# Questioning the 'Naturalness" of AP



## mumm (May 23, 2004)

I see the two related here at MDC all the time, but am not sure that they really go together. I'm beginning to think that AP is not natural at all. I'm not an expert (my kids are only 6 and almost 4) but I have two more on the way and want to try to get it 'right' this time around.

Look at specific portions of AP (as preached by Sears) that I frequently see being associated with NFL.

-*Co-sleeping.* My babies never slept in cribs, but instead on my body. After 4 years (2.5 for my son, 1.5 for my daughter) of nursing every 45 min at night I'm beat! How natural is this? If I were a cavewoman, I'd be dead! Never ever able to outrun a sabertooth tiger! Is it natural for a 6 year old to not be able to sleep at night because for his first few years he slept on a body. I'm ready to cry it out with him, and I'm sure it would have been less painful (more 'natural') if we had done it 5 years ago!

-*Babywearing-* If a kid can't walk and you need to get somewhere, you carry him. But once they can- I say give him/her the boot. I've got an (almost) 4 year old who can't separate from me, even in the #$%@# house!

-*Exclusive Breastfeeding*- Well, I can't argue with that one!







Only makes sense to me. But I do think we (I?) confuse BF for food with BF for comfort. And is comfort BFing natural?

I think you get the picture that I have in my fuzzy, sleep deprieved brain. I feel like I tried not to rush my kids into things they weren't ready for, but to support them in the things they were, and be there for them whenever they needed me. But 6+ years later, I'm ready to quit it all and think less AP more natural. (To try a 'better' way of parenting, if you will.) My kids can't sleep at night, can't separate well, and are way too 'needy'. That is not natural.

So how do you find the balance? And do you think that AP=NFL?


----------



## nonconformnmom (May 24, 2005)

Ummm ...









Before I can answer, it would help to know, how do you define "natural"?

ETA: I think AP and NFL are distinctly different things.


----------



## mumm (May 23, 2004)

Well, I guess I had been thinking about it two different ways. First, how it would be done in the natural world, or long ago. If each family was just part of a smaller world. (I frequently think to myself "Well, the sling would be great if I needed to pick cotton all day, but really I can only vaccumm so many times!" or "I'd have to let him learn to sleep at night, alone, so that I could hunt sabertooth tigers during the day without being eaten by the gazelles first.") And then in the MDC way, which says something about the "ancient ways now known as AP", which completely lumps the two.


----------



## rootzdawta (May 22, 2005)

Just my quick $.02.

I think it's difficult to say how it would have been done in time immemoriam(sp?) and equate it to the present because society was constructed totally differently. You could rely on the other women in your clan to help you out. In this day and age, lucky if you can find anyone to give you a hand. You can't ask your neighbor, "hey could you watch my child for a few minutes while I go to the grocery store" whthout a) pumping or b) giving formula. You've gotta take your nursing babe with you otherwise. I'm pretty sure in a small clan, it would not be too disastrous if you went off to gather some food and you're neighbor suckled your child when he/she got hungry because you were taking too long. Also, some of the things we now _opt_ to do and label it AP, you _had_ to do. You had to co-sleep because there was only one room in the hut, you had to carry your baby with you to work because where would you leave him/her, you had to nurse (for nourishment and comfort) because that's all there really was. What makes these things a burden (sometimes) now is that our society has changed and AP things and current societal norms are usually diametrically opposed. It's impractical to expect a mother or a nursling _who's nursing like they're supposed to_ to be up and about at the crack of dawn, to do one pumping session before they leave for work, hurry off to work, be great at work (while taking pumping breaks throughout the day) and then come home, be great at home, not sleep and then do it all again the next day.


----------



## AngelBee (Sep 8, 2004)

:


----------



## Guava~Lush (Aug 9, 2003)

Ok,
I figured out that I was practicing AP after I learned about it here, Mothering mag and Dr. Sears.-Only because it is what came "naturally" to me.

So for myself, AP is _natural_ for me becuase it was i_nstinctual_. does that make sense?

I honestly dont think you can make a blanket statement about AP not being natural because your kids didnt turn out a certain way? Or the way AP might portray a child to be after being raised AP. I'm fighting the flu







: Dont know if that makes sense.

But I dont know if it is because of AP or not- or maybe alot of its elements that attribute to my sons independance and confidence. He does not need me to sleep in the bed, OUR bed, and he walked at an early age, ok, he ran from me!

Instead of picturing yourself as a cave woman(?) just look around at other native and indigenous cultures around the world today, see how they raise their kids if you want a window into _natural_ child raising.


----------



## Parker'smommy (Sep 12, 2002)

Well...for ME, those three things for me, were natural things I did without anyone telling me to do them. It was only afterwards that I found out there was a "label" for what I was doing - AP.

co-sleeping....it was duh....baby needs to nurse at night...I'm not traipsing through the house at night, rocking a baby so that he will go to sleep in his crib. I lift my shirt, nurse babe, both of us fall back to sleep...doesn't get any more natural than that. It's what cultures who have not been told not to co-sleep do also. Does it work for everyone? no. So then you do what feels more natural for you.

Babywearing- I carried my babes for the most part until they protested and wanted to walk. It was a natural progression for us. Does my 2 year old want to be carried still? Sure she does. And I do. But she also likes to run and walk by herself too. My almost five year old very rarely asks me to carry him. But I try to if I can if he asks. It's usually because he's tired.

Breastfeeding- For me...well, comfort nursing was natural, in that, wow, if I breastfeed you, you stop crying, even if you aren't hungry. And that many babes ( not all) have a big instinct to suck, even when not hungry. I offer my breast for falls, frustration, hunger, whatever, because it's easy.

But hey...that's just me.


----------



## teachma (Dec 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Guava~Lush* 
Ok,
I figured out that I was practicing AP after I learned about it here, Mothering mag and Dr. Sears.-Only because it is what came "naturally" to me.

So for myself, AP is _natural_ for me becuase it was i_nstinctual_. does that make sense?

Same. It came naturally to me, too. I didn't know I was attacment parenting; I just thought I was parenting.


----------



## Demeter9 (Nov 14, 2006)

No, I don't necessarily think the ideas on natural are necessarily completely natural. Instinctual, but not necessarily what would happen under survival duress.

For example, not feeding children solids until 6 months or more. What seems apparent to me is that children would have been fed things AND that the way that was done was by mommy prechewing it for them. Hence transfering enzymes and bacteria necessary to help digest it properly.


----------



## BellinghamCrunchie (Sep 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mumm* 
-*Co-sleeping.* My babies never slept in cribs, but instead on my body. After 4 years (2.5 for my son, 1.5 for my daughter) of nursing every 45 min at night I'm beat! How natural is this? If I were a cavewoman, I'd be dead! Never ever able to outrun a sabertooth tiger! Is it natural for a 6 year old to not be able to sleep at night because for his first few years he slept on a body. I'm ready to cry it out with him, and I'm sure it would have been less painful (more 'natural') if we had done it 5 years ago!

DD is only 25 mths, so I can't say how it will be in a few years. To me, already in many ways she is more independent (willing to stray far from me), more curious, and more secure than her mainstream peers. I thought that was a typical outcome for an AP child. However, it could easily just be her personality.

But I CAN tell you what the effects of being raised Non-AP were like, at least for me. My parents did the whole bottle feeding, CIO, sleep alone in a crib thing. I had no confidence as a child. I was afraid to let my mom out of my sight. Even at age 10, I was afraid to be home alone. It took me hours to fall asleep (it still does) and I don't feel completely safe unless I'm in a familar bed. Not with a familar PERSON. A familar BED. Furthermore, I have a very difficult time sleeping with another person in the same bed. It just doesn't feel right.

Who can say how it would have been for your son if he had CIO and slept alone? Perhaps now he would be even more clingy and insecure, instead of less. There's no way to know for sure, but what little evidence is out there does seem to indicate children end up more confident and independent when they are raised AP than their non-AP'd peers.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mumm* 

-*Co-sleeping.* My babies never slept in cribs, but instead on my body. After 4 years (2.5 for my son, 1.5 for my daughter) of nursing every 45 min at night I'm beat! How natural is this? If I were a cavewoman, I'd be dead! Never ever able to outrun a sabertooth tiger! Is it natural for a 6 year old to not be able to sleep at night because for his first few years he slept on a body. I'm ready to cry it out with him, and I'm sure it would have been less painful (more 'natural') if we had done it 5 years ago!

-*Babywearing-* If a kid can't walk and you need to get somewhere, you carry him. But once they can- I say give him/her the boot. I've got an (almost) 4 year old who can't separate from me, even in the #$%@# house!

-*Exclusive Breastfeeding*- Well, I can't argue with that one!







Only makes sense to me. But I do think we (I?) confuse BF for food with BF for comfort. And is comfort BFing natural?

I think you get the picture that I have in my fuzzy, sleep deprieved brain. I feel like I tried not to rush my kids into things they weren't ready for, but to support them in the things they were, and be there for them whenever they needed me. But 6+ years later, I'm ready to quit it all and think less AP more natural. (To try a 'better' way of parenting, if you will.) My kids can't sleep at night, can't separate well, and are way too 'needy'. That is not natural.

So how do you find the balance? And do you think that AP=NFL?

1. Well, if you were a cave woman your 6 yr old would sleep close by. So would your mom, your mil, your dad, your dil, cousin harry, etc etc etc.

2. Babywearing- I would think that perhaps your situation is your individual child and his personality. I know that somewhere around 18mo-2 yrs my dd wanted to walk everywhere on her own. Some of that is just going to be personality.

3. Breastfeeding- well, biologically humans are going to be breastfeeding for an extended period (longer than 2 yrs, probably at least 4) Food, comfort- whatever.

-Angela


----------



## SuperMama (Jan 22, 2007)




----------



## beanma (Jan 6, 2002)

mumm, sounds like you have pretty high needs kids. just 'cause they're high needs doesn't mean the AP style made them that way. my dds are very high needs, too, but if i was really serious about it i think i could get my dd1 out of the family bed now. i'm kinda waiting until i really fix up her room a little more to make it more enticing. she sleeps like a rock now. i think i could move her to her bed after she was asleep or lie down with her in her bed and then leave. we've done it a time or two and she's come in our bed early in the morning or awakened once at night and come in our bed. just haven't pushed it yet. now, dd2 is another story. she has actually tightened her velcro grip recently. she totally has radar about when i get out of the bed in the morning, too. dd1 will still be snoozing and dd2 will be crying for me. my hope is that when she's 6 she'll sleep like a rock, too, but we're not there yet...

anyway, all i'm trying to say is that your kids sound more high needs than some (and i mean that with love coming from a similar situation), but that doesn't mean AP isn't "natural", yknow?

hope the sleep situation gets better for you soon --







.


