Follow Your Heart not the Crowd

I have found that there is a very disturbing phenomenon relating to what happens to we mothers who follow a progressive approach to child-rearing. It appears that we commonly find ourselves judged harshly and marginalised. Although we are turning in our droves to child-centred methods of mothering, we are forced to do it secretly or risk ostracism. There is significant social and professional pressure to conform by not exceeding the limits of nurturance that our community feels comfortable with.
Breastfeeding in public places can bring disdainful looks and comments and requests to move elsewhere. It can be so hard to be strong enough to let people around us be responsible for their own prejudices. It is so sad that something so beautiful and natural can be made to feel ugly. When the sting of disapproving stares becomes too much, many of us turn to breastfeeding in secret, especially if our child is over six months. Mothers have confided in me the hurtful comments they have received from family and friends regarding extended breastfeeding. They have been accused of ‘doing it for themselves’, ‘being unable to let go’, ‘encouraging clinginess’, ‘being weak’ and their baby labelled as ‘manipulative’. Some poor women have even had relatives tell them it is ‘sick and perverse’ and demand it is not done in their presence.
Co-sleeping can also attract equal scorn with dire warnings of ‘they’ll never be independent’, ‘you’re making them needy and spoilt’ and ‘you’ll never get them out’. Also not smacking, punishing or yelling at our children is seen by many as ‘lazy mothering’ or ‘unparenting’ and can receive unwelcome comments from friends, family and neighbours.  As difficult as it is for us to resist the pressure to conform when it comes from friends and family, coercion coming from health
professionals can be all the more damaging. I have heard of many mothers who have been advised to use controlled crying methods, to turn to formula, not to co-sleep and to use punitive discipline, by child health practitioners.

Fortunately more and more practitioners are now being trained in the benefits of attachment and progressive parenting methods. It seems that many people get very angry and vocal when confronted with a progressive parent – as if it is a personal insult to them. The reasons why we progressive parents and our children are viewed with disdain may be several and complex. Perhaps the possibility of deeper intimacy with our children can feel threatening if we already feel exhausted. It may be that exposure to it painfully reminds us of what we ourselves didn’t receive as a child. We tend to misguidedly get angry at those who trigger these feelings in us; we blame them and condemn them – a kind of ‘shooting the messenger’.
Some people just do not want to question the status quo and being exposed to progressive parents may force them to.
What is thought of as ‘normal’ is a reflection of our cultural bias and has nothing to do with what babies and child actually
need. Undoubtedly many of our old notions of discipline are changing and child-rearing is undergoing some very positive and evolutionary changes. Nevertheless, much of our world continues to be indifferent, at times even hostile, to those of us who wish to follow more progressive methods. I believe a far higher proportion of us would aspire to adopt the progressive parenting philosophy, if our society more adequately supported it. We can all take comfort in the fact that, although we may feel marginalised and unsupported today, that may not be the case tomorrow.

