# is attachment parenting "conservative"?



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

I was surfing around through kellymom's site and the book of the month is Nighttime Parenting by Dr. Sears. I went over to the site to read the reviews and was taken aback to see several negative reviews. I have often heard AP'ers criticize Babywise'ers and Baby Whisperer's, but I have not heard alot of criticism in the reverse.

One of the reviewers felt that Dr. Sears' AP philosophy was part of an "agenda of social conservatism and its imperitives of guilt and fear" and also said that Sears was basically sending the message that "difficulty in parenting is punishment for independence and gender parity"...

I'm not even sure what that last one means.







:

Anyways, this is only one person's opinion but...it just seemed so backwards to me. Most AP'ers I know are very liberal. They are into breastfeeding, NIP, EBF, feminism, women's rights...I mean let's face it - lots of hippie-types, lol. I'm VERY liberal and I just don't see how this holds. Unless they are referring to the fact that AP can be very hard on WOHMs.

Would anybody like to comment on this?


----------



## sadie_sabot (Dec 17, 2002)

I'd guess this is maybe about gender roles and how heavily Sears emphasises the importance of mothers to babies. If you look at it a certain way, this could be interpreted as a version of "a woman's place is in the home".

And honestly i have been irritated by Sears and LLL's stuff on working -- but that's 'cause they seem so sure that not working is always an option for every mom. It's not. it's just not, and to ignore that reality is just clasist.

(beyond that i love the Baby Book and the Womanly Art of BF...)

Me, I find ap is an extension of my anarchist politics, actually







my goal is to come up with a brilliant analytical arguement for that idea, so that all radicals and anarchists who have kids will be ap.


----------



## Bearsmama (Aug 10, 2002)

Hi-interesting post. Although I've used a lot of Dr. Sears's books since becoming a parent (we AP), I've definitely been a little offended (maybe that's too strong a word) by some stuff that he exposes. I certainly understand the importance of the mother in raising a child-but sometimes his views seem a little old-school. Like what about the newer family dynamics? What about gay couples raising children? I have a feeling that Sears would not approve b/c I think he is Christian-and pretty conservative.

We are not a religious family. I sometimes get these vague religious references and YES I am one of those people that gets slightly offended by it.
So, YES, I definitely see how his books can be seen as conservative.


----------



## MamaOui (Aug 9, 2002)

I do detect a conservative slant (Christianity wise). If you read some of the passages in Sears books you will find that Martha has left her children to go on business trips. I am under the impression the Martha is/was a working mother. As for LLL, most areas have night meetings to accomodate working moms. I know that LLL has a consevative veiw concerning birth control.

I think both Sears and LLL will say that whenever it is possible it is important for the mama to be close and connected with her child, especially when you are trying to establish a nursing relationship. I also think that the emphasis on the mother/child relationship is stressed in hopes that our society will recognize this point to the extent that women will be given the aid they need for longer maternity leave.


----------



## ameliabedelia (Sep 24, 2002)

Actually, I think you find people at both ends of the spectrum, liberal and conservative to be AP.

Actually, I hate the terms liberal and conservative, they are too binding and try to fit everyone into the same mold.

I am anti-war, anti-capital punishment, pro-social justice and, pro-helping the poor and downtrodden as much as possible. Eat as naturally and organic as I can. I am in favor of women's rights, children's rights, minorities rights, and against animal testing. So that must make me liberal.

On the other hand, I am against abortion, and am a devout Catholic, and believe all the teachings of the Catholic church. I do not believe in free sex, and believe sex is special and should be saved for those who really love each other, are in a committed relationship, so that must make me conservative.

I am AP all the way, very much pro-breastfeeding and pro-extended breastfeeding, I nurse my 12 month old anywhere and anytime, so pro-NIP (I try to not expose my breast too much, but don't hide behind blankets and I don't sweat it if I flash a little) I am anti-spanking, anti- CIO, anti-schedule, use gentle discipline. I plan to homeschool/unschool.

Many other devout Catholics from my church practice AP. In fact, my church is the ONLY place, besides LLL meetings that I have seen anyone else use a sling.

I think I am having an identity crisis, I don't know if I am liberal or conservative. HELP!!!

I guess I will just be me!


----------



## mamaduck (Mar 6, 2002)

Someone I know wrote Sears a letter asking for clarification about some of his assertions about the role of a "mother." His reply was pretty starkly anti-feminist. To the effect that *all* women are made for to purpose of having and nurturing babies and should recognize the blessedness of this calling.

I like Dr. Sears and am willing to disagree on some points because it makes me happy to hear a Christian voice advocating gentle discipline, etc. I really think he is a hugely valuable resource in conservative communities who will *only* listen to a Christian voice, etc. I recommend his books and articles without hesitation!!!!

For myself, I have felt inclined to read things written by women lately. I'm not saying it is better, just that I find women often do a better job speaking to *my* reality. KWIM?


----------



## alsoSarah (Apr 29, 2002)

Mamaduck, could you recommend some ap books written by women? Dr. Sears is pretty much the extent of my ap collection.
Thanks,
alsoSarah


----------



## mamaduck (Mar 6, 2002)

Well, "The Continuum Concept" was written by a women.

"Our Babies, Ourselves" was written by a woman.

I have a number of discipline books written by women. I don't know if that is what you are looking for?

Piglet68 worked her way through a hefy reading list while she was pregnant. She can probably recommend more.

I have nothing against Dr. Sears -- honestly, I don't. I think he is great. Sometimes I just get tired of hearing from male doctors on the subject of motherhood though. Sigh.


----------



## member234098 (Aug 3, 2002)

Dear MDC:

Please do not stick labels on everything.

If you need to put a label on it, you can say:

"AP is common sense."


----------



## musician/mom (Feb 12, 2002)

An excellent book by a woman is
'Attachment Parenting - Instinctive Care for Your Baby and Young Child'
by Katie Allison Granju (1999).
(this one has a very good chapter about breast vs. bottle where she details the role of formula companies' impact on current mainstream beliefs.)

also 'The Natural Child - Parenting from the Heart' by Jan Hunt.


----------



## darlindeliasmom (Nov 19, 2001)

Piglet: I think people are drawn to AP for different reasons, and so they do many of the same things, and achieve the same closeness with their kids, but there might be another goal, KWIM?

If you are drawn to a traditional understanding of a woman's role, and want some support/validation for that role, you will find it in Dr. Sears, LLL philosophy, etc.
Like ameliabedlia says, lots of Catholics who are into the whole sacredness of motherhood through devotion to Mary as well as to the natural law foundations of lots of catholic philosophy, are going to be drawnt to AP...especially as it supports NFP.

OTOH, women trying to recapture womyn's power are also drawn to AP because it says that you DO have importance, that the next wave of feminism is to reaffirm our differences and fight for our rights to be women as well as people in the economic marketplace...

I think we each find in it what we are looking for...


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

amelia: identity crisis, lol! :LOL

mamaduck: that was sweet that you remember what a book-reading, question-asking, post-a-holic I was during my pregnancy, lol!









I was going to add Katie Granju's book. I also love Meredith Small's book. Then there is "The Family Bed" by Tine Thevenin and "Three in a Bed" by...oh crap, forgot her name and the book is in storage somewhere.

Interestingly, I don't see Sears' emphasis on the mother/child bond as being a return to "women should be barefoot and pregnant" ideals (though I do see how it could be interpreted that way), but rather I see it as a very progressive and liberating recognition of a woman's biological role as the Perfect mothering "machine". I don't believe society treats our mothering instincts with the value and respect they deserve. Rather, mainstream parenting seems to be all about denying those instincts and trying to convice us that wanting to be with our babies all the time, sleeping close to them, and wanting to pick them up when they cry are all signs of "weakness" that, if indulged, will actually "spoil" our children. I have commented before that I have thus found mothering and AP to really be feminist issues, a recognition of the respect we deserve as the Perfect vehicles for bearing, feeding, nurturing, and raising our children.


----------



## mamaduck (Mar 6, 2002)

Quote:

Interestingly, I don't see Sears' emphasis on the mother/child bond as being a return to "women should be barefoot and pregnant" ideals

Quote:

I have commented before that I have thus found mothering and AP to really be feminist issues, a recognition of the respect we deserve as the Perfect vehicles for bearing, feeding, nurturing, and raising our children.
ITA. I'm just in a snit about advice dispensing men lately. Maybe I'll be able to shake it off soon.....


----------



## mamawanabe (Nov 12, 2002)

For me too, I worry that AP *can* mean that women should stay home. I don't think women need any more guilt about wanting or having to work work for money and/or sense of self.


----------



## JavaFinch (May 26, 2002)

In my small little world I've actually found "AP" to seem more liberal. Most of the conservative types I know IRL are not AP in any way, lean much more toward Ferber and Ezzo, etc.

But *I* am much more conservative than liberal and I AP.

I actually have always felt that most of the literature was pretty "PC" when it comes to working outside the home, always saying you can "AP" *AND* work.


