Why I Mock “Attachment Parenting” and the Kids It Produces

Or, The case for libertarian parenting.

Before I had children I thought I knew the kind of folks I despised.

People such as the overly demonstrative dad who uses his stadium voice while playing catch at the playground so he can prove to everyone in six counties what a hands-on parent he is. The overbearing stroller pushers who block entrances to eateries because thousand-dollar Bugaboos and Stokkes deserve their own valet. Before I procreated myself, I thought loud, bourgie parents were the bane of my future existence.

Such is the naïveté of the newly gestating. As my sapling happily incubated in my love shack, a new rage was also brewing. Little did I know my ire at other parents actually mimicked my political expression. The modern world is deadset against libertarian parenting, and it's high time for a playground smackdown with the real enemy.

It’s called “attachment parenting,” and although it’s being sold to the most fragile and naive group of people on the planet—new parents—it’s really the same old horseshit Marx and Engels apologists tried to shovel back into the horse when communism fell. Attachment parenting follows a list of approved classics: The Connected Child, Attachment Parenting, Whatever Happened To Mother, and so on. But don’t be fooled. They want to elevate the collective over the individual. They hate the idea that competition or market selection might allow the cream to rise. Their philosophy is simple: From the parents’ ability to the child’s needs. 

The attachment commies try to indoctrinate you from the moment the ovum and spermatozoon slather. At first they make sleeping in bed with a warm, gooey infant sound like a symphony of shared familial bliss, nurtured and safe in the "family bed." In reality, it’s a bed that has ceased to offer a soft landing for some hard boning, and knows nothing of the word sleep for its elder inhabitants. Attachment parents are cranky, dogmatic and have forgotten the acts which brought their babies into being. They are unnaturally unfucked, and they will do whatever they can to goad you into their resentful zombie army.

Next, you will meet the attachment toddlers, sensitive flowers with all kinds of allergies. The most fragile of the flock will have been diagnosed with nut allergies from an early age. Now some food allergies are deadly, but for some reason an irrationally large percentage of parents want to force their "sensitive" kids into this group. When half your kid’s class is defined as wheat, dairy, and nut sensitive, you should roll your eyes. But you shouldn’t laugh, because sadly this group of imaginary invalids will take the rest of the class or school hostage with "potential" allergies that never manifest.

I write this as a sufferer of celiac. But you don't see me going on a tirade trying to ban my friends from ever visiting Roscoe's Chicken And Waffles, and lord knows I top off my girls with as much gluten as their lucky stomachs can hold. And neither should parents with allergic, sensitive, or needy children force an entire group of otherwise healthy kids to alter their lunch and snack selections based on their deficits.

But the unacceptability doesn’t end there. Next up are parents who have eschewed certain foods not out of medical necessity or hysteria, but as a function of their own political expression. Political vegans are the Scientologists of overwrought parents, and they make a statement with their collective diet that you will never hear the end of, because they like to state their case, loudly, whether you show any interest or response.

Vegans will rattle off lists of foods that are poisoning us with toxic toxicity, mostly because they were grown by Monsanto. Vegans are so sensitive they can actually taste the petrochemicals in non-organic apples from across the co-op aisle. They will ostracize potential friends and monopolize playdates rattling off unacceptable foods their babes MUST NOT come in contact with (Oreos, honey, corn syrup). And it’s all so that they can be down to earth and easygoing.

At a recent dinner party I attended, a vegan couple didn't let the host know beforehand that they were anti-honey activists, then refused to eat anything but raw broccoli. They brought out a Tupperware of foul smelling pseudo-Indian starch balls for their darling toddler after over-demonstratively saying a "prayer" of thanks in an overtly humanistic display of "aren't we better than you" veg-angelical poppycock. It was even more gross than the starch balls.

It was then that I had my revelation. When public schools in New York (which once took pride in being America’s foremost common-sense, thump-on-the-head city) seriously try to ban using terms like "Easter," "Halloween", "dinosaurs" and "birthdays" on exams, you know the irrational battalion of killjoys have the upper hand.

But if the attachment commies, the allergyniks, the vegans, and the congenitally offended are indoctrinating their spawn with an anti-rational bucket of goat vomit, what's to stop rational, liberty-loving parental units from blending a consistent ideology into our own child-rearing? We can't let the commies win, and if independent libertarian thought can offer a template into this most personal realm, it should be an easy transfer.

And make no mistake: The wrong sort of parents must be stopped (or at least given an anonymous what-for on parenting message boards; that’ll show em’!). That people often misunderstand libertarianism as unfeeling and confusing is no reason to back off your beliefs when it comes to parenting. Think of the traits that fuel your beliefs: autonomy, success through competition, healthy skepticism. Can you think of better ideals to pass on to blossoming minds?

No, not everyone is a special flower. If you have a quality that sets you apart from others, you should celebrate it, not denigrate your talents to make everyone feel "equal". The dogmatic attachmenters love the idea of "equality" and banishing "inequity", and their bastards will steal your kids’ toys at the park in the name of "sharing". I've always taught my girls sharing is a choice. If you don't want someone to have something of yours that's fine, but remember that rule when you covet what’s theirs.

More than ever, parents of ordinary children are emboldened to push for lower standards so no one feels bad, let alone extraordinary. If you have a child who is gifted, athletic, or artistic, their accomplishments should be rightly recognized, not only as a reward for their hard work, but also to serve as incentive to others to move past their current stations and strive for something greater.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • TripleT||

    Bravo !!!!!

    Bra-fucking-vo !!!!!!!!!

  • Hooha||

    I made it to paragraph six before I actually had to stop reading and freaking register (if it got rid of White Idiot, I'm all for it!), just so that I could agree with you.

    I think I may be in love. Gonna go finish the rest of it now!

  • Girl Gone Rogue||

    I didn't make it that far before doing the exact same thing. And now I'm on my way to purchasing a print subscription purely as a show of solidarity with this masterpiece.

  • Jerie||

    Total ignorance. But don't worry, my kids will be out there in this world to fix whatever damage yours do. Lazy generation, get off your selfish bottom and PARENT YOUR CHILDREN.

  • Jerryskids||

    Can't talk now, Firefly marathon on Science Channel.

  • ||

    For Kristen:

    ADAM BALDWIN!

  • ||

    I've started looking at some of his older stuff, just downloaded My Bodyguard.

  • ||

    Good move! Chris Makepeace's career never quite took off though.

  • Pain||

    Baldwin will forever be Animal Mother to me.

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    Saw that. I'll be getting back to it shortly.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    By "can't talk", you surely mean that you are speechless in recognition of the fact that Joss Whedon is an overrated hack, right?

  • ||

    You poor, pitiful man you.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Shadup, Darius, don't you have more terrible songs to write for soccer moms?

    Joss Whedon single-handedly ruined movie/T.V. sci-fi.

  • ||

    He has TWO hands, silly. And soccer moms TOTALLY love me.

  • ||

    +BUFFY season 28 DVD set

  • Cytotoxic||

    I only saw the first episode of Firefly. It sucked. The movie was actually good though.

  • Waldschatten||

    The first episode, or the first aired out of context network screw-up that is likely the whole reason Firefly didn't have a season 2?

  • ||

    Got the whole series on Blu-ray. I can watch it when I want with no commercials, thus enabling me to spend my time more constructively...

    Like spending hours upon hours in the worst chat room EVER!

  • ||

    Well done, Kenndy. Well done.

    A+ for the level of snark-flavoured wisdom.

  • The Craig||

    Wait a minute, a lot of love on here but this is a flawed article.

    She is confusing a lot of different concepts. What she is attacking is "pussy parenting," which is fine, but I do not think that is what attachment parenting is necessarily all about.

  • ||

    More on the clinical definition of "Attachment Parenting".

    This is a big part of Kenndy's beef:

    Practice positive discipline. Parents are advised to distract, redirect, and guide even the youngest of babies, and to model positive behavior. Attachment parenting aims at understanding what a child's negative behavior is communicating. And parents are encouraged to work out a solution together with a child, rather than spanking or simply imposing their will on children.

    Many of Kenndy's critiques of this parenting trend lie directly in this clinical definition.

  • ||

    Oh, and I almost forgot this one:

    Scientific basis. Proponents of attachment parenting raise the threat of severely maladapted children if children don't form secure attachments. They point to a psychiatric condition called reactive attachment disorder (RAD). But the American Psychiatric Association's definition of RAD requires considerable physical and emotional deprivation, such as occurs with neglected orphans. Even then, research has found attachment issues can be changed with interventions such as therapy.

    Anacreon's input would be very helpful here, as he has demonstrable expertise in the area of clinical mental health TX.

