When my first was a month old, I was hospitalized with mastitis. Of course, the baby was with me! MIL was offended that I wouldn't let her take the baby home, and that I 'stopped' her from spending 'precious time' with the baby. TG that the nurses prevented visitors that time. Basically, I think if you're not putting the needs of mother and baby first, over your own need for gratification, you might want to change that if you truly desire a relationship with the child as they grow.

This thread has reminded me of the way my in-laws didn't even ask if they could visit hours after two of my births (and their son was too spineless to ask them to leave). I did not want either of them there - and one of the reasons was, that they weren't there to see me and the baby, they were just there to see the baby - I felt like a baby-delivery machine. And grossly, the excitement over meeting the boy baby (after ignoring the second girl) made me feel even more that way. By baby three, I told them to leave. I wasn't gonna breastfeed my tongue-tied 6-hour-old infant with them in the room. Or even in the hospital. Very much on team 'don't barge in without an express invitation from the mother'. Early hours/days/weeks post-partum is not about anything other than the mother-infant dyad, IMO. Babies can 'bond' with others later. If you, as an extended family member, really care about the mother and baby, find out what would be helpful to them. It's not about you, Grandma (or cousin or whomever).

A. But honestly, B sounds really nice!

I'm not really interested in discussing further with someone who has hit their kids and thinks that was just fine.

Yeah, heaven forbid we might critically analyze the harmful assumptions that underlie some methods of baby-rearing. (Separately, kilts are good).

Podcasts. Psychological self-care - not getting het up about the wakefulness. Not looking at the clock. Understanding that it's quite normal for humans to have two periods of sleep. Understanding that being awake (and even being tired the next day) is not an emergency. Not going to sleep too early. If I go to sleep any time before 10.30, I will wake up around 3/4.

Words have associations. In this case, the (strong) association is with an abusive method of baby training. Idc if you want to call sitting on the rug with the baby 'blanket training'. Just don't get hurt when people hear 'blanket training' and think Pearls.

OMG. I can't even. We are talking about where a concept comes from, and the underlying (and often unexamined) assumptions the concept drags along with them. Most modern parents will not call what they see in their infant 'sin', but they'll replace it with ideas of the baby 'riling' the parent up, of attributing a level of manipulation to the baby that just doesn't exist. Up your discourse, ladies. Learning is not training. I'm not really interested in discussing further with someone who has hit their kids and thinks that was just fine.

Yep. Choose a new word. 'Sitting on a rug at the park'. 'Using a rug as a prop at a music class'. Blanket training does not mean any instance of sitting on a blanket as an under 5.

If people would like to reread my posts, they will find a post which specifically says I am not calling anyone in this thread abusive. So those who are claiming they've been called child abusers can settle right down. Deal with your own defensiveness instead of projecting it.

The reason you view training babies (under 12 months or so but definitely under 6 months) negatively is because it's a concept with roots in a particular world view that sees infants as capable of sin. Just because it mainstreamed, apparently, doesn't remove the underlying assumptions. You'll see them in the language used about the baby and her motivations. The systematic training of babies (by punishment is worse but also by reward) does not fit with any modern understanding of infant cognitive psychology. That's why you're uncomfy. The stomach clench? It's telling you something. (Because ppl seem determined to conflate this with sitting on a blanket at the park with a toddler, I'll end with redirection to the definition above of 'baby'.)

Yeah, once upon a time we thought babies didn't really feel pain. Know better, do better. No-one needs to hit their children to keep them safe.

Again, you're claiming I'm saying things I'm not. I think we're done here.

A pre-determined pattern of parental disapproval, designed at extinguishing 'rebellious' behaviour in an infant, and repeated until said 'rebellion' is extinguished - yes, it runs that risk. That's not the same thing as 'the slightest hint of disapproval'. Or an involuntary ouch. Or indeed, moving one's glasses out of reach, or using a baby's cues to hypothesize they are no longer hungry.

I'd just like to point out that I didn't say that. I said training infants isn't developmentally sound.

100 x this. I'm not saying anyone on this thread is abusive, so I hope no one 'reads in' to this next statement something that isn't there. The bolded is a worldview that child abuse grows out of.

I think you're attributing things to my worldview that aren't there. For example, it is neutral on the mother's eye health. Eye health might be such that the firm no is one of those unavoidable harms. What you describe here isn't training, anyway.

That's a really interesting perspective, thank you.

I'd tie my hair up so it wasn't available to them, and give them a substitute we could play with together. I figured they were trying to meet a sensory and/or attachment need. I didn't 'train' them not to pull, because as I've stated, I don't think babies and training really go together.

No, babies do not set out to manipulate people or 'rile' their mothers up. They explore, they experiment, and they are curious - that doesn't need the moral overlay of 'rebellion' or 'manipulation'.

The term 'rebellion' when used for a baby is upsetting. Babies don't rebel. That's not how their brains and minds are made. They just have needs and they express those needs in ways designed to have their survival needs met.

Conditioning tends to be deliberate and repeated. It's not the same as a single or involuntary expression.

It's a spectrum. Invalidating behaviors can exist independently of physical, emotional, or sexual abuse, and have their own peculiar harms to the infant psyche.

Showing toddlers how to change a shirt is not the same as training a three-month-old to have her nappy changed in particular ways. Because toddlers are at a different stage of cognitive and emotional development than a three-month-old. Rebellious isn't a word that belongs in a sentence about a baby, IMO. Babies don't/can't 'rebel', just as they don't/can't 'manipulate'. This is where I see a cross over with the Pearls, despite the lack of physical coerciveness.

Maybe they need to be seen in their frustration and upset. Maybe it's OK that they will dislike having their nappy changed. Maybe you will just be careful and empathetic and as quick as possible when you change their nappy, without seeking to 'train' them out of their feelings about it. (Slight devil's advocate here - but only slight. I do think we can accidentally, and with the best of intentions, be coercive with regard to our infant's emotional life.)