The Long-term Effects of Natural Parenting…

Years ago, in the near infancy of this blog, when I was still hosting an “AP” board on a mainstream site, the topic of CIO (Cry-it-out, the sleep training method) came up on a regular basis and at one of those moments, I wrote a post here recording my response on a thread and further comments on the subject.

My post led to somewhat a debate in the comments and in that debate this was said…

“10 years from now I challenge you to go down to the local playground. You will not be able to tell whether or not ANY of those kids were CIO babies, BF/FF, if they were pushed in a stroller or worn in a sling, or if their moms had epidurals! Differences in parents styles (whether AP or “mainstream”) are just that – DIFFERENCES. Neither one is right or wrong. It is simply a choice”

I responded that I would take her up on that challenge… and that debate, that comment, has been something that I have never forgotten over the years.

That challenge became part of my determination to continue and grow in the parenting style that I believe in. I truly believe that children are moulded from their experiences and that being born gently, being breastfed and nursed until they self wean, co-sleeping, being held close often, not being punished physically (spanking) or psychologically (time-outs) all become part of who they are and who they will be.

Not only do I merely believe it, but I am certain of it…

Child Rearing Practices of Distant Ancestors Foster Morality, Compassion in Kids

“Ever meet a kindergartener who seemed naturally compassionate and cared about others’ feelings? Who was cooperative and didn’t demand his own way? Chances are, his parents held, carried and cuddled him a lot; he most likely was breastfed; he probably routinely slept with his parents; and he likely was encouraged to play outdoors with other children, according to new research findings from the University of Notre Dame.

Three new studies led by Notre Dame Psychology Professor Darcia Narvaez show a relationship between child rearing practices common in foraging hunter-gatherer societies (how we humans have spent about 99 percent of our history) and better mental health, greater empathy and conscience development, and higher intelligence in children.

“Our research shows that the roots of moral functioning form early in life, in infancy, and depend on the affective quality of family and community support,” says Narvaez, who specializes in the moral and character development of children.

The three studies include an observational study of the practices of parents of three-year-olds, a longitudinal study of how certain child rearing practices relate to child outcomes in a national child abuse prevention project, and a comparison study of parenting practices between mothers in the U.S. and China. The longitudinal study examined data from the research of another Notre Dame psychologist, John Borkowski, who specializes in the impact of child abuse and neglect on development.

The results of Narvaez’ three studies as well as those from researchers around the world will be presented at a conference at Notre Dame in October titled “Human Nature and Early Experience: Addressing the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness.”

“The way we raise our children today in this country is increasingly depriving them of the practices that lead to well being and a moral sense,” she says.

Narvaez identifies six characteristics of child rearing that were common to our distant ancestors:

  • Lots of positive touch — as in no spanking — but nearly constant carrying, cuddling and holding;
  • Prompt response to baby’s fusses and cries. You can’t “spoil” a baby. This means meeting a child’s needs before they get upset and the brain is flooded with toxic chemicals. “Warm, responsive caregiving like this keeps the infant’s brain calm in the years it is forming its personality and response to the world,” Narvaez says.
  • Breastfeeding, ideally 2 to 5 years. A child’s immune system isn’t fully formed until age 6 and breast milk provides its building blocks.
  • Multiple adult caregivers — people beyond mom and dad who also love the child.
  • Free play with multi-age playmates. Studies show that kids who don’t play enough are more likely to have ADHD and other mental health issues.
  • Natural childbirth, which provides mothers with the hormone boosts that give the energy to care for a newborn.

The U.S. has been on a downward trajectory on all of these care characteristics, according to Narvaez. Instead of being held, infants spend much more time in carriers, car seats and strollers than they did in the past. Only about 15 percent of mothers are breastfeeding at all by 12 months, extended families are broken up, and free play allowed by parents has decreased dramatically since 1970.

“Ill advised practices and beliefs have become commonplace, such as the use of infant formula, the isolation of infants in their own rooms, or the belief that responding too quickly to a fussing baby will ‘spoil’ it,” Narvaez says.

Whether the corollary to these modern practices or the result of other forces, research shows the health and well being of American children is worse than it was 50 years ago: there’s an epidemic of anxiety and depression among the young; aggressive behavior and delinquency rates in young children are rising; and empathy, the backbone of compassionate, moral behavior, has been shown to be decreasing among college students.

“All of these issues are of concern to me as a researcher of moral development,” Narvaez says. “Kids who don’t get the emotional nurturing they need in early life tend to be more self-centered. They don’t have available the compassion-related emotions to the same degree as kids who were raised by warm, responsive families.””

University of Notre Dame (2010, September 22). Child rearing practices of distant ancestors foster morality, compassion in kids.ScienceDaily.

The most important thing about parenting in a traditional (traditional as our ancestors would have parented) way is that not only does it shape children into positive ways but it also feels right. When you take away all outside expectations of babies “needing” to do things that are not natural to them and therefore needing to “train” them, parent will naturally do what feels good to both of them.

