Blanket training

[wendyroo]

Just now, Melissa Louise said:

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.

But why do babies need to pull hair?

If as soon as baby tries to grab your hair, you gently move their hand and say, "No thank you, that hurts." and then give them something else to play with, then they can just learn to not pull hair. And then every person in their life doesn't have to keep their hair up because baby just knows not to pull hair.

I wear glasses. I could not afford to have my babies yanking my glasses off my face constantly and dropping them. It really was not that hard or coercive to teach them that glasses are not for touching. According to your model, it would have been better parenting to switch to contacts so that the environment didn't offer that temptation...and I honestly don't know if it would have mattered that contacts make my eyes red and infected. It seems your world view doesn't give a shit about my eye health if it can safe my baby from the slightest boundary or disapproval.

[Sneezyone]

You know, you can just take your glasses off. When my babies reached up, it was no problem for me to do that. Somehow, someway, my 5yo no longer had that urge.

Edited September 17, 2023 by Sneezyone

[Melissa Louise]

5 minutes ago, wendyroo said:

But why do babies need to pull hair?

If as soon as baby tries to grab your hair, you gently move their hand and say, "No thank you, that hurts." and then give them something else to play with, then they can just learn to not pull hair. And then every person in their life doesn't have to keep their hair up because baby just knows not to pull hair.

I wear glasses. I could not afford to have my babies yanking my glasses off my face constantly and dropping them. It really was not that hard or coercive to teach them that glasses are not for touching. According to your model, it would have been better parenting to switch to contacts so that the environment didn't offer that temptation...and I honestly don't know if it would have mattered that contacts make my eyes red and infected. It seems your world view doesn't give a shit about my eye health if it can safe my baby from the slightest boundary or disapproval.

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. 

 

 

 

Edited September 17, 2023 by Melissa Louise

[Terabith]

5 minutes ago, wendyroo said:

But why do babies need to pull hair?

If as soon as baby tries to grab your hair, you gently move their hand and say, "No thank you, that hurts." and then give them something else to play with, then they can just learn to not pull hair. And then every person in their life doesn't have to keep their hair up because baby just knows not to pull hair.

I wear glasses. I could not afford to have my babies yanking my glasses off my face constantly and dropping them. It really was not that hard or coercive to teach them that glasses are not for touching. According to your model, it would have been better parenting to switch to contacts so that the environment didn't offer that temptation...and I honestly don't know if it would have mattered that contacts make my eyes red and infected. It seems your world view doesn't give a shit about my eye health if it can safe my baby from the slightest boundary or disapproval.

Yeah, I change the environment when my babies were in that grabbing phase as much as possible.  I put my hair up; I stopped wearing a necklace; I gave them other things to grab.  But I also wear glasses, and I can't tolerate contacts.  I bought extra glasses insurance (and used it several times) but from the time they were old enough to grab my glasses, I would tell them, "No, you cannot grab my glasses," and remove their hands from them.  If they continued to grab them, I would use a firmer tone or put them down....because that was one of the hills I was going to die on.  

ETA:  Just taking my glasses off wasn't an option, because I cannot see at all without them, and I had two kids.  

Edited September 17, 2023 by Terabith

[Melissa in Australia]

All of this is getting way off from "blanket training "  and if it has a direct meaning of hitting a small infant or not 

 

[wendyroo]

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

You know, you can just take your glasses off. When my babies reached up, it was no problem for me to do that. Somehow, someway, my 5yo no longer had that urge.

I can't see without my glasses. I've worn them since I was 5 years old, and I can't safely parent a baby without my glasses on. So, yes, I could stand in one spot holding the baby without my glasses so that they can't touch them. I couldn't safely move, or see the toddler across the room, or pick up my water cup...but, yeah, my baby wouldn't have to learn a limit, so there is that. 🤔

[Melissa in Australia]

I had only ever heard of blanket training in the context of the Pearl's, the homeschool family I had met that used it and it absolutly was hitting a very small  Infant 

People's other examples I have read here just sound like playing with a baby on a rug.. Nothing similar at all

[Corraleno]

1 minute ago, Melissa in Australia said:

All of this is getting way off from "blanket training "  and if it has a direct meaning of hitting a small infant or not 

 

It's part of the same philosophy though — if you believe that babies are rebellious and manipulative and will purposely disobey just to piss you off, then they need to be controlled and trained into obedience starting when they are very very young. It's a world view that sees babies in a way that is just not remotely accurate or developmentally appropriate.

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, wendyroo said:

I can't see without my glasses. I've worn them since I was 5 years old, and I can't safely parent a baby without my glasses on. So, yes, I could stand in one spot holding the baby without my glasses so that they can't touch them. I couldn't safely move, or see the toddler across the room, or pick up my water cup...but, yeah, my baby wouldn't have to learn a limit, so there is that. 🤔

I can’t either but I regularly put them aside when DS was grabby while DD (3-4) played nearby. It was a PHASE, a moment in a day, not an excuse to punish my son.

[KSera]

7 hours ago, HS Mom in NC said:

Because the blanket is easier to move and clean. I used a medium sized, lightweight  area rug. I had a bin of special toys that we only got out when I was "blanket training", although I didn't call it that because we weren't doing what the Pearls recommended and we didn't want to be associated with their nonsense. 

This thread has moved away from the blanket training thing, but I’ve been wondering for people such as yourself and others here who have described how they purposely set about to implement blanket training in a non-violent way, what made you even think of the idea that you were going to train this particular thing in your baby?
 

