Blanket training

[Drama Llama]

5 minutes ago, Katy said:

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. 

My youngest HATED the stroller unless it was moving (LOVED the jogging stroller pushed fast by Daddy) or the carrier, so that probably increased my motivation to figure out a way for him play happily. 

I still did the stroller at something like a doctor's appointment for his brother, I never used a blanket indoors in the way I described above, although I did sometimes use a little one for a clean surface for diaper changes.  

[catz]

13 minutes ago, Drama Llama said:

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.  

I would personally never assume that.  Spreading a blanket at a park is just normal behavior.  If someone sternly returned a kid to the blanket over and over and slapped fingers, raised voices, etc that is the only thing that might raise an eyebrow for me.

Heck to this day, I carry picnic blankets in the back of my van to spread out.  We did a lot of picnic style eating over covid.

[Drama Llama]

12 minutes ago, Halftime Hope said:

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.

 

Well, for one thing, I'm often trying to arrange carpools or asking kids to come over, and being viewed as a child abuser probably doesn't support those goals.

[Halftime Hope]

16 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

I had a super early walker too. It definitely has its challenges!! 

I think breastfeeding was my parenting superpower. The babies would all pretty much stay contained for milk and mom snuggles ( though the toddlers got increasingly acrobatic about it!) 

I have a memory of reading aloud to my girls while ds breastfed upside down from the back of the sofa, but that can't be right ?! 😂

 

Yes, this...not just yours.

Mine really weren't interested in lovies.  I have a theory that they all got plenty of touch and didn't feel the need.

[Halftime Hope]

4 minutes ago, Drama Llama said:

Well, for one thing, I'm often trying to arrange carpools or asking kids to come over, and being viewed as a child abuser probably doesn't support those goals.

Look, as sensitive as I'm am to this topic, I just don't see someone equating the two. I certainly never would assume abuse if I saw a mom or grand-mom interacting with a little one that had a pile of toys or snacks on a blanket, or if they re-directed their little back to the blanket. I'd just assume that they had a reason to provide a safe/defined spot for their child's stuff and for their child to play. (Beach blankets, picnic blankets -- all of those are a thing, and they are commercially available. Doesn't equate to abuse. )

[Drama Llama]

1 minute ago, Halftime Hope said:

Look, as sensitive as I'm am to this topic, I just don't see someone equating the two. I certainly never would assume abuse if I saw a mom or grand-mom interacting with a little one that had a pile of toys or snacks on a blanket, or if they re-directed their little back to the blanket. I'd just assume that they had a reason to provide a safe/defined spot for their child's stuff and for their child to play. (Beach blankets, picnic blankets -- all of those are a thing, and they are commercially available. Doesn't equate to abuse. )

And yet after I described what I do, multiple people on the board came back and clarified that any time you encourage a young child to stay on a blanket it's abusive.  So, clearly those people all think that what I described is abusive.  

 

 

[Catwoman]

12 minutes ago, catz said:

I would personally never assume that.  Spreading a blanket at a park is just normal behavior.  If someone sternly returned a kid to the blanket over and over and slapped fingers, raised voices, etc that is the only thing that might raise an eyebrow for me.

Heck to this day, I carry picnic blankets in the back of my van to spread out.  We did a lot of picnic style eating over covid.

I agree. Honestly, I think this thread has gone somewhat off the rails and has turned into a little bit of a competition over who was the most permissive and perfect parent to their babies. The level of judgment I’m seeing here is kind of sickening.

Of course, I was one of those apparently evil moms who always used a changing table, so I’m sure my opinions don’t matter here. 😉 

But seriously, am I the only one who is wondering how some of these people ever got their babies’ diapers changed? 

[Catwoman]

Just now, Drama Llama said:

And yet after I described what I do, multiple people on the board came back and clarified that any time you encourage a young child to stay on a blanket it's abusive.  So, clearly those people all think that what I described is abusive.  

 

 

Try to remember that the opinions of a few very vocal people on this board do not necessarily correspond to the opinions of the general population. 