----------



## simonee (Nov 21, 2001)

Well... There have been several discussions about woh / sah motherhood here that got more heated than abortion discussions... I think there's definitely an "sah is better" undercurrent in a lot of ap thinking including dr. Sears'. And he tends to "brag" about Martha's intuition as opposed to his own "experience," thereby confirming often-held notions about women's intuitive vs men's rational/experiential knowledge.

In the whole ap world, I've actually come across preciously little male confirmation, and I also think dr. Sears' upper-middle class white background colors his "general" advice more than I would consider ideal.

Through all his books, he still is the traditional male, white, middle-aged doctor, even if his coat is a bit more colorful.

I agree with the poster that said that, in part for these reasons, he's an excellent "sneaky" introduction to ap-ing. He sure got the message to me! But, because he is to a pretty large extent the main voice of ap in America, his social conservatism does color the general perception, I think.

I don't think that I'll be able to spend all my time at home with ds, due in July, for financial reasons. Still, he'll be as ap-ed as dd (3.5). And I know that I'll have to deal with a lot of guilt feelings for "not being there," and that a big part of these feelings will at least be encouraged by the ideals painted and perpetuated by dr. Sears. Also, dh has always worked at home since dd's birth, and he'll likely keep doing so (I'm more employable than he is). Among all the ap families I know, this is still a very rare occurrence.

I think AP often shortchanges and underestimates dads. And in my book that's as bad as shortchanging and underestimating women, and just as unfeminist.

Edited to add that, in practice, I think many liberals seem to be ap parents. One look at Activism here makes that clear. Though it also attracts politically and socially conservative people, I do think the philosophy can be applied in very liberal and liberating ways. But that's not thanks to dr. Sears, but to the men and women who realize that Caring for and Loving your children crosses all lines


----------



## nikirj (Oct 1, 2002)

I think that AP is completely independent of liberal and conservative labels.

In some areas of our lives we may fit either label. AP doesn't hit one or the other, because AP fits both. You can be an AP treehugging athiest, or an AP Christian, or heck, an AP treehugging Christian.

I am generally considered a conservative because I am a Christian, I don't believe that abortion should be unlimitedly legal, I do believe in capital punshment, and I do hold quite a few other conservative views. But I hold some liberal ones as well, about some environmental issues, spanking issues, and things like that.

I think that what it all comes down to is that all but the most delusional people will agree that NIP is fine, that EBF is fine, that women do deserve the same rights as men. Some vary the details of their beliefs, but by and large, both liberal and conservative personalities will agree on the basics behind AP. There are always a few psychos who think nursing is dirty or that children are inherently evil and need to be punished into submission right from birth, but believe it or not, I think you'll find them on both sides of the spectrum as well.


----------



## ~Megan~ (Nov 7, 2002)

I've found this thread to be very interesting. I guess you do find a lot of libeal parents practicing AP. I figured it was because more liberal people are open to change and doing things differently.

I personally am politically conservative on most issues. I do find AP though to be in line with my ideas and values in regards to parenting.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

I generally prefer mothering advice from women. I do recognize that Sears has popularized ap to a degree that female authors before him did not. Whether that speaks to society not valuing a woman's voice as much as a "gentleman doctor", or whether Sears was just a more savvy salesman of his books I'm not sure. Probably a bit of both.

As far as AP putting women "back in the home". To me the point of ap is to have a strong attachment, and you build that during the time you are with your baby. I'm not going to tell another person how much time it takes for them to form a strong, trusting attachment. Everyone has to work that out for themselves, and what works in their own life. But for me, and ds, being attached in his first 2 years meant being together all day every day. He wanted to papoose around in a sling or backpack, period. Ds had a very high need level, and, other than dh, would not tolerate other caregivers. That was my experience. And FWIW, I felt empowered, not oppressed, by the experience.

Possibly, an ap relationship is better defined by how the child responds. Some children are just easier, trusting of new caregivers, and breeze through separations. What might work in building attachment with one baby might be inadequate with another baby. I think this is the key . I don't think there would be so much "oomph" to the WOH/SAH debate if we thought in terms of what a particular baby expects, rather than what is expected of a mom. There are probably many moms who wind up staying home primarily because their baby just will not tolerate separation. And there are probably many moms who work because their baby is easy going, and has a high tolerance for separation. And moms in both categories might be doing things differently with a different baby, without wanting to admit it.

Great discussion....

Heartmama


----------



## fluffernutter (Dec 8, 2002)

I've never read Dr. Sears, but I'm a part of another AP board and pretty much everyone there is liberal. I think it could probably go either way though.


----------



## simonee (Nov 21, 2001)

Heartmama, ITA on the "male voice" thing. Isn't that what also brought us Lamaze and the Bradley method?







:


----------



## MysticHealerMom (Oct 7, 2002)

re: Books, Baby Matters and Born Dancing were written by women. the first isn't totally about AP, but it's in there, and the 2nd was written before AP was coined, she called it dancing intuitively. Sheila Kitzinger I believe has a lot of info along those lines, as well.

I personally don't care for Sears. He does have a lot of info, but I think the tone is pretty arrogant, perhaps that's not the right word, but I find it a turn off. I'm turned off by Bradley as well. However, I enjoyed reading Odent, Leboyer and Dick-Reed. Dick-Reed is very religious and attributes a lot to god, but this didn't ruffle me, as he was obviously a very caring practitioner and not (I felt) a condescending know-it-all.

Lamaze and Bradley actually originated from Dick-Reed's methods. Lamaze attributes it to Pavlov, but Pavlov did a lot of research w/Dick-Reed before he made his "break thrus" with natural birthing in Russia.

edit: 3 In a Bed was written by Deborah Jackson - the co-sleeping articles on the main mothering website has some more info on this book.

I kinda agree that AP seems to short change dads/men. I never felt comfortable calling it attachment parenting - but the scientific studies refer to it as securely or insecurly attached. I thought it was just "natural", but if it helps people understand what I'm talking about, I'll use the label so people know what I'm talking about. Although *IMHO* it's pretty empty to discuss labels and semantics and how we feel about words - because the bottom line is, if no one understands you, you have to go back to using the terminology they do understand - you can in your own heart think it's lame and call it something else, or you can describe in detail what you mean every time. Terms conservative and liberal may be too broad for most individuals, but it does well to describe group trends. [end edit]


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

My mom was heavily involved in LLL until years after she finished BFing because her experienced advice was useful to new moms.







I remember in 6th grade, when several classes in my school had made election posters (each kid making one after learning about the election and choosing a candidate), I was surprised to see that a girl from another LLL family had made a pro-Reagan poster w/anti-feminist slogans. When I mentioned this to my mom, she said, "Well, there are two basic kinds of families who breastfeed: Those who do it because we feel natural ways are best and who also value taking care of the environment and having freedom, and those who do it because they believe mothers are the only people who can care for children and who generally believe in a very narrow role for women. I guess the H__s are in that second group." That made sense, but I was still surprised because the H___s were the only family I'd ever known who had a genuine family bed (as opposed to baby sleeping near parents only when very young)--one room of their house had mattresses covering the entire floor, and parents and 5 kids all slept there--and that seemed ultra-liberal in a town where people thought it was a total scandal that my brother and I shared a bedroom w/separate beds and that I had EVER seen him (much less my dad) naked!







:

In the subsequent 20 years, as the health benefits of BFing have been re-established







: and therefore a wider range of moms have been doing it, I would think this polarization of BFing families has been reduced. But when you look beyond BFing to the broader philosophy of AP, it seems that those who pick up on the whole philosophy tend to be one of those two types, because it "clicks" with other things that we believe.

Piglet, I think you have an excellent insight about AP really being "feminist" in that it emphasizes the unique abilities of women. Unfortunately, what is currently called "feminism" tends to be anti-mother and anti-everything-traditionally-feminine, with the idea that the only way to escape oppression is to do exactly what men do and let technology or "someone else" do the traditionally female tasks, and there's also a heavy emphasis on being victims. It makes me sad, because I feel that I'm a feminist but I can't use that term without affiliating myself with ideology I think is stupid and counter-productive!







BEING A GOOD MOTHER IS NOT CAVING TO THE PATRIARCHY!! "Alike" and "equal" are not the same thing! Many traditionally female behaviors have great value for women, for men, and for society, and I think the best direction to take is toward making those behaviors valued and acceptable directions for everyone--males, too!--and valuing those things that only females are biologically able to do, instead of treating them like unpleasant embarrassing functions to be dispensed with as quickly as possible!


----------



## mamaduck (Mar 6, 2002)

slapping myself in the head. How could I forget Shelia Kitzinger???

She rules.


----------



## oceanbaby (Nov 19, 2001)

A little off topic, but my first response when reading this thread is regarding books written by women: I actually prefer books written by mothers, rather than women per se. This was actually one of my only gripes about the Continuum Concept - I liked and agreed with what it had to say, but the author has never had children, and the tone of the book, to me, was that it was easy and obvious to parent this way, and it didn't take into account that the intended audience for her book didn't live in a tribal community, but rather in an isolated suburb. I think if she had been a mother she would have at least addressed this issue, having experienced how tribal parenting may not necessarily be so easy within our culture.

