http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/04/dont-think-of-ugly-people-how-parenting-advice-has-changed/275108/
QuoteFrom 1916's The Mother and her Child by Drs. Lena and William Sadler: "Handle the baby as little as possible. Turn it occasionally from side to side, feed it, change it, keep it warm, and let it alone; crying is absolutely essential to the development of good strong lungs. A baby should cry vigorously several times each day."
As the child grew, regulated contact could be tolerated. "At the age of two weeks, the child may be systematically carried about in the arms 2 to 3 times a day, as a means of furnishing additional change in position," is the precise advice of Dr. JP Crozer Griffith in 1900.
Even bowel movements were regimented. "Children under one year of age should have two movements of the bowels in the twenty-four hours, and those from one to three years at least one stool a day," wrote Napheys. Should the baby not conform to these healthy perimeters, the same books prescribed any number of enemas, draughts, and oils to make things more shipshape.
As for "crying it out," the advice of the early manuals was unanimous. A spoiled baby will be miserable its entire life, prone to hysterics and weakness, unable to cope with the life's hard turns. And the first and worst way to spoil a baby is to hold it when it cries. Per the Sadlers:
We run into many snags when we undertake to discipline the nervous baby. The first is that it will sometimes cry so hard that it will get black in the face and may even have a convulsion; occasionally a small blood vessel may be ruptured on some part of the body, usually the face. When you see the little one approaching this point, turn it over and administer a sound spanking and it will instantly catch its breath.
Feeling dizzy? Bad humors. Apply the leeches.
AT THE AGE OF THREE, PLACE THE CHILD IN A CAGE. IF THE CHILD ACTS OUT, POKE IT THROUGH THE BARS WITH A SHARP STICK. PAPA WANTS NO SISSIES.
That was the advice my much older father gave my much younger mother in raising my infant self. AND I AM NOW THE VERY MODEL OF EMOTIONAL MATURITY AND MENTAL STABILITY!!!
I do have pretty strong lungs though (all inhalants considered) so maybe they *were* on to something there.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on April 19, 2013, 09:50:50 PM
That was the advice my much older father gave my much younger mother in raising my infant self. AND I AM NOW THE VERY MODEL OF EMOTIONAL MATURITY AND MENTAL STABILITY!!!
I do have pretty strong lungs though (all inhalants considered) so maybe they *were* on to something there.
:horrormirth:
I still think crying some is good for a baby. There's really 3 things a baby cries for, hunger, a full diaper, and wanting attention. The first two should be dealt with immediately, the third, well, I'm not saying you should never give your baby attention, you should usually do so, but leaving him or her alone now and then gives him or her coping skills and the ability to self soothe.
Quote from: Pergamos on April 20, 2013, 04:34:30 AM
I still think crying some is good for a baby. There's really 3 things a baby cries for, hunger, a full diaper, and wanting attention. The first two should be dealt with immediately, the third, well, I'm not saying you should never give your baby attention, you should usually do so, but leaving him or her alone now and then gives him or her coping skills and the ability to self soothe.
After 3 months or so, they should be given a chance to learn to self-soothe, yes. Not alone, just not picking them up immediately. Before that it's just cruel.
Babies are fuckin' weird.
Recent study shows that babies are fuckin' weird. They demand basic human needs like food, clothes, shelter, medicine, and affection, and really, how are we supposed to deal with that shit?
When interviewed, 9 out of 10 Americans report that their baby cries when it's "hungry" or "lonely" or "experiencing emotions that most adults still don't have a healthy grasp over." Pressed on their emotional shortcomings, people are most likely to dismiss such things as "the way it's always been" and "just how things are."
Quote from: Pergamos on April 20, 2013, 04:34:30 AM
I still think crying some is good for a baby. There's really 3 things a baby cries for, hunger, a full diaper, and wanting attention. The first two should be dealt with immediately, the third, well, I'm not saying you should never give your baby attention, you should usually do so, but leaving him or her alone now and then gives him or her coping skills and the ability to self soothe.
How many kids do you have?
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 20, 2013, 04:50:27 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on April 20, 2013, 04:34:30 AM
I still think crying some is good for a baby. There's really 3 things a baby cries for, hunger, a full diaper, and wanting attention. The first two should be dealt with immediately, the third, well, I'm not saying you should never give your baby attention, you should usually do so, but leaving him or her alone now and then gives him or her coping skills and the ability to self soothe.