You’re a good mom. Trust yourself and your instincts. 🙂 

 

[Halftime Hope]

Just now, Drama Llama said:

And yet after I described what I do, multiple people on the board came back and clarified that any time you encourage a young child to stay on a blanket it's abusive.  So, clearly those people all think that what I described is abusive. 

Drama, I know you've got all kinds of real-world adversity that would shake your confidence. You've given and given. Now stand up for yourself in your own thinking. People are allowed to have opinions, and you are allowed to ignore them and do differently. Don't carry this conversation as a constraint. Do what you need to do to make your life more manageable. You have good common sense and understanding of where this crosses a line, both in beliefs (about the nature of babies) and in practice. Go in peace, with many hugs.

[Terabith]

Honestly, I think what people think when they see someone putting a child on a blanket in public is probably dependent on cultural context. At a relatively fundamentalist church in Arkansas, people might be thinking you’re doing one thing when you spread out your blanket and people at a soccer game in Portland might think something very different.  My guess is spectators at Portland soccer game just aren’t going to have plumbing line and baby abuse on their minds when they see a blanket with a toy and yogurt melts.  

[maize]

16 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

I had a super early walker too. It definitely has its challenges!! 

I think breastfeeding was my parenting superpower. The babies would all pretty much stay contained for milk and mom snuggles ( though the toddlers got increasingly acrobatic about it!) 

I have a memory of reading aloud to my girls while ds breastfed upside down from the back of the sofa, but that can't be right ?! 😂

 

Oh, the scene is totally believable!

I had a running joke that my toddlers were incapable of differentiating between Mom and a jungle gym, in spite of me regularly pointing out to them the many obvious differences!

Edited September 17, 2023 by maize

[Catwoman]

1 minute ago, Terabith said:

Honestly, I think what people think when they see someone putting a child on a blanket in public is probably dependent on cultural context. At a relatively fundamentalist church in Arkansas, people might be thinking you’re doing one thing when you spread out your blanket and people at a soccer game in Portland might think something very different.  My guess is spectators at Portland soccer game just aren’t going to have plumbing line and baby abuse on their minds when they see a blanket with a toy and yogurt melts.  

I have exactly zero respect for anyone who would judge a parent solely on whether or not their child was playing on a blanket in the park.

It’s like the mommy wars gone berserk. 

Even in this thread, there are people who will not give certain posters the benefit of the doubt. I feel like people are posting in good faith, but they are being judged ridiculously harshly, and it seems like a few people are going out of their way to nitpick their posts to find evidence of “abuse.” 

[Dmmetler]

Well, when I teach caregiver/child classes I ask the parents to bring a blanket, and I have a stack of small ones for them to use. And the reason is that we keep their instrument bags and instruments on the blankets, and when we get up to dance, we dance around the blankets if it's adults and children, and children can move within the blanket oval (with parents on the outside) as we get into the toddler years, so no one steps on anything and trips or slips-and for toddlers, so there's an extra visual boundary in the room.  (I do the bag method, where each family has their own bag of instruments so that when something gets mouthed, at least that saliva isn't being shared, and it also lets me individualize based on a child's developmental level, but a side effect of that means that the kids have access to their own bag of shakers, scarves, sticks, etc all the time vs instruments coming out just when we use them). 

For preschoolers, who come without parents, each has a mat for the same reason. It keeps their instruments and materials in their own personal space, and, when they get up and move, it keeps their stuff safe. 

 

Visual boundaries are good. Beating kids who step past boundaries, not good. 

[SKL]

20 hours ago, Corraleno said:

You smack them, preferably with a thin switch or rubber hose or glue stick, so it leaves minimal bruising that could get you in trouble. Or, if you're a super nice, nonabusive mom, you can just yell at them every time they dare to put a finger over the edge. Eventually they get too scared to move off the blanket and — voila! — you have a perfectly trained baby you can ignore while you do other things.

Well I taught my kids a lot of similar things without ever hitting them.

My kids listened.  I don't even know why.  I didn't expect it to be that easy.

So if you knew me IRL, you would definitely assume I was beating my kids all day.

[El...]

Blanket training, the way these folks were teaching it, was never about the blanket. It was about obedience conditioning from early childhood using pain and fear.

