PDA

View Full Version : Time Magazine's Breastfeeding Cover



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17

IceAlisa
05-17-2012, 03:12 AM
:rofl:

danceronice
05-17-2012, 03:16 AM
:scream: :scream: :scream: :scream: :scream: :scream: :scream: :scream:

Eyes...cannot unread....:slinkaway

MacMadame
05-17-2012, 06:15 AM
Pretty funny piece from The Village Voice about attachment parenting, written by a SAHD. Fair Warning: lots of sarcasm and f-bombs ahead. :fan21:


The Problem With Attachment Parenting (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/05/babies_are_assh.php)

And yet, my kid who slept with us until she was 3 and breastfed for longer is much better adjusted than my kid who was weaned at 4 months and slept in a crib. ;)

IceAlisa
05-17-2012, 06:35 AM
I know a family where the reverse is true--the AP kid, nursed until 2.5 and co-slept is a mess and the non-AP kid, weaned at 9 months (parents tired of sharing bed, nursing, etc) is well-adjusted.

Anita18
05-17-2012, 07:08 AM
So as usual, whatever you do, the kid will turn out the way s/he wil turn out. :P

milanessa
05-17-2012, 12:54 PM
Eyes...cannot unread....:slinkaway

Got my pristine copy in the mail Tuesday. :lol:

Holley Calmes
05-17-2012, 01:07 PM
My mother insisted on sleeping with me until I was so old I don't want to say. She'd get up when I drifted off, but I grew up wondering why she had to be there, and what there was to be afraid of. I subsequently developed night terrors. My mother was afraid of everything (still is) and has definite emotional issues. I just figured as a 4 year old that she must be protecting me from something awful.

MacMadame
05-17-2012, 04:25 PM
I know a family where the reverse is true--the AP kid, nursed until 2.5 and co-slept is a mess and the non-AP kid, weaned at 9 months (parents tired of sharing bed, nursing, etc) is well-adjusted.

Well of course, that's why I put the ;) in there. Because it's way more complicated than any one parenting practice.

But I do get tired of people thrashing any practice they aren't comfortable with by claiming it will harm the kids. I know a lot of kids raised like this little boy is being raised and the parents who are firm with their kids and set limits have great kids and the ones who are permissive have bratty kids.

But it's not the family bed and extended breastfeeding that made the brats that way. It's the permissiveness. And you can be permissive without having a family bed. I see that all the time, way more than I see AP parents being too lax about everything because, in fact, a lot of the things these parents do (extended breastfeeding, unschooling) require more work to do well than traditional parenting.

The other thing is, it's a well documented phenomena that we remember the cases that support our own point-of-view and sometimes we even remember things the opposite of how they happen if the way they happen challenges our point of view (that's called cognitive dissonance). So when someone I don't know posts on a message about some anecdote that supports their POV, I take it with a huge lump of salt even if I agree with them.

cruisin
05-17-2012, 04:37 PM
But I do get tired of people thrashing any practice they aren't comfortable with by claiming it will harm the kids. I know a lot of kids raised like this little boy is being raised and the parents who are firm with their kids and set limits have great kids and the ones who are permissive have bratty kids.

But it's not the family bed and extended breastfeeding that made the brats that way. It's the permissiveness. And you can be permissive without having a family bed. I see that all the time, way more than I see AP parents being too lax about everything because, in fact, a lot of the things these parents do (extended breastfeeding, unschooling) require more work to do well than traditional parenting.

I completely agree with you. I do think, however, that the Time cover has not done AP parenting any favors. I don't think the cover represents AP parenting, it is just sensational for the sake of getting attention. In some instances any attention can be good, even if it is not good attention. But, in this case, I think it backfired.

Southpaw
05-17-2012, 04:40 PM
Five bucks says the good Dr. Sears has his own mommy issues.