After 3 months or so, they should be given a chance to learn to self-soothe, yes. Not alone, just not picking them up immediately. Before that it's just cruel.
This.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on April 20, 2013, 05:01:30 AM
Babies are fuckin' weird.
Recent study shows that babies are fuckin' weird. They demand basic human needs like food, clothes, shelter, medicine, and affection, and really, how are we supposed to deal with that shit?
When interviewed, 9 out of 10 Americans report that their baby cries when it's "hungry" or "lonely" or "experiencing emotions that most adults still don't have a healthy grasp over." Pressed on their emotional shortcomings, people are most likely to dismiss such things as "the way it's always been" and "just how things are."
THIS.
Babies need to be given sugar, drugs and alcohol so they can learn to self-soothe like everyone else.
:lulz:
Quote from: Xicked on April 20, 2013, 06:11:23 AM
Babies need to be given sugar, drugs and alcohol so they can learn to self-soothe like everyone else.
:spittake:
Newsfeed!
Quote from: Xicked on April 20, 2013, 06:11:23 AM
Babies need to be given sugar, drugs and alcohol so they can learn to self-soothe like everyone else.
:potd:
Quote from: Xicked on April 20, 2013, 06:11:23 AM
Babies need to be given sugar, drugs and alcohol so they can learn to self-soothe like everyone else.
This explains the mix of 7-Up and NyQuil so often seen in the bottles of babies.
Nigel, what are your thoughts on attachment parenting?
I have a friend who has done that for like, 2 years with her wee boy (2).
Quote from: Pixie on April 20, 2013, 10:39:16 AM
Nigel, what are your thoughts on attachment parenting?
I have a friend who has done that for like, 2 years with her wee boy (2).
I am all about it.
I have mentioned before that when I was preparing to become a parent I looked around at all the parents I knew who had happy, healthy, well-adjusted older kids, and at the happy well-adjusted young adults with good relationships with their parents, and asked them questions about parenting. It turned out that across the board, the people who were turning out really well were attachment parented by parents with an accepting, flexible, involved, and authoritative style.
I attachment parented all my children (or, I guess I'm still doing it) and practicing authoritative parenting. So far, I'm really happy with how my kids are responding to it. I think that really strong sense of security and attachment early in life helps them to build trusting relationships and, seemingly paradoxically, to be better able to find their independence later on.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 20, 2013, 04:50:27 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on April 20, 2013, 04:34:30 AM
I still think crying some is good for a baby. There's really 3 things a baby cries for, hunger, a full diaper, and wanting attention. The first two should be dealt with immediately, the third, well, I'm not saying you should never give your baby attention, you should usually do so, but leaving him or her alone now and then gives him or her coping skills and the ability to self soothe.
After 3 months or so, they should be given a chance to learn to self-soothe, yes. Not alone, just not picking them up immediately. Before that it's just cruel.
That's what I thought too. But NOT at 2 weeks. That's straight up fucking abandonment.
Quote from: Pixie on April 20, 2013, 10:39:16 AM
Nigel, what are your thoughts on attachment parenting?
I define it as simply "parenting".
I mean, to me, it's the only option.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 21, 2013, 07:33:00 AM
Quote from: Pixie on April 20, 2013, 10:39:16 AM
Nigel, what are your thoughts on attachment parenting?
I define it as simply "parenting".
I mean, to me, it's the only option.
I agree.
Some disjointed thoughts:
I didn't realize that what I am doing was considered 'attachment parenting'; I just do what feels like the most intuitive way to parent. If no one ever read a parenting book, everyone would be doing this. Parents get a lot of pressure from people, doctors included, to force their babies to conform to a scheduled lifestyle of specific feeding times and doing whatever it takes to force them to sleep through the night on their own. So many doctors do not know anything about the more recent research involving infants, and too few encourage and support breastfeeding.
There should be more support for mothers. In Canada a parent can usually get one year of paid maternity leave (around 60% of their salary). I believe in the U.S. they only have three months? I can't really blame a mother who has to be at a full-time job for seeking out help with sleep and feeding. I wouldn't be surprised if the main intention behind most of these 'parenting solutions' is to get people back into the work force ASAP (and to sell a crap book).