I never even heard of it until my older kids were way past that age and it was in the context of the Pearls. We certainly often used a blanket on the floor as a place for a non crawling baby to play (but then gave up on the blanket part once crawling, because what’s the point when they’re crawling all over the ground all the time anyway?)

But I find myself curious what caused people to think of starting this training in the first place? Where did you hear about it?

[Melissa Louise]

Just now, Corraleno said:

It's part of the same philosophy though — if you believe that babies are rebellious and manipulative and will purposely disobey just to piss you off, then they need to be controlled and trained into obedience starting when they are very very young. It's a world view that sees babies in a way that is just not remotely accurate or developmentally appropriate.

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. 

 

 

[Terabith]

I absolutely do not think that babies are rebellious or need to be obedient or are trying to piss their parents off.  I have seen older babies (mostly 8/9 months and up or so) get a gleam in their eye and do something that they know we'd prefer they didn't do.  Throw food on the floor or pull the cat's tail or what not.  They're not being rebellious; they're trying to understand both the physical world (gravity) and the social world (how do I fit in this family; what makes the people in my family tick).  They're learning.  The consequence when baby keeps grabbing my glasses is that I express some disapproval of the action, through setting the baby down or by saying no or by taking their hands off of the glasses.  The consequence if they're throwing food is I assume they are done with the meal and put it away.  And there is totally a continuum, and I don't think even a firm no would be appropriate with a three month old in the way it might be with a nine month old.  Parents can look at their baby and kinda instinctively know what is appropriate, especially if the parents haven't been told that in order to save their child's souls they have to force them to obey or comply.  

Edited September 17, 2023 by Terabith
additional example

[wendyroo]

3 minutes ago, Melissa in Australia said:

All of this is getting way off from "blanket training "  and if it has a direct meaning of hitting a small infant or not 

 

Yes, I am seeing it is much bigger, and that there are people who think it is actually impossible to teach a baby anything without damaging them through abuse and coercion...even if all you are using is gentle informative statements and momentary reduced enthusiasm.

I proudly teach my babies things. I teach them how to open their mouth big to latch properly...partly for their benefit, but largely for my comfort. I teach them to push their arms and legs through their sleeves and pant legs...mostly to make my job dressing them easier. I teach them not to grab glasses or hair. I teach them to stay on their backs and play with toys during diaper changes. I teach them not to dump food or water cups off their highchair trays...and then I teach them to wipe their highchair tray with a wet rag. I teach them not to stand in the bathtub. I teach them not to touch the garbage can. And I teach them to play on a blanket next to me without my undivided attention when they need to be safely in one place while I attend to something other than them in this wide, wide world.

[wendyroo]

10 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I can’t either but I regularly put them aside when DS was grabby while DD (3-4) played nearby. It was a PHASE, a moment in a day, not an excuse to punish my son.

But is it punishment?

"Ooop. Glasses aren't for touching." and hand him another toy. Repeated calmly and lovingly as often as required.

Let's remember that my kiddo #2 was/is so violent and destructive that we had psychiatrist "prescribed" safety plans in place from the time he was 4. Not exactly the kind of kid I could safely take my eyes off of for even one instant.

[Corraleno]

5 minutes ago, KSera said:

This thread has moved away from the blanket training thing, but I’ve been wondering for people such as yourself and others here who have described how they purposely set about to implement blanket training in a non-violent way, what made you even think of the idea that you were going to train this particular thing in your baby?
 

I'd never heard of it until my older kids were way past that age and it was in the context of the Pearls. We certainly often used a blanket on the floor as a place for a non crawling baby to play (but then gave up on the blanket part once crawling, because what’s the point when they’re crawling all over the ground all the time anyway?)

But I find myself curious what caused people to think of starting this training in the first place? Where did you hear about it?

I'd never heard of it until I joined this board and read discussions about the Pearls and Duggars, but I experienced basically the same practice in the orphanage I adopted my daughter from. Instead of blankets, it was rows of bamboo mats, with little babies just lying on them staring at the ceiling. Any baby old enough to crawl off, was firmly put back (with a swat if necessary), and if they kept crawling off they got put in a basket. My goal when I brought DD home was undoing that kind of "training," not replicating or reinforcing it. 

[Corraleno]

6 minutes ago, wendyroo said:

Yes, I am seeing it is much bigger, and that there are people who think it is actually impossible to teach a baby anything without damaging them through abuse and coercion...even if all you are using is gentle informative statements and momentary reduced enthusiasm.

Yeah, that's not what anyone is saying and you know that. Most of the folks in this thread have kids in their teens and twenties, many in college or college graduates, so obviously all our kids have learned what they needed to know to live and thrive in society.

There is a difference between teaching a child in developmentally appropriate ways and viewing babies as rebellious, manipulative little creatures who need to be manipulated and conditioned into obedience for mom's convenience. 

[wendyroo]

6 minutes ago, Terabith said:

I have seen older babies (mostly 8/9 months and up or so) get a gleam in their eye and do something that they know we'd prefer they didn't do.  Throw food on the floor or pull the cat's tail or what not.  They're not being rebellious; they're trying to understand both the physical world (gravity) and the social world (how do I fit in this family; what makes the people in my family tick).  They're learning.  

So when they throw that food on the floor when they know they "shouldn't", do you give it right back to them so they can do it again?