- Chaley

Bullying Begins at Home

When you teach children that a bigger person can and should dominate and manipulate a smaller person then it is easy to see how this can affect the whole of society. The seeds of bullying, domination, aggression, dictatorships all begin in the mind of a small child that was taught that stronger people can and should exert power over the weak. We can never move towards world peace until the power-based relationships in our homes are eradicated.
The media attention given recently to the phenomenon of bullying in schools is truly a cause for celebration. Finally our world has begun to take seriously the plight of children: the most powerless sector of the community. Initiatives under way in schools are designed to intervene by identifying bullies and their victimsand then providing counselling and education in more effective social skills. Programs have been developed to teach school bullies alternative behaviours, impulse control, conflict resolution and negotiation skills. The victims of bullying are offered support, protection and trained in assertiveness wherever practicable.
This is only a partial solution because it doesn’t address the core of the problem. If in our attempts to eliminate violence from schools, we narrow our focus to treating the bully, we might label them a ‘bad child’. It is all too easy and very tempting to blame bullies for their bullying behaviour. We single them out, brand them as ‘behavioural problem child’, or perhaps the ‘attention deficit child’. When we ask a child who is hurting to bear all of the responsibility for their aggressive behaviour, we have in a way retaliated by bullying the bully. This in fact adds up to ignoring that a bully is in
pain, they have been hurt in some way and are acting out their hurt on others. The truth is that violence does not sprout from within children, it is a symptom of families that are hurting, perhaps with members that are hurting each other – either physically or emotionally.
If we believe that better social interaction skills can be learned, by implication we must also believe that violent and dominating tendencies are also learned. Bullying is best understood as an adaptive behaviour that makes sense within certain family environments. A study by Baldry A.C. and Farrington D.P. (Journal of Legal and Criminological Psychology, September 1998) examined 11-14-year-old school children who reported being bullies and/or victims. Both types of children were found to come from homes where conventional styles of parenting were employed. It must be understood that bullying behaviour is a reaction to powerlessness. To consider bullies as offenders is superficial, when in fact, they are victims. The fundamental way in which the family operates must change, through exposure to alternative
means of parenting to power-based parenting.
As long as any kind of control and power is sanctioned in the home, there will be bullies. Bullies in schools, bullies in the community, bullies in the workplace, bullies in politics and so on. There will also be victims. This is not a fact of life, but an artefact of history. Historians and anthropologists have only recently discovered that, up until very recently and for most of human history, child-rearing has tended to be extremely violent and dangerously controlling. It is, therefore, no wonder that power-based relationships persist in so many forms, across all age groups and that most of us are capable of slipping and treating our children harshly on occasions, even if we strive against it.
The good news is that the beating, spanking and verbal abuse of children is on its way out as an overall world trend, but
manipulative control remains firmly grounded in our parenting culture. If we stop bullying in our home – cutting it off dead at the source – and remember that every bully we meet is someone who is being or has been bullied, our world will become a better place. Kimmel (Why We Hurt Our Children, The Natural Child Project) summed it up beautifully when he argued that punishment and power-based control in the parent-child relationship will only do damage to the human race. ‘Punishing our children sabotages the nurturing and protective feelings that we evolved to have towards them. It destroys the unity of parent and child. It teaches us to violate the rights of others. As a socially condoned practice in child rearing, it damages and insults the human species.’
After years working as a psychologist with disturbed children, Kimmel makes this equally profound statement in the preface of his book, Whatever Happened to Mother? ‘I am indebted to my children – Karen, Mike, Nima, from whom I learned what human beings need and to the emotionally disturbed children I worked with, from whom I learned what happens when human beings do not get what they need.’  We need to change the way we all interact with children. I believe society has no more urgent task.

-Chaley

Parenting Priorities

One of my clients, when asked what was more important to her, her child’s happiness or health food, said this. “Health food is not more important to me than my children’s happiness. It’s not either/or.  The health of my children is very important to me, but so is their happiness. I would like to find a way to promote their health without sacrificing their happiness and vice versa.”

I responded by explaining that when we are trying to achieve two goals there will be times when a decision makes one of the goals a priority. When conventional parents are faced with deciding between happiness and another goal more often than not the goal of children’s happiness becomes secondary ‘for their own good’.  We are, in fact, actually encouraged that we are doing a good parenting job if our kids occasionally express that they hate us and we upset them at times.  I remember a time not so long ago that I got angry because my son spilled juice on the carpet and he said, “It seems like you care more about the rug than you do me.” Of course in the overall scheme of things he was wrong, but in that moment he was right.  The fact he was upset was less important to me than my need to not have a dirty rug.  Oops.
With conventional parenting that happens all the time. It’s pretty much taken for granted that what kids want is  secondary to what parents are trying to achieve, either for themselves or for the ‘sake of their children’. Of course, when you are in the middle of conventional parenting it doesn’t feel that way. As I know only too well, it feels like you are spending your life giving to your kids – cooking meals, cleaning clothes, correcting behaviour and so on. But as a kid, conventional parenting feels very, very selfish.  Lots of  ‘don’t do that, stop that, no you can’t, not now, when I say so, not today, maybe later….’
They feel that the things we’re running around doing or buying are more important than they are because the things they ask of us get put low on our list of priorities. So often what they want and what we want for them or for us becomes a conflict – like counting the amount of cookies they can have, or leaving the park to run an errand, or saying no to a toy (when we have just purchased wine and make-up for ourselves!). So, in the case of promoting healthy eating, to our child the message is going to seem more important than the delight they get from eating the cookies. Promoting healthy eating can be achieved peacefully without that conflict as there’s so much time throughout the day to model what *we* believe to be healthy eating that we don’t need to steal a moment of their happiness to give them “an important service announcement”.

