outside the home, without losing yourself. 

Maybe I'm just lucky in my circumstances. I had 3 months of maternity leave, and then DH stayed home with baby since he works weekend nights. Having him be there for her made it much easier for me to leave her. Putting her in day care so young would have been hard for me, but I think I would have gotten over it. I BF on demand, including frequent overnight feeding for 10 LONG months of absolutely brutal night-waking sometimes as often as every 30-45 mins (more commonly every 1-1.5 hours). Bed-sharing allowed me to survive and function, and we still do it, though she’s down to more like 2-3 wakings a night now. 

I cloth-diapered for a couple months until I went back to work, and DH refused to participate. Oh well. I mean, I'm pretty sure cloth-diapering is not an AP principle - it's just something "natural-minded" people do. Using disposables does not make you less responsive to baby's needs. I babywore some – especially to get her to sleep at times, or if we were out shopping – but not much overall. 

I pumped three times a day for 10 months and have just stopped recently. I get up at 4:45 in the morning so I can get to work early and get home early to see my baby. I have never yet been away from her for an evening (actually tonight will be the first time I go “out” for a night with friends!). 

The only decision I have truly struggled with was regarding what to do about her sleep. Being surrounded by moms who sleep-trained and had babies sleeping 12 hours straight I was very very bitter and had my moments of door-slamming rage at the injustice. But I must be lucky to be able to function pretty well with broken sleep because I never truly felt like I was going to lose it from exhaustion – it was more just anger about the demands of dealing with her night-time needs. Excessive crying was something I just couldn’t handle, and the few sleep “coaching” attempts we made we largely failures.

I do come from a solid family background with good role models. Dad worked a traditional job. Mom was a stay at home for a good few years, but started part-time and then full-time work when I was in school (I was the youngest of four). 

Maybe it helps that I’m a hermit by nature and I mostly just want to be home with my husband and baby. I only crave outside contact occasionally. Someone who is more social would probably chafe under the kind of schedule I keep.

I’ve also sacrificed exercise – really don’t get any in. That’s something I want to work on soon.

Anyway, that’s a long-winded way of saying I don’t feel oppressed or forced into a mold by AP principles. Things like BF and bedsharing have helped me maintain a positive connection with my baby despite me being gone for work. I always thought I would be a SAHM, but I’m not, and I’m pretty comfortable with the balance in our family.


----------



## anachka (Oct 24, 2011)

I hear you all. Having two very spirited littles, life is exhausting. Don't really have much to say except I feel that I have to bend in the wind and when I'm having a bad day at home w them or whatever, I have to remind myself that they will never be this young again. They're needy but I'm doing what my instincts tell me. And to the poster that said that some folks' instincts may be to bash their kids' heads against the wall, I disagree. An emotional/rage issue that needs some attention shouldn't be mistaken for instinct, IMO.


----------



## Miriam Liss (Oct 18, 2012)

*Attachment parenting - show me the data!*

I think the issue of whether attachment parenting is too much for women and necessary for the well being of children is a very important one. I just published a book about work family balance called Balancing the Big Stuff: Finding Happiness in Work, Family and Life. In it, there is a thorough literature review on attachment parenting practices so parents can make informed decisions about how they want to parent. The research shows, in general, that while there is nothing wrong with attachment parenting and if it works for parents, that is great, there are no clear benefits to parenting in such an intensive way either.

[Admin note: edited to move promotional link]


----------



## filamentary (Aug 15, 2013)

it is so hard to try to balance the needs of your kids and the obligations at work. it makes sense to feel, sometimes, like "something's gotta give", because working mommas are stretched too thin. and it makes me feel sad knowing how many women feel they have to choose between being ideal parents and being good employees. but i think that it is not the child's needs that are oppressive to women. it is the inflexibility of the working world.

if having children were just a fun hobby, an optional thing that a few people were into for their own sake, that would be one thing. but as a country we need more children to continuously be born and become healthy, contributing members to society (even if not as many as some people are having). given this is a collective need, a collective good, we should have designed our world to support this need.

instead, it's rare to find a workplace with rooms for pumping breast milk and the permission to go pump every few hours. people are still quick to criticize the parent who puts their family first. we haven't become collectively tolerant of women needing to come in late or take days off sometimes because of lack of sleep or a sick baby. people routinely try to justify men getting paid more for the same job because mothers' additional obligations, as if those women were choosing to prioritize some hobby over their career, instead of acknowledging how equally important that job is that's invisible to us, that she does all the rest of her hours, at home—raising healthy children.

raising healthy children should be an enthusiastic joy shared by all society's members. instead, we are often made to feel burdened and apologetic. AP simply describes what is best for the child, while society largely ignores this and continues designing lifestyles that are best for corporate success rather than something as intangible as optimally healthy children.

i think it's an important part of feminism for women to be able to choose important careers, and equally important for women to be able to choose the things that are best for their children. and to be able to balance both without being made to feel guilty. but i think it's reasonable that all of us, collectively, ask the workplace to be a little more flexible and patient, because asking that of the small children we love, instead, is not my idea of a society that values women and women's roles.

asking women to BE men in order to earn the same respect and career success, in order to have the fact of our equally capable intelligence recognized, this is not feminism, not by a long shot.

(and don't even get me started on the fact that we should be asking more flexibility from workplaces for fathers' roles in their kids' lives, too. AP, outside of breastfeeding, should come from both parents, of course.)


----------



## Good Enough Mum (Apr 3, 2007)

Interesting debate. I think a great deal depends on whether we're looking at AP as it was originally conceived by Sears, or as it's evolved since then.


Sears, of course, was a working man who had a wife who was (as far as we know) perfectly willing to be a full-time caretaker for the children. And, to be fair to him, he does seem to have been very happy to do his share when he was home (to an extent which may well have been fairly groundbreaking at the time, because I have the feeling his oldest children were born in the 70s) – but it was more as a 'Sure, once I'm finished with my job and have come home I'll be happy to hold the baby for you' that was never going to create any conflict with his career. 


So I think it was quite easy for him to get all gung-ho about 'Wahey! All this stuff about breastfeeding through all difficulties/never giving any of that nasty formula stuff/letting children self-wean when they're ready/carrying the baby everywhere sounds wonderful! Let's talk about how parents (read: mothers) should do all that wonderful stuff!' without ever thinking critically about how much (if any) benefit there might be for any of those practices and how that actually stacked up against the possible difficulties/drawbacks in terms of this actually being something worthwhile.


Since then, the AP movement has definitely tried to shift focus. I remember that about 9 – 10 years ago, when I was first reading the AP principles, there was a separate set for babies listing breastfeeding, babywearing, and co-sleeping as part of the principles. It wasn't a 'you have to do things exactly this way to be AP', or anything, but it did get more specific about particular practices than is currently the case. Some time in the next few years, that separate list was dropped and now they just use the same list for all age groups, with more general wording such as 'Feed with love and respect' and 'Ensure safe sleep physically and emotionally'. So I do think they're at least trying to move away from specific practices and towards a general approach.


Individual members of AP obviously vary. There are a lot of posts out there about how AP isn't really about any specific practices, it's a state of mind, blah blah blah. There are also a lot of 'What is AP?' posts that do focus a lot on the extended breastfeeding/self-weaning/babywearing/co-sleeping part of it. That is where AP started out, and the assumption that AP-ers are going to default to those practices is very ingrained within AP. At the same time, there is an understanding that they don't have to be the default practices, that they aren't right for everyone.


While I'm not personally comfortable with considering myself part of the AP movement, for that and other reasons, that's purely a matter of how I feel – I know I've got the option of considering myself a part of it, and I don't think there's anything inherently contradictory in considering yourself as AP and feminist and/or WOHM. I think that AP has had (and continues to have) problems with ingrained assumptions about the role of women as mothers, but I wouldn't necessarily say it's any worse on that score than anything else in today's society (for what that's worth!) and so I don't think I'd condemn AP on those grounds.


Wow, that was longer than I intended. Hope it made some sense.


----------



## Good Enough Mum (Apr 3, 2007)

filamentary said:


> it makes sense to feel, sometimes, like "something's gotta give", because working mommas are stretched too thin. and it makes me feel sad knowing how many women feel they have to choose between being ideal parents and being good employees. but i think that it is not the child's needs that are oppressive to women. it is the inflexibility of the working world.
> 
> [...]
> 
> we haven't become collectively tolerant of women needing to come in late or take days off sometimes because of lack of sleep or a sick baby. people routinely try to justify men getting paid more for the same job because mothers' additional obligations, as if those women were choosing to prioritize some hobby over their career, instead of acknowledging how equally important that job is that's invisible to us, that she does all the rest of her hours, at home-raising healthy children.


OK, the only problem I have with this (and I do think you make some good points) is that we shouldn't even be needing to think in terms of 'mothers' additional obligations', or 'women needing to come in late' or 'working mommas being stretched too thin', because the burden of taking care of children should NOT BE FALLING ON WOMEN JUST BY VIRTUE OF US BEING WOMEN. We should be thinking in terms of the fact that parents have additional obligations, parents may sometimes need to work different hours, parents have to do these things. And that means fathers as well as mothers. Mothers are the only ones who can breastfeed and are also the ones who need to recover from giving birth when a child comes into the family by birth rather than adoption, so, yes, there do need to be allowances made for that. Other than that - we shouldn't be working towards a world where mothers are given more flexibility about combining work and family life, but a world where _parents_ are given that flexibility, regardless of their gender.

(Actually, it goes even further than that - carers in general should have that flexibility. There's no reason why having the responsibility of caring for an elderly parent or disabled sibling should be less important than having the responsibility of caring for offspring.)


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Subbling because this is the sort of parenting discussion that I enjoy. Also chiming in that respect for self and a balanced, fulfilled, joyful life for the parent is as important as anything else. We are raising children with this goal, no? We need to model this to the best of our ability.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

You are looking at it as if it were an outside system imposed upon you without your consent. 
Its not. Its research and experienced parents writing books and articles about parenting practices that conform to the ultimate value of responding to your child's needs, while also mantaining family balance.
If you choose that as a value, then go for it.

I find it oppressive that women are systematically forced to separate from their children all the time. Or are led to believe that forced weaning and sleeping training are the norm and necessary. 

I think what is oppressive, is the expectation you had of yourself. The judgmental attitude you had towards other mothers was placed upon yourself, and now is shifted to AP. Maybe you need to relax the judgment?

I agree with you, that the expecation of AP practises, whether other imposed or self imposed (in my case, they are wholly self imposed), pose a problem when it comes to participating fully in the workforce, and fulfilling some traditional feminist goals.

Thats a dilemma that hasnt been discussed an aweful lot, except in the context of 'womens choice' to do one or the other, but not both.

However, depending on your occupation, you can make it work or not.

