# Hold on to your kids...



## hipumpkins (Jul 25, 2003)

This book to me seems to answer the question (I see now and than) of; "Does AP end when they're not babies?"
the idea is something I do really believe and what I love, when I read these books, is that they say it so much better than I could have so it gives me strength in my beliefs and how to vocalize them.
I peeked around in the older kids forums and I do see the peer orinetaion problems coming to light, I am wondering if anyone with older kids has read this book and applies it's theories and it still doesn't really work or should this book be stickied in the older kids forums







I ask b/c some replies I saw over there were really about the total opposite of what this book would recomend in such circumstances that I wanted to reply and say, "Hey wait ...this is what's going on" However since my kids are small I don't feel comfortable givng that advice. I did recommend the book in one thread.
I'd like to hear how others either enjoyed or didn't enjoy this book....talk to me about the pitfalls and also what makes it wonderful.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

I highly recommend this book. Here are a couple of threads about it.

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...+socialization
http://www.mothering.com/discussions...ighlight=hotyk
http://www.mothering.com/discussions...ighlight=hotyk

The main gist seems to be that developmentally a child must form a strong attachment in order to feel safe exploring being/becoming his Self, however his internal Self is permitted to become. When young children are placed with other young children where neither has yet developed a healthy attachment relationship with an available adult, the children are left to attach to each other. Since both children need to attach, they are more inclined to homogenize and not risk developing a separate strong sense of Self. Thus, their "Self" becomes peer oriented and dependent upon peer acceptance. According to the author, optimally, the child is provided a safe (and lengthy) childhood environment in which to develop a strong sense of Self alongside healthy adult models of an independent "Self".

Basically, the author seems to disdain attempts toward early homogenizing (fitting in) children through socializing. The logic seems sound to me. That a child needs to feel attached first and foremost and if the adults aren't there to become attached to, then the child naturally must attach to the available others: children, who are not optimal role models of mature relationships and a mature sense of Self. The longer the child has an opportunity to develop a separate sense of Self (separate from the adults and separate from other children), the stronger the Self is and thus more resistant to peer orientation. Additionally, the greater the number of attached adults (mature "Self") the more abled the child becomes in creating a unique separate Self. The author proscribes actively developing a "village" or community of multiple attached adult relationships as the priority for optimal socialization, instead of putting energy into creating a community of friends and peers for the child.

Optimal socialization appears to include creating the environment for relationships which do not subjugate the child's Self in order to meet his needs for attachment. Not unlike healthy adult relationships do not subjugate each other's Self in order to meet eaches' needs for attachment.

I have found it fascinating.

Pat


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

I loved this book. It is one of my favorite parenting books. I like it because it takes AP to the "big picture". I found it very validating of what we'd been doing all along, and it also was a big contributing factor to our decision to homeschool. I think that the practice of age-segregation, which is endemic to our society, is really detrimental. I believe that things such as cliques, bullying, etc are largely a result of this practice, and do not represent normal social dynamics.


----------



## mz_libbie22 (Nov 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 

Basically, the author seems to disdain attempts toward early homogenizing (fitting in) children through socializing. The logic seems sound to me. That a child needs to feel attached first and foremost and if the adults aren't there to become attached to, then the child naturally must attach to the available others: children, who are not optimal role models of mature relationships and a mature sense of Self. The longer the child has an opportunity to develop a separate sense of Self (separate from the adults and separate from other children), the stronger the Self is and thus more resistant to peer orientation. Additionally, the greater the number of attached adults (mature "Self") the more abled the child becomes in creating a unique separate Self. The author proscribes actively developing a "village" or community of multiple attached adult relationships as the priority for optimal socialization, instead of putting energy into creating a community of friends and peers for the child.


I haven't read the book but I really agree with the philosophy behind it, from what I've read, especially the above quote. I don't see why so many people emphasize the importance of kids socializing with dozens of other kids. Sure it's nice for kids to have a few good friends but the 1st priority should be quality socialization with adults.


----------



## rainyday (Apr 28, 2006)

This sounds great. I just ordered it!


----------



## mom22girls (May 5, 2005)

I ordered this book, and just started it. I want to homeschool, but cannot in the country I live in. Also, since everyone is at school, there are NO opportunities for my daughter to meet other English-speaking kids anywhere but school. So, I've always thought that school can be a little too "Lord of The Flies," and this book seems to be in agreement with that. I'm hoping that this book will give me idea on how to stay connected, and stay the main attachment for my daughters.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mom22girls* 
I'm hoping that this book will give me idea on how to stay connected, and stay the main attachment for my daughters.