  • The Craig||

    She talks forever about diets, allergies, the New York City ban on certain words in testing, and lowering standards all around. How does all of that equate to Attachment Parenting?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    These values are interpreted in a variety of ways. Many attachment parents also choose to live a natural family living (NFL) lifestyle, such as natural childbirth, home birth, stay-at-home parenting, co-sleeping, breastfeeding, babywearing, homeschooling, unschooling, the anti-circumcision movement, natural health, cooperative movements, naturism and support of organic and local foods.

    Jus' sayin'

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    These values are interpreted in a variety of ways. Many attachment parents also choose to live a natural family living (NFL) lifestyle, such as natural childbirth, home birth, stay-at-home parenting, co-sleeping, breastfeeding, babywearing, homeschooling, unschooling, the anti-circumcision movement, natural health, cooperative movements, naturism and support of organic and local foods.

    Jus' sayin'

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    It bared repeating.

  • Gpowermama||

    please, cover yourself!
    "bared"???

  • The Craig||

    How is all of that terrible? If we are talking about people forcing others to parent as they parent then I agree, fuck them. But parents choosing to raise their kids as they see fit seems to be the kind of thing most libertarians would support.

  • Jordan||

    Sigh. Libertarians are allowed to criticize people for making choices, even if we support their right to make such a choice.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Oh, I agree. I was just saying that the parents that do the "Attachment" thing tend to also do the bizarre diet thing and other fads.

  • ||

    But parents choosing to raise their kids as they see fit seems to be the kind of thing most libertarians would support.

    Employing the choice to bear and rear kids in that manner is fine and dandy (though there are a couple in that list with which I vehemently disagree, particularly "co-sleeping" and forced anti-circumcision initiatives); it's the smugness and condescension that these types of parents employ and get full metal pissed if one dares to object to the proselytizing. Once that takes hold in a community, it tends to spread and ultimately mandated.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    it's the smugness and condescension that these types of parents employ and get full metal pissed if one dares to object to the proselytizing. Once that takes hold in a community, it tends to spread and ultimately mandated.

    Right on. (c.f. The Breast Milk Brigade)

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    Being male, I probably should keep my yap shut, but I honestly don't understand why more mothers don't breast feed. Especially mothers who are stay at home. The benefits are significant:

    Breastfeeding is a natural form of liposuction. When my wife was feeding our kids she ate 4 meals a day, along with a couple bowls of ice cream and she was lean! Other than having a fantastic rack of course.

    It's much less expensive.

    It's much more convenient (most of the time).

    It really does seem to create a stronger mom/baby bond. At least my wife thought so.

    Again, my wife breast fed and she was back into her skinny jeans in a few weeks after giving birth, both times.

    When the baby woke up at night for a feeding, all I had to do was change the diaper and plop the kid onto a tit. Deb would wake me when the kid was done. Back in the crib they go. None of this, "formula is too hot. Formula is too cold. I thought we had another can?"

    The big obvious downside is when mom's have to work. Breast pumps are no fun, but again, a lot cheaper than formula.

  • BrianR||

    Male here, Dad of twin boys.

    It is not much more expensive unless you buy pre-mixed formula. Even then the $/oz is nothing big. Trust me the extra food your wife was consuming offset a good portion of the cost. Frankly, it was like $6/d for both of my boys, if you can't afford that, you can't afford kids.

    It is not even close to as convenient. Even powered formula is insanely convenient. Not to mention it is always ready to go, is extremely portable, and requires no "processing time" (pumping).

    Your wife is welcome to say so, of course. But my wife has an incredibly strong bond with my boys as do I. Using a bottle the child still depends on you, feels completely at easy while eating, falls asleep on you, feels your warmth... unless you hold it out in the air and hide your face, you're forming an equal bond with a bottle.

    My wife was back to her pre-baby weight within weeks as well. She never produced enough milk for both boys even while they were in the hospital so we chose to shut it down early on even before they came home... it just wasn't worth the hassle.

    You're welcome to feel this way, but honestly it's the absolute wrong argument. The only argument for breast feeding in my book is that breast milk is the most natural food to feed your kids, though formula is nearly exactly the same.

  • BrianR||

    Here are some benefits:

    1. It's insanely convenient especially when paired with a $30 timed warmer.

    2. Both parents can share equal duty (we traded off nights feeding my boys allowing both of us a full nights sleep every other night).

    3. No Pumping. No Freezing. No reheating.

    4. Your wife doesn't feel like a Cow. I can't tell you how many wives I know who damn near lost it while breast feeding. Sleep deprived, constantly worrying about pumping or being right there for their kid. Their nipples destroyed. My wife had none of that, and luckily I have a strong enough wife that she didn't feel ashamed to not be breast feeding.

    In the end, you're welcome to your opinion. But having been on the other side of the proverbial tracks, trust me. It was bliss.

  • iola09||

    Oh the ignorance give me one creditable article saying formula is the is the same as breastmilk

  • SusanM||

    Paranoia anyone?

  • ||

    How is all of that terrible?

    It's terrible, TC, in that they wish to impose their asinine beliefs on others.

    AND (I hypothesize)...

    Any child reared in such a manner, will grow up to be the whiny, sniveling, entitlement mongering, collectivist that is the very antithesis of all things libertarian.

  • ||

    From the aforemention linky @11:11:

    Overstressed parents, overdependent children. Critics of attachment parenting claim that constant attention to a child's every mood and tantrum can lead to overdependent children and highly stressed parents. Or worse, kids learn to control and bully their well-meaning parents.

    This is not limited to the children BTW, when this parenting style starts becoming mandated behaviour in government schools and permeates other aspects of society.

    Attachment parenting is not limited to care of the neonate.

  • Tommy_Grand||

    I live nearby in Metal Health, Texas.

  • ||

    It's not very libertarian to impose your will on another human being. Jus sayin.

  • ||

    I see. So, children should be able to do whatever they want on your dime, regardless of your wishes or rules? Behave however they want? If you have children, Nate, if they happen to decide to want to taste bleach or some other poison, or eat poop for that matter, I would hate for you to impose your will on them to discourage them from doing so. Jus sayin.

  • ||

    Of course they don't. The point I was trying to make, albeit not so well, is that raising a child (at least in the early years) requires the parents to be authoritarian. Imposing your will on your child to protect them is not libertarian, but it is necessary.

  • juris imprudent||

    This gets at a fundamental point. Libertarianism, in whatever specific flavor - is a philosophy about governance and society. If you are trying force this into an all-purpose guide to life, you are probably as full of shit as some Marxist-vegan or Christfag.

  • JN||

    Positive discipline isn't a libertarian or anti-libertarian concept, so Kennedy's strident critique seems grounded more in conservatism than libertarianism. I realize she's arguing that this type of parenting creates an adult more dependent on his or her community/government, but I don't see any evidence for that presented here. I mean, seriously, what seems more likely to encourage a lifetime of mindless obedience: "working out a solution together with the child" or forcing the child to do what you want them to because you know best?

  • BrianR||

    Libertarians value cause and effect and the appreciation that has in life (personal responsibility). This isn't about mindless obedience. This is about learning to be responsible for your actions and that some actions have swift and harsh.

    If you do poorly on a project after project your boss doesn't just help you figure it out. He fires you and gets someone else. You're job as a parent is to help your child do things right, but do not leave the "firing" out of the equation.

    So I guess. I mean, seriously, what seems more likely to encourage a lifetime of victimhood: "never allowing your kids to deal with failure, even failures that result in harsh outcomes" or "proper guidance while not shielding the child from the effects of their decisions."

    P.S. Lets get something clear here. In nearly all cases the Adult knows best when it comes to the child. How you convey that knowledge is the hard part.

  • Cytotoxic||

    It's all interconnected.

  • Jerie||

    absolutely hit the nail on the head. these things have NADA to do with attachment parenting.

  • Kardinal||

    What a wimp!

    Put up with those organic apples they force on your baby or fight for the other stuff you prefer instead. And, on the comfort of your kitchen table, stuff your baby's face with the wonderful corn syrup by spoon fulls. For all I care...

    Reason is an echo chamber of whiners of the - "They feed my children what they want instead they should feed their children what I want?" kind.

  • ||

    More like: "They want to force me to stop feeding my kids what I want because it might be a bad influence on THEIR kids." e.g. "gluten-free zones"

  • Killazontherun||

    Watch out for big talking internet guy. He's got some feelings to hurt, and puppies to kick. Don't get in his way, sissy baby ass whiners because the next face pounded into the sand might be yours!

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    I write this as a sufferer of celiac.

    The gliadin part of gluten leads to increased intestinal damage in both celiacs and non-celiacs. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/......alexandra

  • ||

    It "increased intestinal permeability." Congratulations. You found one study with results that don't conclusively state "gluten is bad for you." Nice try. You are aptly named.

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    Interesting you didn't understand what you read. You really want your guts to leak?

  • Ted S.||

    I was more disturbed by the fact that Kennedy used "celiac" as a noun.