I dont think its oppressive to do the best i can in the area of life that i value most. But you bet i would if someone else was telling me to do it without my consent!!

Do the best you can! I never ferberized my first two kids, who slept through the night early on anyway. I always attributed that to co sleeping and nursing on demand.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

I was thinking about this thread today while bored at the soccer field watching one of my kids play.  I don't know quite how to describe what I want to contribute because it's like this funky sliding bar graph in my head. I wish I could draw it. It's my form of balancing act. One bar is "what's best for my kids", another is, "what's best for me" and then those two things sort of slide around within another big graph that is "effort". If it's easy, good for my kids, and good for me it's a no-brainer. But the rest of the possible combinations is just a complicated balancing act, yk? What makes it worse is the unknowables like the things that may well be harder if I put the effort in now but way easier down the road. 

Another huge factor here is resiliency. I always knew that my oldest was sort of struggling a little because she had me around all the time (combination of me being able to stay home and not having any family around to help). It took her longer to adjust to school, for instance. And she missed out on some cool play opportunities because she was accustomed to having me around. That was "ok" but it wasn't as balanced as I would have liked. My younger is more solid and joyful because she has better balance. Lots of family, mom and dad both active in their own lives. Both of us knowing that she is strong and resilient. THAT is a gift! 

I also agree with everyone who said that AP needn't be a prescription. There are some ideas that come from AP or that AP also holds that I think are really important for babies and parents. Though few of them are more important than parents not losing their minds. 

As far as AP being hard on moms, maybe that's a sub-cultural thing. Remember that "AP" draws folks from all along a political and cultural spectrum. I come at it from more of a progressive "hippie" side of things and I feel like AP has a lot of families who are doing wonderfully with balancing work and family expectations in terms of gender roles. I know a lot of SAHDs and lots and lots of families where parents are creative with work schedules, shared responsibilities, and etc. This is not to say that we don't still have a long way to go as a society when it comes to helping families raise their kids and fostering equality between women and men - just to say that the AP community doesn't seem worse off from my perspective. 

Anyway, great discussion!


----------



## filamentary (Aug 15, 2013)

Good Enough Mum said:


> the burden of taking care of children should NOT BE FALLING ON WOMEN JUST BY VIRTUE OF US BEING WOMEN.


yes! i wholeheartedly agree with everything you said. =)

if doing AP + cosleeping w/ breastfeeding on demand (incl at night), that is a significant period of interrupted sleep (easily 2+ yrs per kid) for the breastfeeding momma, specifically. since the OP was specifically talking about the AP stuff w/ the new baby, i was thinking about this early period in particular.

i was, of course, bursting at the seams to veer into the topic of dads (or other non-birth parents), which is why i make a couple nods toward that point. but my comment was already not very concise, so i had to restrain myself.

glad you added it though. people really do overlook this way too much. if non-birth parents aren't being equal partners in parenting, it's really sad. do moms just accept that their partners are socialized inadequately to be capable/willing? divorce? i've seen WAY too many heartbreaking posts on here that describe, essentially, that dilemma.

it's when i realize how frequently men don't construe their roles as parents as being as fully involved as their wives that i feel so lucky i don't have to navigate that issue. people often fall in love and commit to each other long before having kids or figuring out what kind of parents they'd be, so i think it can be a sudden & tragic discovery at the worst possible time.

i hope mommas who have husbands like this are somehow still able to raise boys who will grow up to be different, to create awesome husbands for the next generation, but i suspect they'll be learning more from the example set for them, so this seems a difficult problem to solve.

demanding workplaces that actually support the family values our country is supposedly so into, though, seems like something we should still try to make happen. then whatever the situation at home, regardless how much help there may or may not be from a second parent, the BFing AP momma can get cut some slack for a couple years with each kid (for a lot of women, that's 4 to 6 years of BFing nights in the course if her career).


----------



## MichelleZB (Nov 1, 2011)

I'm a working mom and breastfed and baby wore and did that stuff. My husband and I don't have a lot of money and a lot of things we did for practicality reasons, like cloth diapering. Rather than finding them oppressive, we found them cheap. And cheap was good.

As for balancing work and parenting, I think it's a distraction to say that a certain parenting philosophy is oppressive of women. The parenting style isn't the point. Ultimately, feminism doesn't care whether you fed your kid the organic carrots or not. The point is that society and workplaces should be making accommodations to parents during their children's young years; that is the feminist thing to do. Because women--even moms!--have beautiful minds and productive spirits and have useful things to contribute to society besides parenting, and they have to be able to work if they want to or need to. Workplaces should be made to accommodate that.

It's a lot easier to be an attachment parent--or really any kind of parent you please--when your job is held for you for a year while you take maternity leave, when the state pays you a stipend while you take time off, when daycare is subsidized for you when you return to work, and work schedules are flexible to accommodate the needs of parents with young children.

As for reading a book and having wine, I did that while nursing my son all the time.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

One other thing to add is that here at MDC "AP" and "NFL" are often used together. In reality, they are two different things. Sure, you can make an argument that caring for the Earth is the ultimate thing we can do as parents...but that's sort of a huge, broad extension of AP. There are a lot of things that are often associated with AP, which really aren't part of AP at all - not cloth diapering, not environmental food choices, not where we birth, not how we educate our kids, not which medical choices we make. Yes, many of us choose the crunchy route for these things...but by absolutely no means to most AP parents choose all those same things, yk? 

I would even say that baby wearing and co-sleeping aren't AP necessarily. I think there are values that are easier to achieve by doing those things that are AP. Like physical connection in infancy and early childhood. The need to be held is real, IMO. Gentle sleep solutions, IMO, is important. That does not mean that we have to sleep with our kids for a long time. But that we strive for solutions to sleep that are gentle. OP, if you tried Ferber and it seemed humane - maybe it was. Maybe your child was ready to fall asleep on her/his own. I wasn't there and won't judge. I have heard of parents who have different values about sleep letting their child cry to the point of vomiting in their bed. Or crying for long periods of distress. I will go out on limb and say that this is not AP and, IMO, is not good for babies. But, while I do co-sleep, I KNOW that I can get my 3.5 year old to sleep in her own bed gently. If I chose to do that, I don't lose any AP points. ;-) 

And as far as boundaries. Oh, my gosh! One of my pet peeves with gentle discipline is this outside (and sometimes inside) view that GD is permissive. It isn't! Permissive parenting is terrible for kids. Firm boundaries are fine, GOOD! As is being real and authentic with our kids. Parents having real emotions is necessary for our kids to see. I have two daughters. They absolutely need to see me be a well-rounded, authentic woman.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

MichelleZB said:


> I'm a working mom and breastfed and baby wore and did that stuff. My husband and I don't have a lot of money and a lot of things we did for practicality reasons, like cloth diapering. Rather than finding them oppressive, we found them cheap. And cheap was good.
> 
> As for balancing work and parenting, I think it's a distraction to say that a certain parenting philosophy is oppressive of women. The parenting style isn't the point. Ultimately, feminism doesn't care whether you fed your kid the organic carrots or not. *The point is that society and workplaces should be making accommodations to parents during their children's young years; that is the feminist thing to do.* Because women--even moms!--have beautiful minds and productive spirits and have useful things to contribute to society besides parenting, and they have to be able to work if they want to or need to. Workplaces should be made to accommodate that.
> 
> ...


Agreed! Especially with the bolded.


----------



## sewchris2642 (Feb 28, 2009)

More thoughts: AP isn't a one-size-fits-all how-to parenting instructions. It's a set of guidelines that lets parents tailor their parenting to each of their children. One of my children slept in our bed until age 2 and in our room until age 4 and nursed for over two years. Another of our children went to a crib in her own room when she was 4 months old and quit nursing at 9 months. I listened to them instead of insisting that they followed the "rules" set up by someone who had never met them.


----------



## muddie (Nov 10, 2014)

This book (Love at Goon Park) is a good one to see how much the pendulum swung against attachment during the first half of the 20th century:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004Z2NQDM?btkr=1

It may be true that all the AP practices that are in vogue now are not necessary to insure a child's well being, but there was a definite scientifically verifiable need for a movement toward attachment in the 20th Century.

And, at the other extreme of the pendulum:



> Since the 1990s there have been a number of prosecutions for deaths or serious maltreatment of children at the hands of "attachment therapists" or parents following their instructions. Two of the most well-known cases are those of Candace Newmaker in 2000 and the Gravelles in 2003.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_therapy


----------



## Viola (Feb 1, 2002)

But attachment therapy is different from attachment parenting. I get that attachment theory may give rise to both, but I think what a lot of people are calling Attachment Parenting is just a more instinctual type of parenting that is a counterpart to being detached from your infants, toddlers and children for many hours a day.


----------



## MyFillingQuiver (Sep 7, 2009)

Viola said:


> But attachment therapy is different from attachment parenting. I get that attachment theory may give rise to both, but I think what a lot of people are calling Attachment Parenting is just a more instinctual type of parenting that is a counterpart to being detached from your infants, toddlers and children for many hours a day.


Exactly! I think a lot of times, if we dropped the labels, we'd be a lot more comfortable in our own skin as parents. I do think that the labels have arisen much in the last generation with the internet and parents utilizing more "experts" than necessarily family member advice/tradition. Since they seek advice or opinion/guidance, there has to be some label in which they can more closely connect.

I consider myself very AP..yet I don't necessarily "do" or "not do" some things that other AP parents may do or not do. I also have learned what is best for us and have gained confidence. Much of that came through not comparing myself as our situation will never be the same as another family experience.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Jut in case there was any confusion, attachment parenting doesnt cause death.


----------



## muddie (Nov 10, 2014)

Sears recommends "holding therapy". He claims some kids "need" the holding approach. But he warns:



> Avoid forceful restraint. If holding makes your child furious and escalates the tantrum, loosen your hold or quit holding. Your child needs support, not anger. (Forcefully holding onto your child when your child needs to release from you is controlling too much.)


http://www.askdrsears.com/topics/pa...viors/temper-tantrums/helping-toddlers-handle

Holding may or may not be corporal punishment, but it is certainly a corporal procedure. "corporal" means bodily. Parents need to be careful with corporal procedures. Forcing an uncooperative kid to sit in time out is also a corporal procedure and there has been at least one publicly reported injury to a kid from that. And, excessive spanking is responsible for a few deaths. Candace Newmaker's death was caused by a very excessive form of holding therapy.


----------



## blessedwithboys (Dec 8, 2004)

From Dr sears site:


"Feel your way through the tantrum
Avoid forceful restraint. If holding makes your child furious and escalates the tantrum, loosen your hold or quit holding. Your child needs support, not anger. (Forcefully holding onto your child when your child needs to release from you is controlling too much.)"


He is referring to a typical 2yo's melt down, not a child scarred by reactive attachment disorder. I assure you that in 20 yrs of APing 2 kids, never once have I left them wrapped in a blanket covered in their own excrement.