----------



## Leilalu (May 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
1. Well, if you were a cave woman your 6 yr old would sleep close by. So would your mom, your mil, your dad, your dil, cousin harry, etc etc etc.

2. Babywearing- I would think that perhaps your situation is your individual child and his personality. I know that somewhere around 18mo-2 yrs my dd wanted to walk everywhere on her own. Some of that is just going to be personality.

3. Breastfeeding- well, biologically humans are going to be breastfeeding for an extended period (longer than 2 yrs, probably at least 4) Food, comfort- whatever.

-Angela











And I have to say personally, I did what came natural to me and ended up under the "AP" label









I also think that there is quite a differnce between being naturally minded and AP minded. 2 entirely different animals that just so happen to coexist very well.


----------



## BelgianSheepDog (Mar 31, 2006)

"Natural" is an overdefined and overvalued term.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mumm* 
-*Co-sleeping.* My babies never slept in cribs, but instead on my body. After 4 years (2.5 for my son, 1.5 for my daughter) of nursing every 45 min at night I'm beat! How natural is this? If I were a cavewoman, I'd be dead! Never ever able to outrun a sabertooth tiger! Is it natural for a 6 year old to not be able to sleep at night because for his first few years he slept on a body. I'm ready to cry it out with him, and I'm sure it would have been less painful (more 'natural') if we had done it 5 years ago!

I replied to this point a few hours ago, but ds2 reset the computer before I submitted my reply. I haven't read any of the other responses.

It seems to me that if you were a cavewoman, there would be a few differences. First - it would likely be completely dark at night, and your child would be less likely to rouse as often. Second - you would probably have been working hard _physically_ all day and would likely sleep through his nursing (I've coslept where it totaly screwed up my sleep and where it had almost no effect as he nursed while I slept). Third - you wouldn't be getting up in the morning and trying to cope with your baby on your own all day. There would be other women (and men) in the tribe who would be dealing with groups of children. I've seen several articles over the years that suggest that primitive societies generally have _more_ downtime than we do, not less (I'm not romanticizing it - we have many advantages, too). I'm not sure you'd be as tired as you think. Four - everyone would be sleeping in one big cave. Do you think a crying baby would afford anybody _more_ sleep? Fifth - you'd still be able to run from the sabretooth - adrenalin is an amazing thing.


----------



## PrennaMama (Oct 10, 2005)

Given some of the behaviors or attitides u described in your children, mumm, I would begin to ask myself about the quality of my Attachment. We hear and read a lot about APing, and it's become a broadly used term. But there are degrees to Attachment, as illustrated by the Emotional Availability Scales innovated by Dr. Zeynep Biringen (sp?) in her book Raising a Secure Child: _Creating an Emotional Connection Between You and Your Child_


I took this great course on Attachment Parenting and Gentle Discipline when dd was about 9 months old. We used that book as the text, and it really shifted my paradigm. She reveals degrees of attachment and how we can affect the bond we share with our child from baby-hood into adolescence and beyond. Discussing points like: A parent and child can be _very_ attached, but that attachment might be an insecure one, due to unconscious behaviors from the parent reflecting their own child-parent relationship memories, or the parent and/or the child experience of everyday stressors; as well as how we need to provide a source of emotional and psychological rejuvenation, (refueling) throughout those years and that if we're doing 'self-checks' and maintaining an awareness of that emotional connection, we are providing a stable foundation for that child's relationships now and in the future <- which I believe is at the heart of APing.

I _heartily_ recommend this book all the time.

eta: link to book...


----------



## Rhiannon Feimorgan (Aug 26, 2005)

It's a pretty well established fact that people in hunter gatherer cultures have more lesure time than we do now. There would have been a lot more time for naps.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
I've seen several articles over the years that suggest that primitive societies generally have _more_ downtime than we do, not less (I'm not romanticizing it - we have many advantages, too). I'm not sure you'd be as tired as you think.










Absolutely. Tribal peoples, as a rule, have *much* more of what we would consider "leisure" time.

-Angela


----------



## UptownZoo (May 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BelgianSheepDog* 
"Natural" is an overdefined and overvalued term.









Speak it, sistah'!

I think some of the things we are missing in our collective interpretation of AP is that of balance. It's one of Sears's "baby Bs", but we kind of gloss over that in favor of babywearing, breastfeeding, birth bonding, and bedding near baby.

I would argue that balance is not the least important, but the MOST important, and by a large margin. In my experience, with friends and in teaching babywearing and AP classes, almost everybody gets the attachment part right. People are practically afraid to put a kid in his or her own bed, even though NOBODY is getting decent sleep, because of the potential scars to the attachment. People are actually afraid of causing RAD (reactive attachment disorder) in their children because of weaning them before they wean themselves, or putting them in a crib, or whatever. Even a marginally normal, loving parent is not going to cause RAD in a child! It's a devastating syndrome caused by perpetual neglect/abuse, not sleeping in a crib (even if parents practice CIO)(which, BTW, I'm NOT advocating!).

But I digress. I agree. "Natural" is given way too much weight. I recently found out that my youngest child is deathly allergic to some of the plant fibers that are commonly used in furniture, cushions, etc., and the only safe things for us to own are those stuffed with polyester. So natural isn't always best. And cave babies may have been held 100% of the time but NOT BY THEIR MOTHERS. As Alegna pointed out, there was loads of family around, a whole tribe, other lactating women, so the demands of a young child weren't so relentless. I am unable (not unwilling, but actually unable) to hold a child 24 hours a day. My youngest was extremely HN, and believe me, I tried. I absolutely could not do it. So I felt guilty. Only a few years' distance from his very, very difficult infancy have given me enough perspective to understand that guilt was completely unnecessary. We can't (nor should we try to) make our children 100% happy.

The way I parent has to work for everybody in my house, every one of us. That means that sometimes my kids don't get everything they want. The only person in our family who gets the drop-everything-and-run treatment is a newborn baby and anybody who is sick. If having your children in your bed isn't working for you anymore, you will not scar your children by making a change. No, they may not like it, but that doesn't mean it will damage them.

Honestly, I know I seem mean sometimes, but parenting is a marathon, not a sprint. The demands change over the years, but they don't get less. You have to save some energy because let me tell you, early adolescence will suck just as much out of you as infancy does! I've given too much of myself to my children for periods in our lives and we all suffered because of it. When I find that sweet spot, where I'm meeting their needs AND taking care of myself and my marriage, we're all exponentially happier, kids included.

I'll try to stop ranting now.







I've been laid up with unbearable endometriosis pain on and off for months now (surgery Tuesday! Yay!), and I get bored and opinionated sometimes.


----------



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

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 








Absolutely. Tribal peoples, as a rule, have *much* more of what we would consider "leisure" time.

-Angela

I found the Continuum Concept very helpful. Here is a link to one of my all time favorite parenting articles.

http://www.continuum-concept.org/rea...InControl.html


----------



## TranscendentalMom (Jun 28, 2002)

Sometimes I have an issue with this and I think its one of the weaknesses of Dr. Sears's books and Mothering magazine for that matter. Sears is always labeling AP things as "natural" and it comes off sounding higher than thou. He also uses a lot of idealistic sounding anecdotes such as 'women in primitive societies babies didn't cry as much because they followed natural instincts.' I get what he's saying here but I would rather he back his arguments with more scientific research than stories like that which his books are full of. The whole AP/NFL philosophy in general sort of shames people into fitting into the way of life...kind of like, you aren't cool unless you shop at the natural food co-op. You aren't cool unless you cloth diaper, wear a sling etc. Many of my friends fit would fit the "natural" and "AP" model as far as I'm concerned but when the subject of something like Mothering magazine comes up they roll their eyes because they find the preachiness irritating.

However, there is something about the word "natural" that attracted me to AP. It may even be the part that spoke to me the most...and its what I take away from it, leaving the bulleted lists of what to do and not do behind...is that it supported the notion that mothers should do what FEELS NATURAL FOR THEM. That principle has guided my parenting more than anything (and I surround myself with people who also parent this way whether they be labeled AP or mainstream) I coslept with both my kids in the beginning not because of a belief or view but because it felt right. When my babies grew into toddlers, it simply stopped working and we moved them to their own beds. I didn't struggle or feel guilty it because it felt like it was time. I didn't have to consult any book or anyone elses opinion to know. I think that's what AP or "following natural instincts" is all about...at least for me.


----------



## TranscendentalMom (Jun 28, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *uptownzoo* 
Honestly, I know I seem mean sometimes, but parenting is a marathon, not a sprint. The demands change over the years, but they don't get less. You have to save some energy because let me tell you, early adolescence will suck just as much out of you as infancy does! I've given too much of myself to my children for periods in our lives and we all suffered because of it. When I find that sweet spot, where I'm meeting their needs AND taking care of myself and my marriage, we're all exponentially happier, kids included.










DITTO everything you said mama. You should write and essay based on that. I almost want to copy and paste your post so I can read it on a day that I need to remember that. I almost stopped coming to this forum for awhile because I got so tired of the martyrdom I see around here and the way women wear it like a best-mom-ever-badge "my kids have never been away from me for more than 2 hours and they are 8 and 10 and I wouldn't want them to, I'd miss them too much!" I just worry for the new mom who is stressed out and needs some alone time reading that and feeling like she's a bad mother because she wants a break and needs some support about it. Its so absurd. I'm over all the guilt. There's way too much guilt in AP. And we do have to take care of ourselves. Dear God, its SO important. I agree, if we arrive in our kids adolescence haggard and worn, they'll only resent us for it. And we'll resent them because they'll never thank us for all we did. My feeling now is that I don't do it if its going to make me feel bad that someone doesn't appreciate it. I either do it for myself or because it works for the whole family or I don't do it.


----------



## riverscout (Dec 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *uptownzoo* 
Honestly, I know I seem mean sometimes, but parenting is a marathon, not a sprint. The demands change over the years, but they don't get less. You have to save some energy because let me tell you, early adolescence will suck just as much out of you as infancy does!

Damn, I thought I was almost over the hard part.










I really enjoyed your post uptownzoo. It's great to get a little perspective from a more experienced mother. Best wishes for your surgery!