Anyway, back to Dr. Sears. I can see where he would be called conservative, but I wouldn't go so far as to say anti-feminist (this is just based on reading the Baby Book). Just because he stresses the mother/child bond, which could be taken to mean that the mother needs to stay at home, I don't think is anti-woman. I think it is our society that is anti-feminist, making it necessary for so many mothers to have to go to work. I mean, biologically, historically, the woman has had to stay with the baby. Our modern world has made it possible for the mom to work (pumps, bottles, cars). I don't have any problem with moms who must work, or who choose to work (I have thought about it myself), but I don't think it is anti-feminist to point out that there is an inherent need within the child that only the mother can fulfill. In fact, many women here in many different posts have spoken about how important it is to them that they not be separated from their children. I don't think that they are anti-feminist.

Okay, I have rambled on long enough. I'm really hoping that no one misinterprets my post as having anything negative to say about WOHM, because that was not my intent. I'm just saying that I think that this is where Dr. Sears is coming from by emphasizing the mother/child bond as being so critical.


----------



## mamawanabe (Nov 12, 2002)

I do worry that I am just buying in to an ideology whose end is to make women feel a "natural," "biological," "historical" imperative to keep their bodies near their babies bodies. Because this imperative ends the same place as that of conservative ideologies, I, as a liberal, am doubly worried.
Whenever I hear things like "biologically" and "historically," and "natural," I get a little uneasy. Biology (and science in general), narratives of history, and ideas about what is natural are such powerful but elastic creations that they are able to justify whatever we want, whether it is women's separate sphere (in the Victorian period), or racial difference (first half of twentieth century), or mothering (now). I DO believe in the idea that attached mothers and babies is what "nature" intended, an intention perverted by modern marketing, but I worry about what this belief serves (i.e. women racked with guilt about their mothering are a more pliant and less potent political force).

I love this thread!


----------



## mimmy (Feb 6, 2002)

Most of the AP famlies I know irl would be considered "liberal". However, there appears to be an abundance of "crunchy conservative" women on many of the AP boards I have visited. I think AP parenting appeals to people on many different levels.


----------



## Foobar (Dec 15, 2002)

Piglet-

Very good question. As you well know, I am neither mainstream or Ap, but pro-Goo. This is the best way for me. But, I do think the traditional mom roles are reinforced by AP. This can or can not be considered "conservative". It depends on how you feel. Some, like you, feel that this is more feminist while some would feel that it is forcing the woman back to the days when raising children was the only goal in a woman's life.

I personally believe that Goo is a major part of my life, but she is not the reason I am alive. I can still persue my goals in life and grow in my career and skills, but these are in balance with Goo's needs. This tends to fly in the face of both "conservative" parenting and some people's views of AP.

I don't know if this is making sense or not. To be honest, I've only read "baby whisperer" and I've only used parts of that book. Most of my parenting comes from logic and comfort for me.


----------



## Friendlymama (Nov 13, 2002)

This is something I've wondered myself...

During my pregnancy when I first heard about attachment parenting, I was initially turned off by it because it did seem to reinforce traditional gender roles. Literally speaking, the idea that women should be attached to their babies seemed very conservative, limiting and even backward to me.

I never in a million years thought I'd quit work to stay home with my child. I earned my degree and I was gonna use it, dammit! Yet here I am - tomorrow is my last day of work and I'm quite happy about it.

At the same time, a part of me feels like I'm letting down the feminist cause - progress women have made for equality in the workplace, all that. I can feel the satisfaction my truly conservative, very religious inlaws have over my quitting - they told me motherhood would derail my career plans, and I just proved them right. They win! They win! (but i swear, i am *not* conservative!).

I'm rambling here. I guess what I'm saying is that I feel like I need to be with my daughter, but I'm also secretely afaid that if most women were SAHMs, we'd really roll back the clock to a time of major inequality. We'd re-create strict gender roles and stereotypes of 'women do x and men do y' - and we'd just plain screw ourselves out of a lot of social progress.

Anyway, I suppose it's the reason behind the way we parent that determines whether we're conservative, kwim? I am choosing to quit work simply because *I* want to, not because I feel God or my husband wants me to. There's power in that, right?

Still, it's interesting how two completely different perspectives - and please forgive my use of labels - but conservate and liberal mindsets make the same parenting choices but for very different reasons.

ARgh! This is complicated but a great topic. I feel like I could go on and on but this would get even more scattered than it already is so I better stop here.


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

Friendlymama, I so totally know what you mean. In my "pre-baby" days I would have looked down an a woman who gave up her career "just to be a Mom". And, I poo-poohed those who warned me that I would end up wanting to do the same. Yet, here I am, having no interest in my career right now and feeling incredibly happy to spend my days devoted to DD. I'm not sure I can even "blame" AP for that...I just fell in love with her the day she was born and everything else just took a side seat to her!









The thing is, though, our children are babies for such a short time. Do we have to "give up career" to be there for our babies? For those who have kids earlier: can't one persue a career when the children are in school? That's only about 5 years or so to wait. Or those of us who started a career and had children later in life: can't we go back later? (I plan to, although it may not be in the capacity, or along the track, that I originally expected). And certainly there are those who want to homeschool, or be SAHP permanently (or have lots of children), and that should be valued, too. But somehow I feel that to be AP and SAH with your babies doesn't mean you can't be a career woman, too. Who was it here who said "you can have it all, just not all at once"?

bah...random thoughts! I'm ready for bed!


----------



## sadie_sabot (Dec 17, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by EnviroBecca_
*

Piglet, I think you have an excellent insight about AP really being "feminist" in that it emphasizes the unique abilities of women. Unfortunately, what is currently called "feminism" tends to be anti-mother and anti-everything-traditionally-feminine, with the idea that the only way to escape oppression is to do exactly what men do and let technology or "someone else" do the traditionally female tasks, and there's also a heavy emphasis on being victims. It makes me sad, because I feel that I'm a feminist but I can't use that term without affiliating myself with ideology I think is stupid and counter-productive!







BEING A GOOD MOTHER IS NOT CAVING TO THE PATRIARCHY!!*








You go, sister!

I personally don't interpret ap to mean atached to mom. I interpret it to mean that my dd's needs are met as soon as they are percieved. obviously there's more to it, but for me that's the core. So if someone besides me is meeting her needs, well, then I am still parenting the way i mean to. I would love for there to be a whole community (tribe) of people who can meet her needs (hard to come up with in this alienated world).

(of course, since I am VERY attached, I'd give almost anything if I could stay home and be with her 24/7)

As far as feminism goes, in my circles we talk about mainstream feminism and radical femisnism. mainstream feminism is mainly about achieving parity with men, but not changing the basic structures of our world. Radical feminism is about dismantling patriarchy (and white supremacy). It's instructive to remember that while the mainly white, mainly middle class feminists of the 70's were fighting to get the right/freedom to leave the house, many poor women and women of color have always been WOHMs, sometimes even leaving their children in order to take care of someone else's. For them maybe the idea of having the right/freedom to stay home is far more valuable.

Was that off topic? i guess it was, sorry. but I'm loving the stuff this thread is bringing out; so many smart women in the house!


----------



## MysticHealerMom (Oct 7, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by EnviroBecca_
*Piglet, I think you have an excellent insight about AP really being "feminist" in that it emphasizes the unique abilities of women. Unfortunately, what is currently called "feminism" tends to be anti-mother and anti-everything-traditionally-feminine, with the idea that the only way to escape oppression is to do exactly what men do and let technology or "someone else" do the traditionally female tasks, and there's also a heavy emphasis on being victims. It makes me sad, because I feel that I'm a feminist but I can't use that term without affiliating myself with ideology I think is stupid and counter-productive!







BEING A GOOD MOTHER IS NOT CAVING TO THE PATRIARCHY!! "Alike" and "equal" are not the same thing! Many traditionally female behaviors have great value for women, for men, and for society, and I think the best direction to take is toward making those behaviors valued and acceptable directions for everyone--males, too!--and valuing those things that only females are biologically able to do, instead of treating them like unpleasant embarrassing functions to be dispensed with as quickly as possible!*








, here here! Very well put!!

And obviously a very popular statement







inky










Lori


----------



## MysticHealerMom (Oct 7, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by oceanbaby_
*... I actually prefer books written by mothers, rather than women per se. This was actually one of my only gripes about the Continuum Concept - I liked and agreed with what it had to say, but the author has never had children, and the tone of the book, to me, was that it was easy and obvious to parent this way, and it didn't take into account that the intended audience for her book didn't live in a tribal community, but rather in an isolated suburb. I think if she had been a mother she would have at least addressed this issue, having experienced how tribal parenting may not necessarily be so easy within our culture. ...*
I disagree, I think the book wasn't intended for your basic suburban mom, I think it was intended as an anthropological anticdote. She put in so much of her personal experince as a researcher with the tribe she settled with, I found it annoying, but I think the people like Deborah Jackson who quoted her information were the ones writing for the audience you indicate.

