I remember thinking at the time that All the Mothers of the Internet would have a feeding frenzy over that question, as they tend to do, leading to pages upon pages of debate over (1) what constitutes a sufficiently attached parent, or (2) whether it makes any sense to be trying to quantify parent-child attachment, or even (3) if putting such an emphasis on attachment might be counterproductive in the long run. Feathers would be ruffled! Drama would ensue! Lines would be drawn in the sand!
[I have to insert some self-mockery into this, by the way, because every once in a while I'm slightly unsettled the fact that 90% of the new mothers I "know" and rely upon for support are virtually strangers who I only know online. But, I suck it up because I live in a tiny town and that's the way it goes.]
Anyway, to answer the original question, I consider myself highly attached to Lea. I generally love being around her, and I tend to assume that she goes where I go. Sometimes I absolutely need and want an extended break, and sometimes I go places where it's not practical or possible to take an infant, and that's a good thing. But for the most part, caring for her in the way I have come to prefer as a matter of routine usually means a pretty close proximity.
Take the wedding scenario: if you're breastfeeding, it's not as simple as getting childcare, or even as simple as pumping and storing milk for the baby ahead of time. Because long term, if you want to keep a good milk supply, you've got to be emptying the breast with relative frequency. (This is also necessary to prevent some serious, serious discomfort and hugeness, two things that tend to be even more pronounced in formal wear.) If the baby's not with you, you have to pump again. So, going to a wedding and reception, even across town, means you have to be willing to find a place to hang out topless for half an hour with your pump. So my answer is yes, I'll go to a wedding without Lea, but I'm going to be a little bit more snobby and selective about it. The one non-family wedding I've been invited to since Lea's birth was the absolutely pump-worthy nuptials of my friends Julie and Ben. So I did all of the above, and it was a fabulous evening. But even with all of that work, I was treated to this priceless comment from a more-than-a-little-drunk friend, late in the evening: "You have more cleavage than you came with!" Just sayin'.
All of this is to say that tending to not be far from your baby, a hallmark of "attachment parenting" (and yes, this is a thing, for those unversed in such lingo), sometimes has as much or more to do with logistics as it does with ideology. I don't mean to brush off the virtues of being emotionally attached-- because I strive for that too-- but I think it's worth noting that I have come across people who would seriously admonish me for not taking Lea to the wedding with me (or skipping it), because it necessitated me being away from her for something like 13 hours. For some people, the ideology is all-encompassing; it's almost like, instead of making individual parenting decisions and allowing their parenting style to be shaped by those decisions, some parents commit themselves to a style first, and consult the "rules" of that style every time a new decision must be made.
It's weird. But I'll admit: it's crazy enticing. Parenting is freaking terrifying, and it feels safer sometimes to glom yourself on to a popular way of doing things and check your every instinct with other people who've chosen that way. You'll either be validated (feels great!) or you'll be corrected (sucks, but happens less and less frequently as you spend more and more time absorbing yourself in the "right answers"-- you'll start to see your instincts looking eerily like all those other people's). So eventually, if you conform to a certain ideology and look only to like-minded people for support, all you're going to get is validation. What could be better?
Charting your own path is hugely uncertain, but it's better. It has to be. This is why I will never call myself an "attachment parenting" mom, as much as I try to foster attachment with my daughter. I do probably 75% of the things that people look for to establish AP cred, as it were, so I can probably continue to pass, but I'm getting increasingly disillusioned with the way the term is sometimes used to denigrate people who do things differently.
Let me tip my hat here to Al Franken, who pretty much sums up why I'm a liberal in "Loving America, the Al Franken Way", a chapter of a recent book of his that brilliantly illustrates why measuring someone's patriotism by how much they "love America" makes no sense: it's just more complicated than that, and anyone who says otherwise is rewriting history. "Salem witch trials," he begins, "bad. Revolutionary war, good...
Slavery- bad
Ending slavery- good, but hard
Civil War reenactments- weird
Massacring Native Americans and breaking our treaties with them- bad
Indian Casinos- ?