The author speaks to a more traditional family regarding how to facilitate the *family* connection with schooled friends. Having the friends greeted at the front door, chatting with the friends on the phone, not separating children's friends from the family environment, being engaged in the friend's interests and activities, creating activities which facilitate family involvement, etc. Making the children's friends part of the family, rather than the children's friendships being a relationship isolated from the family.

And he gives practical 'how to' for introducing children to surrogate caregiver/teachers, also. And how to 'pass the baton' (this may have been his analogy) of an adult parental role model to a caregiver/teacher in an gentle and engaged manner. He offered ideas on facilitating attachment to alternative caregivers, addressed concerns of child:adult ratios, age segregation, and long term continuity of role models. The book was a fascinating psychological and sociological perspective applied to our cultural realities, imo.

Pat


----------



## daisymama12 (Jul 2, 2006)

I have heard about this book and am glad I found this thread, I'm ordering it right now


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Wow, cool. The theories presented here offer a really nice re-frame for me about my child's "clingyness."

At playgroup my child is always the child sitting on my lap wanting to help me hold whoever's baby we are passing around, instead of being off playing with her peers.

I tried to put her in daycare at age 2, but it was clear that there was *no way* that was going to happen. The daycare teacher instructed that I was to allow her to "peel" my child off of me each morning, crying, and she would be held and comforted for a few minutes and then instructed to either stop crying and join the fun, or comfort herself with a crying pillow in the corner.

So I yanked her 2 days before my own school started, without ever leaving her there, with no notice to the daycare. And now she goes to a little school with only one teacher and 3 other kids, 3 mornings/week. I tried to increase it to one full day and 2 mornings/week, but that was a no go. And even sometimes 3 mornings is too much for her.

We put her in kiddie yoga and had to pull her out because I was not allowed to stay, and she wouldn't stay without me.

That kind of thing. I find I start to feel like a freak in a hurry, like why isn't *my* child "normal." I also feel this re: her continued need to breastfeed, and re: ongoing co-sleeping.

I do find I am able to maintain my center and the strength to continue to meet her attachment needs, despite the social pressure. But holy crap the social pressure is intense! I feel the 'why isn't she off playing too' vibe from other mamas, the yoga teacher told me I just need to leave her and let her cry and she will get over the hump, my roommate is always ranting about how normal 3 year olds go to sleep by themselves and I'm letting my daughter turn me into a martyr, the freaking public health nurse when we were there this week for a runny nose told me it's time to stop co-sleeping, and my daughter's father, who is a psychotherapist, presented me with some big convoluted theory all about how ongoing breastfeeding is preventing her from individuating.

Holy crap that's a lot of pressure.

Sorry for the rant, I didn't intend for this post to be about that. But man, what a nice relief to have a decent theory to remind myself of, and to maybe share with other people, when presented with so much criticism re: my supporting of my daughter's attachment to me. This theory might even get babydaddy on board all the way. Thanks for this thread, what a relief.


----------



## frenchie (Mar 21, 2006)

I ahven't read this whole thread...but my initial thought the the question "Does AP end when they're not babies?" AP is a parenting style...do we stop parenting when they're no longer a baby? Absolutley not! It's our job as parents to raise our children and prepare them for adulthood and life outside "the nest". I feel that AP instills a tight family bond. That bond always needs to be nourished. This is especially important in the teen years. I don't have a teenager myself, but I used to be a youth group leader. It was SO obvious which children came from a family that was involved with their children, and which ones weren't. Those that were involved had a strong family bond...and the other kids that were left to their own devices, were SOOOOO needy and broken. It used to break my heart. I truely belive that AP methods continue beyond infancy/toddler years, and evolves with the child's developement as he/she grows.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
I find I start to feel like a freak in a hurry, like why isn't *my* child "normal." I also feel this re: her continued need to breastfeed, and re: ongoing co-sleeping.










Thismama, I just saw this sig line and loved it:

Quote:

*Childhood is a journey, not a race.*
And about everyone else's opinion about who you allow to consensually touch your breasts and who you sleep with...ummm, it ain't nobody's business.







Not the public health nurse, not the pediatrician, not the babysitter/caregiver/roomate/friends/in-laws/neighbors/playgroup mamas, etc. Please feel total and complete control over that area of your life without needing social approval or guidance. Trust your intuition and your relationship with your daughter to be the guide.