  • ||

    Meh. It's not unusual for those stricken with certain conditions to personify them in such an informal way, though the proper term is Celiac Disease or Celiac Syndrome.

  • Evil Otto||

    WHEAT IS MURDER

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    I was wearing that t-shirt yesterday.

  • Mike M.||

    Some good news for a change: swing voters and blue-collar democrats are becoming fed up with the Obamas acting like disgusting pigs, with their lavish and expensive vacations every month.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    And yet, so-called "blue-collar" Democrats will still take their marching orders from their union bosses, whose largess makes the Obamas look like Ghandi during a hunger strike.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Don't think so.

    Politics is tribal and Obama's tribe is clearly the overpaid 'intellectual' class that gets paid for spouting high falutin' nonsense and is never held to account for actual results.

    That group is small in number and attains political power only by buying the votes of the much larger lower working class.

    Which doesn't work when a) the government is out of money and b) the ivory tower set inevitably shows their disdain for the peons

  • Rhywun||

    Does that mean we'll be hearing (ad nauseum) about the "Romney Democrats"?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    At first they make sleeping in bed with a warm, gooey infant sound like a symphony of shared familial bliss, nurtured and safe in the "family bed."

    It's also dangerous and extremely increases the risk that your infant will suffocate.

  • Iamattached||

    Only if you're an idiot and don't take precautions like using a co-sleeper like nearly all attached parents do. You people are so ignorant!! It's driving me crazy. I'm not a vegan or a libertarian or any of that crap, but I am an attached parent because before I ever even heard of attached parenting, my motherly instincts were telling me to do all of those things already. So I'm taking nature's side and going with my instincts rather than what my retarded friends say.

  • ||

    What an unorganized grabasstic piece of amphibian shit of an article.

    Someone capable of the basics of composition along a coherent theme might have written something worth reading FIFTEEN YEARS AGO with that. Back then we called them Helicopter parents. Which I think is still the preferred term for the sort of malfeasance Kennedy is objecting to.

    But hey, why bother giving a shit about anything until it becomes a priority for Kennedy?

  • ||

    And hey, why bother throwing a hissy-fit over an article until it's Kennedy writing it, right?

  • Coke Zero||

    What the hell crawled up your ass and died? People have been complaining about these people for as long as they've existed. It just so happens that this was the time at which Kennedy decided to write the article. Jesus.

    Do you go around every 9/11 and berate everyone who writes an article? "WHERE WERE U TEN YEARS AGO WHEN IT WAS RELEVANT?"

  • ||

    Dammit Coke Zero! This should have been posted back when Reason.com first came online! It might have been relevant THEN, but YOU WEREN'T THERE! Back then we called them Trolls. I think it's still the preferred term.
    But hey, why bother worrying about trolls until it becomes a priority for the mighty Coke Zero.... and, uh, me.

  • thirtyandseven||

    Kennedy: You are awesome.

  • Bill||

    They had an excellent model Ayn Rand school on the Simpson's that looked promising.

  • Rhywun||

    "A is A", heh. It was years before I got the reference, but even then it did seem sensible.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The modern world is deadset against libertarian parenting, and it's high time for a playground smackdown with the real enemy.

    Yes, but the "Free-Range" parenting style that some Reasonistas champion seems equally problematic to me. Allowing your children to run amok as they wander hither and yon with little to no parental supervision doesn't seem conducive to raising kids who understand that their right to throw a punch ends at the borders of my personal space.

  • Banjos||

    Agreed. I am all about homeschooling, but I for the life of me don't understand how parents think their 5 year old will just choose to act appropriately without any guidance let alone choose to learn to read and write with out some prodding.

  • Jordan||

    Is that actually what free range parenting is?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Is that actually what free range parenting is?

    Maybe not in theory, but in my experience, it is often that way in practice. Similar to Kennedy's caricature of "Attachment Parenting".

  • sticks||

    Is that actually what free range parenting is?

    Not sure. All I know of is the free range kids blog which is not what banjos and heroic describe.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    No. It sounds like he is conflating free range parenting with unschooling.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I'm actually a fan of unschooling. What I mean is that many parents use "Free-Range" as an excuse to be lazy and irresponsible parents, just as many parents use "Attachment Parenting" as a justification for their overbearing and sanctimonious behavior.

    Many parents have interpreted "free-range" to mean completely hands-off. But Skenazy says that's not what free-range parenting is about. It is a decision to give your child freedom and responsibility while preparing him for it. Some experts seem to think there is a real upside to stepping back and letting kids do more on their own.
  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    I agree with the ideas behind free range parenting. It's a good way to raise responsible and competent kids as long as it isn't confused with being a lazy ass parent who lets his snowflakes grow up with no boundaries.

    I'm not a fan of unschooling - I think there are some things that kids need to know whether their curiousity leads them there or not - but it's magnitudes better than public schools as long as, again, it's not just an excuse to be a lazy ass parent.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I am all about homeschooling, but I for the life of me don't understand how parents think their 5 year old will just choose to act appropriately without any guidance

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Fuck you squirrels.

  • jdgalt||

    It's not just the Free Range parents but all parents who seem to feel that non-parents should have to put up with whatever mischief their kids want to do.

    If you want to be the one to discipline your kids, the time for you to do it is before I catch them tagging my house. After that, since I (unfortunately) can no longer smack them down myself, it's a police matter.

  • Brenna||

    I consider myself a free range parent, but that in no way means I think you should have to put up with my kids' mischief. On the contrary, it means I think she should be taught what to do and what not to do, and face the consequences if she doesn't do it. If she tagged your house, yeah, I'm all for calling the cops and making her face the music. Free range comes in when I think she does not need a freaking police escort to get from the house to school, that she can get there on her own. It means I am not convinced that if I turn my head for two minutes, she is going to get kidnapped. It means I think she should be allowed to play on merry go rounds, at the park, by herself, after she's earned that right. It certainly does not mean she gets to do whatever the hell she wants.

  • Coke Zero||

    What you're talking about sounds a bit like a homeschool Montessori sort of deal, which long-term is probably pretty bad.

    I was homeschooled, though, for three years. The last year, my mom started a store and wasn't there to actually do our lessons, so my brother and I were essentially in charge of our schooling. I think together we managed to make each other get most things done, but I hated math and didn't do math and he didn't do reading. When we went back to school the next year, we were both behind in those subjects, but I knew a shitload more about history than most of my peers, and I could write better too. In the modern world with college requirements and such, it wouldn't work. But I liked learning.

  • Coke Zero||

    What you're talking about sounds a bit like a homeschool Montessori sort of deal, which long-term is probably pretty bad.

    I was homeschooled, though, for three years. The last year, my mom started a store and wasn't there to actually do our lessons, so my brother and I were essentially in charge of our schooling. I think together we managed to make each other get most things done, but I hated math and didn't do math and he didn't do reading. When we went back to school the next year, we were both behind in those subjects, but I knew a shitload more about history than most of my peers, and I could write better too. In the modern world with college requirements and such, it wouldn't work. But I liked learning.

  • ||

    I think the squirrelz have been drinking.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I was going to moderate Hit 'n Run, but then I got high.

  • Killazontherun||

    Always sounded like DARE propaganda to me. MJ never made me miss class, it made class tolerable.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Afroman wrote that song during his "I'm giving up pot and dedicating my life to the Lord" phase. He has since come to his senses.

  • Ted S.||

    DARE to keep kids off Ritalin.

  • Killazontherun||

    I was going to make love to you because I got high

    WTF!?!?! I've been too drunk to screw before, but never too high to screw.

    These guys are posers. They have never actually smoked the stuff.

  • Killazontherun||

    By them I mean Afroman, Ken Smith and his lanky nasty associate.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    and his lanky nasty associate

    Jason Mewes? Dude was a heroin addict.

  • Killazontherun||

    I was kidding, dude.

  • Rhywun||

    "Allowing your children to run amok as they wander hither and yon with little to no parental supervision"

    I am not a parent but I think that yes, kids need exactly that - some of the time. Of course they need structure and guidance too but everybody needs time away from that once in a while, kids just as much as adults.

  • Mike Conway||

    Don't knock being vegan. There's nothing wrong with being vegan as long as you're not a dick about it, and the same goes for being a meat eater.

  • Cytotoxic||

    No, there's something wrong with the idea that meat is bad for you or that animals have rights. Both those statements run against logic and reason.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Define "animal". The average chimpanzee is smarter than many mentally retarded humans. Could I stock an island full of Down's Syndrome kids and hunt them down "Most Dangerous Game" style? (Please say "yes".)

    If not, what is the difference between an intelligent primate and a mentally retarded kid?