Continuum Concept is a great book, but from an anthropological standpoint and doesn't include real life suggestions.

However, the Liedloff Continuum Network is probably geared toward making it work in our society.

Thanks!!

Lori


----------



## MysticHealerMom (Oct 7, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Piglet68_
*...In my "pre-baby" days I would have looked down an a woman who gave up her career "just to be a Mom". And, I poo-poohed those who warned me that I would end up wanting to do the same. Yet, here I am, having no interest in my career right now and feeling incredibly happy to spend my days devoted to DD. I'm not sure I can even "blame" AP for that...I just fell in love with her the day she was born and everything else just took a side seat to her!







*
One thing that Jean Liedloff talked about in Continuum Concept was the value of work. I think the thing is that a lot of the "work" that's available in our society isn't as satisfying as being a mom. Not to say that some people don't NEED to work - I'm not referring to that, whether you need to for your sanity or you need to for the paycheck, a lot of jobs just aren't fulfilling. Personally, my career was pretty well founded - and yet, not satisfying. And I would have wanted to do something else, anyway.

Personally, I don't think that this "trend" towards sahm's or mom's who AP while woh is harmful to feminism or overly conservative for those who don't choose to be. I think that feminism is a lot grander than the equal pay for equal work and women are as equal as "list of folks who are considered equal" ala ERA - I think that was a small fraction of the intention of feminism - feminism I believe is best expressed as honoring the value of women as equal contributors to society - not equal workers, but equal beings with different attributes than men - male attributes are not the norm, there isn't one ruler for all - we are a society of dualities. And we're not all that different, men and women, it's just unfortunate that the greater society chose to favor maleness over female qualities. Once we get back inline with our femenine side, then we'll all be equal - men and women. Until that time, femininism and humanism have a long way to go. I see this "trend" towards Ap and natural parenting as a step in the right direction.

blessings to all.

Lori


----------



## ameliabedelia (Sep 24, 2002)

I think a lot of problems with the decision women have whether to work or stay home is that it is seen as an either/or decesion. You either work OR you stay home.

Well I do both. I work at home.

When I was pregnant with dd, I was an elementary school teacher in a small Catholic school. DD was born in Feb, 2002. In April of 2002, I went back to teaching, with dd in tow. I took her with me to work every day, kept her with me all day, and just nursed and changed her diapers, etc. in the classroom with my students. They got quite the education that year!! I did that for 2 months. So, yes I was a working mom, but I never left dd, the entire time.

This year, I did not go back to work. However, I work at home in a totally unrelated field to what I did last year and what I got my education in.

I COULD NOT just stay home all day without working at home (I do marketing work and bookeeping work). I would not be happy with just taking care of dd and doing household chores, etc. Much as I love dd, I can only play peek-a-boo so many times.

I love working at home. I have truely found the perfect niche for me. I stay with dd all day, and am responsive to her needs all day. She has never had a bottle, or even a sippy cup. When she needs me, I am here. Yet, I also do challenging, interesting work which I enjoy. It allows me to talk with other people via phone, meet new people. I am expanding my mind and learning new skills. My work facillitates my personal development, and we definetly enjoy the money.

I also do important volunteer work every week with dd in tow.

Granted, much of this was possible due to dd's very laidback, mellow personality. I realize this situation might not lend itself as well with high-need babies.

Anyway, my point is, I believe it is possible for women to be AP, stay home, not use bottles etc, and still "work". I would love for the day when women routinely would take small babies to work and nurse them and carry them around in slings all day in the workforce. I would love the day when jobs and employers would be more understanding allow women to work out of their homes. I would love the day when more employers would offer daycare on site where the "daycare" is really workers who take care of the babies and children in close proximity to mom (perhaps in an adjacent room) and bring the babes into mom to nurse.

Well, this is really long. Sorry.


----------



## brookelynnp (Jan 1, 2002)

I think that as with anything that I read for any reason whether it be about politics, parenting, religion, womens rights ect... I just take from it what I can use and leave the rest without all the judging about whether or not it is liberal or conservative. If I spent my time trying to figure out what was what all the time I would have no time to actually learn anything. Do you understand where I am comming from? I do however appreciate the many woman ap style parenting books given in this thread, although I doubt that I will read any of them. You never know though!


----------



## USAmma (Nov 29, 2001)

I think while Dr. Sears may be somewhat conservative, if it was so anti-feminist it would be called Attachment Mothering, not Attachment Parenting. Logically the woman is the one who gives birth to the baby and nurses it, so it would make sense that a lot of the parenting in the infant stage is done by her.

However, he also encourages fathers to AP such as holding, being in the family bed, and areas of discipline where both parents play an equal role. My dh is from India, where babies and toddlers are pretty much raised by the women of the household until they are school age. Fathers step in later and supervise education and things that would apply to older children.

AP has given my dh the gift of being very involved in the life of his daughter from the day she was born. He willingly read the books and then put on a sling and carried her. He took her into our bed and is more reluctant than I am for the day when she leaves it because the night bonding has meant a lot to him (he works long days). He has played an active role in her discipline and it's a joy to see him get on the floor with her and drive little cars around, or have a tea party with her.

Darshani


----------



## sarenka (Mar 29, 2002)

Quote:

I think that as with anything that I read for any reason whether it be about politics, parenting, religion, womens rights ect... I just take from it what I can use and leave the rest without all the judging about whether or not it is liberal or conservative. If I spent my time trying to figure out what was what all the time I would have no time to actually learn anything. Do you understand where I am comming from?
Brookelynp - I know exactly where you are coming from. Well said. Not wasting energy on making labeling judgements gives me more energy to get on with the matter in hand, to know what my true response is to a situation and act on it. That said, I'm not reticient about calling myself a feminist - I know what i mean by it! It means I ally myself with women's struggles, All of them.
sadie_sabot, I love what you say about the important thing being that babies are responded to immediately, ideally by a whole loving community.
And Piglet, what you said about honoring women, the 'mothering' part of them too. It all needs to be respected and honored.
This is a bit wooly....off for








love the discussion


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

I am with Ameliabediliaky. I am also conservative on many issues and liberal on many others. I am also a devout Catholic. I do not believe that either "liberal or conservative" are the reasons for someone parenting AP. I believe it is b/c we think and feel. Someone said their mom told them there were 2 different kinds of people who parent that way, I disagree completely. I think there are way too many to count. I am quite conservative on many things (pro-life, strict Catholic) yet I am upset to think that b/c of that, someone would assume that I AP because "a woman's place is in the home". I AP, because I think and feel. Most people I know are not AP. Most of the AP people I do know are more liberal, but many are conservative Catholics. I have yet to meet anyone who still believes that a woman's place is in the home. Oh, I know they are out there, they just don't come near me! Ha! So, I think the labels are pointless, because as I look around, there is lots of diversity in AP. I think that just goes to show that many different kinds of people love their kids all the way and listen to their hearts when parenting.

Patty








"If you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything."


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

Good point, Patty! "There are only two kinds of people: Those who think there are only two kinds of people, and..."


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

I am laughing. you got me!
Patty


----------



## hypatia (Apr 29, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by mamawanabe_
*I do worry that I am just buying in to an ideology whose end is to make women feel a "natural," "biological," "historical" imperative to keep their bodies near their babies bodies.*
What upsets me about characterizing the bond between mother and child as "natural," "biological," etc. is that it implies that the bond between fathers and children isn't so "natural." Sure, fathers can take care of babies, too, but that isn't their natural calling.

I think this message discourages fathers from stepping up to the plate to be caretakers. That is too bad, because a lot of fathers out there need more encouragement to be active participants in their children's lives. A message that tells fathers it's not "natural" for them to be attached to their children is the wrong message to send.


----------



## asherah (Nov 25, 2001)

and what about women who don't want to have children?
Are they "un-natural?"


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

I'm not really sure what all the hoopla is over Sears anyway. Sears didn't invent AP.

I don't see AP as conservative at all, the idea that children are individuals and have a right to their wants and needs isn't something I see as conservative.


----------



## CityGirl (Aug 1, 2003)

There was a poll on Talk Amongst Ourselves a while back about whether members here were liberal or conservative. The overwhelming majority voted liberal.

But there are some very vocal conservatives, as well, and I say welcome to them. I just don't like to see AP used as an anti-working-mother argument, is my only beef with that: I never personally found Sears offensive in that way, but I'm on an ap-working moms group and many members of that group did. When I went back and re-read it with their arguments in mind, I could see what they were saying, honestly.

It's very hard being a liberal feminist and suddenly realizing that everything you ever thought about being a stay-at-home mom was off base. Realizing that being home with your child and being a mom can be incredibly fulfilling.


----------



## CeraMae (Apr 25, 2003)

I did read this criticism of dr sears on a review sight:

As an involved father, I thought that it would be good idea for me to read the same references that my wife did. I was disappointed after reading Dr. Sears' book. According to this book, my role in the care and rearing of my child is relegated to being secondary to that of my wife's, "Father creates a supportive environment that allows mother to devote her energy to the baby (pg.8)". The role that I am to play in my baby's care is defined in pages 8, 43, 272, and 350 (paperback edition) out of a book that has 689 pages.