Actually, here was a thread about *3 year old crying when left at preschool--why isn't this CIO?* http://www.mothering.com/discussions...ight=hold+kids

Pat


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Ok, I'm gonna buck the trend here (respectfully - as many mamas who I love, also love this book) and say I didn't care for the book or the theory behind it. Some ideas/warnings were sound, particularly for parents who really did abandon children at the gates of the outside world, but I felt there was a lot of fear-mongering about the dangers of peers and schooling.

I personally feel that in almost every culture around the world, it's very normal for children to become peer-attached, or at least other-child-attached. I would agree that it's unusual in the Western world to segregate by age as we do, but I personally believe the evolutionary goal of peer-attachment is to provide a support network and cultural code which is inherent to future survival, after the parents are gone. Language, interests, fads - they all create a sort of socio-cultural map for children that they share with other children.

I also feel that peer attachment (not opposed to parental attachment - which I often see portrayed - as if it's an opposing duality rather than something complementary) is healthy and fun for children, particularly for social children after a certain age. There are all types - some kids are introverted, and others crave peers. Peers can teach you all sorts of fun and useful things, not just swear words, bullying, and bad manners, as is so often portrayed by the homeschool community (i.e. send them off to school and they come back a little hellion, which they learned from peers and did not come from them. Of course.). I guess I see peer relationships within a larger community focus - and for that to work, you do need to know the other moms, dads, teachers, and so on. We use a multiage alternative school that welcomes parents in the classroom, on fieldtrips, and has a very "community-focused" atmosphere.

Children do experiment with discomfiting behavior (hitting, social aggression, transgressing various social rules) but adults in their lives can help to overcome that. It's not something that's a foregone conclusion.

I've always been very impressed with the close-knit, mature, and yet very culturally savvy teens that came from Tibetan, Chinese, and Vietnamese families. They were attached to their parents, yet also inhabited another world (usually English-speaking) of their peers. They were awesome kids.


----------



## falcon (Jul 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *daisymama12* 
I have heard about this book and am glad I found this thread, I'm ordering it right now

















: Me too, I think it sounds like it will be a terrific read







Thanks for sharing with us!


----------



## hipumpkins (Jul 25, 2003)

Quote:

I guess I see peer relationships within a larger community focus - and for that to work, you do need to know the other moms, dads, teachers, and so on. We use a multiage alternative school that welcomes parents in the classroom, on fieldtrips, and has a very "community-focused" atmosphere.
I feel like that *is* what the book is saying. AS far as I read he did not recomend homeschooling. his examples are how to keep them close even when they go to school. It doesn't feel like..hold on to your kids so tight they are not with other kids. It's the attachemnt that needs to come first and than you can send them off and they come back no worse for the wear KWIM?


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hipumpkins* 
I feel like that *is* what the book is saying. AS far as I read he did not recomend homeschooling. his examples are how to keep them close even when they go to school. It doesn't feel like..hold on to your kids so tight they are not with other kids. It's the attachemnt that needs to come first and than you can send them off and they come back no worse for the wear KWIM?

Ah ha. Perhaps I read it too speedily. I am willing to be wrong. This once.







I can take a look at it again, but I came away feeling like he was really bashing peer attachment and the value that peers add to childrens' lives.


----------



## hammas (Oct 19, 2006)

This book sounds good! I guess I need to order it, too. (I have some many GD, parenting and personal growth books on my shopping list that if I buy and read them all, I will have very little time for actually doing the GD, parenting or personal growth.







)


----------



## nina_yyc (Nov 5, 2006)

Quote:

Making the children's friends part of the family, rather than the children's friendships being a relationship isolated from the family.
What a great way to look at it. My parents did this, and to this day my childhood friends come to my parents' for dinner.


----------



## homewithtwinsmama (Jan 5, 2005)

I am not done it yet, but I love this book. I homeschool and have always felt this way, but it was good for me in helping me figure out how to interact with our non homeschool neighborhood friends and families who do things differently and how to keep our kids attached as they move out of the preschooler ages and into the tweens/teens. I think its a very positive book and didn't really push or support homeschool at all. I didn't feel judged one way or another as a homeschooler and liked that I finally found an AP book for older families.

Lorrie


----------



## hipumpkins (Jul 25, 2003)

You know I always hated the label "AP" Dr. Sears was startign to annoy me. He seems a bit too know it ally all of a sudden for my liking. However reading this book on actual attachment...and not the "use a sling" "Co sleep" All the "rules" of AP..I am starting to really understand term and like it.
I want to faciliate that attachemnt..but I don't want to join our local AP moms group.