  • ||

    The average chimpanzee is smarter than many mentally retarded humans

    [citation needed]

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • ||

    +1

  • Killazontherun||

    Sentient though chimpanzees may be, only a members of a given species can define their own rights, otherwise it is a dependent condition where rights are arbitrary given and taken away by another species. If chimpanzees would like to enter into a treaty with nation states to define what individuals within those states may or may not do to chimpanzees that would be one thing, but until then those rights can only be arbitrarily drawn by those of the human species imposing their will on other humans.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    If chimpanzees would like to enter into a treaty with nation states to define what individuals within those states may or may not do to chimpanzees that would be one thing, but until then those rights can only be arbitrarily drawn by those of the human species imposing their will on other humans.

    I find that to be an interesting argument. My remaining objection still seems to be the arbitrariness of "species". (And yes, there is still some debate on how to classify species.) I mean, one could have made the same argument a mere 150 years ago to support giving arbitrary rights to other "races" such as American Indian or African, since those "races" were defined as different "sub-species" (i.e. Homo brittanicus, etc.).

    Indeed, the end result seems to have been the same: Chimps are brought into African nature preserves, where they are supposed to be protected from bush meat hunters; whereas, Native Americans were brought into reservations, where they are afforded a semblance of self-rule and cultural autonomy.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Yes, but at what point do we find the Statue of Liberty sticking up out of the sandy beach?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The French novel that the movies are based is actually a good book. It asks the same questions, and definitely has a pro-liberty, pro-self-sufficiency message.

    Ulysse falls in love with a primitive human female, Nova, whom he had met in the forest at the beginning of his visit to the planet. He impregnates her and thus proves that he is the same species as the primitive humans, which lowers his standing in the eyes of many of the apes.
    In the distant past, the planet was ruled by human beings who built a technological society and enslaved apes to perform their manual labor. Over time the humans became more and more dependent upon the apes, until eventually they became so lazy and degenerate that they were overthrown by their ape servants and fell into the primitive state in which our protagonist found them.

    Though using an ape as a metaphor for the average French civil servant is a slur upon those majestic and gentle beings (the apes).

  • ||

    those majestic and gentle beings (the apes).

    Chimps are horrid little beasts, known for initiation of war, behaviour that would be considered rape in the human world, and in extreme cases, cannibalism of infant chimps. Pretty violent, if you ask me, for such intelligent creatures.

    Noble my ass. Gorillas, OTOH,...

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Chimps are horrid little beasts, known for initiation of war, behaviour that would be considered rape in the human world, and in extreme cases, cannibalism of infant chimps. Pretty violent, if you ask me, for such intelligent creatures.

    And yet, majestic and gentle in comparison to the average French bureaucrat. I mean, your description of chimps fits Mr. Strauss-Khan to a "T". (I'm sure he also eats babies).

  • ||

    And yet, majestic and gentle in comparison to the average French bureaucrat.

    Not much difference b'twixt a Frog borrie and a chimp. Both vulgar, poo flinging creatures. I agree to disagree with your assertion of the nobility of chimps and agree with your assertion of the lack of nobility of Frog borries.

  • Killazontherun||

    The most significant understanding of what constitutes a species has been known for eons at least. If I can impregnate the female representative of the animal in question than that animal is the same animal as I am. Anything that has been discovered through microbiological study is not going to overturn that.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I find that to be an interesting argument. My remaining objection still seems to be the arbitrariness of "species"

    Anyone that thinks that the concept of species is arbitrary has his head so far up his own ass that all his views are worthless.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Oh? If that's the case, I can point you to a bunch of biologists who would be more than happy for your assistance in helping them definitively classify several specimens of sunfish, Mr. (?) Zaytsev.

  • Killazontherun||

    I object to anyone saying my good pal HM has his head up his ass. He is interested in the science and the philosophical aspects of the discussion, but to the extent that it enters the political sphere I have to give a cautionary 'woah now' given my well researched definition of politics -- that is the ability of a group of people to fuck over everyone else. If biologist want to enter the political discussion then we have a problem because every one will then has an invested interest in the definition of 'species'.

    A strict separation of state and science, as well as a strict separation of school and state, and a strict separation of economy and state are the best ways to ensure a minimum of people getting fucked over.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    A strict separation of state and science, as well as a strict separation of school and state, and a strict separation of economy and state are the best ways to ensure a minimum of people getting fucked over.

    I can get on board with that. And I think in that aspect we're arguing the same thing. As you stated, the common folk-biology definition of 'species' is that reproduction leads to the same animal. However, as my Internet handle cheekily points out, the scientific definition of "same animal" has changed throughout the years. The fact that scientific concensus has declared certain groups of humans to be untermenschen at different times in our history, should be a stark reminder that rights, in and of themselves, should not be given solely based on scientific definition.

    (cont)

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    (cont)

    For example, Objectivism argues that animal cruelty laws are nonsense, for rights can only be understood and employed by reasoning creatures. In this, Objectivism currently suffers the same problem as orthodox Islam, in that "the gates of ijtihad are closed." Our understanding of animal intelligence has improved since the late 70's, and there is strong evidence to support the argument that certain primates and cetaceans might possess the ability to reason at "human levels".

    So what now? Do we ignore this evidence? Do we change our argument that the origin of rights doesn't come reason but from something biological? (A very dangerous path, in my opinion) Or do we establish rights for reasoning animals with in an appropriate framework, just as we do for children and the mentally retarded? Those are the questions that interest me.

  • Killazontherun||

    I think it a little presumptuous that we humans can dictate to chimpanzees how they should take care of their offspring and their mentally damaged. If they decide on means that are more harsh than ours who are we to impose on them our concept of rights and force them to behave in a way we consider humane? But then we are really talking about responsibilities of a care taker and not really talking bout rights so my cheeky response above is sheer redundant nonsense since rights don't apply here.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I apologize for being a dick. A raging hangover does that to me.

    "Species" is not an arbitrary classification based on behaviors or morphology. It is a collection of individuals that are able to successfully reproduce and produce reproductively viable offspring.

    I do agree with you that the concept of sub species is almost complete bullshit and that valuing one species over another is the realm of philosophy and not science.

  • juris imprudent||

    I mean, one could have made the same argument a mere 150 years ago

    Dude, Kipling died in 1936.

  • Bob Straub||

    When a representative sample of members of a non-human species/group can discuss rights in some common language, then that species/group deserves to have some. Until then, probably not. I think that rights pertain to beings who can reason about abstract concepts such as rights.

    [Pre-registration, I posted as CrackerBarrel, but I have decided that it's better to stand by what I write as myself, rather than to have a cute handle.]

  • Cytotoxic||

    Chimps are incapable the mentally retarded are 'broken units' afforded by default the rights of children with appropriate modification.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Chimps are incapable the mentally retarded are 'broken units' afforded by default the rights of children with appropriate modification.

    Fair enough.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "There's nothing wrong with being vegan as long as you're not a dick about it,..."

    What's the attraction in being a vegan if you cannot be a dick about it?

  • The Mommy Psychologist||

    As a child psychologist myself and a mom, one of the things that is so misleading about attachment parenting is the name. It is only called attachment parenting because of the theory it was based upon. It is not called this because it is the only form of parenting which allows parents to develop a secure attachment relationship with their children. There are numerous ways to develop a secure attachment relationship with our kids. I explore more of this myth here for anyone who is interested:
    http://www.themommypsychologis.....parenting/

  • zoo||

    I am an Austrian economist, an objectivist, and a libertarian. My wife and I are raising our son with these values at the core: non-coercion, freedom, and individualism. We could not be happier when some dumb shit tells him to "share" and he says no. We are also raising him in what you might call an attachment parenting lifestyle. It is clear, Kennedy, that you don't know shit about attachment parenting, and that there is nothing incompatible with attachment parenting and libertarianism.

  • The Craig||

    Nice to see someone else agrees with me

  • zoo||

    Yeah...I think this represents a mass media version of attachment parenting. It's like trying to convince my friends that Ron Paul is not the definition of libertarian. Also, why does she care how others choose to raise their kids? Other than the NYC schools thing (which she attributes to attachment parents, but offers no proof), there is not a single thing is this article that suggests any of these choices affect her or her family negatively or infringe on her liberty in any way.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Have fun with when your emotionally dependent child hits reality.

    It's disturbing that more than a few Objectivists believe in this crap.

  • justwondering||

    Exactly. This is an incredibly ignorant conflation of parenting practices. Many families have found that attachment parenting flows smoothly with and into a variety of libertarian ideals, particularly the core values you reference: non-coercion, freedom, and individualism. That *is* attachment parenting - treating children like individual humans from the moment of birth, with wants and needs as valid as those of any legal adult. Presenting (as this essay does) libertarian philosophy as some sort of run roughshod over the weakest among us (in this case children) is what leads others to believe the philosophy is about heartless greed.

    And while our family may also choose a variety of "natural living" practices we certainly would not force them on others by coercive means, particularly legal ones.