I wouldn't assume anything at all if I saw a blanket laid out for play!  That's a great way to make a space safer and cleaner.

I'm not sure why folks are feeling the need to defend the phrase "blanket training" whe they are clearly not doing it. Who wants to use that phrase? Blah.

[maize]

6 minutes ago, SKL said:

My kids listened.  I don't even know why.  I didn't expect it to be that easy.

Some kids are just wired that way. 

I'm a very non-directive parent; the sort that in some versions of the Mommy Wars would doubtless be labeled as overly permissive. 

But as I mentioned earlier,  my kids trend high-anxiety-rule-follower. When I do make a rule, they tend to follow it meticulously. 

Which honestly has its own drawbacks, as every parent of high anxiety kids knows. 

Edited September 17, 2023 by maize

[SKL]

2 minutes ago, maize said:

Some kids are just wired that way. 

I'm a very non-directive parent; the sort that in some versions of the Mommy Wars would doubtless be labeled as overly permissive. 

But as I mentioned earlier,  my kids trend high-anxiety-rule-follower. When I do make a rule, they tend to follow it meticulously. 

Which honestly has its own drawbacks, as every parent of high anxiety kids knows. 

Yes, my eldest has OCD, and she was incredibly obedient when she was tiny.  I also remember her following after her sister to reorganize things younger sis had un-arranged.  This before she could even walk.  Of course I didn't have any thoughts that it could be a sign of OCD at the time.

Other kid does not have OCD, but also learned limits very quickly.

They were both just really calm and easy babies almost all the time.

[KeriJ]

2 hours ago, catz said:

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.

No. Not pot stirring.  I didn't search the forum. When I said I saw it in other places, I meant other places on the internet.  I posted it because it was on my mind. That's all.

[Pamela H in Texas]

12 hours ago, KSera said:

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

Well, I'll say that I did get it from the Pearls, I think. I considered it much like the rugs toddlers and preschoolers use in some daycares and most Montessori schools. Sometimes, a playpen, stroller, or high chair is appropriate, but there is nothing *inappropriate* about a blanket. 

I also "sleep train" babies without crying it out and "potty train" young toddlers making it extra fun. 

I think of these things like "training wheels." Though we don't use those either <gasp>, the idea is the same.  We support and encourage the child until they can do it on their own.  We just do it in nice ways.  So babies regularly play on blankets, 4- or 5-month-olds sleep through the night, toddlers use the toilet, and 3yos can ride bikes without training wheels. 

Anyway, JME,

[Halftime Hope]

12 minutes ago, Pamela H in Texas said:

Well, I'll say that I did get it from the Pearls, I think. I considered it much like the rugs toddlers and preschoolers use in some daycares and most Montessori schools. Sometimes, a playpen, stroller, or high chair is appropriate, but there is nothing *inappropriate* about a blanket. 

I also "sleep train" babies without crying it out and "potty train" young toddlers making it extra fun. 

I think of these things like "training wheels." Though we don't use those either <gasp>, the idea is the same.  We support and encourage the child until they can do it on their own.  We just do it in nice ways.  So babies regularly play on blankets, 4- or 5-month-olds sleep through the night, toddlers use the toilet, and 3yos can ride bikes without training wheels. 

Anyway, JME,

Just to be absolutely, unequivocably clear: 

1) although you, Pam, may have supported and encouraged the children in your care, the Pearls and Ezzos had an adversarial, antagonistic approach to children. 

2) daycares and Montessori schools don't physically inflict pain on young children for not using the mats/rugs/blankets; and the Montessori method honors children allowing them to work at their developmental level and as their interests dictate. Nothing could be further philosophically from Montessori than the approach taken by the Pearls and Ezzos.

[annandatje]

13 hours 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.

I have experienced high chair tray dumping quite a few times, but never would I interpret it as rebellion in an infant.

[wendyroo]

13 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

What you describe here isn't training, anyway. 

Wait, what??

You specifically said that deliberately or repeatedly trying to change a baby's behavior was training. What I described was deliberately and repeatedly preventing my baby from grabbing my glasses in an effort to teach/train him/her not to touch them.