----------



## blessedwithboys (Dec 8, 2004)

Also, from Wikipedia (fwiw):

*This form of treatment differs significantly from *evidence-based attachment-based therapies, talking psychotherapies such as attachment-based psychotherapy and relational psychoanalysis or *the form of attachment parenting advocated by the pediatrician William Sears*. Further, the form of rebirthing sometimes used within attachment therapy differs from Rebirthing-Breathwork.

Emphasis mine


----------



## muddie (Nov 10, 2014)

The American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC) says "attachment parenting techniques...involving...psychologically and physically enforced holding...should not be used"

http://www.cebc4cw.org/topic/attachment-interventions-child-adolescent/

Now, Dr. Sears puts a nice spin on his holding therapy: "Other times, when they have lost control, they want someone bigger and wiser to take hold of them lovingly and securely take charge. Try: "You're angry and I'm going to hold you until you get control of yourself because I love you." Soon the tantrum will fizzle and you will feel your *flailing child* melt into your arms as if thanking you for rescuing him from himself." (emphasis mine), but holding a flailing child this way and saying the things he says to say is psychologically and physically enforced holding.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

You dont know what you are talking about. Forced anything, isnt an attachment parenting principle despite the paragragh you quoted.

Your posts are deliberately inflammatory and woefully ignorant.
....and basically really annoying.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

blessedwithboys said:


> Also, from Wikipedia (fwiw):
> 
> *This form of treatment differs significantly from *evidence-based attachment-based therapies, talking psychotherapies such as attachment-based psychotherapy and relational psychoanalysis or *the form of attachment parenting advocated by the pediatrician William Sears*. Further, the form of rebirthing sometimes used within attachment therapy differs from Rebirthing-Breathwork.
> 
> Emphasis mine


I wanted your message at the bottom of your posts to be included in the quote,-IE, bring back the old MDC alright!!!

What now, AP causes death and involves forced holding?! Now its abuse?

Please please, bring back the old mdc :crying:


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

muddie said:


> The American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC) says "attachment parenting techniques...involving...psychologically and physically enforced holding...should not be used"
> 
> http://www.cebc4cw.org/topic/attachment-interventions-child-adolescent/
> 
> Now, Dr. Sears puts a nice spin on his holding therapy: "Other times, when they have lost control, they want someone bigger and wiser to take hold of them lovingly and securely take charge. Try: "You're angry and I'm going to hold you until you get control of yourself because I love you." Soon the tantrum will fizzle and you will feel your *flailing child* melt into your arms as if thanking you for rescuing him from himself." (emphasis mine), but holding a flailing child this way and saying the things he says to say is psychologically and physically enforced holding.


I absolutely agree with your link but not your connection with Sears (who is no great love of mine, btw), which (to repeat) mentions this: "Avoid forceful restraint. If holding makes your child furious and escalates the tantrum, loosen your hold or quit holding. Your child needs support, not anger. (Forcefully holding onto your child when your child needs to release from you is controlling too much.)"

http://www.askdrsears.com/topics/pa...viors/temper-tantrums/helping-toddlers-handle

I do think it wise to address holding therapy within the context of Attachment Parenting (again, different from Attachment Therapy!) because one can see the advice from Sears taken out of context and used to a tragic end. Still, that seems a bit off topic (and perhaps a bit off target too).

In the end, this goes to demonstrate that we shouldn't make gurus or dogmas out of any of this.


----------



## Polliwog (Oct 29, 2006)

Attachment, and holding, therapy is for children from traumatic backgrounds.


----------



## blessedwithboys (Dec 8, 2004)

Polliwog said:


> Attachment, and holding, therapy is for children from traumatic backgrounds.


Here's an example:

http://www.interactingwithautism.com/section/understanding/media/representations/details/31

I'm not at all familiar with the website. It came up in a Google search. But I remembered this movie from when I was a kid and recall even then being slightly horrified with "rage reduction" holding therapy.

I attachment parented two boys, one who is now grown and out of college. I held them through more tantrums than I could ever possibly count. I also allowed them to experience some tantrums on their own, with me nearby but not in actual physical contact. But at no time did I ever forcibly pin my child down, stuff them in a box, or roll them in blanket burritos.

(Disclaimer: I totally just lied there. I once used every ounce of strength I had to keep my up-til-then-undiagnosed manic/borderline psychotic 8yo from leaping out a fourth floor window. And when he was 3-4yo, we used to roll him a comforter for prope-therapy but I always left his head mostly uncovered. :wink)


----------



## muddie (Nov 10, 2014)

"Holding therapy is based on the erroneous notion that autism is a disorder of attachment caused by a parent's failure to bond with their child. In a holding therapy session, a caregiver physically restrains a child with autism in order to force eye contact and repair attachment. This treatment has been deemed ineffective and dangerous. There is no scientific evidence suggesting that holding therapy works and fatalities have resulted from its use."

http://www.autismsciencefoundation....iagnosis/beware-non-evidence-based-treatments


----------



## blessedwithboys (Dec 8, 2004)

Hey muddie, what is the point of the quote you posted?

No one here is advocating this form of "therapy". We are simply pointing out that attachment parenting and attachment therapy are not the same thing.

Gentle proprioceptive input can soothe a tantruming toddler. This is not abuse.

I think maybe you just don't know anything about attachment parenting and so you are confused.

What are the ages of your kids? What techniques have you used to calm tantruming toddlers?


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

blessedwithboys said:


> Hey muddie, what is the point of the quote you posted?
> 
> No one here is advocating this form of "therapy". We are simply pointing out that attachment parenting and attachment therapy are not the same thing.
> 
> ...


I think you are right. She doesnt know much at all about this subject. After reading a few of her posts in different places (they've been popping up around the place), im getting a mental picture of a first year student playing around with concepts from a text book without much context, maybe even a high school student....

If im wrong,,youre last two questions are good ones.


----------



## muddie (Nov 10, 2014)

I ignore tantrums. I get up and walk away from them. It's known to be a proven method and it works well for me. Many parents seem to be amazingly ignorant about what works in parenting. Worst than that, many will not even try the proven methods when they learn about them.


If the tantrum were truly harmful, rather than just a lot of harmless noise and movement, I'd try a different proven method since I could not merely ignore them, but that has never happened in my family.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

muddie said:


> I ignore tantrums. I get up and walk away from them. It's known to be a proven method and it works well for me. Many parents seem to be amazingly ignorant about what works in parenting. Worst than that, many will not even try the proven methods when they learn about them.
> 
> If the tantrum were truly harmful, rather than just a lot of harmless noise and movement, I'd try a different proven method since I could not merely ignore them, but that has never happened in my family.


:scratch

Is this meant to be posted to this thread?


----------



## Polliwog (Oct 29, 2006)

muddie said:


> I ignore tantrums. I get up and walk away from them. It's known to be a proven method and it works well for me. Many parents seem to be amazingly ignorant about what works in parenting. Worst than that, many will not even try the proven methods when they learn about them.
> 
> If the tantrum were truly harmful, rather than just a lot of harmless noise and movement, I'd try a different proven method since I could not merely ignore them, but that has never happened in my family.


Lots of methods are "proven" to work. Different kids often need different strategies.


----------



## muddie (Nov 10, 2014)

IdentityCrisisMama said:


> :scratch
> 
> Is this meant to be posted to this thread?


blessedwithboys asked me:

"What techniques have you used to calm tantruming toddlers?"

So I was answering that question about the technique that I used to prevent tantrums with my kids. I used it early for prevention, but it can also be used to do a turn-around.


----------



## itzj (Sep 17, 2008)

I don't view it as oppressive. I view it as what do my babies and children need. What do I want to give them, what do I want them to pass on to the rest of the world. For me those answers revolve around peace, gentleness, respectful giving relationships, care for the earth and all creatures around them. It is a big order to fill and one that our culture does not do well at all which means I am going to have to take on a much bigger load. It's hard, really hard, but I just can't do it the other way.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

muddie said:


> blessedwithboys asked me:
> 
> "What techniques have you used to calm tantruming toddlers?"
> 
> So I was answering that question about the technique that I used to prevent tantrums with my kids. I used it early for prevention, but it can also be used to do a turn-around.


Oh, sorry. I didn't see that. I rarely actively ignore my kids - feels cold but I am conscious of what sorts of energy I put towards certain things. I will say that I had one child that RARELY (like twice!) tantrum-ed and she got the "best of me" in terms of traditional AP. Whether that was temperament or parenting is too hard to tell. My younger does tantrum but I've got to say that what she's telling me is that she's had a crap day (not enough attention, too much TV/unhealthy foods, to much "in a minute", not enough out-door play". If ignoring stops a child from telling us what they need I would say it most def. doesn't "work". I haven't seen a tantrum that seemed totally the child's problem, to be solved by ignoring, to be honest.


----------



## muddie (Nov 10, 2014)

IdentityCrisisMama said:


> Oh, sorry. I didn't see that. I rarely actively ignore my kids - feels cold but I am conscious of what sorts of energy I put towards certain things. I will say that I had one child that RARELY (like twice!) tantrum-ed and she got the "best of me" in terms of traditional AP. Whether that was temperament or parenting is too hard to tell. My younger does tantrum but I've got to say that what she's telling me is that she's had a crap day (not enough attention, too much TV/unhealthy foods, to much "in a minute", not enough out-door play". If ignoring stops a child from telling us what they need I would say it most def. doesn't "work". I haven't seen a tantrum that seemed totally the child's problem, to be solved by ignoring, to be honest.


One does also need to give kid's attention when they are not tantruming, and out-door play, in addition to ignoring the tantrums.

I don't think a tantrum is typically a child's problem. It's almost always a situation where the parent is unwittingly training the child to tantrum for hugs and holding for instance. The parent is the problem, that's why the parent needs to change.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

muddie said:


> I don't think a tantrum is typically a child's problem. It's almost always a situation where the parent is unwittingly training the child to tantrum for hugs and holding for instance.


I think you have said something similar before and I think I said that this is not my observation. It may well be a regional thing or something (though I have lived on two coasts of the US and in Europe). My observation is that tantrums seem to be largely temperament and development related and unmet needs (poor prevention), and other environmental conditions, moreso than caused by parent training. If you are observing the opposite I understand your passion for the subject.