----------



## fuller2 (Nov 7, 2004)

Here's the thing--we are laying AP over our prexisting cultural mothering paradigm, which was total maternal self-sacrifice, no connection with wider world, everything oriented toward home and family, etc. The thing we always overlook when we imagine 'primitive' societies is that ALL those mamas were working mamas--as in, provided essential food, clothing etc., and even money. None of these mamas ONLY care for children and the domestic environment in the way we idealize motherhood. (For one thing, the whole idea of 'domesticity' implies a certain kind of separation from the rest of life--and that just wasn't the case even 200 years ago in the way it is today in our society. I would bet you that the cave women did not separate their 'home' life and the rest of life. Doing this seems natural to us, but it is really a pretty recent invention in human history.)

And before industrialization took fathers out of the home in the mid-19th century to work for wages, men in our society also did plenty of taking care of kids--there was not the distinction between home and work that we see today for them either. The powerful association we have that "home life=mother only" came about in the Victorian era. Before that, all mothers cared for children AND were WAHMs. And most dads worked at home too! or very close to home.

I think the martyr thing is alive and well in many interpretations of AP, as is the idea that only mother can care for small children well, kids should never be with a babysitter, mother should never do anything that doesn't center on her children. THAT, though, is not natural! It is a product of our particular culture, and a remnant of 19th century (that is, pretty recent) ideas about strict separation of home and work, and strict separation of gender roles. (which were all powerfully reinforced in the late 1940s and 1950s to get all those Rosie the Riveters to go back home and stop taking jobs from men...)

AP is sometimes awfully close to the total self-sacrifice demanded of fundementalist Christian motherhood too--the techniques and ways of child care can be very different, but the idea that mothers should sacrifice everything and be happy about it for their small children is the same. I personally think the 'natural' way to raise children is for both parents to share the care, with a lot of help from relatives and friends. The burnout rate is probably far less in this situation.

We are trying to mix AP with June Cleaver--but these 2 paradigms come from very different places, and so you end up with the moms who get 4 hours of broken sleep a night, frying themselves with constant BF, dragging around bags of soiled cloth diapers, carrying the children everywhere, and doing all of this alone!! with husbands who work 100 hours a week and do almost no care.

June Cleaver works much better with CIO and scheduled feedings and babysitter every Friday night because that model developed in the industrial age and works better for the home-work separated/suburban environment and with the 'traditional' male wage-earning-outside-the-home model. That's why people still do it--it works in our culture. But AP pretty much requires the daily help of others, and the sharing of care. I don't know how you can do both and not completely exhuast yourself.


----------



## huskermommy (Jun 14, 2006)

Guava~Lush said:


> Ok,
> I figured out that I was practicing AP after I learned about it here, Mothering mag and Dr. Sears.-Only because it is what came "naturally" to me.
> 
> So for myself, AP is _natural_ for me becuase it was i_nstinctual_. does that make sense?
> ...


----------



## huskermommy (Jun 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
Fifth - you'd still be able to run from the sabretooth - adrenalin is an amazing thing.









:


----------



## FreeRangeMama (Nov 22, 2001)

Quote:

I think you get the picture that I have in my fuzzy, sleep deprieved brain. I feel like I tried not to rush my kids into things they weren't ready for, but to support them in the things they were, and be there for them whenever they needed me. But 6+ years later, I'm ready to quit it all and think less AP more natural. (To try a 'better' way of parenting, if you will.) My kids can't sleep at night, can't separate well, and are way too 'needy'. That is not natural.








You sound tired and burnt out. It just can't be a one-woman show. Doing everything yourself is hard if you don't have the support around you. Most "natural" societies had such a strong social network. Babies were carried everywhere, kids slept closeby, and kids were nursed past toddlerhood for sure. But these little families weren't locked away in houses surrounded by empty neighborhoods. People actually spent time together. Talked, worked, were productive, and shared the load. It was a COMMUNITY effort. Recreating a community effort all by yourself is exhausting. You need to carve out help, support, or just some other moms to have coffee with while the littles play. It makes a difference to be surrounded by love and support instead of being isolated and expecting to do it all. That is how parenting (and living really) was meant to be.


----------



## Potty Diva (Jun 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mumm* 
I see the two related here at MDC all the time, but am not sure that they really go together. I'm beginning to think that AP is not natural at all. I'm not an expert (my kids are only 6 and almost 4) but I have two more on the way and want to try to get it 'right' this time around.

Look at specific portions of AP (as preached by Sears) that I frequently see being associated with NFL.

-*Co-sleeping.* My babies never slept in cribs, but instead on my body. After 4 years (2.5 for my son, 1.5 for my daughter) of nursing every 45 min at night I'm beat! How natural is this? If I were a cavewoman, I'd be dead! Never ever able to outrun a sabertooth tiger! Is it natural for a 6 year old to not be able to sleep at night because for his first few years he slept on a body. I'm ready to cry it out with him, and I'm sure it would have been less painful (more 'natural') if we had done it 5 years ago!

It's very natural to go with your instincts about what your baby needs and to go with that naturally. If you were a cave woman you wouldn't be out of the cave to have to run from a saber tooth tiger.

Quote:

-*Babywearing-* If a kid can't walk and you need to get somewhere, you carry him. But once they can- I say give him/her the boot. I've got an (almost) 4 year old who can't separate from me, even in the #$%@# house!
Some children are more in need of physical contact, so it is very ntural to meet your child's needs

Quote:

-*Exclusive Breastfeeding*- Well, I can't argue with that one!







Only makes sense to me. But I do think we (I?) confuse BF for food with BF for comfort. And is comfort BFing natural?
Again, meeting the physical and emotion needs of your child based on mama instincts is VERY natural.

Quote:

I think you get the picture that I have in my fuzzy, sleep deprieved brain. I feel like I tried not to rush my kids into things they weren't ready for, but to support them in the things they were, and be there for them whenever they needed me. But 6+ years later, I'm ready to quit it all and think less AP more natural. (To try a 'better' way of parenting, if you will.) My kids can't sleep at night, can't separate well, and are way too 'needy'. That is not natural.

So how do you find the balance? And do you think that AP=NFL?
Natural for whom? Children don't come from the exact same mold. All children hae different needs and personalities.

My psychology professor said to me a few years ago, that you shouldn't expect the rewards of attachment parenting to come full circle until about age or a little later.

In the end it will all be worth it.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Demeter9* 

For example, not feeding children solids until 6 months or more. What seems apparent to me is that children would have been fed things AND that the way that was done was by mommy prechewing it for them. Hence transfering enzymes and bacteria necessary to help digest it properly.

In my culture, babies were only fed that way during ceremony. They didn't eat actual food on their own until they could get up and get it themselves.
Yes, wolves reguritated food to their young , but it was known that humans were different and babies were better off without having solids too early.
Also, it was well known that wolves usually gave birth to more than one baby, and so needed to be able to feed and nurse their young.


----------



## BelgianSheepDog (Mar 31, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fuller2* 
Here's the thing--we are laying AP over our prexisting cultural mothering paradigm, which was total maternal self-sacrifice, no connection with wider world, everything oriented toward home and family, etc. The thing we always overlook when we imagine 'primitive' societies is that ALL those mamas were working mamas--as in, provided essential food, clothing etc., and even money. None of these mamas ONLY care for children and the domestic environment in the way we idealize motherhood. (For one thing, the whole idea of 'domesticity' implies a certain kind of separation from the rest of life--and that just wasn't the case even 200 years ago in the way it is today in our society. I would bet you that the cave women did not separate their 'home' life and the rest of life. Doing this seems natural to us, but it is really a pretty recent invention in human history.)

...

June Cleaver works much better with CIO and scheduled feedings and babysitter every Friday night because that model developed in the industrial age and works better for the home-work separated/suburban environment and with the 'traditional' male wage-earning-outside-the-home model. That's why people still do it--it works in our culture. But AP pretty much requires the daily help of others, and the sharing of care. I don't know how you can do both and not completely exhuast yourself.

This was an excellent post.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

I don't see how one could question the naturalness of co-sleeping, nursing, and babywearing.

How do you push a stroller unless you have paved roads and sidewalks everywhere?

How natural is it to put your baby in a wooden contraption in another room for 10+ hours/night?

Why worry if they are sucking for food or comfort? Food and comfort are inextricably intertwined for infants, and the place we get in trouble is when we overthink and try to mess with that, not when we just let it be.


----------



## PapayaMom (Sep 6, 2004)

that continuum concept article that was posted a few posts back is a great way to look at things. It really puts into perspective a lot of these questions for me.

Like so many others I practiced AP before I had a name for it, I did things base don instinct. Fo rme CIO would have taken a huge amount of ignoring my instinct so we didn't does this mean I have a 2 year old with perfect sleep patterns, not by any means, but she is getting there And I think it's important to let her reach that point on her own with gentle guidance from me, just like any other aspect of her life.

Sounds like the OP is having a relaly tought ime right now so


----------



## sparklefairy (May 21, 2005)

My opinions only:

The first thing that jumps out at me is the assumption that AP means that everyone is happy all the time and that an older child's wants are also needs. I operated under that assumption when my kids were tiny, and I now think that I was wrong in doing so. A lot of your comments made me think of this because you're talking about kids past infancy (when their wants are definitely their needs).

I don't think it's natural to nurse kids indefinitely without limits or that co-sleeping would mean sleeping with mom. In a more tribal society, there would be more other relatives around, older children would help with babies more and sooner. I'm not sure why some kids wake every 45 minutes all the time for years, but I don't think that's normal sleep and if mine did that, I would try to figure out what's going on. (Reflux? Allergy?) I transitioned my kids to solitary sleep when they were 5 & 7 and while they weren't always happy about it, they needed a mom who felt rested and they could understand that I was just down the hall where a baby would not have had that security. Now they do co-sleep together sometimes or one or the other will join me, but I can't rest between two big bodies squishing me and they don't make the connection on their own that tired mommy = grouchy mommy and change their behavior with that in mind.

Babywearing. One of mine was on the small side and a slow walker and I am impatient and walk quickly so I carried him until he was 5. I think it's unnatural that he was the youngest for so long (consider that I was mid-20s when he was born). I've been experimenting for a few days with telling my (older) kids that it's time to leave and then behaving as if I expect them to follow me rather than staying and cajoling them to do so. It works like that! I leave, they follow. Being carried until you're hurting mama's back/knees/feet is not natural, but then neither is assuming that every want of an older child is a need.

Breastfeeding. Yes, I believe that comfort breastfeeding is natural. I don't believe that unrestricted breastfeeding for years with no limits from mom is natural. Neither as mom as the almost-exclusive care provider, but neither is leaving mom for hours for preschool, cared for by people the child doesn't know until then. Again, we don't have a tribe with a whole bunch of bigger kids to tag along after.