Breastfeeding, holding, wearing, co-sleeping, responding to a childs needs etc… It just feels good, it makes a parent feel good and it makes a child happy. It is so easy to understand why parents that parent in such a way are so proud and love to share what they are experiencing.

I have never heard someone say that it feels good to make their child cry themselves to sleep, that it feels good to deprive a child of something they need, that it feels good to hit or punish a child. I have only heard that it “needs” to be done. There is no lack of support for the parents that do such things, there are thousands of books, millions of personal stories but for the children, they are left without support. I understand that many parents believe that it needs to be done, because that is what they have experienced and what they have been taught, but the damage that it is doing is frightening. It is hard to break the cycle, it is very hard at times, but it is very possible. We need to bring back compassion, we all need to go back to the basics and build our children up in a positive way from infancy.

I think that studies like these are bring the challenge to light, what we do to children does have an effect on who they are and the differences will show.

Natural discipline

Discipline in a parent’s view is crucial.

What seems to differ though is what the word “discipline” actually represents. For many, it means controlling and correcting through punishment, either physical or emotional.  If you read my blog, or look back in the archives, you know that I believe that discipline means to model behaviour, to be a guide and facilitator and to teach self-discipline. I don’t believe in using physical force (hitting, tapping, etc.) or emotional force (time-outs, ultimatums, threats, etc.)  as forms of effective teaching, or “discipline”, I actually think that they do more harm than good and they are steps back.

Over the years I have read many articles, blog posts or discussion board posts and have had conversations with people that critique natural discipline, positive parenting, non-coercive parenting.

All seem to repeat the same thing:

If I don’t  ______ (give a bedtime/force to eat/limit computer/put in time out/tap his hand) then my child would always/never_____ (never sleep/eat anything but pizza/never get off the computer/learn that what they do is wrong/understand not to run into the traffic).

The thought, of course, is that people look at all of this as being one or the other. If you don’t punish then you are letting kids do whatever they want. If you don’t force kids to do things, then they will never do it. If you don’t put limits, then no one will.

The defining moment of course is when the controlling parent tries to do the opposite and the child fulfils the prophesy. The theory that “no limits, no punishment” doesn’t work is etched into stone, and those parents that do such a thing are seen as neglectful parents with kids doing whatever they please and running amok.

Of course, for those who do live consensually, don’t put arbitrary limits and don’t punish, their kids are not doing what those people are afraid of, the kids are eating well, getting enough sleep and are happy, well adjusted kids. So why such a gap?

I think it comes down to that definition of  ‘discipline’ and what results with the way it is interpreted. Controling is not teaching self-limitation. Punishing doesn’t give them the tools to make the right decisions.

If you punish a child for hitting, they may stop hitting but they don’t learn anything else besides the fact that love is conditional to behaviour and that it is better to not be caught. Not punishing of course doesn’t mean that you let the behaviour continue. In the case of hitting, it is most likely an impulsive symptom of an initial problem. If you want to teach the right behaviour, the focus needs to shift from the actual hitting, to teaching alternative solutions that can replace the hitting. Children know that hitting is wrong, but they might not know what to do instead. That is what discipline is all about.

If you don’t have a bedtime, then you are more likely to follow your own schedule and sleep when you are tired. If you have always had a bed time and then suddenly you don’t, then you might not know your own cues or self-limits because you have never learned how to. Add the lack of self-knowledge to the mystique of staying up late, then you have a child that will seemingly not go to bed if you don’t tell them to.

What we need to be doing as parents is to teach our kids self-limitation and self-discipline and to maintain individuality and have a voice. I don’t believe that this can be done through controlling and punishment but instead through ‘discipline’ in the other sense of the word.

another reason against time-outs and power struggles..

I came across this article while looking for articles against time-outs that would appeal to a more mainstream audience… and I was quite happy to find it…

Though it was mostly repeating things that I have already know (time-outs are detrimental to attachment, do not work the way parents think they work, do not solve the problem but only focus on behaviour etc… )  something that was said really hit home with me…

“Sending a child away when they’re distressed is essentially saying to them, “I can’t handle you when you show this side of yourself. Come back when you can be the manageable Susie or Johnny that I can handle.” Not only are we telling the child that we only find the good, compliant version of themselves acceptable, we’re also declaring our inability to cope with all of who they are…..When a parent sends a child away because they can’t handle their misbehavior, they’re effectively telling them that they (the child) have the power to render them (the parent) incompetent and helpless.”

This is something that I really hadn’t thought about before… and it makes so much sense.

As parents we need to be guides to our children, we are their leaders and their teachers. If our children are taught that they can render us “incompetent and helpless” by behaving in ways that we do not like, we are entering into a power struggle that we are sure to lose. How can we teach children to deal with stressful situations if we cannot deal with them ourselves.

I have to admit that this is something that I have and will most likely again struggle with also (not time-outs per say, but power struggles and dealing with stress in impulsive ways) and I know that it is something that I can and will work on… and in the last months things have been getting easier…

Food for thought isn’t it?