Sure you can share with your kids what you believe about anything; violence, diets, green issues, technology, money, sport, McDonalds –whatever!  But our children aren’t us.  We can advise, influence, persuade, but if we limit, control, manipulate and restrict them then they are far less likely to listen to us, and it will destroy our relationship fast. Everyone has a lifestyle, and beliefs, and opinions, but putting those first, ahead of your relationship with your children, will damage your connection. If your real child starts to become more important than your vision of your child, life becomes easier and waaaay more peaceful. – Chaley.

Attachment Parenting: An Inconvenient Truth?

To steal a phrase, it is indeed an inconvenient truth to the economy and society that children need our attachment, our closeness and our gentle guidance as mothers. History has seen many inconvenient truths come to light over the centuries, such as the need to abolish black slavery, child labour and female oppression, to name but a mere few. The inconvenience of their abolishment didn’t make them any the less necessary for the sake of humanity. Of course, those at the time who argued for change were ridiculed, disrespected and ignored until people started to listen. No-one likes to rock the boat and people commonly hate to question the status quo – life’s hard enough, right? But imagine for a moment
a world where Martin Luther King, Eleanor Roosevelt, Nelson Mandela, Emily Pankhurst or Rosa Parks chose not to ruffle feathers? What if they believed people who said that was just the way it has to be? What would the world look like now? Every one of us has the ability to help change the world, in our own small way, by the way we mother our children. Society has no more urgent task.
When you know the mother you want to be, then it’s time to take small steps towards that goal. Change each moment and go slowly and gently. Start with a kind word, a touch, a thought. Don’t try and change your entire self overnight because it will overwhelm you. Start by really looking and listening to your child. Hold their image in your mind and smile. If that helps then do it again and watch and wait. Your child is unique and so are you. Start to listen to yourself. If you have ever questioned your ability to be a mother and the choices you are making, know this – you were meant to be their mother, you were chosen and you know instinctively what to do – you just have to trust yourself. Claim back your right to mother the way nature intended, know you are helping the world change for the better and follow your heart and your child – they won’t let you down. – Chaley.

Prop them up now so they can stand on their own later

 Guest Post by Christina Robert, Single Mom on the Run

“Prop them up now so they can stand on their own later…”

—Christina Robert

The other day on a mothering blog someone was wondering how to get her three year old to stop screaming in her crib at night when the lights were turned out. She said she didn’t want her child to get “attached to co-sleeping” because she was three (which I am assuming means she wants to prioritize independence and self-reliance).

I replied that her child might be screaming when she is put in her crib because she is frightened. She might need the emotional support of her primary caregiver right now. I think so many people believe that it is important to “toughen up” our young children; to prepare them for the harsh realities that the world has to offer; to make them independent and strong as soon as possible.

I think that one of the greatest misunderstandings about attachment theory and the parenting practices that arise out of these theories is that the parenting adults do not want to help in the creation of strong and independent children. In actuality, they do. Just not at the age of three and not in this manner.

Between birth and five there is so much is going on neurologically in a child’s brain that it is almost unfathomable. These critical years set the stage for a child’s patterns of behavior. Their brains are developing at a quick pace and they are learning important physcial, social and emotional skills–all this and so much more. These are the vulnerable and the impressionable years. These are the years that children need to learn they can trust adults to meet their needs. This will serve as the foundation for their interactions with other children and other adults in the future..

The commonly-held misconception that children who sleep in their parent’s bed, or whose emotional needs are met consistently year after year, will somehow end up dependent and needy, is far from the truth. What many people don’t understand is that by consistently meeting the emotional needs of you child in the early years, you are paving the groundwork for future success and independence.