----------



## Liquesce (Nov 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BellinghamCrunchie* 
But I CAN tell you what the effects of being raised Non-AP were like, at least for me. My parents did the whole bottle feeding, CIO, sleep alone in a crib thing. I had no confidence as a child. I was afraid to let my mom out of my sight. Even at age 10, I was afraid to be home alone. It took me hours to fall asleep (it still does) and I don't feel completely safe unless I'm in a familar bed. Not with a familar PERSON. A familar BED. Furthermore, I have a very difficult time sleeping with another person in the same bed. It just doesn't feel right.

If that's your experience and you're sure of its causes it's not my intention to question you personally. BUT ... my parents did the whole breast feeding, co-sleeping, etc. thing, and I had no confidence as a child, was afraid to let my mom out of my sight, I still can't sleep in an unfamiliar bed without being almost literally dead on my feet, and so on. Those are complex issues, and flatly assuming it can be caused by one set of parenting techniques and prevented by another would be an error of over-simplification.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *uptownzoo* 







Speak it, sistah'!
I would argue that balance is not the least important, but the MOST important, and by a large margin. In my experience, with friends and in teaching babywearing and AP classes, almost everybody gets the attachment part right. People are practically afraid to put a kid in his or her own bed, even though NOBODY is getting decent sleep, because of the potential scars to the attachment. People are actually afraid of causing RAD (reactive attachment disorder) in their children because of weaning them before they wean themselves, or putting them in a crib, or whatever. Even a marginally normal, loving parent is not going to cause RAD in a child! It's a devastating syndrome caused by perpetual neglect/abuse, not sleeping in a crib (even if parents practice CIO)(which, BTW, I'm NOT advocating!).









:


----------



## sparklefairy (May 21, 2005)

I just wanted to add that while discipline wasn't mentioned, I think it's likely that hitting children is likely "natural" while striving for gentle discipline is not natural.

No, natural isn't always ideal.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

ITA that GD is not natural.


----------



## chinaKat (Aug 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Liquesce* 
If that's your experience and you're sure of its causes it's not my intention to question you personally. BUT ... my parents did the whole breast feeding, co-sleeping, etc. thing, and I had no confidence as a child, was afraid to let my mom out of my sight, I still can't sleep in an unfamiliar bed without being almost literally dead on my feet, and so on. Those are complex issues, and flatly assuming it can be caused by one set of parenting techniques and prevented by another would be an error of over-simplification.


Excellent point. Another anecdotal experience -- I was formula fed, never co-slept with my parents, CIO'ed. I was insanely confident as a child -- hopped on the school bus at 4yo and never even looked back once at my mom... went to summer sleepover camp for a week as a first grader. And I can sleep anywhere. In the darkest night, in a tent in the woods, totally alone, and almost always fall asleep in 10 minutes.

I'm sure we can swap upbringings all day long... basically, we were all brought up differently, and we all turned out differently.

AP is, IMO, a nurturing and supportive way to bring up a child, but it is surely only one piece of the puzzle.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sparklefairy* 
I just wanted to add that while discipline wasn't mentioned, I think it's likely that hitting children is likely "natural" while striving for gentle discipline is not natural.

No, natural isn't always ideal.

Maybe this should be a thread of it's own, but I don't understand how hitting a baby or small child is natural or even instinctual.

The books i read that detailed Indigenous tribes that were still hunting/gathering, etc. they never hit their young. I remember reading one story about a Tribe found in Canada(?) and the entire group stoned the mother to death for hitting her child. It was seen as aberrant and by killing the mother, it was seen as putting an end to the aberancy so that it would not continue.

And, yes, I questioned the whole idea that such severe consequences were accepted....but then again, they truly believed that children should be protected. Their whole tribe revolved around the upbringing and wellbeing of all the children.


----------



## BellinghamCrunchie (Sep 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Liquesce* 
If that's your experience and you're sure of its causes it's not my intention to question you personally. BUT ... my parents did the whole breast feeding, co-sleeping, etc. thing, and I had no confidence as a child, was afraid to let my mom out of my sight, I still can't sleep in an unfamiliar bed without being almost literally dead on my feet, and so on. Those are complex issues, and flatly assuming it can be caused by one set of parenting techniques and prevented by another would be an error of over-simplification.








:

Yeah, its just anecdotal information, and I'm sure every parent gets enough of that! In my case, I think its due in part to having a quirky, overly-sensitive personality, but I do think that having slept alone since birth until I was 25 or so made a difference in my ability to sleep with another person in the bed.

What I was trying to suggest is that often we are eager to teach our children to sleep alone, and sometimes might end up doing that too well. To me, being able to sleep cuddled up with someone as well as feeling completely comfortable alone would be ideal.


----------



## 2bluefish (Apr 27, 2006)

co-sleeping - about the time my menses return, I felt the need for more space and move them to their own room. (4 months and 6 months) They stopped nursing all night long and started sleeping at least 5 hours for me, and the transition was no big deal at this age.

nursing - I think comfort sucking is natural. But I also think putting my babies on my lap while I eat and letting them eat solids when they show an interest is natural. Mine both started grabbing my food about 5 months - maybe a tad earlier than some. I also think mommy saying "no" occasionally to comfort sucking and suggesting an alternative is natural.

babywearing - I wear my babies until they can walk, and then they walk. If we have to walk slow, we walk slow. This is mostly because I was pregnant with #2 when dd was just over a year, so I couldn't be slinging her. There has never been a reason to carry her though.

That's what feels natural for me.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *uptownzoo* 
I seem mean sometimes, but parenting is a marathon, not a sprint. The demands change over the years, but they don't get less. You have to save some energy because let me tell you, early adolescence will suck just as much out of you as infancy does! I've given too much of myself to my children for periods in our lives and we all suffered because of it. When I find that sweet spot, where I'm meeting their needs AND taking care of myself and my marriage, we're all exponentially happier, kids included.

I'll try to stop ranting now.







I've been laid up with unbearable endometriosis pain on and off for months now (surgery Tuesday! Yay!), and I get bored and opinionated sometimes.

As my kids get older, I realize more and more how true this is.


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

I personally am a lazy parent.

If my kids are happy, healthy and well rested, it makes my life better. We co-slept with both babies mainly because I hate getting out of bed in the middle of the night -why bother when they are right there. We are still sleeping with one in our bed because we haven't gotten around to sorting out alternative sleeping arrangements. My older son comes to our bed a lot and we let him mainly because we are too lazy and don't care enough to do otherwise.

Breastfeeding - extended breastfeeding lets me be lazy with solids for my babies. I never had to remember to buy formula or sterilize anything. I never worried about how much they were taking in once we determined by supply was good (when ds1 was around 3 weeks old). I never had to worry about bringing a bottle with me or keeping it cold/warm/upright.

babywearing - I have a bad back from a car accident at age 19. The baby bjorn and the sling had to go when the boys hit around 15 lbs. But I have an ergo and that works well for me. I have no shame in using a stroller - however, a double stroller is HEAVY and much more work than one stroller and a baby in the ergo. Heck the stroller usually gets pushed by my preschooler and carries all of our bags and coats.

I also want to add that we need to be VERY careful about ascribing all sorts of great values to "cavemen" and the like. First off, we have no idea what sort of culture those folks had - we only know what current hunter/gatherers do but they are not "cavemen" trapped in amber or something. They have been directly and indirectly influenced by other cultures in the world for as long as we have been.

In addition, each hunter gatherer community has vastly different "values" - some avoid physical punishment of children, but others practice infanticide, especially of the disabled and multiples. Extended breastfeeding is/was both a technique to ensure adequate nutrition AND optimal child spacing. Many many many hunter/gatherer communities practiced active warfare against their neighbors which included enslaving or slaughtering children and babies, and raping women. Many practiced cannibalism.

The range of cultures within the rapidly disappearing hunter/gatherer communities is vast. We assume things about them at our peril.


----------



## WNB (Apr 29, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Demeter9* 
No, I don't necessarily think the ideas on natural are necessarily completely natural. Instinctual, but not necessarily what would happen under survival duress.

For example, not feeding children solids until 6 months or more. What seems apparent to me is that children would have been fed things AND that the way that was done was by mommy prechewing it for them. Hence transfering enzymes and bacteria necessary to help digest it properly.


I dunno, the whole "pre-chewing" thing seems to fail the "KISS" rule. Mom's got sufficient food with her (assuming Mom is getting sufficient food herself) - why make it more difficult than it needs to be? Once the kid has a good set of chompers and is more mobile and social, it would make sense to shift to food that does not necessarily come from Mom directly. (Kids can be cared for in groups, freeing Mom for the other work to support the community/extended family group.)


----------



## huskermommy (Jun 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *siobhang* 
I personally am a lazy parent.

If my kids are happy, healthy and well rested, it makes my life better. We co-slept with both babies mainly because I hate getting out of bed in the middle of the night -why bother when they are right there. We are still sleeping with one in our bed because we haven't gotten around to sorting out alternative sleeping arrangements. My older son comes to our bed a lot and we let him mainly because we are too lazy and don't care enough to do otherwise.

Breastfeeding - extended breastfeeding lets me be lazy with solids for my babies. I never had to remember to buy formula or sterilize anything. I never worried about how much they were taking in once we determined by supply was good (when ds1 was around 3 weeks old). I never had to worry about bringing a bottle with me or keeping it cold/warm/upright.

babywearing - I have a bad back from a car accident at age 19. The baby bjorn and the sling had to go when the boys hit around 15 lbs. But I have an ergo and that works well for me. I have no shame in using a stroller - however, a double stroller is HEAVY and much more work than one stroller and a baby in the ergo. Heck the stroller usually gets pushed by my preschooler and carries all of our bags and coats.

I also want to add that we need to be VERY careful about ascribing all sorts of great values to "cavemen" and the like. First off, we have no idea what sort of culture those folks had - we only know what current hunter/gatherers do but they are not "cavemen" trapped in amber or something. They have been directly and indirectly influenced by other cultures in the world for as long as we have been.

In addition, each hunter gatherer community has vastly different "values" - some avoid physical punishment of children, but others practice infanticide, especially of the disabled and multiples. Extended breastfeeding is/was both a technique to ensure adequate nutrition AND optimal child spacing. Many many many hunter/gatherer communities practiced active warfare against their neighbors which included enslaving or slaughtering children and babies, and raping women. Many practiced cannibalism.

The range of cultures within the rapidly disappearing hunter/gatherer communities is vast. We assume things about them at our peril.