Though I will say that I don't know too many people who force their kids to tantrum for more holding or hugs. Rather these are given freely on an as-need basis. (ETA: AP [to bring us back to the OP] certainly acknowledges the need for affection but so do many other parenting styles). I would say that the core of the problem you are seeing is that the child is not getting enough affection. It's not that the child has resorted to tantrums to meet her/his needs. The focus of the parent in this case is to figure out how to meet needs - not to figure out how to end the tantrum. That's why I put "works" in quotes. "Works" to stop the tantrum? Or "works" to meet a child's needs. This is where behaviorism falls short, IMO.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

IdentityCrisisMama said:


> My observation is that tantrums seem to be largely temperament and development related and unmet needs (poor prevention), and other environmental conditions, more so than caused by parent training.
> .............
> 
> It's not that the child has resorted to tantrums to meet her/his needs. The focus of the parent in this case is to figure out how to meet needs - not to figure out how to end the tantrum. IMO.


Thankyou for putting this so well. Systematically ignoring tantrums as a method of parenting, crying it out to sleep train-similar.
Seeing parents as 'training' children, training dogs, similar.

What they both have in common, is that they are not attachment parenting. Muddie, it sounds like you are an experienced mother after all. Read up on attachment parenting before criticizing it without understanding it, because it takes the thread in directions that arent relevant.

As far as the OPs question is concerned, "mothers are to be seen and nor heard' so to speak. I think that AP advocates for balance as central principle. Of course your needs matter! There are challenges at first to a model that emphasizes the important of needs to everyone in the family, rather than the importance of control. I dont disagree that control is a necessary tool too, but needs come first. Well, because they are needs, and everyone in this planet has the same universal needs.

So your needs matter too.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

contactmaya said:


> There are challenges at first to a model that emphasizes the important of needs to everyone in the family, rather than the importance of control. I dont disagree that control is a necessary tool too, but needs come first. Well, because they are needs, and everyone in this planet has the same universal needs.
> 
> So your needs matter too.


Yes. While I don't relate too much to the issue of control (it's just not something I see all that much of, no comment on how much of a need for that there is in reality), I do relate to the idea that how we address the needs of our children being a wonderful extension from how we ourselves want to be treated AND an extension to how we treat the rest of the world.

As an adult, if I am behaving badly (it has been known to happen :blush), I would appreciate my loved ones to address the core issues I'm having rather than focus on my outward behavior. I liken that to the comment about tantrums for hugs and holding being addressed by ignoring. If my partner or kids did that to me I would be livid!

That is not to say that we can always understand the reason behind behavior or that we can always "give in" to whatever need or want is underneath a behavior. No, but that we get to that core and address it from there.

And that may well be where Muddie is coming from - but she/he is just kind of focused on the end of the chain of events whereas many of us tend to focus on the underlying issues. And why is that? Perhaps because Muddie's life experience tells her/him that this is where the main disconnect is in the families in her/his community.

But that's NOT where the main disconnect seems to be in mine. To the contrary, it seems many parents are trying hard to address behavior (and ignoring seems to be a rather common technique) and forget too often to address underlying issues.

And to get it back to the OP, that's because it's a littler more labor intensive AT FIRST. But it's not (IME) more labor intensive as kids get older. Kids who are attended to at the level of their basic needs and basic problems learn how to self-regulate earlier. They learn how to have their needs met. They learn that life is so much nicer when everyone is happy. But that has to be modeled. I proudly model my need for my own space, my own interests and work, help around the house, and etc.

One of the best things I learned from an off-shoot of GD called "Taking Children Seriously" is this idea that we need to strive for mutually agreeable solutions - not compromise. If you are creative (and reasonably well supported!) it can be a game-changer to think of family life as this creative space with which to meet everyone's needs. Doesn't mean that there aren't still rough patches but it's worked pretty well for us.


----------



## muddie (Nov 10, 2014)

IdentityCrisisMama said:


> That's why I put "works" in quotes. "Works" to stop the tantrum? Or "works" to meet a child's needs. This is where behaviorism falls short, IMO.


One interesting problem is: What works with a parent who is philosophically against doing what works? Perhaps a con artist who can couch what works in some kind of convincing jargon while demonizing the very notion of merely doing what works. But more often it's a confused parenting guru who does what amounts to the same thing.


----------



## lauren (Nov 20, 2001)

Ignoring can extinguish a behavior, but not a need.

Here is an example. There is a type of tantrum borne of need. A hungry, tired child may have a tantrum because s/he has reached her wit's end and has no more coping reservoir. This is a very different child than a child who has become defiant as a result of poor parenting. If you ignore the hungry tired child (who you have astutely observed is hungry and tired) you will have a very distraught child on your hands indeed. There is another tantrum called a spillover tantrum-- a child who for example has sensory sensitivities and has reached overload. If you ignore that tantrum you will create a much bigger problem. A calm and attuned parent usually knows which type of tantrum the child is having. One size does not fit all. It makes a whole lot more sense to feed the hungry child than ignore him/her, or to reduce sensory stimulation on the overly stimulated child. You get the same result--end of tantrum--and your child feels heard instead of ignored. 

When the child is calm and receptive you can teach some additional skills about how to get your needs met without a tantrum. Or the child will just get older and learn how to do this through maturation or going to the refrigerator, turning down the lights, etc. 

My two cents.


----------



## muddie (Nov 10, 2014)

That's similar to Dr. Sears recommendation:

If you feel the child is throwing a fit to get his own way: "You send a clear message when you ignore his fits or walk away."

"Frustration toddler tantrums, on the other hand, require empathy. Take these emotional outbursts as an opportunity to bond with your child. Offer a helping hand, a comforting "it's okay.""

http://www.askdrsears.com/topics/pa...me-behaviors/temper-tantrums/toddler-tantrums

Of course, some parents are dead-set against ignoring because they think everything represents a need or they think it's evil behaviorism.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Every behavior is motivated by a need. As a parent, i think that. The model you are offering is based on different idea, not attachment parenting though. Behaviorialism/dog training perhaps. (behavioralism isnt evil but isnt ideal parenting either)

Are we supposed to be having discussions on this website that weigh the pros and cons of dog training/behavioralist methods versus attachment parenting? And by someone who doesnt really understand or seek to understand AP, except by some isolated quotes from Dr Sears, who doesnt represent the full spectrum of AP anyway?

Mods?

In any case, when it comes to early childhood parenting, I have found in my own personal experience, that some of the AP choices appear harder at first, but become easier down the road. They may appear to have good results in the short term, but at a cost in the long term. The same goes for ignoring tantrums-maybe it might work for your child, who has a temperamant that gives up more easily than another child. But there is a cost in the long term-if his/her need goes unmet, it will seek other ways to come out, maybe in risky adolescent behaviors.

I have found that my son has less tantrums, and is generally happier, when he doesn't eat gluten. Certainly, he has a basic physical need to be free of gluten. Ignoring his tantrums wouldn't have even worked in the short term for him.

I figure, its harder to try and find and meet the need, than to just ignore a tantrum. But only easy in the short term. If my ultimate value is to nurture the relationship with the child, to nurture her well being, and for her to feel that her needs matter (and by corollary, the needs of others), if i also go by the motto to do unto others as you would do unto yourself, (and someone ignoring my emotional outburst would really anger me more), so, i would attempt not to ignore a tantrum, even if that worked.

What works in the short term, is not necessarily good parenting.


----------



## lauren (Nov 20, 2001)

I'm not sure that Muddie is advocating a strict behaviorism/dog training approach; at least that's not my read on it. 

I think it is o.k. to question some methods which is also the main issue the OP brought here. I don't think anyone is trying to throw a whole method under the bus.

I'd be happy to have admins take a look if needed. It seems the discussion is staying civil and there is still good dialogue going on. Perhaps Muddie is also getting some different ideas by looking at the balance between behavioral strategies and attuned parenting.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

I totally agree its ok to have a discussion on methods/aspects of AP, in the way that the OP started the discussion. A heartfelt question, and i am the same way-constantly re evaluating. But I find muddie's response lacking in respect for AP in general, demonstrating instead an indifferent, dismissive tone and by extension the same tone towards those who practise it. It is one thing not to know much about AP but to dismiss it without having much of a clue shows to me there is a different agenda. (to confuse AP with attachment therapy gave this away) The agenda is not one of having an honest, heartful discussion on AP, and its strengths and limitations, but just to dismiss it, and backwardly insult those on this website-my take.

Thanks for listening.


----------



## lauren (Nov 20, 2001)

Ok, I hear you.

Muddie can you engage in this discussion, especially in response to the OP, in a way that helps others feel you are part of a genuine community, seeking to be engaged and learn from one another respectfully?

Other members are feeling as though your posts are here to perhaps instigate or inflame the discussion. Only you know your motives for being here, and if you aren't interested in the type of discussion we're hosting, you can remove yourself.


----------



## muddie (Nov 10, 2014)

The problem with relying totally on behaviorism is that this ignores the higher cognitive capabilities of human. Also behaviorism nothing more than motivation (or demotivation), but skills training (for instance) can be important. Motivation is not the solution to all problems. Lack of motivation may not be the key issue. Motivation will not work to solve all problems.

There are also problems with trying to avoid behaviorism in parenting. The most common problem is that parents often unwittingly condition their children to engage in problem behaviors. If a parent in this situation denies behaviorism then the are sure to never grasp the cause of the problem. This does not happen to any great extent with all kids, but it happens in many cases and it can be a serious problem. In this situation, it is at least important to get he parent to back off and stop his/her counter-productive behavior.


----------



## lauren (Nov 20, 2001)

So in the way you are presenting it there, we 'strengthen' the behaviors that we attend to. We 'weaken' the behaviors that we do not give our energy to. Is that right? So are you saying that some parents unwittingly strengthen negative behaviors by reinforcing them and that people shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water and ignore these types of concepts?


----------



## muddie (Nov 10, 2014)

lauren said:


> So in the way you are presenting it there, we 'strengthen' the behaviors that we attend to. We 'weaken' the behaviors that we do not give our energy to. Is that right? So are you saying that some parents unwittingly strengthen negative behaviors by reinforcing them and that people shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water and ignore these types of concepts?


Yes, every parent should be aware of this possibility, and at least consider this possibility when they have a conduct issue.

Note that this alone is not an active attempt to try to use behaviorism to condition one's child. I think it's possible that at least some parents would never have any need to deliberately use behaviorism to to motivate their child. The kids might have sufficient motivation without it, at least that's my impression. I think it's a reasonable policy to only use it deliberately when more preferred methods are not working well enough.


----------



## lauren (Nov 20, 2001)

How many children do you have Muddie and what has worked with them? Have you used Attachment based practices?


----------



## muddie (Nov 10, 2014)

We have 2 children. In terms of what worked, perhaps the prevention methods that I learned while working at a day care before I had any kids, methods shown to work in randomized controlled trials. Anyway, something worked, maybe they were just easy kids, I think it's too small a sample to draw conclusions about what worked. We have used Attachment based practices.