  • ||

    Is the "anti-honey activist" bit just snark? I Googled it but found nothing...

  • ||

    Yes, anti-honey nut bars are out there. Mostly because of the claim that all the bees are mysteriously dying and beed farms are somehow contributing to it. I don't know of any that claim that honey ingestion is harmful (absent severe allergic reaction).

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Mostly because of the claim that all the bees are mysteriously dying and bee farms are somehow contributing to it.

    That assertion should be used as proof alone of mental retardation. Beekeepers have been the only line of defense against Hive Collapse Syndrome, which seems to be subsiding, by the way. Fuck these people with a rusty, tetanus-filled cheese grater.

  • ||

    LSU School of Agriculture has developed several promising strains of resistant bees and the number of hives have increased recently to around 25k. LSU Ag and beekeepers work hand in hand.
    Ten years ago we had 250k hives in central louisiana, and a few years ago an all time low of around 10k.

    If I had to guess, anti-honey activists are motivated by the whole 'we cant enslave animals' /vegan crowd.

    "Fuck these people with a rusty, tetanus-filled cheese grater." I second that.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    A former student of mine is a Ukrainian immigrant. They live in the suburbs and her husband and sons have have a few beehives in their backyard. They have a side business selling the honey. They also rent the hives out to local apple orchards.

    I live in the exurbs, and I've been seriously thinking of getting a few hives myself.

  • Rhywun||

    LSU School of Agriculture has developed several promising strains of resistant bees

    What could possibly go wrong? ;)

  • Killazontherun||

    I saw that movie!

  • ||

    Honey might be harmful to newborns because it can contain botulism spores.

  • ||

    That's only raw honey, heller. Commercial honey is pasteurized. Even then, the risk is low. But you are correct, the risk is there. Besides, honey should not be introduced till the child is considerably older, like around three or four years old when the digestive system can better tolerate it.

  • ||

    I've heard of people feeding their kids honey at 6 months in order to reduce the possibility of developing pollen allergies. May be total crap though.

  • ||

    I don't know either. It may be an old wives tale or there may be something to that, alleviating allergies by supression of a histamine cascade or developing tolerance thru titration.

  • Killazontherun||

    Another similar concern. I doubt if my kid has peanut allergies, but the recommended way to test that seems bogus to me. That being rub a small portion on his skin and see if he develops a rash. Could that be a mere matter of ph balance and not a specific allergy? If I rubbed Tabasco sauce on my skin chances are there might be a break out, but I can drink that stuff like tea and digest it just fine.

  • ||

    That one is legit. Exposure to peanut oil dermally will lead to urticaria (hives) in children with peanut allergies. In children with dangerous levels of allergic reaction to peanut oil (or nuts in general), they cannot even be directly exposed to peanut oil. Unfortunately, mandates is various schools have been instituted to protect such children from exposure.

  • ||

    Revise that last sentence. "Unfortunately, draconian mandates, such as banning peanut butter sandwiches and handwashing levels commensurate with OR (operating room) guidelines, have been instituted to protect such children from exposure."

  • Killazontherun||

    Thanks for the info there. He has never had a negative reaction, but the wife would like to have him tested. She is much less stubborn about the medial establishment than I am because she a part of it.

    Though I'm no where near being an anti-vaccination loon just a philosophically consistent skeptic.

  • Evil Otto||

    You can thank the ADA for that.

    My niece has peanut allergies and lodged a pitched battle with the school administrators over that very issue, threatening to sue them under ADA.

  • Evil Otto||

    My sister was the one threatening to sue. My niece isn't the girl from True Grit.

  • ||

    My niece has peanut allergies

    With Uncle Tulpy Poo the consummate peanut butter aficionado and all around Jif Jester, do you have to scrub and submit a request in triplicate just to visit said niece?

  • ||

    My niece has peanut allergies

    With Uncle Tulpy Poo the consummate peanut butter aficionado and all around Jif Jester, do you have to scrub in, wear OR gear, and submit a request in triplicate just to visit said niece?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Allergies =/= disabilities.

  • Evil Otto||

    That's debatable. But unfortunately the current jurisprudence is that anything that negatively affects your mood/health is a disability. Hence people bringing dogs to restaurants as "service animals" because they calm them down.

  • Evil Otto||

    Actually that was an issue once; my sister demanded that I brush and floss after eating a Reese's cup. And continued to do so after I promised not to kiss her on the lips.

  • ||

    And continued to do so after I promised not to kiss her on the lips.

    Sister or niece? I'm assuming niece, and not the "Dirty Uncle" kind of smooch. The innocent "Mwah" peck.

  • ||

    Thanks.

  • DA||

    Bees?!

  • ||

    Another shit Kennedy piece?

    Awesome.

  • ||

    Meh. I liked the snark. Still cliff dropping material overall.

  • Killazontherun||

    I'm raising my kid on the anti-theory model. Just getting by day to day improvising according to what habits he picks up, and to what degree I think they need to be squashed. For one, we love to wrestle and pillow fight, dad will beat the shit out of himself with a pillow to entertain his kid. I'm on the watch for any signs of aggressiveness. It is our main form of communication, that and singing together. He is not good with words yet, but he is very good at humming melodies.

    The one habit I would like to break is his grabbing of his penis. He really likes to play with that thing at a much earlier age then I can remember doing it. Watches TV standing up, and then he'll reach into his diaper and start tugging. No fucking shame what's so ever. If anybody has any ideas on how to break him of that I'm all ears.

  • BoscoH||

    Squirt bottle works with my dog.

  • Killazontherun||

    I think I just might try that.

  • ||

    Chastity belt? Otherwise, employ distraction methods or aversion techniques.

    Though you said diaper, so I can only assume you are dealing with about what, two years old or so? In that case, time.

  • Killazontherun||

    My little bundle of joy will be two in September.

  • JN||

    You probably did the same thing when you were that age but you don't remember because YOU WERE A BABY.

  • Killazontherun||

    I do remember loving to pull off my diaper and streaking around the yard when I was two, so there is no reason I wouldn't remember grabbing my winkie while doing so.

  • ||

    I grabbed my winkie at two...

    And I still do...what's the problem?

  • Killazontherun||

    I want him to be reticent about it in front of company and neighbors. There is an impressionable 1.4 year old next door, and I already scare the jebesus out of his dad just by being me.

  • ||

    Ah, hell. As libertarians we should grab hold of those things that make us feel good and never let go. Neighbors be damned!
    ;-)

  • ||

    You said above that you had some Tabasco sauce...

  • BoscoH||

    At a recent dinner party I attended, a vegan couple didn't let the host know beforehand that they were anti-honey activists, then refused to eat anything but raw broccoli.

    I guarantee that at least one member of this couple regularly cheats on the veganism when left unsupervised. You can pretty much walk up to any vegan couple and ask which one of them is full of shit and make at least one of them very uncomfortable.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    I've been reading this site for about 10 years now, and the last year or so it's really been going downhill in terms of writing quality. This article is a perfect example of the devolution. I agree with Kennedy's central point, but where as once there would have been a serious discussion of specific laws being passed and who's supporting them and who's fighting them, or rational arguments about why this type of parenting is bad, now we just get poorly constructed rants, delivered like some sappy libertarian version of Andy Rooney.

    This site is increasingly just a superiority dance for libertarian hipsters.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Fuck. We're not even on your lawn, Old Man.

  • Evil Otto||

    I feel somewhat the same way, but the quality relative to the MSM has actually improved. Mindlessly partisan journalism is all the rage nowadays, all that changes is which side you're shilling for.

    Losing Radley Balko and Mike Moynihan was huge, IMO... the replacements just aren't up to par.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    So what you and Stormy are saying is that you have no idea what an "Op-Ed" is.

  • Evil Otto||

    You can write an opinion article without having the problems Stormy mentioned.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I don't see them as "problems". Rhetorically, you can appeal to reason, but you can also appeal to emotion or ethical sense as well.

  • JN||

    An appeal to emotion without an accompanying cohesive appeal to reason is unethical, in my opinion, and an intelligent person will reject it.

  • Evil Otto||

    Then they need to change the name of the magazine.

    Also, fuck PA liquor laws, it's Sunday.

  • ||

    Also, fuck PA liquor laws, it's Sunday.

    Dimetapp?

  • SusanM||

    Reason Online

  • ||

    Losing Radley Balko and Mike Moynihan was huge, IMO

    Balko in particular, Tulpy. I swing by The Agitator to keep up with him, and will catch his PuffHo stuff from time to time. Balko is truly a diamond in the rough and the very definition of an investigative journalist. I miss his not being here, even the vicious nut punches he delivered with reckless abandon.

    Moynihan was, for me, tolerable in small doses.

    the replacements just aren't up to par.

    Names? I can think of one off the top of my head.