I would argue that is the definition of training. I never even tell baby why glasses are off limits (how could a 2 month old understand broken lenses or eye insurance costs), I just steadfastly enforce the limit until they change their behavior.

[Pamela H in Texas]

11 minutes ago, Halftime Hope said:

1) although you, Pam, may have supported and encouraged the children in your care, the Pearls and Ezzos had an adversarial, antagonistic approach to children. 

Yes, I'm quite aware. I was just answering the question honestly where I even got such a notion.  The combination of "blanket training" and "Montessori rugs" were similar enough *in my mind* to accept it as a thing to do at all.  I just chose to do it (as well as almost all of my parenting) gently.

[Drama Llama]

18 minutes ago, Halftime Hope said:

Just to be absolutely, unequivocably clear: 

1) although you, Pam, may have supported and encouraged the children in your care, the Pearls and Ezzos had an adversarial, antagonistic approach to children. 

2) daycares and Montessori schools don't physically inflict pain on young children for not using the mats/rugs/blankets; and the Montessori method honors children allowing them to work at their developmental level and as their interests dictate. Nothing could be further philosophically from Montessori than the approach taken by the Pearls and Ezzos.

I don't think anybody here is unclear on that.  

Everyone here has said one of two things. 

1) They don't think encouraging a very young child to stay on a blanket is ever OK.

2) They think that although the Pearl/Duggar's techniques are unbelievably horrific and abusive, there are gentle ways to encourage a very young child to play on a blanket that are not abusive.

[Pamela H in Texas]

11 minutes ago, annandatje said:

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

Getting their needs met, survival, is their primary goal in the first year. Learning how the world works, how people react, and how to make things happen is important but it isn't also rebellious or manipulative. It is simply "What will happen?" or "Will the same thing happen?" Babies learn by repetition. A nine-month-old grabbing the remote for the third time in five minutes is not rebellion. 

[Xahm]

Like loads of things in parenting, so much depends on individual children's personalities. I know several families who read the Pearl and Ezzo books, thought some things were good and some weren't, and tried things like teaching a baby to stay on the blanket. If their oldest kid was very naturally compliant, the parents came away with the perspective that all babies can be easily trained without coersive measures. If they didn't have another kid who disabused them of that notion, they have probably given some silly advice to new parents and sometimes the advice may be harmful. Likewise, if that same easy baby was born into a family where rules were kindly and gently explained, that family may believe that all any child needs is to have rules explained and they will behave. That might lead them to give silly advice. I know my kids are outliers, but sometimes I don't know by how much. My oldest went through a very brief biting phase when she was mostly pre verbal, maybe 11-16 months or so. She bit me and laughed when I said "ow." I told her "biting hurts" and she laughed again. I told her to bite her own arm to see, which she did. Immediately, she got big, shocked eyes and never bit again. The next kid only needed to be told "biting hurts" about that age and he believed me and stopped. I told this story to a mom friend asking me how to stop her kid from biting. I quickly realized that my advice wasn't useful to most people because most kids aren't able to understand cause and effect that clearly at such a young age. Since then I've been more careful about giving advice. I could teach my kids from the time they could crawl fast to stay on a blanket/in an area just by telling them, "you can play here as long as you are quiet, or you can sit on my lap," and it worked. Sometimes 3 kids at once would choose my very full lap, sometimes 3-4 kids would be all playing quietly and I'd get nervous that others would think there's no way I got them to do that without beating them, and other times I'd have to run and scoop one up to sit in my lap until he was ready to play quietly in his area again. Between different kid and parent personalities and different generational traumas influencing how we view various parenting techniques and buzz words, it doesn't surprise me much that we tend to talk past each other on this subject.

[SKL]

I think we all know how to get inspiration without accepting 100% of the beliefs/methods of the source of that inspiration.

A lot of the time, we don't even realize we got our ideas from someone we generally don't like.

I see a lot of "blind men and elephant" here.  People who are pretty familiar with the Pearls / Ezzos / Duggars are certain that whatever word they used for a thing is ONLY ever defined the way they do.  Meanwhile, probably 90-95% of the world never heard of the Pearl / Ezzo books.

"Blanket" and "training" are two ordinary words that people use all the time without any agenda.  It would actually be unlikely that nice parents never combine the two.

