Attitudes to AP/NP in Baby Club...

[Janidog]

Im a parent-directed 'parent' when i choose to FF because i didnt want to even attempt to BF and I couldn't careless what people think about that, but im also baby-led 90% of the time, i can't be baby-led 100% because I have a job and therefore if he doesn't want to have clothes put on he doesn't get a choice because i need to get him ready for nursery.

I also can not understand why so many AP parents want to be labelled when isn't the whole point about AP is you teach your child that they have 'free thoughts' therefore no one is labelled

Does that make any sense???

 

[aliss]

That's not really what AP is. AP is about bonding in the most 'natural' way (ie. from an evolutionary standpoint) through breastfeeding, babywearing, bedsharing, no CIO. In AP, you do those things not because they are easier or harder but because in AP, it is your job as a mother to use those methods as it is believed it is better for you and the baby, emotionally. No, I don't think there are many AP parents who follow each method to a T but you strive for it. The one exception would be using CIO from birth like some do. That is 100% against everything AP is about. You do that in nature and your baby is prey, plain and simple. It is unnatural to leave a newborn to cry alone and that's why AP is against it. Yes, it is against CIO for older babies/toddlers too - but the majority of Sears anti-CIO stuff is to counter the methhods of Weissbluth and Ezzo which has permeated mainstream parenting in western society (because in many other societies, CIO is absolutely unacceptable)

Here is more info
https://www.askdrsears.com/topics/attachment-parenting/what-ap-7-baby-bs

 

[c.m.c]

Just to add though: look at how easily people get upset when others don't even say anything to attack them. My earlier post is a prime example. I didn't say anything to attack anyone. In fact I was trying to be nice and supportive, yet my comment still upset people and could have potentially caused a debate just because I wasn't careful enough with what I said. Not everyone means to upset people, just tgat when things are written down it gets dissected word for word like under a microoscope. I noticed often heated arguments start because of a badly phrased post.

Maybe I'm just dumb but I never saw anything in your previous post to get upset about.
You explained how you found breast feeding hard and didn't feel natural despite it being so, you also said you were at the point of leaving it and going FF if it weren't of the support of your hubby.
You basically said you totally understood how hard BF is and understand why so many can not do it either through choice or health issues.

I had to check you hadn't edited your post when i saw someone getting upset by it as saw nothing offensive in it.
So please don't feel bad as don't think you had done anything wrong .

i agree- and to add it was lovely to see that a lot of women find it hard at BF and are tempted to give up- made me feel not so guilty

 

[lozzy21]

That's not really what AP is. AP is about bonding in the most 'natural' way (ie. from an evolutionary standpoint) through breastfeeding, babywearing, bedsharing, no CIO. In AP, you do those things not because they are easier or harder but because in AP, it is your job as a mother to use those methods as it is believed it is better for you and the baby, emotionally. No, I don't think there are many AP parents who follow each method to a T but you strive for it. The one exception would be using CIO from birth like some do. That is 100% against everything AP is about. You do that in nature and your baby is prey, plain and simple. It is unnatural to leave a newborn to cry alone and that's why AP is against it. Yes, it is against CIO for older babies/toddlers too - but the majority of Sears anti-CIO stuff is to counter the methhods of Weissbluth and Ezzo which has permeated mainstream parenting in western society (because in many other societies, CIO is absolutely unacceptable)

Here is more info
https://www.askdrsears.com/topics/attachment-parenting/what-ap-7-baby-bs

On the subject i can remember feeding an article some one posted written by a british woman of african decent entitled something like african babys dont cry. im going to see if i can find it.


https://www.naturalchild.org/guest/claire_niala.html

 

[ellie]

See I dont really see things like cloth nappying to be part of AP, to me AP is abput the philosophy you have in parenting, that you see the child as a dependent being that relies on you for nurturing, and that nurture and the bond you create together will set them up for emotional and psychological wellbeing throughout their life. So you could use any kind of nappies for that (or indeed use none and those things are strengthened by things like co sleeping, breastfeeding, babywearing etc, but theyre not exclusively the only things that make your philosophy AP, if that makes sense.
I think as they get older AP philosophy tends more towards 'gentle discipline' and against things that might affect the attachment relationship like time outs, shouting, spanking etc.
At any age though I think Dr Sears and most APs are very clear that CIO is unacceptable. That is, the practice of leaving them to cry - and in fact CC is included in that - damages that relationship, and has an effect on the babies' developing brain. This is a fact, I have been studying attachment, neuropsychology and the long term effects of attachment. Attachment psychologists will stand very strongly by AP because of the vast amount of research and evidence in these areas. Of course, the brain effects studied have mainly been in cases of extreme neglect, so its hard to say for sure about parents who are generally careful and loving but just do CC for sleep purposes. Attachment theory does very clearly state though, backed up with huge amounts of evidence, that CIO does not "teach" babies to sleep, it just teaches them that no one will come. In generally thoughtful and loving parents, I guess it will teach them that no one will come in that situation, which would explain why babies will still ask for comfort in other situations.

