I actually meant how many BB mums had read this 'reasearch'.
I see a lot of vague references to it but wonder how many have actually read it.
Printable View
I actually meant how many BB mums had read this 'reasearch'.
I see a lot of vague references to it but wonder how many have actually read it.
Willow i have read a great deal on child development and as such i know where my limits are and WHY i'm doing what i do with DD. For me that is the key to me feeling like a good parent. What i do might not beget immediate or visible results, but i know WHY i'm doing them. I don't smack because i don't believe for normal children it is helpful. I do however know that rough handling can actually HELP some children with certain handicaps because it helps their brain to re-connect to the body (i'm not talking about beating, i'm talking about the sort of action one would employ on the back of a choking child).
Parenting is a very individual set of challenges. What works for one child really WON'T work for them all. I had a friend staying this past weekend and her 2 year old is SO different to mine. Our parenting styles are similar. Our children are not.
"Gentle" is subjective. To me it is not gentle to give a newborn who is trying to sleep eye contact, but others have obviously found within their families it works great and everyone is happy. To me it is not gentle to provide no routine to a child's day because it doesn't allow them to feel secure in their rythmn, but for some families it works. I know people who won't let their kids choose which clothes to wear and people who let their kid play xbox all day at "homeschool" because "it's their life" even when the child is 8 years old! What's good for one is not good for all. The same can be said of so many of the choices parents are forced to make every day.
Do you know my DP often doesn't give me eye contact in bed. When we are physically close like that just one look into my eyes tips him over the edge and "it's all over". His avoidance of my loving, passionate gaze is the biggest compliment he could pay me. Love is shown in many ways. The way the love is shown is not a useful measure for an outsider to guage how much love is there.
Bx
Willow,
I read heaps when I had my younger kids - without family nearby it was the only way I could prepare myself. But in the end, I followed my instincts a lot.
I'm recently had the need to read quite a lot on secure attachment and responsive parenting, thanks to uni and a uni assignment I was researching. It was interesting so I undertook a lot of my own research for and against (and I'm still going in between other assignments). It's all in hindsight as Charlie is now 2, but was amazed at the amount of studies out there regarding this stuff.
Willow, I read it as I hear about different things. It isn't always easy to find good information off the back of what someone says about a topic, but it is up to us to go looking for it as it isn't always given to us by our MCHN, GP's etc. I like to know that what I talk about or suggest to someone else is backed up by a sound source too. I have changed by ideals about parenting so much in the 7 years I've been doing this caper and I am still learning as I go, being a parent isn't a finite thing.
And I guess it is up to us that do know where to find things to pass that info onto others so they can use it and pass it on too.
Sushee did you encounter the distinction between responsive parenting and sentimental parenting? Bit o/t but just interested.
Willow your vague references remark made me LOL - for me it's the "average worldwide BF relationship is 4 years" nonsense that drives me mad! IT'S NOT TRUE! Lol...
Bec - LOL! I know what you mean ;)
i have tears *****ling my eyes reading everyones posts.
ren hon, I am with you. If I didnt look into my darling mateauz eyes when he needed me to, I would have felt like I was taking away the strength he needed to fight the horrible infections in his body and he probably wouldnt be here now. I would never have forgiven myself for taking away those moments with my precious baby. they are moments of uncondition love between a mum and child that can never be replaced. They are bonding moments for both.
When my little man cries I not only look into his eyes, I cuddle him as close as I can and tell him that I love him until he settles, bb in mouth and all!
What really sadens me the most...my mum tell's me that when he cries to leave him cause ' its good for his lungs as its helping them to develop properly...hmmmmm NO COMMENT!!!!
I just think everyone in this thread is RIGHT, even though some opinions are at the opposite ends of the spectrum.
I had a bubba who was overwhelmed from birth. The extreme type of "unsettled" baby, I don't think he stopped screaming and wriggling until about 4 months. We learn to pick up on our babies crying, hungry, tired etc, but there is another and it's "stop the world I want to get off" one.
The response needed for this cry was - no eye contact, no singing, no rocking, no noise. It took a VERY long time for me to recognise that. All the rocking and patting was doing his head in. In the end I had to sit next to his cot, facing away and have my hand on his back. My natural instinct was different, almost going against my grain, but this is what he needed from me.
My other children were different, needed soothing and singing etc -and they were both a hell of a lot easier, even if it meant having to wear them all day. DS hated the sling, too much movement!
