Blanket training

[Sneezyone]

Just now, wendyroo said:

NT as in neurotypical? None of my kids are neurotypical, not even close.

You have no idea at 12 weeks. None.

[thatfirstsip]

4 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

Well, I took out what I wanted to say, which was 'hitting', because I didn't want wildflower to feel bad.

It's hitting your kid. 

Applying punishing force to their bodies.

 

I also use the word hit when I mean hit (when other people might say spank, or smack, or pop) - because it is, straightforwardly, hitting.

I've had people say, "I didn't hit him, I spanked him!" which just sounds insane to me.

[Terabith]

At no point did I think of myself as training my baby, but I pretty much did exactly what @wendyroo described with diaper changes, down to using the ABC song, which I think came from Susan Wise Bauer.  I thought of it as teaching kids about how long it would take.  I wasn’t trying to shape behavior but I was being animated and fun and if they were too wiggly for a moment then I was worrying about keeping them safe on the changing table.  
 

6 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I don’t try shit other than meeting **needs** with my 12 week old BABIES. I will not excuse abusive foolishness.

But…. I’m in no way into compliance for compliance sake.  I strongly believe that it’s vital for kids to be able to lodge protests and for reasons to be given, but I think teaching boundaries can absolutely be meeting their needs.  

Edited September 17, 2023 by Terabith

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, Terabith said:

At no point did I think of myself as training my baby, but I pretty much did exactly what @wendyroo described with diaper changes, down to using the ABC song, which I think came from Susan Wise Bauer.  I thought of it as teaching kids about how long it would take.  I wasn’t trying to shape behavior but I was being animated and fun and if they were too wiggly for a moment then I was worrying about keeping them safe on the changing table.  
 

But…. I’m in no way into compliance for compliance sake.  I strongly believe that it’s vital for kids to be able to lodge protests and for reasons to be given, but I think teaching boundaries for safety can absolutely be meeting their needs.  

So do I, for kids capable of reasoning. Are infants capable of weighing pros, cons or consequences???

[Melissa Louise]

My change table solution to dangerous rolling off was to use a portable change mat on the floor.

This would not be an option for some parents and caretakers with physical limitations, but for many of us, it is. Change the environment and the 'need for training'  disappears.

[thatfirstsip]

I can understand where Wendyroo is coming from; I've never been in a situation where I had several very small children who all needed frequent medical appointments (or therapy appointments, which can last much longer), and no possibility of scheduling the appointment when I had childcare.

I suppose if I had say a 5 year old, a 3 year old, a small toddler, and a newborn, and I had to take all four of these kids two or three times a week (even once a week) to 30 minute long appointments in a place where there was no childcare, and I couldn't get family or hired help to care for the other kids during the appointment time, and I knew this was going to be the case for years and years on end, I also would try to find a way to make that work, and wendyroo's way doesn't seem like the worst.

But it's an extreme case, I think. Other than that very specific scenario, I don't know how necessary any type of blanket training ever is.

As far as training a newborn not to wiggle off a table during diaper changes - I dunno, man, I've changed thousands and thousands of diapers and never once used a table. I put the pad on the floor, or on a bed (if I have a bigger pad and I'm feeling fancy). What is the purpose of a changing table? It seems like it causes more problems than it solves. You can't wiggle off a floor.

[wendyroo]

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

You have no idea at 12 weeks. None.

I don't understand. Are you saying that using special ed techniques on a ND 12 week old would be okay in your mind, but using them on a NT 12 week old would not?

I honestly don't follow what your NT/ND argument is about.

I obviously did not know for sure that my 12 week olds were ND...though there were some very strong clues. But I would have taught them behaviors to make our day to day functioning run more smoothly whether they were NT or ND.

I don't understand any possible downside to teaching babies how to anticipate frequent events. We had bedtime routines, nursing routines, diaper changing routines and going in the car routines. None of those were to prepare me for the event - I knew what was happening next - it was all to help them learn what time it was, what needed to happen, and how long it would last.

[Sneezyone]

7 minutes ago, wendyroo said:

I don't understand. Are you saying that using special ed techniques on a ND 12 week old would be okay in your mind, but using them on a NT 12 week old would not?

I honestly don't follow what your NT/ND argument is about.

I obviously did not know for sure that my 12 week olds were ND...though there were some very strong clues. But I would have taught them behaviors to make our day to day functioning run more smoothly whether they were NT or ND.

