or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Childhood and Beyond › Gentle Discipline › Blanket-training and alternatives (spinoff)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Blanket-training and alternatives (spinoff) - Page 7

post #121 of 192
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by georgia
Yes, we are in agreement that these examples are all too abstract to understand. It's just that I've never expected my children to "stay right here" or "not to go anywhere"...the "burden" of compliance would be upon them, whereas the the responsibility for their well-being and safety should be on me. Not on a blanket or a chalk line.

The burden of their safety and well-being is still on me, but isn't part of healthy child-rearing gradually making them more and more responsible for themselves? So baby starts out being left in a bassinet alone, then on a blanket alone, then in a room alone, then roaming the house with an adult there, then staying home alone for short times, then home alone for longer times, and finally moving out into his own home. It isn't an overnight thing, but the child becomes more and more responsible for himself until he's an adult and completely responsible for himself. At least that's how I see it.
post #122 of 192
I have read most of the thread so forgive me if this has been asked already but I was wondering what you think of this scenario. I will put a large blanket or beach towel on the floor in the room adjacent to our kitchen and give DD a basket of toys and tell her she can stay within these boundries and play with these toys. I'll do this occasionally while doing non child friendly activities in the kitchen that weren't done while . I can see DD and I can talk to her vs her being unsupervised or unsafely underfoot. She isn't spanked or disciplined if she starts to wander. I just ask her to stay on the blanket and play with "X." For example are you mixing beans in your pot or where's the sheep? Would you consider this approprite? In some ways this is a different scenario then what many of you have been discussing b/c the comprehension of a 22month old is MUCH different then a 6-12 month old. Just curious...

Pam
post #123 of 192
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonfly
You comply because you have a reason to. You're waiting for the doctor and you need to be present when your name is called or you'll miss the appointment. You choose to wait because it is a necessity in fulfilling your need to see the doctor. A child waiting on a blanket is acting contrary to his/her desire (to get off of the blanket) and for the arbitrary reason that mama has made it a rule.
But you abstain from charging the back room because you've been asked to wait and it's expected of you. Baby stays on the blanket because he's been asked to and it's expected of him. In both cases you are chosing to stay put because it's expected of you without the need for physical restraints.

Quote:
I never actually put ds in a pen or behind gates, so I don't know. I also didn't ask him to stay put because I knew he wasn't ready for it. It's in his nature to want to be where I am (a fact I've relied on to keep him safe) and, when he was so young, not within his ability to heed those sorts of commands. Now, at 5, he can stay put if I really need him to (though such situations are rare because he's learning more about keeping himself safe all the time). It's now age appropriate to ask such a thing for a short time. I just can't agree that it's at all age appropriate to ask the same of a baby.
But if the baby is capable of understanding and complies, how is it not age-appropriate? If I kept putting baby back on the blanket again and again and it showed no signs of working, I would assume that baby was too young to understand or had insufficient impulse control to choose to stay put, so I would give it up. But if baby understands and complies, isn't that evidence that it isn't age-inappropriate?
post #124 of 192
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madre Piadosa
You've been very articulate and open about how this works in your family and I for one appreciate that.
While I completely UNDERSTAND your point of view- I disagree with it. In my opinion there is no difference between the blanket and any other containment device. (which btw I feel have their place- but not for the free spirit I'm raising now.) Many children have to be "trained" to stay in those devices "happily" too- they also may attempt to get out- or fuss and whine to communicate their desire to be out, then mamas sooth them and "train" them that these devices are an ok place to be. In the end both things are accomplishing the same thing... so although I understand what you are trying to say- we'll have to agree to disagree on whether staying on a blanket or in any device is the same thing.
Okay, I understand your point, and they are similar in that they are both attempts to keep baby in one safe place. And if you believe in letting babies roam free they're probably equally distasteful.

Quote:
I think that in this regard you may have been blessed with easier babies then most. I've never tried to teach my children to stay on a blanket- but I have tried exersaucers and the like. 1 took to it, 1 couldn't handle it due to her disability and the other- like I said he really is such a free spirit. So my hypothetical for you would be what if the infant did protest, cry and scream every time you put them back on the blanket?
They were easier than most regarding blanket-training apparently. They certainly protest when they're being subjected to some indignity, but they do seem to mostly accept stuff that happens--very much like my dh. I don't know what I'll do if the next one has my temperment instead!

