a garden of nna mmoy: In Which I Remember Why Other People's Parenting Practices are None of My God-Damned Business

« Helpful Hints to the Parents of the Averagely Sized | Main | Welcome to Francesville--Population: 3 »

July 3, 2005

In Which I Remember Why Other People's Parenting Practices are None of My God-Damned Business

Did you all know that I used to be an Attachment Parent?

It's true! Really! Not exactly by choice. We bought a crib (a really nice one, that converts into a toddler bed and then a double) and a bedside bassinet and fully intended to use them. Ditto the stroller. Co-sleeping was out--Erik has sleep apnea and needs a CPAP to breathe at night. Frances was going to be left with her Dad one night a week or so with a bottle of expressed breastmilk, and I was going to see my friends and retain my sanity.

That was the plan. Or I should say, that was my plan. Frances, my precious wee tidbit, she had a plan of her own.

In the Frances Plan, mama never stops touching baby. Baby is held 24 hours per day to allow baby to remain upright so baby does not vomit everything she eats, a considerable issue considering the Frances Plan also included a stubborn unwillingness to put on the appropriate ounces. Baby would not sleep flat and would not sleep wherever mama was not. The Frances Plan also included very definite ideas about eating: The first version was a complete and total addiction to the nipple shield with a bottle as a distant second, and an actual breast being nearly useless. The second version, which kicked in after we dealt with the nipple confusion the hospital staff assured us was impossible as they shoved bottles in her mouth, was a total unwillingness to accept anything into her mouth that wasn't flesh. Bye bye bottles.

Completely against my will, I became an Attachment Parent; although to be fair, since my priority was to adopt whatever parenting style the baby seemed to need, it is also true to say that I did exactly what I said I was going to do. Frances needed to be carried and held constantly, exclusively breastfed, and to sleep with her wee feet digging into mama's soft belly? That's what Frances got.

I, never being one to pass up an opportunity to be judgemental and stupid where one presents itself, and also being completely devoid of any sleep (one day I'll post a photo of the wrought-iron "headboard" against which I propped myself while Frances slept on my chest--finding a spot for your head to lean on that doesn't dig a knob into your skull while also providing something almost straight for your shoulders and back is sort of impossible, and you just kind of pick one--head or back, not both), I dedided that everyone should be an Attachment Parent!

I did all kinds of research into the importance of Attachment and the dire consequences of children not being properly Attached. I think I mostly managed to keep my trap shut during this unfortunate stage, but in case I didn't, I apologize to anyone I may have offended. CIO was BAD. Formula was BAD. Strollers were BAD. All kinds of things were BAD. What I did was GOOD. Good maude, I was obnoxious.

Then I hit The Wall.

It took nine months of Frances getting up up to ten times per night, which I think is pretty good, actually. A lifelong history of insomnia gives you an increased tolerance of sleep deprivation which held me in good stead under the circumstances. But still. There was The Wall, and I ran smack-dab right into it, with enough force that it left a nice brick pattern in my forehead.

The Wall went something like this:

Every time Frances woke me up at night, I swore. I muttered angry nothings under my breath. Every day if Frances wouldn't nap (and I wans't even trying the crib, it was the bjorn for every nap) I cried. I cried when she woke up. I cranked at my husband constantly. I was miserable in both senses of the word. And one day when I found myself shouting at my precious, so-beloved baby to just SLEEP GODDAMIT WOULD IT KILL YOU TO SLEEP, there it was. A nice brick wall.

And on that wall was a sign:

"Do you really think this constant anger and exhaustion is a benefit to your attachment to your baby? What's better: a few nights or weeks of crying and a happy, rested mommy all day forever, or a quick and bitter response at night every night with a mommy who is muttering death threats? THINK, WOMAN, THINK."

And I bought a book on CIO. Actually, I bought several. Well, while we're being honest here, I'll admit it: I bought every book in the bookstore and borrowed a few from the library. Hey, if I'm going to be a turncoat, I may as well be thorough. I read them all. I selected from each author the parts of their approach that seemed to suit my wee girl. And while Erik was in Montreal on business, I put it into effect.