This makes me sad, and I wonder how many millions of people have been/are being raised this way:
http://www.askdrsears.com/topics/attachment-parenting/unconnected-child
Quote
Suppose parents, for fear of spoiling their baby or letting her manipulate them, restrain themselves from responding to her cries and develop a more distant, low-touch style of parenting. What happens then? The baby must either cry harder and more disturbingly to get her needs met or give up and withdraw. In either case, she finds that her caregiving world is not responsive. Eventually, since her cues are not responded to, she learns not to give cues. She senses something is missing in her life. She becomes angry and either outwardly hostile or withdrawn. In the first case, the baby is not very nice to be around, and parents find ways to avoid her. In the second case, the baby is harder to connect with, and again, parents and child enjoy each other less. Either way, this child will be difficult to discipline. She comes to believe that safety and security depend on no one but herself. Problems in relationships develop when a child grows up thinking she only has herself to trust in. Since the parents don't allow themselves to respond intuitively to their baby's cues, they become less sensitive and lose confidence in their parenting skills.
As the unconnected child gets older, much of his time is spent in misbehavior, and he is on the receiving end of constant reprimands; or he tunes out and seems to live in his own separate world. This child becomes known as sullen, a brat, a whiner, or a spoiled kid. These undesirable behaviors are really coping strategies the child uses in search of a connection. The unconnected child doesn't know how to regain a sense of well-being because he has no yardstick to measure attachment. He has difficulty finding a connection because he isn't sure what he lost.
Bring on the Ritalin.
Whenever 'attachment parents' are shown on TV they often seem a little crazy, and their parenting is portrayed in a negative light. Somehow the label 'attachment parent' has been twisted to mean parents who are on the extreme side of it, ie. they're against the use of strollers and cribs, indefinite bed-sharing, long-term extended breastfeeding, etc. Anyone I've met who calls themselves an attachment parent has these ideals. None of these things are inherently bad, but I think some parents take it too far and think that meeting their child's needs means never saying "no."
It is a little sad that co-sleeping is so discouraged. I doubt any other mammals give birth and then make the baby sleep alone at the other end of the den.
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on April 20, 2013, 07:12:22 AM
Quote from: Xicked on April 20, 2013, 06:11:23 AM
Babies need to be given sugar, drugs and alcohol so they can learn to self-soothe like everyone else.
This explains the mix of 7-Up and NyQuil so often seen in the bottles of babies.
(http://images.dangerousminds.net/uploads/images/Seven-Up_Baby_1955_Duke_U_thumb.jpg)
(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSJMvLk8Uq_f0on9q2P4F-QLzMtW5u_sGNUzcaJg243BXcBqlbx3g)
It's a thing. Sad but true.
Quote from: Xicked on April 21, 2013, 09:39:56 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 21, 2013, 07:33:00 AM
Quote from: Pixie on April 20, 2013, 10:39:16 AM
Nigel, what are your thoughts on attachment parenting?
I define it as simply "parenting".
I mean, to me, it's the only option.
I agree.
Some disjointed thoughts:
I didn't realize that what I am doing was considered 'attachment parenting'; I just do what feels like the most intuitive way to parent. If no one ever read a parenting book, everyone would be doing this. Parents get a lot of pressure from people, doctors included, to force their babies to conform to a scheduled lifestyle of specific feeding times and doing whatever it takes to force them to sleep through the night on their own. So many doctors do not know anything about the more recent research involving infants, and too few encourage and support breastfeeding.
There should be more support for mothers. In Canada a parent can usually get one year of paid maternity leave (around 60% of their salary). I believe in the U.S. they only have three months? I can't really blame a mother who has to be at a full-time job for seeking out help with sleep and feeding. I wouldn't be surprised if the main intention behind most of these 'parenting solutions' is to get people back into the work force ASAP (and to sell a crap book).