I think it is disingenuous (and counter productive) if I pretend that I am perfectly happy with them throwing their food. Yes, it is age-appropriate, but that doesn't mean I have to play the pick it up so they can throw it again game...we can play that game with a ball or beanbag or something else that isn't wasteful and messy.

I use the word rebellious to mean doing something they know we would prefer they not. And while I am never going to hit a baby, I am also not going to be equally encouraging when they throw their lunch as when they throw a ball. I see no reason to mislead babies - they want to figure out what makes the people in their family tick, and I see no reason to shield them from the fact that people like some things more than others.

[Terabith]

1 minute ago, wendyroo said:

So when they throw that food on the floor when they know they "shouldn't", do you give it right back to them so they can do it again?

I think it is disingenuous (and counter productive) if I pretend that I am perfectly happy with them throwing their food. Yes, it is age-appropriate, but that doesn't mean I have to play the pick it up so they can throw it again game...we can play that game with a ball or beanbag or something else that isn't wasteful and messy.

I use the word rebellious to mean doing something they know we would prefer they not. And while I am never going to hit a baby, I am also not going to be equally encouraging when they throw their lunch as when they throw a ball. I see no reason to mislead babies - they want to figure out what makes the people in their family tick, and I see no reason to shield them from the fact that people like some things more than others.

I show my annoyance with older babies at times.  When they throw the food on the floor, I say, "Oh, I see you're done with this.  Next time you can sign all done.  Let's clean you up and put you down."  I'm not going to generally give them the food back to repeat it.  

I agree with you on not shielding babies from the information that people like some things more than others.  I just don't consider it rebellion.  I don't think a baby is capable of rebellion.

[Starr]

A parenting laugh. I was in my twenties and my brother was seven when he lived with me. I had a good sized apt but no separate bedroom. But, I did have a large closet which became his bedroom. He told everyone I kept him in the closet . 😂

[Sneezyone]

There’s a certain haze that comes with time. I distinctly remember being annoyed when my peeps threw food. I took it away. Gave it back. They threw it again, they didn’t get it back. I said, OK, woo hoo, you’re done!! I did the same thing when I cared for my niece last year. Hardheaded as she could be, she tried it, I gave her a chance to eat, she chose play. I cleaned up while she yelled and that was it. She no longer throws food. Time/growth resolved it. Baby was testing boundaries but it was ok. I think making a big deal out of it, my upset, would have encouraged the behavior.

[wendyroo]

7 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Yeah, that's not what anyone is saying and you know that. Most of the folks in this thread have kids in their teens and twenties, many in college or college graduates, so obviously all our kids have learned what they needed to know to live and thrive in society.

There is a difference between teaching a child in developmentally appropriate ways and viewing babies as rebellious, manipulative little creatures who need to be manipulated and conditioned into obedience for mom's convenience. 

So, is it your opinion that if a three month old grabs an adult's glasses, and the adult reacts:
"Ooop. Glasses aren't for touching." and hands him another toy. Repeated calmly and lovingly as often as required.

That that is developmentally inappropriate and manipulating the baby maliciously?

Because, if so, we will never see eye to eye on that. Realistically, my very young babies learned that "rule" very quickly. They were not psychologically harmed because while I was home all day bonding with them, I did redirected them from my glasses instead of walking around blindly and now they will forever experience that as a scar on their souls knowing that their mother doesn't love them as much as her ability to see.

My babies quickly adopted small behavior changes like that as just how things are done in our family. Babies through the ages have adapted to being strapped into cradle boards tied onto horses, left with grandparents while parents worked in the fields, left alone all day tethered like in the movie Babies, learning infant potty training in cultures without diapers, and the list goes on and on.

In our culture, babies have to ride in car seats. And in my family culture, babies are taught not to touch glasses.

[Ausmumof3]

40 minutes ago, KSera said:

This thread has moved away from the blanket training thing, but I’ve been wondering for people such as yourself and others here who have described how they purposely set about to implement blanket training in a non-violent way, what made you even think of the idea that you were going to train this particular thing in your baby?
 

I never even heard of it until my older kids were way past that age and it was in the context of the Pearls. We certainly often used a blanket on the floor as a place for a non crawling baby to play (but then gave up on the blanket part once crawling, because what’s the point when they’re crawling all over the ground all the time anyway?)

But I find myself curious what caused people to think of starting this training in the first place? Where did you hear about it?

I wonder if it’s a Skinner behavioural thing? I learned to sit on a rug at church as did many others. We predated Train up a Child etc. I don’t ever remember it involving smacking or abuse. My only negative memory is from the time I was bored and thought I’d stick my fingers under the chair during a hymn and pull them out just in time 🤣only I was a fraction too low and got the weight of an entire row of adults sitting down at once!

I feel like the Pearls took something that was maybe a regular church thing and then codified it into something kind of horrifying.

[wendyroo]

3 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I think making a big deal out of it, my upset, would have encouraged the behavior.

I never said I made a big deal out of it, but I also did not pretend that I loved that choice.

I was responding to the idea that it was not emotionally healthy to ever show a baby even slight parental disapproval. That seems ridiculous to me.

[Melissa Louise]

1 minute ago, wendyroo said:

I never said I made a big deal out of it, but I also did not pretend that I loved that choice.

I was responding to the idea that it was not emotionally healthy to ever show a baby even slight parental disapproval. That seems ridiculous to me.

I'd just like to point out that I didn't say that. 

I said training infants isn't developmentally sound.