TheGirlCanSkate
05-17-2012, 04:59 PM
from the article posted, "But unless he's actually injured, I do not give a f--- if he cries. It's good for him. Every time I ignore his screaming, it's a reinforcement of a crucial truth in life: that no amount of screaming will get him what he wants."

Babies cry for a reason, ignoring them isn't parenting.

IceAlisa
05-17-2012, 05:10 PM
My son decided he is going to be fed every night twice a night well into his second year and well after he started solids. There was no medical reason for him to be fed twice a night until the ripe old age of 18 months.

But I felt like a bad mother and wouldn't consider ignoring his crying (the baby is hungry, how can I deny him??). This resulted in chronic sleep deprivation for 18 months for me and for my husband. We were zombies, he continued to work full time and I was a full time student. For what reason other than guilt? He was thriving and continued to thrive after we stopped the nightly feedings.

We resisted the pediatrician who told us to let him cry it out, that he is fine and will start sleeping through the night once he realizes no food is coming at 2 and 4 am. Finally, when we were reaching the point of no return in our exhaustion, we bit the bullet and let him cry for two nights. That is, I still walked into his room and talked to him but no food.

Miracle! In two days he was sleeping through the night like an angel. And we were happier and well-rested and performed much better as parents. We only regretted not doing it sooner.

Other than that we responded and still respond to his crying, no doubt about that. For a while he'd have nightmares, so I'd come and soothe him, rub his back, tell him it's only a dream, etc. Or he'd run to our bed to snuggle.

So yes, usually, babies cry for a good reason. But there are times when they are being frivolous.

TheGirlCanSkate
05-17-2012, 05:18 PM
18 months is not a baby - that is a toddler. You didn't ignore him at 18 months, you let him know he was safe and loved.

modern_muslimah
05-17-2012, 06:09 PM
from the article posted, "But unless he's actually injured, I do not give a f--- if he cries. It's good for him. Every time I ignore his screaming, it's a reinforcement of a crucial truth in life: that no amount of screaming will get him what he wants."

Babies cry for a reason, ignoring them isn't parenting.

ITA with IceAlisa. Some babies and toddlers cry a lot (more than usual) and sometimes you have to ignore them. One of my nieces cried a lot as baby and a toddler, more than other children her age. Soothing her didn't always help. It got to a point where if she wasn't hungry or wet, we had to ignore her until she stopped. I remember one time she stayed with me and my parents and she started screaming at the top of her lungs. My stepfather left her crying in the living room while we ate in the kitchen and told me and my mother to leave her alone. About 20-30 minutes later she stopped crying and walked into the kitchen and ate dinner with the rest of us. Now she's a perfectly well adjusted teenager in a magnet high school. So there really isn't a one size fits all way to parent children. It seems that when parenting, you often have to adjust and go with what works best for the child and the parent.

maatTheViking
05-17-2012, 06:16 PM
18 months is not a baby - that is a toddler. You didn't ignore him at 18 months, you let him know he was safe and loved.

Excatly.

A lot of what I see in AP I feel is a reaction to The Ferber Method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferber_method) - which claims that babies can sleep trough the night at 4 months. For some reason this is very popular in the US, and with US pediatricians (Ferber himself have updated his book/theory to be a little more flexible, I believe).

I personally believe that it is bullshit, at least for some babies. My son was definely hungry (we went through a period at 9 months were we tried just comforting him - no he was actually HUNGRY in the middle of the night still, despite being a good eater).
I think that before 12 months, you really need to respond to their needs, and AP does that excatly - at least to me that is the core of it, not whether that means sleeping in a family bed etc. I think that your basic trust in other human being are formed very early, this is also what I have discussed with most people who have studied child psycology.

If you should continue to repont to every need.. well... You need to set limits once they understand them. I think that is 'crazy' part of some execution of AP - you keep treating children as babies.

EDIT: Yes, I think that my main issue with ANY of these parenting 'theories' is that they seem like a) any baby/child will respond well to this and b) if you don't do this, you screw up your kid. But every family is different.