I don't understand any possible downside to teaching babies how to anticipate frequent events. We had bedtime routines, nursing routines, diaper changing routines and going in the car routines. None of those were to prepare me for the event - I knew what was happening next - it was all to help them learn what time it was, what needed to happen, and how long it would last.

No. I’m saying it’s inappropriate to use restrictive/corrective SPED techniques intended for toddlers and youths or adults on **ANY** 12-week old child who doesn’t demonstrate a need for them. The priority for ALL infants, NT/ND is meeting their, specific, needs. That’s it. Unless you have a diagnosis at 12 weeks, impulse control (CONTROL!!) isn’t one if them.

Edited September 17, 2023 by Sneezyone

[Terabith]

Just now, Melissa Louise said:

My change table solution to dangerous rolling off was to use a portable change mat on the floor.

This would not be an option for some parents and caretakers with physical limitations, but for many of us, it is. Change the environment and the 'need for training'  disappears.

But you still have the issue of the fact that it’s harder to change the diaper of a kid who is wiggling like crazy than it is on one who is cooperating with the process. My babies were happier having some idea of about how long changing would take, and timing it to a song helped them know that in a way they could kinda understand by six months or so.  Look, I chose to not have most furniture in my house because I was ALL ABOUT modifying the environment because I was not about imposing my will. We slept on a mattress on the floor so kids could jump on it at will.  As my kids grew, I removed more and more books from my house because I didn’t want to clean up books removed from shelves over and over again.  But there were certain things we did that I just intuitively shaped behavior on because it was safer and easier for me and ultimately less stressful for the babies themselves.  Being fun and animated when a child is cooperating with a diaper change and then quieter and more subdued/ less animated for a few moments when they aren’t is teaching them but it just isn’t abuse or controlling.  
 

12 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

So do I, for kids capable of reasoning. Are infants capable of weighing pros, cons or consequences???

They aren’t.  But they are capable of learning routines and what makes you happy.  And shaping behavior to make it easier to keep them safe and happy can help them in the long run. A kid who has learned at five months that diaper changing is faster and more fun if you aren’t writhing all over the place like an octopus is happier in the long run because this boring chore takes less of their time.  

[maize]

18 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I don’t try shit other than meeting **needs** with my 12 week old BABIES. I will not excuse abusive foolishness.

If you think singing the alphabet song during a diaper change is abusive you have quite an unusual definition of abuse.

Now,  I did have one child who apparently found my singing quite distressing. I liked to sing to my kids when nursing them to sleep, but this one once he started to talk would put his hand over my mouth and say "uh-uh-sing"... he loved to sing himself, including humming away while nursing, but apparently did not approve of my singing!

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, Terabith said:

But you still have the issue of the fact that it’s harder to change the diaper of a kid who is wiggling like crazy than it is on one who is cooperating with the process. My babies were happier having some idea of about how long changing would take, and timing it to a song helped them know that in a way they could kinda understand by six months or so.  Look, I chose to not have most furniture in my house because I was ALL ABOUT modifying the environment because I was not about imposing my will. We slept on a mattress on the floor so kids could jump on it at will.  As my kids grew, I removed more and more books from my house because I didn’t want to clean up books removed from shelves over and over again.  But there were certain things we did that I just intuitively shaped behavior on because it was safer and easier for me and ultimately less stressful for the babies themselves.  Being fun and animated when a child is cooperating with a diaper change and then quieter and more subdued/ less animated for a few moments when they aren’t is teaching them but it just isn’t abuse or controlling.  
 

They aren’t.  But they are capable of learning routines and what makes you happy.  And shaping behavior to make it easier to keep them safe and happy can help them in the long run. A kid who has learned at five months that diaper changing is faster and more fun if you aren’t writhing all over the place like an octopus is happier in the long run because this boring chore takes less of their time.  

I have changed wiggly babies. Repeatedly. Even when toddlers are present. I’ve NEVER felt the need to train them to obey or else. That’s sick IMO. If you can’t deal…stop. Know your limits.

[Ting Tang]

I just watched a tutorial on YouTube, and  a few commenters asked if they could start blanket training past a year. 😬 

[Melissa Louise]

12 weeks is pretty tiny for instituting routines and 'teachings'. 

This all sounds a lot like the dominant advice when I was a baby - getting a baby into a parent-led routine ASAP, teaching the baby she can't always have her way, letting her cry it out, etc.