“AP" past the age of 3…

I have talked before on the blog how the “AP trend” seems to be instilled in the idea that “attachment parenting” is a list of things that you do.

Breastfeeding, co-sleeping, babywearing etc… all things that are on the “Sears List”… all things that are important in a infant and baby’s life…

But the lists that so many people seem to rely on really seem to focus on “Attached” in the almost the physical sense, providing a happy baby and not the emotional.

When you look at it in that light then “Attachment Parenting” and “Gentle Discipline” seem to work pretty well and easy with a baby and even with a young toddler… but when toddler hits that independent stage, babe starts sleeping through the night more, nursing less and wants to walk more than be carried… the physical attachment is harder to maintain and honestly it is normal!

The importance of being attached is not physical, but is emotional and is simply facilitated by the physical in the beginning especially because a baby’s needs are quite physical also.

So what happens later then?

It seems that so many people seem to think that AP just doesn’t work anymore after a certain age… there are no more lists… no more concrete methods or “how-to’s” and that is when the problems set in and then the ideas that work against attachment make their way into the relationship…

The problem that I see is that what seems to be missing is the “why” of wanting to be attached to our children.

I wrote this a while back on the blog when I talked about Attachment and the problem with Time-outs…
Attachment is important in any relationship and not only is it important but is required for a relationship to work well for everyone.

What does Attachment do?

• It arranges a hierarchy
• It renders the other person endearing
• Brings us home
• Creates a compass point
• Activates proximity
• Evokes a desire to be good

So the Attachment actually fixes things in a way that the child who is well attached is inclined to want to please us, do things for us, be with us, loves us, follow us, be good for us etc… They fall into being that “easy child” (most of the time)

Neufeld talks about 6 ways that we attach. These should be all done by the age of six within a good attachment, though it is never too late.

You can see the correlation with ages…. From infant, toddler, pre-schooler etc…

These stages are
• Senses (all of the physical ways that promote attachment)
• Sameness (wanting to do what the other is doing)
• Belonging and Loyalty (The “mine, mine” stage)
• Significance (feeling that we matter)
• Feeling (giving your heart away, falling in love)
• Being Known (wanting the other to KNOW you, telling all, sharing all)

A child then that is truly attached will do whatever they can to please the parent, will be good because they want to be good, they want to be with the parent, they love them, they want to share their secrets….

When you have their hearts, you have access to their minds, they are open to learn.

We learn from those whom are attached to. The teacher that we loved, that made the most impact on us, the one that we learned the most from is the teacher that has won our hearts. We need to be attached in order to teach, we need to be attached in order to learn.

However, this attachment also makes a child emotionally dependant and they are very vulnerable.

This can be seen as negative, but is important as they are not yet ready to be on their own emotionally until they step away by themselves (and not towards a peer, but really on their own two feet)

Attachment therefore, is not only important in the early years, it is important all the time.

So why attachment is so important in children’s lives and how it works is to guide them into adulthood is what the focus should be on.

And not only does Attachment parenting work after the “Dr. Sears” list of ways to be “attached” dwindle but it becomes even more important. Maintaining emotional attachment is hard though… way harder as kids grow and I do understand that at a certain age things change… but giving up on attachment is not the answer and will lead to more problems in the end…

if you… you won't…

I was at the pool last night and I happened to get out at about the same time as a mom with a little girl… she couldn’t have been more than 2 1/2… she wanted to sit in the shower area while they were taking a shower and the mom started to get upset telling the little girl to get up and stand at the exact place that the mom wanted her to and to not move from that spot… at one point she mentioned she feared her slipping but didn’t mention it again…

I finished my shower and went to get dressed and could hear her start with the threats…

“If you don’t stay there, you won’t get ice cream…”

and then the little girl cried, and then she probably moved again, because then the threats got more hurtful…

“If you don’t stay here, you won’t get ice cream, I will get one and you won’t”

and it just kept on getting worse, and worse, when the spot in the shower, became a spot in the changing area.

now the mom is almost screaming “If you stay there, we are not going to get ice cream, but we are going to go home and you are going straight to bed and I am going to tell your daddy how bad you were”

I left just after that…

The threats really bother me…

I remember being a kid and having those threats uddered to me…

If my mom would have kept her word, I would have never been out in public, had any gifts, watched TV or have eaten anything I liked ever again. Did I stop in the moment? maybe… maybe not… Did I start again the next time? Probably, but I don’t think I ever knew why I wasn’t supposed to do something.

The thing is, threats don’t work.

Does that mom really think that her little girl is thinking about not moving, or is questioning why she shouldn’t move or learning not to move? or is she thinking about the ice cream, or getting hurt by her mom’s words, or about her dad not being happy with her?

She might stop moving in the moment. And threats often will get short term compliance, but in the long run, nothing real is learned besides not getting caught and that love is conditional. And at one point threats just won’t work anymore and then punishments just get worse.

The problem though, is that when you are raised in an environment that love is conditional, which most of us were raised in. Punishments, time-outs, rewards etc., then it is so hard to break the cycle…

and really so many people don’t even think about it.

Go to Top