Child labor during Industrial Revolution- bad
Child labor mowing lawns and baby-sitting- character-building< snip . Oh, and read the rest of the funny and moving list in Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them> Making mistakes- bad, but inevitable
Correcting mistakes- good, but not inevitable
Calling those who point out mistakes "unpatriotic"- itself unpatriotic
Owning up to our mistakes- brave
America- home of the brave
(Thanks, Al.)
I have seen almost every parenting decision, the totally mundane and the hugely significant, broken down into the "attached" way and the "detached" way, and sometimes, I buy it. But sometimes, it only serves to draw a boundary, and why do that unless you're interested in separating yourself?
Seeking attachment with your child, the PCJ way:
Breastfeeding- the gold standard nutrition-wise, and in many cases, emotionally beneficial for mom and baby. Should be encouraged and supported by law, healthcare providers, and workplace policy. Preferable for optimal health, but not essential for good health. Not always easy or possible.
Breastfeeding past infancy- sometimes still the best way to soothe and/or nourish your child. Sometimes not at all necessary. Not weird or wrong.
T-shirts for baby boys that say "boob man"- a little creepy, but whatever.
Formula- usually manufactured by companies that have done unscrupulous things to make a buck. Still, a net positive when there is no breastmilk to be had.
Co-sleeping- cozy and convenient, if you and your kid can sleep that way. Very safe (just as safe as a crib) as long as you aren't impaired by drugs, alcohol, or medication. Impossible if your baby needs her own space. Or if you do, for that matter.
Cribs- Safe beds for babies. Not cages, people.
Baby-wearing- fun and eye-catching (and sometimes eyebrow-raising, which is half the fun). Allows for most excursions to be baby-friendly. Good exercise. Easy and comfortable, if your kid tolerates it. An upright wrestling match if she doesn't. Sometimes hot and gross in the summertime. Sometimes expensive.
Baby bucket- a carseat, best used in the car (and to and from said car). Probably not very hip-growth-friendly to be in for long chunks of the day.
Responding immediately to every cry- probably best for young babies. Increasing wiggle room as baby ages.
Cloth-diapering- earth friendly and usually frugal, but not an attachment issue.
Vaccines- hooo boy. Strongly urged by the vast majority of people who've collected and analyzed the data for themselves. Otherwise, sometimes scary as crap, counterintuitive, and hugely complicated, emotionally and otherwise. Often manufactured by companies who have done unscrupulous things to make a buck. Still, not an attachment issue.
Being a full-time parent- an awesome thing to do if it doesn't threaten your financial security or mental health.
Parenting, period- complicated.
Being flexible- essential.
Relying on the guidance of loved ones- it takes a village, right?
Relying too much on the rulebooks of strangers- nerve-wracking and self-doubt-inducing.
Watching a child grow- humbling.
Humility- a gift.
Attachment- almost inevitable. Regardless of all of the above.
13 comments:
Splendidly put - you are so wise, I wonder how I did it (picture me winking at you).
Seriously, you sum this up well, passionately, but, at the same time, dispassionately. Extremes at both ends are odious - flexibility is the key. There are a lot of different parenting styles, most of which are perfectly satisfactory. Of course, there are neglectful parents and smothering parents, but most of us find a sensible middle ground.
I just love the way you write.
Wonderfully wise, honest, full of grace and common sense, skillfully and beautifully written... I am so grateful that Lea has the extraordinary gift of you and Brian as parents. I am thankful for the gift of you as well! Can't wait to see you!
I think I am the person who posed the attachment/wedding question to you, and I just wanted to say that I had no idea there was such a thing as "AP." I used the term "attachment" in its normal sense, not in its parenting lingo sense. Not that it matters, since it boils down to the same thing.