----------



## Azuralea (Jan 29, 2007)

Hi, mama hipumpkins asked me to post my opinion on the book here because in another thread I said I had liked some of it but I thought some of it was hooey.









I don't have the copy of the book I read here any more, so I can't point to specific passages, which I would normally do in a book review. So, here are my thoughts.

What I liked: I thought he did an excellent analysis on attachment to parents. Frankly, I think the book explains why AP isn't a magic formula for producing loving kids and happy families; physical attachment is only the first step in the attaching process. Attachment is far, far more than just extended bf'ing and co-sleeping. This jives with my own personal feeling, as well as what I know of the legitimate attachment studies out there (there are a lot of very bogus ones that get cited, so you have to be wary). I also liked his discussion of age-grouping.

The hooey part: I thought the book essentially argued that strong peer attachments detract from a strong parental attachment. This IMO is bogus (and doesn't match with my research and personal experience). He approaches peer attachments from a almost entirely fear-based approach, makes them out to be something that parents should be scared of because they are out of the control of the parents. However, I believe that kids who form _healthy_ peer attachments can strengthen their parental bond and vice versa. The key is whether the peer attachments are healthy. What he classifies as peer attachments (and makes out to be strongly negative) are, IMO, part of _community_ attachment. Essentially he is endorsing an inward focus, which I think is not necessarily the most balanced approach and in fact I think can lead to more pressure on the parental bond than is healthy.

Essentially, I thought that he did very little to examine and promote the benefits of strong, healthy peer attachment, which I believe is an important part of growing up and becoming a healthy adult member of the community. That's what I thought was the hooey part.

On a personal note, part of my feeling on this comes, of course, from my own background. My parents practiced AP before it had a name (extended bf'ing -- my mom lied to the doctors and told them she'd weaned me because they put so much pressure on her







: -- cosleeping, gentle discipline, etc). Yet I also started daycare at age 6 weeks. My mom was SAH for some of my childhood, WOH for other parts, depending on what the family needed financially and emotionally. So, I started establishing peer attachments very early. My parents worked very hard at making sure we knew that the family came first, but we also understood from an early age that we were part of an extended community. We were the house on the block that always seemed to have a few extra kids around for dinner. My parents strongly encouraged us to have extended webs of peer relationships, always. Neufield seems pretty strongly anti-daycare, but I _loved_ daycare, and now as a parent I really love seeing it from the parental angle. Just like my parents did with me, I talk with my son about what he's learning at daycare and who his friends are -- it's a wonderful part of our day, as it was with mine as a kid.

My parents also encouraged me to build relationships with kids who might have been simply classified as troubled or bad news. One thing they did which goes directly against the book was that they permitted us to form very strong attachments to kids who _were_ in trouble. In those situations they made it very clear that they trusted our own evaluation of our peer relationships and they would be available for help at any time. I think we could never have handled relationships of that level of complexity as teenagers if we hadn't been practicing peer relationships from a very young age.

I hope to raise my own son a way similar to the way I was raised, obviously accounting for generational differences. I'm very, very close to my parents, as are my siblings, and we truly enjoy spending time with family -- but we also have very strong peer attachments. I mean, I am _still_ friends with my kindergarten seatmate!


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Azuralea, what I was trying to say, but way more well-written! I think peer attachments are a very normal part of growing up.


----------



## Azuralea (Jan 29, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama* 
Azuralea, what I was trying to say, but way more well-written! I think peer attachments are a very normal part of growing up.

Flyingspaghettimama, I meant to say in my post that I agreed with your analysis!









We agree.


----------



## hipumpkins (Jul 25, 2003)

Thank you very much I always like to hear the other side of the coin when I like a book. Keeps me in check from getting too "brainwashed"









As I've gotten farther in the book (I can only read it once or twice a week at work) One thing that *is* bugging me is that he relies a lot on media examples...like Lord of the flies and LOTR..I think it's weird to make your point with fictional examples. Although he does use more real life..The fiction stuff I think is weird.
Over all I like it and it makes a lot of sense to me.


----------



## Azuralea (Jan 29, 2007)

You're welcome!

You know, I think in a way it would have been a much better book if he had practiced some positive discipline himself!







I think his point about strengthening parental attachment is good and if he'd focused just on that I would have loved the book. I definitely like his analysis of parental attachment, especially about how it is so much more than physical attachment.