  • Evil Otto||

    Riggs and Dalmia.

  • ||

    I wouldn't have chosen Dalmia, though some of her sources are the victim of bad links. Kinda inconsistent at times though.

    Riggs, I would have to agree with you.

    I was thinking Ed Krayewski.

  • Killazontherun||

    Root I consider to be very good.

    Suderman as well on his main topic, but I had to give him hell the other day for a little banality in his movie review. It's your job to make the audience thirst for more movies as it is to describe the movies themselves. I likely read four or even more reviews of movies than I actually watch, and given that this is likely close to the norm, reviews should be valuable entertainment in themselves.

  • Killazontherun||

    audience thirst for more movies reviews

    Jeez-louis. Even perverse logic posts are subject RC's law.

  • Rhywun||

    I think there's room for both. This topic has been addressed more "seriously" several times before - why not have a more "pop" approach too? I enjoyed the article even if it's flawed in certain ways that folks are more than eager to hash out here in the comments.

  • SusanM||

    It was over once they brought in Kurt Loder. The stench of hipness has now attracted the others in the ex-MTV/Rolling Stone oh-so-hip political pundit wannabe crowd. Bill Maher is only weeks away I fear.

  • Zombie Jimbo||

    Damn, all I have is a Stadium Voice. Sorry it was offensive. Normally I only use it to embarrass my daughter.

  • ||

    Attachment commies? I love that.

    Yesterday I drove my wife to Avery Island which I do three or four times a year to buy a gallon of Tabasco Sauce. Yeah, we eat an awful lot of it.

    We stopped in Lafayette because they are in the middle of their Festival Internationale. I was hoping for a crawfish boil, but alas, we were too early for that. The usual vendors were there selling artsy junk. My wife loves to look at that stuff, so we spent a couple of hours perusing the booths.

    The air was so thick with patchouli that breathing was difficult. The whole bizarro spectrum of hipster/ hippie fuckwits were there. After conversing with the weathered old hippie who advertised " All of these paintings are framed with wood salvaged from homes ruined in hurricane katrina." I remarked to my wife, between episodes of gagging, that there was no small amount of bullshit and magical thinking in the hipster crowd.

  • ||

    She pointed out that, once upon a time, I was a much more tolerant person. It is true, I was, once. I was tolerant then because I was ignorant of just how destructive and evil those people are. I half-belived that what they said they were and appeared to be on the surface was who they were. Instead I have learned that they are driven by envy, irrational hate, self-righteousness and a hunger for raw power over their fellow men. In short, they seek to beat down the autonomous and independent thinking and enslave us all.

    I am less tolerant these days and for a very good reason. I applaud your intolerance of attachment parents Kennedy. Rub their noses in it at every opportunity.

  • JN||

    The last article I read so full of ill-defined straw man bugaboos was written by Naomi Wolf. Zing!

  • Ice Nine||

    Wouldn't this article about attachment parenting have made more sense if she had explained the meaning of the term “attachment parenting”?

  • ||

    Yes.

  • JN||

    I swear, the more I read from Kennedy, the more she seems to me a knee-jerk conservative instead of a libertarian.

    "This is new and different and annoys me and I don't understand it; it must be counter to my political philosophy."

  • Killazontherun||

    That is a critical difference between us and them. It really doesn't bother me that a socialist may use the exact parenting methodology that I use. I even assume a good many of them would prefer that sphere of their lives not to be politicized, as that separates them from the communist. No, I'd prefer not to other an entire group of parents whom I likely have a lot in common with and get advice from just because they have peculiar political values that I may have to defend myself in armed struggle against one day.

  • Intn'l House of Badass||

    True confession: in a previous marriage, we home-schooled our kids. And while this isn't really an article about home-schooling, I think it needs to be said: every parent makes choices about how to raise their kids, and every parent believes they are making the best choices. I say that because I used to go through all kinds of rhetorical hoops when talking with non-home-schoolers about education, because I didn't want to offend anyone. Then one day, I realized: I'm not homeschooling because I think it's the best way to educate MY kids; I'm doing it because I think it's the best way to educate kids. Which meant that, deep down, I really believed that people who aren't home-schoolers were screwing their kids up.

    Of course, now I realize (with the help of my now-grown kids and the benefits of paying for their therapy for years to marginally straighten them out) that home-schoolers are really evil people who are trying to destroy their children, just like all other parents.

  • ||

    "home-schoolers are really evil people who are trying to destroy their children, just like all other parents."

    We have something in common. Neither one of us has a fucking clue what you are talking about.

    I home-schooled three kids and all turned out first-rate.

  • Intn'l House of Badass||

    The point is this: I used to think home schooling was THE best way, but pretended that I didn't think that in order to get along with other people. Now I've realized that most kids succeed in spite of their parents, not because of them.

    Glad your kids turned out well.

  • robc||

    OT: Yet another victim of the death tax.

    Is Berkshire Hathaway Two Hearted Ale in our future?

  • Killazontherun||

    I hear the old boy has ass cancer. I'd like to be there when he dies dressed up in a devil costume and pronounce as he receives his last rites, 'no father, I claim this one for my own.'

  • David_TheMan||

    Trying to equate a parental technique to political ideology is down right stupid. Ridiculous article Kennedy. You have good parents and bad parents that inhabit the complete political spectrum.

  • jacob||

    Well, I sort of agree with your point, but I think the article has some appeal to it.

    Don't read it as a Reason.com piece but think of it as an editorial from Esquire or something like it.

  • johnl||

    Why should co-sleeping lead to celibacy? Just be quiet and the baby will stay asleep.

  • ||

    Then the kid turns to sex, drugs & rock-n-roll in her teenage years and you'll be blaming yourself for literally fucking up her formative years.

  • ||

    Exactly. It's not that hard. I've done it while nursing, too.

    This was a ridiculous POS piece, Kennedy. It's nothing but a mashup of stereotypes with very little reality.

  • Furry Girl||

    > They will ostracize potential friends and monopolize playdates rattling off unacceptable foods their babes MUST NOT come in contact with (Oreos, honey, corn syrup).

    Pst! Oreos are actually one of the only readily-available junk foods that are vegan. The people bitching about Oreos are the anti-refined sugar crew, not vegans.

    Not all vegans are new age crazies, or even into health foods and organics.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    I thought honey was Gaia's holy water or some shit like that. You can find it in every new age hippy store. How'd it get burned?

  • Killazontherun||

    The bee die off scare. Probably corporate mass produced honey going in the cabinets of souless SUV driving suburban ruining it for the good people who truly appreciate nature's bounty. You get the gist.

  • Killazontherun||

    suburbanites

  • Waldschatten||

    Reading that reminded me of the parent teacher conference I was in last month where the teacher looked to the door and started practically whispering about gifted programs all while telling us not to mention she had said anything about them.

  • Babe Lincoln||

    Kennedy, let's be friends. I have 3 tots and purposely avoid the park so I can avoid having to undergo the mommy inquisition by the other moms. ("Are they in preschool yet?" "You didn't vaccinate them did you?" "Come on Oliver, we are going to go get some organic kale from Whole Foods for dinner.") While I agree with almost everything you wrote - I have to say, we did the family bed thing (and we're still doing it). It wasn't for any philosophical reasons. It was pure selfishness. I didn't want to get out of bed to feed the newborns in the middle of the night and so far have found that sleeping/sex happen regularly. The kiddos are still in the bed, and to accommodate, we got a bigger bed. We love having them with us and figure it won't be long before they wouldn't be caught dead cuddling with either of us. I'm torn about school - seriously considering home schooling. The other parents are the biggest drawback. Ugh.

  • HeatherDC||

    its equally awkward to be a mom who doesn't want vaccinations having to answer other mommies inquisitions about when I'm getting the whooping cough vaccine. They bring it up, I answer honestly, and then they treat me as if my stand is hostile to them because they believe differently. Can't everybody see that parents are just going to be hard on one another because we are all secretly afraid that we don't know what we are doing? We are all afraid that we are either too harsh, too soft, too dissmissive, too permissive etc. Lets cut one another some slack. Maybe each individual kid needs different things to grow them into strong character filled, kind and sincere adults someday.

  • Azathoth!!||

    You are an ass.

    Do you not understand what you're doing?

    There are so many diseases that we don't even really think about anymore, that aren't the scourge of our children. Diseases that cripple, maim, and kill.

    The human race fought long and hard to make the children's section of graveyards into something tiny. Haven't you ever looked? Tiny bodies with tiny lives taken from them by scarlet fever,or yellow fever, or polio or the pox or the flu.

    And you want to bring them back.

    Your stand IS hostile to them--because your child, who is the victim of your insane views, can possibly infect and kill any of their children who have not had all their vaccinations.