We know all children are different, we know they need individual attention, different strokes for different folks.
I just want to make it clear I don't advocate the "controlled" techniques, my first rule of parenting has always been "If the baby cries, pick it up", and my next one is "listen to your baby and listen to yourself. If we were taught that FIRST, we'd all feel alot better.
The problem is sites like that (and the government's parenting site is also bad for this) but they are big corporate/governent sites which reek of 'quality/recommendation' (iykwim) are advocating one way to do things to fix certain problems. No-one here is bagging anyone's choices and why should it matter to me - I don't have to live with your kids - you do. So you need to do what's right. It just makes me cross that naive people looking for desperate help are going to read that one way and think there are no other options if it doesn't work. Like Pinky has found, she works with mothers who think their babies doesn't love them anymore as the babies don't give eye contact back. One mother distressed that her child went as far to stop seeking her for comfort and went to their sibling instead... so there is much proof/evidence - the people picking up the pieces see it every day. And thats not to say this will happen for everyone but this is what happens when advice goes bad.
And it's interesting because you only need to read past threads like the car seat debate in which some people posting in this very thread have done a similar thing of saying, 'Oh I wouldn't do that/you shouldn't do that.' Just because it relates to a parenting method why should we not be able to say we wouldn't do it? You can always ignore the thread, apparently the ignore thread button has disappeared with the recent upgrade but I will put it back so people can not feel attacked (which I do not think has happened in here). Certainly no-one has actually reported any posts anyway. I'd hope we can all be grown ups and have a grown up convo anyway without this turning into a huge debate. So what if people don't do what you do - as they always say, take it with a grain of salt and do what works for you.
Kelly that proof you just cited is anecdotal but from a different point of view and is no more scientific than anything else.
The initial site this was about DID NOT SAY NO EYE CONTACT. It said that reducing eye contact during wakeful periods at night could help a child to get off to sleep by preventing them getting over stimulated. There IS scientific evidence to back this up, just as there is scientific evidence to show that NEVER giving eye contact causes disassociative disorders and attachment issues in children.
I kind of agree with the point that the other sites are only offering one way, but then so is BB; you offer an alternative way. They are as much an alternative to you as you are to them. And yes, it sucks that that naive people will go to either place and think the way they find there is the only way, but there is a shortage of places which offer advice on ALL the ways, and i suppose ultimately parenting is a learning curve and people will pay for their naivety and learn from it.
Lots of people say "i wish i'd known..." about parenting choices, but just as many, when you tell them something that doesn't fit in with the way they think is "right" don't want to hear it. If the authors of the Science of Parenting wrote a new book tomorrow about how actually they were wrong and smacking IS good for kids and the WHO retracted the statements about BFing and said FFing was as good or better those of us who choose to BF and not smack probably wouldn't change our ways. It's nice to find some "evidence" to back up what we are choosing to do anyway, but anyone can do that. Want to AP and BF - the WHO and Dr Sears will back you up. Want to beat your kids with plumbing hose - the Pearls and the NoGreaterJoy website will tell you why it's great and how it works. Lots of doctors have written lots of books and lots of "natural" 3rd world mothers with wildly varying parenting habits haven't read any of them. The right way is the way that feels right to the individual family.
Thats what we're all saying here. We all agree.:
The right way is the way that feels right to the individual family.
I am in agreeance with everyone - its what feels right for you and your baby. I never stated what was right or wrong, just what I feel im in agreeance. no one has the right to say if your wrong or right...its personal choice.
As I said in my past post...I had tears from reading everyones posts...its amazing in my eyes to see what works for one doesnt work for the other.
It what makes us all completely different and unique.
The place would a very boring world if we were all in agreeance. We should except that others have different points of view and listen with our ears and block out our own thoughts for a second to what others are saying aswell before jumping up and let everyone know what we think.
We might actaully learn a little if we did so, even if it was just an insight into what the person believes in.
I am guilty!!! I have always looked into Madeleine's eyes, I don't talk with her though if she wakes at 3am for a feed (which she doesn't do very often, mostly sleeps through). Ooooh I love my daughter so much, she even sleeps with us and cuddles in with Mummy :hug:
Another one here who is deeply saddened by the sheer number of parents who are being fed this info in antenatal class MCHN etc. When DS was not sleeping through the night at 6mths I was bombarded with CC, and "settling techniques"
While I often close my eyes when putting my babies to sleep my face is still turned towards them and there is nothing so precious as watching you baby slowly fall asleep looking back at you.
My favourite parts of the day are gently putting my kids to sleep, lying down with them or gently rocking them it is the most beautiful and calming part of everyday for all of us.
As for the comment on holding is for feeding, floor for play etc, perhaps this is the reason for the increase in flat heads in little babies! Both my babies have spent their awake time in slings, in my arms and on the floor with me
It's also hard when one book, one author or one website (not this one!) decides there is ONE way to go and stubbornly sticks to it. Follow the rules and you will get this outcome.....just follow the RULES.
I wish they would all have the foresight to say "if this technique is not working for you or is upsetting for you, maybe you can try something else".....etc. But of course they dont, because "they" want to have the answer and make a lotta $$$
You've hit the nail on the head there Lulu - much more money in - 'make your baby sleep from 7 to 7' than, 'here's a few things that could help your baby sleep'....
It's funny isn't it how much more willing people are to pay for something with contravenes all common sense (like a creature (i.e. a newborn) with a stomach the size of a walnut going 12 hours without food being healthy/normal/good!) than just accept reality!? Modern life and the removal of the "nasty" truths from in front of our eyes has ALOT to answer for!
Bx
True, especially when the advice ignores other factors, such as possible illness, food intolerances, allergies etc To me it is cruel not to eliminate those factors first. As adults we would not insist on making ourselves go to sleep with a tummy ache, so why do some people think we should do it to our babies?:
https://www.bellybelly.com.au/forums...d-mothers.html
I think we need to remember that there's a fine line between bagging out other sites and bagging out other Mums ;)
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap::
I think we need to remember that there's a fine line between bagging out other sites and bagging out other Mums
:( I wasn't bagging out other Mums... the thought didn't even cross my mind when I started this.
I'm obviously still too fragile for all this at the moment.
Interesting thread.
Generally, when i seek advice I am more likley to heed it if the person giving it, or the "expert" prefaces it with "trust your OWN instincts but you might like to try.....". I think the thing that is missing in some other sites is the reinforcing of the message that we need to and can trust our instincts when it comes to being mothers and parents. I examine advice and think to myself: "is this aimed at helping the parent or the child?" Which way is it weighted? To me a lot of advice these days leans toward improving the convenience-factor for the parent. Just a general observation. Regarding the eye-contact thing: great posts Hoobley :clap: I agree that what is right for a newborn is not necessarily right for an adult and visa versa. I tend to settle my babies in dark quiet rooms while BF or with their heads snuggled up into the curve of my neck or in bed with me or wearing them in a carrier. In those positions it's not easy to make eye contact anyhow. If my baby is crying then I often hold them close with them against my shoulder... patting their backs and rocking... with them facing the other way... not conducive to eye contact. I don't deliberatley avoid it... but it doesn't come naturally for me to follow their gaze during settling times... mainly because it's too dark! But that's just me. And all i'd suggest is to just do what feels right. Sure read advice and take on board what you think might help... but at the end of the day I think, you're more likely to have success if you trust in your own intuition. Children, especially babies, pick up on a sense of confidence within you... if you cultivate that then that alone will be soothing.
:hug: Ren, I wasn't suggesting that you were trying to bag out other Mums and I know that you only posted with the best of intentions.
I only posted in a pre-empive way. There was no agenda or sub-text in my post; I just wanted to remind everyone that it's easy to slip over the line from dissing the people who hand out the crazy to advice to dissing the Mums who follow it. I did so in the hopes that no-one would go there not to suggest that anyone was doing so already.
Sorry OT
Bec, I can't say in any of the articles I've read directly relating to attachment theory, that 'sentimental' parenting was a variable. Of course I haven't read everything published on the subject, but just within the scope of my searches on 'attachment' or 'attachment theory', I can't say I've ever seen it come up.
But I'm keen to add new dimensions to my reading, so if you could point me in the direction of the articles/book/journals where sentimental parenting relates to attachment theory, I'd be grateful. The more I read on the subject, the more my understanding grows, and that can only mean good things, esp with regards to my study. :)
Back to topic, I agree that part of the problem is the attitude of 'you must' do something. Healthy debate on parenting is a great thing, it makes you look at all sides of the picture. But in the end, you're the parent, and whether publicly declaring it or not, you're going to do what works for you. The best you can do is ensure that you have the knowledge to make the best decision for your baby.