I've always been worried about people who blanketly refuse to get babysitters or go out without their children because I don't think it always serves the best interests of the family as a whole (meaning, parents need time for themselves, as both individuals and couples, too); this comes from personal experience. Hence my concern about the friend who didn't want to go to the wedding. Also, she instead suggested lunch to see me while I was in town, which was great, but it was the most obnoxious process to figure out where we could go -- the part of town I suggested was very hilly, which she suggested was not stroller-friendly, even though I was offering to push and we've both stumbled drunk up and down those hills in heels. And survived. So it would have been easier for ME if she had just come to the wedding :)
As an aside, I always imagine people with babies bringing them to weddings. I don't understand non-children weddings. How obnoxious can people get? I do understand parents not choosing to bring babies, but they should be allowed to if they want!
hwong, I don't think it is your place to decide what is in the best interest of someone else's family. Sure, parents need times for themselves and as a couple, but there are ways to find that without dropping kids off with a babysitter for the evening. My son is almost 2 and has only been left with "babysitters" (our parents) twice in his life--our relationship as a married couple has not suffered. We are happy with our decision to parent this way. We find out ways and times to spend time together and it's not a huge sacrifice to settle for watching movies at home instead of going out together. I'm not saying everyone has to parent this way, but for those of us that choose to, please don't look at us and make judgements saying that what we are doing is not in the best interest of our family. On the contrary, it is in the best interest for OUR family to spend these early years with our children as much as we can. Before we know it they'll be in highschool and college and I'll miss these days when I get to hold him in my arms.
The first few years of a child's life go by so fast. I don't see why it has to be viewed as negative to take a few years to put some of our own desires (like going out to a movie or dinner alone) on the backburner for such a short period of time. Our children won't be little forever, and leaving them with a stranger is just not something we are comfortable with.
Weddings are especially hard when you have to travel out of town. It is one thing to leave my child with a close family member or friend, but if I have to travel to another city where I don't have any friends or relatives (or all of them are at the wedding), I'm certainly not going to put my child in the hands of someone I don't even know. For the most part, if my child was invited I would be fine with bringing him to the wedding, but especially with a toddler the ceremony is probably not going to happen and I would never want my toddler to disrupt the service. A reception would be fine, but only for a short period of time.
And as far as your friend, sure it may have been easier for you if she had just come to your wedding..but the world doesn't revolve around you. And for a parent, yeah, they are going to choose caring for their children over events like wedding sometimes. It may not be easier for you, but they are the parents and if that is the choice they've made for their family, I think they know what is best for their child more than you would.
Well, here's the eternal problem with blogs, Annie: I'm not talking about "everyone" or even "you." Having a babysitter twice is more than none, which was the number of times I had a babysitter growing up, and do I think my parents could have had a better relationship if they had put us aside for even one night in 20 years? Absolutely. Do my parents think the same thing? Yup. Hence why I said that comment came from personal experience. You are highly mistaken if you think I was talking about you and your child and the number of times he has had a babysitter.
As for the wedding thing, you don't know my friend, you don't know the circumstances of the wedding she and I were invited to that launched this entire discussion, and you obviously don't understand the meaning of a smiley face, which indicates I'm joking that it would have been easier on me for her to attend the wedding. No kidding the world doesn't revolve around me. I realize that, thanks.
Just as you got offended by my comments, which were written in a highly generalized sense and not directed at anyone in particular, you should think about how the things you write could offend others as well.
No, I totally knew you didn't mean it as a parenting thing-- that's kinda why I brought it up, because I just remember being quietly amused at the time, realizing it was such a normal question. The term is so loaded in parenting circles, when it's just a completely ordinary word to everybody else. Hence the frenzied more-attached-than-thou panic some people find themselves in. It's really too bad.
Lea actually was invited to the pump-worthy wedding, but Brian couldn't go and I wouldn't have had any fun if I had had to wrangle her myself. Luckily, I haven't encountered too many situations where babies aren't welcome, so I haven't had to deal with this stuff much.
I hate to see my self-indulgent musings on my parenting journey turning into a debate. Really, I am just looking for an excuse to write, because I miss it, and parenting is the topic heavy on my mind and worth writing about. Oh well.
