Author Topic: She mustn't have bonded with the baby  (Read 7851 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

avonlea29

  • Guest
Re: She mustn't have bonded with the baby
« Reply #15 on: April 04, 2008, 07:25:09 PM »

And the other thing is, it's not just better for the parents to have time to be themselves not just 'baby'smom/dad', it's also better for baby too to be able to be with trusted & loved others.  We get children of 3 come into preschool & mum says 'oh they might have problems settling in, I've never left them.  No, not even with granny/aunty/for 5 minutes at toddler group while I went to the toilet.  Aren't I a wonderful parent?'  (Ok, they don't say the last, but some heavily imply it.)  Sometimes the child hasn't even been left alone with dad who lives in the family home & doesn't work away. 
I don't wish to sound as though I'm knocking SAHMs, I was one for DS1 & wished finances could have let me be one for DS2.  But please, remember to be yourself, not only baby'smom.

ITA. I am a SAHM (do daycare now so that I can still be home and have an income), but I need my time also. Dh and I go out 2x a month and I get time to myself also. He knows I need it. Sometimes running errands is enough. Sometimes I hit a wall and he tells me to just get out for a few hours by myself. Sometimes I get coffee with a friend or (rarely) have a sleepover with my mom and sisters. If all else fails, he's been known to run me a bath and shut the door. :)

The kids also need the time. It is healthy. Not just the time with Dad, which is very important. But also to know that there are other people in their lives that love them and want them around and that Mom and Dad will be back. Creates security and non-clingy kids. And also seeing their parents spend time alone and enjoy each others company shows them what marriage should look like.

My $0.02. :)

~ Christina

Murphy

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 497
Re: She mustn't have bonded with the baby
« Reply #16 on: May 05, 2008, 03:48:51 AM »

Anyway, the clincher was 'She mustn't have bonded with the baby.  It would be because she didn't breastfeed.  I know because I could never leave my babies for that long'


OP, you handled that conversation brilliantly.

ITA with the other posters who have said parents deserve a break.  As a former teacher I also agree that it's great to encourage young children to spend time with other family members as a way of easing separation anxiety when it comes time for childcare/school.

I wonder if nsvbf reserves her opinion for mother's who leave their children in the care of relatives when going in for operations?  My cousin had to leave her 11 month old son with her IL's for 6 weeks while she underwent a difficult hysterectomy. And I can tell you that she has most definitely bonded with her son, she just wasn't able to care for him whilst incapacitated. 

Midnight Kitty

  • The Queen of Sludge
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3632
    • The Stoddard's Hale
Re: She mustn't have bonded with the baby
« Reply #17 on: May 06, 2008, 09:08:46 PM »
I saw on the news last night that a local movie theater is offering "Cry Baby Matinee."  Babies are admitted free.  The selling point is that the parents don't have to leave the theater if their baby starts crying, so they won't miss any of the movie.

OK, I'm childless/childfree, so I may be way off base here, but does this sound like a good idea to any parents out there?  I'm thinking NO ONE is going to hear the movie over the bedlam of baby crying.  If your well behaved infant is prone to napping when the lights go dim, will s/he stay asleep when the crying starts?  Or will s/he wake up and join in.  I've seen this happen before: One baby is fine; the other baby starts crying; The first baby joins in.  Nothing happened to the first baby other than s/he heard another baby crying and that was scary enough.

I thought a night out to the movies, leaving baby at home with trusted parents or sitter, was one of the rare joys of parenthood.  A night of quiet, adult entertainment.  I used to babysit a lot as a teenager and I enjoyed being "Mommy's Break."  One wonderful father/husband hired me for the summer as a 10th anniversary gift to his wife.  She was home (or sunning herself by the pool) while I was there every morning for 4 hours, but she didn't have to do anything.  I cleaned up after breakfast, did laundry, cleaned house, watched their two young daughters, made their lunch, then I was off for the rest of the day.

A well rested, relaxed mother/parent is better for baby than a stressed-out, overtired mother/parent.  That doesn't mean the mother/parent never bonded with their child.  The bond can be enhanced by a brief break.  Absence does make the heart grow fonder ;)
"The first rule is to keep an untroubled spirit.  The second is to look things in the face and know them for what they are."

Marcus Aurelius

Lisbeth

  • I am a rock, I am an island
  • A Pillar of the Forum
  • *****
  • Posts: 29353
  • a/k/a KeenReader
Re: She mustn't have bonded with the baby
« Reply #18 on: May 06, 2008, 09:29:29 PM »
What a joke.  My brother and SIL have been leaving their daughter with my SIL's parents for all of the four years she's been alive, and oh, are they bonded to their daughter.

As for nursing, I was not nursed and I bonded with my mother!
I'm away from sanity right now...please leave a message after the beep.
NYC

afbluebelle

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5326
  • Saving the world one squirrelbot at a time
Re: She mustn't have bonded with the baby
« Reply #19 on: May 07, 2008, 01:46:36 AM »
 Wow... I guess I am the worst moter in the world then :P
My inner (r-word) is having a field day with this one.
-Love is Evol: Christopher Titus-

WestAussieGirl

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 901
Re: She mustn't have bonded with the baby
« Reply #20 on: May 07, 2008, 04:20:52 AM »
I saw on the news last night that a local movie theater is offering "Cry Baby Matinee."  Babies are admitted free.  The selling point is that the parents don't have to leave the theater if their baby starts crying, so they won't miss any of the movie.

OK, I'm childless/childfree, so I may be way off base here, but does this sound like a good idea to any parents out there?  I'm thinking NO ONE is going to hear the movie over the bedlam of baby crying.  If your well behaved infant is prone to napping when the lights go dim, will s/he stay asleep when the crying starts?  Or will s/he wake up and join in.  I've seen this happen before: One baby is fine; the other baby starts crying; The first baby joins in.  Nothing happened to the first baby other than s/he heard another baby crying and that was scary enough.

I've been to the "Cry Baby" sessions a few times (here they are called the "Babes in Arms" sessions which sounds much nicer) and they are actually nowhere near as bad as they sound.  I've never seen a situation where any of the babies has cried for more than a minute or two.  The mother can usually get them settled with a feed or by standing up and rocking them.  The lights are partially up so it is easier to move around to settle them.  The idea is more that everyone that goes to that session has to expect baby and kid noises so no-one has to feel guilty if their kid makes a bit of a fuss.  You can still hear.

Personally I prefer to leave the kids at home when I go to a movie (which is rare but a nice treat), but it is occasionally a nice way to get out of the house.  It's also the only time I would take my 3yo to a movie.  She's good and will sit still and be relatively quiet but not "movie theatre" quiet and still.