[wendyroo]

10 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

I'd just like to point out that I didn't say that. 

I said training infants isn't developmentally sound.

You 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."

and:
"I do think we can accidentally, and with the best of intentions, be coercive with regard to our infant's emotional life."

Those two statement together certainly seem to add up to any parental disapproval, even turning your attention away from the baby for a moment, even disapproving unintentionally, are coercive and emotionally damaging to a baby.

[Melissa Louise]

2 minutes ago, wendyroo said:

You 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."

and:
"I do think we can accidentally, and with the best of intentions, be coercive with regard to our infant's emotional life."

Those two statement together certainly seem to add up to any parental disapproval, even turning your attention away from the baby for a moment, even disapproving unintentionally, are coercive and emotionally damaging to a baby.

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. 

 

 

 

[wendyroo]

5 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

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 can’t buy into a view of human development that makes babies out as so emotionally fragile that they can’t handle their mother, who is lovingly nourishing them from her breast, enforcing a no biting or I’m going to unlatch you for a few minutes rule. 

I do not see babies as perfect heavenly creatures who always know what is best (for everyone) and therefore should never be influenced in any way. Right from day one, if baby had nursed for a couple hours, I was perfectly comfortable handing him off to DH while I took 20 minutes for myself, even if baby strongly opposed the plan. Welcome to the world kiddo where you are really special and important and loved, but where even you have to live within boundaries. 

[Melissa Louise]

5 minutes ago, wendyroo said:

I can’t buy into a view of human development that makes babies out as so emotionally fragile that they can’t handle their mother, who is lovingly nourishing them from her breast, enforcing a no biting or I’m going to unlatch you for a few minutes rule. 

I do not see babies as perfect heavenly creatures who always know what is best (for everyone) and therefore should never be influenced in any way. Right from day one, if baby had nursed for a couple hours, I was perfectly comfortable handing him off to DH while I took 20 minutes for myself, even if baby strongly opposed the plan. Welcome to the world kiddo where you are really special and important and loved, but where even you have to live within boundaries. 

Again, you're claiming I'm saying things I'm not. 

I think we're done here. 

[Corraleno]

10 minutes ago, wendyroo said:

I do not see babies as perfect heavenly creatures who always know what is best (for everyone) and therefore should never be influenced in any way. Right from day one, if baby had nursed for a couple hours, I was perfectly comfortable handing him off to DH while I took 20 minutes for myself, even if baby strongly opposed the plan. Welcome to the world kiddo where you are really special and important and loved, but where even you have to live within boundaries. 

One of the many things I somehow managed to teach my non-blanket-trained kids is the definition of a straw man fallacy and why they should avoid it.

[SKL]

Interesting - it sounds like "training" has become a trigger word.  Or is it the word "blanket"?

If one hears "blanket training" one freaks out.

What about "potty training"?  Does that automatically mean brutality?

The idea that we can keep kids safe without taught boundaries is extremely new, and even the extremely new version doesn't apply to all kids.  Throughout history, if you wanted your kid to reach adulthood alive, you impeded their movement in various ways for their own good.

I'm not even sure it's developmentally appropriate to avoid teaching wee kids physical boundaries.

Of course all kids are different.  Some kids will learn with gentle instruction, while others will require various levels of progressive discipline, and will have inevitable uhappy moments.  I think it's probably a bit deranged to believe it's better to fake it with our kids so they think they've always been free to do whatever they wanted.  What would be the purpose of that?

I didn't "blanket train," but I taught my kids some things that had a similar point (safety without complete physical restraint).  My kids knew which cupboards they weren't supposed to open, and how far they were allowed to wander in the backyard.  They weren't allowed to play with the Christmas tree ornaments nor touch a glass of water that was left on a table.  My kids learned these things without me whacking them.  I do think I whacked each butt once or twice after kid ignored verbal warnings not to run into the street.  I figure(d) a whack on the butt was preferable to a collision with a car, but y'all can disagree.

Not everyone has enough hands to keep their kids 100% safe 24/7.

I notice a lot of people being judgmental here had NT kids & 1 tot at a time.  Yay you.  It's a little different when you have multiple kids trying to run in different directions while your hands are full of shopping bags.

PS I had a babysitter who used to do what sounds like the beating version of "blanket training."  She would let my infant brother crawl around on the floor, and when he approached the long telephone wire, rather than move the wire, she would beat his hands.  Over and over.  I was too young to have the balls to stop her.  But even then, I felt like there was something mentally wrong with a person who would set up a baby like that ... and treat it like an accomplishment if it ever eventually "worked."  This was back in 1975, and I doubt she read about it in a book.  But, she was partially raised in a Catholic orphanage due to various issues that her parents had, so that probably played a role.

[Melissa Louise]

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. 

 

[El...]

The term "blanket training" is burnt. Especially now that the Duggar disaster went mainstream, most people who hear you use it will figure you hit your baby. If that's not what you mean, find yourself a new term to use. 

IMNSHO.

[Pawz4me]

3 hours ago, SKL said:

Interesting - it sounds like "training" has become a trigger word.  Or is it the word "blanket"?

If one hears "blanket training" one freaks out.

What about "potty training"?  Does that automatically mean brutality?

 

I think the major difference is that most of the discussion around blanket training is with very young babies. Potty training is usually done during toddlerhood. That's a whole world of developmental difference. 

I think there's a lot of intentional talking past each other and being deliberately disingenuous going on in this thread.

[maize]

7 hours 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. 