Children whose needs are met consistently and sensitively are more likely to be strong, securely-attached, and confident young adults and adults.
Responding consistently and sensitively to a child’s cries and needs during infancy and beyond teaches the child that they can rely on someone to help them meet their needs at a time when they are very dependent on their caregivers for survival. In contrast, NOT responding consistently and sensitively can lead to anxious and insecure young adults. When their needs are not being met, they learn to not trust those who are most important to them in their lives.

On the blog, I summed up my response with the following advice and metaphor: “Prop them up now so they can stand on their own later.”
I think this quote and idea captures the essence of what attachment theory teaches us about child development and about parenting practices that best meet the needs of your child.

So keep on responding to your child. A child screaming in the dark is afraid. He or she may be experiencing anxiety from the caregiver separation. Being left alone in a mostly dark room is not comforting and could even be traumatizing depending on the length of separation. Find out what your child needs and help them to get the input or reassurance that they need.

Again, Prop them up now so they can stand on their own later. You’ll be happy you did. Your child will be happier, more confident and better able to form happy, healthy relationships as an adult. All the things you wanted for you child and more.

 

Christina Robert has worked with families and children for the past ten years in many capacities. She has a PhD in Family Social Science and Marriage and Family Therapy from the University of Minnesota, but feels being a parent has been her greatest teacher.

The Pain of Shame – The Natural Parent Magazine

I have an article out this December entitled ‘The Pain of Shame’ in the awesome The Natural Parent Magazine which is available throughout Australia from the following stockists:
http://www.thenaturalparent.com.au/retailers/australia.php .  Make sure you check it out!

Spoiling My Babies Since 2010

This article is contributed by guest blogger, Maranda Russell, Aprons and Ink.

Nap time is “Mom-Time” isn’t it?  At least, that’s what mainstream parenting tells us.  You rock your baby, lay him/her down (if you’re lucky you achieve that elusive goal of getting your toddler to nap too) and you’re finally “free” to clean, sleep, do whatever is expected of you because, at last, your kids are out of your hair. It’s yourtime.As an attachment parent, I even believed this. In the few, tired weeks after my second daughter was born I cried and agonized in frustration over this projected sleep-time goal.  My 2 year old, who is a busy ball of energy, would bounce and jump and giggle from her crib- while my newborn would shriek the moment her little body touched our co-sleeping bed.  I was a naptime failure.

Then I had a thought, “Why am I killing myself to follow the traditional parenting rules? Why not just listen to my children and follow their lead?”

Fast forward eight months.  My energetic toddler lays on the floor flipping through the pages of her favorite book. Sprawled in my arms and across my belly is a napping 8-month-old.  Oblivious to the occasional cheer of glee from her sister- just sweetly suckling milk and dreaming in my arms.  The house is a mess, there are dirty dishes in the sink and diapers to be washed- but these two hours are mine. Why would I even try to lay her down?  What in the world is more important than this?

Don’t be in a rush to parent the way you’re supposed to.  Take the time to listen to what your children are communicating.  Once you really hear them- what could be sweeter than attending to their needs? Maybe that mothering swear word, “spoiled” is exactly what their tender hearts require.

Breastfeeding and early attachment: Why our culture is so against it.

To honour World Breastfeeding Week, I have include an extract from Chapter 3, The Socialisation of Mothers (The Shepherdess: A Guide to Mothering without Control) available in November 2012.

It has been well-researched that close attachment  is better for us and our children. Why then is society so against us mothering this way? Why, when we mothers have perfectly good working breasts, do we use an inferior milk product, fake teats and a plastic receptacle to feed our babies? Why are we encouraged to use cots and prams and other ‘mother eplacements’ rather than hold our children close day and night? Is there something wrong with breastfeeding? Is there something wrong with being close? Apparently, in our society, there is. If we do breastfeed we shouldn’t do it for too long because it requires us to be there for our baby. Breastfeeding makes it rather clear that we are not physically separate. The fact that our baby lives and grows on our milk means they are still dependent on us for life and development. Breastfeeding demands of us a greater commitment and responsibility than bottle-feeding. Furthermore, the mutual dependency, both physical and emotional, fostered by the nursing relationship bonds us to our child. We continue as one.