It rests on a world view, conscious or otherwise, that babies need control, and that they will be morally spoiled ('endangered') in some way if they are not taught to subordinate their needs (to explore, to move, to protest, or cry).

Infancy is short. Meeting infants on their developmental level as best as one can - it's really something to aim for.

12-week-olds are still learning how secure they are in the world, through touch, tone, and satisfaction of hunger. IMO, it's really not the right time to be 'teaching' aka training. 

 

 

[Terabith]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

I have changed wiggly babies. Repeatedly. Even when toddlers are present. I’ve NEVER felt the need to train them to obey or else. That’s sick IMO. If you can’t deal…stop. Know your limits.

Nobody’s describing teaching them to obey “or else” though?  I mean, other than Debbie Pearl.  We’re describing having a routine and being more fun and engaging when the kid is not being an octopus while changing a diaper or staying in a given area while at a sporting event where there are multiple dangers around and if that doesn’t work figuring something else out.  Nobody’s saying they can’t deal; we’re just saying that teaching routine to make lives easier (including the baby’s) is one technique in the parenting arsenal.  

[Sneezyone]

9 minutes ago, maize said:

If you think singing the alphabet song during a diaper change is abusive you have quite an unusual definition of abuse.

Now,  I did have one child who apparently found my singing quite distressing. I liked to sing to my kids when nursing them to sleep, but this one once he started to talk would put his hand over my mouth and say "uh-uh-sing"... he loved to sing himself, including humming away while nursing, but apparently did not approve of my singing!

I had a kid who HATED ‘pat-pat’ at daycare nap-time and wouldn’t sleep. Rather than let my kid stay awake and rest quietly, corrective measures were employed…hence pat-pat. There was nothing wrong with my kid and everything wrong with the adults who insisted he sleep, on command, according to their preferences. When he started speaking, he clearly said… ‘I don’t like pat-pat. Lee-mee lone.’ I didn’t hear that until Y2 at which time I made it stop. They TELL us who they are, as they are able. We meet their needs, as they appear, as we are able. These ‘training’ measures feel profoundly disrespectful of their humanity/independence.

Edited September 17, 2023 by Sneezyone

[Terabith]

I had a changing table (a dresser) mostly because my mom stayed with us sometimes and had trouble getting up and down off the floor. 
 

ETA and also because when I had second child it was easier to keep the 17 month old from deciding to throw something at baby while I was otherwise occupied in hands on care of newborn. 

Edited September 17, 2023 by Terabith

[Melissa Louise]

9 minutes ago, Terabith said:

But you still have the issue of the fact that it’s harder to change the diaper of a kid who is wiggling like crazy than it is on one who is cooperating with the process. My babies were happier having some idea of about how long changing would take, and timing it to a song helped them know that in a way they could kinda understand by six months or so.  Look, I chose to not have most furniture in my house because I was ALL ABOUT modifying the environment because I was not about imposing my will. We slept on a mattress on the floor so kids could jump on it at will.  As my kids grew, I removed more and more books from my house because I didn’t want to clean up books removed from shelves over and over again.  But there were certain things we did that I just intuitively shaped behavior on because it was safer and easier for me and ultimately less stressful for the babies themselves.  Being fun and animated when a child is cooperating with a diaper change and then quieter and more subdued/ less animated for a few moments when they aren’t is teaching them but it just isn’t abuse or controlling.  
 

They aren’t.  But they are capable of learning routines and what makes you happy.  And shaping behavior to make it easier to keep them safe and happy can help them in the long run. A kid who has learned at five months that diaper changing is faster and more fun if you aren’t writhing all over the place like an octopus is happier in the long run because this boring chore takes less of their time.  

Babies definitely internalize the pleasure and not-pleasure of their parents from very early.

That's a fact of infant development that requires a lot of consideration, IMO.

Probably a lot more than we are culturally encouraged to give.

 

 

[Terabith]

4 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I had a kid who HATED ‘pat-pat’ at nap-time and wouldn’t sleep. Rather than let me kid stay awake and rest quietly, corrective measures were employed…hence pat-pat. There was nothing wrong with my kid and everything wrong with the adults who insisted he sleep, on command, according to their preferences. When he started speaking, he clearly said… ‘I don’t like pat-pat. Lee-mee lone.’