Oh yeah, and on the babysitter thing-- at this point, I just feel guilty about asking non-family to watch her, because she's so freaked out when she wakes up at night. (We learned the night of our anniversary how disastrous that can be...) I'm hoping that once she's verbal, it will be easier for someone to soothe her in those freaked-out times. But until then, ugh... it's just stressful to think about. (Another example of something that might seem like we have this "no babysitters!" policy, but it's really just a matter of routine and logistics and the hassle of switching those things up.) Still, once something becomes routine enough-- especially if it seems like an unusual routine to outsiders-- it's easy sometimes to start to get defensive of that routine, and when you defend something vociferously enough, it really DOES become ideology, whether or not it started out that way. At least that's how it seems to me among many people. And it's something I'm trying really hard to be conscious of, because I want to stay out of the dread "mommy wars."
All good points. While I think debate and discussion are good on blogs, I promise to try to incite fewer crazy debates on yours and to react less emotionally (even when other people call me out personally). Keep writing -- while everyone loves cute baby photos (and cat photos, I hope!), writing is wonderful for your brain and reading is wonderful for mine.
...and now a word from a high school teacher. Some of the kids walking the halls of my school are really, really obnoxious, most are okay, and some are truly, truly wonderful. And guess what? One of the best kids I've ever had has a coke addict for a parent and one of the most troubled has maybe the best parents I've ever met. So, without suggesting that we stop worrying altogether and just let the chips fall, I think we should all agree that most of our instincts about how to best handle our children's needs and our own are pretty reliable. Are there things I would have done differently? Yep. Do I lose sleep over that? Occasionally, but not often. I have long since learned not to judge other parents unless they are abusive and a danger to their children. I'm sad, sometimes, to see parents who don't show what I think is enough love, but most of those kids are resilient enough to get validated by others (teachers, often).
It does take a village. And I generally trust that village.
P, sorry for saying anything to encourage debate on your blog. I was merely trying to say that while I don't think everyone has to or even should parent the way we do, I hate to see people making generalized comments saying that people who make choices we have made are not doing what is in the best interest of our family. I know no one was referring specifically to me (how could they if they don't know me), but to see something we have decided to do as a family labeled as "not in the best interest" of our family definitely came across as a judgment.
It was especially relevant and ironic in my mind to your blog post because of the whole mommy wars thing. Yeah, there are the people who call cribs cages and put down anyone who chooses something other than cosleeping or never leaving their child's side, but then there are those who put down those who choose to stay at home or not get babysitters or breastfeeding past 1 year or whatever. It goes both way (as I'm sure you already know).
We need to stop deciding what is best for someone else's family, even if it is based on our own personal and true experience, and let other parents decide for themselves what is best for their family. Personally, I think generalized statements are worse than specific ones. It is one thing to say that in my experience with my child, doing xyz led to pqr, so we choose to abc instead. But to say that people in general who choose xyz will lead to pqr and should do abc instead is judgmental and deciding what is best for someone else's family.
And I am there with you about the babysitter situation. We've thought about getting someone to watch DS at night because he generally goes to bed at a regular time and sleeps for at least 3-4 hrs, so we could easily slip out for a movie..but what about those times when he does wake up and he is inconsolable. We'd have to rush home and in the meantime, wow, poor baby and poor babysitter! Logistically it's just not a great idea at this time. We also don't have family in the area so it's hard to say, here take care of my super high needs toddler and if he starts crying you may as well call and interrupt us because there's probably nothing you can do about it. I am not a routine person at all, but I've found my son thrives on an evening routine and we just aren't interested in messing with that.
In any case, I find your blog thought provoking and interesting so please keep writing.
Thanks everyone for chiming in. I have more to say on the topic but that will come later.
This is obviously a heated topic and that's why I wrote about it. But I think sometimes in the interest of cultivating a snappy writing style, I can come across as a little more "take that!" than I mean to. Really, this stuff can feel so raw whatever your parenting angle, so it's just a hard topic.
I wish I had written this. Great post.
Post a Comment