This makes me sad, and I wonder how many millions of people have been/are being raised this way:
http://www.askdrsears.com/topics/attachment-parenting/unconnected-child
Quote
Suppose parents, for fear of spoiling their baby or letting her manipulate them, restrain themselves from responding to her cries and develop a more distant, low-touch style of parenting. What happens then? The baby must either cry harder and more disturbingly to get her needs met or give up and withdraw. In either case, she finds that her caregiving world is not responsive. Eventually, since her cues are not responded to, she learns not to give cues. She senses something is missing in her life. She becomes angry and either outwardly hostile or withdrawn. In the first case, the baby is not very nice to be around, and parents find ways to avoid her. In the second case, the baby is harder to connect with, and again, parents and child enjoy each other less. Either way, this child will be difficult to discipline. She comes to believe that safety and security depend on no one but herself. Problems in relationships develop when a child grows up thinking she only has herself to trust in. Since the parents don't allow themselves to respond intuitively to their baby's cues, they become less sensitive and lose confidence in their parenting skills.
As the unconnected child gets older, much of his time is spent in misbehavior, and he is on the receiving end of constant reprimands; or he tunes out and seems to live in his own separate world. This child becomes known as sullen, a brat, a whiner, or a spoiled kid. These undesirable behaviors are really coping strategies the child uses in search of a connection. The unconnected child doesn't know how to regain a sense of well-being because he has no yardstick to measure attachment. He has difficulty finding a connection because he isn't sure what he lost.
Bring on the Ritalin.
Whenever 'attachment parents' are shown on TV they often seem a little crazy, and their parenting is portrayed in a negative light. Somehow the label 'attachment parent' has been twisted to mean parents who are on the extreme side of it, ie. they're against the use of strollers and cribs, indefinite bed-sharing, long-term extended breastfeeding, etc. Anyone I've met who calls themselves an attachment parent has these ideals. None of these things are inherently bad, but I think some parents take it too far and think that meeting their child's needs means never saying "no."
It is a little sad that co-sleeping is so discouraged. I doubt any other mammals give birth and then make the baby sleep alone at the other end of the den.
My friend Jenn does the co-sleeping and carrier thing. the babby in question has started to want more independence, and she got a stroller that faces her because her back was hurting from the carrying.
I read a bunch of (conflicting) stuff and ended up just playing it by ear. I didn't do "schedules". When they cried, I picked them up and figured out why. Duhr. They still got a chance to figure out "self-soothing" because sometimes you're tending to the other kid, in the middle of cooking and need to wash the jalapeno juice off your hands before handling a baby or just taking a shit, FFS. A minute is probably an eternity for a crying baby anyway.
My friend did the co-sleeping, she also did late lactation, which I personally find odd, but I don't judge her for it as I do not have children so my opinion is moot. She said when her kids were done, they were done. End of story. She said most of them finished nursing by 2 of 3.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 21, 2013, 07:33:00 AM
Quote from: Pixie on April 20, 2013, 10:39:16 AM
Nigel, what are your thoughts on attachment parenting?
I define it as simply "parenting".
I mean, to me, it's the only option.
Yep.
Quote from: Xicked on April 21, 2013, 09:39:56 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 21, 2013, 07:33:00 AM
Quote from: Pixie on April 20, 2013, 10:39:16 AM
Nigel, what are your thoughts on attachment parenting?
I define it as simply "parenting".
I mean, to me, it's the only option.
I agree.
Some disjointed thoughts:
I didn't realize that what I am doing was considered 'attachment parenting'; I just do what feels like the most intuitive way to parent. If no one ever read a parenting book, everyone would be doing this. Parents get a lot of pressure from people, doctors included, to force their babies to conform to a scheduled lifestyle of specific feeding times and doing whatever it takes to force them to sleep through the night on their own. So many doctors do not know anything about the more recent research involving infants, and too few encourage and support breastfeeding.
There should be more support for mothers. In Canada a parent can usually get one year of paid maternity leave (around 60% of their salary). I believe in the U.S. they only have three months? I can't really blame a mother who has to be at a full-time job for seeking out help with sleep and feeding. I wouldn't be surprised if the main intention behind most of these 'parenting solutions' is to get people back into the work force ASAP (and to sell a crap book).