----------



## nina_yyc (Nov 5, 2006)

Quote:

AP is sometimes awfully close to the total self-sacrifice demanded of fundementalist Christian motherhood too--the techniques and ways of child care can be very different, but the idea that mothers should sacrifice everything and be happy about it for their small children is the same.
You're misinterpreting AP. Like PP have said. balance is a big part. Also, most of the AP principles have payoffs. Breastfeeding is a lot easier than bottles. On-cue feeding is easier because it keeps my baby in a good mood. Babywearing allows me to get plenty of housework done during the day and keeps DD calm so I deal with less fussiness. Co-sleeping means I can nurse in my sleep. Total self-sacrifice? Hardly. There is no part of the AP philosophy that says I can't get a babysitter if I want a night off, or that DH can't change 51% of diapers. To paraphrase something I read on this board, it's not called Attatchment Mothering.

Quote:

June Cleaver works much better with CIO and scheduled feedings and babysitter every Friday night because that model developed in the industrial age and works better for the home-work separated/suburban environment and with the 'traditional' male wage-earning-outside-the-home model. That's why people still do it--it works in our culture. But AP pretty much requires the daily help of others, and the sharing of care. I don't know how you can do both and not completely exhuast yourself.
Ignoring baby's needs = fussy baby. How can this work better with any kind of culture? EVERY mom requires the daily help of others and the sharing of care. The whole idea of 'AP' is made for our contemporary Western culture. If we didn't already live in an intrinsically un-family-friendly society, you couldn't sell books telling people to listen to their babies.


----------



## PrettyBird (Jun 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fuller2* 
We are trying to mix AP with June Cleaver--but these 2 paradigms come from very different places, and so you end up with the moms who get 4 hours of broken sleep a night, frying themselves with constant BF, dragging around bags of soiled cloth diapers, carrying the children everywhere, and doing all of this alone!! with husbands who work 100 hours a week and do almost no care.

June Cleaver works much better with CIO and scheduled feedings and babysitter every Friday night because that model developed in the industrial age and works better for the home-work separated/suburban environment and with the 'traditional' male wage-earning-outside-the-home model. That's why people still do it--it works in our culture. But AP pretty much requires the daily help of others, and the sharing of care. I don't know how you can do both and not completely exhuast yourself.

Sorry but I totally disagree with this part!! I am a SAHM right now (on leave from grad school) so I guess I am playing the "June Cleaver" part. CIO and scheduled feedings would make my life so much harder. Instead of getting up in the middle of the night and going to the kitchen to warm a bottle I just roll on my side and pop my boob out. Babysitter every Friday doesn't work for us because frankly we don't have any family close and don't have the money for babysitter fees + dinner out + movie out every week. In our case family time is easier, cheaper, and more fun. For the most part we follow the AP philosophy and we have no help from family or friends. It isn't really exhausting b/c I have my husband to help when he gets home. And who lugs around bags of soiled diapers? At most there is 1-2 in the diaper bag unless we are gone for the entire day. CDing is pretty simple when you get your system down.

So I don't really get how breastfeeding/babywearing/co-sleeping/cloth diapering (which isn't AP but you brought it up in your post) is more difficult or incompatible with a modern lifestyle. To me "ferberizing", scheduled feedings, and bottles are much more complicated and involve unnecessary work.


----------



## swebster (Dec 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fuller2* 

We are trying to mix AP with June Cleaver--but these 2 paradigms come from very different places, and so you end up with the moms who get 4 hours of broken sleep a night, frying themselves with constant BF, dragging around bags of soiled cloth diapers, carrying the children everywhere, and doing all of this alone!! with husbands who work 100 hours a week and do almost no care.

I think this is an absolutely brilliant post. I feel kind of dim for not making this connection myself and now realize why, after happily living thousands of miles away from my own family for many years, I am suddenly making plans to move "back home".

I need help to be the kind of mother I want to be. Even with an awesome partner who does his fair share of everything. Even with a supportive group of friends. Even being healthy, centered and in good spirits (eh-hem, _most_ of the time...).

DH and I are not suited for this rat race and look forward to creating a simpler life with more "leisure time"







.


----------



## heatherRN (Oct 18, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *teachma* 
Same. It came naturally to me, too. I didn't know I was attacment parenting; I just thought I was parenting.









:


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PrettyBird* 
So I don't really get how breastfeeding/babywearing/co-sleeping/cloth diapering (which isn't AP but you brought it up in your post) is more difficult or incompatible with a modern lifestyle. To me "ferberizing", scheduled feedings, and bottles are much more complicated and involve unnecessary work.

But, the other poster was talking about "June Cleaver", not about a modern lifestyle. The June Cleaver type of life would include having supper on the table at the exact same time every night, meeting your husband at the door with perfect makeup and clothes and jewelry, kids in bed at the "right" time every night, etc. That "ideal" is an _intensely_ structured and scheduled regimen, making it necessary to have the children's lives very structured and scheduled, as well.

re: cavemen. I just wanted to say that the only assumptions I was making about the social structure of cavemen is that there would be a group of people living in a shared space (eg. a cave) together. I'm guessing it would usually be a large group or tribe, but maybe "just" a family sometimes - smaller dwellings close together or whatever. That being the case, I think cosleeping would be the best way to make sure everyone got as much sleep as possible, because a screaming baby isn't restful...


----------



## hipumpkins (Jul 25, 2003)

Children's brains are also wired to be attached to thier parents (or caregiver) so if that attachment gets broken the kids panics...this way if you were caveman (I am using that term loosely) you would alwys know where your kids were so you could pick them up and run when that sabretooth tiger came running,

Our society praises independence so that kids who are "too" dependent seem to not be thriving and are looked down upon. They are thriving just fine and need to stay connected to their parents..that is what's natural.

I totally get the june Cleaver example b/c I know sometimes in DH's mind he is thinking...""Well my mom kept the hosue clean and had 2 kids" but his mom also let her son CIO until he vomited than let him sleep in it. She wasn't especially AP or natural but damn she kept a clean house!







:


----------



## TranscendentalMom (Jun 28, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fuller2* 
Here's the thing--we are laying AP over our prexisting cultural mothering paradigm, which was total maternal self-sacrifice, no connection with wider world, everything oriented toward home and family, etc. The thing we always overlook when we imagine 'primitive' societies is that ALL those mamas were working mamas--as in, provided essential food, clothing etc., and even money. None of these mamas ONLY care for children and the domestic environment in the way we idealize motherhood. (For one thing, the whole idea of 'domesticity' implies a certain kind of separation from the rest of life--and that just wasn't the case even 200 years ago in the way it is today in our society. I would bet you that the cave women did not separate their 'home' life and the rest of life. Doing this seems natural to us, but it is really a pretty recent invention in human history.)


Great post. I think that's my issue...and you helped me clarify it in my own mind. Its not so much AP I'm having an issue with...its when this philosophy is applied in a zealous way, its yet another guilt inducing parenting model where mom is put at the bottom of the list. And almost worse than the old models...because like you said, at least June Cleaver got her sleep at night and had date nights with her husband!

So what do you guys think about Mothering mag promoting this type of model? Do you think its a support to mothers or yet another false idealization? Do you think its a June Cleaver model disguised in hip clothes with a batik sling?


----------



## RomanGoddess (Mar 16, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fuller2* 
Here's the thing--we are laying AP over our prexisting cultural mothering paradigm, which was total maternal self-sacrifice, no connection with wider world, everything oriented toward home and family, etc. The thing we always overlook when we imagine 'primitive' societies is that ALL those mamas were working mamas--as in, provided essential food, clothing etc., and even money. None of these mamas ONLY care for children and the domestic environment in the way we idealize motherhood. (For one thing, the whole idea of 'domesticity' implies a certain kind of separation from the rest of life--and that just wasn't the case even 200 years ago in the way it is today in our society. I would bet you that the cave women did not separate their 'home' life and the rest of life. Doing this seems natural to us, but it is really a pretty recent invention in human history.)









Yep, you have hit the nail on the head.

Quote:

-Co-sleeping. My babies never slept in cribs, but instead on my body. After 4 years (2.5 for my son, 1.5 for my daughter) of nursing every 45 min at night I'm beat! How natural is this? If I were a cavewoman, I'd be dead! Never ever able to outrun a sabertooth tiger! Is it natural for a 6 year old to not be able to sleep at night because for his first few years he slept on a body. I'm ready to cry it out with him, and I'm sure it would have been less painful (more 'natural') if we had done it 5 years ago!
Cosleeping was natural when it was necessary for survival. Nowadays, I do not find it any more "natural" than sleeping apart. I think it works for some families and not others. My daughter has always slept in her own bed and in her own room and that worked well for us. Quite frankly, having read quite a few threads in the sleep forum, I am not at all convinced that co-sleeping is a great setup for the majority of families.

I think it is also important to remember that in co-sleeping cultures, NOONE sleeps alone, EVER. Not children, and not adults. Co-sleeping parents who assert that their child will be out of their bed "before he starts college" are in fact wrong in their belief that a person will always naturally grow out of sleeping with another person when he is older. Noone sleeps alone in co-sleeping cultures. You are either with your parents, or your siblings or your spouse but you are never alone.


----------



## RomanGoddess (Mar 16, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fuller2* 
June Cleaver works much better with CIO and scheduled feedings and babysitter every Friday night because that model developed in the industrial age and works better for the home-work separated/suburban environment and with the 'traditional' male wage-earning-outside-the-home model. That's why people still do it--it works in our culture. But AP pretty much requires the daily help of others, and the sharing of care. I don't know how you can do both and not completely exhuast yourself.

Completely agree with this, too. It is the isolation of mothers and babies in our society (itself very abnormal and unnatural)that can make AP very demanding.


----------



## eightyferrettoes (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cmlp* 
I think it is also important to remember that in co-sleeping cultures, NOONE sleeps alone, EVER. Not children, and not adults. Co-sleeping parents who assert that their child will be out of their bed "before he starts college" are in fact wrong in their belief that a person will always naturally grow out of sleeping with another person when he is older. .

Yeah, that. I think the nail in my co-sleeping coffin came when I was talking to a woman who was struggling to get her still-nightwaking six-year-old out of bed so she and her husband could have some privacy at night, not to mention some unbroken sleep!

It occurred to me that I was probably going to eventually fight the battle of the bed, and that I preferred to do it before they were big enough to climb back in willy-nilly.









I've said before that even my uber-traditional grandmother would find a lot of the stuff embraced here to be repressive. Four hours of broken sleep a night would definitely fall into that category.