Maybe it is not criticizing AP for being conservative, but it does bring up a painfully true point.


----------



## eilonwy (Apr 3, 2003)

This is slightly







T, but I used to be obsessed with labels. I loved to put labels on people (as many as possible) and get them all into tightly organized categories in my head. I used all kinds of words and systems, and generally had a good time doing it. (This was all in my head, mind you, and the boxes were rarely permanent, people moved around frequently).

Then I had a baby. Suddenly none of my neat little boxes made sense, not for myself or for anyone else. Before Eli was born, I was sure where I belonged. After the horrificly long labor, and all the things that went wrong, nothing I had read made sense. I no longer fit into my box of "good parent", and wanted nothing to do with the concept of "natural childbirth" ever again. I had already failed a test I didn't realize I was taking.

This caused a chain reaction which led to my first real paradigm shift in ages: people do not belong in boxes. It would have been difficult for me to deal with if I'd been aware of it happening, but I wasn't so it was all good.









Once upon a time, I was a moderate liberal multiethnic jewish pagan gamer freak nerd student (and I could go on and on here!) woman. I had plans to be a "good mother"; that is, to endure a natural (drug free, intervention free) childbirth, to nurse in the delivery room, and go home with my healthy newborn who would sleep in his bassinet in a special wearable blanket and on his back.

After enduring the Labor from Hell and delivering a NICU baby via vacuum extraction, having to pump so he could be fed by strangers via syringe, and taking him home a week later to sleep in my bed on his belly, I somewhere decided that my boxes were no longer adequate to circumscribe my life.. or anyone elses.

Now, I am a Mommy. I have strong opinions on many topics, and I'm glad I do. Other people persist in their efforts to put me in a box, and I don't mind; that's their loss. I will teach my son all about labels, what they mean, and why they're not terribly important all the time. I will also teach him that some things cannot be labeled, and you just have to know them.

(Wow, what a ramble! *hehe* :LOL)


----------



## mamaduck (Mar 6, 2002)

Quote:

It's very hard being a liberal feminist and suddenly realizing that everything you ever thought about being a stay-at-home mom was off base. Realizing that being home with your child and being a mom can be incredibly fulfilling.
You know, I've realized so much lately about what feminism can do for women ourselves, but also what we have traditionally considered "women's work." Just as women are so often maligned and despised, so is the work that has fallen to us. I think that in defending and improving the value of women, feminism can also bring into focus the value of what we have contributed to society since the beginning of time.

A "good" feminist recognizes, values and respects that work that SAHM does, without automatically relegating every woman to that role without validating other options as equally valuable.


----------



## PJsmomma (Apr 21, 2003)

well I am conservative religiously and politically and I don't think the way I parent has anything to do with either one of those two factors.

I bf, (tried natural birth but had an emergency and a NICU stay), use homeopathy, no flouride, natural healthy food and water, sling, family bed, etc before I ever even knew there was such a thing as AP--I kid you not, I didn't know it was even a thing or a point of view or a movement, I just did it cause it felt right to me. I wanted to have my child with me, care for him in the most natural way possible and I was pleased with the results I was getting. Imagine my surprise to find AP had a name--I laughed when I discovered there were others like me.

I was a sahm and loved every second of it, now we own a children's resale store and my son goes along with me everyday and I say I'm still a sahm we just stay together at the store.

rambled too a bit


----------



## comet (Aug 22, 2002)

I find most AP'ers to be more liberal than conservative, but the Sears' books struck me as pretty conservative, with liberal doses of guilt upon mothers who deign to return to work before their child is 2 yrs old.


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

If you look at this board, you will see that there are a lot of places where attached parenting, or even child-centered living, makes the ends of the spectrum meet. For example, here I see religious and anti-religious people with great areas of agreement and support for one another. Some folks here are in favor of a woman's right to choose abortion, and others reject abortion. Some have partners who participate fully in child-rearing and others are doing it all alone. Also our philosophies about WOHMs.

It all bends in the middle because English-speaking cultures aren't all that child-friendly and there are anti-child attitudes all along all the political and religious spectrums.

I did find Dr. Sears' Baby Book pretty sexist in its assumptions. But not so much that I couldn't get something valuable from it. I haven't really loved any of the books about parenting I found yet. Being a parent, on the other hand, I have loved from the very first minute...


----------



## hypatia (Apr 29, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by mamaduck_
*
A "good" feminist recognizes, values and respects that work that SAHM does, without automatically relegating every woman to that role without validating other options as equally valuable.*
Yes, I think getting society to value traditionally female work would be a huge achievement for feminism.

*captain optimism* I completely agree with everything you wrote.


----------



## Amandzia (Aug 16, 2003)

Am I liberal or conservative? Like Amelia, I'm a bit of both. I'm anti-abortion, pro-womens rights, eat organic, vegatarian, breastfeeding, but I think if you want to have kids, the kids come first. Is that conservative or liberal? Is it old fashioned or new fashioned? Does the modern woman bake her own whole grain bread, breastfeed, give birth at home, or is that old fashioned? It depends on the generation, I suppose. Were our moms old fashioned and our grandmas liberal? It is a funny question to run around with. My husband spent several years of his childhood living in Africa where all women practiced attachment parenting, they just didn't label it as such.


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

Wow. I can't believe this old thread of mine has been resurrected from the dead like this, lol.

Well, I had a thought with respect to the role of fathers with their babies. While I do agree that more fathers need to be encouraged to be with their children, I don't think our society's problem with "deadbeat dads", or even the much milder issue of men feeling that being a dad isn't "macho" enough for them, has anything to do with Sears' philosophy. (I got so frustrated trying to find a Dad book for my DH that didn't just assume that all men were immature morons who found anything to do with birth "icky" and whose only concern was when they'd get to have sex again).

The problem as I see it is that we ever gave people the idea that bottle-feeding a baby so you could have a "night out with the girls" every few days, as well as a date night with your husband and time for a pedicure, was a normal way to look at babyhood in the first place. Why do fathers think feeding is such a critical way to bond with their baby (like it's the only way?)?

Women have had to deal with a lot on their plate for the sheer biological fact that men are bigger and stronger and more prone to express themselves physically rather than emotionally. I really don't feel the need to apologize for the basic biological fact that women have the uterus, the breasts and the hormones that Baby wants and needs the most.

Hmmm, was that off-topic?


----------



## mum2sarah (Apr 23, 2003)

Well, first of all, I think our political climate of the day demonstrates that it is hard to define liberal or conservative anymore. I personally have no use for any of our political parties anymore. I am frustrated with Democrats being pro-war, don't like much of what Republicans stand for, and cannot agree with Greens who claim they care about all living things, but that somehow excludes the unborn child. I am an agnostic person who generally considers herself to be very liberal, but I find it completely impossible to actually fit in a single category. UNLESS there was a category of "naturalists..." As a vegan, I would love if the notmilk man would start his own political party, and call it the "natural" party. I care about the environment, I cloth diaper, I believe in natural childbirth, extended breastfeeding, family bed, etc....

Forgive me to those of you who say you are frightened by labels such as "natural" and "biological," BUT all the political theory in the world cannot place you above mother nature. Sorry, but there are certain facts of life that we all must accept. I mean, really, it's not "fair" or "egalitarian" that only women should bear children and go through the pain of childbirth, but there's nothing much that can be done to change it. We can't just say, "It's your turn now, guys," and give our uteruses to men.

As I see it, the Sear's insistence that the bond to mother is so important is based upon the breastfeeding relationship that nature designed, and is simply a natural extension of pregnancy. It's a relatively short period in a child's development that helps them bridge the gap between the security of the womb and the hugeness of the real world and all the people in it. From the talk on this thread, it seems that we have forgotten that this time does not last forever. Nor does this time period mean that father's aren't important. They are important during mating and gradually take on a more important role with each phase. Their support during pregnancy is great, during childbirth they can help facilitate a sastifactory delivery, when the baby is born they can hold him, change him, massage him, bathe him, when the child gets to be a toddler they can run and play outside with her, when the child weans they can take her to a day long outing, etc.

But whether it agrees with feminist ideology or not, nature intended for a deep close bond between mother and baby in the early months. I did not decide this. Some conservatively-persuaded child theorist did not decide this. Millions of years of evolution decided that a baby should develop in its mother's womb, and then be nourished frequently at her breast until such time as the child no longer needed such nourishment.

That being said, I fully realize that this is not always possible for everyone. I completely support the gay couple who wants to raise a child. I totally understand that many mother's have careers because of personal or financial reasons. But I think the choices we have in this society stink. In other developed nations, women are given a generous, paid maternity leave so that they don't have to make that either/or decision between work and home. And there does need to be more support out there for the "non-traditional" family: the stepfamily, the single parent, the gay parents. There needs to be advice for those who don't exactly fit the picture that mother nature had in mind, for how to best approximate the most natural way to raise a child.