This makes me sad, and I wonder how many millions of people have been/are being raised this way:
http://www.askdrsears.com/topics/attachment-parenting/unconnected-child
Quote
Suppose parents, for fear of spoiling their baby or letting her manipulate them, restrain themselves from responding to her cries and develop a more distant, low-touch style of parenting. What happens then? The baby must either cry harder and more disturbingly to get her needs met or give up and withdraw. In either case, she finds that her caregiving world is not responsive. Eventually, since her cues are not responded to, she learns not to give cues. She senses something is missing in her life. She becomes angry and either outwardly hostile or withdrawn. In the first case, the baby is not very nice to be around, and parents find ways to avoid her. In the second case, the baby is harder to connect with, and again, parents and child enjoy each other less. Either way, this child will be difficult to discipline. She comes to believe that safety and security depend on no one but herself. Problems in relationships develop when a child grows up thinking she only has herself to trust in. Since the parents don't allow themselves to respond intuitively to their baby's cues, they become less sensitive and lose confidence in their parenting skills.
As the unconnected child gets older, much of his time is spent in misbehavior, and he is on the receiving end of constant reprimands; or he tunes out and seems to live in his own separate world. This child becomes known as sullen, a brat, a whiner, or a spoiled kid. These undesirable behaviors are really coping strategies the child uses in search of a connection. The unconnected child doesn't know how to regain a sense of well-being because he has no yardstick to measure attachment. He has difficulty finding a connection because he isn't sure what he lost.
Bring on the Ritalin.
Whenever 'attachment parents' are shown on TV they often seem a little crazy, and their parenting is portrayed in a negative light. Somehow the label 'attachment parent' has been twisted to mean parents who are on the extreme side of it, ie. they're against the use of strollers and cribs, indefinite bed-sharing, long-term extended breastfeeding, etc. Anyone I've met who calls themselves an attachment parent has these ideals. None of these things are inherently bad, but I think some parents take it too far and think that meeting their child's needs means never saying "no."
It is a little sad that co-sleeping is so discouraged. I doubt any other mammals give birth and then make the baby sleep alone at the other end of the den.
In the US, parental leave is 12 weeks, does not have to be paid, and only one parent gets it.
And I also agree that the media only seems to fixate on the people who take it to an extreme, like co-sleeping until their kids are teenagers and nursing until they're ten.
I think that part of it is that as attachment parenting becomes the new normal, the people who have to be special snowflakes and do everything better than everyone else push the fringe farther and farther out. Oh, now it's normal (and WHO-recommended) to nurse until two? I'll nurse until SIX.
All my kids were just over a year when they weaned, and it was a combination of them kind of losing interest (having other things to do and eat, getting tired, falling asleep without nursing, sleeping through the night) and me being ready to have more freedom as a mom. So I wouldn't automatically nurse before bed, I would make them ask for it, and if they forgot, well... after a couple days my milk would dry up. The end.
They all slept in my bed for basically as long as I could stand to be kicked, or about two to three years. Then in a bed next to the bed, then in their own rooms. As long as they knew I was there for them, they were fine. And sometimes they would want to crawl into bed with me in the middle of the night if they woke up, just like all kids everywhere have done for ever.
See, what "attachment parenting" means to me is you pay the kid all kinds of attention (note that this doesn't mean "no discipline", it just means you consider the kid(s) the priority).
You play with them, you sit and read with them, Sit with them when they do their homework (early on), and when they're into their teens, you include them in things, but leave lots of room for them to do what most teens want to do (which involves their friends a good chunk of the time).
In short, you get involved with your children.
That sounds like normal parenting, to me.
It sounds like an entirely different planet to me. My dad doesn't even know my full name or what hand I write with.
I think if I were going to have kids, I'd go the attachment parenting way, since it sounds damn near utopian and I have first hand experience that the hands-off approach doesn't work.
There are a great many people convinced that negative reinforcement is positive motivation and I don't understand that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/nyregion/babys-latest-going-diaperless-at-home-or-even-in-the-park.html?_r=3&
QuoteWhen Jada Shapiro decided to raise her daughter from birth without diapers, for the most part, not everyone was amused. Ms. Shapiro scattered little bowls around the house to catch her daughter's offerings, and her sister insisted that she use a big, dark marker to mark the bowls so that they could never find their way back to the kitchen.
"My sister wasn't a huge fan," she said on Thursday.
But "elimination communication," as the diaper-free method of child-rearing is called, is finding an audience in the hipper precincts of New York City.
