Mommy Wars

We all have different experiences and ideas about parenting. Lately, I have been visiting the various comment sections on parenting blogs and news articles and I am astonished to find all too often that anyone with a difference in opinion is flogged until they either tire of leaning on deaf ears or retreat in fear of the monster-mommies. See Exhibit A & Exhibit B.

I am not sure of the reason for such hostility toward attachment parenting and especially anyone who might want to parent under that theory. Of course I've only been a mom for 1109 days now, so while I’m well versed in the theory, I'm kinda new to the actual reality of parenting.

Here’s what my left brain is thinking –

Attachment parenting, also referred to as unconditional or conscious parenting is not a set of rules for parents - it is a set of beliefs about children. There is no club and I don't think that there are any AP ribbons or pins because I have not received one.

After wading through the parenting articles and opinions and being simultaneously amused and alarmed, my hope now is that parents will begin to share their experiences and refrain from name-calling others (and their children) who may differ in style or opinion.

Since when is it okay to generalize attachment parented kids as “bratty?” That is just childish.

I think that there is a lot of new brain science behind attachment theory and so, there have been many new advocates (and opponents) looking to spread information. Much of it feels instinctual to parents because it's how the brain grows best and that should be instinctual but there are no parameters that make one an "attachment parent" or not.

So, why do some parents go into attack mode, losing all rationality, disputing experience and science just because someone has an alternate view of parenting?

When we react defensively, our ego speaks and no one hears us anyway. We should be proud of our parenting choices and rally around others when they find something new that works (or doesn't). It doesn't mean we change our beliefs (but maybe we do) but that we allow others to have their own experience and perhaps allow ourselves to learn something new in the process.

Ultimately we choose what works for us and what upholds our family values best. But that doesn't mean we should rail against any alternative information. Just filter and file and smile… or discard if need be.

Humanity is evolving, it's only natural that parenting cultural practices are too.

Dissed for Dissin' Supernanny

What the 'eff is going on?

I had originally championed New Zealand in their child advocacy role on my Facebook page after reading School 'no place' Supernanny techniques, an article about Pauline Bishop, a lecturer who rebuked the idea that the tools of the dominant paradigm (naughty step, time-outs, praise etc...) should be used in schools. Well, duh.

But apparently down under, Pauline Bishop was not as lauded by others as she was by me, including Dr. Sarah Farquhar, the chief executive of the Early Childhood Council, who told the NZ Herald that Bishop's remarks were "a bit off."

The article goes on to quote Dr. Farquhar as saying, "This appears to have provoked quite a response and so far no one who has contacted me about this agrees with Pauline Bishop…."

Although I am not from New Zealand, I contacted Dr. Farquhar to let her know that I agree with Ms. Bishop and I can name dozens of child development experts, educators and authors who would not only agree with Ms. Bishop but who would take it even so far as to assert that these methods should not be used in schools OR in homes.

I find this all so ironic because one of the great contributors to this work in my home city of Los Angeles is New Zealand native, Ruth Beaglehole. She and her Center for Non-Violent Education & Parenting would certainly agree with Ms. Bishop.

The paradigm is shifting - the behavioral view of children is out-dated, emotionally insufficient and potentially harmful. There have been numerous studies proving the long-term, damaging consequences to a child’s emotional intelligence because of dominant paradigm thinking.

Punishment, reward systems, praise and time-outs – these are the tools of a control, rule-based system that demands obedience without regard for a child’s feelings or needs - a system shown to negatively impact the success, self-esteem and intrinsic motivation of children and most importantly the emotional connection to their primary caregiver which affects brain growth and the development of crucial neural pathways.

In this day and age, I am still astonished to find educators who are not aware of or aligned with this view of child development. Alfie Kohn, Daniel Siegel, Naomi Aldort, Dr. Brazelton, Marshall Rosenberg, Joseph Chilton Pearce, John Gottman, Meredith Small, Lise Eliot, Robin Grille, Alice Miller, Sura Hart & Victoria Kindle Hodson, Barbara Coloroso & David Elkind are but a few who have written extensively on this topic.

Pauline Bishop is not alone in her thinking.

I urge Dr. Farquhar to further explore these concepts and begin to lead her community toward a non-violent future because our children deserve the best.

Persuasion through Love

This is how a sixteen-year-old FLDS member described the method of parenting used at El Dorado Texas compound, when questioned by Oprah - wait Oprah? Yes, Oprah.

Anyway, Oprah seemed surprised to learn that the children were not "disciplined" with spankings, rods, or corporal punishment of any kind.

I guess it's a fair assumption that biblical followers do not spare the rod, then again I don't think the Amish hit their kids, but I digress.

The circle of girls with the bouffant 'dos giggled at Oprah's exaggerated look of shock and then a sweet-mannered, rosy cheeked teen clarified the experience for her, "its persuasion through love," she announced. Oprah was stunned.

Now that's a parenting style I can get behind. Okay maybe persuasion isn't the best word, it's sort of like coercion through love but at least it's LOVE, people! It's a step in the right direction. Let the record state that while I don't exactly like the word persuasion - it's a helluva lot better than "beat" which is what way too many parents are resorting to lately.

Considering my fascination with cults of any kind and the damaging psychological impact of culty behavior on children, I never thought I'd promote another religious extreme and their parenting ethic - but hey, at least they're protecting the brain growth of their children. They're actually helping make the connections that will lead to later brain functioning like logic and reasoning, things I suspect they would do well to have.

So for all you anti-polygamy types, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (shouldn't they really be called the FCJCLDS?) may be a cult by definition and have some questionable hair practices but at least they're nice to their kids!