However, by emphasizing the negatives of peer relationships, as if attachment is a zero-sum game, I think he weakens his point considerably.

I agree with you on the media examples. I thought they were a little weird.


----------



## Ex Libris (Jan 31, 2004)

I've got a question to all of you wise mamas. I haven't read the book yet, but plan to get it. I often think about socialization and wonder whether I should actively encourage it for ds.

At this point (3 years old) he isn't interested in playing with other kids or having anyone over. I'll ask him if he'd like to invite his cousins over to play, and he'll always say, "No!" In part it's because he doesn't want to share his toys with them, but it's also b/c some of them have been aggressive with him and scared him. Should I encourage it and expose him to other kids (especially family) when I can, or should i respect his desire to be alone? For now I just try to respect his decision when I can.

I just find it hard when family invites us over for a visit (which ds only goes along with b/c they have fun toys there), but never reciprocate with an invite to our house. (Or when we do have them over, as we did last week, ds tells his cousin to "go home now.") I don't know whether to laugh or cry!


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

This is just me, but YES, I would definitely try to expose him to other kids and get him out. Maybe he doesn't get along with his cousins, but there would be other children (younger? older?) he could get along with. There are many sweet children who are not aggressive, and nice mamas too.

I _personally_ think that it's part of the human condition to learn how to be with other children, adults, and members of society. Sometimes it takes compromise, sometimes it takes standing your ground, sometimes it takes a little bit of both. Frequently, it means moving beyond our comfort zones. Are you planning to homeschool? Could you join a co-op in your area?

You would probably get more diverse responses if you posted your question as a new post. I am sure there are moms who would disagree with me and encourage you to keep him in.


----------



## Ex Libris (Jan 31, 2004)

Thanks, I will try a separate query. I appreciate your thoughts about this. I've found that ds likes older kids. I've had 2 teen/pre-teens babysit him and he loves them. And he loves most adults. He just has a hard time with kids his own age. Unfortunately I'm new to my town and the only kids we know right now are his cousins. I need to find some other social outlets for us both.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Yeah, I think all kids love older children. They're more patient, and either take charge of the situation and think of fun games to play; or they let the younger kid set the pace. It's far more challenging to do the give-and-take that same-age kids require. My daughter enjoys children much older or much younger for the same reasons, it's only been in the past year (age 7) that she's learned how to truly befriend kids her own age.

Good luck to you though. I would look around for a cooperative preschool so you'll be there, and you can both meet some new friends!


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama* 
...I felt there was a lot of fear-mongering about the dangers of peers and schooling.

I agree (and it's my one complaint) that his tone was a bit too "Chicken Little" in the introductory chapters. But I do agree with his theory. I do think that schooling (or rather, age-segregation) creates unnatural peer dynamics that parents have to work "extra hard" against.

I do think that peer attachment is important, but keep in mind the evolutionary context in which our social behaviours have developed over the millenia...

In small, tribal like groups there are not enough children to break down into age groups. Instead, joining "the other kids" means you are now in a small bunch of children who range from newly weaned (around age 3) to almost-adult (around age 14 or so). The sort of attachments that form here generally involve younger-to-older. You can see this sort of behaviour when you are in mixed age groups - younger kids tend to "worship" the older ones and mimic their behaviours. Older children tend to be rather motherly and protective to the youngest ones...

So I agree that peer attachments are normal and important, but I don't think our society creates opportunities for this normal process to develop. Instead our kids are forced to attach only to those of their own age, it's the blind leading the blind, and I think that's where so many of the more destructive situations like bullying and cliques and peer pressure really stem from.

Add to that the amount of time that children are away from groups of adults (one teacher for 20 kids is not enough to go 'round) and the children are not being given the opportunity to form the attachments that should be filled by adults. You put a kid in daycare from the time they are 1 and they spend the vast majority of their waking time with only 1 or 2 adults around, who are not available for much 1 on 1 time. Contrast that with a tribal situation (or cultures where extended family live with you or are close by and available) and you have many adults available to interact with the child and serve as models for behaviour and social skills.

I'm not saying we should all invite our relatives to live with us (god forbid! lol) or we should all live as tribal societies, but this IS the normal context in which we spent the majority of our evolutionary existence. It is the template upon which our social development was refined. I don't think it can be ignored.

Quote:

We use a multiage alternative school that welcomes parents in the classroom, on fieldtrips, and has a very "community-focused" atmosphere.
I love these models and wish they were more the norm! Even the "parent participation preschools" around here say "no siblings allowed!".







:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hipumpkins* 
I feel like that *is* what the book is saying. AS far as I read he did not recomend homeschooling.

He doesn't come out and say "you should homeschool" b/c he recognizes that isn't a reality for most people and would turn them off the book. But the truth is that his theories are best addressed by either homeschooling or the kind of alternative school that flyingspaghettimama spoke of. Which isn't to say that you can't have a child in school and avoid this problem, you just need to work extra hard at it.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Azuralea* 
The hooey part: I thought the book essentially argued that strong peer attachments detract from a strong parental attachment.

Hmm, I didn't get that at all. What I got from him is that the _primary_ attachment figures should be adults, otherwise peers fill that role and that's when the abnormal social dynamics start coming into play (the flight from vulnerability, for example). I think he notes that having friends is important, and of course those friends are going to be important to the child, but they shouldn't "trump" the natural desire to model, follow, and please the primary attachment figure, which is the parent or close adult family members. Yes, one should be attached to one's peers to the extent of forming friendships and companionship, but not to the point where these peers have the influence over behaviour and accountability that they do when they are the primary attachment figure.


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
I find I start to feel like a freak in a hurry, like why isn't *my* child "normal."

OMG, I am so with you on that one.

At age "almost 4" my DD "failed" at being in a gym class without parent participation. Very long story short I had to pull her out and almost burst into tears at my "failure"....I cried to my friend (whose very social son of the same age was enjoying himself immensely in that same class) "Why am I the only one whose kid can't do this without me????"

And she said "Because all the hundreds of other mothers whose 4 year olds aren't ready for this are AT HOME." Wiser words were never spoken.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Piglet,























I believe that Our Babies, Ourselves covers a lot of this same evolutionary social dynamics. http://www.amazon.com/Our-Babies-Our.../dp/0385483627

Pat


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Yeah, that's a really good point.


----------



## orangefoot (Oct 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Azuralea* 
In those situations they made it very clear that they trusted our own evaluation of our peer relationships and they would be available for help at any time.

My eldest son is almost 14 and hangs out with older children who walk the same way to school. I have never discouraged him from froming friendships with people whose parents I don't know. I think that when you have little ones their friends are most often the children of your friends but as they grow older there is a normal transition from family chosen circles to self chosen circles of friends. Evaluating and nurturing these friendships is an important skill for adult life when he may live far from home or we as his parents may no longer be here to guide him.

I know how I have raised my son and trust his judgement on who he thinks is a good or bad person for *him* to be with. At the moment we are here to guide him if he wants it and we often talk about so and so and what they have said or done and how he feels about that.

In every aspect our role is to help him on his journey to independence; not control his environment and hold him so close that he feels fearful and mistrusting of what is outside.


----------



## hipumpkins (Jul 25, 2003)

I totally agree with you Piglet! I wish I were as articualte. I think he is trying to make that point but lost in the examples..perhaps his editor should have made the book shorter.

Quote:

At the moment we are here to guide him if he wants it and we often talk about so and so and what they have said or done and how he feels about that.
I also think this is the relationship he is trying to show parents they need to have with their kids. Let the kids have friends but let the parent help guide.


----------



## KimProbable (Jun 22, 2005)

I think Neufeld's theories and ideas are super, though I had a hard time slugging through his book. I've watched the DVD based on the book and part of Power to Parent, and I find he's much clearer as a presenter than as a writer. His ideas about peer attachment helped us to reach our decision to homeschool DS next year.

One thing I've been thinking about is his discussion on the value of our children forming strong relationships with other adults. He points out that these relationships will be of value in the teenage years when there might be tension between the parent and child. He also discusses the multi-generational relationsips he observed in Provence.

This really got me thinking about adult/child relationships in our society. Everyone gets so excited when there's a new baby and they come over to meet him and hold him. There's a big fuss for the first while, but then it seems to fade. It's rare for an adult to show as much enthusiasm for, say, a friend's pre-teen as they do for their baby.

I have friends with various relationships with my children. Some friends come over to visit with my kids (BOTH, not just the baby!) just as much as they come to see me. Others have the "You kids go off and play now" attitude and I honestly find myself less and less interested in spending time with them as a family because of this. I've been making more of an effort to greet and interact with friends' children just as much as I do with my friends since I've become aware of all this.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this?