Ms. Shapiro, who is a doula, a birth and child-rearing coach, says it is practically now a job qualification to at least be able to offer diaper-free training as an option to clients. Caribou Baby, an "eco-friendly maternity, baby and lifestyle store" on the border of artsy Greenpoint and Williamsburg, has been drawing capacity crowds to its diaper-free "Meetups," where parents exchange tips like how to get a baby to urinate on the street between parked cars.
Parents are drawn to the method as a way of preserving the environment from the ravages of disposable diapers, as well as reducing the laundering of cloth diapers and preventing diaper rash. Many of them like the thought that they are rediscovering an ancient practice used in other cultures, though they tend to gloss over the fact that many of those cultures had never heard of Pampers. But mostly, they say, they like feeling more in touch with their babies' most intimate functions.
I highly doubt I will ever understand the fascination with children. Given the above, I really don't want to either. You can keep the ghastly bastards.
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 22, 2013, 10:47:48 AM
But mostly, they say, they like feeling more in touch with their babies' most intimate functions.
[/quote]
Then they should just collect it up and roll in it. :lulz:
...there's limits to everything. I think that's one of them.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 22, 2013, 01:55:02 AM
See, what "attachment parenting" means to me is you pay the kid all kinds of attention (note that this doesn't mean "no discipline", it just means you consider the kid(s) the priority).
You play with them, you sit and read with them, Sit with them when they do their homework (early on), and when they're into their teens, you include them in things, but leave lots of room for them to do what most teens want to do (which involves their friends a good chunk of the time).
In short, you get involved with your children.
Yeah.
Starting from birth, you let them know you're there for them and stay close enough that they form a secure attachment.
Pretty basic stuff, but coming out of the "don't pick yuor baby up" era, it seemed pretty revolutionary. I mean, the fact that my mom breastfed was WEIRD in her day.
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 22, 2013, 10:47:48 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/nyregion/babys-latest-going-diaperless-at-home-or-even-in-the-park.html?_r=3&
QuoteWhen Jada Shapiro decided to raise her daughter from birth without diapers, for the most part, not everyone was amused. Ms. Shapiro scattered little bowls around the house to catch her daughter's offerings, and her sister insisted that she use a big, dark marker to mark the bowls so that they could never find their way back to the kitchen.
"My sister wasn't a huge fan," she said on Thursday.
But "elimination communication," as the diaper-free method of child-rearing is called, is finding an audience in the hipper precincts of New York City.
Ms. Shapiro, who is a doula, a birth and child-rearing coach, says it is practically now a job qualification to at least be able to offer diaper-free training as an option to clients. Caribou Baby, an "eco-friendly maternity, baby and lifestyle store" on the border of artsy Greenpoint and Williamsburg, has been drawing capacity crowds to its diaper-free "Meetups," where parents exchange tips like how to get a baby to urinate on the street between parked cars.
Parents are drawn to the method as a way of preserving the environment from the ravages of disposable diapers, as well as reducing the laundering of cloth diapers and preventing diaper rash. Many of them like the thought that they are rediscovering an ancient practice used in other cultures, though they tend to gloss over the fact that many of those cultures had never heard of Pampers. But mostly, they say, they like feeling more in touch with their babies' most intimate functions.
I highly doubt I will ever understand the fascination with children. Given the above, I really don't want to either. You can keep the ghastly bastards.
You used to be one.
There are advantages to going diaper-free. That said, I see it mostly as an option for country-living hippies, or spoiled yuppies who have lots of free time and want to feel special.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 22, 2013, 04:58:47 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 22, 2013, 10:47:48 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/nyregion/babys-latest-going-diaperless-at-home-or-even-in-the-park.html?_r=3&
QuoteWhen Jada Shapiro decided to raise her daughter from birth without diapers, for the most part, not everyone was amused. Ms. Shapiro scattered little bowls around the house to catch her daughter's offerings, and her sister insisted that she use a big, dark marker to mark the bowls so that they could never find their way back to the kitchen.
"My sister wasn't a huge fan," she said on Thursday.
But "elimination communication," as the diaper-free method of child-rearing is called, is finding an audience in the hipper precincts of New York City.