I was fully prepared for the worst. When Frances was six months old I tried CIO in total desperation one night and she screamed for THREE HOURS. After the three hours of screaming I gave up, and she fell asleep as soon as her head touched my shoulder. Yet here I was contemplating it again because even screaming for THREE HOURS or (heaven forbid) six or eight for a week or two had to be better if the end result was a rested baby and a mommy who wasn't swearing and crying and miserable all the time.

What happened?

Umm. She mumbled and whined for 18 minutes. Then she fell asleep and slept for seven hours. This was the first time she had ever slept more than three hours in a row. She then woke up; I went in and nursed her for fifteen minutes and put her back in her crib. She fell asleep and slept until morning. I, of course, didn't sleep a wink until 2 am because I was so sure she was going to wake up miserable any second. In any case, that was our experience with CIO. Eighteen minutes of whining followed by seven blissful hours of sleep. The next two nights were even better. By the time my husband came back from his business trip of three days, Frances was a crib sleeping baby.

The effect of this was everything I had hoped. I was much more well-rested and a much happier, responsive, more affectionate and more sane mommy. And Frances was a much happier and more well-rested girl. I can't even say how happy Erik was in English.

While we're at it, and since I'm sure a few readers are curious, I'll just answer the questions you have in mind before you ask:

1. Don't you feel terrible?

Umm. No.

2. But what about your Attachment?

It's very healthy, thank you. She hardly ever fusses or cries; she's one of the happiest people I know. And she loves me and her Daddy more than anything.

3. But I read in my book that when the baby stops crying it's because they gave up.

Uh huh. Well, I suppose such despair could account for the not-crying. But then how do you explain the smiling, laughing, giggling, playing, hugging, kissing, snuggling, foot-stomping full-body grins?

You see, when I say that Frances is the happiest person I know--I mean that Frances is the happiest person I know. When she sees our cat Roxie, her whole body goes rigid with excitement and she smiles and points like a star-fucker who's just seen Angeline Jolie kissing Brad Pit at a frat party. When she sees her Elmo puppet she squeals "EEEEElmo!" in a register just below the upper limit of the human ear and gives him the biggest hug she is capable of. And when she sees her mama after a nice long nap in the crib, she holds up her arms for a hug and gives her mama a big wet kiss on the cheek and snuggles into her shoulder and then turns around and points to the door meaning--"Woman, it is time for you to carry me to my toys." She greets me every time with a smile that I often confuse with a nuclear sunrise. If you saw it, you would understand. She is the happiest person I know.

The workers at her daycare, by the way, adore her because she is so happy and so easy-going. They are sad when she leaves on vacation. When we pick her up at the end of the day it isn't unusual to find Frances firmly ensconced in the arms or on the shoulder of a daycare worker in the toddler or preschool room who just missed her and wanted to hold her for a bit. She is a thoroughly charming, very social and personable, and unnervingly obedient and helpful little girl.

4. But CIO is supposed to make them cry more and be less willing to obey adults!

Technically that's not a question, but I'll answer it anyway:

Yes, that's what I read too, but it certainly didn't have that effect on Frances. She is extremely easy-going and wants only to please the important adults in her life. The other day she further cemented her World's Best Baby Ever, Bar None status by handing me each of 18 cans of pop to put in the fridge when I asked her. When she has had a fussy day, and I look at her and say "Frances!" in a particular tone, she will stare at me silently with a quiverling lip, as if to say: "All right mommy, I won't cry, but I'm VERY sad." And then I feel like a heel and apologize.

5. But there are studies that show that CIO is bad for babies, that it ruptures attachments and makes them cry more!

Actually. There aren't. Did you read the studies themselves, or the AP books that told you there were studies?

Yes, well, I read the actual studies.

The ones that talk about how bad it is for babies to be left alone to cry it out? They were based on children who were hospitalized in the 1950s. Now, maybe you don't know this, and why would you, since the AP books don't talk about it: But in the 1950s, babies who were hospitalized had no visitors. They were kept completely isolated. Family weren't allowed to see them in case it spread the infection. Nurses and doctors saw them only to attend to their physical needs.

So here you have a baby who is a) sick, b) in a totally foreign environment, c) being cared for by strangers who d) don't pick them up or show affection and e) without any interaction with their family until they get well.

Is it any wonder they felt betrayed by their parents and showed ruptured attachments and no ability to trust? This is not the same thing as a child who spends 16 hours a day playing happily with parents and caregivers, 7 1/2hours sleeping and thirty minutes crying by themselves. There is no comparison. That AP authors use this study to further their ideological agenda on CIO is, IMNSHO, evidence only of dishonesty.