And I agree that "natural" is such a nebulous, evasive little word.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

I fell into AP more because it worked best for everyone than anything else. I do not have a checklist and have chosen not to do things because they did not make me and/or dd happy. I do not know if that is "natural" or not. I am not trying to be June Cleaver nor do I want to live in a cave







I never could figure out the dang slings. i tried a few but they all made my back hurt. A lot. So I used a snugli sometimes, carried dd in my arms sometimes, spent a good part of her first year on the couch reading books with her on me that way, and I still use a stroller daily for my workout. That is "natural" for me and dd. We are both happy. I also could never co-sleep. I have severe insomnia and ANY LITTLE MOVEMENT keeps me up all night. I tried to get dd to sleep in a crib. That so did not work. Not "natural" for her. Luckily, dh is a snuggle bug and he did the co-sleeping. We are all in the same bed, but they do the snuggling and I would get a perpetually squirmy baby gently prodded my way any tme she was hungry. "Natural" for all of us. Are there really people here that do things that make them or their children unhappy just to check it off on the list?


----------



## jaidymama (Jun 18, 2005)

You know, there are many other people who write about attachment parenting besides Dr. Sears. Check out the information at Attachment Parenting Internationale's, The Natural Child Project, or the GD forum's resource list.

I also want to point out that there is more to raising a healthy attached child than bedsharing, breastfeeding and baby wearing... And that is generally how we interact with them and treat them. One book I liked "Raising Emotionally Intelligent Children" talks about healthy relationships with our children... I also like the link someone put up about the Raising a Secure Child.


----------



## Demeter9 (Nov 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WNB* 
I dunno, the whole "pre-chewing" thing seems to fail the "KISS" rule. Mom's got sufficient food with her (assuming Mom is getting sufficient food herself) - why make it more difficult than it needs to be? Once the kid has a good set of chompers and is more mobile and social, it would make sense to shift to food that does not necessarily come from Mom directly. (Kids can be cared for in groups, freeing Mom for the other work to support the community/extended family group.)

That is funny. I would suppose that it absolutely passes the Kiss Rule - particularly in that a kiss is probably biologically based on the passing of food.


----------



## fuller2 (Nov 7, 2004)

I don't think that Mothering mag promotes June Cleaver with a sling. After all, Peggy O'Mara is always talking about how we need to restructure our culture to make it easier to be a parent. You don't see many articles about housecleaning in Mothering. I do think that we tend to unconsciously graft AP onto the June Cleaver ideal, especially, perhaps, for some SAHMs. (And I'm here to tell you to stop worrying about messy houses and heaps of laundry! Housekeeping should be in a separate part of your life from mothering--they are NOT the same job. Making them be the same job just gives men another reason to not help. There's a reason Charlotte Perkins Gilman and other 19th c and early 20th c. feminists had as their domestic ideal communal kitchens and laundries--the whole point was to save women's labor and brains for things that were better for them and for their kids rather than spend it all day on drudgery.)

I think it is actually very difficult to live in mainstream society and do AP, because you actually have to abandon many of our most central cultural values, including the ones that are directly connected to our economic system--efficiency, standardization, scheduling, the individual as the economic unit, distaste for any kind of dependency (because dependents don't make anybody any money...unless, of course, you get talked into buying them a lot of stuff.) I think many parents who do CIO etc. are not evil but are just living in the society they live in, and are raising their children accordingly to fit into it. But AP is a premodern, preindustrial style of parenting that is not about fixed schedules and doesn't require a lot of purchased products, and as such it simply doesn't fit very well into our industrially-scheduled world that totally relies on consumption to keep it going.

It's also worth reflecting on the fact that the United States is actually incredibly unsupportive of parenting, especially the mothering of small children--we fall way at the bottom of measures of this--no yearlong paid maternity leaves like they have elsewhere, low BF rates, millions of children without health insurance, etc. I have a friend living in Japan who just had her 2nd kid there, and she says she never wants to leave--there are these 'mothers' houses' on every corner where you can go hang out with the neighborhood moms, tons of parks and free stuff for kids, free child care, all government supported. She says that as a mother it's like living on a different planet from being in the U.S. The lack of structural support for motherhood here, and the emphasis on individual mothering in individual separated houses, also makes it really hard to do AP.


----------



## nina_yyc (Nov 5, 2006)

Fuller - I guess I do see what you're saying about AP not being compatible with our society...I think the first time you posted, I read it as saying 'you shouldn't do AP in our society.'

I will second your comment about the US being unsupportive of parenting. I'm in Canada and I find that I can't relate to most of the threads about being criticized for AP practices. Now I realize that all regions of the US aren't the same, but most MDC posters are not painting a flattering picture. Canada has a long way to go too, but I can see how it could be worse!


----------



## DQMama (Mar 21, 2006)

I agree that you may have just been "blessed" with two high-needs kids. They probably would have been even more high-needs if you had not tried to meet their needs by being an AP mommy.

My ds is super super high needs. Some days it feels like I have been through battle by the time dh gets home. Dd, on the other hand, has never really cried, slept through the night since birth, and generally just smiles all the time. She _wakes up_ smiling. She separates easily but still loves to cuddle.

I really really think you did not make your kids "needy" by practicing AP. Maybe your twins will be easy babies!

As far as AP=natural, I'll have to think about that part a while.


----------



## TranscendentalMom (Jun 28, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fuller2* 
I don't think that Mothering mag promotes June Cleaver with a sling. After all, Peggy O'Mara is always talking about how we need to restructure our culture to make it easier to be a parent. You don't see many articles about housecleaning in Mothering. I do think that we tend to unconsciously graft AP onto the June Cleaver ideal, especially, perhaps, for some SAHMs. (And I'm here to tell you to stop worrying about messy houses and heaps of laundry! Housekeeping should be in a separate part of your life from mothering--they are NOT the same job. Making them be the same job just gives men another reason to not help. There's a reason Charlotte Perkins Gilman and other 19th c and early 20th c. feminists had as their domestic ideal communal kitchens and laundries--the whole point was to save women's labor and brains for things that were better for them and for their kids rather than spend it all day on drudgery.

Good point. Except that what bothers me about the June Cleaver ideal is not just the housekeeping but rather the expectation that mothers must be a certain way otherwise they are not good mothers. That's what I'm seeing in subtle ways in Mothering. The old values are replaced with new expectation of a breastfeeding, babywearing, cloth diapering, homeschooling, cosleeping mom. And the mothers in my playgroup who object to Mothering mag (who are ironically natural/hippie types) felt this way. Many of them have done cio w/their kids and they are obviously pretty offended at the suggestion that they are bad mothers for doing so. Many people like myself, strive for AP/NFL ideals but fall short sometimes when reality hits. I guess what I would like to see is more of an overtone that "we are a support to mothers who AP" and less "lets bag on mainsteam mothers and pat ourselves on the back."

BTW, there's a book titled "Perfect Madness:Motherhood in the Age of Anxiety" that talks about this issue to some extent. The author lived in France where she felt more support and acceptance and then came back to the US and was shocked at the expectations and lack of support for modern American mothers today. She also attacks AP as being the cause of some of the problem. Obviously the book was slammed around here for that reason and others, and I obviously don't totally agree with her view but think she has some points.


----------



## huskermommy (Jun 14, 2006)

IMHO there is _nothing_ at all natural about letting your child CIO. MDC cannot possibly please every single mother/parent. That being said, I also believe that everyone should have an opinion and be able to express that. Some of us feel CIO is torture and there's no reason for it, others feel that they must do it or feel they have no other option. I can understand wanting to get some of your own sleep (DD only slept for 15 min. at a time and I had to be holding her) and how the demands of motherhood can make you question your decisions. However, I strive to be the best mother I can be and ykw? That means making sacrifices. We all knew that jumping into this mothering thing. I do believe that Mothering is meant to help us do the more "natural" or "AP" thing or at least give us information on it. Isn't that what this site is all about?????


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TranscendentalMom* 
there's a book titled "Perfect Madness:Motherhood in the Age of Anxiety" that talks about this issue to some extent. The author lived in France where she felt more support and acceptance and then came back to the US and was shocked at the expectations and lack of support for modern American mothers today. She also attacks AP as being the cause of some of the problem. Obviously the book was slammed around here for that reason and others, and I obviously don't totally agree with her view but think she has some points.

I read Warner's book, and while I don't agree with her on everything, I was impressed with her analysis of women's ambition and its total compatibility with motherhood.

According to Warner, what is 'unnatural' about contemporary American Motherhood is that mothers' 'striving for status', and their 'maternal emotions' have been split. When we insist that 'work' and motherhood are incompatible, we go against two fundamental parts of our evolutionary history--providing for our children, and nurturing them.

For Warner, full-time attachment parenting is no more 'natural' than is excessive, fulltime 'work'. In her view, 24/7 AP prevents a mother from holding on to her sense of agency as an adult, by pulling her into the infantile realm of her children. (paraphrasing from memory)


----------



## TranscendentalMom (Jun 28, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 

For Warner, full-time attachment parenting is no more 'natural' than is excessive, fulltime 'work'. In her view, 24/7 AP prevents a mother from holding on to her sense of agency as an adult, by pulling her into the infantile realm of her children. (paraphrasing from memory)

Do you remember what Warner suggested as a solution? I'm not being sarcastic at all I'm genuinely curious because I do think there is truth in that, I just can't figure out what the solution is.


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TranscendentalMom* 
Do you remember what Warner suggested as a solution? I'm not being sarcastic at all I'm genuinely curious because I do think there is truth in that, I just can't figure out what the solution is.

From what I recall, her solutions involved asking our collective 'selves' what are the facts of our actual lives, and beginning to define some national priorities that reflect those lived realities. So, for instance:

-institutions that would help us take care of our kids. Guaranteed, high quality childcare centres, funded by the government, so that we wouldn't have to do everything on our own, and we wouldn't feel guilty about leaving our kids in sub-standard care.

-family entitlements (I think similar to the social programs she experinced while in France). Universal programs for all that are not tied to any political agenda. Sick-leave, vacation leave, etc.

Basically, quality of life stuff. I'm sure there's more, but I can't remember right now.

I think her point is that we need to start thinking about the problem as a 'societal' one, rather than one of 'individual' women and how we manage our private lives.

Does that sound familiar?


----------



## RomanGoddess (Mar 16, 2006)

In France, whose system Warner praised, there are public daycare centres for kids of stay-at-home moms. So if a stay-at-home mom as to go to the hairdresser or get some shopping done or has a doctor's appointment, she just drops her under-3 year old at the "garderie" and comes back when she is done. I always thought that this was one of the best things about living in France. Another thing - public, universal preschool starts at age 3 and 97% of children attend.