Ms. Shapiro, who is a doula, a birth and child-rearing coach, says it is practically now a job qualification to at least be able to offer diaper-free training as an option to clients. Caribou Baby, an "eco-friendly maternity, baby and lifestyle store" on the border of artsy Greenpoint and Williamsburg, has been drawing capacity crowds to its diaper-free "Meetups," where parents exchange tips like how to get a baby to urinate on the street between parked cars.
Parents are drawn to the method as a way of preserving the environment from the ravages of disposable diapers, as well as reducing the laundering of cloth diapers and preventing diaper rash. Many of them like the thought that they are rediscovering an ancient practice used in other cultures, though they tend to gloss over the fact that many of those cultures had never heard of Pampers. But mostly, they say, they like feeling more in touch with their babies' most intimate functions.
I highly doubt I will ever understand the fascination with children. Given the above, I really don't want to either. You can keep the ghastly bastards.
You used to be one.
There are advantages to going diaper-free. That said, I see it mostly as an option for country-living hippies, or spoiled yuppies who have lots of free time and want to feel special.
I wouldn't care if they'd clean up after their kids, in public places. I mean, you gotta pick up after your dogs - why not your kids? Lady lifted her kid up to pee in one of our sinks. Kid had dirty bare feet and splashed all over the counter and the sink and the floor. She just walked out and didn't tell anyone. Next person that went in there lost their shit.
Granted, that's only one example. I can see it being a useful thing maybe even beneficial, if hippies and yuppies weren't the norm.
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on April 23, 2013, 01:01:03 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 22, 2013, 04:58:47 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 22, 2013, 10:47:48 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/nyregion/babys-latest-going-diaperless-at-home-or-even-in-the-park.html?_r=3&
QuoteWhen Jada Shapiro decided to raise her daughter from birth without diapers, for the most part, not everyone was amused. Ms. Shapiro scattered little bowls around the house to catch her daughter's offerings, and her sister insisted that she use a big, dark marker to mark the bowls so that they could never find their way back to the kitchen.
"My sister wasn't a huge fan," she said on Thursday.
But "elimination communication," as the diaper-free method of child-rearing is called, is finding an audience in the hipper precincts of New York City.
Ms. Shapiro, who is a doula, a birth and child-rearing coach, says it is practically now a job qualification to at least be able to offer diaper-free training as an option to clients. Caribou Baby, an "eco-friendly maternity, baby and lifestyle store" on the border of artsy Greenpoint and Williamsburg, has been drawing capacity crowds to its diaper-free "Meetups," where parents exchange tips like how to get a baby to urinate on the street between parked cars.
Parents are drawn to the method as a way of preserving the environment from the ravages of disposable diapers, as well as reducing the laundering of cloth diapers and preventing diaper rash. Many of them like the thought that they are rediscovering an ancient practice used in other cultures, though they tend to gloss over the fact that many of those cultures had never heard of Pampers. But mostly, they say, they like feeling more in touch with their babies' most intimate functions.
I highly doubt I will ever understand the fascination with children. Given the above, I really don't want to either. You can keep the ghastly bastards.
You used to be one.
There are advantages to going diaper-free. That said, I see it mostly as an option for country-living hippies, or spoiled yuppies who have lots of free time and want to feel special.
I wouldn't care if they'd clean up after their kids, in public places. I mean, you gotta pick up after your dogs - why not your kids? Lady lifted her kid up to pee in one of our sinks. Kid had dirty bare feet and splashed all over the counter and the sink and the floor. She just walked out and didn't tell anyone. Next person that went in there lost their shit.
Granted, that's only one example. I can see it being a useful thing maybe even beneficial, if hippies and yuppies weren't the norm.
She doesn't have to clean up after her kid because she's a Special Snowflake, you see.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 23, 2013, 01:36:16 AM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on April 23, 2013, 01:01:03 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 22, 2013, 04:58:47 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 22, 2013, 10:47:48 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/nyregion/babys-latest-going-diaperless-at-home-or-even-in-the-park.html?_r=3&
QuoteWhen Jada Shapiro decided to raise her daughter from birth without diapers, for the most part, not everyone was amused. Ms. Shapiro scattered little bowls around the house to catch her daughter's offerings, and her sister insisted that she use a big, dark marker to mark the bowls so that they could never find their way back to the kitchen.
"My sister wasn't a huge fan," she said on Thursday.