Someone said they dont know why any of us care what 'methods' other parents use, well actually mostly because we know that CIO/CC is damaging, pure and simple, and many people simply do not realise this because they think its the 'only thing to do' or 'last resort'. In some cases, well maybe, where there is risk of something more serious for the baby or mother, but for most, there is always another way. I've never been brave enough to say any of this before because of the vast numbers of people who will say "its not true, my child is very happy and with no problems and in fact I had to do it because of x y z so stop judging me" ... it's not judgement (ok I know though that 'some' people might use it to beat up some mums but not here) it's fact. Therefore, I dont see the problem with telling parents the facts ... if they choose to use crying with their babies, no matter what their reasons, they should be armed with all the facts about the effects of doing it vs the effects of not doing it. If they are not, that's simply unfair to all concerned.
If they know, and they still choose to use it for their own reasons, then I believe they should be able to stand by their choices and not get over defensive when they read the facts they knew already, without feeling they have to justify what they did or blame someone else's words for their own concerns - they've weighed up the pros and cons of each side, like we all do.

Whereas behavioural psychologists will stand by the behavioural methods (like crying methods). I was thinking that those who use strict routines, crying methods, etc, might be 'behavioural' in focus which might be a less critical way of seeing it
I'll probably get jumped on for this now, but I've started to feel much more strongly about it now as my studies go on. I really think gp's/hv's etc should know more about it before telling all and sundry to 'just let them cry' :facepalm:

 

[lozzy21]

Ellie do you know if there has been any research using sleep methods like PUPD? Where the chances are baby will cry but they are still being comforted?

 

[littlestar85]

Lozzy21 I posted that article in NP a few months ago - I love it!

This thread wasn't intending to label AP mums or any particular style, it was mostly just to open up a discussion about the negative vibe that has been present towards AP/NP recently in Baby Club. I love that it's turned into a really constructive discussion and not spiralled into a load of nonsense like so many constructive threads do in BC. I've really enjoyed hearing what everyone thinks.

A pp said that AP mums can't think outside our 'little box' but I don't think that's true.... We've thought a lot and researched all sorts of parenting issues and decided that AP is the right choice for our LOs, so we're actually in a very 'big box' reached through lots of information and research. We don't go into BC saying "hey all mainstream mums, you suck, what we do is better so there"... We generally just give an opnion or advice, when someone asks for opinions and advice, just the same way everyone else does. But a lot of ppl feel judged by us.

If someone, for example, starts a "please help, my baby won't sleep and I'm going crazy threadl" and some mums suggest CC or CIO because they feel they're helping, an AP mum has just as much right (and feels she has a duty) to suggest other ways as research has shown the dangers of CC and CIO. We are being no more 'know it all' than someone advocating CC/CIO cos it worked for them, but we are giving that mother information which may help her, just like the mum who suggests CC/CIO feels she is doing too.

No one has proven that CC/CIO doesn't have a negative effect, they can prove it may work, but not that it has fixed the root cause of the crying. Whereas many scientists offer factual evidence that proves it does have a negative effect and that the root cause of the cryiing will manifest itself in other ways.. When AP mums say that, people feel judged, because of course it sounds like we're saying "it may work, but it doesn't fix the root problem and may have a negative impact on your LO therefore it's not a good choice"... And there you have someone inadvertantly being made to feel like a bad mother and being offended and upset. But will that ever change? I doubt it.... No matter how carefully you word things your 100% belief in something, proven or not, will always upset someone.

 

[littlestar85]

Ellie that's a brilliant overview.

That's exactly what people should be free to say without being jumped on. Sharing facts is a vital part of why we're all on BnB in the first place.

X

 

[henny]

Not sure where I belong now I used to bf but lo stop bfing at 12mths and 3days, use to co-sleep but he stopped that at the same time as the bfing.
Still baby wear at times with an ergo.
I get confused by AP because I cannot pick lo if I'm trying to cook and he is crying but I try and distract him but sometimes he just cries a lot but if I didn't put a meal on the table, his mood would be worse, not sure how to help the situation. Does that make sense?
Don't enjoy it over at the baby club but used to like it in NP but as we only use cloth nappies during the day and only baby wear at times, not sure where to go.