----------



## muddie (Nov 10, 2014)

contactmaya said:


> Every behavior is motivated by a need. As a parent, i think that. The model you are offering is based on different idea, not attachment parenting though. Behaviorialism/dog training perhaps. (behavioralism isnt evil but isnt ideal parenting either)
> 
> Are we supposed to be having discussions on this website that weigh the pros and cons of dog training/behavioralist methods versus attachment parenting? And by someone who doesnt really understand or seek to understand AP, except by some isolated quotes from Dr Sears, who doesnt represent the full spectrum of AP anyway?


Dr. William Sears _invented_ AP, and he recommends ignoring tantrums.

I should mention that it works fast. Some of you probably think that I am talking about some some long drawn out process that you will be struggling with for months. In general, the most effective methods work fast. If they don't work fast, then you should try something else.

Ignoring tantrums (or any harmless behavior) typically causes the targeted behavior start decreasing within 4 days and be eliminated or almost eliminated within 2 weeks. At first, the behavior may get worse and/or more variable.


----------



## muddie (Nov 10, 2014)

contactmaya said:


> The model you are offering is based on different idea, not attachment parenting though. Behaviorialism/dog training perhaps.


The model you are offering is based on Attachment Theory/animal studies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bowlby#Ethology_and_evolutionary_concepts

Not that there is anything wrong with that.


----------



## luckiest (Apr 29, 2009)

Correct me if I'm wrong - I'm seeing quite a bit of more behaviorism-esque talk on these boards, especially this specific "ignore the tantrum" advice, and it seems like the posters advocating it are pointing to Kazdin's book. Which I have not read, so I'm not sure how much I can comment on it, since my understanding of it is limited to second hand explanations. 

I keep coming back to what other posters have brought up - okay, it's proven to work. To what end? Just to stop the behavior, or to help them regulate their emotions, become more functional adults? If it's just proven to work to end tantrums, then I'm not interested, because I've chosen to take a long-view approach to parenting. So the studies I'm interested in, what "works" is what's going to be most likely to result an emotionally literate, content, secure, happy adult. And I haven't seen anything that makes me believe that leaving the room and isolating the child during a tantrum would serve that end. It sends the message that they're on their own with their emotions, that their emotions are unwelcome, that emotional expression is bad, etc. I want a teen who won't hesitate to share their emotions and problems with me, rather than keeping it from me because I've conditioned them to believe, from toddlerhood, that I don't want to hear it. 

That being said, context is HUGE in any parenting discussion. Kids are all different, even the same kid has different needs at different ages and stages. I especially feel like this kind of tantrum ignoring is inappropriate for young toddlers, who likely don't understand why they are being left alone, and when their abandonment fear is so huge. I imagine this method "works" so well because toddlers will quickly learn to do literally anything to avoid the panic of being abandoned by their parent. 

At the moment, I actually do a fair amount of tantrum ignoring. DS is now four, has always been very spirited and persistent. We're really good at preventative maintenance now, so full scale tantrums are rare. Crying while asking the same question over and over after being told no, however...so yeah, even though he has *always* had boundaries (staying connected through a tantrum does not mean you've given into the demand that began it), my response now has evolved from staying very physically close (usually DS didn't want contact so is just stay near) and sort of coaching him through it (reflecting, empathizing), now I just do a pretty quick "that's disappointing" or whatever, then kind of go about my business. Maybe a gentle reminder that I have already answered his question, and the answer was no. But other than that, I do my best to stay (or at least act) unaffected. He's never punished for crying (isolation equals punishment for his temperament, that's inarguable), and he's also not getting what he asked for just because he asked ten thousand times. If I can identify an underlying issue, I do it after he's calm again. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## salr (Apr 14, 2008)

Luckiest, it was helpful to read your account of what you have done/ do for tantrums and how and when that changed. I think the transitions are hard...I mean for me! ...the transitions from one age bracket to another. Like I find it so easy to care for a baby who just has needs. But then it gets so much more complicated.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

muddie said:


> The model you are offering is based on Attachment Theory/animal studies:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bowlby#Ethology_and_evolutionary_concepts
> 
> Not that there is anything wrong with that.


There are so many different writers on the subject of attachment parenting. Bowlby and Sears are the bare minimum. Personally i get my influences from writers like Aldort, Pam Leo, Laura Markham, NVC and plenty of times from other parents/mothers on this site/irl and other sites.... I have to admit, less and less so from this site....

Alot of the time, i just have to figure it out myself.... children are so different, and there are always new challenges, that require new solutions. Thinking outside the box is a good thing.

Ive heard your argument many times before though, and i just dont find it helpful when it comes to my parenting.

Sometimes ignoring a tantrum may be the only solution when you've tried everything else, all the while looking for what the true need behind the tantrum is. You can talk about training, habits, rules, and so on and they all have their place. In our family, the habit is to read before bed-if you want you could say that my kids have been 'trained' to expect that, and so have I. Habits are certainly part of the way humans operate.

The concept of training only gets you so far when applied to parenting, which is a relationship with another person, as much as a leadership and nurturing role.


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

contactmaya said:


> Alot of the time, i just have to figure it out myself.... children are so different, and there are always new challenges, that require new solutions. Thinking outside the box is a good thing.


I agree. I think that as parents, we have to try to read the situation with the specific child as well as possible, and then make judgment calls. I think that sometimes, in some situations, ignoring undesired behavior can be an overall effective strategy -- when a parent is really sure that the kid's needs are really being met, and that the behavior is just an experiment to see what will happen.

But, in order for that to be true, the parent has to really examine whether or not that specific child's needs really are being met. I'm glad that I didn't ignore my oldest DD's tantrums when she was little, but looked for patterns, and accepted that they meant something. She was eventually diagnosed with autism, and a lot of her tantrums were related to sensory integration problems she has that are part of being on the autism spectrum. I'm glad that I worked to figure her and her triggers out before she had labels and experts confirmed that her needs are different than *most* kids. She is now well adjusted and happy with herself, and while there are lots of things that went into that, I'm sure that accepting her tantrums as a form of communication helped.


----------



## lauren (Nov 20, 2001)

Kazdin's methods are evidence based and effective particularly for a certain type of child--a noncompliant child who has learned to run circles around his/her parent. This is a type of child. Kazdin's methods are very effective for a child who has learned to sort of willfully not comply with the caregivers in his life. This is not the majority of children.


----------



## Viola P (Sep 14, 2013)

OP here. I left this discussion and just came back, surprised to see how long it is. When i wrote the original post I was in a dark place, working two intense jobs, feeling pretty resentful that I had these beautiful babies at home that i couldn't spend a lot of time with. And when i was home i was so burnt out that I had very little patience for them, which is not at all how i parent under less stressful circumstances. So, all of that is to say, that deep down i do really like most of what AP has to say. And in reality AP values are often values that i share. But I do think that there are some issues with it, like it's kind of exclusive in that doing the Bs (for example), is far far easier as a SAHM compared wiht someone who works outside the home, maybe at several jobs. So there is a class element to this, yk? There really is. Because what is pretty easy for one person to do can be pretty darn difficult for another, even if both would equally like to parent in the same way and have similar values. But I do agree that this isn't a problem with attachment theory per se, but more a problem that our society doesn't value or support families enough. Then again i think those who are in the (privileged) position of getting to practice all those AP things and mother in a way that is fulfilling to them wihtout losing their shelter might have some kind of moral obligation (a small one maybe, but still perhaps something) to advocate for greater equality so that all families can have those options. Also, as a feminist it is weird to me that Dr. Sears revers to a pretty high degree the traditional view of what a mother should be, but maybe i'm just being sexist.


----------



## muddie (Nov 10, 2014)

luckiest said:


> At the moment, I actually do a fair amount of tantrum ignoring. DS is now four, has always been very spirited and persistent. We're really good at preventative maintenance now, so full scale tantrums are rare. Crying while asking the same question over and over after being told no, however...so yeah, even though he has *always* had boundaries (staying connected through a tantrum does not mean you've given into the demand that began it), my response now has evolved from staying very physically close (usually DS didn't want contact so is just stay near) and sort of coaching him through it (reflecting, empathizing), now I just do a pretty quick "that's disappointing" or whatever, then kind of go about my business. Maybe a gentle reminder that I have already answered his question, and the answer was no. But other than that, I do my best to stay (or at least act) unaffected. He's never punished for crying (isolation equals punishment for his temperament, that's inarguable), and he's also not getting what he asked for just because he asked ten thousand times. If I can identify an underlying issue, I do it after he's calm again.


I agree that walking away and leaving the room is not always necessary. I don't recall ever walking away and leaving the room with my kids. I usually just use tactical ignoring. And tactical ignoring is not really ignoring because you are suppose to listen and/or watch out of the corner of your eye, you actually have your attention focused on the kid so you can react to improvements in the kid's behavior.

Instead of saying that's "that's disappointing", I'd probably just go about my business without saying anything. The message that the kid gets might be "that's interesting". I am assuming that you don't comment on all your kid's behaviors, so you are perhaps sending the message that this particular behavior is more interesting than other behaviors that you don't comment on. I personally tend more toward making positive comments about positive behaviors.


----------



## muddie (Nov 10, 2014)

Just want to mention something about Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS), the approach presented in Ross Green's _The Explosive Child_. It's not behaviorism, it's even arguably anti-behaviorism. It's evidence-based in that it has performed well in randomized controlled trials.

In CPS, you have two choices as to how to respond to a tantrum:

1. Plan B: Engage in problem solving, but not in the heat of the moment while the tantrum is in progress. Avoid reactive problem solving.

2. Plan C: Put tantrums on the back burner so you can focus on some more important problems. Stop trying to solve the problem for now.

Now, he does not come out and say "ignore tanturms", but his approach accomplishes the same goal of avoiding counter-productive reactions to unwanted behaviors.

There are two good CPS web sites, the two originators of CPS are fighting in court over ownership of the term CPS:

Green's site:

http://www.livesinthebalance.org/

MA General Hospital site:

http://thinkkids.org/


----------



## luckiest (Apr 29, 2009)

It's really interesting to hear these other perspectives, muddie - I'm actually less inclined to comment on positive behavior because I feel like I'm sending the message of - "oh, I wouldn't have expected you to act that way, it's worthy of a comment." Rather than just assuming that he will act positively, therefore it's not worthy of comment. 

The "that's disappointing" (or similar) type comment, to me is part of emotional coaching, giving him the words to what he's feeling, so that eventually the words will replace (or accompany, at least) the outburst. And that's just basic emotional literacy. 

