by Jessica McMaken

In a misguided,
ill-informed article
Kennedy tells readers “Why I Mock ‘Attachment Parenting’ and
the Kids it Produces: or, the case for libertarian parenting.”

Kennedy’s main
problem with attachment parents seems to be the way they feed their
kids. Which is strange because attachment parenting doesn’t have
much to say about how one should feed one’s kids beyond encouraging
breastfeeding and “feeding
with love and respect.” It certainly doesn’t require one
to be gluten free or vegan. And there are plenty of non-parents
and plenty of libertarians
who don’t want to eat the food poisoned
by the taxpayer subsidized monopolist Monsanto company.

I’m not even
sure what to say about Kennedy’s mean-spirited mocking of potentially
fatal food allergies. Perhaps if one doesn’t want to deal with a
nut-free policy, which may be necessary to save the life of someone
else’s child, one could, in the spirit of libertarianism, choose
a different school (preferably one that isn’t funded by the federal
government).

Food preference
seems and odd place for an alleged libertarian to spend the bulk
of her criticism of a parenting philosophy.

Kennedy isn’t
really attacking attachment parenting anyway. She’s just ascribed
the label to any style of parenting she happens to find personally
annoying. An examination of the principles of attachment parenting
reveals that attachment parenting can be very attractive to those
professing a libertarian point of view.

There are varying
definitions of attachment parenting, but for the sake of this article,
I’ll use the 7
Baby B’s put forth by Dr. William Sears, the man who is credited
with coining the term “attachment parenting.”

1. Birth
   Bonding. The ideal is a non-medicated birth with no separation
   of the mother and baby. At first blush I don’t see this as an
   important political marker, but it can be noted that this style
   of birth is not the norm in US hospitals. To obtain this ideal,
   many parents must fight for the right to birth their way. Some
   opt to birth at home in order to avoid bureaucratic interference
   in their birth choices. A few even become vocal advocates for
   more freedom regarding where and with whom a woman gives birth.
   Commies!
2. Breastfeeding.
   Mothers are encouraged to breastfeed their infants if they are
   able. They are not forced to breastfeed. There is no attachment
   parenting Gestapo. But it’s encouraged. As a benefit, each mother
   who avoids buying formula lessens her contribution to the heavily
   subsidized corn and soy industries.
3. Babywearing.
   This means carrying your baby in some sort of contraption that
   attaches the bundle of joy to your body. It promotes, among other
   things, freedom of movement for the parent. Ever tried to climb
   a mountain with a baby stroller?
4. Bedding
   close to baby. While Kennedy spent a fair amount of her time
   criticizing this practice, I’m not sure how, exactly, it is anti-libertarian.
   Her main argument seems to be that with a baby nearby, the parents
   can’t enjoy “the acts which brought their babies into being.”
   Strangely though, many attachment parents do manage to have more
   than one child.
5. Belief
   in the language value of your baby’s cry. Basically, attachment
   parents believe (and research
   supports) that when a baby cries he’s trying to communicate and
   a parent should try to figure out what his message is. Furthermore,
   by responding appropriately and sensitively to that message, a
   parent can help the baby develop successful communication skills.
   Attachment parents don’t believe that all babies should be on
   the same four-hour feeding schedule. They don’t believe that all
   babies have the same sleep needs. They don’t believe in any one-size-fits-all
   approach to parenting. They believe that each baby is an individual
   and deserves to be listened to and responded to as an individual.
   Ironically, Kennedy argues that treating one’s baby as a unique
   individual makes one a communist.
6. Beware
   of baby trainers. Again, this is about eschewing any rigid
   system of parenting that ignores a family’s or a child’s unique
   needs. Attachment parenting is about trusting one’s gut and listening
   to one’s child. It’s not about obeying commands from on high.
   While some parents can become dogmatic about the principles of
   attachment parenting, most recognize the necessity of rational
   thinking and balance. Which brings me to . . .
7. Balance.
   The idea here is recognizing that while your baby is an individual
   with rights, so are you. You don’t have neglect yourself to care
   for your baby.

That’s it.
That’s the 7 Baby B’s spelled out by attachment parenting expert,
Dr. William Sears. There’s one more tenet that many attachment parents
adhere to once their babies are no longer babies, and that’s Gentle
Discipline. There have been thousands of pages written on exactly
what this means, but to summarize briefly it means that a parent
does not have the right to coerce a child through intimidation or
violence. Now, good libertarians can disagree over whether the principles
that guide interactions between adults and the state must also guide
the relationships within a private family of adults and children.
But non-coercion and non-violence are hardly anti-libertarian ideals.

I’m sure that
libertarian parents subscribe to a wide range of parenting philosophies.
Unless you’re sending your newborn off to be raised in a state-run
orphanage, I’m not sure your parenting choices can be said to be
anti-libertarian. I would, however, argue that the principles of
attachment parenting dovetail nicely with those of libertarianism.

May
2, 2012

Copyright
© 2012 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in
part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.