I had one baby who really didn’t sleep.  Everyone in our house is a night owl, and this kid needed WAY less sleep than the books said.  The most corrective measures that were taken were turning off all the lights in the house and closing the door to the bedroom where I also slept on the mattress on the floor with her and closing my eyes to model sleep and to be really boring.  At that point my husband was literally hallucinating from lack of sleep, so this was a need for everyone.  And while Cat needed less sleep than many babies, she needed some.  The house was just pretty boring after 1 am.  

[Melissa Louise]

8 minutes ago, Terabith said:

Nobody’s describing teaching them to obey “or else” though?  I mean, other than Debbie Pearl.  We’re describing having a routine and being more fun and engaging when the kid is not being an octopus while changing a diaper or staying in a given area while at a sporting event where there are multiple dangers around and if that doesn’t work figuring something else out.  Nobody’s saying they can’t deal; we’re just saying that teaching routine to make lives easier (including the baby’s) is one technique in the parenting arsenal.  

The or-else is the communication of parental disapproval via the mechanism of 'no more song'. 

I mean, that's the whole point of doing it, right?

I can totally see that some people feel the or-else is worth it. 

My personal feeling is that it was never worth it with an infant. 

[wendyroo]

3 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I’ve NEVER felt the need to train them to obey or else.

Obey or else...I will stop singing for a moment and we won't be done with the diaper change as quickly.

Except, how long the diaper change takes is largely up to them, not me. So it taking longer isn't even under my control.

And my singing is just meant to allow them to perceive whether their behavior is delaying the process of not.

If I had had a baby who continued to roll away for the entire time they were in diapers, then I would have continued to patiently wait each time until they settled down and I could finish the job. It would have been far less pleasant for both of us, but its not like I would have started spanking or duct taping them down to force my will on them. 

I was offering them knowledge and agency. Here is how long this annoying task will take. Here are some behaviors that will make it faster if you so choose.

[Terabith]

Just now, Melissa Louise said:

The or-else is the communication of parental disapproval via the mechanism of 'no more song'. 

I mean, that's the whole point of doing it, right?

I can totally see that some people feel the or-else is worth it. 

My personal feeling is that it was never worth it with an infant. 

I mean, I personally never consciously stopped singing because of their behavior, but when @wendyroo was describing her approach, I can recognize it’s exactly what I was doing.  I was doing it because I was concentrating on being safe at that moment.  But a few seconds of subdued reaction just isn’t super controlling. 

[Sneezyone]

5 minutes ago, wendyroo said:

Obey or else...I will stop singing for a moment and we won't be done with the diaper change as quickly.

Except, how long the diaper change takes is largely up to them, not me. So it taking longer isn't even under my control.

And my singing is just meant to allow them to perceive whether their behavior is delaying the process of not.

If I had had a baby who continued to roll away for the entire time they were in diapers, then I would have continued to patiently wait each time until they settled down and I could finish the job. It would have been far less pleasant for both of us, but its not like I would have started spanking or duct taping them down to force my will on them. 

I was offering them knowledge and agency. Here is how long this annoying task will take. Here are some behaviors that will make it faster if you so choose.

So, I hear you, and yet I’ve never seen a baby that didn’t at some point reject cold wipes on a warm butt and want to avoid the task. It’s a PHASE, not a flaw. Treating a phase as a flaw I. in need of training seems like a running theme and recipe for disaster. ESPECIALLY for young kids.

Edited September 17, 2023 by Sneezyone

[Melissa Louise]

12-week-olds can't make use of knowledge like that in service of their agency. They don't 'know' the way older children can know. 

Their agentic behavior is wriggling. It possibly expresses discomfort, playfulness, delight, pleasure or frustration - a wide range of emotions that have nothing to do with knowledge. 

It's fine to sing, play, whatever as a distraction technique.

Or heck, talk to them about what they are doing and may be feeling.

Narrate their experience back to them. They may not understand the words but the tone and mirroring back can be deeply soothing.

We don't need to train infants, just respond to their needs.

 

 

Edited September 17, 2023 by Melissa Louise

[Melissa Louise]

4 minutes ago, Terabith said:

I mean, I personally never consciously stopped singing because of their behavior, but when @wendyroo was describing her approach, I can recognize it’s exactly what I was doing.  I was doing it because I was concentrating on being safe at that moment.  But a few seconds of subdued reaction just isn’t super controlling. 

No, it's not super controlling.

 

[Terabith]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

So, I hear you, and yet I’ve never seen a baby that didn’t at some point reject cold wipes on a warm butt and want to avoid the task. It’s a PHASE, not a flaw. Treating a phase as a flaw seems like a running theme and not a fluke.