I wouldn't keep training a baby who was crying and screaming in protest. If he was crying because he wanted to stay with me, I would just keep him with me. If he was crying because he didn't like his freedom being restricted by the blanket, I would abandon the training and when I needed to go someplace, I would take him up to our room, put him in there, and close the door. I would probably try the blanket-training again later though.

Quote:
Thank you for putting so much time and thoughts into your posts- I hope you aren't feeling attacked- it is a different parenting technique- I had never heard of it till people at my church started using Ezzo and Gothard (and being an in home interventionist- I was exposed to many many parenting techniques.)
Dana
I was feeling a bit attacked earlier, but not now--my children's mellowness may have a calming effect on me yet.

I agree that the Ezzo/Gothard type of training is evil.
post #125 of 192
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaPam
I have read most of the thread so forgive me if this has been asked already but I was wondering what you think of this scenario. I will put a large blanket or beach towel on the floor in the room adjacent to our kitchen and give DD a basket of toys and tell her she can stay within these boundries and play with these toys. I'll do this occasionally while doing non child friendly activities in the kitchen that weren't done while . I can see DD and I can talk to her vs her being unsupervised or unsafely underfoot. She isn't spanked or disciplined if she starts to wander. I just ask her to stay on the blanket and play with "X." For example are you mixing beans in your pot or where's the sheep? Would you consider this approprite? In some ways this is a different scenario then what many of you have been discussing b/c the comprehension of a 22month old is MUCH different then a 6-12 month old. Just curious...

Pam
This is the same thing I did, but most people here seem to believe very firmly that it's wrong.
post #126 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brigianna
If I were in the room with baby, baby was playing on the blanket on the floor, and I needed to leave the room for a brief minute, like to answer the phone or go to the bathroom, I told baby "please stay on the blanket." I never left them alone for more than a few minutes. I don't think they were in that much danger even if they "forgot" their training and left the blanket, which didn't happen. But they were safer on the blanket than roaming free. And when they were a bit older, maybe over 1, I would ask them to stay on the blanket briefly to keep them occupied while I was there in the room, but again, never for very long.
(emphasis mine)

Here is where you completely lose me. In a babyproofed home, WHY is the child safer on the blanket than roaming free? In a babyproofed home, by definition, isn't the child JUST AS safe roaming free than on the blanket--because there are no dangers to get into? What are these "dangers" you're keeping your child from? As others have tried repeatedly to explain, if there are in fact dangers off of the blanket, then no, your house is not "babyproofed." And if your house IS "babyproofed," then there is no need for the blanket. I think it is this (perceived) flaw in your logic that is frustrating other people so much.

I tried to post about my own house back on page 4, but my post was overlooked or ignored. My daughter can explore our babyproofed house, crawl from room to room, and she does not encounter dangers. There are no exposed cords or outlets, no choking hazards at her level, no poisonous houseplants, no valuables she can destroy, nothing of the sort. Instead, she encounters some locked cabinets, some cabinets filled with fun pots and pans and dish towels, shelves of toys, a playhouse, etc. I realize that some people are opposed to babyproofing their homes, but since you do not seem to be opposed to babyproofing, I am having difficulty understanding the need for the blanket in the first place.
post #127 of 192
the difference between using a blanket and the excersaucer is that the excersaucer is WITH me. In view. In the physical area.

I think that you are confusing compliance with the ability to understand. Not the same thing.

V.
post #128 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brigianna
But you abstain from charging the back room because you've been asked to wait and it's expected of you. Baby stays on the blanket because he's been asked to and it's expected of him. In both cases you are chosing to stay put because it's expected of you without the need for physical restraints.
The difference is that I'm free to leave if I decide that I don't want to wait.

Quote:
But if the baby is capable of understanding and complies, how is it not age-appropriate? If I kept putting baby back on the blanket again and again and it showed no signs of working, I would assume that baby was too young to understand or had insufficient impulse control to choose to stay put, so I would give it up. But if baby understands and complies, isn't that evidence that it isn't age-inappropriate?
I would say it's evidence that you've taught the baby to ignore his/her impulses, not that you've instilled understanding. IMO, this is a negative, in part because it's contrary to the natural, essential drive to attach (as heartmama explained so eloquently before). Honestly, I think you assign too much ability to reason in the abstract to very young babies. I understand you disagree but, from what I have seen, the evidence doesn't support your theories.