I definitely sing instinctively to help regulate both baby and myself. 

I had a diaper changing song--one I made up. "It's diaper time, it's diaper time, it's diaper changing time, hurray!" etc. It was a way of framing an unpleasant-for-both-participants necessity positively, and of distracting baby to help them be more cooperative.

[pinball]

I am a crunchy granola, family bed, extended nursing, baby wearing momma…my house is set up for safely exploring.

but I still don’t think “blanket training” means someone is beating their infants.

I’ve been to enough La Leche meetings where the majority of the moms spread blankets in the floor and plopped their babies down to ever come to that conclusion. Some of them really really really wanted their babies to stay on the blanket but no one hit their baby! 

[Idalou]

59 minutes ago, maize said:

I definitely sing instinctively to help regulate both baby and myself. 

I had a diaper changing song--one I made up. "It's diaper time, it's diaper time, it's diaper changing time, hurray!" etc. It was a way of framing an unpleasant-for-both-participants necessity positively, and of distracting baby to help them be more cooperative.

One of my quirks is hearing a line from a song in my head and changing it slightly to fit a situation. I can't even recall all of it now exactly, but do you remember the old country song, King of the Road? I modified that to a great diaper changing song, probably along the lines of King of the Poop. 

Edited September 17, 2023 by Idalou

[catz]

I assume this thread originally was started in response to this quote from ME in this thread in discussing Jill Duggar's new book

Quote

I will say Michelle has shown up when her kids have had newborns and that level of help is something I never had personally.  But this is a woman who blanket trained kids and what they ate as children varied when cameras were on vs not on.  And quietly allowed her kids to be exploited for years.

It was mentioned specifically IN CONTEXT of the Duggar family usage and IBLP. Again, if you google "blanket training" the first many number of posts come up refer to the Pearls and that usage.

I certainly laid out blankets at times.  I certainly sung to my kids at times.  I certainly redirected my kids at times.  That is not ever what was referred to.  So I don't even understand why the OP was started.  If you enjoy calling typical parenting of littles "blanket training", don't be surprised if it has certain connotions for some people.  Everyone who ever laid down a blanket doesn't need to pop out of the woodwork to defend it.  No one was ever talking about you.

I always thought of my  newly mobile kids as scientists.  And everything was an experiment.  Dropping things was experimentation.  Seeing mom's reaction was experimentation.  And that means maybe we say "nope, we aren't going to pull kitty's tail, that makes kitty sad.  Let's go do x now".  I can't imagine thinking a super young infant/todder was maliciously plotting.  Anyway, I had kids that were never going to be well served with the "my way or the highway" style of parenting.  They had receptive (and spoken) language very early and I explained things constantly.  I've never assumed what works for one kid is going to work for another.  

To me the Pearl and likely Duggar style of blanket training on very young kids seems specifically crafted to create submissive kids.  Later in Jill's book she talks about how JB used the phrase "don't sow discourse among the brethren".  Which became code for discussing things, expressing your feelings or emotions is unacceptable here.  Which seems like step 2 for creating submissive emotionally unhealthy children.  I am maybe a little more sensitive to this because I was not raised in a particularly emotionally healthy household.  So learning to DEAL and not bury big emotions is important to me.  

ETA - this was the thread that had the above quote

 

Edited September 17, 2023 by catz

[KeriJ]

18 minutes ago, catz said:

I assume this thread originally was started in response to this quote from ME in this thread in discussing Jill Duggar's new book

It was mentioned specifically IN CONTEXT of the Duggar family usage and IBLP. Again, if you google "blanket training" the first many number of posts come up refer to the Pearls and that usage.

I certainly laid out blankets at times.  I certainly sung to my kids at times.  I certainly redirected my kids at times.  That is not ever what was referred to.  So I don't even understand why the OP was started.  If you enjoy calling typical parenting of littles "blanket training", don't be surprised if it has certain connotions for some people.  Everyone who ever laid down a blanket doesn't need to pop out of the woodwork to defend it.  No one was ever talking about you.

I always thought of my  newly mobile kids as scientists.  And everything was an experiment.  Dropping things was experimentation.  Seeing mom's reaction was experimentation.  And that means maybe we say "nope, we aren't going to pull kitty's tail, that makes kitty sad.  Let's go do x now".  I can't imagine thinking a super young infant/todder was maliciously plotting.  Anyway, I had kids that were never going to be well served with the "my way or the highway" style of parenting.  They had receptive (and spoken) language very early and I explained things constantly.  I've never assumed what works for one kid is going to work for another.  

To me the Pearl and likely Duggar style of blanket training on very young kids seems specifically crafted to create submissive kids.  Later in Jill's book she talks about how JB used the phrase "don't sow discourse among the brethern".  Which became code for discussing things, expressing your feelings or emotions is unacceptable here.  Which seems like step 2 for creating submissive emotionally unhealthy children.  I am maybe a little more sensitive to this because I was not raised in a particularly emotionally healthy household.  So learning to DEAL and not bury big emotions is important to me.  

ETA - this was the thread that had the above quote

 

I didn't remember who said it here, but it definitely wasn't the only place I had heard it lately. 

[bolt.]

In general language, "Blanket Training" could mean any kind of training or learning that involves a blanket. It could probably even mean training firefighters to toss wool blankets over people who are on fire.

Like many terms, it's also 'jargon'.

