Parenting from a bean perspective

Today, I passed a burnt out car. Not this one though--->

As I travel in the long, drawn out commute on foot, I get to experience public transport during a time when everyone is generally going about the same business. That of going to work. So I get a train and a few buses before I walk into the office, during that time I come across the various people associated with the different cities and suburbs.

Gibson and Noon both mention something call the 'f#ckfactor'. With Gibson it was the 'f#ckedness' of peoples faces as they go to work, with Noon it was the 'give-a-f#ck' factor. Both could be talking about a kind of quick judgement of a city or person by the expression people wear in the twilight displacement that commuting engenders.

With Colchester, the F Factor is quite low, I see generally young to middle aged office clerks and workers, all predominantly bright eyed. By the time I get to the industrial areas of Ipswich though, the F Factor has risen considerably and I sit, with my fine suit and hat, amongst predominantly factory workers, pensioners and a large number of obese and 'blackulated' white mums.

The mums in particular lead me to consider the way in which the parenting style, that of the lovely Snippety and I, is seemingly so incredibly different from what could be considered the 'norm'. I'm not denigrating the parental care or worth of these slack jawed, bulbous, chav harridans in any way, far from it - I am merely reflecting on my own values and differences.

In our family we subscribe to a number of philosophies that have sprung from intuition and could loosely be labeled as 'attachment parenting' but I though it would be of benefit for me to try and pin this further. After all, the point at which such choices are initially confirmed is around the very tiny baby stage of ones progeny, but as your wee baern grows it seems odd to continue to adhere to the same labeling and I want to define all aspects of how I see our parental structure, when I consider that this will go forward throughout our chibi's life.

Attachment Parenting is discussed in terms of being a starter style of parenting. After a while it just becomes 'parenting' and we make our choices as we go, without the need to feel defined by a group thinking or movement. AP could be considered to be part of the following values ( though this by no means a full account of AP, just my initial thoughts).

1. BIRTH BONDING
2. BREAST FEEDING
3. BABY WEARING
4. FAMILY BED
5. LISTENING and TRUSTING
6. TALKING and VALIDATING

That seems a pretty glib overview to me, not much detail, but there are other places to get a better description ( www.attachmentparenting.org ), and I am sure that all of them are full of arguments as to their descriptive validity. These aspects, that I believe are so vital for the very early part of childhood, seem to be key elements that should not diminish. They are also fundamental to the mentality and methodology of a particular parenting style that go forward, through toddlerhood, into young adult and beyond.

The bonding process of early infancy is tied together with breast feeding and baby wearing, and is a core principle that permeates the entire philosophy. It holds that one maintains a close connection to the child where practical, physical and psychological. An easy choice in the early days as they are so small and their needs so constant.

As they grow these aspects become less practical and I see that society starts to make judgements about them all. I have seen a general encouragement from society that it is normal to start making larger and larger distances between a parent and child; that hugging or holding them is considered smothering or mollycoddling, that by not sending them away to play or interact they are somehow unable to move forward into 'normality'.

I take a view that the entire list of AP practices begin to meld into a single philosophy, rather than a group of practices. Fundamental to this is the idea of value and worth for a child; once you explicitly give the child an equal status of value or worth you are allowing them to grow within a comfortable environment. Though they will inevitably bring with them 'infantile' or 'childish' behaviour or thoughts, by not looking down on these expressions or attempting to change them without discourse, then the child will be able to adjust their knowledge by themselves and a realisation arrived at by our own means is always more potent that a taught idea.

There are some actions or thoughts that cannot be allowed to be experimented with. A child may learn that fire burns them by getting burnt, but I doubt any parent would allow their child to get burnt just to "teach 'em good" - some things will have to be taken at face value. When our boy says "... but I really want to run in the road!", I am not going to respond with "OK, see where that gets you!" but if he thinks it is a good idea then I am willing to talk about it. Perhaps he will even understand that anything involving danger will get vetoed for good reason.

Once you start down the path of conversation rather than monologue, then you bring along all sorts of actions and methods. A lot of the reasoning for breast feeding, baby wearing and bonding is to enable a feeling of trust and open communication between parent and child. As soon as you decide to enforce a behaviour you end up walking down the path of Gina Ford - and though many people love that path, many people grew up walking down that path without a problem - for my family that path looks like a twisted, dark path with an evil oven-witch at the end of it. A bit like looking down the road at the impending ride of the Nazgul. "Get of the road, toddler hobbits! The evil Ginamonster is a sniffing for your fear - and if she finds you...". Well, it's naughty step and crying. Why go through that for so very small a gain? What exactly, is the benefit long term?

We advocate communication in all things, discussion where possible and safe experimentation.

We advocate the family bed. Again, I cant see the point in enforcing something like an 'own room/own bed' mentality. If the child wants to try their own space ( and I'm fairly certain that will come to every child without pressure ) then they can without any feeling of separation, night terror, distance or disassociation.

We advocate home schooling. This has a lot to do with a growing dissatisfaction with the educational system but much more to do with an ideal. I cannot see how a stranger with an ulterior agenda dictated by the state can be more beneficial than co-directed learning in a safe and comfortable environment. This one-on-one education is surely an ideal that the educational system would yearn for; one teacher for every child. A curriculum created and moulded specifically to the child's needs, speed of learning, interests and goals.

All of the things we advocate have come about by following our instincts and finding guidance and support when we were shaken by contrary advice. Finding that others share the same approach came later. Finding that it had a handy label came later still. There is more than enough information and experience to support our position and it comes down to what works. Everyone is different, as is every child and whatever actions and path is taken has to work best for both.

Also, I have heard the adage that "they f#ck you up, your mum and dad" and in reality no parent can guarantee a perfect upbringing for their child; especially because their child is an individual, separate from themselves. Every individual will take their own way and all power to them. For us though, we are very confident that we are doing the best we can and we find proof and validation every time our boy learns something new, tells us a story, laughs and jokes with us.