----------



## Mountaingirl3 (May 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Azuralea* 
The hooey part: I thought the book essentially argued that strong peer attachments detract from a strong parental attachment. This IMO is bogus (and doesn't match with my research and personal experience). He approaches peer attachments from a almost entirely fear-based approach, makes them out to be something that parents should be scared of because they are out of the control of the parents. However, I believe that kids who form _healthy_ peer attachments can strengthen their parental bond and vice versa.

ITA with you here. I found the first three chapters of the book to be so negative and exagerated that I flipped to the table of contents to see if the authors were ever going to make some helpful suggestions as to how to actually do the title of the book!

"Once our children become peer-oriented, attachment turns against us and we lose the power to parent."

"There is nothing either healthy or natural about peer-orientation."

"As we will show, children can not be oriented to both adults and other children simultaneously."

According to these authors, the only type of attachment our children can have with other children is a seductive, submissive, obsessive, immature, insecure Trojan horse which will drive them to casual sex, violence, murder or suicide, and completely replace their bonds with us.

IMO, the children of unconditionally loving, involved, attached parents are not at risk for all this. For me, it's far more enjoyable and useful to read everyday strategies for staying attatched to my kids as they grow up.

Dh and I do not want to be the only deep relationships in our kids' lives. We want them to gain a widening circle of enriching attatchments to all ages--including children. It's healthy and normal for children to play together! There's nothing like the wild giggles of cousins exploring the beach, or the peace of dd and a friend bent over her dollhouse, the joy of hide-and-go-seek, the kids all splashing in the neighborhood pool, acting out plays, building a "rocket ship" in the basement after school or going off sledding. . . I could go on and on. I can't believe the authors state clearly that playing with other kids is merely fun, that's it. It does not further development, should be limited, and preferably dispensed with. [They do have a major push for homeschooling on page 237-8.]

They admit that relationships with siblings are OK as long as they are secondary to the parent. Well, my long term goal is for my kids to have deep attachments to each other that are not about their parents. And I think it's important to start promoting that now. I've taught them a ton about getting along and they are ready to interact with each other, and with their friends, without an adult overseeing and controlling the situation. In fact, they are learning so much: to apologize and make-up, to cooporate, to lead or follow, to hear the ideas of others, to empathize, and to enjoy life with people of all ages. An added bonus to playing with friends is the natural exercise that comes with the constant running, climbing, swimming etc. (which I can only do for so long even though I'm in shape!).

Maybe all the authors' warnings are really for people who don't spend time with their kids, put them in day care from dawn to dusk, don't socialize as a family and are generally absent. They can't risk their kids attaching to any one else because it will automatically be stronger than the parenting relationship (since the parenting relationship stinks!).

I believe that love grows. Kids from a healthy, relationship-oriented family will gradually go out into the world and share their love with others. This is good!


----------



## Mountaingirl3 (May 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama* 
Ah ha. Perhaps I read it too speedily. I am willing to be wrong. This once.







I can take a look at it again, but I came away feeling like he was really bashing peer attachment and the value that peers add to childrens' lives.

fsm, IMO, you haven't used up your one opportunity to be wrong yet







.


----------



## hipumpkins (Jul 25, 2003)

Ooops I accidentally unsubscribed to my own thread.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

I felt that the point of the book was that the child could not create a separate sense of self while attaching to immature individuals, ie not self-aware individuals. I believe this could happen with "adult" parents also. However, if the primary attachment figure is consistent and not self-absorbed, the child has the opportunity to *become himself*. When the child is left to meet attachment needs through immature relationships (ie. with other children), the Self is subjugated to the group in order to meet the attachment needs. This could also happen, imo, in a "family first", before the needs of the individual, atmosphere.

I believe the focus was on creating strong attachments with mature individuals *in order* that children could choose healthy relationships, regardless of age.

Pat


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ex Libris* 
At this point (3 years old) he isn't interested in playing with other kids or having anyone over...Should I encourage it and expose him to other kids (especially family) when I can, or should i respect his desire to be alone? For now I just try to respect his decision when I can.

I'd respect his desire to be alone. I think the push for palydates and preschool socialization are overdone in this culture.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mountaingirl3*
"Once our children become peer-oriented, attachment turns against us and we lose the power to parent."

"There is nothing either healthy or natural about peer-orientation."

"As we will show, children can not be oriented to both adults and other children simultaneously."

In all of these examples, the author was talking about "peer orientation" not peer attachment. Peer orientation is when children feel a _stronger_ attachment to peers than parents.

