Attachment Parenting and Helicopter Parents

In a recent blog post  Erica Jong discusses her thoughts on some modern motherhood dilemmas.  There's a lot in her article, so I'm not going to get into a point by point analysis.  But I would like to use it as a jumping off point, or perhaps some new material to weave into the tapestry I've started here.

Two parenting topics she criticizes are attachment parenting and helicopter parents.  For those of you who might not know, attachment parenting is a parenting theory spearheaded by William and Martha Sears.  [If you really want, you can find their book here].  The basic point of this approach is that you literally "attach" your infant to you.  You hold her all the time, you let her sleep in your bed, you breastfeed, etc.  Not surprisingly, the Searses are anti-day care or any care that isn't parental.

Helicopter parenting might be the "grown up" version of attachment parenting.  The term is usually used in conjunction with high school and college students whose parents are overly involved, calling Deans about a exam grade for example.

Jung argues that attachment parenting basically makes overburdened guilty mothers feel worse.  And I agree with that.  However, I think she misses a chance to look at the bigger picture, one that includes both ends of the age spectrum.  Both of these "strategies" seem to me to be tied to Lerner's thesis in The War on Moms.    Parenting in this country is not a supported service.  You really do have to fend for yourself.  And if you do, why are we surprised that a) someone has taken it to the extreme and b) parents have a hard time trusting that their college student will be assisted by anyone else.

Attachment parents are hesitant (or resistant) to handing their child off to strangers not because they think they know better, but because they have been told through our cultural structures and societal overtones that this child was their choice and is their responsibility.  They receive no financial support or even access to basic necessities.  One can't even buy diapers with food stamps.  Instead, they have to provide everything themselves.  In a country where even bumper stickers remind you that that little person was your choice, and therefore your responsibility (It's a child, not a choice) is it any wonder that some choose to hunker down and snarl at anyone who tries to come near?

Of course, this lack of support continues throughout the child's life.  Parents are told over and over again that they are responsible for their child's education.  They have to take the time to help with homework and ask questions and bring in snacks for class parties.  And then we expect them to switch it off just because the child turns 18?  Really, is it any surprise that the oversight continues? 

I agree that parents need to support their children in their education--but they need to support it, not manage it.  If parents felt as if someone else, such as our country's educational system, was managing the education of today's children, they could just provide sideline support.  But that's not what happens.  From cradle to graduation cap, parents are told they are going it alone, or at least with minimal assistance.

If we want a nation of self-sufficient, mature workers, we need to give parents the ability to raise them.  We need to provide safe, affordable daycare and preschool where learning skills can be acquired at an early age.  We need to provide safe, affordable extra-curriculars for our children.  We need to provide support for those in charge of the largest part of our GNP--our children.

November 14, 2010