In our culture nursing is primarily seen as a way of providing an infant with food. Why should we be tied down when our baby can get food from a bottle or a jar, which anyone can give to them? Formula and baby foods were not invented to provide our babies with food that was better than our milk, but rather to allow us to not have to breastfeed so we can do other things. More important things apparently. We are commonly pushed back into work rather than being encouraged to be home mothering our babies ourselves.

These products have made it possible for us to become separate from our babies, which is seen as a good and necessary thing. Our inventiveness has given us the ability not to be natural mothers. Why does society view a baby’s need for closeness day and night as a problem? Why do we think it is a good idea to train our babies not to request to be picked up, held, cuddled, rocked, suckled, even though these things are completely natural for a human child? Is it because our society wants mothers to be doing something else, perhaps?

Separation

In our society, we do not see anything wrong in leaving an infant without their mother.  This is because our society is based on theseparateness of individuals rather than on their unity with each other. We do not see it as strange that we separate from our newborns, so they can sleep alone, that they don’t drink from us and they aren’t constantly held by us. We do not find it peculiar for us to not always be present for our babies and to leave them in the hands of strangers, whilst we go to work.  We have been socialised into believing that our baby’s need for constant closeness isn’t a need at all, but a desire, a whim and if we give in to that whim then we are weak and doing them a disservice.

Why should we respond to our baby’s crying if our baby is fed, clean and not in pain? Our baby has to learn that they can’t control us, that they can’t get away with using their sobs to manipulate us by being ‘overly-demanding’.  We are told time and again – don’t feel guilty, Mum, don’t give in, don’t go in the room. Suppress your instincts to respond and remember you’re doing it for them – for their own good. You’re teaching them discipline. You’re saving your baby from becoming spoiled, from being dependent on you. Your baby needs to learn to be independent of you. Don’t, under any circumstances, pick up your baby, or you will ruin everything – for yourself, for your husband, for everyone. That’s what all the experts say, so it must be right. Of course, often this approach works and our baby eventually learns not to cry and to go to sleep alone, which proves that they weren’t really upset after all, doesn’t it? It proves that they were just being manipulative, right? What is really happening is that our baby learnt that their cry does not bring a caring response, that their crying has no power. Our baby learnt that their needs will not be responded to so they must ignore their own feelings and accept the ‘rules’. What do we learn? We learn that our baby is trainable and if we ignore their requests we can make them easier to manage. We learn that it is best to bury our natural instincts that make us want to respond to our baby – to nurse, to hold, to comfort. We learn to become more physically and emotionally separate from our child and further detached.

Modern Mothers

The biggest sadness of all this is that we modern mothers do love our children desperately and want to give them the very best. However, we have been socialised to believe that in order to do this we must reject and ignore our innate human instincts. Our culture tells us that the best way to raise our child is to direct their behaviour and development in order for them to be normal, healthy, happy, good citizens. As modern mothers we are encouraged not to be guided by nature, biology or instinct, but by the voices of society.  The ‘right’ way to rear children in our society has absolutely nothing to do with what we need or what our children need and everything to do with what society needs. It always involves imposing on our children the necessity to give up their requirement for nurturance as soon as possible and denying us the opportunity to nurture our young the way nature intended. We ignore our instincts and become driven by our need to preserve our separate identity under the influence of our husbands, relatives and infant care experts. As a result, we begin to treat our baby not like a baby. We are encouraged to change our baby to fit who we are (or what society wants us to be). Therefore, we must train our baby to become something other than a human baby in order to ‘fit in’.

From childhood on, we are socialised not to believe in our instinctive knowledge. We are told that parents and teachers know best and that when our feelings do not concur with their ideas, we must be wrong. Conditioned to mistrust or utterly disbelieve our feelings, we are easily convinced not to believe our baby whose cries say ‘You should hold me!’, ‘I should be next to your body!’, ‘Don’t leave me!’ Instead, we overrule our natural response and follow the fashion dictated by baby care ‘experts’. The loss of faith in our innate expertise leaves us turning from one book to another as each successive fad fails. It is important to understand who the real experts are. The second greatest baby care expert is within us. The greatest expert of all is, of course, our baby who is programmed to signal to us, with their own unique sound and action. The signal from our baby, the understanding of the signal by us and the impulse to obey it, are all a part of our species’ character. Our socialisation as mothers has damaged part of the signal – our impulse to obey. Our conditioning leads us to question – should I teach my baby that I am the boss so they won’t become a tyrant? Although our babies begin by letting us know by the clearest signals what they need, if we ignore them they will eventually give up. At what cost did we get a compliant baby? As this is what contemporary Western civilization relies upon, it is little wonder why the relationship between parent and child has remained steadfastly adversarial.