So please, don't point fingers toward the Sears or toward LLL, who, to set the records straight, DOES have support for working moms, and DOES encourage choice of birth control. (Read the Breastfeeding Answer Book, chapters 10 and 18 before you criticize). Don't say you are losing the feminist cause if you decide to stay at home (which is more important to you: some political cause or your children?) You have to do what's right for you and your family. Instead of blaming liberals or conservatives or SAHM's or WOHM's, we need to look at ways our society can help all of us, regardless of our political persuasion, provide for the most natural way to parent our children, and then demand changes to help us acheive that goal. For our children truly are our future.


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

mum2sarah














ITA!


----------



## Amandzia (Aug 16, 2003)

I think it's odd that a working mom is a feminist mom. I believe in the right for women to stay home and raise her children. I believe wages should be decent enough to have one parent home with the kids. My mother in law came from a communist country where women were taught to leave bottle feed and leave their kids to go to work. I don't call that feminism.
I do agree that biologically we, as women, are the natural candidate to raise the kids. I think this is great, not a burden. If I thought it was a burden, I wouldn't have kids at all.
In a same sex couple, I think it's still very important to have one parent home with the kids. Why have kids if you want some other person to raise them?
Yes, sometimes we find ourselves in the unfortunate position of having to work outside the home. I'm not talking about moms who need to work, I'm talking about moms who can't put their personal carreer goals on hold for just a few years when their kids need them. There's a book called Sequencing that talks about the fact that you *can* have it all, just not all at once. In the ideal situation one parent can and will support the family financially while the other raises the kids. I had my first child alone and I know from experience, it's better to have a partner who can make enough to allow you to be home for as long as possible.
I guess I'm off topic. I also guess I'll make some moms really angry.







:


----------



## DAR mama (Aug 24, 2003)

I just want to say that I have enjoyed this thread immensely. Becoming a mother has been one of the, if not the, best things to ever happened to me, not only because I get the honor of sharing life with my ds and seeing my dh be a good dad, but because it has challenged a lot of preconceptions I have had about life and my role in it. So I have appreciated hearing others express many of the same thoughts I have had. As a liberal feminist I was quite stunned to realize how much I wanted to stay home with my ds. It has really made me reassess some of my assumptions and my view of the world.

With that said I could not let the following comment by Amandzia go ...

Quote:

Why have kids if you want some other person to raise them?
Who is to say that because I work and do not spend 24 hours a day, 7 days a week with my son that I am not raising him? Parenting is about a lot more than proximity. There are parents that do not work but also do not do a very good job parenting.

I do not mean to start an exchange of flames but I could not let this gross generalization pass.

Again, thanks to all of you for your thoughtful posts.


----------



## Amandzia (Aug 16, 2003)

DARMoma, I don't know what your work/home situation is. I just have a beef with parents who put their kids in daycare from 6 to 6 when it isn't necessary. For some it is, I realize. I have worked in daycare and I'm disgusted with parents with expensive new cars who take their kids to Disneyland once a year, yet don't actually spend many waking hours with the child on a day to day basis. I've known a lot of idiots in the childcare centers who I'd never want to spend a few minutes with my kids, let alone all day five days a week.
Recomended reading- What's a Smart Woman Like You Doing At Home.
Remember, when you choose a caregiver for your kids, you are also choosing someone to help you raise them. Please be sure that person is as wonderful, creative, compassionate, and intellegent as you are. Your kids deserve no less.

ok, now you can bop me on the head all you want. I'll say no more.


----------



## mamawanabe (Nov 12, 2002)

While attachment parenting is right for me and my family (decided on a lot of its tenets before i knew what it was - when I first came here I thought "ap" stood for "alternative parenting"), Mom being attached isn't neccesarily the natural way ("natural" predisposes "right"), isn't necessarily the way humans were meant to parent.

For much of our human history, mothers simply could not be emotionally attached to thier babies because of the high infant mortality rate. Mothers often had wet nurses for thier babies. Babies were often not named until they reached five years old and thus had a good chance of making it. In fact, "childhood" itself is a fairly recent concept in teh West. Until recent history (really victorian age but you could see its beginnings in enlightenment) children were "little adults."

I want to stay home with my kids, but I am not any more biologically predisposed to stay home than my husband or my wetnurse/neighbor (who at one point in our history would have watched three family's children while the parents and older siblings gathered food and did primitive argiculture work.)

Many women will not make good stay at home moms. Their desire for a career outside the home (and there are many careers that you simply can't take 5-8 years off from and step back into in any meaningful way) is "right" too. A lot of moms don't work for finacial necessity or for fancy cars, but for joy of contributing in a certain way to the world. They need to find good child care and need not be told they are shirking thier biological imperative. To say so seems as anti-feminist as to see SAHMs as anti-feminist.

Because I feel like how I've decided to rasie kids is "right," I have to remind myself that it is right for me and wrong wrong for others.

So I am as ap as you will get while rolling my eyes at the "natural" arguments in support of it. Watch how "natural" is used rhetorically; it is a defense of whatever anyone decides to do - even color your hair with chemicals because "it is the color nature intended." When i hear that word I get suspicious. "It is right because it is natural" seems to be begging the question.


----------



## bluedotsmom (Nov 19, 2001)

So many eloquent posts, but I'll throw in my random thoughts:

-while pregnant with dd1, i first heard about the 'family bed' and remember telling my dh that "those people are crazy!!" ahem, we now have a family bedroom and ds (9mos) sleeps with me & dh...just like his sisters did (they're in their own bed in our room)
-my husband was a sahd to dd1 & dd2 (for 5 years) as a professional musician, he would have had to be on the road 360 days a year to support us and we absolutely believed that our children needed both of us.
-I found The Baby Book when dd1 was about 2 months old and finally found a name for what we were doing - it was AP!!!!! once dd1 came home, it just seemed natural to hold her all the time and breastfeeding was planned from the beginning. and, my dh was/is an enormous component of any success I might have as a mother, from leaking breasts to staying home after the birth of our third child last November.
-I always liked Sears' books because he seemed to always come back to mothers' intuition. women have spent too many years in this country being told by allopathic physicians that *we* do not know what's best for our babies or ourselves!
-and, I could give a Sears book to a non-AP type person and they would read it! are their books perfect? of course not, but they're pretty good for a start.
- my dh *loathes* the label Attachment Parenting, he thinks it sounds stupid and believes that labels can turn off other folks. he's funny that way, but he always encourages homebirth, breastfeeding, slings, etc...to people he meets.

Conservative or liberal? Well, I personally am conservatively liberal! Wait a minute, was that liberally conservative?!? D&*#n, I can't ever remember.

Who knows...I'm Christian, I'm 39 years old & dh is 49, our 3 kids range in age from 5 down to 9 months and my dh wants more!!! I like to wear lipstick, occasionally shave my legs, wear skirts mostly because it's easier to pee when slinging a 20+ lb baby, breastfeed in public as much as possible just to stir up trouble, am trying to live a more natural lifestyle (even making dh eat buckwheat waffles which he says taste like grass







: ) and have been spending much time lately having an internal debate as to whether 'natural' living is the same as 'simple' living (it seems to me that 'simple' leads to 'natural', but not necessarily the other way.)

hhhmmmm, this post makes no sense. oh well, maybe I'm an independently, conservative liberal AP'er!

luv ya moms!!


----------



## mum2sarah (Apr 23, 2003)

Mamawannabe, you are totally misconstruing what I said and mixing it up with what someone else said. Reread what I said, please. I never said that staying at home was the natural thing to do. I never said that all aspects of AP are necessarily the natural things to do. I said that the breastfeeding relationship with the bonding that takes place is natural, and that the AP mantra of the importance of mother and baby bonding stems from the breastfeeding relationship that nature designed. Roll your eyes all you want, but it's the truth.

I can see what you are saying about mothers emotionally distancing themselves in the past because of infant mortality, and perhaps that may have been the case to some degree. But I'm talking more of a physical bond than an emotional one that is natural. And if there's anything to roll eyes about it's your argument that the existence of wetnurses means that bonding with your baby was not what nature intended. The popularity of wetnursing was a fairly recent phenomenon in the scope of human history and it has nothing to do with the way we evolved as human beings. The fact that we are able nurse another mother's baby does not mean that nature didn't intend for the baby to be nursed by it's own mother. Perhaps this was a survival mechanism in case the mother died in childbirth, but it seems totally illogical to argue that it isn't natural for a mother to nurse her own baby

I am not pro-SAHM for everyone. I know plenty of moms who are better off working. I am not pro-WOHM for everyone because some of us feel not obligated but fulfilled by a choice to stay at home, which is just as valid as a choice to have a career. What I am pro about is pro-baby and pro-nature. A baby was designed by nature for physical contact and breastmilk. If these things can't be provided in the "traditional" way, I suggest a network of support in our society to approximate them as closely as possible. That has nothing to do with being conservative or liberal. It has to do with meeting the infant's needs as ideally as possible when they enter the world knowing nothing of political ideology, or feminist rhetoric. They only know what humans have evolved to know. That they suckle. That they feel safe when enclosed in warm arms, surrounded by love.


