I have no problem with “attachment parenting” but have this huge problem with the term. It implies people who don’t breastfeed, family bed, or stay at home with their kids somehow aren’t as “attached” to them or the kids are as “attached” to the parents.
Not much of a rant, but had to get it off my chest.
And since this is the Pit “*&#@!” (For the purists, an apology, I’m not into gratuitious swearing).
phew! I was worried there for a minute that I was gonna have a huge fight over parenting styles.
Yeah I think there is a problem with the term. I don’t knwo what I would replace it with though… I’m trying to remember some of the other terms I’ve encountered.
What I personally would like to see is more tolerance on all sides of the debate. Except for Ezzo. I don’t do tolerance for Ezzo extremists.
One term I’ve heard for it is instinctive parenting, or continuum parenting a la the book The Continuum Concept.
–tygre
keep me posted!
Liedloff’s continuum parenting is not the same as attachment parenting. I’m an attachment parent but it would be a cold day in hell before I personally did continuum concept parenting. Others can 
but it’s not my cup of tea at all.
A lot of AP parents do subscribe to her theories though
“Instictive parenting” has some of the same problems as attachment parenting. There was nothing instictive about breastfeeding for my daughter and I. And not everyone’s instincts are the same, nor are they all good. Besides, how instictive can it be if books are written about it and hospitals staff lactation consultants?
How about “the Sears method” (although that sounds a little like catalog parenting).
And I agree completely with Primaflora about both tolerence and Ezzo extremists (although Ezzo non-extremists are someone to be tolerant of - my cousin is one, great healthy kids, just not the way I raise mine). I’d add La Leche League extremists (but only the extremists, the LLL does a lot of good stuff).
I’m not familiar with what these terms mean. Is there some resource that you would recommend that would explain?
Forgive my stupidity, but what is “Ezzo?” Is it a cross between Fozzy and Elmo?
Gary Ezzo has written a series of books purporting to be the “Christian” way to raise children. The problem is that the Scripture he quotes to back up his theories is used out of context, he has no medical training, and even his own church has discredited him.
Here’s a link to a site that has a lot more information:
http://www.mailing-list.net/redrhino/Ezzo/Files.html
For some information on attachment parenting:
http://members.tripod.com/~JudyArnall/
has some info and links.
–tygre
This, to me, is like the term “dysfunctional family”… show me a totally, fully, in EVERYONE’S sense of the word “functional” family and I’ll eat my shorts sans salt!
Words are just that; words. I know, sometimes they can be very irksome but I wouldn’t let it trouble you too much. If you are being the very best parent you can be than that’s all you can do. Screw the labels! Oh, wait, since I AM into gratuitous swearing, FUCK THE LABELS!
I assume that “attachment” term comes from the practice of babywearing and cosleeping, which means that the baby is quite literally attached to the parents most of the time throughout the day. I see where you are coming from, however–since we use “attachment” in an emotional sense, it sounds like other parenting styles are promoting aloofness.
Green Bean, Attachment parenting is a style of parenting that believes in a very high-touch, child-centered style of caregiving. That usually includes breastfeeding on demand until the child decided to wean, carrying the baby (or “wearing” it in a sling) most of the time (instead of using a stroller or leaving it in a bouncy seat or swing), cosleeping (taking the baby to bed with you, possibly extending this arrangement through childhood), that sort of thing.
The “Babywise” method of childrearing (which is what Ezzo promotes) encouraging getting the baby on a schedule for feeding and sleeping, encouraging sleeping through the night, and not indulging its demands. I know less about this so I can’t write as much.
FTR, although they sounded off-the-wall to me at first, AP makes a lot of sense to me. We didn’t practice a lot of its tenets, but I support and admire parents who do, and I know we lean towards this style far more than most of our friends.
Ezzo and GFI are a throwback. There was a period in the early 1950s where some (idiot) theoreticians claimed that giving in to a baby’s “demands” was setting up a pattern of allowing the child to “blackmail” the parents.
If we can’t have retro-active abortion, I would really like to subject Ezzo to the sort of treatment that he encourages. (Let him wait a few weeks when he “demands” a paycheck or to have his car repaired.)
What a jerk.
It’s ‘discipline’ for the tiny babies which breaks my heart. Imagine hitting a 9 mo for bad table manners! But the scariest thing about Ezzo is the growing number of deaths associated with his idiotic theories. It’s scary scary stuff when carried to an extreme 
and even in its secular form it’s pretty tough on the babies. Ezzo has two methods one which is taught through churches and one which is secular. I read Babywise - I can’t imagine parenting that way