I don't understand why it is so important for some people to insist that the use of the two words together has been forever co-opted by an extreme minority movement.  It's like having a fit over seeing generic rainbow decorations in a primary school classroom.

[wendyroo]

10 minutes ago, Drama Llama said:

I don't think anybody here is unclear on that.  

Everyone here has said one of two things. 

1) They don't think encouraging a very young child to stay on a blanket is ever OK.

2) They think that although the Pearl/Duggar's techniques are unbelievably horrific and abusive, there are gentle ways to encourage a very young child to play on a blanket that are not abusive.

And I would even say my view goes a bit beyond 2) to the idea that perhaps it can even be beneficial to the child.

As soon as my kids were sitting confidently I started teaching them "Hand right here" especially when I was opening the oven. I would sit them next to a wall/cabinet/fridge, put one of their hands flat on the front of the surface, gently push on it like I was gluing it to the wall, and say, "Hand right here. Now wait." Then I would make a game of it while I did my quick task in the oven: "Waaaait. Waaaait. Good job keeping your hand right there...keep waiting!!" And then when I closed the oven we would applaud their feat of self-regulation.

We know waiting is hard...and my babies could have pulled their hand off the wall at any moment, but once they learned the expectation, they often kept their hand there through an act of perseverance. 

Did they persevere because they wanted to please me? Probably to some extent; humans are social creatures, and cooperating within our tribe is evolutionarily advantageous. Or maybe they enjoyed playing the game with me, or they were looking for mental stimulation, or they felt pride in "helping". 

In any case, I think giving a ~6 month old the opportunity to master that skill is no less healthy than letting them master self feeding or pulling off their socks.

[Catwoman]

39 minutes ago, wendyroo said:

Wait, what??

You specifically said that deliberately or repeatedly trying to change a baby's behavior was training. What I described was deliberately and repeatedly preventing my baby from grabbing my glasses in an effort to teach/train him/her not to touch them.

I would argue that is the definition of training. I never even tell baby why glasses are off limits (how could a 2 month old understand broken lenses or eye insurance costs), I just steadfastly enforce the limit until they change their behavior.

I'm wondering if a big part of the problem in this thread is that people are defining parenting terms in different ways.

I mean, people can say they gave their babies total freedom to explore, and that they never tried to "train" them, but at some point, those babies needed a diaper change whether they wanted it or not. And it's insane to say that we should never use a changing table and should always diaper our babies on the floor so the baby has more "freedom" for the two minutes it takes to change their diapers. And we are seriously not supposed to encourage our babies not to try to wiggle away from us every time we need to change their diapers or clothing? Having a constant battle with a baby over things like that is going to make both mom and baby very unhappy! And singing a little song or telling a little story while changing the baby makes changing time fun for them; it's not "abusive" to encourage a baby to behave during diaper changes. Not one person here has suggested disciplining the baby or being mean to him in any way. How something like diaper changing has turned into accusations of "abuse" is just bizarre.

And does anyone really allow their children to pull hair or knock the glasses off of someone's face without trying to gently discourage that behavior? Does anyone really never discourage their child from "exploring" when they might get hurt or when they are in someone else's home that isn't baby-friendly? Because even if the mom's "solutions" are to pull her hair back in a ponytail at all times, and never wear her glasses, and to let the baby completely rule the entire household for fear of ever saying no to the kid, the rest of the world isn't going to make those concessions, and quite frankly, they are probably going to think the baby is a nightmare and the mom is an idiot. 

I think a few people here have some pretty extreme definitions of what constitutes child abuse. 

Spoiler alert: Gently distracting the baby so he learns not to knock off your glasses and pull your hair is not child abuse. Changing a baby on a changing table is not child abuse. Gently leading a baby away from exploring something or somewhere that he could get hurt is not child abuse. It's called parenting, and as much as we want to give our babies freedom to explore and learn, sometimes there need to be limits for their own safety or for Mom's sanity. 

I think we all agree that we shouldn't hit babies or punish them or be strict with them for the sake of making them "obey." But really, the idea that a mother wouldn't even try to gently teach the baby to be cooperative during things like diaper changes is ludicrous. 