  • MrChokey||

    I'm with you on most of this. However, my sister with the ridiculously high IQ said being labeled "Gifted and Talented" was the worst thing that ever happened to her. Now in some places they want to identify G&T kids by age 4. Labels, negative or positive are measurably harmful.

  • MrChokey||

    I'm with you on most of this. However, my sister with the ridiculously high IQ said being labeled "Gifted and Talented" was the worst thing that ever happened to her. Now in some places they want to identify G&T kids by age 4. Labels, negative or positive are measurably harmful.

  • Deep Lurker||

    I still think that David Friedman said it best:

    I have long held that there are two fundamental views of children: That they are pets who can talk, or that they are small people who do not yet know very much. The wrong one is winning.
  • HeatherDC||

    Huh. I need to think about this. It kinda seems the snarky judgements of other parents are strong on both sides here. I just can't see why parents should be faulted and hated because they lean a little crunchy. Is choosing Organic un-libertarian? Is choosing to bond solidly with an infant a communist act? Live and let live!

  • Weygand||

    Wow...my wife is a closet attachment parent. She tried the "don't say no/redirect" campaign for about 4 days until our son disabused her of her belief in that approach. Co-Sleeping I will defend because the scripted feedings @ UnGodly hours were disruptive for all. Plus with co-sleeping, sometimes daddy would sneak over and be getting some titty for 3 minutes before she woke up and found a fox in the henhouse

  • zogmrbill||

    Not sure what the hate about allergies is all about. My son has a peanut allergy. Pretty simple really. If he ingests it, he will break out in hives, his throat will close and he will suffocate within 10 minutes. I'm fine with the the whole rap except when you try to turn a life threatnening medical condition into a warmed over machismo rant.

  • zogmrbill||

    3 weeks ago my son was in class and a classmate gave him a peppermint cookie. turns out it was a peppermint-peanut cookie. An adrenalin shot and 20 minutes later and we were off to the ER in an ambulance, so really, spare me the outrage.

  • Seth Stevens||

    Lololololololol Kennedy is an unfucked fool.

  • Steven Horwitz||

    Lovely, just lovely. "unnaturally unfucked" and "soft landing for hard boning" are lines for the ages.

    I've made a less funny version of this argument here: http://austrianeconomists.type.....rship.html

  • Oliver1953||

    Well done, Kennedy! I, too, have celiac disease, but I don't go into restaurants expecting them to cater exclusively to me, or seat anyone eating a baguette at least three tables away from me. My husband and I are anarcho-capitalists from WAY back, and we raised our two sons, both grown now, to respect their minds and to use them to excel. It wasn't easy, given the climate in public schools, one that valued "equality," "diversity," and "fairness," all code words for being the least you can be. Keep up the good work!

  • Webe||

    I used to have my daughters and their friends march (left/right, left/right) down the sidewalk here in Amsterdam. A lot of people looked aghast, but it was just a variation on follow the leader, for the fun.

    Although I agree with almost everything in the article, the reference to Marx/Engels is gratuitous, and the connection with libertarianism is also kind of tenuous. A lot of things are better considered on their own terms without framing things in some kind of ideological continuum.

    (People have told me my whole life that I'm too conservative and authoritatian. Politically I'm way left of center, except that I have scant common cause with most progressive hobby horses.)

  • creativebeth||

    What an inane, senseless rant. Before you attack something, at least try to know what the hell you are even talking about. Attachment parenting has nothing to do with food allergies or vegans. And life threatening food allergies are much different than celiac or a food intolerance. Celiac or a food intolerance only affects a person when they ingest whichever food they are intolerant too. Life threatening food allergies, on the other hand, are sometimes so severe that people have contact and inhalation reactions in addition to ingestion reactions. Any of these means of coming in contact with the allergen can lead to anaphylaxis, a quick and potentially fatal systemic reaction. Life threatening food allergy is a disability. It is something that more and more children are experiencing. In fact, it is an epidemic. So please take that in: you are mocking disabled people. My child had no choice in having a life threatening allergy to peanuts, and it affects her life in very profound ways. You watch your child go from perfectly normal to vomiting, struggling to breathe, and their lips turning purple, while you jam an Epipen into their thigh as your husband calls 911, all the while chanting, "Please don't die," over and over in your head, and then tell me I'm overreacting or made up my child's allergy. My kid can DIE from a microscopic remnant of peanut protein. Yes, it is a crazy concept to wrap one's head around, even for me who has dealt with it for her entire 13 years.

  • creativebeth||

    Food is not supposed to be able to kill instantly. I understand that people are uneducated about food allergies, and I do my best to change that in as polite a manner as I can, but this article and so many others like it, are simply espousing ignorance and hate. I, and the entire food allergy community, deserve an apology.

  • Peggy||

    agreed about needing to be more aware of these allergies and the severities of some. If my kid went into anaphylaxic shock from peanuts, as some do, I would be hypersensitive as a matter of survival. I met one family where this was an issue - it was quite a challenge for all. It is hard to believe, was shocking for me to learn, how sensitive some can be to the allergen, hard for the families to cope.

  • Edwin||

    Libertarian parenting? Is it something we really need to put a name on? Are we even parenting like that because of our political beliefs? Wouldn't that be a douche thing todo; wouldn't you be as much of a douchebag as the attachment parents and self-righteous vegan hippies?
    How about you not be an over-protective ass because it's simply stupid? It's just common sense; regardless of how much chris hansen you see on TV the world isn't actually that dangerous. Just make sure your kids stay within 2-3 blocks and you'll be cool, depending on the town of course. I'm more afraid of the CPS who'd want to take my kids using that mentality than any actual danger from strangers or other stuff.

  • Edwin||

    And how's this for a parenting idea, to get your kids to play outside more: it's a new kind of electrical fixture set-up I came up with. For chandeliers, they've got these key switches to run the winch to lwoer and raise the chandelier, you have to have the key to put in to turn the "lock" which is the switch. So take that set up, and apply it to an outlet/receptacle. Wire a key switch to a receptacle, then with the right key you can turn on or off the recptacle/outlet. Tell the kids they're only allowed to have the Xbox or whatever in that plug, and to get them to play outside, you have the key to turn off the receptacle completely.

  • Tyger_purr||

    The Connected Child: Bring hope and healing to your adoptive family is not a book for Parenting "normal" children. it is a technique for connecting with children who have been abused and/or neglected.

  • Tyger_purr||

    The Connected Child: Bring hope and healing to your adoptive family is not a book for Parenting "normal" children. it is a technique for connecting with children who have been abused and/or neglected. I have heard the author speak. She does not support permissive parenting (described as children holding the parents hostage) or the everyone's a winner mentality.

  • Alexander||

    Despite a handful of comments on here, most you sound like a bunch of self-righteous jerks. Libertarians are worse than vegans these days.

  • some guy666||

    Thank god we have only have to read Kennedy's ranting and not have to be there personally. She is still annoying after all these years. Kennedy is the original annoying hipster.

  • The Mommy Psychologist||

    As a child psychologist myself, one of the things that is so misleading about attachment parenting is the name. It is only called attachment parenting because of the theory it was based upon. It is not called this because it is the only form of parenting which allows parents to develop a secure attachment relationship with their children. There are numerous ways to develop a secure attachment relationship with our kids. I explore more of this myth here for anyone who is interested:
    http://www.themommypsychologis.....parenting/

  • Kratoklastes||

    Gold.

    Also - not for nothin', but certain ethno-culturo-religious groups indoctrinate their offspring to think that they are inherently superior (i.e., ubermenschen) to all other human life by dint of a foreskin-pact between a Sky Wizard and a Mesopotamian nomad (who was doinking his half-sister: classy, and not remotely going to cause genetic disasters).

    So, y'know... just sayin'.

  • Peggy||

    Jane dear, love ya but..you are lumping attachment parenting with obsessive over-protectiveness. They are not the same. I speak as one libertarian whose kids are now grown, so I have seen the results of my attachment-style - extended breastfeeding, cosleeping when young, comforting over crying, basically attempting to acknowledge and be responsive to their childlike needs. We also homeschooled. I did this to honor their individuality, not to follow any crowd or out of any collectivism. While they may have looked more dependent as little ones, because they got their infancy needs met, they grew up to be strongly independent, highly functioning, libertarian adults. They never had any allergies or special "sensitivities." They further did not fall prey to much in the way of peer pressure (no self-destructive patterns), maybe because they are not still trying to get those infancy needs met as young adults.

