Although neither I nor MIL or SIL have used the term AP with each other, when ever the topic of basically attending to your child's needs as quickly as possible came up, they always commented on how, "you won't be able to do that once you have another child."
They were pretty convinced that child #2 would have to be left to wail in her cot so that I could eat/shower/hang out washing/watch TV/have time to myself.
Now undoubtedly having your attention torn between two children, means sometimes one of them has to wait, but my basic philosophy has not changed.
I still BF on demand/ bedshare/ have not CIO.
I'm not saying different parenting choices are wrong, I just feel glad that having another child hasn't meant my entire philosophical approach has changed. I'm glad to prove my snarly/know-it-all in-laws wrong.
Anyone else proven people wrong either with first or subsequent children?
Re: Proving the in-laws wrong. Yes I can AP with a second child
I don't have two children, but I do think some people don't fully understand what "AP" is, since there isn't really a single definition of AP.
People think since I'm AP that I run to DD whenever she cries or needs me. That really isn't the case. Sometimes I can't because I'm cooking, or working on something, and she needs to wait a minute. Sure if she's hurt I'll respond right away, but if she's just crying because she wants me to pick her up then I don't.
But yes, I do think you can be AP with more than one kid...
I think that AP helped me parent subsequent children and I didn't find it difficult to do with more than 1. Things like babywearing/bedsharing made parenting two children easier, not harder. I didn't feel like I had to resort to CIO with my second child.
I don't feel like I regularly left one kid crying to do something else. Of course sometimes someone had to wait, but it was easy enough to distract them to buy myself a minute or so to get what my other child needed. I felt that AP made my kids more independent so they were ok if I needed a few minutes to do something. I also think that taking advantage of the time that DH was home in the morning before work to get organized for the day really helped with that since I'd use that time to shower/prepare DS's meals for the day so I didn't have to leave the baby crying for food because I needed to make DS's lunch really helped make AP successful (and keep my sanity in general, lol).
I think that it does make it easier with the second, too.
What particularly drove me nuts with my in-laws was that because they were convinced it couldn't be done with both, the inference was and therefore you shouldn't be doing it now. ie you should let that baby wail because you won't be able to rush to them once you have another one.
Which to me is like saying we won't be able to afford a holiday when we have ten children, and so therefore we should not go on a holiday now.
Elizabeth 5yrs old Jane 3yrs old
This is us as well. I have not had to leave either child to cry while I do something. Sometimes they will fuss (DS) or whine/complain (DD), but nobody is getting really upset. Yeah, it's hard and a bit of a juggle, but it doesn't mean that my basic parenting instincts have changed.
DD is my first, but I've definitely proved my mom wrong. She was never really against our parenting choices, but would comment about how she wouldn't be in the same bed with us because it isn't safe, eventually we'll have to let her cry, she can't always get her way (at 1 month!), cloth diapers and breastfeeding might not work, etc.
I'm not exactly in a "HA! Proved you wrong!" sort of situation, but it's nice that my husband and I are on the same page and it doesn't matter what page anyone else is on!
Look! I put the diaper on the baby!