I never thought of by babies’ responses as a flaw.  Like it would never have occurred to me to think that way. I was always super empathetic to them and I’d warn them it would be cold and “I know!  It will be over in just a second.”  It’s a completely normal behavior and also…the baby will be happier and everyone will experience less stress if they don’t turn into an octopus with every diaper change. 

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, Terabith said:

I never thought of by babies’ responses as a flaw.  Like it would never have occurred to me to think that way. I was always super empathetic to them and I’d warn them it would be cold and “I know!  It will be over in just a second.”  It’s a completely normal behavior and also…the baby will be happier and everyone will experience less stress if they don’t turn into an octopus with every diaper change. 

Yeah, I did that too. I also never imposed consequences for failing to behave in ways that benefited me when they (my kids) were understandably and obviously uncomfy.

Edited September 17, 2023 by Sneezyone

[wendyroo]

3 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

The or-else is the communication of parental disapproval via the mechanism of 'no more song'. 

I mean, that's the whole point of doing it, right?

I can totally see that some people feel the or-else is worth it. 

My personal feeling is that it was never worth it with an infant. 

What is the magic age?

Are we allowed to let our 6 month old know that pulling our hair hurts? Or is that "parental disapproval" of the behavior so we should suck it up and love every single thing they do no matter what?

Or what about when they bite when nursing? Conventional wisdom is to unlatch them for a few minutes. But that could seem like rejection...so would you advocate letting them bite so they don't think we disapprove?

Strap them in the car seat to take the 3 year old to school? Some babies might experience that as rejection.

Put them down so you can make yourself a quick lunch? Never worth the possibility they might think you are disciplining them.

Where does it end? And when do anyone else's wants/needs/feelings enter into the picture even a little bit?

[Melissa Louise]

3 minutes ago, Terabith said:

I never thought of by babies’ responses as a flaw.  Like it would never have occurred to me to think that way. I was always super empathetic to them and I’d warn them it would be cold and “I know!  It will be over in just a second.”  It’s a completely normal behavior and also…the baby will be happier and everyone will experience less stress if they don’t turn into an octopus with every diaper change. 

The 'everyone' is mostly the parent.

That's understandable, honestly.

None of us can perfectly parent an infant. We are always going to fall short of perfection, either because we are flawed or because we are desperate. 

I just don't think that 'training' is value-neutral when it comes to infants. 

 

[Terabith]

1 minute ago, Melissa Louise said:

The 'everyone' is mostly the parent.

That's understandable, honestly.

None of us can perfectly parent an infant. We are always going to fall short of perfection, either because we are flawed or because we are desperate. 

I just don't think that 'training' is value-neutral when it comes to infants. 

 

Honestly, no.  I don’t really care all that much how long a diaper change lasts.  My babies cared a great deal.  I mean, I am a human being and there are definitely things that I did care about (biting while nursing) for my own benefit.  The baby is a part of the family, and I do think that the needs of others in the family matter too.  Sometimes my babies were put on the floor because I had to poop or because I had to do something for the other child.  I would never call the way I raise babies training, because I agree with you that it’s not a value neutral term with regard to infants.  But that doesn’t change the fact that what I did was, in fact, training.  And I don’t think that it was bad to do so.  

[Melissa Louise]

1 minute ago, wendyroo said:

What is the magic age?

Are we allowed to let our 6 month old know that pulling our hair hurts? Or is that "parental disapproval" of the behavior so we should suck it up and love every single thing they do no matter what?

Or what about when they bite when nursing? Conventional wisdom is to unlatch them for a few minutes. But that could seem like rejection...so would you advocate letting them bite so they don't think we disapprove?

Strap them in the car seat to take the 3 year old to school? Some babies might experience that as rejection.

Put them down so you can make yourself a quick lunch? Never worth the possibility they might think you are disciplining them.

Where does it end? And when do anyone else's wants/needs/feelings enter into the picture even a little bit?

Well, I found it was a continuum.

As children grow and develop, so does their understanding and so does the relationship.

You can parent a nine-month-old differently to a three-month-old, and a three or thirteen-year-old very differently to the nine-month-old.

Infants gradually develop more tolerance as they enter into and move through the second half of the first year.

That's why methods like controlled crying are not recommended for infants under 6 months anymore. 

