“Going into this, I never would have thought we would parent the way we do,” she says. “I thought other parents who did this were crazy.”
A lot of people might use the same word to describe the child-rearing philosophy Joanne subscribes to. It’s called attachment parenting, and its rise over the past two decades has helped redefine the modern relationship between mother and baby. It’s not just staunch devotees like Joanne; the prevalence of this philosophy has shifted mainstream American parenting toward a style that’s more about parental devotion and sacrifice than about raising self-sufficient kids….
While the concept sounds simple, the practicalities of attachment parenting ask a great deal of mothers. The three basic tenets are breast-feeding (sometimes into toddlerhood), co-sleeping (inviting babies into the parental bed or pulling a bassinet alongside it) and “baby wearing,” in which infants are literally attached to their mothers via slings. Attachment-parenting dogma also says that every baby’s whimper is a plea for help and that no infant should ever be left to cry.
I am not at all sure that John Bowlby, Father of Attachment Theory, would agree with the three tenents of what is represeted here as “attachment parenting.” Attachment Parenting had its genesis in the the world of adoption – and is particualry approriate in older child adoption where the natural processes of attachment formation may have been disrupted. I am sorry that such an important theory of human behavior is being so mischaracterized as this article seems to do.
This sounds to me like the sort of crazy-mirror reporting that makes for sales and attention, but not informative reporting. As I gather (and I’m not a student of this school, just a parent whose own practice drifted along this general trajectory), the premise in question involves attending to children’s expressed needs until such time as they no longer have the need (rather than trying to suppress the need or to ‘train’ them out of a need by deliberately withholding sustenance, or parental closeness, or whatever). Some people think you have to force children to live on their own; some think that children will grow up either way, and that setting up a pattern of ‘depriving’ or ‘withholding’ only embeds the felt need more deeply.
Our kids, brought up on a general practice of showing dependent infants that they can count on their parents for sustenance and support and protection, have moved on quite stably to very autonomous adulthood. It’s a small sample size, and I’m not trying to arm-twist anyone into following our lead, nor trying to make others feel bad if they didn’t (or if their children’s lives have been affected in a way ours’ haven’t). It’s one sensible way of negotiating the stresses and traumas that life throws at infants and parents. If you feel as though it’s vital for your children’s well-being that you raise them differently, go ahead.
But in this (as in all important things), let’s show some patience and charity in characterising what we do and what others do. We won’t learn anything if we don’t entertain new ideas now and then (conventional modern ways of raising children were novelties once upon a time), and none of us has attained a position of such exaltation as to be relied on to determine what everybody else ought to do.
Well, actually the idea that the baby would sleep with the mother so that she/he could be changed or breastfed easily at night was the NORM for millenia. The idea that infants should sleep in another room, and be fed on a schedule is a modern innovation, and limited to wealthy countries.
As to wearing a baby, this too was the NORM for millenia and continues to be the norm for most of the world who is forced to work the fields with babies attached.
It does not appear clear to me that our kids did so much better after we changed, here in the west, than they had done in previous eras.
Hey Clueless — was it the norm to have the “baby” breastfeeding at four and five and six?
Clueless–What picture do you think will be in the cover kid’s high school year book? I don’t care what mom wants do do, but she has done that poor child absolutely no favor by putting him on the cover of Time locked on to her breast.
Sarah, in cultures in which breastfeeding is the way children survive, it is not unusual for older children to “take a nip” now and then even up to age 7. Of course, these older children are not predominately breast fed. The USA nearly lost breast feeding in the 50-70’s in the fad to more “scientific” modes of formula and scheduled feedings. The exportation of formula nd scheduled feedings to third world countries with poor water hygiene has been detrimental to babies and toddlers.
So, the age would be of concern if the child were predominately breast-fed, but the occasional nursing even at ages 4-7 is not abnormal in and of itself. Our culture is looking askance at this primarily because the genuine purpose of the breast in this culture is NOT breastfeeding (as God intended) but to be held by pushup bras and used as adverts for cars, colognes, whisky, and films, except for when they are being used as mind-control devices for males! ;<)
RE: “Sarah, in cultures in which breastfeeding is the way children survive, it is not unusual for older children to “take a nip†now and then even up to age 7.”