This is an extract from Chapter 3, The Socialisation of Mothers (The Shepherdess: A Guide to Mothering without Control) available in November 2012.

Why time-out is just as damaging as spanking

Even those of us who are against smacking will routinely use other discipline techniques to control and mould our children’s behaviour from a very early age. Below is a list of non-physical discipline measures in common use by mothers today that come highly recommended by ‘experts’, and a description of what is really going on psychologically for the child.

Time-out – Removing a child from a situation for inappropriate behaviour for a set number of minutes. Often an apology is required before the time-out can end.

When our children behave ‘badly’ they are either reaching out in some way, they simply haven’t learnt yet that certain behaviour isn’t ok, or they need reminding. However, rather than listening to them and looking behind (or beyond) the behaviour, this method excludes our child, shaming and ignoring them, and leading them to the conclusion that no-one wants to be with them in a moment when they really need loving support. Our children need to know that in their worst moments we are there for them.  

“For the frustrated and uncomfortable child, time-out offers enforced silence and the feeling of being rejected by one’s parents. A youngster who misbehaves and then is given time-out feels hurt. This hurt, combined with the frustration that caused the youngster to misbehave, gives birth to anger. And discipline practices like time-out, which create hurt and anger, can harm a child.” Peter Haiman, Ph.D, (The Case Against Time-Out, Mothering Magazine, 1998).

Grounding – Prohibiting a child from attending a particular social event or from engaging in particular activities. This technique may also incorporate particular tasks or chores which must be carried out instead and are designed to teach children appropriate behaviour.

Again, it doesn’t look behind the behaviour or address it in any way. All this will encourage is sneakiness and lying to ensure they don’t get caught and there is no lesson learnt. We won’t know our authentic child, just the parts they want us to see.

Taking Away Privileges – Prohibiting a child from taking advantage of certain privileges (usually those that they have earlier abused with inappropriate behaviour). Privileges are usually restored when a child can prove, through his/her behaviour, that (s)he understands and appreciates them.

Same deal as grounding; our child doesn’t learn to appreciate the effect of the ‘bad’ behaviour this way. They aren’t intrinsically motivated to behave appropriately, they are doing it to ensure they don’t get punished. Therefore, even if their behaviour improves in our company will it when we aren’t together? What would be their motivation for behaving well?

Ignoring Bad Behaviour, Rewarding Good Behaviour – This is where any bad behaviour is ignored and good behaviour receives praise and rewards. The theory being that children thrive on attention of any sort, even negative attention, so they may be behaving badly to get a reaction.

So despite our child’s desperate attempts to communicate with us with the tools they have, rather than respond to their emotions, we ignore them. When our child finally gives up trying to reach out, we reward them. This only teaches our children that it’s best to bury their emotions in front of us, because we don’t want to listen.

Punishments –This is where the child is made to do a chore or something else they dislike as punishment for the bad behaviour.

If you view your child as someone who is still learning and figuring out the world, as someone who requires regular guidance and feedback and who deserves respect, then punishment for making a mistake makes no sense at all.  They also will only learn to act a certain way for fear of getting caught, rather than being intrinsically motivated to do so, and often will behave very differently when adults are not present.

Overall, all these methods – both physical and non-physical – encourage us to exert control over our child’s will. This only leads them to behave in certain ways for fear of our reaction, rather than from a choice they made themselves because it made sense.  Fear creates a disconnection between us and our child as they begin to hide their true selves from us.  Letting go of control moves us closer towards a loving, respectful connection with our child and develops their sense of self.

To The Woman At The Shops With The Weeping Babe

A beautiful and poignant message. 

http://janetfraser.id.au/blog/2011/08/28/to-the-woman-at-the-shops-with-the-weeping-babe