I also always say, during a meltdown, "I hear you," and maybe, "I'm sorry you don't like my answer to your question," because I can only imagine how infuriating it would be if I were pouring my heart out to my husband and he just sat there with no comment at all, or continued cleaning the kitchen without so much as a "I hear your frustration." I would eventually just shut down, because what's the point of crying if no one is listening to me? But I don't think that that's healthy, personally or interpersonally. How we manage these early conflicts sets the stage for how they will learn to handle conflict as adults. I always try to keep in mind whether I would act this way if I were interacting with an adult (from a broad perspective, I mean - obviously a child is not an adult and you wouldn't use the exact same language, but they are worthy of the same respect). Would I talk to my husband this way? Am I being manipulative? Am I being respectful? And as is becoming more relevant these days - am I teaching my child a tactic that he will use on me later on, and will I like that? All things worth keeping in mind, imo. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## head4thehills (Feb 19, 2014)

Just skimming through these discussions, and I wish I had more time to read in depth because it is all so interesting. I wanted to comment and reflect on some of the earlier posts, but the behaviourism discussion has got me thinking too. I haven't had time to read much on the subject, but managed to learn some of the techniques just by gleaning what I could through MDC forums.
My 4yo d.s. is pretty spirited and willful, though I don't believe he has any serious behavioural issues. But when he begins to tantrum over not getting his way, I have learned to ignore the behaviour without ignoring him. At this age, I find it usually works. After a few minutes of noise-making, he'll usually find something else to do, or try to work out some kind of compromise with me. I'm open to negotiating with him, within reason, because I feel it is a valuable skill for him to learn. It seems to be working for us.
In response to some other aspects of the discussion in this thread, I am a SAHM of two very young children, and I find it's difficult to take care of all of the household duties without additional help, and still have time and energy left over to spend with my children in some quality, engaging activity. I can scarcely imagine what it's like for a working mom to measure up to modern expectations of parenting. I'm in support of the true spirit of AP, but it feels as though something is missing from the equation, when so many families live in isolation from extended family or other forms of support. Even with my parents living close by and available to lend a hand occasionally, I often feel like I'm drowning in housework at home and am too busy to really be there for my children. I often think of how much better things could function in a household with more extended family present to share in the responsibilities, thereby giving the parents just a little more time for their own pursuits. But maybe that's just fantastical thinking!


----------



## muddie (Nov 10, 2014)

luckiest said:


> The "that's disappointing" (or similar) type comment, to me is part of emotional coaching, giving him the words to what he's feeling, so that eventually the words will replace (or accompany, at least) the outburst. And that's just basic emotional literacy.


I misunderstood what you were doing, you are doing emotional coaching. How does the following compare and contrast with your view of how emotional coaching should be done?



> Points to Remember about
> Promoting Your Toddler's Emotion
> Self-regulation Skills
> • Try to understand what your toddler is feeling and wanting.
> ...


The quote is from the book _Incredible Toddlers_:

http://incredibleyears.com/books/incredible-toddlers/


----------



## lauren (Nov 20, 2001)

muddie said:


> I misunderstood what you were doing, you are doing emotional coaching. How does the following compare and contrast with your view of how emotional coaching should be done?


Could you cite the "points to remember about your toddler's self regulation?" (both from a copyright standpoint and because I'm interested to have a look?)

Thanks


----------



## muddie (Nov 10, 2014)

lauren said:


> Could you cite the "points to remember about your toddler's self regulation?" (both from a copyright standpoint and because I'm interested to have a look?)
> 
> Thanks


Opps! did not think about the copyright issue. It's from the book _Incredible Toddlers_:

http://incredibleyears.com/books/incredible-toddlers/

At the bottom of that page, you can download chapter 3 for free. I quoted a summary from page 159 of the book which is page 33 of the pdf.


----------



## luckiest (Apr 29, 2009)

muddie said:


> I misunderstood what you were doing, you are doing emotional coaching. How does the following compare and contrast with your view of how emotional coaching should be done?
> 
> The quote is from the book _Incredible Toddlers_:
> 
> http://incredibleyears.com/books/incredible-toddlers/


I do most, probably not all things on that list. I reflect his emotions with words, model healthy emotional expression. Since I'm coming from a perspective of neutrality and acceptance on his emotions, meaning I don't place a value judgment on them, I don't necessarily make a point to label positive emotions more than negative, though I do both. I also do my best to reflect what I see neutrally, so "praising" would sound more like, "boy that was frustrating, but we were able to find a solution that worked for both of us."

I'm really aware that my attention can be a powerful tool, but my goal is to NOT use it as such. I'm really not into any kind of reward/punishment paradigm, whether the reward is a sticker or my attention, whether the punishment is a manufactured consequence or my attention withdrawal.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Linda on the move said:


> But, in order for that to be true, the parent has to really examine whether or not that specific child's needs really are being met. I'm glad that I didn't ignore my oldest DD's tantrums when she was little, but looked for patterns, and accepted that they meant something. She was eventually diagnosed with autism, and a lot of her tantrums were related to sensory integration problems she has that are part of being on the autism spectrum. .


This is such an important point. It seems to me that when tantrums become such a problem that systematically ignoring them seems like the only option, there is something deeper at stake. I think more often than not, sensory issues, and spectrum issues are behind it. This is more and more common, so worth mentioning. As a parent, i couldnt figure out why my ds would always tantrum about this that or the other, It turned out, eliminating gluten and other triggers solved the problem. (lucky me)


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Happy new year everyone!

Since it is the new year, I thought i would pass along 5 possible new year's resolutions from Laura Markham. What i like about her work, is that it applies to children of any age.

They are- resolve to role model respect, resolve to address the needs and feelings behind the behavior, resolve to stay connected, resolve to regulate your own emotions, and resolve to love the one you're with-ie loving the child exactly as s/he is.

For a more detailed explanation see
_http://www.ahaparenting.com/_blog/P...That_Will_Make_You_a_Better_Parent_This_Year/_

I find the tantrum method outlined above not to be ignoring tantrums per se. In fact, identifying the feeling behind the tantrum is a good start in the NVC process (non violent communication). Identifying the need as well as the feeling is even more powerful is resolving tension. (although not always easy). The part about finding alternative self soothe methods, i have found to be superfluous, since by meeting my children's needs, i found that they were able to soothe themselves easily. I never looked for alternatives. Extended breastfeeding may have helped.

I personally believe that the phrase 'teaching to self soothe' is a way of ignoring a childs need. Self soothing comes with maturity. I dont think its necessary to teach it specifically. Thats my experience.


----------



## KSLaura (Jan 22, 2007)

Viola P said:


> OP here. I left this discussion and just came back, surprised to see how long it is. When i wrote the original post I was in a dark place, working two intense jobs, feeling pretty resentful that I had these beautiful babies at home that i couldn't spend a lot of time with. And when i was home i was so burnt out that I had very little patience for them, which is not at all how i parent under less stressful circumstances. So, all of that is to say, that deep down i do really like most of what AP has to say. And in reality AP values are often values that i share. But I do think that there are some issues with it, like it's kind of exclusive in that doing the Bs (for example), is far far easier as a SAHM compared wiht someone who works outside the home, maybe at several jobs. So there is a class element to this, yk? There really is. Because what is pretty easy for one person to do can be pretty darn difficult for another, even if both would equally like to parent in the same way and have similar values. But I do agree that this isn't a problem with attachment theory per se, but more a problem that our society doesn't value or support families enough. Then again i think those who are in the (privileged) position of getting to practice all those AP things and mother in a way that is fulfilling to them wihtout losing their shelter might have some kind of moral obligation (a small one maybe, but still perhaps something) to advocate for greater equality so that all families can have those options. Also, as a feminist it is weird to me that Dr. Sears revers to a pretty high degree the traditional view of what a mother should be, but maybe i'm just being sexist.


OP--I totally understand where you're coming from. I frequently felt like a second-class AP mom when my kiddos were little and I was working full-time. It is SOOOO much harder to BF, baby-wear, cloth-diaper, etc, when you can't be there 24/7. Society DOES need to fix this. The feminist in me wants to see a parental leave policy similar to Canada and some European countries. One or both parents should be able to spend the newborn baby months without having to worry about a roof over their heads. I will say it gets better as they get older. I feel like I'm on equal footing now that both kids are school-aged. It didn't matter that they had bottles while I was at work. What mattered was that I was there for them when I could be, I gave my love, support, and guidance at every opportunity. So far, they've turned out to be great, empathetic little human beings.

Re-behavioralism and tantrums....eh....ignore them when you have no emotional resources to give, otherwise don't ignore. My 2 cents.


----------



## muddie (Nov 10, 2014)

I thought I would check out Dr. Laura Markham's position on ignoring as a strategy. I know she is admired around here. I found this:



> Should you strategically ignore mouthy behavior, from a toddler or a tween? Never.


http://www.ahaparenting.com/_blog/Parenting_Blog/post/What_to_do_when_your_kid_talks_back/



> Does that mean we should ignore rudeness? Often, in the heat of the moment.


http://www.ahaparenting.com/ask-the-doctor-1/worries-about-14-year-old-rude-emotional?

I personally don't know how to make sense of this apparent contradiction. Perhaps, in her thinking, strategic ignoring means something different from ignoring in the heat of the moment.

Overall, she is consistent in saying that you should discuss it later. And she is consistent that you should not return rudeness with rudeness. But, she seems to me to be inconsistent about what a parent should do as an immediate reaction to rudeness. She says:



> If your child speaks hurtfully to you, calmly confront the behavior and re-set a clear expectation for respectful behavior while staying connected to your child: "Wow, your tone of voice hurts. You must be very upset to speak to me that way. That's not like you. You know I don't speak to you in that tone. Want to tell me what's upsetting you?" Or, if you know already, "I'm hearing that you're very angry at me right now. I hear how much you wish I would say yes to what you're wanting. Let's talk about this when we're both more calm."


I don't see how this is consistent with her _other_ advice to often ignore rudeness in the heat of the moment.


----------



## sewchris2642 (Feb 28, 2009)

muddie said:


> I thought I would check out Dr. Laura Markham's position on ignoring as a strategy. I know she is admired around here. I found this:
> 
> http://www.ahaparenting.com/_blog/Parenting_Blog/post/What_to_do_when_your_kid_talks_back/
> 
> ...


I would be interested i what age of child is talking about in each quote. That would make a difference. So would the reason for the rudeness and what kind of rudeness. As well as when and why ignoring is preferred. And the temperment/personality of the child. There are so many varibles that one quote, let along one book or strategy can't address them all. Which is why I like Dr. Sears' AP. The main point is to know each of your children and respond/parent accordingly.


----------



## One_Girl (Feb 8, 2008)

I don't think mouthiness or snottu tones need to be addressed consistently. My dd is 12 now and sometimes mouthy but I have found this behavior to be similar to tantrums. It is an expression of emotions and needs and I address that aspect without specifically addressing the tone as often as possible.


----------



## muddie (Nov 10, 2014)

sewchris2642 said:


> I would be interested i what age of child is talking about in each quote. That would make a difference. So would the reason for the rudeness and what kind of rudeness. As well as when and why ignoring is preferred. And the temperment/personality of the child. There are so many varibles that one quote, let along one book or strategy can't address them all. Which is why I like Dr. Sears' AP. The main point is to know each of your children and respond/parent accordingly.