 

[Drama Llama]

I wouldn't go so far to say that what I did is something other people should or shouldn't do.  I would say that it solved a problem that my particular family had.  My oldest kid was just an easy kid, and I'm sure a variety of methods would have worked, but for my youngest kid the fact that we found a way to be able to continue to enjoy sports as a family that didn't involve holding him while he fought to get down, or strapping him in stroller crying, or constantly chasing him to the point that we were exhausted, but instead involved a kid who would get excited to see me spread a blanket out and come running towards it because he knew it meant tickles and snacks and his favorite things.  

Because I go to a lot of youth sports, I've seen a lot of super active toddlers at youth sports (because child athletes often have active siblings), and it's really easy for that to become a miserable experience for the child and the parent.  Given that, I feel like the fact that it wasn't for either of us is a win. 

Does that mean other people should do it?  Well, if I saw someone really struggling, and they asked what I did, I might share the idea.  But I'm not saying that it's some kind of necessity.  I know other families who choose completely different techniques that work equally well for them, and families like some here, who don't see to have their lives set up in a way that they'd need to problem solve how to keep a young toddler close and away from something dangerous.

 

[Catwoman]

1 hour ago, Pamela H in Texas said:

Getting their needs met, survival, is their primary goal in the first year. Learning how the world works, how people react, and how to make things happen is important but it isn't also rebellious or manipulative. It is simply "What will happen?" or "Will the same thing happen?" Babies learn by repetition. A nine-month-old grabbing the remote for the third time in five minutes is not rebellion. 

I don't think anyone has said anything like that, though. I think some of the terminology being used is being interpreted the wrong way. 

I agree that a baby grabbing the remote for the third time in five minutes is not rebellion. Absolutely!

But it seems like a few people here are saying that if the baby wants the remote, the mom should never take it away from him or try to teach him not to grab it, because it's abusive to deprive the baby of what he wants. Never mind that it's not safe to let a baby keep grabbing the remote control because they could accidentally eat the battery -- or that maybe the mom just doesn't want the remote to get lost.

The impression I'm getting is that a few people here are saying that we should never try to teach babies anything, and that moms should just let babies do whatever they want, whenever they want (because they are babies,) and any attempt at redirecting them, no matter how gently done, is child abuse.

 

Edited September 17, 2023 by Catwoman

[marbel]

33 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

I think we all agree that we shouldn't hit babies or punish them or be strict with them for the sake of making them "obey." But really, the idea that a mother wouldn't even try to gently teach the baby to be cooperative during things like diaper changes is ludicrous. 

 

Right! I am really distressed with all the piling on @wendyroo, who. based on posts of hers I've read over the years, seems like a thoughtful, intentional, caring mother. Suddenly she's an abuser because she gently stops the baby from pulling at her glasses? Would she be OK if she stopped the baby from poking her in the eye or shoving their fingers up her nose/into her mouth?  

[Ting Tang]

From what I read, the Pearl way is not to encourage playing on a blanket.  It serves a different purpose.  I'm not against conservative families with mindful children, but I think we are associating it with mindlessness and control.  

I loved watching the Duggars when they had their series.  I was glad to see the girls out of their prairie dresses.  It seemed safe, happy, and loving.  But it wasn't.  I'm sure, though, there must be a way to achieve that without abuse and control.

Nobody here seems like a terrible parent at all. Nobody is perfect--Mrs. Duggar tried to make us think she was.  We are real.  

Edited September 17, 2023 by Ting Tang

[Catwoman]

2 minutes ago, marbel said:

Right! I am really distressed with all the piling on @wendyroo, who. based on posts of hers I've read over the years, seems like a thoughtful, intentional, caring mother. Suddenly she's an abuser because she gently stops the baby from pulling at her glasses? Would she be OK if she stopped the baby from poking her in the eye or shoving their fingers up her nose/into her mouth?  

Well, having her eyes poked out would be a small price to pay to keep the baby happy, right? 😉 (Seriously, a few posters came across as though a mom getting injured would probably be ok with them, rather than letting the mom "abuse" the baby by gently redirecting him from poking her in the eye!)