Like many kinds of 'jargon' it matters how closely you understand the context in which it is jargon. You are more likely to interpret it as jargon if you are part of that context, or that community; if you are educated about that context, and if you are talking about that context.

Therefore you are more likely to interpret "Blanket Training" as jargon for 'placing barely mobile infants on a blanket and striking them when they cross the boundary' if you are familiar with some very strict parenting programs from the past 20-30 years. If you are less familiar with those programs, you are more likely to interpret it to mean 'anything involving a child and a blanket'.

The argument that Duggar-Pearl-Growing Kids God's Way types of parenting programs are *so* mainstream that it has become the primary and inherent meaning of the term isn't very sound. The population of the English-speaking world is huge. A tiny fraction of those people have familiarity with this term as jargon from those contexts.

However, the advice that (at least among well-informed, religiously adjacent, parenting women, on the internet, where Duggars are recently and frequently discussed) if one uses the term "Blanket Training" with an intended meaning *other* than the jargon meaning... one might want to clarify or avoid the term altogether? That's not bad advice. It's always best to avoid giving the impression that one strikes babies in order to limit their mobility -- if there is any predictable potential that one could be misunderstood that way.

But really, I get it. It's no fun when crummy people take innocent words and make them into something awful, and then regular people can't use the innocent words any more. It feels like word-theft and an unreasonable constraint. I can see pushing back on it, and trying to keep the words' more natural meanings, if it is at all possible to win that battle. (In the regular world it probably is. In contexts that are familiar with how 'the dark side' uses the term -- probably not. Best to be clear.)

[Pawz4me]

I'm always kind of surprised and impressed that so many of you had clear cut goals and actively worked on developing desired behaviors. Me, I just kind of muddled through day by day. If I had to label my child rearing philosophy I suppose it would have been "survive and advance" -- get all of us through each day unharmed and make some progress over time. That's about as deep or thoughtful as I got at the time.

[maize]

3 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

I'm always kind of surprised and impressed that so many of you had clear cut goals and actively worked on developing desired behaviors. Me, I just kind of muddled through day by day. If I had to label my child rearing philosophy I suppose it would have been "survive and advance" -- get all of us through each day unharmed and make some progress over time. That's about as deep or thoughtful as I got at the time.

I definitely did a lot of muddling through,  and at this point in life I feel like any mom who is keeping her kids alive and fed is doing a darn good job.

I did a lot of reading amd thinking as a young mom though. Some of that was a need for mental simulation,  and reading everything I could get my hands on regarding parenting and,  later,  homeschooling,  was a way of meeting that need that was also deeply relevant to my life. The extent to which I followed any of the advice depended on how much it made sense to me both intellectually and instinctively,  and how much executive function it required.  The last was in very short supply!

[catz]

15 minutes ago, KeriJ said:

I didn't remember who said it here, but it definitely wasn't the only place I had heard it lately. 

I couldn't find it in any other recent thread when I dug around in the search engine.  

Anyway - as always, everyone has the freedom to use the language they want.  And someone might interpret in context of an experience they have with that language.  That's just life.  If you write a book on the wonders of your style of "blanket training" and how it makes kids better humans, maybe that will change broad perception. 

Pulling that directly out of current discussion where it was mentioned in a certain context without mentioning the context just seemed like pot stirring to me.  If there's been a ton of random hate and assumptions on the term "blanket training" recently, I missed it.

[wendyroo]

21 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

I'm always kind of surprised and impressed that so many of you had clear cut goals and actively worked on developing desired behaviors. Me, I just kind of muddled through day by day. If I had to label my child rearing philosophy I suppose it would have been "survive and advance" -- get all of us through each day unharmed and make some progress over time. That's about as deep or thoughtful as I got at the time.

I had done a TON of reading before having kids and when they were young. The Baby Whisperer - eat, wake, sleep cycle. Charlotte Mason - habit training. TWTM - establishing rest time.

I had taken many early childhood education classes - helping baby get on a fairly consistent routine, using cues to let them know what was happening next.

By 9 months my oldest was receiving speech therapy from our state's early intervention, so I saw those workers interacting with him weekly - calm, but firm redirection, withholding reinforcers until he attempted a skill - and who encouraged teaching independent play time every day. 

I got direction from our pediatrician who noted suspicions of autism in DS's chart at his 6 month appointment - it is okay to gently enforce boundaries, and the clearer, more concrete, and more consistent the better.

I have always given my parenting a tremendous amount of thought. I view it as my most important job, and try very hard to speak and act intentionally, never sending mixed messages or carelessly working against my parenting goals. I'm an engineer who likes to find solutions, parenting four very special needs kids who from day 1 had far more struggles than NT kids.

[Ting Tang]

When I think of blanket training infants, I think of Pavlov's Dogs.

But potty training, habit training, etc. is more "teaching" than "conditioning."  

Of course, we want to keep our children safe.  Our kids played on blankets, and we giggled when they'd grab a corner and try to roll up into a burrito.  I also didn't wear necklaces for a long time because the children would grab them.

Unfortunately, the term and idea behind blanket training is to condition children into blind "obedience."  Cue Duggars, IBLP, etc.  And that was so they could continue to blindly obey as they grew older.  Many of us long for that perfect, happy family full of love and well-behaved kids.  But when I started to hear the kids had to have infants with them in bed or that the girls' school work consisted of circling appropriate outfits, we learned it was all an illusion.  

