Isn't That Just Good Parenting?

My last post sparked an interesting, and very good, conversation about the implications of the attachment parenting label. It was pointed out that, if attachment parenting really is what I described, then it’s simply what good parents do and it doesn’t need the “attachment” label. It’s just parenting.

I agree with that statement-- but I would be hesitant to say it without first attempting to clear up the common misunderstandings of what is meant by "attachment" parenting in the first place. Here's why:

Suppose you have been given the impression that attachment parenting is breastfeeding, baby-wearing, and co-sleeping, and then you heard me say, “Attachment parenting is really just what good parents do, and it doesn’t even need the label. Just call it parenting.” If you hear that statement with an inaccurate understanding of what attachment parenting is, that would be an incredibly hurtful statement! What you would actually “hear” me saying is that people who don’t breastfeed, baby-wear, or co-sleep are bad parents. And, if you read my last post, you know that’s not what I believe at all.

At the same time, though, I concede that the label itself can cause confusion, but I would say that part of that confusion does stem from not knowing what is actually meant by the term. When you hear “attachment parenting,” it is logical to assume that anything that isn’t described as attachment parenting would be described as detachment parenting. So, if you think that attachment parenting is about outward actions, then you would assume that people who don’t breastfeed, baby-wear, or co-sleep are being called detached. And if you read my last post, you know I don’t believe that either!

Hence the clarification of what, exactly, the point of attachment parenting is. It’s hard, if not downright impossible, to have an honest conversation about the label itself if you think it is implying something it isn’t. This misunderstanding of what the actual goal of attachment parenting is contributes to a lot of the confusion about it.

As I stated in my last post, the heart of attachment parenting is relationship. It’s about forming a healthy parent-child attachment by being responsive and sensitive to your children and parenting them as individuals. Sure, things like co-sleeping, breastfeeding, and babywearing are common ways to help foster attachment, but you are not a “detachment” parent if you don’t do them! Attachment has been one of my main goals with both of my children. Yet one of them hardly ever slept in our room, only nursed for a couple weeks, and was never worn in a sling (I didn't even know they existed!), while the other has co-slept since he was born (now only part of the time), is starting the weaning process at the age of 2, and has been worn in a sling some (but not frequently because of back problems that I have). And I have a very healthy attachment with both of them!

Attachment parenting emphasizes having plenty of nurturing physical contact with your child, breastfeeding (when possible) both for nourishment and comfort, being within close proximity at night (not necessarily in the same bed), and continuing to respond promptly and sensitively to a baby’s needs at night. In all honesty, these are things that are biologically appropriate. Mothers have God-given instincts to hold our babies, to comfort them when they cry, to nurse them, and to be responsive no matter the time of day. However, in recent history, there have been parenting books that promote the author's "methods" rather than encouraging mothers to trust and follow their natural mothering instincts. Here are some common examples: Don’t hold the baby so much; you’ll spoil him. Don’t nurse him whenever he cues that he wants to; put him on a strict schedule. Don’t ever put him in your bed; he may never leave. Don’t respond to his nighttime cries; he needs to learn that nighttime is for sleeping.

Could it be that attachment parenting has to be qualified with the “attachment” label to distinguish it from this attitude of parenting that has honestly become quite common in our culture? I agree that responsive, sensitive parenting shouldn’t need a label; it should just be “parenting.” But in our culture, maybe the label serves a purpose.

I also want to talk about why I think many parents are so eager to identify themselves with various labels and methods, and the pros and cons of labels in general (not just in parenting), but those topics will have to be for future posts.

What Is "Attachment Parenting" Anyway?

There are a lot of misconceptions out there about this thing known as "attachment parenting.” Some of the misconceptions are perpetuated by authors who are trying to "sell" their particular method, so it isn't surprising that many times they negatively characterize parenting styles that differ from whatever they’re selling. Attachment parenting, then, gets unfairly labeled as permissive, child-controlled, spoiling children, and so on. While I’m sure that those things could be true of some people who claim to be attachment parents, I definitely don’t think it’s true for the majority.

But some of the misunderstandings of attachment parenting stem from the AP community itself. As with anything, there can be a tendency to become so caught up in the "rules" of what you're doing that you lose focus of the heart of it. That’s human nature. Unfortunately, because of this tendency, many people have a negative impression of attachment parents as self-righteous and judgmental of others who do things differently. And, again, this may indeed be true of some people who practice attachment parenting, but it’s not true of the majority.

Nevertheless, there's this idea out there that attachment parenting is all about breastfeeding, co-sleeping, babywearing, and looking down our noses at people who don't do these things. I'm going to go on record as saying that, actually, attachment parenting isn't about any of those things.

Simply stated, the heart of attachment parenting is about knowing your children, fostering a healthy attachment with them, and responding sensitively to their needs. It's not about following a list of rules; it's about knowing your children as individuals and choosing to do things that are in their best interest. And it's definitely not about being self-effacing and being controlled by your children; there is a lot to be said for balance. Consider everyone's needs and find what works for your individual family. For example, in some families, co-sleeping is a great solution. In others, it's just not. And that's okay! We don’t need to judge others or ourselves against some imaginary list of AP rules.

When my oldest was a baby, I knew just a little about attachment parenting and I was convinced that I couldn't possibly be considered “AP” because I wasn't breastfeeding my son. Years later, I realized that wasn't true. You can be an attached parent whether you breastfeed or formula feed, co-sleep or sleep separately, use a sling or not, stay home or work, homeschool or school away from home. Because it's not about checking certain things off a list; it's about relationship, sensitivity, and nurturing. I can't see how making certain choices "just because" you think they're on the list of proper AP things is all that different from making certain choices "just because" that's what mainstream culture does. In both of those cases, you'd just be adhering to something without actually thinking it through for yourself and making an active choice.

In the end, it comes back to the same thing I always seem to come back to in posts like this. Don't do anything "just because." Do the research, think about your own family's needs and your own child's needs, and make the choices that fit best with your individual situation. Make informed, educated decisions and confidently own your choices.

Thoughts on Strollers and Slings

Just so we're on the same page here, I do have and occasionally use a stroller. But I still think this cartoon is funny. Slings are no more complicated than strollers; they're just less common in our culture.

I do like our stroller for certain things-- for example, going for a walk on a hot day. Maybe I'm a big wimp, but when it's 90+ degrees outside with insane humidity, I barely want to walk outdoors even without another human being strapped to my body. ;-) I also use our stroller when I'm shopping for clothes because, for me, that's just easier than moving my child in and out of the sling each time I try on clothes.

But overall, when it comes to convenience, I'll just be honest with you... our ring sling wins. It fits easily in my purse along with my other stuff; the stroller takes up the entire back of the van and leaves no room for anything else unless I lay the back seats down. Obviously, safety is a good thing, but the stroller has all sorts of safety features that significantly increase the complication factor; for example, the only way to get our stroller open is to simultaneously hold down a button, twist a thing on the handle, and pull the stroller open. The strap buckles in three different places. The sling, on the other hand: put it on, put the kid in, and adjust the tightness as needed.

Besides the convenience factor, I'm also just not a big fan of using things like bouncy seats, swings, strollers, cribs, pack & plays, and carseats (out of the car) more often than necessary. Don't misunderstand me; I definitely think those things can have their place and can be useful from time to time (and I have made use of them all at one time or another), but I also think it's really easy to over-rely on them to the point of constantly moving the baby from one baby-holding contraption to the next without spending very much time holding the baby in arms, and this can promote parent-child detachment. Slings keep the baby with the parent, where babies are most content, keep the parents' hands free to do other things they need to do, and promote attachment. Neat!