Time touched a nerve this week with its provocative cover photo of 26-year-old Jamie Lynne Grumet and her 3-year-old son standing on a chair next to her, nursing her left breast while both stare directly (and unapologetically) at readers.
The underlying story focused on the “attachment parenting” method developed by Dr. William Sears, which advocates prolonged breastfeeding, “baby wearing” (carrying the child in a sling throughout the day), and having babies sleep in parents’ beds. The issue, which appeared on newsstands over the weekend and coincided with Mother’s Day, sparked thousands of responses from news outlets around the world.
Many reported that Time had “reignited” the debate about parenting, and breastfeeding in particular. But that’s not true, at least not judging by the reactions in the mainstream media. What Time reignited is the age-old and somewhat tiresome debate about incendiary magazine covers. Quarreling about whether Time had done good or bad totally overshadowed commentary about the substance of its article, which is unfortunate for anyone interested in learning the basics of the medical community’s current thinking on attachment parenting.
Time’s story, by staff writer Kate Pickert, doesn’t go too deep into the evidence for and against attachment parenting, either. Its focus is Sears, a California pediatrician who wrote the seminal treatise on the method, The Baby Book, in 1992. The 20-year-anniversay peg is a bit weak and Sears is no stranger to the media, but Time contended that, “For all the book’s popularity and influence, surprisingly little is known about the author.”
From there, the piece delved into Sears and his wife’s childhoods and their own child-rearing practices, arguing that attachment parenting is “rooted” in their upbringing and that “Sears’ views are less extreme than his critics (and even many of his followers) realize.”
Pickert doesn’t go easy on Sears, however, mentioning right away that “a lot of people might” call his philosophy crazy. She also dissects in detail one of his more controversial theories—that allowing babies to “cry-it-out” can cause brain damage. According to Pickert:
Sears cites a number of academic studies to back up his point. A close look at the research, however, does not actually provide evidence that bouts of crying associated with sleep training affect brain development. Several papers Sears cites involved studies of rats. At least one looked at babies who suffered from cases of severe neglect or trauma… Other research showed that babies who cry excessively are more likely to suffer from, for example, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, but it’s not clear if they cry because of underlying neurological problems that later manifest as ADHD or whether the crying causes ADHD.
Pickert stresses that “the science on attachment is also easily misunderstood and misused.” While there is evidence that children without “consistent relationships with parents” can suffer developmental and emotional problems, there is “no science to show” that babies who are fed formula, pushed in strollers, or sleep in bassinets “will turn out any different from children raised via the attachment method.”
Sidebars in the story went into a little more detail.
“Bed sharing can be deadly,” science reporter Jeffrey Kluger emphasized in one. “A sleeping adult can crush or suffocate a baby; the risk of SIDS increases as well.” But Sears is largely in sync with the medical community in stating that it’s fine for mothers to breastfeed “into toddlerhood.” The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the US Surgeon General encourage mothers to breast-feed exclusively for six months, introducing solid foods after that while continuing to nurse “one year or longer or as mutually desired by mother and infant,” parenting reporter Bonnie Rochman reported in another sidebar.
- 1
- 2
Quarreling about whether Time had done good or bad totally overshadowed commentary about the substance of its article, which is unfortunate for anyone interested in learning the basics of the medical community’s current thinking on attachment parenting.
Are you serious? It is not the quarrelling that overshadowed the issue, it was Time's own photo choice that overshadowed the issue. I'm a newspaper editor. My opinon is this: The photo didn't go with the story and really had nothing to do with it. It was just stupid and salacious. And has a husband of a woman who breastfed all four of our children it really pissed me off.
#1 Posted by Mike, CJR on Wed 16 May 2012 at 12:50 PM
As a father who shared a "family bed" and occasionally carried my daughter in a sling, and completely supported the breastfeeding of my daughter, I can also recognize when the black or white simpletons come out to point out that it is all of one or all of the other. Some AP ideas are good, but there IS a spectrum, and there IS a such thing as too much.
I missed my sexual life with my wife after a few months and definitely harbored some negative feelings. When my daughter turned three I felt a bit funny about her asking to nurse--demanding to nurse.
At 17 I would say the the source of the attachment parenting, my now ex-wife, continues to accommodate my daughter in unrealistically isolationist ways, removing my daughter from challenges by sheltering her from the potentially "negative" experiences in life that because they do not kill us, make us stronger and would make my daughter stronger, if she ever was allowed to have them.
I do not think there are "two kinds of parents" --those who spank, shun their kids, and build character, and AP parents who overindulge. There are good parenting ideas from both camps. It is the purist "tough love" parent and the purist "AP parent" who do the most damage.
As for the parents suffocating babies by rolling over in the bed, that is pure garbage, and any stories of such involve drunkenness. I enjoyed sleeping with my infant daughter for a few months. After that I believe that Masters and Johnson are correct in that the marriages that last the longest are the one's where couples maintain physical intimacy as a priority. For that babies need their own bed.
But then again, I am no longer married to the mother of my children. My daughter, by the way, against my better judgment, remained in our bed until two. Hindsight is 20/20. But I am not completely against AP ideas, just those who buy the whole enchilada.
#2 Posted by Michael, CJR on Mon 25 Jun 2012 at 08:53 PM