The study about how babies who are attended to quickly as infants will cry less at one year was conducted in the 1970s and has never been duplicated. Other studies which attempted to duplicate it found conflicting results: some found no relation between speed of response and crying at one year, and some found an inverse relationship (that babies who were attended to quickly cried MORE at one year). In any case, this is far from a settled question. I humbly propose that it depends on the temperament of the baby, the temperament of the parents and caregivers, and the nature of the response they receive--which is far more complex than just "fast" or "slow."

6. But isn't AP the natural, instinctual way of parenting? Aren't you ignoring your instincts by using CIO and strollers and cribs and all that other modern junk?

According to who?

Here is my question: Why is it that the AP movement has selected as its model a number of hunter-gatherer socieites from marginal and extreme environments? There's no evidence that these peoples parent their children in a way that is representative of global ancestry in general. Of course they are going to have some things in common if they are all parenting in locations without reliable supplies of clean drinking water, plentiful and safe foods, and sources of shelter. There is no evidence that hunter-gatherer peoples who lived in more plentiful environments parented their children anything like the Kung do.

Why is it that we don't assume that the Inuit are parenting their children in an instinctual way when they give their three-day-olds raw fish to munch on?

Why don't we assume the Spartans were being instinctual when they sent their 8-year-old boys out to join the army?

Why is it that we have selected the most intensive form of mothering that any people in the world has to offer and packaged that one as the "natural, instinctual" one?

I don't know what it is, but somehow when I read books that are written almost exclusively by men, directed towards women, and that say, "Of course, you should follow your instincts with your baby. And if you're a right-thinking, modern woman who loves her child, your instincts will tell you to breastfeed, co-sleep, and wear your baby," I kind of have a problem with that. I must be overly sensitive.

7. But aren't insecure attachments a terrible thing that are a root cause of much human misery? Who wants a poorly attached child? Who WOULDN'T attachment parent when the stakes are so high?

Who, indeed?

But here's the thing: Attachment theory is not attachment parenting.

In fact, if you read a few attachment theory journals, you will quickly see how readily they disavow themselves of attachment parenting, to what lengths they will go to to stress that this has nothing to do with attachment parenting. Why?

Because there are an infinite number of ways to form a healthy attachment, that's why. Because breastfeeding, bedsharing and baby-wearing are no more a shortcut to a happy family than footrubs, candles and holding hands are a shortcut to a happy marriage. No relationship can be boiled down to Nine Magic Tricks that will work in all or even most situations. People are individuals; they are complex, and what works for you is almost guaranteed not to work for anyone else.

Yes, insecure attachment is a terrible thing. The risks of a poor attachment are high and potentially long-reaching in the life of your child. But most parents don't need to worry.

How many parents do you think follow AP? Maybe 10%? 20%?

And yet psychological studies repeatedly show that 60% of American one-year-old infants are securely attached to their mothers.

Sixty per cent.

If Dr. Sears's bag of tricks were required to guarantee a healthy attachment, a secure attachment would be a rarity, not a commonplace. And yet instead we find that the majority of kids and families are doing just fine--even the ones who bottlefeed, use strollers, and CIO.

Once my own thick head let some of this in, I found it much easier to adopt my current parenting philosophy, which is:

"As long as it doesn't involve actual child abuse, I don't care what it is."

Solids before four months? Cereal in the formula bottle? CIO at six weeks? Bedsharing at six years? Weaning at preschool? Toilet training at 8 months? Flaschards for newborns? Baby sleeping in a laundry basket? Cloth diapers? Disposable diapers? Newsprint diapers? Drinking from a bottle at three years old? Eating cheesies and kraft dinner? Why the fuck would I care?

Does the mom love her baby?

Does the baby love its mom?

Are they happy to be near each other?

Is the baby mostly healthy, mostly happy, mostly on track developmentally speaking, in the ways that might be under a parents control (i.e. no major congenital health issues that could slow things down)?

Yes?

Then that family's decisions are just fine.

And everyone else should just but out.