Bath, I agree with you that rocking and carrying your baby over your shoulder are natural things to do, and in the dark it's not easy to make eye contact, but I think it's the un-naturalness of saying you shouldn't make eye contact at all at night that doesn't sit well with me (and I assume it's what the topic was about to begin with), and the instructional way it's given out to all and sundry without deference to the differences within families and children. It's not a natural thing to do for me, and tbh not following such a 'rule' worked for my family, not just Charlie but for all my kids.
And therein lies my point, I can't not look at my child, and I don't get the whole 'avoid eye contact' thing, and if I were a new parent and read that webpage, I may have thought I was doing something wrong, and behaved in a way that was contrary to my natural instincts.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is, there is a lot of information out there, not all good, and a lot of it feeds off the insecurities of the parent. As parents though, we must feel empowered to make our choices and believe in them. When you do, no one will be able to tell you you're doing it wrong, because you will know you've done what was best for your family. For Bec, one way worked, and for me, another way worked, and that's the way it should be, because we have different children, cultures, lives. All the opposing sides should be seen as a way to inform yourself, and if we all could take these 'musts' and see them for what they are, which is advice, sometimes based on science, sometimes based on experience, sometimes based on selling a product, and weigh them for ourselves, then we're making the best possible decision each time.
Wow, that is harsh :(:
The advice was that holding is for feeding, floor is for play and cot is for sleep.
Personally I have cuddled both my boys to sleep and LOVE cuddling them while they snooze, but at the same time have put them to bed in their own cot (in our room) and do not baby-wear. Why do these sorts of sites have to polarise parenting so much? Its not like you have to do EVERYTHING that gentle parenting might suggest (such as co-sleeping) but why can't these pro-detatched parenting sites take a little from other ways of doing things?
Rory, I agree.
Why does there have to be a particular 'school of parenting' that a mummy fits into?
I am like a magpie: I pick and chose the concepts I like from all sorts of avenues of advice.
I am also a firm believer on being gentle on all other Mums, as well as gentle with my children........
So true- I agree. That is why it bothered me so much that this site was so firm in it's directions, many of which go against a mother's instincts. Such as giving you the impression that if you let your baby fall asleep in your arms just once then problems will occur. I feel so sad for women that the instinct of mothering is being questioned and women are left questioning themselves and feeling like failures rather than feeling empowered.:
I completely agree. I don't like the lables given to parents....gentle parent, attatchment parent etc. It makes one feel judged if not conforming to the entire ethos. It gives parents a heck of a lot to live up to. I don't like any concept which states categorically that one way is the absolute right way to do it.:
Eye contact limitations in the middle of the night might work for some and not for others. To say that it's horrible or cruel is harsh. Some babies get overstimulated by it, some babies need to look into their mothers eyes to fall asleep. That is why parents need to follow their instincts with parenting.
How bad would it be for a mother to read comments about how cruel it is to not give eye contact at night and go against her instincts which are telling her that her baby just doesn't settle at night being overstimulated? Less sleep all around and teaching Mum to ignore her instincts.
I think that as long as parents have the best interest of the child at heart, are listening to themselves first and advice second, they are wonderful parents, regardless of where they *technically* fall in the world of lables.
JMO of course ;).
Yes! Here Here River! :clap: perfectly said as usual! Exactly what I was attempting to say in my post.
ETA: dang :doh: gotta share the love matey, I'll come back and give the Rep when I can!
I think this thread has been blown waaaaaay out of proportion and has been over analysed. I've nearly wished for the ignore button!!!
I guess we do have to watch our language (sometimes what we mean comes out wrong language wise), but at the same time I understand what the OP meant. And it is terrible for a site to be advocating one thing... it should have said, 'some mothers find xxx works and some mothers find xxx works.' There are too many sites that say don't give eye contact or don't cuddle your baby or don't whatever, like the govt website that says, hey its okay if your baby vomits during controlled crying, just dont make a fuss, change it and continue on...
I think this is what the thread was all about and I am sure that everyone who posted meant exactly that - it is not nice to tell mothers to do things one way which a mother may take the wrong way as being 'THE' way to do it and end up with a disconnected baby. I know I persisted with CC with my daughter even after two or three weeks after I thought it wasn't working because I thought it was 'THE' way to do it and the only way I would get sleep (when it worked).
So can we not all be so techincal now?! Yes be careful of language and how you imply others as opposed to other sites or routines but at the same time it is okay to discuss this - what worked for you, what didn't and yes it's inappropriate to to tell mums one way fits all.
Moving on? Please?
