today's G2

[alexist]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1644103,00.html

Now, while I know mothers who have had a lot of success with 'attachment parenting' techniques, I think this guy is a bit much--carrying your baby around for 8 months?! Things like this will just make women feel even guiltier and more inadequate. It's wonderful to give all these idealistic recommendations, but IMO, the best advice is the advice that can actually be followed. If people feel that goals are unattainable and unrealistic, they're less likely to even try, whereas if guidelines are geared to the 'real world', you'll have a better compliance rate and possibly better outcomes as a result.

Of course we all want 'the best' for children, but there's a real need for balance.

Comments

[rowan-leigh.livejournal.com]

The author of the article doesn't query the idea that it has to be mother-baby contact--whether another adult could do the job just as well. Disappointing.

[mommyathome.livejournal.com]

It's mother-baby specifically for growth. The baby smells the mother and grows better and the mother smells the baby and it increases her milk supply. Something to do with phermones.

[mommyathome.livejournal.com]

I didn't read the whole article (it was too long and I just couldn't be bothered) but I can tell you that I did attachment parenting with The Boy. He was born small (2 kg) and I read in The Baby Book (Dr. Sears) that wearing him nonstop will make him grow. I did it for his first 2 weeks at home nonstop. He couldn't even latch (I had IUGR for his last month in the womb). I had to pump. He gained 450 grams his first week at home and 550 grams the second. It works. Normal high end growth is 250 grams a week for the first few months. I didn't wear him 24 hours a day obviously (I had to sleep) but every waking moment he was on me. All I did was lie in bed and hold him (and watch TV). The women in Tipat Chalav (the Israeli health group that watches the development of babies) were shocked at how well he grew. They'd never seen anything like it before.

As he grew we kept up the holding, but you make it less over time. I don't know, I think it makes a more secure child. I do know he's considered one of the sweetest kids in the day care with no discipline problems, but neither my husband or I were difficult kids (according to our mothers).

[arosoff.livejournal.com]

I've definitely seen attachment parenting work, I just think that holding your baby constantly for 8 months is a bit much to demand from women--especially when he thinks women should even take their babies to work! I also think his views on primary carers sound like those 1950s baby books that said only a mother could take care of a baby.

Plus, as beneficial as "kangaroo care" may be to preemies, I wonder about actually setting it up. Would we really be able to keep the mothers in the hospital with the babies all that time??

[mommyathome.livejournal.com]

I read more and found what you were talking about "He thinks women should carry their babies everywhere for the first eight months; that they should take them to work with them if necessary; that workplaces should change dramatically to accommodate babies, and if they can't, that women should be properly rewarded for staying at home. Bergman says that babies can only cope with one change in their primary carer in the first year, and that nurseries are not a suitable habitat for babies"

Actually, I agree with him, depending on the size of the baby. I stayed home with my son for the first 11 months and wore him most of the time. If the mother can't stay home then she should have a nanny for the baby (under a year) and make sure that the nanny is wearing or holding the baby for at least 4 hours a day. Now, this depends on the kid. Some kids don't want to be held that much, they like to be out and about. I know a kid that was walking at 7 months. She was a fireball who just didn't want to be held, but overall, I totally agree with what he says. Workplaces should be more accomodating to new moms and our children will benefit from this.

[arosoff.livejournal.com]

But how practical are his views for most women, who have to go back to work after 6 months max (and UK maternity pay is only £100/week after the first 6 weeks). His view doesn't take into account that some women may have to work, or that it may actually be better for mother and baby for the mother to work (some women aren't meant to stay at home). It's just going to add to the amount of guilt mothers feel, and add to the "you're a BAD MOTHER because you don't do everything just right!" feeling.

I'd like to stay home for a while when I have kids, and I do believe that you need to make sacrifices, but I think mothers are under so much pressure these days and I believe in dealing with the real world. A revolution at work would be lovely, but what do we do in the meantime? "Experts" should spend their time helping women to do the best job they can, and less time presenting unfulfillable ideals.

[mommyathome.livejournal.com]

But he's not saying that mothers need to stay home. He's saying that workplaces need to make more concessions for working mothers. You can wear your baby when they are small while you are working on a computer (I know this, I've done it). The first 6 months generally you can do whatever you want with an infant (as in travel, work, clean) they are still small enough to hold a bunch without killing your back (especially if you are sitting). I don't know about 8 months, some kids that are big that could be pushing it, but 6 months definitely.

Also, he's saying it so countries will change their rules towards moms. I know some countries in Europe give moms a year and a half of paid leave so that they could stay home with their kids. Of course these countries have negative population growth but they also think that allowing this will mean less money to fix the behavioral problems which will happen later on from neglect.

I don't think his goal is to make women feel guilty. I'm certain that if given enough time and space he would give suggestions in the article of what women could do if they aren't in the ideal situation, but that wasn't the goal of the journalist, was it? I mean, Dr. Sears is all into baby-wearing, but he also makes suggestions in his book (which is like, 1000 pages long) about what to do if you aren't in the situation where you can do that. Loads of experts give advice, and from it you have to take bits and pieces to create your own opinions.

[mommyathome.livejournal.com]

OH one more thing - and you probably won't like this opinion, but if someone is the type who isn't "meant" to stay at home with their kids, maybe they shouldn't be having kids.

In my opinion there's no point in having children if you aren't willing and able to make the sacrifices in your life that children deserve. They don't ask to be born, so parents don't have the right to be selfish and pay someone else to raise their kids. I mean, really, what's the point in having kids if you're not there to raise them?