As I was reading this thread, I was shocked that some of the posts were so over-the-top, and the level of vitriol was absolutely horrible. The accusations were nothing short of insane, and the definition of "child abuse" was beyond ridiculous. Not a single poster ever said they hit their baby or yelled at their baby or was mean to their baby, but apparently singing a song to keep the baby calm during diaper changes is more than enough to accuse those moms of child abuse.

 

 

[Melissa Louise]

4 hours ago, WildflowerMom said:

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.  

The reason you view training babies (under 12 months or so but definitely under 6 months) negatively is because it's a concept with roots in a particular world view that sees infants as capable of sin. 

Just because it mainstreamed, apparently, doesn't remove the underlying assumptions. You'll see them in the language used about the baby and her motivations.

The systematic training of babies (by punishment is worse but also by reward) does not fit with any modern understanding of infant cognitive psychology. 

That's why you're uncomfy. The stomach clench?

It's telling you something. 

(Because ppl seem determined to conflate this with sitting on a blanket at the park with a toddler, I'll end with redirection to the definition above of 'baby'.)

 

 

 

 

[Melissa Louise]

If people would like to reread my posts, they will find a post which specifically says I am not calling anyone in this thread abusive.

So those who are claiming they've been called child abusers can settle right down.

Deal with your own defensiveness instead of projecting it.

 

 

 

[Melissa Louise]

3 hours ago, El... said:

 

I'm not sure why folks are feeling the need to defend the phrase "blanket training" whe they are clearly not doing it. Who wants to use that phrase? Blah.

Yep. Choose a new word. 

'Sitting on a rug at the park'. 

'Using a rug as a prop at a music class'.

Blanket training does not mean any instance of sitting on a blanket as an under 5. 

 

[SKL]

23 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

The reason you view training babies (under 12 months or so but definitely under 6 months) negatively is because it's a concept with roots in a particular world view that sees infants as capable of sin. 

Just because it mainstreamed, apparently, doesn't remove the underlying assumptions. You'll see them in the language used about the baby and her motivations.

The systematic training of babies (by punishment is worse but also by reward) does not fit with any modern understanding of infant cognitive psychology. 

That's why you're uncomfy. The stomach clench?

It's telling you something. 

(Because ppl seem determined to conflate this with sitting on a blanket at the park with a toddler, I'll end with redirection to the definition above of 'baby'.)

I admit that I could not read all the pages of this thread.  Are we saying that those of us who train/teach infants are all doing it because we consider those kids sinners?

I think some people need to detach the method from the motive here.  There are so many reasons I taught my wee kids things, and none of them had to do with sin.

If teaching infants "does not fit with any modern understanding of infant cognitive psychology," then the field of psychology is mistaken.

You've had babies.  They've learned in your house.  How can you honestly say it's not developmentally appropriate to teach babies?  They learn what words mean and how to respond to certain words, whom to go to for comfort or entertainment, basic eating skills, basic communications, what certain toys and implements are for, and yes, not to do certain things.  Descriptions of severe infant neglect will often include the baby's inability to do some of these things.

[SKL]

23 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Yep. Choose a new word. 

'Sitting on a rug at the park'. 

'Using a rug as a prop at a music class'.

Blanket training does not mean any instance of sitting on a blanket as an under 5. 

 

Some people seem to have designated themselves the word police.

[Melissa Louise]

9 minutes ago, SKL said:

I admit that I could not read all the pages of this thread.  Are we saying that those of us who train/teach infants are all doing it because we consider those kids sinners?

I think some people need to detach the method from the motive here.  There are so many reasons I taught my wee kids things, and none of them had to do with sin.

If teaching infants "does not fit with any modern understanding of infant cognitive psychology," then the field of psychology is mistaken.

You've had babies.  They've learned in your house.  How can you honestly say it's not developmentally appropriate to teach babies?  They learn what words mean and how to respond to certain words, whom to go to for comfort or entertainment, basic eating skills, basic communications, what certain toys and implements are for, and yes, not to do certain things.  Descriptions of severe infant neglect will often include the baby's inability to do some of these things.

OMG.

I can't even.