  • Gpowermama||

    I "get" what ol' Kennedy is trying to do with this article, but I don't think it works. She seems to be talking more about run-of-the-mill annoying parents rather than specifically those who practice elements of "attachment parenting" (the only concrete element of which she mentions here is co-sleeping, which from my personal experience does not necessarily prevent"boning" or sleeping). I've considered myself a loose follower of AP b/c I homebirthed, breastfed til 33 months and prioritized being at home with my under 3 year old over my career for a short period of our lives...however, I, too, don't care for forced sharing among children (or adults), lack of firm discipline and direction for children and the whole no rewards thing when it comes to games and group sports/efforts. I don't care one way or another about organic, we do vaccinate, etc. etc. etc. My point is that Kennedy is conflating a bunch of things she doesn't seem to really know much about in order to make an article out of some imagined parallel between AP and communism...and she never really says what "libertarian" parenting is...

  • Gpowermama||

    also, homeschooling is about one of the most "libertarian" things a person can do! (we don't, but I respect those who do...)

  • Girl Gone Rogue||

    This precisely is the problem: "More than ever, parents of ordinary children are emboldened to push for lower standards so no one feels bad, let alone extraordinary."

    I've always said "humility is a concept created by the mediocre," so seeing this concept applied here to parenting and society's constant assault on success for the sake of "feelings" is not only awesome validation but hopefully also something that takes hold among Libertarian-minded parents as they shape the next generation.

  • Pez||

    "Everyone is a winner" isn't humility. Not being a jerk about how awesome you are is closer to humility.

  • Wickedbass||

    I had to comment on this. I think too many people get wrapped up in semantics. I don't know that I fit the definition of an "attachment parent". I live and raise my child by my own rules (and, of course, those of my husband since he's also the father). Our son is getting a bedroom makeover with a big boy bed for his upcoming 4th birthday which WILL get him sleeping in his own bed. We love having him in our bed, but we also hate it. It's made life much easier for us while he was a baby and when you, as a mother, don't have help from Dad to get the kid into his own bed, it at least allows you to sleep.

    However, I don't believe in teaching my kid to be greedy, picky, etc. He eats all kinds of foods. So far, he has no food allergies. He's allowed to get dirty and eat sweets. He's allowed to feel what he feels, but not at the expense of others. He's not allowed to pitch fits, hit, bite, scream, etc. We LET our son follow our rules. We give him a chance. We don't want to be like our dads, especially like mine. He expected us to screw up, so he would make a demand and then scream at us for not following just a second after. I don't want to be like that, but I also don't want to be a pushover.

    I just don't think every parental set needs to be lopped into a specific category. Some of us don't feel the need to follow a parenting style verbatim. I'm not like that with anything - including politics. We’re humans – we don’t require a succinct definition.

  • zamoracarl711||

    just as Jeffrey explained I am alarmed that a mom able to profit $5474 in one month on the computer. have you seen this site makecash16Com

  • Terskac||

    I can't say I know much about the practice of "attachment parenting" but I think parenting is mostly about teaching kids to become "unattached". They are already plenty attached to begin with. Some of my kids have accomplished this more quickly than others.
    I have never met parents that don't want their kids to succeed. I have met several with psychiatric problems that are damaging their kids. Their strollers and worries about allergies didn't amount to squat.
    It's the parents that lie for and provide alibis for their little criminals that are doing the most harm. Their kids are stealing their booze and pills too and going to school drunk and stoned.

    Was this written by a kid in middle school?

    Live and let live.

  • Pez||

    This is a straw man argument, using yuppies (do people still say that?)to invalidate Attachment Parenting, with out actually addressing the isues... read more
    http://unkamenwriter.net/2012/.....ttachment/

  • B-girl||

    (PART 1/2) I don't see the ration behind this article and the sarcastic arrogant language just suggest these are just typical ignorant angry LAZY Americans who are afraid of people actually PARENTING their kids. In the wild a baby's connection to their parents was keen to their survival.

    Aps train their infants from birth how to use the toilet so the tots won't have to sit in their filth for hours at a time, form diaper rashes with the land-filling disposable diapers which are chuck full of chemicals, and they can learn how to communicate with their parents at a early age. What's wrong with that? Aren't most American kids stupid and autistic?

    The idiot author who proudly feeds his kids junk must not be aware of the OBESITY problem in America's youth. Thanks to idiot parents such as yourselves, your child won’t live to see 60, he’ll be chuck full of diet pills and have a leg amputated by the time he’s 40 and acne written.

    The American psychiatric Association mandated that children under the age of five should NOT be watching the telly. That's not the 'annoying' attachment parents (You know, the ones who actually go out of their way for their children), but PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGISTS.

  • LibertineAtLaw||

    You're right. The "sarcastic and arrogant language" really seems to appeal to a lot of so-called Libertarians at reason, but it reeks of authoritarian overreaction.

    Incidentally, I was an Attachment Parent for my child's early years, and I never once tried to "force" my beliefs on anyone. I was too busy having to defend mine.

    Today, the little boy who slept by my side for all those years is a successful and independent high school student taking college courses, running his own blog and computer programming business, and writing thoughtful, intelligent political and social commentary that beats the hell out of anything I've read around here.

  • B-girl||

    (PART 2/2) Recent studies show American children (western kids) are so untended by idiotic self-riotous jackass parents such as your self, they form emotional bonds with cuddle toys (inanimate objects)more so than their own parents. And PREFER their plastic surrogate breast (pacifiers and bottles) before their actual mothers. says a lot about how much your kids love you.

    The attachment parents you mock, have kids with better spinal development because the APs wear their children (if you don't believe me study it, there has been papers and journals who cannot get over the incredible benefits in infant bone development in the children who are worn by ATTACHMENT PARENTS rather than put in a crib or a car seat by IDIOT PARENTS), they have no BPA in their children's system (via formula and bottles like IPs ), better immune systems for those who are breastfed, happier sons with better sex-lives (not having to go around plugging anuses because their penis is malfunctioning), and kids who get 101 teaching from tutors and instructors in libraries, Boarders Bookstores, or quiet outdoor environments rather than be the 1 in a room of 31 rowdy students in a public school classroom (u.s education ranks the worst in most developed countries, and i continue to wonder why)

    American journalist you've shown your terrible parenting (that is so entirely atrocious, you shun ACTUAL parenting) your unhealthy lifestyles and your fear of nature. Good work!

  • DarenJC||

    After reading a mere portion of this article, I came to the conclusion that the author underwent some form of childhood trauma by either a primary caregiver or someone closely related and has since lost the ability to connect to those maternal or paternal feelings of care and compassion because it causes them discomfort.

    These feelings of anger and resentment should be handled with a primary care physician, psychiatrist, counselor, or religious affiliate, not on the Internet.

  • Jerie||

    AGREED.

  • Jerie||

    This article is ignorance in its most extreme form.A bit of info on me so readers can learn something from someone who actually knows what they are talking about:I am Born Again believing Christian.I am a vegan,why? I just choose to have my paths be marked with gentleness in this world.My husband is a meat eating man and I am the one who puts the roast in the pot for him.We discipline our kids by setting an example..While you are spending your money on new toys and technology for your kids, we use our money to put our kids through Christian school and out of public schools.My husband,fyi,is pistol-toting,rifle-bearing Marine who teaches his son what a real man should be like!Our teachings run so deep inside our children that when moments to choose right and wrong manifest themselves in their lives,the decision to do right comes from inside.You have kids that behave when you are around...soon as you say they are old enough to not be hit anymore,they wont have it in them do right because "right" was always an externally forced thing.They will be drinking and sleeping around and YOU are to blame.The "rod" of discipline in the Bible refers to the Word of God.AP is not about any of the nonsense you mentioned. Its about putting your kids first.You, who leave your kids to "cry it out" and spank them are people who are clueless on how to parent and put your own needs first.

  • Jerie||

    All of the settlers of our country AND the people who already lived here, as well as all the frontier people parented in an attachment style. They had to put their kids needs far ahead of their own and be with their kids at all times. Its the modern, post WWII lazy ways that teach you to spank your kids and leave them to cry, etc. This selfish mindset is what created these lost generations that make us all say "what has happened to people these days??" they are self-absorbed just like their parents. My kids see us trading our sleep and time to parent them and they are light in this world.

  • Jerie||

    oh, and my son was born with an allergy. I kept my own diet safe for him and kept his safe until he grew out of it. I served foods with the allergen in it to my friends and family. get a clue. what you posted has nothing to do with attachment parenting.

  • Jerie||

    In addition, I have parents literally asking me if their kids can hang out with mine so theirs can learn from mine. Yep. And my husband's and my lovelife is WAY, way more active and colorful than yours. I guarantee that. :) A child sleeping on their daddy's big chest is growing in confidence exponentially. Anyone setting their baby in a crib and shutting the door to their cries is just selfish. We choose parenting over ourselves. You choose yourselves over parenting. We are taking the time to do things you aren't willing to because "its too hard." Well guess who will be more thankful in the long run?

  • Jerie||

    What PROVES this article was written in ignorance is the whole "stroller" thing. Attachment parents WEAR their kids. The stroller crowd is not us. so thank yourselves for the stroller nuisances!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement