The article, which discusses the tenets of Attachment Parenting, explains that this parenting "philosophy has shifted mainstream American parenting toward a style that's more about parental devotion and sacrifice than about raising self-sufficient kids." It also asserts that Attachment Parenting is a "demanding brand of child-rearing" that "has ignited a philosophical battle that rages within the parenting community."
What always strikes me with articles such as these is the question: why is this news? How can it be that practices that are as common as breathing in the majority of the world--and in our own not-so-distant American past--become headline news and grounds for mommy wars?
Like many of you, I stumbled upon the label of "Attachment Parenting" when I was well into the process of "following" its ideals with my first-born. I didn't deliberately decide that I would be an Attached Parent; I simply followed my powerful mothering instincts and realized that it made much more sense to me, and helped me to parent more peacefully, when I breastfed on-demand, co-slept, wore my baby in a sling, responded lovingly to her needs, and so on. And this is how it goes in much of the world.
What is presented as so new, trendy, and odd here in America-- things like natural, non-interventive birth and breastfeeding into toddlerhood and beyond--are among the most ordinary of mothering practices elsewhere.
I suppose it's possible that some parents are following Attachment Parenting practices to make a point or follow a script of parenting guidelines, but my guess is that most mothers and fathers gravitate toward Attachment Parenting because it feels right, natural, time-honored. For me, Attachment Parenting is about listening to and trusting my powerful mothering instincts, tapping into the maternal wisdom that has been relied upon for millennia to raise our children. It's not about labels. It's about parenting naturally, instinctually, the way it's always been done and continues to be practiced the world-over. It's old news.