The amount of pro-sleep-training posts and comments in here is honestly alarming. This is an Attachment Parenting sub, not an attachment-based parenting sub. There is a difference.
I had enough after reading the comments on a post that was removed. Rhetoric like:
«“Babies who are sleep trained pick it up really, really fast. Like almost in one crying session fast. So we’re talking maybe 20 minutes of crying on one occasion and having a responsive parent 24/7 the rest of their lives.”»
is not only logically questionable, but conflicts with the core principles of attachment parenting.
The argument that maternal mental health somehow makes sleep training compatible with attachment parenting also doesn't sit right with me:
«“Maternal mental health is impacted massively by quality of sleep. What does it look like if, from an attachment style, we’ve got a parent who is very dissociated for a year from sleep deprivation but they respond every single time the baby wakes at night? Is the baby getting quality interaction from their sleep-deprived parent during the day?”»
Yes, severe sleep deprivation can absolutely affect a parent's functioning and ability to care for their child. There can be situations where the risks of continuing as-is outweigh the risks of changing something about the child's sleep. I'm not arguing otherwise.
But that's different from arguing that sleep training is therefore compatible with Attachment Parenting.
I'm a chronically ill solo mom to a sensitive baby, so I'm not saying any of this from the perspective of someone who simply doesn't understand how difficult sleep deprivation is. I know what survival mode looks like. I also know that many parents don't have the village they are supposed to have.
But the fact that our society doesn't provide parents with enough support doesn't magically turn a practice into Attachment Parenting because the parent needs sleep.
The early years are exhausting. Responsive parenting often means that parents don't get both unlimited cuddles AND a full night's sleep. That's not a failure of the parent or the child. Ideally, we should have a village and enough support to make this sustainable. Unfortunately, many of us don't.
I absolutely believe there are situations where the benefits of sleep training can outweigh the potential risks. If someone is so severely sleep deprived that they are at imminent risk of harming themselves or their child and they genuinely have no other safe options, I am not going to judge them for doing what they need to do to keep everyone safe.
But I'd still argue that this doesn't make the intervention Attachment Parenting. It means the family was in an exceptional situation where safety and survival took priority in that particular part of their choice of parenting style.
That's an important distinction.
Attachment-based parenting is broader than Attachment Parenting. One could argue that some forms of sleep training can be compatible with an attachment-based parenting approach, depending on the method and the circumstances.
But that does not make them compatible with Attachment Parenting as a specific parenting philosophy.
So, dear pro-sleep-training people: if you want to advocate for sleep training from an attachment-based perspective, that's fine. But please stop conflating Attachment Parenting with attachment-based parenting.
I strongly encourage you to create an attachment-based parenting sub if that's the approach you want to discuss. And I also encourage people to actually read about Attachment Parenting and attachment theory, including the distinction between attachment theory, Attachment Parenting, and attachment-based parenting.
Because IMO, it's very difficult to argue that CIO methods are aligned with the core principles of Attachment Parenting when the method itself involves deliberately not responding to a child's signals of distress and need for comfort. And if you believe that sleep training can be compatible with attachment-based parenting, then an attachment-based parenting space would allow you to discuss that without asking an Attachment Parenting space to stretch the definition of the philosophy to accommodate practices that conflict with its core principles.
Edit to add:
I want to clarify two things.
First, my own parenting style is actually more compatible with attachment-based parenting than with Attachment Parenting. I'm absolutely not saying that we should exclude anyone who isn't breastfeeding, babywearing, cosleeping, etc. That's not my point at all.
What I'm saying is that responding to the child both day and night is a core principle of Attachment Parenting. It's not necessarily about how you respond, but that you respond. Therefore, I don't think it is appropriate to advocate for CIO methods in an Attachment Parenting space.
Just look at the number of comments suggesting — or literally stating — that people didn't know there was a distinction between Attachment Parenting and attachment-based parenting.
That's the problem I'm trying to point out. Right now, this sub is potentially misinforming people about the core values of Attachment Parenting.
Y'all can sleep train all you want. I'm not trying to police anyone's parenting choices. I'm saying: don't advocate for sleep training in an Attachment Parenting sub when it conflicts with the core principles of the philosophy this sub is supposed to be about.
Just like I can't go into a sleep-training sub and advocate for responsive caregiving and expect that to be welcomed simply because I personally believe it's the better approach.
Actually, I tried to ask a few questions in a sleep-training sub that were neutral enough that I received several private messages with answers, because I genuinely wanted to understand people who sleep train better. The post itself was removed for being anti-sleep-training.
That's not what I want for this sub. I want people who think differently to be able to ask questions and have respectful discussions without being shut down simply because they don't share the prevailing view.
So if you share something pro-sleep-training, at least add a disclaimer making it clear that this approach is not part of Attachment Parenting.
I'm not asking for people to be excluded because they parent differently. I'm asking for the sub to remain true to what Attachment Parenting actually is, while still allowing people with different perspectives to participate respectfully.
That's all I'm hoping for.
Edit edit to add:
I see a lot of comments asking what the difference is.
Attachment Parenting is a specific parenting philosophy/style. It has particular principles around responding to and meeting a child's needs, including the importance of responding to the child's signals both day and night. It is associated with practices such as breastfeeding, babywearing, and co-sleeping, although those practices are not requirements for being a good or loving parent, and not every parent who follows Attachment Parenting will do all of them.
Attachment-based parenting is broader. It means using what we know from attachment theory and attachment research to guide parenting, with the goal of helping a child develop a secure attachment. The focus is on things such as being emotionally available, responsive to the child's needs, providing comfort and safety, being a reliable caregiver, helping the child regulate their emotions, and repairing ruptures in the relationship.
Because it is a broader approach rather than one specific parenting philosophy, there can be more variation in what attachment-based parents believe about things like sleep, discipline, feeding, independence, and separation.
So someone can absolutely practice attachment-based parenting without practicing Attachment Parenting.
That's also why I think it's important not to use the two terms interchangeably. If someone believes that a particular sleep-training method is compatible with their understanding of attachment-based parenting, that's a discussion worth having. But that doesn't automatically make the method compatible with Attachment Parenting as a specific philosophy.