Posted by Andrea at July 3, 2005 1:27 PM under Mothers and Anti-Mothers

EMAIL this entry

(comments fields are below this section)

Comments

Amen!
Speaking as a mother who blew all the breastfeeding cliches to pieces, Amen and Amen.
(The child who breastfed longest has terrible allergies; the one who only got the breast for a week never had an ear infection; the one who started cereal soonest is the slenderest; and so on...)

Posted by: Songbird at July 3, 2005 3:08 PM

EXCELLENT!!! EXCELLENT!!!

Posted by: lorrie at July 3, 2005 5:43 PM

You have no one to apologize to. My husband has sleep apnea (discovered just after the birth of my first child--long story there). So co-sleeping was a challenge. My first had reflux AND nursed 17 times a day (so any sleep in between HA! was spend cleaning puke). I did CIO, differently than you--we had a 20 minute time limit--but I do not judge anyone. Sleep is critical. For my 28th birthday my present was my husband going to a sleep clinic to get diagnosed. My daughter slept on her belly due to the reflux and it was the only way she'd sleep. SLEEP MATTERS! And as for attachment, happy and loved babies show that they were happy and loved. My second child was so attached she didn't bother walking for 16 months and lived in the Bjorn attached to me. She is now so loved and independent, she walks everywhere. You have to do what works (and what is from love). My friend fiercely breastfed all 5 children and every one has asthma or allergies or horrible reflux. No one can tell you what is right for your children. No apologies :)

Posted by: Running2Ks at July 3, 2005 6:36 PM

This post made my head explode. It was that good. I liked my head, but this was worth it.

Posted by: Julie at July 3, 2005 6:55 PM

Oy, the Rules. I have NO PATIENCE for them.

If you ever quit your day job, Andrea, I think you could write what might be the world's first useful parenting manual.

Posted by: Phantom Scribbler at July 3, 2005 6:56 PM

R2K--I'm actually not apologizing. There just seems to be a fair bit of mommy-bashing on the internet these days. And I felt like growling about it a bit. By the way--sorry about the sleep apnea. Isn't it brutal before it's diagnosed? I hardly slept at all.

I like to think I'm past hte point of apologizing. Anyone who could look at my happy, charming, loving little beanie baby and think we're messing her up would have a hard haul convincing me. "You don't say--she could be better? And still human? Really?"

Thanks to everyone else. Relieved to see I haven't received any hate mail yet. Score one for being a Slimy Mollusc!

Posted by: Andrea at July 3, 2005 11:53 PM

What a great post. Thanks for writing this.

I've always been wary of those 'studies have shown' statements and now my suspicions have been confirmed.

I like a lot of the ideals of attachment parenting but I can never figure out how to apply most of them in a practical way. So I don't. (I breastfeed and co-sleep but I'm not evangelistic about either one.)

I have never understood why other people (whether attachment parents or whatever) need me on their bandwagon, if they are so insecure about their choices that they need the comfort of numbers they should probably re-examine their choices.

Here's to everyone figuring out what their own baby needs!

Posted by: Chris at July 4, 2005 6:01 AM

Yes, and it needed to be said.

I'm so happy that you wrote this, especially as I was feeling a little bad after the horrible guests story (I recently visited my sister and I have the feeling she viewed our visit in much the same light as you viewed your guests, although with no injury or threatened injury to her children involved - and keep in mind my sister is quite the strict parent). Even though I really don't believe my parenting skills are all that horrible, I had decided that it's just not worth trying to spend the night at someone else's house until Annika is either off a few more drugs or is quite a bit older. Still, you have to wonder sometimes if it really is true...that you really are doing something wrong.

So cheers! And many thanks for this one...

Posted by: moreena at July 4, 2005 7:01 AM

Andrea--yes, the apnea was horrible (but thank goodness for 2 surgeries and a CPAP--he looks like a fighter pilot in bed, and I have grown to love the white noise). I'm glad you aren't apologizing. I'm getting so tired of the labels. I always end up describing my parenting as gentle and firm, modified AP, semi-crunchy, etc. When all I ever want to say is that my parenting style is full of respect and "Whatever Works". I guess people feel safer with labels and hardlining. Not me, though.

Posted by: Running2Ks at July 4, 2005 9:03 AM

Andrea, I am getting just a little sick of coming over to your blog and being able to say nothing more than, "ME TOO!! ME TOO!!" and yet, here I am again. We went through CIO with both boys and although it was rough, it was the best thing for them, for us, for the whole family. And I'm pretty sure they still love me. It was before blog, but I posted our story after the fact back in March - were you around then? http://momm-eh.blogspot.com/2005/03/from-drawer-cio-diaries.html

GREAT post!

