In parenting, there seem to be two major camps. Well, three. There is the Attachment Parenting camp - headed up by Dr. Sears and his wife Nurse Sears - they have like 10 kids, some with special needs, and some adopted. He's a pediatrician, she's a nurse and lactation consultant. Seems like they probably know a thing or two. Their whole thing is being CLOSE with your baby, physically. Breastfeeding is a must, co-sleeping (baby in the bed with mom) is recommended, and "wearing" your baby in a sling or carrier is a big part of it. Bonding is emphasized. Staying home with the baby as opposed to working is preferred although they do make recommendations for how to deal if you cannot do that. The baby lets you know when he or she is hungry. The baby decides when he or she will sleep. If baby cries, you go to him or her and even if nothing is wrong, you hold the baby until he or she is comforted. Basically, the baby is running the show and you, as the parent are responding. The trouble with this method is that if you aren't a stay at home mom, it's difficult to fully commit to it. Additionally, some people are uncomfortable with co-cleeping. Finally - responding at your baby's every grunt, whine or cry is truly exhausting. There is pretty solid research to back up a lot of this stuff - such that I am about 70% sure that if the ONLY factor you are considering is your baby's sense of security and wellbeing, this is probably the best mothod to follow. Not everyone buys into this, and even for those who accept the research that is presented, this is not realistic for everyone due to lifestyle, finances, preferences and safety/comfort level.
At the other end of the spectrum, there are a few authors (I hesitate to call any of these people "experts" which I'll get into in a moment) that suggest that the worst thing you can do is make your baby the center of your world. Your marriage will be destroyed, your sex life will cease. You will end up raising a selfish, bratty kid. So, instead of "babying" your baby, you "train" them. You train them to eat when you want them to, sleep when you want them to and you let them cry until they can't cry anymore (so you don't "teach" them to cry to get you to respond.) This advice is presented in benign language like "get them on a schedule." I hear a lot of people espousing this idea and swearing it is the key to a happy life parenting. However, there are real concerns with some of this stuff - there is evidence to suggest that allowing babies to "cry it out" especially when they are very young will flood their little brains with cortisol, a stress hormone which, if triggered frequently, can lead to all sorts of bad things (impaired ability to learn/form memories, high blood pressure, even diabetes and obesity.)
Additionally, if you think about it - if you let a baby cry it out, what you are teaching them is that when they use the ONE method of communication they have available to them, that you will not respond. You are teaching them that their voice is ineffective. Also, I read something about this recently that made me want to cry and barf at the same time...a baby who "cries it out" and then is quiet (being a fairly simple-minded creature with no understasnding of object or people permanence...i.e. when you walk away, your very young baby has no idea that you will be coming back - you no longer exist to them) has basically come to the conclusion that they are alone in the world and must conserve energy to survive. Holy God in heaven, I would rather chop off my foot than let my baby feel that way!!! I have also read that a baby that has "cried it out" and become quiet and a "good baby" may actually be depressed. Arghghggh! A depressed baby! However...at 4am, when the baby has been fed, burped, swaddled and has a clean diaper and yet is wailing for no apparent reason despite being held, rocked, sung to and patted for 45 minutes...setting them in the crib, putting in some earplugs and going to sleep is extremely tempting (no, AP freaks, I haven't done this, nor will I.)
Are you starting to see how stressful this is? Not just the having the baby, taking care of the baby....but the decisions about what to do and how to handle things? It almost feels like you have to torture yourself to do what's right for your baby or you have to torture your baby to allow yourself some sanity.
Then there is the camp that believes that either extreme is bad, weird or just plain crazy and therfore rejects all of these ideas and just kind of parents from the heart and mind (or perhaps just does what their mother tells them to do) or takes a little of this and a little of that from whatever they come across. I find myself falling into this camp, as you may have guessed.
Part of the reason I feel cynical toward these so called "experts" is because I am beginning to suspect that a lot of them are simply preying on young, inexperienced parents who are desperate for help, guidance and the elusive "magic bullet" (this is one of many things I like about Dr. Sears and family - they don't claim to have too many easy ways out of the tough job of parenting...their philosophy seems to be to try to find joy in even the most dull and difficult of tasks.) On the one hand, there is research, knowledge and experience that we'd be stupid to totally ignore. On the other hand, each baby, household and parent is different.
I am all for trying different things suggested by these authors - for example, last week I tried "babywearing" for a while. Cassidy kind of likes to be worn in a sling or carrier, but not so much that it always calms her down if she's fussy. Besides - our backs hurt for most of the rest of the day if we carry her around for an hour or two. Maybe shen she's big enough to go in a back-pack type carrier it won't be so shoulder-straining. As another example, I'm on this kick where I'm trying to get her to follow the pattern eat-play/awake-sleep. I think there is something to this idea (described in the book Babywise, which a lot of people really hate, somewhat for good reason.) Babywise has been revised in recent years and supposedly had taken out much of the more controversial parts, like the parts where it commanded parents to ignore their screaming babies and refuse to feed them until it was time to according to a rigid schedule. Obviously, that is a bad idea.
The part that intrigues me, though, is this eat-play-sleep thing plus feeding every 2..5-3 hours during the day. It is very easy to naturally let your baby fall asleep after eating - they get that drunky milk-coma look like this...
and off they go to dreamland. But by keeping them awake after eating, you teach them to not rely on feeding as the thing that puts them to sleep. That part is not what is so interesting to me - the part that is interesting is the idea that she should be eating, then awake for 30-45 minutes and then back to sleep for 1.5 - 2hours. Basically, I am pretty sure Cassidy is not sleeping enough and it is making her OVERtired and cranky. This is a way of trying to prompt that she gets more sleep. I am neither going to deny her food if she seems hungry before 2.5 hours, nor am I going to wake her up if she is still sleeping after two hours. However, just in this one day that we've been trying this, I've noticed a difference - she has gone down for a nap twice without me holding her - this is a HUGE victory for us because the last week, she has only been cat napping and usually only if I am holding her. Of course, who knows....she may be up all night now.
Hope not.
No comments:
Post a Comment