We are talking about where a concept comes from, and the underlying (and often unexamined) assumptions the concept drags along with them.

Most modern parents will not call what they see in their infant 'sin', but they'll replace it with ideas of the baby 'riling' the parent up, of attributing a level of manipulation to the baby that just doesn't exist. 

Up your discourse, ladies.

Learning is not training. 

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

 

[Melissa Louise]

13 minutes ago, SKL said:

Some people seem to have designated themselves the word police.

Words have associations.

In this case, the (strong) association is with an abusive method of baby training.

Idc if you want to call sitting on the rug with the baby 'blanket training'.

Just don't get hurt when people hear 'blanket training' and think Pearls. 

[Starr]

It’s time for kilts! 

[Melissa Louise]

Yeah, heaven forbid we might critically analyze the harmful assumptions that underlie some methods of baby-rearing.

(Separately, kilts are good).

[SKL]

24 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

OMG.

I can't even.

We are talking about where a concept comes from, and the underlying (and often unexamined) assumptions the concept drags along with them.

Most modern parents will not call what they see in their infant 'sin', but they'll replace it with ideas of the baby 'riling' the parent up, of attributing a level of manipulation to the baby that just doesn't exist. 

Up your discourse, ladies.

Learning is not training. 

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

 

I really don't think you understand what motivates most parents of infants.

[Melissa Louise]

Just now, SKL said:

I really don't think you understand what motivates most parents of infants.

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

[Pamela H in Texas]

28 minutes ago, Starr said:

It’s time for kilts! 

I haven't been here is sooooo long. Surprised this is something people still reference 🙂

 

[historically accurate]

36 minutes ago, Starr said:

It’s time for kilts! 

Funny, I'm binge watching Monarch of the Glen (an old BBC Scottish show). Lots of kilts.

[Corraleno]

14 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Words have associations.

In this case, the (strong) association is with an abusive method of baby training.

Idc if you want to call sitting on the rug with the baby 'blanket training'.

Just don't get hurt when people hear 'blanket training' and think Pearls. 

"My 1 yr old is homeschooling because he learned three new words while living at home! And sometimes we listen to classical music during lunch so I tell people he's getting a Classical Education. It's also a Waldorf education because sometimes we play games and he has a little doll with no face. Someone gave him a cute little Buddha statue, and he's also vegetarian, so that makes him Buddhist. I mean he does eat meat, but he also eats lots of vegetables, so he's both a meat eater and a vegetarian. He needs the protein from meat for his weight training. And by weight training I mean he likes to carry around a little metal truck that weighs about a pound."

[Catwoman]

1 hour ago, Melissa Louise said:

The reason you view training babies (under 12 months or so but definitely under 6 months) negatively is because it's a concept with roots in a particular world view that sees infants as capable of sin. 

Just because it mainstreamed, apparently, doesn't remove the underlying assumptions. You'll see them in the language used about the baby and her motivations.

The systematic training of babies (by punishment is worse but also by reward) does not fit with any modern understanding of infant cognitive psychology. 

That's why you're uncomfy. The stomach clench?

It's telling you something. 

(Because ppl seem determined to conflate this with sitting on a blanket at the park with a toddler, I'll end with redirection to the definition above of 'baby'.)

Sin.

Really.

Come now.

You are being ridiculous.

Not a single person here has said they thought their babies were sinners. Not a single person has said they "train" their babies with negative reinforcement of any kind. (And stopping and waiting for a minute for a baby to settle down on the changing table during diaper changing, or gently redirecting them when they are pulling hair or yanking off their mom's glasses, is not abusive.)

What people here have said is that in order for babies to learn things, sometimes babies need to be taught those things in a kind and gentle way.

Unless someone teaches them, babies aren't going to learn that they shouldn't pull hair, yank off people's glasses, poke people in the eyes, or keep trying to escape when their diaper is being changed.

This has exactly nothing to do with sin. 

[SKL]

22 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

Who keeps their baby in a sling if the baby doesn't like it? No-one. 

Idk. Babies, guys. Tiny. Work with them.

I know you're not talking to me any more but ...

This seems to come from a privileged standpoint.  Not everyone has a lot of options for toting their babies around (for example).