Posted by: Danigirl at July 4, 2005 12:03 PM

That was an awesome post. And this?

her whole body goes rigid with excitement and she smiles and points like a star-fucker who's just seen Angeline Jolie kissing Brad Pit at a frat party

Diet Coke coming out of the nose, it was so funny.

Posted by: Angry Pregnant Lawyer at July 4, 2005 12:33 PM

Wonderful message. I feel like we are two peas in a pod. I want to scream ME TOO ME TOO!! hehe

Twins Mom

Posted by: Twins Mom at July 4, 2005 2:49 PM

Bravo, Andrea. I second Phantom's proposal -- you could write the world's first useful parenting manual!

Posted by: Jennifer at July 4, 2005 2:55 PM

Chris, I admit to being a bit of a study addict, but it does bug me when the "studies" that "show" something are all several decades out of date and newer evidence that doesn't support the position is ignored.

Moreena--I am a heel. I'm going to email you this evening.

Dani--tough. :p I did read that one, yes. I remember nodding my head a fair bit. I think you're stalking me....

I scored my first Diet Coke incident! Excellent.

Posted by: Andrea at July 4, 2005 3:22 PM

Andrea - I'm sorry, I don't think I was clear. I meant that I get suspicious when I read in parenting books about what 'studies have shown' and the authors don't give a date or authors for the study. I appreciate the information you've provided about how outdated the studies are.

Posted by: Chris at July 4, 2005 4:28 PM

Ah! gotcha.

I'm very tired today, so probably everyone else got you the first time.

Posted by: Andrea at July 4, 2005 7:57 PM

This is probably the best post I have read on the whole parenting issue! Aweome!

Posted by: Amanda at July 5, 2005 10:53 AM

Brilliant post, and well done looking up those studies! I appreciate your skeptical approach to a touchy subject.

Posted by: byrneout at July 5, 2005 10:41 PM

Came here via Julie's blog -- and just wanted to say thanks for such a great post on this topic. (And may you not be flamed for doing so!)

Posted by: amy at July 6, 2005 1:17 PM

Thankyou so much for writing this, it was brilliant!! I was very much like you, I co-slept and breastfed, because my baby refused to sleep without me, and refused the bottle. Then I also hit "the wall" at 10 months, and ended up doing a crying it out method (I went in after 5 minutes, then 10, then 20 etc), because I dont know if I could have survived another month of waking ten times a night.

Posted by: falimako at July 6, 2005 10:30 PM

Thank you for putting in words what I've been trying to express for some time. I read all the AP books when I was pregnant (even before I was pregnant), and I was going to be the AP-est AP mom ever. I was going to wear a sling, breastfeed, cosleep, cloth diaper, the works. I even planned to try for a natural birth.

It went wrong from the beginning. I had back labor so bad I wanted to shoot myself before I even dilated to 1, I begged for an epidural (heaven!), pushed for two screaming, painful hours, and ended up with a C-section.

From there it went downhill. I couldn't get the sling to work, baby didn't like it. I breastfed every two hours around the clock until I was hallucinating from sleep deprivation, and found out at his two-week appointment that he wasn't gaining weight. I started giving him formula and it saved my sanity and my relationship with him. Cosleeping didn't work for anyone: I was too uncomfortable to sleep, baby fidgeted and woke up a lot if he didn't have some space.

CIO is one thing we haven't had to do, because he falls asleep pretty easily and stays asleep, and I'm grateful for that. My parents let me cry as a baby - not for a few minutes a couple of nights, but regularly, for hours, when I was scared of the dark and up late unable to sleep - and I had insomnia all my life until I met my husband and finally got some snuggling at night. (Whew!) After a couple of years of that, I now don't mind going to bed alone, but it took a lot of reassurance.

So, thank you for standing up and saying the bottom line is, do what works for your baby. Maybe CIO does make them feel abandoned. But if 20 minutes of feeling abandoned results in more sleep for everyone, go for it.