Sure — but we’re not the Sudan, and we weren’t the Sudan back 150 years ago either.
And no, I don’t know about “our culture” but *I* myself — *my* culture — look askance at it because 1) there’s absolutely no need for it, 2) and the folks who actually *practice* that behavior in the US are generally fruitcakes, not to mention [and rather obviously] 3) exhibitionists who put such displays on the covers of Time magazine.
There — I said it, and I meant it.
I’m sure back when we were all trying to “survive” we koshed people over the head with clubs and stole their wooly mammoths. And we dragged women out of caves over to other people’s caves. And we ate with our mouths open. And it was all quite “natural.”
But I don’t live in civilization in order to be “natural.” I live in society so that we might be *civilized* and therefore *artificial* and *unnatural*.
And I like that. I have no desire to see various “natural functions” of others, nor do I have any desire for people to behave towards me in “natural” and uncivilized ways, much less in restaurants or on covers of magazines.
I obviously have absolutely no control over such displays, so all that I can do is avoid those places that allow such “natural” activities on display and in public.
. . . Which is what a whole lot of us are doing, so that society may continue to be segmented out and polarized into utterly disparate groups, seeing as how we no longer agree on common social mores or civilized behavior.
I don’t have a problem with extended breast feeding. I do have a problem with the photograph If you see how mother and child are posed and the expression on each of their faces there is no sign of emotional attachment (which I’m sure is probably not usually the case.) The pose is not set up to be maternal but to be sexual and to incite controversy. Then when people object they will be told that “don’t be such a prude, breasts feeding is a beautiful natural act.” and it is. This however is the most impersonal, detached depiction of breast feeding that I have ever seen. And that is what bothers me.
The anthropologist Kathy Dettwyler has written some excellent articles on the subject of extended breast feeding.
The cover of Time, it is indeed tasteless, and I do feel sorry for the poor child, who should have had his face “blurred out.” However I am bemused by the fact that we can have tasteless, sexualized drivel beemed into us on a daily basis without a murmer, but a sight of a woman breastfeeding provokes the sort of horror that used to be associated with what were once called “unnatural acts” which have since become acceptable.
In general, from at least the Roman empire, the historical age of complete weaning was 3 with some solid foods being provided by one year to 18 months. This was not only nutritionally better but permitted spacing of childbirth, since breastfeeding inhibits fertility.
Before Roman times, biological evidence suggests that prolonged breast feeding would have been the norm for humans.
Natural Weaning Age by Dental Eruption: 5.5 – 6 years
Most primates wean their young when the first permanent molars begin erupting. Some scientists have suggested that this is because a child’s immune system reaches maturity at about this same time; a possible indicator that full immune protection was in breastmilk until fairly recently in our species’ evolutionary history.
Natural Weaning Age by Adult Weight: 4 – 7 years
In the natural world, many animals wean their young when the offspring reach approximately one third of their adult body weight. In humans, this time comes anywhere between four and seven years of age– possibly sooner and possibly later.
Natural Weaning Age by Gestation Length: 4.5 years
In large-bodied mammals, the duration of nursing is high compared to the length of gestation. Large primates like bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans– humankind’s closest relatives– breastfeed their young for an average of six times the length of gestation. With the average gestation length in humans reaching 40 weeks, this places the natural weaning age at about four and a half years. It is interesting to note that animals with larger brains tend to nurse their young the longest, relative to the length of gestation.
Natural Weaning Age by Adult Body Size: 2.8 -3.7 years
Continuing to compare the human gestational length to other large primates, we might notice that gorillas and chimpanzees happen to reach one third of their adult size at around the time that they are weaned– also the time when they reach six times their gestation length and begin to get permanent molars.
Natural Weaning Age by Birth Weight: 25 – 32 months
Small mammals tend to wean their young when the offspring have tripled their birth weight, although larger mammals, including intelligent primates, will more likely breastfeed until the young have attained four times the average birth weight. This calculation still presents a natural weaning age that is significantly longer than the “normal” accepted weaning age in Western culture.