 

[fluffpuffin]

See I dont really see things like cloth nappying to be part of AP, to me AP is abput the philosophy you have in parenting, that you see the child as a dependent being that relies on you for nurturing, and that nurture and the bond you create together will set them up for emotional and psychological wellbeing throughout their life. So you could use any kind of nappies for that (or indeed use none and those things are strengthened by things like co sleeping, breastfeeding, babywearing etc, but theyre not exclusively the only things that make your philosophy AP, if that makes sense.
I think as they get older AP philosophy tends more towards 'gentle discipline' and against things that might affect the attachment relationship like time outs, shouting, spanking etc.
At any age though I think Dr Sears and most APs are very clear that CIO is unacceptable. That is, the practice of leaving them to cry - and in fact CC is included in that - damages that relationship, and has an effect on the babies' developing brain. This is a fact, I have been studying attachment, neuropsychology and the long term effects of attachment. Attachment psychologists will stand very strongly by AP because of the vast amount of research and evidence in these areas. Of course, the brain effects studied have mainly been in cases of extreme neglect, so its hard to say for sure about parents who are generally careful and loving but just do CC for sleep purposes. Attachment theory does very clearly state though, backed up with huge amounts of evidence, that CIO does not "teach" babies to sleep, it just teaches them that no one will come. In generally thoughtful and loving parents, I guess it will teach them that no one will come in that situation, which would explain why babies will still ask for comfort in other situations.

Someone said they dont know why any of us care what 'methods' other parents use, well actually mostly because we know that CIO/CC is damaging, pure and simple, and many people simply do not realise this because they think its the 'only thing to do' or 'last resort'. In some cases, well maybe, where there is risk of something more serious for the baby or mother, but for most, there is always another way. I've never been brave enough to say any of this before because of the vast numbers of people who will say "its not true, my child is very happy and with no problems and in fact I had to do it because of x y z so stop judging me" ... it's not judgement (ok I know though that 'some' people might use it to beat up some mums but not here) it's fact. Therefore, I dont see the problem with telling parents the facts ... if they choose to use crying with their babies, no matter what their reasons, they should be armed with all the facts about the effects of doing it vs the effects of not doing it. If they are not, that's simply unfair to all concerned.
If they know, and they still choose to use it for their own reasons, then I believe they should be able to stand by their choices and not get over defensive when they read the facts they knew already, without feeling they have to justify what they did or blame someone else's words for their own concerns - they've weighed up the pros and cons of each side, like we all do.

Whereas behavioural psychologists will stand by the behavioural methods (like crying methods). I was thinking that those who use strict routines, crying methods, etc, might be 'behavioural' in focus which might be a less critical way of seeing it
I'll probably get jumped on for this now, but I've started to feel much more strongly about it now as my studies go on. I really think gp's/hv's etc should know more about it before telling all and sundry to 'just let them cry' :facepalm:

I would be interested in reading the evidence based research on cc and cio. Could you post a link please?

 

[CouldThisBeIt]

Ellie, what a wonderful post. Thank you for sharing.

Henny-every mum has times when they can't attend instantly to their kid-and distraction works! You're not ignoring-you are trying to help them to feel better without costing yourself the dinner. You BF, you co-slept, you sound to me to be a pretty AP mum.

 

[lozzy21]

Henny- your not ignoring LO because you think its good for them, your not picking LO up because your responding to their needs. We arent superwomen, we only have two hands. I sometimes need to leave Niamh cry while i make her bottle or sort her food but shes crying because shes hungry so if i go pick her up she will only end up crying for longer.

I dont BF because we couldent, technicly we co-sleep as her cots right by my bed but we dont bed share because i wouldent sleep, she comes in for cuddles, we use cloth, amber and babywear but i also use a pram, ff and spoon feed.

Even if you only do one of the thing you still belong.

 

[ellie]

i have tons of references and probably some hard copy papers but not sure if i have internet links - will have a rifle through and see what i can find.
Not sure if there is any specific evidence on things like PUPD tbh - you could have a look on google scholar? Afaik the research tends to be in casese of severe neglect usually because it wouldnt be ethical to do research on crying in babies so it would be on cases that 'present themselves' rather than ones a researcher would create, if that makes sense? I think though it is the experience of being alone / not held that makes the difference. Something to do with baby's needs being met (even if the parent cant stop them crying) by the parent being there. I think ... But yeah, its not physically possible to be doing that with our lifestyles 24/7 with absolutely never any deviation, I think its prolonged crying that has the effect (the cortisol effect mainly which affects the neurotransmitters which are developing throughout the first year or two of life).
I#d also say that my baby cried for months and still cries even when we hold him sometimes, so it does sometimes worry me a bit as well about his poor brain - so maybe I overcompensate in other aspects of AP to try and make up for it
I'll have a look through my stuff ......