I think infants do experience a lot of unavoidable rejection and hurt. I think it's good to be as intentional as possible about keeping those instances as limited as possible.

 

 

 

[wendyroo]

1 minute ago, Melissa Louise said:

The 'everyone' is mostly the parent.

See, I think it was far less stress for the baby.

A baby who willing lays still for a diaper change because they understand the consistent routine, can play with toys, listen to music, interact with mom. And it is over quickly.

A baby who spends the whole diaper change trying to roll away, will just be frustrated and upset every single time that they can't have their way. Because even if they are safely being changed on the floor, at some point you have to keep them there long enough to change the diaper.

[Melissa Louise]

Just now, wendyroo said:

See, I think it was far less stress for the baby.

A baby who willing lays still for a diaper change because they understand the consistent routine, can play with toys, listen to music, interact with mom. And it is over quickly.

A baby who spends the whole diaper change trying to roll away, will just be frustrated and upset every single time that they can't have their way. Because even if they are safely being changed on the floor, at some point you have to keep them there long enough to change the diaper.

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.)

[Corraleno]

19 minutes ago, wendyroo said:

What is the magic age?

Are we allowed to let our 6 month old know that pulling our hair hurts? Or is that "parental disapproval" of the behavior so we should suck it up and love every single thing they do no matter what?

Or what about when they bite when nursing? Conventional wisdom is to unlatch them for a few minutes. But that could seem like rejection...so would you advocate letting them bite so they don't think we disapprove?

Strap them in the car seat to take the 3 year old to school? Some babies might experience that as rejection.

Put them down so you can make yourself a quick lunch? Never worth the possibility they might think you are disciplining them.

Where does it end? And when do anyone else's wants/needs/feelings enter into the picture even a little bit?

You keep trying to frame this as if the only two alternatives are a rather Skinnerian approach to controlling infants and young children or letting them grow up feral, and that's just not remotely true. Plenty of parents manage to raise happy healthy babies without treating them like subjects in a conditioning experiment.

[wendyroo]

1 minute ago, Melissa Louise said:

Maybe it's OK that they will dislike having their nappy changed.

Of course it is okay if they dislike it.

But can't it be okay for them not to dislike it?

One of my young toddlers didn't like pulling shirts over his head, so I suggested trying button shirts and he liked those a lot more. But it almost sounds like you are saying I selfishly "trained" him to wear button shirts because I didn't want to deal with his authentic, age-appropriate dislike of pull on shirts. No, I just showed him another way of getting the necessary job done and let him choose.

I show my babies a faster way of getting their diaper changed. But I never take away their choice to do it the slow, rebellious way. Yes, I'm sure they know which way I prefer...but I maintain that even moms are allowed preferences.

[Melissa Louise]

Just now, wendyroo said:

Of course it is okay if they dislike it.

But can't it be okay for them not to dislike it?

One of my young toddlers didn't like pulling shirts over his head, so I suggested trying button shirts and he liked those a lot more. But it almost sounds like you are saying I selfishly "trained" him to wear button shirts because I didn't want to deal with his authentic, age-appropriate dislike of pull on shirts. No, I just showed him another way of getting the necessary job done and let him choose.

I show my babies a faster way of getting their diaper changed. But I never take away their choice to do it the slow, rebellious way. Yes, I'm sure they know which way I prefer...but I maintain that even moms are allowed preferences.

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.

[Sneezyone]

Wriggling during a diaper change is rebellious?? I can’t.

[maize]

There is a lot of space between "abusive behavior that no child should have to endure" and "behavior that doesn't match my personal conception of ideal parenting."

"Not ideal" by any given person's standard must not be conflated with "abusive"; doing so dilutes the concept of abuse so far as to make it meaningless. 

[wendyroo]

4 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

You keep trying to frame this as if the only two alternatives are a rather Skinnerian approach to controlling infants and young children or letting them grow up feral, and that's just not remotely true. Plenty of parents manage to raise happy healthy babies without treating them like subjects in a conditioning experiment.

You didn't answer my question.

Is it "conditioning" a baby to show them that it hurts when they pull your hair or bite when nursing?

I would say yes, that any disapproval of their action is conditioning.

But I also don't see how it could be emotionally healthy for either mom or baby to let them pull and bite and hurt you without letting them know.