I took a look at the context. A consistent interpretation could be often ignore when the conversation is too heated and the kid is over 12, but otherwise never. We are only talking about ignoring in the heat of the moment here.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

http://www.ahaparenting.com/ask-the-doctor-1/discipline-for-defiant-spirited-toddler

I got this in my inbox today,so i thought i would post it. I think the general approach by Markham would be to set limits, but with empathy- ie, articulating the child's emotions t the same time as expressing a limit.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

sewchris2642 said:


> I would be interested i what age of child is talking about in each quote. That would make a difference. So would the reason for the rudeness and what kind of rudeness. As well as when and why ignoring is preferred. And the temperment/personality of the child. There are so many varibles that one quote, let along one book or strategy can't address them all. Which is why I like Dr. Sears' AP. The main point is to know each of your children and respond/parent accordingly.


I agree with this. I tried to like your post, but the icon keeps disappearing....


----------



## cynthiamoon (Nov 29, 2009)

Late to the conversation, but interested in this perspective on "planned ignoring." I personally use it a lot and think it works pretty well on my kid because she is very responsive to this sort of subtle social cue. I see it kind of like time-outs on a micro-level and as part of "natural consequences" parenting. Usually, when you make an ass of yourself, people either fight with you or ignore you. As a parent, you have the added responsibility of explaining and modeling, but keep the option of ignoring, IMO. 

When she started "I wanna" type tantrums at age 14 months or so, she'd lie on the ground and just whine loudly. I'd just say "I'm sorry, but we can't ***" "We are all done." And then ignore her. She did that a handful of times and never again. Usually it was a short tantrum, and only once in an incredibly embarrassing place (art gallery at my alma matter). I just looked at the people nearest us, said "sorry, she just really wants more cookies" and then while making eye-contact with her "but she can't have any more. We are all done." And then ignored her until she calmed down and wanted to get put in the sling again. 

She just started being more defiant again at 17 mos and it usually looks something like this:

During a meal or at the end, looks mischievous, and starts flinging food dramatically and laughing. 

I respond with a calm frown. "No, DD, that's rude. We do not throw food. Please stop." 

She keeps going. "No throwing food. That's rude, and it makes mommy sad." 

Take away the fodder. 

Let her just sit there for a minute while I ignore her and keep eating. 

"Okay, all done! Let's clean up." or "Okay! Do you want more to eat now? No throwing." and give her food back.

I think it's working because she was doing it every meal for a little while, and cackling like a jackal knowing she was being "bad," and now it happens very rarely, only if it's been a long day after poor sleep or something.


----------



## muddie (Nov 10, 2014)

contactmaya said:


> http://www.ahaparenting.com/ask-the-doctor-1/discipline-for-defiant-spirited-toddler
> 
> I got this in my inbox today,so i thought i would post it. I think the general approach by Markham would be to set limits, but with empathy- ie, articulating the child's emotions t the same time as expressing a limit.


Markham's approach does have the advantage of avoiding the coercive cycle where the parent and the kid start yelling at each other (or worse).

Just to make things clear, I make a distinction between setting limits and getting the kid to stay within the limits. Setting limits is relatively easy. You just decide what the limit is. And perhaps you tell the kid what the limit is or even negotiate it with the kid, but that is not always necessary since they may infer it from your behavior.

So, you have set a limit, now how do you react to limit crossings? Markham's approach is to react to limit crossings by lavishing attention on the kid and the kid's limit crossing. She reiterates the limit while showing empathy. Is this necessary as a reaction to all limit crossings? You can reiterate the limit and show empathy at other times.

I think a best approach is to realize that a limit is a boundary around a region of acceptable or good behavior. The parent should focus on taking actions to draw the kid toward the center of this region, well away from the limits. The parent should be careful about how they react to limit crossings.

For instance, most parents want to transition their kids away from whining as they acquire language. One method is to react to whining by looking at the kid and saying "no whining" or "use you words". An alternative method is to progressively stop treating whining as a form of communications. Progressively react less to whining and more to speaking words in a calm voice. Perhaps react to words with "You used your words!" or, better yet, just make it a habit to react to words by giving your polite undivided attention to what you kid has to say.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

For me, the use of empathy, and the addressing of needs that motivate the behavior are crucial. Is it more effective to do this at another time than when the 'whining/tantrum' occurs, or is it more effective to do it while it occurs? As long as it is done in a timely fashion, and depending on the circumstances, then either is possible. I like to think of my child having a legitimate complaint at any time, if she expresses it in a tantrum, that seems completely irrational to me at the time, and seems to have no cause, and no solution, that doesnt mean there isnt a good reason behind it. It just means i havent figured it out. That is my attitude. Ignoring the behavior at that point in time might occur, but i am still thinking about a solution that meets both her need for whatever it was (maybe sleep, attention, autonomy), and my own need for effective parenting and peace and quiet....whatever it might be.


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

muddie said:


> I think a best approach is to realize that a limit is a boundary around a region of acceptable or good behavior. The parent should focus on *taking actions to draw the kid toward the center* of this region, well away from the limits.


I disagree because I think this leads to controlling behavior on the part of the parents. I think that most kids do well with wide margins of what is acceptable, and very clear boundaries of where they end. What you are advocating is aiming at a very narrow margin of what is acceptable, and no clear line for where it ends.

It's like a play ground -- if you put up a good fence so the child stays safe, they can play anywhere they want on the playground. You don't need to try to manipulate them into staying in the center. Behavior is similar -- there are limitless ways to behavior that are just fine, and when kids know where they boundary is, it gives them freedom to explore the whole range of acceptable to figure out what they enjoy, what works for them.


----------



## newmamalizzy (Jul 23, 2010)

Interesting discussion, especially since my kiddo is pretty close to the "defiant child" category. I tend to do exactly what you said in your last post, contactmaya: I stop engaging, but give a lot of thought to the underlying issues and try to address them when things calm down. We often have a do over where I offer her words to use that would work.


----------



## muddie (Nov 10, 2014)

Linda on the move said:


> I disagree because I think this leads to controlling behavior on the part of the parents. I think that most kids do well with wide margins of what is acceptable, and very clear boundaries of where they end. What you are advocating is aiming at a very narrow margin of what is acceptable, and no clear line for where it ends.
> 
> It's like a play ground -- if you put up a good fence so the child stays safe, they can play anywhere they want on the playground. You don't need to try to manipulate them into staying in the center. Behavior is similar -- there are limitless ways to behavior that are just fine, and when kids know where they boundary is, it gives them freedom to explore the whole range of acceptable to figure out what they enjoy, what works for them.


Actually I said "draw the kid toward the center...". I did not mean to imply that the goal was to get the kid to stay at the center. It's just alternative way to encourage a kid to not cross a limit. In general, I agree that a parent should not be a perfectionist and over-controlling.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

newmamalizzy said:


> Interesting discussion, especially since my kiddo is pretty close to the "defiant child" category. I tend to do exactly what you said in your last post, contactmaya: I stop engaging, but give a lot of thought to the underlying issues and try to address them when things calm down. We often have a do over where I offer her words to use that would work.


I like the concept of do over too. I like that parents can have a do over as much as the child. I need a do over plenty of times myself!


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

muddie said:


> Actually I said "draw the kid toward the center...". I did not mean to imply that the goal was to get the kid to stay at the center. It's just alternative way to encourage a kid to not cross a limit. In general, I agree that a parent should not be a perfectionist and over-controlling.


yes -- and I think that "drawing the kid toward the center" would involve micromanaging their behavior without giving them a clear concept of where the boundary is.

Your alternate way is to not provide the child clarity about what is and is not OK by creating a big gray zone, and then giving them feedback (either directly or through subtle manipulation) about how they are managing all the shades of grey and then steer them toward the center.

I didn't do that with my kids. I gave them a ton of freedom, with a few extremely clear boundaries that were 100% enforced.


----------



## lauren (Nov 20, 2001)

Linda on the move said:


> I didn't do that with my kids. I gave them a ton of freedom, with a few extremely clear boundaries that were 100% enforced.


My own opinion is that this approach works with 90% of kids. There is another 10% that needs much more direction, _as well as_ consistent 100% enforcement. Some kids honestly cannot handle the extra freedom when they are younger. When you are working on teaching the basic skills of self-regulation, too much gray/freedom can sabotage the child. Again, IMO.


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

lauren said:


> My own opinion is that this approach works with 90% of kids. There is another 10% that needs much more direction, _as well as_ consistent 100% enforcement. Some kids honestly cannot handle the extra freedom when they are younger. When you are working on teaching the basic skills of self-regulation, too much gray/freedom can sabotage the child. Again, IMO.


I don't think I understand what you are saying. I don't see gray areas and freedom as the same. To me, a behavior is either OK, or it isn't. I'm not into the gray area thing (until the teen years when scaffolding independence is the goal, but this isn't really what this thread is about).

I completely believe in 100% enforcement. Anything less sets kids up to constantly be testing where the boundaries are. That will look different for different kids, but from easy kids to difficult kids, being consistent helps them figure out how to behave.

I think that, overall, my kids are fairly easy, even though one is on the autism spectrum. However, I work with special needs kids, including children with emotional and behavior disorders. The techniques that are most consistently successful for children with intense challenges are constant supervision, very clear rules, 100% consistency, and a system of positive and negative re-enforcers. The need the boundaries to be tighter, and have a smaller area of options. So I agree that some children do not do well with extra freedom.

However, I still maintain that ALL children do best with no grey, and will 100% consistency. The difference is in where you can draw the boundary and how much effort it takes to be consistent, not whether or not it is ideal to have a consistent boundary.

Any amount of grey sets the parent up to be inconsistent.


----------



## muddie (Nov 10, 2014)

Linda on the move said:


> What you are advocating is aiming at a very narrow margin of what is acceptable, and no clear line for where it ends.


Where did you get the idea that I am aiming at a very narrow margin of what is acceptable? I said absolutely nothing about a narrow or wide region of acceptable behavior.


----------



## muddie (Nov 10, 2014)

Linda on the move said:


> I didn't do that with my kids. I gave them a ton of freedom, with a few extremely clear boundaries that were 100% enforced.


How did you enforce the boundaries?


----------



## muddie (Nov 10, 2014)

Linda on the move said:


> I think that, overall, my kids are fairly easy, even though one is on the autism spectrum. However, I work with special needs kids, including children with emotional and behavior disorders. The techniques that are most consistently successful for children with intense challenges are constant supervision, very clear rules, 100% consistency, and a system of positive and negative re-enforcers.


What kind of positive and negative reinforcement methods do you use?