What I got out of the book was the importance of _maintaining_ the attachment with your children, and that--just like with marriage--you need to continue to work at it.


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
I believe the focus was on creating strong attachments with mature individuals *in order* that children could choose healthy relationships, regardless of age.

Good point!


----------



## Enudely (Jul 2, 2005)




----------



## hipumpkins (Jul 25, 2003)

Quote:


I felt that the point of the book was that the child could not create a separate sense of self while attaching to immature individuals, ie not self-aware individuals. I believe this could happen with "adult" parents also. However, if the primary attachment figure is consistent and not self-absorbed, the child has the opportunity to *become himself*. When the child is left to meet attachment needs through immature relationships (ie. with other children), the Self is subjugated to the group in order to meet the attachment needs. This could also happen, imo, in a "family first", before the needs of the individual, atmosphere.

I believe the focus was on creating strong attachments with mature individuals *in order* that children could choose healthy relationships, regardless of age.










Yes I don't get at all that he is saying "hang for dear life to your kids and keep them away from everyone" He is saying to keep the parent attachment as the stronger one and allow kids to be themselves and feel strong in their decision to be that way.


----------



## orangefoot (Oct 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KimProbable* 

I have friends with various relationships with my children. Some friends come over to visit with my kids (BOTH, not just the baby!) just as much as they come to see me. Others have the "You kids go off and play now" attitude and I honestly find myself less and less interested in spending time with them as a family because of this.

Do you think this feeling you are having is related to your preference for family- over peer-relationships?

Why is it bad for the children to go off and play? Surely there is value in them paying alone as a little group of their own without adult interference or direction?

I get where you are coming from but I think that in some circumstances having the children with you and interacting as a whole group could be just another way of us as adults controlling our children's interaction and environment in preference to enabling them to be free to experiment with their own attachments.

Sometimes children want to do things that I as an adult don't want to do; that is what their friends are for. I have spent many happy afternoons talking with friends whilst we watch our children interact and share fun times without any need for us to be present in their group be it jumping in the river or acting out grand theatre in the garden or whatever.

Your thoughts?


----------



## KimProbable (Jun 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *orangefoot* 
Do you think this feeling you are having is related to your preference for family- over peer-relationships?

Why is it bad for the children to go off and play? Surely there is value in them paying alone as a little group of their own without adult interference or direction?

I didn't mean to come accross that I think that we need to all be together all the time. I think that it's very important for kids to play alone with other kids and adults to have time with other adults. I'm more than happy to see my kids interacting with other children and I recognize that they'll learn and do things they never would if I were involved.

I was thinking more about adults who just don't seem to like interacting with my kids, or even their own kids sometimes. If the adults are visiting and the kids are playing, I think the kids should be able to come and sit with the adults if they want to without being told to go off and play so the adults can visit. Kids choosing to go off and play and kids being forced to leave the grown ups alone are two very different things.

I don't think my way of looking at it is influenced so much by a preference for family relationships as it is by a desire to spend time with people who respect my children and their needs. I've had times when friends have belittled my children's needs for sleep or a more child-friendly environment for example. Granted, this usually comes from friends who don't have kids and don't really understand what life as a parent is. These are the people I'm more likely to spend and adult evening out with rather than an outing which includes the kids.


----------



## swampangel (Feb 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KimProbable* 
I think the kids should be able to come and sit with the adults if they want to without being told to go off and play so the adults can visit. Kids choosing to go off and play and kids being forced to leave the grown ups alone are two very different things.

I don't think my way of looking at it is influenced so much by a preference for family relationships as it is by a desire to spend time with people who respect my children and their needs.

I really agree with you. We find ourselves at family gatherings where the children go off which is great. But I want my ds to feel that he can come join me anytime (even if I'd rather continue playing Blokus or talking with other adults!)...I think he would feel a bit unsafe if the adult space was forbidden for him. Sometimes I get the feeling that the other adults feel really put out when the kids come up to check in.

We all need breaks from the kids, but I think the real break comes when you really are off at an adult function without the kids there at all. Otherwise, I think being available to them is only fair.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Bump! I just got this book at a book sale and I've started reading it. Anyone wanna discuss some more with me?


----------



## hipumpkins (Jul 25, 2003)

Can you believe I am still reading this book. I haven't finished it YET! I only get to read at work which I do twice a week and if it's busy I can't read. So I am going to renew it once again...and hopefully finish it on vacation but I love discussing the books and seeing points that I often miss...so bring it on


----------