Edited September 17, 2023 by Ting Tang

[WildflowerMom]

4 hours ago, Pawz4me said:

I think the major difference is that most of the discussion around blanket training is with very young babies. Potty training is usually done during toddlerhood. That's a whole world of developmental difference. 

 

I may have inadvertently rerouted this thread when responding to mercy about my situation.   I think I took it off its intended focus on infants.   I apologize it that took it off the rails.   
 

 

To add to this thread, I think the disturbing part is 'babies' (in my view, 1.5 yrs or so and younger) and the word 'training'.     Maybe we all have different definitions for those words?   Maybe that's what has been confusing this discussion?   I could never punish a baby (and no, I'm not trying to be on a high horse-- I hit my toddler, so I have no moral ground to stand on, just discussing the differences in definitions here.).    I don't think it's really possible to 'train' a baby either.   Redirect?  Sure.   But the words, 'train babies' is what I think may mean completely different things to different people.   Like I said, in my own personal definition (which I think is obviously different than some people here), I view 'train babies' in such a negative way that it makes my skin crawl reading through the thread.    But I suspect it's a matter of definition, because I don't think of any of the people on this thread as being abusive parents, but still... the idea of 'training' 'babies' just makes my stomach clinch.  

[Halftime Hope]

10 hours ago, Corraleno said:

It's part of the same philosophy though — if you believe that babies are rebellious and manipulative and will purposely disobey just to piss you off, then they need to be controlled and trained into obedience starting when they are very very young. It's a world view that sees babies in a way that is just not remotely accurate or developmentally appropriate.

I'm just now getting back to this thread. I think this is the part that those of us who experienced this movement just can't get past. These groups/people actively, intentionally, taught that the sin nature -- manifested as normal, developmentally appropriate baby behavior -- had to be methodically trained, punished, rooted out of babies.

If a baby was hungry, crying, needed food, but it wasn't time for food yet, according to the clock, the baby was trying to manipulate you as a parent, and you were to resist that evil impulse in them and train them to go longer between feedings until they could eat on a schedule. I kid you not, it was a zero sum game, either the family and home were baby-centered or baby-led (sinful) or they were centered around the marital relationship.  And beware the parent who wasn't B_bywise!

If a baby wanted to explore and touch things, you did not alter the environment to be baby-safe or baby-friendly -- that would be baby-centered.  You taught the baby not to touch things that were not for them. That was family-centered, and Godly.

It was all such a fundamentally twisted paradigm.  Love is not a zero sum game; there is enough love to go around. Parents can, with intentionality, protect and nurture their relationship and still have room to lavishly love their children-- it's not either/or.  Parents, in learning to give selflessly beyond what they ever imagined, in caring for a little one round the clock during those intense first months, can mature in ways that would never happen otherwise.

The common root in the Ezzos, the Pearl and Gothard is a narcissistic male. (I will not ever call Michael Pearl or Gary Ezzo men; the are both lying sobs who made their women and children into second class citizens --they are not men.) I have paid zero attention to the D______r family, but others here have said that JB is a narcissist. (And each of these, except for Gothard who had odd fetishes, has a wife who abetted, enabled, and covered for him.)

Finally, I believe that babies can be taught behaviors, such as the towel boundary as described by WendyRoo, that are depart a bit form typical baby behavior, without being abusive. If it helps mama have something she needs or if it keeps baby safe, all good by me. The key is the attitude toward/belief about the baby and the means of implementing it.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 17, 2023 by Halftime Hope

[Drama Llama]

1 hour ago, Pawz4me said:

I'm always kind of surprised and impressed that so many of you had clear cut goals and actively worked on developing desired behaviors. Me, I just kind of muddled through day by day. If I had to label my child rearing philosophy I suppose it would have been "survive and advance" -- get all of us through each day unharmed and make some progress over time. That's about as deep or thoughtful as I got at the time.

My first child was born when I was in a new city, with a husband who was working many hours a week, and caring for his own mother who was very ill.  I left a job I loved to be home with him, and while I loved him with a fierceness that I had never experienced before, I was also very cognitively understimulated, and lonely. 

Add those feelings to the fact that teaching children skills that build their quality of life is pretty much what I did before I left my job.  Because my MIL was so sick, and FIL was caring for him, I spent a lot of time with my oldest at his youngest uncle's sporting events.  It was natural that I'd look at a young toddler repeatedly running headlong towards the soccer pitch, and crying when I pulled him him back, as a problem to be solved.  How could I make a place that was even more desirable so he wanted to stay there, and we could enjoy the time together?  So, we went to soccer fields when no one was there, and satiated his curiosity a little.  We brought the best toys.  We incorporated a lot of sensory play on the blanket, massage, and tickles, and walking like a wheelbarrow, and homemade playdough, and singing games like "Noble Duke of York" that involve a lot of proprioceptive input.  We broke up the time with other things like sitting on my shoulders to watch a game or holding hands and walking around the field, so that I didn't ask him to play there longer than he could.  When we were at the park, we only ate and drank (breastfeeding for him) on the blanket.   With my oldest who loved music from the time he was very young, we sang a lot of songs on that blanket.  And when he got off, the tone wasn't "oh that's wrong, that's a bad thing", it was "oops, the fun is over here", in the same way that when he threw silverware on the floor I might have said "Oh, you're ready to clean up?  Let me show you how to put that in the sink."  

Like I said, my oldest was easy.   My youngest, took more time, and probably if I had him first I would have quit early, thinking the techniques didn't work.  But because I'd seen them work, I was willing to put in the time.  

