Monday, October 01, 2007

Humane Parenting Petition

I can't pretend that there is any hope of any science to substantiate the idea that attachment parenting is vastly superior to other forms of parenting, but my own experience of trying both leaves me pretty convinced that AP works and works beautifully. I have therefore signed the petition here.

14 comments:

Leo said...

Carlotta, I think you are losing it and need a rest from these things.

Do you really want the state to interfere on this? Do you want the state to protect infants from their own parents?

You confessed some posts back that you treated your son in a victorian manner when he was a baby, which you regret. What's with wanting to forbid others of making the same mistake? Is that the right way to go? Shouldn't parents be free to commit mistakes?

What do you really want from the state? More interference or less? It seems as everyone else, you are only libertarian when it protects your own selfish interestes and authoritatian for everything else.

emma said...

I didn't sign the petition. Instead, I wrote to OfCOM to complain about the breach of their own guidelines about teh treatment of children in TV shows, to Channel 4 to inform them that I will be boycotting their station for the foreseeable, and to Huggies to let them know that I will be boycotting their brand and urging parents of young children who I meet to do likewise.

I don't think this is a case for state interference.

Anonymous said...

This type of program seems to be the part of the reason why I got rid of my TV and got gave up my TV licence.

Life is so much better without TV and the frenzies they create!

Not having seen the program, I can't comment futher, but I agree that this is more an Ofcom issue rather than the goverment.

Gil said...

You've tried both?

There are two types of people in the world. Those who divide everything into two types, and those who don't.

Gil said...

But seriously,

While I appreciate your motivations, I think it would be better to urge more balanced coverage, with the various arguments brought out into the open, than to urge the censorship of ideas that are officially disapproved us.

This approach is especially important for those of us who are ahead of our time.

Gil said...

See? I'm so ahead of my time that I typed "us" instead of "of" before its time.

I meant "disapproved of."

Carlotta said...

Lol...Leo, I do see your point! I wish I too had written to OFCOM now and admit I have very little balance when it comes to this subject as I find it such an emotive and painful one.

Carlotta said...

I do see your point re the non-censorship issue, Gill, but am not sure re your probs with both. I had my children 5 years apart, and didn't pay any heed to his attachment needs, did 4 hourly feeds blah, blah, in a terrible painful way, and then carried second child everywhere I went. Styles of parenting at almost diametrically opposite extremes.

Is expressing this in the shorthand of both significantly problematical in some way?

Anonymous said...

It is true that we need to make our own mistakes, but it seems tragic to do this at the expense of children who suffer because of our failings.

Also, it seems irresponsible for bodies who have adopted higher standards (debatable of course) to lower them just for the sake of viewing figures.

However, the media is interested in sellable conflict and rarely in truth seeking. Maybe all such programmes should come with a written mental health warning?
e.g. 'x percent of children are psychologically damaged from parents' consumption of such programmes.'

D

Georgie said...

I don't think this is about seeking state interference in family life, it's about asking the state to regulate the broadcasters :-) If broadcasters were making programs showing animals in a state of intense distress that would hardly be considered "entertainment". The fact that broadcasters can make such programs showing children in utter despair and distress does indeed warrant some intervention imho!

Anonymous said...

Georgie,

A very good point. We would not tolerate maltreatment of animals for the sake of entertainment, so why tolerate it of children? This does justify intervention, imo.

D

Gil said...

Carlotta,

re: "both". I know that you were distinguishing between AP and non-AP, but saying "both" seemed, to me, to imply that there is only one non-AP style. And that since you've tried that other method, that settles the matter.

Carlotta said...

Hi Gill,

Ah sorry...have head cold.

I think I was saying to myself at least..."both extremes"....ergh, am learning that blogging with viruses is as bad as with alcohol!

Leo said...

Carlotta, don't blame the cold. Take responsibility for what you do. :)

Babies are not animals. Humane is a word you use with animals, when you kindly slaughter them for food.

You are wanting state interference for something you think you know better. This is not the right attitude.

You cannot prove "cry it out" is psychologically damaging. Nobody remembers their babyhoods to tell the tale. Who knows what babies are thinking?

The show sounds sad (I haven't seen it) but I think Emma is the one doing the right thing.