----------



## CalebsMama05 (Nov 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BellinghamCrunchie* 
But I CAN tell you what the effects of being raised Non-AP were like, at least for me. My parents did the whole bottle feeding, CIO, sleep alone in a crib thing. I had no confidence as a child. I was afraid to let my mom out of my sight. Even at age 10, I was afraid to be home alone. It took me hours to fall asleep (it still does) and I don't feel completely safe unless I'm in a familar bed. Not with a familar PERSON. A familar BED. Furthermore, I have a very difficult time sleeping with another person in the same bed. It just doesn't feel right.


















I don't ap as much as others do. I carry my kids when we go somewhere. if they don't want to be carried I put them down and let them walk or if we are at the store I put them in a cart. It is still ap. I am respecting my childrens desires/limits/boundaries as human beings. my oldest sleeps in his own bed and in his own room. he wants to. more than that he NEEDS to. he will NOT sleep if someone else is in the same room when he is going to sleep. we coslept until he was 3-4 months old. we shared a room until this past november. it was very challenging meeting his needs, while still meeting my own. breastfeeding...my oldest did not like breastfeeding. I am convinced he has sensory issues. nursing him was...well it was painful for both of us. he wouldn't unless he was so hungry he couldn't stand it. then he would scream until I latched him. he held his arms to his chest...eyes tightly closed and guzzled as much milk as he could until he felt full. when he was done he was DONE he would immediately unlatch and squirm until I put him down. he wasn't big into being worn until we could do the hip carry and even then only for short periods. imagine my suprise being willing to go to great lengths to reassure my baby that i'd never leave him and his every need would be met to end up with a baby who had so few needs and yet such high needs. he is as ever quite unique.







even at almost 2 yrs old.

my youngest and he are polar opposites. Jake NEEDS to be rocked to sleep. he LOVES being worn and will fuss until I do so. He loves nursing and does so quite lovingly and warmly and a LOT. he nurses when he might be a bit hungry. he nurses when he's not hungry but misses his boobies. he and I converse while he's nursing (quite a feat with a nipple in his mouth) he rubs and hugs my breasts and just LOVES it. He needs to sleep cuddled up to me.

does that make me less ap because they each need differently? maybe what Caleb really *needs* is the reassurance that "mommy knows me and loves me for who I am and won't try to pressure me to be something I'm not" I just don't know. I do the best I can and I do what I feel is right and that is natural to me.

i'm not sure if this makes a lot of sense...Jacob is playing on the floor wide awake but the boobies are *on call* so I'm not allowed to go to bed


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fuller2* 
It's also worth reflecting on the fact that the United States is actually incredibly unsupportive of parenting, especially the mothering of small children--we fall way at the bottom of measures of this--no yearlong paid maternity leaves like they have elsewhere, low BF rates, millions of children without health insurance, etc.... The lack of structural support for motherhood here, and the emphasis on individual mothering in individual separated houses, also makes it really hard to do AP.

Yes, this is exactly it. How on earth is a mother supposed to utilize the AP tools of breastfeeding, co-sleeping and babywearing when she has no year-long paid maternity leave? It doesn't make sense.


----------



## hypatia (Apr 29, 2002)

You might wanted to check out Aletha Solter's Aware Parenting website and her book Aware Baby

Aletha Solter is a basically AP person who raises similar critiques to those that you raise. She does not believe in breastfeeding for comfort -- she thinks that breastfeeding interferes with children's normal mechanisms for relieving stress (such as crying) and that it can actually be an unhelpful distraction from their true feelings.

She also recommends against nursing children to sleep, because she believes it trains them to wake up every 45 minutes and need to nurse, as you've decribed. She posits that babies who are not nursed to sleep actually sleep better at night.

She also has some other ideas that I have troubles embracing about children's need to cry.

I'm not totally a Solter fan, but it sounds like she might be thinking along similar lines to you.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

So... it's now doing our children a disservice to stop their distress by nursing them? We should allow them to cry coz that is what they need?

Sounds like a new CIO For Their Own Good philosophy. Wow, that's a new one.


----------



## hypatia (Apr 29, 2002)

Honestly thismama, it's more subtle than that. It sounds like CIO at first, but it's really different. Aletha Solter is a 100% AP person in that she believes in attachment and meeting babies' needs. Her big radical belief (in which she departs from the AP canon) is that babies have a biological need to cry to relieve stress. She further believes that some forms of "comfort" that people give fussy babies, such as nursing them, rocking them, etc., are mere distractions that do not actually help babies feel better but may hinder their attempts to recenter themselves by crying. She believes in holding babies and staying connected to them while they cry, and does not advocate leaving a baby to cry by itself.

This is not mainstream AP and it might not be up everybody's alley, but it is in the AP family. I thought that maybe it might be more what the OP was looking for than the pure AP canon, given how stressed canon AP is making her feel.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Okay well that is interesting. My fear is that it could provide theoretical justification for the whole "Well if he cries at night in his crib just pat his back, even if you know nursing would help him."

I think if a baby cries, and you offer the boob or other comfort, and nothing works, well then this theory is great, and by all means hold them while they cry and don't feel guilty that you couldn't stop it. Might soothe mamas of colicky babes for whom nothing works.

But I'm also very wary coz it seems like it could be easily misinterpreted.


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

Yeah it seems odd to me because my kids rarely cry.

I strenuously disagree with nursing to sleep being bad.

My babies nurse to sleep, and my infant has slept 6 hour stretches since he was about a month. There are so many variables in babies and sleeping.


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hypatia* 
She further believes that some forms of "comfort" that people give fussy babies, such as nursing them, rocking them, etc., are mere distractions that do not actually help babies feel better but may hinder their attempts to recenter themselves by crying.

I could see this as possible in an older baby (over a year, maybe), but not so much for an infant.


----------



## jazzharmony (Nov 10, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hypatia* 
babies have a biological need to cry to relieve stress. She further believes that some forms of "comfort" that people give fussy babies, such as nursing them, rocking them, etc., are mere distractions that do not actually help babies feel better but may hinder their attempts to recenter themselves by crying. She believes in holding babies and staying connected to them while they cry, and does not advocate leaving a baby to cry by itself.


Her theory is at odds with biology when it comes to comfort nursing which serves biological needs, not just emotional.
Furthermore, not all babies need to cry in order to center themselves. That makes no sense to me at all








I have a vague memory of a Mothering article on this topic.


----------



## WNB (Apr 29, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Demeter9* 
That is funny. I would suppose that it absolutely passes the Kiss Rule - particularly in that a kiss is probably biologically based on the passing of food.

oh, sorry - the "KISS rule" is an acronym for "keep it simple, stupid" used fairly regularly in my line of work (database programming/management consulting), the idea being that added complexity does not necessarily add value or improve results. I sort of agree with you on speculation about the evolution if kissing, though I always figured it originated with infant's oral exploration of mom's body (boobs for food, then chin, etc.).


----------



## SuperMama (Jan 22, 2007)




----------



## riverscout (Dec 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jazzharmony* 
I have a vague memory of a Mothering article on this topic.

It's by Solter too. http://www.mothering.com/articles/ne...onnection.html


----------



## jaidymama (Jun 18, 2005)

I practice AP, but my stance on babies/kids crying are that if they fall down I'm going to acknowledge the accident, offer hugs and kisses and nursing... the child can decide what s/he wants... and I'm not going to distract them to keep them from crying... I've read that they need to feel comfortable to express their crying in that regard. But I wouldn't let them cry as an act of neglect/ignoring.


----------



## m9m9m9 (Jun 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PrennaMama* 
Given some of the behaviors or attitides u described in your children, mumm, I would begin to ask myself about the quality of my Attachment. We hear and read a lot about APing, and it's become a broadly used term. But there are degrees to Attachment, as illustrated by the Emotional Availability Scales innovated by Dr. Zeynep Biringen (sp?) in her book Raising a Secure Child: _Creating an Emotional Connection Between You and Your Child_


I took this great course on Attachment Parenting and Gentle Discipline when dd was about 9 months old. We used that book as the text, and it really shifted my paradigm. She reveals degrees of attachment and how we can affect the bond we share with our child from baby-hood into adolescence and beyond. Discussing points like: A parent and child can be _very_ attached, but that attachment might be an insecure one, due to unconscious behaviors from the parent reflecting their own child-parent relationship memories, or the parent and/or the child experience of everyday stressors; as well as how we need to provide a source of emotional and psychological rejuvenation, (refueling) throughout those years and that if we're doing 'self-checks' and maintaining an awareness of that emotional connection, we are providing a stable foundation for that child's relationships now and in the future <- which I believe is at the heart of APing.

I _heartily_ recommend this book all the time.

eta: link to book...

I see that your post got buried ... too bad bc I really think this is such an important topic. I have done my fair share of reading on attachment and development of attachment. I will definitely check out the book.

Often when I read about "high needs" kids here on MDC and the description of how they are high needs, my mind always gravitates to attachment issues. Personally, I know I would be very concerned if I had a "velcro" baby and would try and really find out why. I have also recently read of the phenomena of "over attachment" being more recognized.

As with all things, I think some will always view AP practices as a strict set of guidelines that must be adhered too and others will see them as a guiding set of principals to use the best way they know how.

As far as it being "natural", I don't see that it matters if its natural or not. I believe that the concepts and practices that go along with AP are beneficial and loving and that to me is reason enough to learn and espouse them.

Maggie


----------



## fuller2 (Nov 7, 2004)

To the person who sarcastically? commented on my post about year-long paid maternity leaves--what I mean is that if mothers who were not 100% SAHMs were able to spend that year with some income they'd be much more likely to BF that full year and to generally be a less stressed parent.

And when you know you have to go back to work 6 weeks after your baby is born (I know of at least one person who did this because only her job provided health insurance, not her husband's), you are going to be spending that whole time getting ready to leave instead of relaxing and being with your baby 'naturally.' A year of paid leave would also be just a wonderful gift to a single mother. (BTW paid leaves sometimes work like unemployment compensation--you get paid according to what you made before, how long you were working, etc.)

And no, I certainly didn't mean to say that you should not AP in our society! On the contrary. I just meant that the structure of our society, especially for lower-income and blue-collar, service or industrial workers, makes it very difficult. (because these work schedules tend to be especially strict and employers unforgiving of time off, no place or opportunity to pump milk, etc.) And that to aspire to the AP idea within this society is doubly difficult because not only are you trying to everything alone, you are doing it in an environment that's unfriendly to parenting (especially mothering) in general.


