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.

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.

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

Co-sleeping Expert Puts the Record Straight

When I read John Rosemond’s article last week I knew his facts about sleep expert Dr McKenna were wrong (seems that is happening a LOT with articles discussing any aspect of AP at the moment). I am delighted to see McKenna has rebutted her…e http://cosleeping.nd.edu/controversies/in-response-to-john-rosemond/ and put the record straight. I use Dr McKenna’s work to support my views in my book, so I knew Rosemond’s article was full of falsehoods. I urge those writing about parenting issues to please check their facts because parents are listening!

What is Progressive Parenting?

‘The Shepherdess’ parenting philosophy is based on Progressive Parenting.  The progressive parenting theory has its roots in attachment theory, which was originally proposed by John Bowlby who stated that an infant has a tendency to seek closeness to another person and feel secure when that person is present. Attachment theory encourages parents to listen to their babies cues and respond. It argues that any training or controlling over a baby by following a routine (such as controlled crying or sleep training) is damaging to the child and the connection they have with their parents.   Backed up by the latest research in the fields of sociology, zoology, anthropology, child psychology, neurology and psycho-history, Progressive Parenting extends the AP philosophy past the early years, and argues that parents need to continue to follow their child’s cues and unique needs, avoiding all form of discipline and punishment including time-out, rewards, praise, shame, and smacking.

Every day I help parents who want to be more progressive in their approach to move away from control and closer to connection.  Is it easy?  No, not always –parenting is a tough gig no matter what style you adopt.  No denials here.  But what this approach does promise is more joy and harmony with your brood than you ever imagined possible.  Won’t kids end up as unruly monsters?  Let’s be clear here –  parents should keep their kids safe and encourage respectful, socially acceptable behaviour.  But there are ways to do that without being controlling to the extent that children don’t have choices and options.  Children are still learning and figuring out their world and to do that they don’t need their requests denied and to be punished when they make mistakes; they need guidance and feedback. They need information and support. They need patience. They need to be listened to, validated and respected. They need a supporter rather than a dictator, an ally not an adversary. A wing-man. A partner. A friend.  They need doors opened to them rather than closed. They need a guide, not a policeman. They need a shepherdess.

So I encourage you to come here and ask questions, share your stories, concerns, problems and tips with us and maybe I will use them in my next book!  Here’s to progressive parenting and more peaceful homes around the world!

- The Shepherdess

WHY I THINK THE ‘MOMMY WARS’ FUELLED BY TIME COVER IS A GOOD THING

The now infamous TIME magazine cover has generated an unprecedented amount of press coverage for attachment parenting. Many in the pro-camp are disgruntled that the ‘Are You Mom Enough?’  tagline has pit moms against each other.  Personally I think the tagline is entirely appropriate. The fields of sociology, anthropology, psycho-history, and biology all point towards this method of parenting being entirely biologically normal and necessary for optimum infant well-being. However, this intelligence is relatively new and, as yet, attachment or progressive parenting is not socially normal – yet.

Our current society tells us we should be put the mother before the child: heaven forbid that a mother should feel guilty or inferior! That’s why I think every mother should ask themselves every day if they are mom enough. It’s not a popular view, I know. Every mommy support site out there will tell you to ‘not beat yourself up’ when you have been less than kind to your child, and never to judge one other. Just remember though that behind every mother who is condoned in this way there is a small child behind the scenes who maybe is left to cry-it-out, is being constantly yelled at, or is denied the breast or the warmth of his parents at night. I’m not just picking on women here – the whole of society has to step up to the plate. We moms weren’t meant to do it alone and we need a heap of practical and emotional support to parent this way and dads, grandparents, aunties, uncles, neighbours and friends need to help us to undertake the most important job in the world – and for the world. So maybe the question shouldn’t be if we are mom enough but if we are all human enough to truly meet the needs of our young?

More Celebs Following Progressive Parenting Principles

More and more celebs are following progressive or attachment parenting principles. “Gossip Girl” star Kelly Rutherford and “Big Bang Theory” actress Mayim Bialik both made the headlines recently when they revealed publicly that they breastfed their toddlers; Rutherford even more so because she revealed her stance on the subject back in 2008. Bialik, who, in addition to being an actress and mother, is a neuroscientist, did extensive research on the subject and wrote a book about it: “Beyond the Sling: A Real-Life Guide to Raising Confident, Loving Children the Attachment Parenting Way.”

“Brangelina” are allegedly ‘unschoolers’ and, along with Kevin Kline,  Kylie Bax and a host of others, they have openly admitted to co-sleeping with their kids for as long as they want. 

Angelina Jolie told Esquire magazine:  “Rightnow, Pax is sleeping in our bed. It’s kind of nice, him immediately knowing and feeling comfortable with us. Mad slept with me until Brad and I got together. They’re fun to sleep with. We have family sleep on Sundays. Everybody sleeps together.”

New Zealand model Kylie Bax told Woman’s Day magazine, after the birth of her second child, Dione Nefeli, “We have four people in the bed now!” (Her other child is daughter, Lito, 3.)

Kevin Kline, his wife Phoebe Cates, and their children, Owen, 16, and Greta, 13, still share a bed.  He told OK! Magazine,  “There is a theory that a child has to teach itself to go to sleep, and if every time it cries, you whisk them out of their bed — the jury is still out on that. But our kids still sleep in our bed”.

There are also a wealth of celebs caught on camera ‘wearing’ their babies, such as Julia Roberts and Naomi Watts,making the practice more acceptable.

The media, however, still depict extended breastfeeding and co-sleeping as “extreme” or “humorous”.  I loved the recent comedy Grown-Ups, but was pretty ticked off by the supposed joke about the older-than-average child still being breastfed by their mother as being crazy and unstable.  As a mother who tandem feeds a 3.5 year-old and a 2-year-old I don’t find it crazy, but totally natural and logical.  Hopefully, with more celebs following this parenting style the media might start portraying mothers following this style in a more positive light and not as a source of ridicule.

Co-sleeping Best For Kids up to Three-Years-Old

This article from The Daily Mail releases new research showing that co-sleeping is best for kids right up to ages three and four. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2054393/Bad-news-dads-Babies-share-mothers-bed-age-good-hearts.html

There is actually a wealth of research that I discuss in my book, to support co-sleeping, yet it rarely makes the headlines in the mainstream.  Most parents fear that co-sleeping and SIDS are interlinked and it simply isn’t true.  Unless you are grosly overweight, a smoker, or a heavy drinker/drug user the safest, and most desirable, place for your child is right by your side for as long as they want.   Many co-sleepers have a family room/bed that accommodates everyone – large and small.  Honestly, I find there really isn’t anything nicer than waking up with all my crew snuggled up together – BLISS!