I hadn't read Pearl when my kids were little.  I live in a part of the country where no one parents like that, or at least no one admits it.  If I'd heard the term Blanket Training when they were young, I would have assumed it described what I did.  After all I was definitely training my kids to think the blanket was fun.  But now that the Duggars have made it famous, I worry that if I spread out a blanket when I'm at a soccer game with my two year old nephew, people will think I'm doing Duggar style "blanket training".  Which is too bad, because it really did work for us.  

[Halftime Hope]

1 hour ago, bolt. said:

In general language, "Blanket Training" could mean any kind of training or learning that involves a blanket. It could probably even mean training firefighters to toss wool blankets over people who are on fire.

Like many terms, it's also 'jargon'.

Like many kinds of 'jargon' it matters how closely you understand the context in which it is jargon. You are more likely to interpret it as jargon if you are part of that context, or that community; if you are educated about that context, and if you are talking about that context.

Therefore you are more likely to interpret "Blanket Training" as jargon for 'placing barely mobile infants on a blanket and striking them when they cross the boundary' if you are familiar with some very strict parenting programs from the past 20-30 years. If you are less familiar with those programs, you are more likely to interpret it to mean 'anything involving a child and a blanket'.

The argument that Duggar-Pearl-Growing Kids God's Way types of parenting programs are *so* mainstream that it has become the primary and inherent meaning of the term isn't very sound. The population of the English-speaking world is huge. A tiny fraction of those people have familiarity with this term as jargon from those contexts.

However, the advice that (at least among well-informed, religiously adjacent, parenting women, on the internet, where Duggars are recently and frequently discussed) if one uses the term "Blanket Training" with an intended meaning *other* than the jargon meaning... one might want to clarify or avoid the term altogether? That's not bad advice. It's always best to avoid giving the impression that one strikes babies in order to limit their mobility -- if there is any predictable potential that one could be misunderstood that way.

But really, I get it. It's no fun when crummy people take innocent words and make them into something awful, and then regular people can't use the innocent words any more. It feels like word-theft and an unreasonable constraint. I can see pushing back on it, and trying to keep the words' more natural meanings, if it is at all possible to win that battle. (In the regular world it probably is. In contexts that are familiar with how 'the dark side' uses the term -- probably not. Best to be clear.)

One caveat to this: perhaps 10 years ago, I read that the Ezzo sh*t was becoming huge in Malaysia and the Philippines. I hate that, but by then, I had other priorities, and I trusted that closer multi-generational family structures would mitigate one of the reasons this pathology flourished in the US.

[Katy]

10 hours 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. 

Another advantage of singing is that it’s hard to sing with a scowl. A neutral face when singing is something more akin to a smile. Which tends to make small children smile back and cooperate more. Which tends to make the parent genuinely smile and actually have moments of joy. 

I had a lot of appointments with small kids too. I used a double stroller and a baby wrap or carrier.  I brought blankets, mostly to change diapers on. But I can’t remember more than once or twice when I put one on the dirty floor in hopes that the wriggling kid would dance in place (holding my hands) instead of crawl off. 

[Halftime Hope]

4 minutes ago, Drama Llama said:

My first child was born when I was in a new city, with a husband who was working many hours a week, and caring for his own mother who was very ill.  I left a job I loved to be home with him, and while I loved him with a fierceness that I had never experienced before, I was also very cognitively understimulated, and lonely. 

Add those feelings to the fact that teaching children skills that build their quality of life is pretty much what I did before I left my job.  Because my MIL was so sick, and FIL was caring for him, I spent a lot of time with my oldest at his youngest uncle's sporting events.  It was natural that I'd look at a young toddler repeatedly running headlong towards the soccer pitch, and crying when I pulled him him back, as a problem to be solved.  How could I make a place that was even more desirable so he wanted to stay there, and we could enjoy the time together?  So, we went to soccer fields when no one was there, and satiated his curiosity a little.  We brought the best toys.  We incorporated a lot of sensory play on the blanket, massage, and tickles, and walking like a wheelbarrow, and homemade playdough, and singing games like "Noble Duke of York" that involve a lot of proprioceptive input.  We broke up the time with other things like sitting on my shoulders to watch a game or holding hands and walking around the field, so that I didn't ask him to play there longer than he could.  When we were at the park, we only ate and drank (breastfeeding for him) on the blanket.   With my oldest who loved music from the time he was very young, we sang a lot of songs on that blanket.  And when he got off, the tone wasn't "oh that's wrong, that's a bad thing", it was "oops, the fun is over here", in the same way that when he threw silverware on the floor I might have said "Oh, you're ready to clean up?  Let me show you how to put that in the sink."  

Like I said, my oldest was easy.   My youngest, took more time, and probably if I had him first I would have quit early, thinking the techniques didn't work.  But because I'd seen them work, I was willing to put in the time.  

I hadn't read Pearl when my kids were little.  I live in a part of the country where no one parents like that, or at least no one admits it.  If I'd heard the term Blanket Training when they were young, I would have assumed it described what I did.  After all I was definitely training my kids to think the blanket was fun.  But now that the Duggars have made it famous, I worry that if I spread out a blanket when I'm at a soccer game with my two year old nephew, people will think I'm doing Duggar style "blanket training".  Which is too bad, because it really did work for us.  

Don't worry; you do you! Why would you care what other people thought?

That said, if you're worried, think of some one-liners that you can trot out which include a subtle, "this is not up for discussion" cue.