[Corraleno]

And frankly the whole "if you do what mommy wants and make her happy then she'll smile and play with you, but if you "rebel" against mommy's control then she will be unhappy and stop playing with you until you are appropriately obedient again" gives me the creeps. I never want my kids to feel that in order to receive attention and affection, they better keep mommy happy. I grew up with that shit, and that's the last thing I want to pass on to my own kids.

[Melissa Louise]

Just now, maize said:

There is a lot of space between "abusive behavior that no child should have to endure" and "behavior that doesn't match my personal conception of ideal parenting."

"Not ideal" by any given person's standard must not be conflated with "abusive"; doing so dilutes the concept of abuse so far as to make it meaningless. 

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.

[Melissa Louise]

2 minutes ago, wendyroo said:

You didn't answer my question.

Is it "conditioning" a baby to show them that it hurts when they pull your hair or bite when nursing?

I would say yes, that any disapproval of their action is conditioning.

But I also don't see how it could be emotionally healthy for either mom or baby to let them pull and bite and hurt you without letting them know.

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

[wendyroo]

1 minute ago, Melissa Louise said:

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.

So you have never experienced a 6-9 month old baby look right at you, get a gleam in their eye, and dump their plate off their high chair tray just to see how much it riles you?

You have never had a baby specifically look to see if you are watching before they make a grab for the remote control?

Of course babies can manipulate. Learning how the world works, how people react, and how to make things happen is their primary survival goal the first year.

[Melissa Louise]

3 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

And frankly the whole "if you do what mommy wants and make her happy then she'll smile and play with you, but if you "rebel" against mommy's control then she will be unhappy and stop playing with you until you are appropriately obedient again" gives me the creeps. I never want my kids to feel that in order to receive attention and affection, they better keep mommy happy. I grew up with that shit, and that's the last thing I want to pass on to my own kids.

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. 

 

[Dmmetler]

I have a different perspective, one that we focus a lot on in ECE music Ed. 

What you're describing-songs for rocking, sitting in the car, feeding, diaper changes, picking up toys, washing hands, crossing the street, etc...that's about 90% of what is taught in parent/child classes or included in modules for caregivers of children below age 2. And there's a really good reason for that. It has nothing to do with teaching the child to comply, or that stopping the song is punitive. It has everything to do with reducing shaken baby syndrome and children abused because of developmentally appropriate behaviors, like, say, wiggling during a diaper change, or running and hiding instead of coming to circle time in a toddler child care setting.

 

See, singing lullabies or whatever is a distractor. It reduces frustration in the adult to have something to do. Singing literally helps regulate things like heart rate and blood pressure. So, when we teach parents and caregivers, we give them songs. And we give them lots of reasons to use said songs without stating "statistically, if you sing a lot, you're less likely to hurt your kid". But one major reason, and one that is ALWAYS in the back of your mind when you're teaching these strategies is that it is frighteningly common for infants to be abused by parents and caregivers out of sheer frustration. And singing reduces that. 

 

It also tends to pull parents into the moment and focus attention on what the parent and child are doing. Which has both safety benefits (child is less likely to wiggle off the table or bed if a parent is attentive) and socio-emotional benefits. 

 

If you have multiple young children at once, having a set routine for the baby stuff also gives the older child comfort and an understanding of how long this is going to take, too. Because a baby might not have internalized that "if mom is at LMNOP, we're almost done", but the waiting 3 yr old has--and might be able to wait until "next time won't you sing with me". Because the more bodies there are in one space,the more important everyone being able to self-regulate as much of the time as possible is. 

 

And since children learn self regulation strategies via observing them and trying them out, the more self regulated adults are, and the more strategies they can model, the easier it is for the child to add them to their toolbox as they're ready to do so. If the child happens to learn that a diaper change is one song long, so if I stay still, it's over faster, that's great. But even if they don't, there is still value in the parent singing every time. 

[Terabith]

3 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

You keep trying to frame this as if the only two alternatives are a rather Skinnerian approach to controlling infants and young children or letting them grow up feral, and that's just not remotely true. Plenty of parents manage to raise happy healthy babies without treating them like subjects in a conditioning experiment.

I definitely am not in favor of treating babies as if they're living in a Skinner box, but I do think that parents can have a few things that they care about and teach their infants in a non coercive way what it is the parent cares about as part of living in the family where everyone has to give and take as they are able.  Of course taking into account developmental stages and being empathetic and caring and meeting their needs, but also being honest and authentic with your kids.   