I dont label myself as a certain type though really .... I quite like AP (hence my blinkie lol) but I dont think you 'have' to do certain things religiously otherwise you can't come into the AP club its the overall philosophy that matters.

 

[Janidog]

See I dont really see things like cloth nappying to be part of AP, to me AP is abput the philosophy you have in parenting, that you see the child as a dependent being that relies on you for nurturing, and that nurture and the bond you create together will set them up for emotional and psychological wellbeing throughout their life. So you could use any kind of nappies for that (or indeed use none and those things are strengthened by things like co sleeping, breastfeeding, babywearing etc, but theyre not exclusively the only things that make your philosophy AP, if that makes sense.
I think as they get older AP philosophy tends more towards 'gentle discipline' and against things that might affect the attachment relationship like time outs, shouting, spanking etc.
At any age though I think Dr Sears and most APs are very clear that CIO is unacceptable. That is, the practice of leaving them to cry - and in fact CC is included in that - damages that relationship, and has an effect on the babies' developing brain. This is a fact, I have been studying attachment, neuropsychology and the long term effects of attachment. Attachment psychologists will stand very strongly by AP because of the vast amount of research and evidence in these areas. Of course, the brain effects studied have mainly been in cases of extreme neglect, so its hard to say for sure about parents who are generally careful and loving but just do CC for sleep purposes. Attachment theory does very clearly state though, backed up with huge amounts of evidence, that CIO does not "teach" babies to sleep, it just teaches them that no one will come. In generally thoughtful and loving parents, I guess it will teach them that no one will come in that situation, which would explain why babies will still ask for comfort in other situations.

Someone said they dont know why any of us care what 'methods' other parents use, well actually mostly because we know that CIO/CC is damaging, pure and simple, and many people simply do not realise this because they think its the 'only thing to do' or 'last resort'. In some cases, well maybe, where there is risk of something more serious for the baby or mother, but for most, there is always another way. I've never been brave enough to say any of this before because of the vast numbers of people who will say "its not true, my child is very happy and with no problems and in fact I had to do it because of x y z so stop judging me" ... it's not judgement (ok I know though that 'some' people might use it to beat up some mums but not here) it's fact. Therefore, I dont see the problem with telling parents the facts ... if they choose to use crying with their babies, no matter what their reasons, they should be armed with all the facts about the effects of doing it vs the effects of not doing it. If they are not, that's simply unfair to all concerned.
If they know, and they still choose to use it for their own reasons, then I believe they should be able to stand by their choices and not get over defensive when they read the facts they knew already, without feeling they have to justify what they did or blame someone else's words for their own concerns - they've weighed up the pros and cons of each side, like we all do.

Whereas behavioural psychologists will stand by the behavioural methods (like crying methods). I was thinking that those who use strict routines, crying methods, etc, might be 'behavioural' in focus which might be a less critical way of seeing it
I'll probably get jumped on for this now, but I've started to feel much more strongly about it now as my studies go on. I really think gp's/hv's etc should know more about it before telling all and sundry to 'just let them cry' :facepalm:

FACT FACT FACT FACT - the problem with 'facts' is that one persons 'facts' is to another person merely an opinion

 

[lozzy21]

Facts and opinions are two completly different things. Yes you can base your opinion on a fact but it doesnt change the fact existing in the first place.

 

[Janidog]

Facts and opinions are two completly different things. Yes you can base your opinion on a fact but it doesnt change the fact existing in the first place.

But you can't say its a 'fact' about CIO damaging babies, when the only research has been on those children that has been abused and not on the babies that have been brought up by loving nurturing parents that 'OMG' have used CIO/CC - it might be the opinion of certain developmental psychologist, but certainly not all

 

[lozzy21]

Facts and opinions are two completly different things. Yes you can base your opinion on a fact but it doesnt change the fact existing in the first place.

But you can't say its a 'fact' about CIO damaging babies, when the only research has been on those children that has been abused and not on the babies that have been brought up by loving nurturing parents that 'OMG' have used CIO/CC - it might be the opinion of certain developmental psychologist, but certainly not all

But its not just CIO that has problems, its a fact that BF has more benifits for mum and baby than formula and that rear facing is safer than foward facing but people still get jumped on for saying so despite the facts being there to see.

 

[Janidog]

Facts and opinions are two completly different things. Yes you can base your opinion on a fact but it doesnt change the fact existing in the first place.