Posted by: pookel at July 7, 2005 12:41 PM

Becoming a parent is the best and the worst thing that has ever happened to me. My theory: you are only as perfect a parent as you are a person. I'm sorry but I don't care what theory you are following - if you have issues, your kids are going to have issues. If you think you can get through parenting without a goofing up quite a bit, you are kidding yourself. I wonder how attachment parents cope with driving in the car? I mean, sometimes both my kids are screaming at the same time in the back trying (unsuccessfully) to wiggle out of their car seats. It's frustrating but what if you thought that crying was somehow detrimental to your child's development? Do you pull over all the time? Just curious....

All the people that I know that are messed up as adults were messed up by something more tangible like being locked in cupboards for hours as punishment or watching their dad slam their mom's head into the wall or being told they were stupid and worthless their whole lives by the very people who should have been their champions.

My advice to new parents: don't read the theories - they'll only confuse you and make you feel guilty...just know how to change a diaper and how to trouble shoot breastfeeding (it's not as easy as you'd think). Oh and most importantly, RELAX!

Posted by: Anna at July 10, 2005 2:45 PM

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you! Beautiful! If only we'd known this BEFORE we became mothers!!

Posted by: Karyn at May 7, 2006 11:17 PM

That's a big change - AP to CC!?!?!?!
At the start of your entry you talked about how you thought you were doing the right thing when you were AP - AP = good. Now you are CC you think that is great. It sounds to me like you are very insecure in your mothering and feel totally compelled justify it - hence your entry.
I am an AP but I don't feel like I have to convince anyone that what I'm doing is "good" or "right". I know in my heart I am doing the best for my baby - maybe you are still questioning your choices.

Posted by: Rebecca at October 22, 2006 11:30 AM

THANK YOU!!! I have no kids, never have..I work in Maternal and Child Health doing child injury prevention and lately have been running up against something similar (although not nearly as exhausting I'm sure) as your brick wall. I too am in favor of breastfeeding but not to the exclusion of what parents feel they need to do for THEIR OWN kids..and lots of the lactation people I meet are sort of like nazis for breastfeeding, i.e. don't show a picture of a baby being soothed by a bottle when they are crying incessantly. What?? If a parent is so tired they feel their choices are 1, shake the baby so they will stop crying or 2, hold the baby and give them a bottle, I sure hope they will choose 2. You have an excellent future as a writer and I wish you would come to our conference and talk with some of these professionals who practice is so far out of touch with the reality of today's families.

Posted by: barbiesue at October 25, 2006 6:50 PM

Andrea;

This has no impact om your excellent point, however I would just like to say that its not really that fair to characterize the Kung as living in a marginal or extreme environment. The Kung are, as I'm sure you know , The Original Affluent Society.

BUT is AP is based on the Kung (which I didnt know) it does seem critical to recognize that all that baby carrying/constant touch etc is completely necessary if you are a totally non-settled nomadic society. Which Canada, as far as I am aware, isn't.

Adjust accordingly.

(Another note; from what you say, it seems that AP Is based in part on the assumption that the Kung in the first half of the 20th centruy is hte closest thing we have to a picture of hte lives of our earliest ancestors.

While anthropologists, archeologists etc saidthis for a while, it turns out that that is probably not the case at all, as you post suggests. While all ancient people were likely hunter/gatherers of some stripe, this means lost of different things and includes settled and nomadic societies, egalitarian and inegalitarian, large social groups and small,on and on and on.)

Posted by: curiousgyrl at October 27, 2006 11:38 AM

Cool site. Thank you:-)
Zhabaa

Posted by: Zhabaa at October 30, 2006 4:49 PM

Andrea this is a great post. I'm at a nine month brick wall and wondering what to do now. It was very interesting to read about how outdated the studies are and I will re-read my sleep books with that knowledge in mind.

I've had three very different babies that I have parented very differently and I wholeheartedly agree that parents should be allowed to choose the style that best suits them and their baby, without recrimination. As you say, it's nobody else's business.

Posted by: Ella at October 31, 2006 8:22 AM

I agree with you. I've gone through several different evolutions in mothering style as my children develop and probably many more to come. Amazing how your perspective can suddenly shift! One day thinking snarky thoughts about people who'd buy their kids expensive "status" sneakers and the next day, it seems, there you are in the shoe store with your credit card out. Walk a mile before you start with the criticism! Great post.

Posted by: nancy at November 14, 2006 10:50 PM

hopscotch