But "elimination communication," as the diaper-free method of child-rearing is called, is finding an audience in the hipper precincts of New York City.
Ms. Shapiro, who is a doula, a birth and child-rearing coach, says it is practically now a job qualification to at least be able to offer diaper-free training as an option to clients. Caribou Baby, an "eco-friendly maternity, baby and lifestyle store" on the border of artsy Greenpoint and Williamsburg, has been drawing capacity crowds to its diaper-free "Meetups," where parents exchange tips like how to get a baby to urinate on the street between parked cars.
Parents are drawn to the method as a way of preserving the environment from the ravages of disposable diapers, as well as reducing the laundering of cloth diapers and preventing diaper rash. Many of them like the thought that they are rediscovering an ancient practice used in other cultures, though they tend to gloss over the fact that many of those cultures had never heard of Pampers. But mostly, they say, they like feeling more in touch with their babies' most intimate functions.
I highly doubt I will ever understand the fascination with children. Given the above, I really don't want to either. You can keep the ghastly bastards.
You used to be one.
There are advantages to going diaper-free. That said, I see it mostly as an option for country-living hippies, or spoiled yuppies who have lots of free time and want to feel special.
I wouldn't care if they'd clean up after their kids, in public places. I mean, you gotta pick up after your dogs - why not your kids? Lady lifted her kid up to pee in one of our sinks. Kid had dirty bare feet and splashed all over the counter and the sink and the floor. She just walked out and didn't tell anyone. Next person that went in there lost their shit.
Granted, that's only one example. I can see it being a useful thing maybe even beneficial, if hippies and yuppies weren't the norm.
She doesn't have to clean up after her kid because she's a Special Snowflake, you see.
I wonder if she would if her kid pooped in the park. They have those dog dropping stations every so many yards . . .
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on April 23, 2013, 01:38:31 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 23, 2013, 01:36:16 AM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on April 23, 2013, 01:01:03 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 22, 2013, 04:58:47 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 22, 2013, 10:47:48 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/nyregion/babys-latest-going-diaperless-at-home-or-even-in-the-park.html?_r=3&
QuoteWhen Jada Shapiro decided to raise her daughter from birth without diapers, for the most part, not everyone was amused. Ms. Shapiro scattered little bowls around the house to catch her daughter's offerings, and her sister insisted that she use a big, dark marker to mark the bowls so that they could never find their way back to the kitchen.
"My sister wasn't a huge fan," she said on Thursday.
But "elimination communication," as the diaper-free method of child-rearing is called, is finding an audience in the hipper precincts of New York City.
Ms. Shapiro, who is a doula, a birth and child-rearing coach, says it is practically now a job qualification to at least be able to offer diaper-free training as an option to clients. Caribou Baby, an "eco-friendly maternity, baby and lifestyle store" on the border of artsy Greenpoint and Williamsburg, has been drawing capacity crowds to its diaper-free "Meetups," where parents exchange tips like how to get a baby to urinate on the street between parked cars.
Parents are drawn to the method as a way of preserving the environment from the ravages of disposable diapers, as well as reducing the laundering of cloth diapers and preventing diaper rash. Many of them like the thought that they are rediscovering an ancient practice used in other cultures, though they tend to gloss over the fact that many of those cultures had never heard of Pampers. But mostly, they say, they like feeling more in touch with their babies' most intimate functions.
I highly doubt I will ever understand the fascination with children. Given the above, I really don't want to either. You can keep the ghastly bastards.
You used to be one.
There are advantages to going diaper-free. That said, I see it mostly as an option for country-living hippies, or spoiled yuppies who have lots of free time and want to feel special.
I wouldn't care if they'd clean up after their kids, in public places. I mean, you gotta pick up after your dogs - why not your kids? Lady lifted her kid up to pee in one of our sinks. Kid had dirty bare feet and splashed all over the counter and the sink and the floor. She just walked out and didn't tell anyone. Next person that went in there lost their shit.
Granted, that's only one example. I can see it being a useful thing maybe even beneficial, if hippies and yuppies weren't the norm.
She doesn't have to clean up after her kid because she's a Special Snowflake, you see.
I wonder if she would if her kid pooped in the park. They have those dog dropping stations every so many yards . . .
Absolute guarantee she doesn't.