But you can't say its a 'fact' about CIO damaging babies, when the only research has been on those children that has been abused and not on the babies that have been brought up by loving nurturing parents that 'OMG' have used CIO/CC - it might be the opinion of certain developmental psychologist, but certainly not all

But its not just CIO that has problems, its a fact that BF has more benifits for mum and baby than formula and that rear facing is safer than foward facing but people still get jumped on for saying so despite the facts being there to see.

But just because other subjects have had lots of research, but CIO has not so its still just someone else's opinions

Im sorry but so many of you on here are very narrow minded and can not think outside your own mindset. Not everyone on BnB has the same time or lifestyle as you all, so therefore lets just tell them how wonderful a parent you all are and lets tell the rest of them here how there lifestyle is damaging their babies

So you wonder why other parents have attitude towards AP

I didn't BF, I went back to work with my baby when he was 2 weeks old, he went to nursery from 12 weeks old 3 afternoons a week, i didn't co-sleep and LO was in his own room from 10 weeks and do you know what he is a very happy baby boy with no developmental issues, so yes I do get annoyed when AParents tell me im damaging my baby and causing him harm

 

[RaspberryK]

That's not really what AP is. AP is about bonding in the most 'natural' way (ie. from an evolutionary standpoint) through breastfeeding, babywearing, bedsharing, no CIO. In AP, you do those things not because they are easier or harder but because in AP, it is your job as a mother to use those methods as it is believed it is better for you and the baby, emotionally. No, I don't think there are many AP parents who follow each method to a T but you strive for it. The one exception would be using CIO from birth like some do. That is 100% against everything AP is about. You do that in nature and your baby is prey, plain and simple. It is unnatural to leave a newborn to cry alone and that's why AP is against it. Yes, it is against CIO for older babies/toddlers too - but the majority of Sears anti-CIO stuff is to counter the methhods of Weissbluth and Ezzo which has permeated mainstream parenting in western society (because in many other societies, CIO is absolutely unacceptable)

Here is more info
https://www.askdrsears.com/topics/attachment-parenting/what-ap-7-baby-bs

On the subject i can remember feeding an article some one posted written by a british woman of african decent entitled something like african babys dont cry. im going to see if i can find it.


https://www.naturalchild.org/guest/claire_niala.html

I love this link Lozzy - thanks!

x

 

[littlestar85]

Facts and opinions are two completly different things. Yes you can base your opinion on a fact but it doesnt change the fact existing in the first place.

But you can't say its a 'fact' about CIO damaging babies, when the only research has been on those children that has been abused and not on the babies that have been brought up by loving nurturing parents that 'OMG' have used CIO/CC - it might be the opinion of certain developmental psychologist, but certainly not all

But its not just CIO that has problems, its a fact that BF has more benifits for mum and baby than formula and that rear facing is safer than foward facing but people still get jumped on for saying so despite the facts being there to see.

But just because other subjects have had lots of research, but CIO has not so its still just someone else's opinions

Im sorry but so many of you on here are very narrow minded and can not think outside your own mindset. Not everyone on BnB has the same time or lifestyle as you all, so therefore lets just tell them how wonderful a parent you all are and lets tell the rest of them here how there lifestyle is damaging their babies

So you wonder why other parents have attitude towards AP

I didn't BF, I went back to work with my baby when he was 2 weeks old, he went to nursery from 12 weeks old 3 afternoons a week, i didn't co-sleep and LO was in his own room from 10 weeks and do you know what he is a very happy baby boy with no developmental issues, so yes I do get annoyed when AParents tell me im damaging my baby and causing him harm

It is a fact that the more a baby cries the more cortisol (the stress hormone) is released in its brain. Cortisol is linked to behavioural problems and negative effects on the bond with the mother.

Can I ask what "time and lifestyle" we have that non-AP mothers don't have? I wasn't aware that we all have a known amount of time on our hands or a particular lifestyle in common... Yes, we make the time to research, yes we believe we have chosen a lifestyle where our babies needs come first. Is that what you're getting at???

All the AP parents I know do think outside their 'mindset' - they look at all angles and make an informed decision.

As we have all stated numerous times on this thread, we DO know why people have an attitude towards AP, we're not wondering why. The point is, its unnecessary and unfair. Everyone else can give opinions (and be very judgmental sometimes) but if an AP mother gives an opinion (or even worse, judges) then she is jumped on in a way that non-AP members aren't.

If people are 100% confident and happy with the choices they've made for their LO then there's no reason for them to feel upset by or judged by AP mothers' comments and opinions. Just take it on the chin the same way we do when we are criticised.