----------



## jaidymama (Jun 18, 2005)

I was just thinking that if I lived in the wild, perhaps as a native american did long ago... well that it would be best for my safety and the tribes safety if I kept my baby from crying... I am imagining different scenarios where enemy tribes or wild animals would be alerted to my presence/the presence of a baby if they heard a cry. I suppose that is why the tribes were strategic to not put mamas and babies in those situations...

Anyways, my whole rambling point is that it does seem natural that I would need to keep my baby quiet and do what was necessary for that to happen... perhaps in life threatening situations...


----------



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

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jaidymama* 
Anyways, my whole rambling point is that it does seem natural that I would need to keep my baby quiet and do what was necessary for that to happen... perhaps in life threatening situations...

yeah, there is a reason that a mom's milk lets down when her baby cries!









Heck, when I was BFing, my milk would let down when ANY baby cried, so I could agrue that nursing other people's babies is natural







:

Is APing natural? Yes, that's the whole point.









Isn't living in isolation natural? No, not even close. We were ment to live surrounded by extended family and close friends of all ages who would take joy in our children with us and allow us to bask in motherhood. We were not meant to do this alone, where the routine care and nurturing of our children would become a burden.

I say -- let's all live tribally! My 8 and 10 year old would love to spend some time making faces at your babies and playing with your toddlers (while learning how to some day be mothers themselves), and we could all give each other a break. And the little kids would learn so much from the big kids, knowing they could ran back to you anytime they wanted to, but using that knowledge as a basis for playing freely. We could chat while we cook and clean, making the time fly.

We were ment to AP, but we were never meant to do it alone.


----------



## Demeter9 (Nov 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WNB* 
oh, sorry - the "KISS rule" is an acronym for "keep it simple, stupid" used fairly regularly in my line of work (database programming/management consulting), the idea being that added complexity does not necessarily add value or improve results. I sort of agree with you on speculation about the evolution if kissing, though I always figured it originated with infant's oral exploration of mom's body (boobs for food, then chin, etc.).

I know the kiss principle - I was just being funny (or not I guess).


----------



## Demeter9 (Nov 14, 2006)

Instinctual and natural might not be the same thing. Actually, our lives being so ordered and unhindered by serious survival stress may mean that we over cater to our instincts because we CAN.

However, I don't intend on giving up nursing for comfort because of an imaginary potential polar bear looking for a me-snack.


----------



## riverscout (Dec 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Linda on the move* 
I say -- let's all live tribally! My 8 and 10 year old would love to spend some time making faces at your babies and playing with your toddlers (while learning how to some day be mothers themselves), and we could all give each other a break. And the little kids would learn so much from the big kids, knowing they could ran back to you anytime they wanted to, but using that knowledge as a basis for playing freely. We could chat while we cook and clean, making the time fly.

I'm in.


----------



## RomanGoddess (Mar 16, 2006)

I think it is not so much that AP is not "natural" but that our society is not natural. As a previous poster has said, it is not natural for a mother to have to leave her baby to go work all day when her baby is only 2 or 3 months old. It is not natural for a mother to have to stay at home all by herself with no other adult contact and have discussions with her 3-year old all day long. It is not natural to live in a house alone with no support or companianship from other adults all day. It is not natural not to be able to carry your baby around with you all day while you work if you want. It is not natural to have to cover up my baby whenever she wants to breastfeed outside our home because people might catch a glimpse of my nipple. It is not natural to guilty about taking a shower in the morning because you have to leave your baby in the infant seat for 20 to 30 minutes to do this and she cries the whole time and there is no other adult in your home to hold her.

All of these factors add up to the fact that all the (what I believe to be) very natural aspects of AP like breastfeeding and close and prolonged contact with one's infant are really difficult to do in our world unless you are willing to live like a hermit, which itself is - not natural (and not healthy)!


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fuller2* 
To the person who sarcastically? commented on my post about year-long paid maternity leaves--what I mean is that if mothers who were not 100% SAHMs were able to spend that year with some income they'd be much more likely to BF that full year and to generally be a less stressed parent.


I commented on your post. I wasn't being sarcastic, I totally agree with you! Sorry if it came across that way.

It amazes me that the connection between low BF rates, and the lack of paid, year-long maternity leaves isn't more of a political issue.


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cmlp* 
All of these factors add up to the fact that all the (what I believe to be) very natural aspects of AP like breastfeeding and close and prolonged contact with one's infant are really difficult to do in our world unless you are willing to live like a hermit, which itself is - not natural (and not healthy)!

Right. And, these things are also very difficult to do unless you have a very supportive partner.


----------



## my3peanuts (Nov 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cmlp* 
I think it is not so much that AP is not "natural" but that our society is not natural. As a previous poster has said, it is not natural for a mother to have to leave her baby to go work all day when her baby is only 2 or 3 months old. It is not natural for a mother to have to stay at home all by herself with no other adult contact and have discussions with her 3-year old all day long. It is not natural to live in a house alone with no support or companianship from other adults all day. It is not natural not to be able to carry your baby around with you all day while you work if you want. It is not natural to have to cover up my baby whenever she wants to breastfeed outside our home because people might catch a glimpse of my nipple. It is not natural to guilty about taking a shower in the morning because you have to leave your baby in the infant seat for 20 to 30 minutes to do this and she cries the whole time and there is no other adult in your home to hold her.

All of these factors add up to the fact that all the (what I believe to be) very natural aspects of AP like breastfeeding and close and prolonged contact with one's infant are really difficult to do in our world unless you are willing to live like a hermit, which itself is - not natural (and not healthy)!


----------



## Kimmiepie (Dec 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Linda on the move* 
Isn't living in isolation natural? No, not even close. We were ment to live surrounded by extended family and close friends of all ages who would take joy in our children with us and allow us to bask in motherhood. We were not meant to do this alone, where the routine care and nurturing of our children would become a burden.

I say -- let's all live tribally! My 8 and 10 year old would love to spend some time making faces at your babies and playing with your toddlers (while learning how to some day be mothers themselves), and we could all give each other a break. And the little kids would learn so much from the big kids, knowing they could ran back to you anytime they wanted to, but using that knowledge as a basis for playing freely. We could chat while we cook and clean, making the time fly.

We were ment to AP, but we were never meant to do it alone.

















I agree very much with this.








I'll live tribally with you, I'm all for that kind of life. Heck, I'm bored.


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jaidymama* 
I practice AP, but my stance on babies/kids crying are that if they fall down I'm going to acknowledge the accident, offer hugs and kisses and nursing... the child can decide what s/he wants... and I'm not going to distract them to keep them from crying... I've read that they need to feel comfortable to express their crying in that regard. But I wouldn't let them cry as an act of neglect/ignoring.

Agree.

There is a world of difference btw a 3 month old and a 3 year old crying. My 3 year old has options. He can self-soothe if he needs too. And I can help him learn, in supportive and gentle ways.

I was definitely one of those "terrified of crying" moms with my first. I was so convinced that any crying - regardless of the reason or my response- would lead to irreversible brain damage or psychological trauma, that I would freak out whenever my baby started to cry.

I am a lot more laid back with my second, realizing that it isn't about any one situation but rather the pattern. Letting my baby cry for 20 minutes in the car one day when I am in gridlocked traffic on the freeway won't result in permanent damage to my kid. If it happened every day? Maybe there would be long term impact, but now and again? Not so bad.

Of course, I avoid those situations because listening to extended crying sucks.

I think my overall thoughts on AP is that many many people take the individual techniques way too seriously and too literally. I know I did. It is the philosophy that matters and parents need to look at the big picture as well as the here and now.

My 2 cents.

Siobhan


----------



## nina_yyc (Nov 5, 2006)

Quote:

I think my overall thoughts on AP is that many many people take the individual techniques way too seriously and too literally. I know I did. It is the philosophy that matters and parents need to look at the big picture as well as the here and now.








:


----------



## orangefoot (Oct 8, 2004)

I fell into parenting at 19 while travelling in Mexico. I knew I couldn't carry all the stuff I wouold need for formula or rely on good water supply so I breastfed. When we rented hotel rooms with only one double bed it was obvious ds would sleep with us. I carried him because a pushchair seemed impractical for constant travel by bus etc

I parented ds2 in the same way here in the UK because it had been easy with ds1 evn though I was materially better placed to be more mainstream. It was only when I got online in 2000 that I found other folk who did this consciously and called it AP.

I totally agree that the make up and perceived priorities of our society lead away from attachment which is why AP starts to look like hard work to so many people. Even our statutory 26 weeks paid maternity leave with 12 of those weeks at half pay if you agree to return for at least 3 months at any time after the 26 weeks has ended doesn't seem to encourage more women to breastfeed babywear or co sleep.

I am all for parenting as a tribe. I want to share my time with other mums with children so that we can support each other in real physical ways like bulk food preparation or domestic tasks or even do something like sewing without needing to stop every 10 minutes.

I feel for my new mama neighbours with small children but when I offer any practical support to them they often give me the impression that they feel that they should be able to manage alone. 'I'm ok, it's OK I can manage'

My SILs house is spotless and I know that her dd spends a lot of time in a bouncy chair or her cot while SIL cleans.

The expectation that each of us is an island and that we must keep everything running smoothly, have perfect children, a perfect house and work outside the home is distracting us from connecting with our chidren or just taking time to 'be'.

Adding the 'must haves' of AP to this already great burden just seems like madness to many and therefore the 'naturalness' or 'normalness' of it is doubted.

Sorry of this is a bit disjointed; I wrote it in four short sittings!


----------



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

Quote:


Originally Posted by *orangefoot* 
I parented ds2 in the same way here in the UK because it had been easy with ds1 evn though I was materially better placed to be more mainstream.... I totally agree that the make up and perceived priorities of our society lead away from attachment which is why AP starts to look like hard work to so many people.

I agree that AP is much less work in the long run than mainstream parenting. I stumbled into AP, and have always felt that it was like finding parenting short cuts.









When my kids were babies I had less stuff to cart around and could be more spontaneous. My kids were happy in the toddler years and discipline issues where far less than those that my mainstream friends were going through. We are moving into the adolescent years and expect them to be as pleasant as the trip has been so far because our kids are super to be around and really like us. More importantly, they like themselves









So yeah, parenting is work. But is it *more* work to parent our kids this way? I don't think so.


----------



## Trinitty (Jul 15, 2004)

subbing


----------

