[bottle~rocket]

This article by Jared Diamond seems to promote attachment parenting, or the continuum concept where infants are continuously held and carried by extended family members.
I thought it was interesting because he is not a parenting expert, but a well-known scientist.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/the-smacking...0111-2clod.html

I think a lot of the practices he recommends are really difficult to put into practice in our society, but most of them make a lot of sense.

He recommends carrying babies vertically and facing forwards, but baby-wearers here tend to have the baby facing the parent. In fact I think it is recommended to have them facing inwards so their hips are in the correct position.

[redkris]

It does promote some aspects of AP, yes, but not others. One thing that doesn't go with AP is the child is constantly held, but not necessarily by its parents

Responsibility for a group's children is shared not just by the parents but also among other adults of the group. Children from infancy are given far more freedom of choice than Western micromanaging parents permit. Infants are held almost constantly - whether by a parent, another adult, or an older child - and not left lying in a crib.

Most of the AP people that I've known don't have their children go to anyone but them. Sometimes the mother won't even leave their baby with its father. Bit different than a child being raised by a group (which I think is a fabulous thing, FWIW)

[SarahM72]

Thanks, very interesting.

However when he says tribal societies tend to carry their babies upwards and facing forwards, I think he means still facing inwards to the parent - I would think he means the baby is carried on the back (wouldn't you think?) This would still keep a baby's hips in the "froggy" position against the parent, but allow the baby to see in the same direction as the parent (ie be "forward" facing).

ETA: Anyway, that is what immediately occured to me that he meant by his description - as I always back carry my babies, and it fitted that description. I cannot otherwise imagine how one would carry a baby all day facing forward on the front.

This post has been edited by SarahM72: 27/01/2013, 10:17 PM

[SarahM72]

Most of the AP people that I've known don't have their children go to anyone but them. Sometimes the mother won't even leave their baby with its father. Bit different than a child being raised by a group (which I think is a fabulous thing, FWIW)

I was thinking about this more, and in mycase (I carry my babies pretty much constantly when they are little), I would have of let them by carried by other people - but there are not many people around these days who are willing to carry a baby! Even relatives who want to look after the baby are not usually willing to carry the baby around (I don't have any extended family around anyway). However with my last two babies some of my other children were big enough to carry them around for a fair bit, so they did. And My youngest two are very attached to their older siblings.

So perhaps it is not so much that they don't want their children to go to anyone but them, but more that if you want your baby carried constantly, there is usually no other option but the mother in our modern society.