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

muddie said:


> Where did you get the idea that I am aiming at a very narrow margin of what is acceptable? I said absolutely nothing about a narrow or wide region of acceptable behavior.


because of this:



muddie said:


> I think a best approach is to realize that a limit is a boundary around a region of acceptable or good behavior. The parent should focus on taking actions to *draw the kid toward the center of this region*, well away from the limits.


It seems that what you are advocating is attempting to keep the child within a narrow range of acceptable behavior. The "center of acceptable behavior" sounds like a fairly narrow range of behavior to me.



muddie said:


> How did you enforce the boundaries?


It depends on many things -- the personality of the child, the age and understanding, the number of times they had issues with that boundary, the exact situation. I was never one for an all purpose consequence (either positive or negative).

I did things like:


explain the "why,"
 replace problem objects with more acceptable ones or explain what would be an acceptable behavior (instead of fighting over the swing, you can go down the slide)
removed objects that caused problems,
remove my kids from situations (when they were little, if they didn't hold hands in a parking lot I would grab them and carry them),
model the behavior I wanted and give the child a chance to copy (this worked for putting an end to whining)
etc.
But it really depended on the whole situation. I've only given my kids a handful of "time outs" there whole lives, and I never rewarded them for anything.



muddie said:


> What kind of positive and negative reinforcement methods do you use?


 Again -- it depends.

In general -- I think that a lot of kids do great with a basic explanation of why, and knowing that if they do X, mom will put a stop to it (by removing them, removing the object, etc.) Some kids need more -- a lot more. Sometimes it is necessary to really figure out what they are getting out of their behavior and find an alternative way for them to get than same thing but in a more acceptable way. Some kids don't buy into the why's behind any thing and need a reward that really works for them -- something specific.

I think that the easier a child's temperament and the more of a healthy / functional manner in which they've been raised, the less of a need for behaviorist tools. I suspect that most moms who come here and are into AP, GD, etc., are getting the second part of that right, however, some moms have kids who have very difficult temperaments in spite of their parents getting everything they have control over right.

For me, behaviorist tools are more of a last resort when other things haven't worked. I know they work, but to me, it is preferable to use softer, more human tools, to the greatest extent possible.


----------



## muddie (Nov 10, 2014)

> It seems that what you are advocating is attempting to keep the child within a narrow range of acceptable behavior. The "center of acceptable behavior" sounds like a fairly narrow range of behavior to me.


I am not advocating a narrow range. I am just advocating drawing the kid away from the limit as an alternative to chronically reacting to limit crossings.



> It depends on many things -- the personality of the child, the age and understanding, the number of times they had issues with that boundary, the exact situation. I was never one for an all purpose consequence (either positive or negative).
> 
> I did things like:
> 
> ...


Surely you understand that directing your attention toward a behavior is a behaviorist tool to get more of that behavior. Explaining or any other form of yakking at your kids as a reaction to limit crossings is directing your attention to limit crossings. (There is no problem with explaining at other times when it is not in reaction to limit crossings.)



> Sometimes it is necessary to really figure out what they are getting out of their behavior and find an alternative way for them to get than same thing but in a more acceptable way. Some kids don't buy into the why's behind any thing and need a reward that really works for them -- something specific.


That's one of the most reliable methods for addressing problem behaviors, determining the function of a behavior and substituting some other behavior that serves the same function.



> For me, behaviorist tools are more of a last resort when other things haven't worked. I know they work, but to me, it is preferable to use softer, more human tools, to the greatest extent possible.


It's a good plan to use behaviorist tools as a last resort, because that will keep a parent from overdoing it. But first, the parent has to know what the behaviorist tools are. For instance, the parent has to understand that giving interest and attention to a behavior is the #1 most effective behaviorist tools for getting more of that behavior.

Ironically the behaviorist parenting gurus like Kazdin go to a great deal of effort to try to get parents to _stop unwittingly using a behaviorist tools_ to ramp up unwanted behavior. Whereas many of the anti-behaviorist seem to have no clue that this can even happen, much less that it happens often, so that tend to inadvertently encourage the counter-productive use of behaviorist tools.


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

muddie said:


> Surely you understand that directing your attention toward a behavior is a behaviorist tool to get more of that behavior.


You and I disagree, and clearly you aren't actually interested in my point of view. I've no desire to simply argue, so I'll bow out of the conversation now.


----------



## Emily380 (Jul 25, 2013)

This is a very good discussion! Personally, as a WOHM with a spirited 22 month old, AP liberated me as a mother. AP gave me permission to ignore other people's ideas of what my daughter "should" be doing, and encouraged me to parent by using my instinct and her clear direction of her needs. I have been able to balance my needs with hers by paying attention to how everything affects us. Popular AP practices (BF past infancy, babywearing, cosleeping, non violent communication) have been a good fit for my family. I don't follow AP to it's extreme (she was bottle fed at daycare, for example) but have been able to choose which aspects made the most sense for me and my tiny person.


----------



## lauren (Nov 20, 2001)

Linda on the move said:


> You and I disagree, and clearly you aren't actually interested in my point of view. I've no desire to simply argue, so I'll bow out of the conversation now.


Not to belabor this particular part of the conversation, but I saw Muddie's response to you completely differently than you did. I think she is interested in your point of view, but also wanted to point out that many things we do in the name of gentle discipline are also behaviorist in nature. So, attending to a behavior strengthens it. Ignoring it (or not attending to it, giving it less energy, by redirecting, substituting, etc.) weakens it.

In some ways it doesn't matter what the strategy is called--the important point is that we all as parents, strengthen and weaken various behaviors. We can do this overtly or covertly, with awareness or out of our awareness. Whether it is in our awareness or not, whether we want to call it behavioral intervention or not, it is happening.

I think (?) that is the point she was trying to make, not to discredit you.


----------



## lauren (Nov 20, 2001)

Emily380 said:


> This is a very good discussion! Personally, as a WOHM with a spirited 22 month old, AP liberated me as a mother. AP gave me permission to ignore other people's ideas of what my daughter "should" be doing, and encouraged me to parent by using my instinct and her clear direction of her needs. I have been able to balance my needs with hers by paying attention to how everything affects us. Popular AP practices (BF past infancy, babywearing, cosleeping, non violent communication) have been a good fit for my family. I don't follow AP to it's extreme (she was bottle fed at daycare, for example) but have been able to choose which aspects made the most sense for me and my tiny person.


I've always felt that attunement to the particular tiny person you were blessed with is the most important thing; not some recipe for doing things one way or another.


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

lauren said:


> wanted to point out that many things we do in the name of gentle discipline are also behaviorist in nature. So, attending to a behavior strengthens it. Ignoring it (or not attending to it, giving it less energy, by redirecting, substituting, etc.) weakens it.


There is a lot more going on in behavior than just whether or not the behavior is attended. Any behavior can be serving a wide range of functions, and attention is only one of them.

Looking at it only through the behaviorism lens means ignoring the role of cognition and emotion, or developing internal motivation. It reduces children to unthinking animals who can be trained with clickers.

Are there times that kids are misbehaving because they need more attention and they've learned that certain behaviors get them that attention? Sure.

Will ignoring all bad behaviors results in a well behaved child? Highly doubtful. It gives them nothing, and if they are already getting so little attention that they will happily take negative attention, removing even the negative attention will only cause a bigger emotional rift between parent and child.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Linda on the move said:


> There is a lot more going on in behavior than just whether or not the behavior is attended. Any behavior can be serving a wide range of functions, and attention is only one of them.
> 
> Looking at it only through the behaviorism lens means ignoring the role of cognition and emotion, or developing internal motivation. It reduces children to unthinking animals who can be trained with clickers.
> 
> ...


Exactly, well put.


----------



## muddie (Nov 10, 2014)

Linda on the move said:


> Looking at it only through the behaviorism lens means ignoring the role of cognition and emotion, or developing internal motivation. It reduces children to unthinking animals who can be trained with clickers.
> 
> Are there times that kids are misbehaving because they need more attention and they've learned that certain behaviors get them that attention? Sure.


Are you are saying that parents should not exclusively focus on the fact that kids learn that certain behaviors to get attention, but we also should not ignore the fact that it does happen and can be the cause of misbehavior?


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

muddie said:


> Are you are saying that parents should not exclusively focus on the fact that kids learn that certain behaviors to get attention, but we also should not ignore the fact that it does happen and can be the cause of misbehavior?


I think it is SELDOM the cause of misbehavior in children who have a strong, positive relationship with their parents and who get an over abundance of positive attention. In other words, I think that for kids who are AP, it isn't a major cause of problem behavior.

I also think that there are behaviors that simple cannot be ignored because they are dangerous to the child or to another person.

It is one of the many, many things to be aware of in addressing problem behavior? Sure. But to focus on it as the primary cause is overly simplistic and risks missing the REAL reasons for behaviors.


----------



## lauren (Nov 20, 2001)

That is actually one of the perceptions that has irked me the most about the exclusive AP stance---that if parents are attached enough and close enough to their children, there won't be any behavior problems. This attitude really hurt me when when of my breastfed, cosleeping, cloth diapered, dearly beloved children turned out to have major behavioral struggles as a toddler. It turned out that he had issues that were organic with him, and had nothing really to do with me and my AP ways. It was initially a huge confusion to learn that attunement and understanding were not going to do the trick--because he needed something different. He needed a behaviorally focused approach. It turned things around dramatically. 

We remain close to this day.

I think whenever we begin to think that only one approach or philosophy will work for all children, we are doing ourselves and our children a disservice.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

lauren said:


> I think whenever we begin to think that only one approach or philosophy will work for all children, we are doing ourselves and our children a disservice.


I agree with this. Certainly from what i am saying, and from some others have been saying, there are different causes for different behaviors, and to focus uniquely on the behavioral aspect, ie, in the form of attention seeking, is just as problematic as expecting 'being close', and 'being attached' without acting on some other underlying need, to solve all problems.

I think that is what we have been saying.

If your son needed behavioral therapy, then that is what he needed. In my sons case, he needs to avoid gluten and other food triggers. If i focused uniquely on behavioral approaches i would be sadly disappointed.

Attunement and/or attachement, is more than just 'being close', it is being attuned to what your child needs. Children are different and present different challenges. That is core to AP as far as i see it.


----------



## sewchris2642 (Feb 28, 2009)

contactmaya said:


> I agree with this. Certainly from what i am saying, and from some others have been saying, there are different causes for different behaviors, and to focus uniquely on the behavioral aspect, ie, in the form of attention seeking, is just as problematic as expecting 'being close', and 'being attached' without acting on some other underlying need, to solve all problems.
> 
> I think that is what we have been saying.
> 
> ...


Yes, I agree. And to remember that you are not just parenting in the moment but for the long term. And some of the results won't show up until years later. The end goal is not just a child who no longer has temper tantrums but an adult who knows how to effectively deals with set backs and adversity.


----------