And the voice of reason shines through! lol
I am enjoying this thread, I think that open discussions about topics like this are good to help everyone realise their own parenting positions.....from time to time LOL, repetitively doing so would be tiresome. It also helps people realise that advice is advice and not judgements or orders. It helps mothers gain strength in their instincts and ability to parent. It helps parents realise that even within an ethos, there are many people who do varied things.
I think the government sites need to stop taking a 'tell em what to do' stance and start giving generalised advice rather than parenting 'instructions'. I think that the first line in any topic on 'how to' parenting issues should be "take all advice under consideration and choose what works for you and your family".
As for the government sites content, I think that for a government who is struggling to fight the wave of child abuse in our community it is weird that they advocate harsh parenting methods ONLY from the get-go. Sends a message that parents need to be dismissive from the start I reakon, regardless of whether or not those methods are warranted in your situation, some babies thrive with a firmer hand, others wither. Can't they see that if a parent can let a wee bub vomit themselves to sleep from birth, what could they let that child do (or do to them) when they are older? They should be advocating a nurturing community and see if that helps family bonding later down the track. Yes some of their methods might be perfect for some situations, but they are pretty much telling everyone that this is 'normal' for parenting!
Sushee - It's ben too long since i was in psychology and anthropology classes (*whispers* 8 years!? WTF!?) but i'll tell you what i remember..
In Psychology (main text was Gleichmann et al, dunno if you encounter it, also i seem to remember a lot of photocopied journal articles so i don't know how much was IN that book about this) we examined how emotions without actions in a child's early life (i.e. from a dramatic parent (who interprets emotions which are not truly there in the child) or a parent who always picks up a crying baby but does not address the source of discomfort (like not feeding/changing/etc. when it was appropriate) leads to a tendency towards sentimentalism later. Because the child has formed a good emotional bond but emotions have been separated from action, which they are the reflex for (i.e. the emotions one experiences when hearing one's baby cry with hunger should lead one to pick it up and feed it and if one DOES pick it up but DOESN'T feed one is teaching the child that one need not act on what one feels, or need not act appropriately and also confuses their own sense of self since they feel unable to communicate their needs).
In Anthropology we learned how this sentimentalism carried through in different parenting styles and cultures throughout the world. We focused on Chinese culture because out lecturer was Chinese and had done her thesis on foot-binding and the first-son-worship. There we basically covered how cruelties (like binding feet of the daughters) in the name of love combined with almost deification (of the sons, especially the eldest grandson) in the name of the self same love led over centuries to an imbalance of sexes, and in the context we looked at, created a perhaps unique polarity in which eventually BOTH sexes became exhausted by it, which provided a fantastic context for the Revolution. For centuries people had been placed in opposition from birth and the ability to join forces against these old habits was incredibly attractive. We also looked at the brutality of punishment beatings, also done in the name of love for the country or the individual (to "save" them from themselves/thoughts) as a continuation of the brutal love of sentimental child rearing.
On the side of that we looked more generally at parenting styles which have impacted in a similar way. The victorians expecting children to behave like mini adults, modern children being "babied" well into their 20's and 30's (more recently there might have been things written about the western child and the lack of freedom/over-protectiveness of parenting?) and so on. This is all very vague as i read it back! Sorry!
Basically the premise is that children are not sentimental creatures in the raw and that in many ways addressing needs they don't have can be as damaging as NOT addressing needs they DO have.
Sorry i don't have the article names...you could try a catalogue search in your uni library maybe? I think you'd have to tie it in to AP because it doesn't directly relate, it's a trend ACROSS parenting styles, rather than specifically in one, but it's one reason fro the mainstream rejection of AP, because people who do not BELIEVE a child needs to be loved and SHOWN love in the early weeks and months think it will "cause problems" (always very vague aren't they!?) to respond emotionally to the emotional needs of babies and children. It is basically possible to trigger sentimentalism by behaving sentimentally towards a child WHATEVER style you use, whether that be treating them as little gods or brutally altering their bodies to make them "delicate lillies" that cannot move about anymore or even by addressing pressing needs that they don't have (like assuming they would need eye contact to settle when in fact it is stimulating for some babies) or addressing a pressing need innapropriately (like picking them up when they cry but not addressing the root of the cry beyond that).
Very o/t, but thought i'd reply while i had the time ;)
Got nothing to add to the main topic i'm afraid! LOL.
Bx
Thanks for that explanation Bec, I was just about to PM you to see if you had any info for me (yes I'm keen! Lol).