----------



## mum2sarah (Apr 23, 2003)

I guess another way to summarize what I'm saying is that while you may be able to argue that it isn't always natural for a mother to want to be with her baby constantly, it's very hard to argue that it isn't natural for the baby to need to be with it's mother constantly. And actually, regardless of an emotional need that the mother may or may not feel, she still does have a natural physical need for her breasts to be relieved on a regular basis. I guess it's all in how you define "bond" and how you define "natural" and who it is you're referring to: the mother or the baby. But that does not make the bond I'm referring to any less natural.


----------



## mamawanabe (Nov 12, 2002)

Oh I wasn't responding to any particular post. Just to the general idea that the way we are raising out kids (AP) is the way that "nature traditionally intended." (that is not a quote from another post; the quotation marks are used to bracket off an idea)

I am thinking through this idea now (which part of me buys into). How far back should we go, historically, to find out what nature traditionally intended - ya know? Humans have always lived in civilizations that prescribed different social structures, and they have always called these social structures "natural." In hunting and gathering societies, I imagine it didn't seem natural at all for a woman to play with her babies much of the day, but it certainly feels so to us now.

Breastfeeding your own child seems 100% natural now, so much so that practices entirely common in the middle ages (sending kids for the first couple of years of life to peasant wetnurses) are unthinkable. In fact we find the idea of breastfeeding a child not our own were "weird," when for thoudands of years this was the norm among whole classes of people. I don't know if we know if wetnurses were common in hunting and gathering soceities, but I imagine they were - It would allow for more work to get done if one mother feed two or three mothers' kids.

So my only point is that "natural" is a social conept.

And as a social being brought up in this soceity, I too believe breastfeeding your own child to be the "natural" way. But I still question that belief.


----------



## mamawanabe (Nov 12, 2002)

Ah you posted your second post while I was writing.

Hmm, the mother(cargiver)-child physical bond that comes from breastfeeding.

Does the "naturally" baby desire to be with a single caregiver constantly? Any caregivers who nurse? Only Mom?

I wonder if any social science studies have been done on this. If this has been measured?

A lot of interesting questions. A lot we should explore. The way not to explore this seems to me to proclaim "natural"


----------



## mum2sarah (Apr 23, 2003)

Those are very good questions, mammawanabe. I guess you are right in that it's hard to say how humans would behave "naturally" in isolation of any social context such as society, or clans, or tribes, etc.

I suppose I'm just looking at the baby's need for physical touch and nourishment and the mother's need for physical relief of full breasts. And that breastfeeding helps deliver her placenta, stop postpartum bleeding, and shrink her uterus back to its prepregnancy size. And that her milk changes as the weeks and months go by to exactly fit the needs of the age of her particular baby. And looking at all those physical factors, it would seem to me that nature designed the system for the mom to be the one accessible frequently to her baby to nurse him/her often, especially in the early months.

Now that's not to say the needs of mother and baby cannot be met in other circumstances. In our society a mother can pump milk to relieve engorgement and provide for her baby. Another loving caregiver can give the gentle touch and warmth a baby yearns for. I guess all I'm saying is that if we take a look at the system that it seems was designed by nature, then we can look at ways of parenting that most closely fit the needs of mother (or other parental figure) and baby. Does that clarify?

Oh, and I apologize if I took your post personally. I thought that you were referring mostly to my post, since I did talk at length about what is "natural." Forgive my defensiveness...


----------



## DAR mama (Aug 24, 2003)

Amandzia, while I have no desire to "bop" you on the head, I would like to make one more comment and then I will stop before this gets any more off topic.

I would like to point out that while the majority of the posts have focused on the many ways we agree about how to raise our kids - breastfeeding, cosleeping, mutal respect, etc -- and how amazing it is that ideas relating to attachment parenting can transcend so many boundaries, you seem to want to condem mothers who, for whatever reason, do not stay home full-time. Whether to stay at home is a complicated decision made by complicated women in a complicated world. Please leave room for others to make their own difficult decisions without painting them with the broad brush of greedy materialist, self-centered egotist, oblivious idiot, or unfit parent.

It is true that you know nothing of what my work/home situation, or my caregiver situation, so you should not presume to give me advice based on the extremes of bad mainstream parenting. I don't park my ds in daycare 12 hours a day, I do not work in order to own an expensive new car, I do not trust my child to idiots. Please don't assume that because I work that I love my child any less than you love yours.

OK, sorry to everyone else for this semi-rant. I will respectfully withdraw from this thread now.


----------



## *Erin* (Mar 18, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by mamaduck_
*Someone I know wrote Sears a letter asking for clarification about some of his assertions about the role of a "mother." His reply was pretty starkly anti-feminist. To the effect that *all* women are made for to purpose of having and nurturing babies and should recognize the blessedness of this calling.

I like Dr. Sears and am willing to disagree on some points because it makes me happy to hear a Christian voice advocating gentle discipline, etc. I really think he is a hugely valuable resource in conservative communities who will *only* listen to a Christian voice, etc. I recommend his books and articles without hesitation!!!!

For myself, I have felt inclined to read things written by women lately. I'm not saying it is better, just that I find women often do a better job speaking to *my* reality. KWIM?*
omg. that wouldve made my head explode.

i am right there w/ you on wanting to read womyn also. i started reading everything i could get my hands on about feminism and the womyn's movement, and modern womyn, and that desire for the female voice just stayed right with me with everything i read. esp. irt babies, children, childcare, birth, pregnancy, breastfeeding, and ect... i find the same thing, that womyn speak my reality better.


----------



## mamawanabe (Nov 12, 2002)

For as long as I can remember, my mom has ONLY read books by women. Dectective fiction or nonfiction, whatever, it has to be by a woman. She says there are too many good books by women, that male authors have nothing to say to her.


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

mom2sarah: excellent post back there!

mamawanabe: excellent points raised!

re: "natural"...this is how I look at it:

Think about a breeder of dogs: wouldn't it seem bizarre if that person took the newborn pups away from their mother immediately after birth and placed them in individual incubators? Wouldn't it seem strange to feed them, let's say, milk from a goat rather than milk from a dog? And every breeder I know recognizes the importance of colostrum. Yet hundreds of thousands of mothers in this country can't even be bothered to give their human child colostrum, while breeders of horses go out of their way to get it for their foals.

And you wouldn't feed your pet cat a diet of raw carrots any more than you'd present your Bunny Rabbit with a diet of worms. You don't need to explain to people why dogs need to be taken for a walk but your pet spider doesn't.

Yet somehow when it comes to babies all common sense goes out the window. Of course babies will sleep better when mama is holding them close and walking around. Of course they want to be held all the time. Of course they cry when layed down alone without any human contact. Of course human milk is far superior than cow's milk (even when your kid is a toddler!). I mean, when we look at other mammals what are they doing? And especially look at primates...what are they doing?

Millions of years of evolution mean that the conditions which human babies evolved in are the ones in which they are designed to thrive the best. It doesn't mean they aren't adaptable and it doesn't mean that occaisonally some babies will be anomalies (like the babe who just really doesn't want to be held all the time, or really doesn't like cosleeping). But IMO, I up the odds considerably in my favour when I parent my child as naturally as possible. And, when you've got three different parenting "experts" telling you three different things, I always come down to this question..

"What would Mrs. Caveman do?"

Mrs. Caveman almost certainly didn't bother herself with whether nursing her baby to sleep was creating a "bad habit". She would probably be horrified at the thought of her baby sleeping alone without her. She would probably laugh herself silly at the notion that babies need to cry to exercise their lungs. She would never bother with a schedule (and lugging that sundial around would be a real pain, now, wouldn't it?). So when I hear advice like "babies should be fed every 3 hours, no sooner" I can't imagine why anyone would think that makes sense!

Like mom2sarah said: mothers today have different needs and circumstances, but babies are the same as they were 100,000 years ago.

stepping off soapbox now....hee hee.


----------



## melixxa (May 20, 2003)

What a wonderful thread. This is some of the most thought-provoking stuff I've read in awhile.

I wanted to add that I love how this community, though self-professed AP, remains inclusive. I, for one, don't necessarily consider myself a good AP-er (not that I believe it's necessary to have labels), mainly because I'm new at all this - my baby is just six weeks old - and don't yet know how I'll end up choosing to do things. Will I EBF? I don't know. I am just going to keep going and not think about six, eight, 12 months down the line. Will the combination co-sleeper (Arm's Reach)/in-the-bed arrangement my DP and I have settled into for now end up being a longer-term thing? I don't know. Will we refuse or delay vaccinations? We haven't decided yet!

When I first got pregnant, I was so ignorant (and squeamish) that I told people I *would not be breastfeeding my baby* (gasp!). As the months went by, I grudgingly accepted the fact that I *must* breastfeed for the health and welfare of my baby, even though the whole thing horrified and repulsed me. I was sure it would be an incredible ordeal for me. Well, now I am bf-ing up a storm and it has all gone off without a hitch. I wouldn't say I "loved" bf-ing, but I wouldn't say I didn't. I am happy to be able to make this unique commitment - unique as in with my specially engineered milk - to my baby's wellbeing. And to his comfort level.