1 minute ago, Corraleno said:

And frankly the whole "if you do what mommy wants and make her happy then she'll smile and play with you, but if you "rebel" against mommy's control then she will be unhappy and stop playing with you until you are appropriately obedient again" gives me the creeps. I never want my kids to feel that in order to receive attention and affection, they better keep mommy happy. I grew up with that shit, and that's the last thing I want to pass on to my own kids.

I would never call or think of a baby as rebellious, and I think what you're saying has tons of merit.  I would never want a child to feel that they have to keep mommy happy to receive attention or affection, but I also do think that there can be situations in which it is helpful to have an old enough to be mobile baby believe that the blanket is where the best things happen or that diaper changes go faster if they participate in a helpful fashion.  I do think that we have to be mindful of how many situations we're trying to encourage our way versus encouraging autonomy or if the baby is experiencing something as rejection, but there's a continuum and there can be a place for parents to help begin to teach their babies how to live in the house as part of the family.

[Melissa Louise]

Just now, wendyroo said:

So you have never experienced a 6-9 month old baby look right at you, get a gleam in their eye, and dump their plate off their high chair tray just to see how much it riles you?

You have never had a baby specifically look to see if you are watching before they make a grab for the remote control?

Of course babies can manipulate. Learning how the world works, how people react, and how to make things happen is their primary survival goal the first year.

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'. 

 

 

[wendyroo]

2 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

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

So does that mean you would not deliberately try to get a baby to stop pulling your hair?

You would rather allow them to continue unknowingly hurting you rather than risking scarring them by letting them know their action was causing you pain?

[Corraleno]

3 minutes ago, wendyroo said:

So you have never experienced a 6-9 month old baby look right at you, get a gleam in their eye, and dump their plate off their high chair tray just to see how much it riles you?

You have never had a baby specifically look to see if you are watching before they make a grab for the remote control?

Of course babies can manipulate. Learning how the world works, how people react, and how to make things happen is their primary survival goal the first year.

OMFG, this just makes me want to cry. I'm so so incredibly sorry that you think your babies were devious, rebellious, and manipulative. I'm just... speechless, really. 

 

[Melissa Louise]

Just now, wendyroo said:

So does that mean you would not deliberately try to get a baby to stop pulling your hair?

You would rather allow them to continue unknowingly hurting you rather than risking scarring them by letting them know their action was causing you pain?

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.

[Melissa Louise]

6 minutes ago, Dmmetler said:

I have a different perspective, one that we focus a lot on in ECE music Ed. 

What you're describing-songs for rocking, sitting in the car, feeding, diaper changes, picking up toys, washing hands, crossing the street, etc...that's about 90% of what is taught in parent/child classes or included in modules for caregivers of children below age 2. And there's a really good reason for that. It has nothing to do with teaching the child to comply, or that stopping the song is punitive. It has everything to do with reducing shaken baby syndrome and children abused because of developmentally appropriate behaviors, like, say, wiggling during a diaper change, or running and hiding instead of coming to circle time in a toddler child care setting.

 

See, singing lullabies or whatever is a distractor. It reduces frustration in the adult to have something to do. Singing literally helps regulate things like heart rate and blood pressure. So, when we teach parents and caregivers, we give them songs. And we give them lots of reasons to use said songs without stating "statistically, if you sing a lot, you're less likely to hurt your kid". But one major reason, and one that is ALWAYS in the back of your mind when you're teaching these strategies is that it is frighteningly common for infants to be abused by parents and caregivers out of sheer frustration. And singing reduces that. 

 

It also tends to pull parents into the moment and focus attention on what the parent and child are doing. Which has both safety benefits (child is less likely to wiggle off the table or bed if a parent is attentive) and socio-emotional benefits. 

 

If you have multiple young children at once, having a set routine for the baby stuff also gives the older child comfort and an understanding of how long this is going to take, too. Because a baby might not have internalized that "if mom is at LMNOP, we're almost done", but the waiting 3 yr old has--and might be able to wait until "next time won't you sing with me". Because the more bodies there are in one space,the more important everyone being able to self-regulate as much of the time as possible is. 

 

And since children learn self regulation strategies via observing them and trying them out, the more self regulated adults are, and the more strategies they can model, the easier it is for the child to add them to their toolbox as they're ready to do so. If the child happens to learn that a diaper change is one song long, so if I stay still, it's over faster, that's great. But even if they don't, there is still value in the parent singing every time. 

That's a really interesting perspective, thank you.