I can see how this 'branch' of parenting is something I've not stumbled across, because looking at attachment theory, relating specifically to secure and insecure attachment, I imagine it wouldn't relate. I actually did have a search for it in my uni catalouges as well as the sciencedirect and proquest catalogues but wonder if I'm putting in the correct parameters, because nothing comes up. Psych always changes the way it descrcibes things (every few years, I'm told) so I may be looking at the wrong areas.
I can see how actions in the absence of meeting emotional needs might impact on parenting, but where it sits inasfar as relating to attachment theory as a direct result of responsive parenting, I'm not sure. I may have to pick your brains on the subject if I go down that tangent. At the moment I'd hoarding articles of interest for the future, and this is one area. I also am specifically interested in women's issues, so the whole Chinese first-born-son is interesting too (and witnessed first hand, growing up in an Asian country). Women's issues is one of my MIL's specialised areas too, and having her there helps heaps with research. That's why I am always on the lookout for people to chat to about psychology! :)
I'm so sorry this is sooo OT too. I might start a psych thread in Adult learning, Bec, when I have a minute (I'm supposed to be studying right now) and maybe we can get some discussions going on some topics of interest. I know there are a few Psych students lurking.
As for eye contact, I don't think babies need it to settle - if I'm sleepy and someone was trying to stare intently into my eyes, I'm sure I'd find it hard to sleep - but I wouldn't avoid it either. I'm going to expect my baby to settle while I stare it down :P but neither am I going to conciously avoid eye contact either.
I'll keep an eye out for other threads on this sort of thing Sush as i do find it interesting. I don't think sentimentalism directly relates to any particular parenting style, but i DO think it is a knee-jerk against the sentimentalist raising of children in the 60's (the "never say no anything goes" mentality) that makes people suspicious of AP, because they really DO fear that responding so completely to needs (which they possibly see as desires instead) will "spoil" the child.
I think also that there is ALWAYS the danger of sentimentalism in modern parenting (i say that as a BFing, baby-wearing (even now she's 2) mother) because we have so deified our children. I'm not saying children aren't precious, i'm just saying that now more than ever before we value them more highly. My mother's mother had 4 children, 2 grew to adulthood. My mother had 7 children, six grew to adulthood. Nowadays losing a child has become such a rare thing and is therefore such a shock when it happens (i'm not saying it wasn't then, but my mum and my nana knew LOTS of women, the majority in fact, who had lost at least one infant or child, whereas now it is rare enough for parents who suffer such a loss to be isolated in their grief) and so the tendency to wrap in cotton wool is stronger than ever. My mum would no doubt have had a FIT at the situations i was in when in fact i learned the hardest and most useful lessons of my life so far, but i cannot imagine in a life of classes, planned activities and supervised playdates how my child would ever GET into such situations. I DO think there is a more common trend nowadays to over-protect and that lessons about HOW to cope when you fall/are harmed/meet danger/encounter evil are being lost to our children. Already a generation have genuinely NEEDED therapy for things which past generations accepted with stoicism. Simultaneously talking therapy and antidepressant use are higher than ever before and suicide rates climb ever higher. This is WAY o/t now. If you start a new thread feel free to move this post there.
Bx
I haven't got time to say more than:
Hoobley: I've found your contributions really interesting and it resonates as true with me. Thankyou for taking the time to explain :clap:
Sushee: yes! please start that thread about mother/child psychology... absolutely fascinating! I hope you track down that info on sentimentalism... I'd love to hear more. I hear so many parents attribute emotions/needs to their children that the child is absolutely NOT capable of having and it drives me nuts! Eg. the parent who claims their newborn is being "manipulative" by settling well to sleep in the day and not at night. A newborn is just not capable of that degree of sophistication in their relationships. Why do parents feel the need to do this? Can they (the parents) not relate to another human being that has a vastly different reality to their own? I agree... I don't think my newborns "needed" eye contact to settle but I never actively avoided it... who knows, their might have been a few times... say they heard a strange noise like a loud sudden bang and briefly needed my eye contact to see that I am calm thus everything is ok... maybe babies don't react that way... just guessing. I'd love to read more about the reality of being a newborn (life from their perspective not ours)! Robin Skinner (British psychologist, written many books) touches upon it but only in a mainstream kinda sense.
Started a thread here to discuss further.
Bx
Good O, see you there!
The link doesn't seem to work Hoobley...