I have two points to make. One is that, even though I don't think I am as "committed" as many of the people who post here regularly, I feel welcome here. I am thrilled by the fact that this is seemingly one of the few forums left where left and right, liberal and conservative, committed and casual, etc. etc. etc. - whichever labels I need to use to paint a picture of the broad spectrum of ideas represented here - can come and debate and discuss, support and encourage, ask and inform, agree and disagree - in a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect, with minimal rancor. Isn't this a rare, precious thing in today's polarized, contentious society? For this, I truly value the Mothering boards and the AP community in general.

My second point - well, I suppose it's not a point, more just an observation of my own. I have come to value bf-ing (beyond nutrition) exactly because my partner and I are both so intensely attached to our DS. We both work out of the home, are both freelancers in our chosen professions, though obviously right now I'm not working at all (I'm barely sleeping here....). As a result, his schedule remains flexible and by design includes no early mornings - so he can soothe and spend time with our son during the nights, waking me only to nurse. This system allows us both to get more sleep and to both become "attached" to the baby. I would say that we spend nearly equal time with the boy, mainly carrying him around, holding him in our arms, playing with him on the bed, the couch, the floor. As a result, my DP is pretty much a better soother for our DS than I am - he is "naturally" (there's that word again) a more "maternal" person than I am, it seems. I have to admit that I'm a little jealous I could never just rock my son to sleep, or cuddle him on my chest until he drops off. And so I've come to appreciate bf-ing as my special contribution.

I don't fit all of Dr. Sears' prescriptions for an attached mother, and neither does my DP. Together, we are both equally there for our DS - he has two "attached," full-time parents. We're lucky we have it like this. We are doing it in the way that not only works best for us but also feels most right to us. Though we may not fit the mold, what we're doing is more or less in line with the AP world. Whether the Sears approach can be labelled conservative or not (I happen to consider myself politically and socially liberal) - what does it matter? I have taken from the books and the ideas the things we can use and benefit from. I don't like or support Sears' ostensible opinions on gays as parents, etc. And it's possible that Sears advocates the SAHM out of a conservative and/or restrictive idea of women's roles in addition to the medical grounding. I don't approve of that if true, but whatever. I'm just doing what feels best and seems best for my child. And I sorta like that devoted childrearing (to avoid the "attached" label for once - I really don't even like using the word but it has come in handy in this discussion, obviously) is where opposite ideological poles come together in agreement on so many things.

What a ramble ... sorry.


----------



## mum2sarah (Apr 23, 2003)

melixxa, I totally understand where you are coming from. When I first got pregnant with dd, I thought I'd have every drug possible during labor, and I never thought I would breastfeed. I happened upon some of the AP principles by accident; an accident which began with my randomly choosing the Sears' "The Birth Book" from among tons of books on the shelves at the local book store. After reading that book I was so intrigued I searched for more books. I guess that's why I so staunchly defend the Sears. I look at their advice as what "saved" me and my dd from blindly following the mainstream ways of society. I guess I just have trouble understanding how some people view the Sears as being so conservative. That's not at all what I took away from reading their books and browsing their website. I always thought that they kept their personal/religious convictions separate from their parenting advice. I always felt they gave a balanced picture of things, and simply encouraged parents to follow their instincts and make decisions that were right for their family.

Even still, I hesitate to label myself AP, just as I hesitate to label myself liberal. These labels mostly fit me, but there are finer points where they don't. For instance, even after I "saw the light" from all the reading I did while I was pregnant, I still only thought I'd "try" to breastfeed for a few months or so, but 17 months later, we're still going strong. This is because it was right for us, not because some AP philosophy told me to do so. Another example: there has been discussion on other threads about taking AP too far, and I see that this can be the case if a mother coddles her child and makes him the center of attention all the time, and meticulously babyproofs every inch of the house, all in the name of "attachment." I tend to favor the CC end of the spectrum when it comes to these issues. I call it loving neglegience. In other words, as my dd became mobile, I let her have the run of the house and do what she wanted to do, no gates, no mommy hovering over her telling her what to play with. I just let her explore. Of course I make sure there is nothing terribly dangerous that she can get into, but if she manages to find my purse and pull out every little slip of paper and credit card, well I just smile and say, "she's working on her fine motor skills," and clean it up later.

I guess my point is that while I don't consider AP to be conservative, I also think that very few of us would label ourselves AP and say that we agree with every aspect of it, just as "conservatives" or "liberals" may not agree with everything that is considered to be conservative or liberal. I just feel that we are all individuals who should try as best we can to follow our instincts, because I feel they are the connection to what is "natural" and best in how we raise our children.


----------



## fireflies~for~me (Jun 24, 2003)

This is such a great thread...I even printed it. Wether it is natural childbirth or attachment parenting, I see these "philosophies" as what you find in nature. Really...
I am blessed to have a DH who often finds himself looking to the animal kingdom







to figure things out. He is totally supportive of EBFfeding, cosleeping, etc because it just makes sense.

I really love Sears AP book...I often go back to it for reference and support. I think he too looks at AP as an extension of what is natural for our bodies and children. Martha is a great example of a natural mama but who also found ways to use her intelligence and experience as an RN while being a SAHM...I guess she was more of a WAHM.

So...here's my profie. We are believers (husband has some Jewish heritage) but you won't find us in Mainstream Church USA. DH is a Desert Storm vet, so we are conservative politically and vote Republican. I am a SAHM occassionally WAHM who does consulting-I left a high profile career and love my current "Job".

It gets funnier...we live in a rural mountain area, but DH drives in for his 9-5 techie job...we have an organic garden but also own a big loud pickup. We play tournament chess but also love country music.

What else...I am a Surrendered Wife (great book) and see DH as leader of our home...We eat no refined suagar or flour due to DH hypoglycemia,

we do not vax
we exclusively Breast Feed
We cosleep
We sling, bjorn, back carry all day

Labels Schmabels!!!









Thought of some more: we after loooong deliberation, decided to circ, I am a Bradley mama and LLL member, we honestly don't know if spanking (NOT OUT OF ANGER) is OK or not-we lean to think that it is necessary under certain circumstances. and let's see we have read many times Eckart Tolle's The Power of Now...


----------



## melixxa (May 20, 2003)

Labels schmables indeed!

Still ... I have to say that I love "loving negligence," so this one's a keeper.


----------



## Foobar (Dec 15, 2002)

Wow, this IS an old thread!

Labels! Ha! Sorry Piglet- time to toss the labels..right?

Anyway, I agree with the animal analogy to a certain point. In the wild, if an animal CAN'T nurse, then what happens to the pup? Does it die? Does another animal in the pack feed the pup? I am curious.

I am one of those who failed at bf. Sorry, couldn't do it. I had planned to, but it didn't work. However, I have a great bond with Goo. So the milk thing didn't seem to hurt her there.

Also, DH and I share the parenting. We really do. We have different ideas on the minor stuff, but we are really together in this 100%. I really don't read too many books because they are silly after a while. I have some confidence in my own thoughts and how I want to see Goo raised.
But it is sad that Dads are sent to the corner to go do the "dad" stuff, isn't it?


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Foobar_
*Labels! Ha! Sorry Piglet- time to toss the labels..right?*
Absolutely.

Labels are great for general discussion, and the human brain does love to categorize things. But when labels start being used to force people into a mold, rather than to bring together those with similar philosophies, then they become destructive, IMO.

AP is a great catch-all term to distinguish certain parenting practices from the "mainstream" (ie. the default situation seen by most people) but I think these boards are proof-positive that AP is not so much in what you do, but how and why you do it.


----------



## Periwinkle (Feb 27, 2003)

Wow this is one of the most thought-provoking threads I've come across in a while.









I have not noticed that AP mamas tend to be more conservative vs. liberal.

But it's interesting, b/c I have frankly often felt that I don't "fit in", since I'm not totally liberal or "crunchy", but I also don't fit in with other "mainstream" mamas all the time. I'm sort of in between, and my political / social views represent a mix as well. 2 years ago when dh and I were getting ready to start "trying", if someone had told me that I would parent in this way, I would have said they were crazy. Mothering and related books, mags, etc., have opened by eyes so much, and I am a totally different mama than I would have been.

I am particularly facinated to read the comments in this thread about Sears. I haven't been able to give it a lot of thought, but I have definitely had issues with some of the things he has written. Plus I find it so "holier than thou" that it's a little hard for me to take (e.g., the chapter in The Baby Book about whether or not to return to work), and I definitely agree it's anti-feminist (whether or not this is a bad thing). When I consult his books, I tend to go straight to the meat of it or answer my question, because I do find the vast majority of his writing so informative and helpful. But I could do without the heaping dose of guilt and fear thank you very much... it does remind me of the conservative Christianity of my upbringing at times.

Anyway, I'm rambling. I think this thread was really interesting, and wanted to thank Piglet for starting, and to second what others have said about AP in general being inclusive.


----------