Quote:
The burden of their safety and well-being is still on me, but isn't part of healthy child-rearing gradually making them more and more responsible for themselves? So baby starts out being left in a bassinet alone, then on a blanket alone, then in a room alone, then roaming the house with an adult there, then staying home alone for short times, then home alone for longer times, and finally moving out into his own home. It isn't an overnight thing, but the child becomes more and more responsible for himself until he's an adult and completely responsible for himself. At least that's how I see it.
See, this doesn't seem sequential to me. Probably because I don't believe babies should ever be left alone so it feels to me as though you begin at the extreme, regress to the beginning, and move again along the continuum. If they were meant to be left alone, they'd be equipped with the ability to reason and rationalize and there would be little need for parents. If I were making your list, it would look like this: baby stays in mama's arms (or sling), roams house (and other places) with adult there, stays in home while parent is outside for short times, stays home alone for short time, stays home alone for longer time, flies the coop.
post #129 of 192
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennisee
(emphasis mine)

Here is where you completely lose me. In a babyproofed home, WHY is the child safer on the blanket than roaming free? In a babyproofed home, by definition, isn't the child JUST AS safe roaming free than on the blanket--because there are no dangers to get into? What are these "dangers" you're keeping your child from? As others have tried repeatedly to explain, if there are in fact dangers off of the blanket, then no, your house is not "babyproofed." And if your house IS "babyproofed," then there is no need for the blanket. I think it is this (perceived) flaw in your logic that is frustrating other people so much.

I tried to post about my own house back on page 4, but my post was overlooked or ignored. My daughter can explore our babyproofed house, crawl from room to room, and she does not encounter dangers. There are no exposed cords or outlets, no choking hazards at her level, no poisonous houseplants, no valuables she can destroy, nothing of the sort. Instead, she encounters some locked cabinets, some cabinets filled with fun pots and pans and dish towels, shelves of toys, a playhouse, etc. I realize that some people are opposed to babyproofing their homes, but since you do not seem to be opposed to babyproofing, I am having difficulty understanding the need for the blanket in the first place.
Sorry, I missed your first post. My house is babyproofed in the way that you mention except for the gates. There are no exposed outlets, chemicals, sharp objects, etc. So baby wouldn't be in danger from any of those things. The main issue was the oral thing. My babies put *everything* in their mouths. When I was right there I could try to teach them, distract them, redirect them to things they could chew, take things away, etc. But if I was away even for a minute I knew that anything they got their hands on would go in their mouths. Now our bedroom was completely stripped of all stuff, so I could leave them briefly unattended in there, but I don't think I could completely strip the entire downstairs of all stuff. There was also the stairs. They did learn how to climb the stairs safely, but there was a period before they learned when the stairs were a danger to them. Those were the only specific things, but also just the hazards of life--babyproofing reduces risk; it doesn't eliminate it. So even though they weren't in very much danger roaming free, they were safer on the blanket.
post #130 of 192
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Victorian
the difference between using a blanket and the excersaucer is that the excersaucer is WITH me. In view. In the physical area.
Okay, it seems like that works for you. But the saucer is not an option for me.

Quote:
I think that you are confusing compliance with the ability to understand. Not the same thing.

V.
Not exactly the same thing, and the kids probably didn't understand *why* I wanted them to stay on the blanket, but they understood that I did and they complied. Of course a person can choose not to comply with a request even if he understands it, but I don't see how he can comply without understanding (understanding the request, I mean, not necessarily why).
post #131 of 192
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonfly
The difference is that I'm free to leave if I decide that I don't want to wait.
Right, and a lot of the time the babies were free to come with me if they didn't want to stay on the blanket. And after I stopped training them they were free to disobey my request and roam free while I was gone, but they chose not to, just as you choose to wait in the office. And this is still different from physical captivity.

Quote:
I would say it's evidence that you've taught the baby to ignore his/her impulses, not that you've instilled understanding. IMO, this is a negative, in part because it's contrary to the natural, essential drive to attach (as heartmama explained so eloquently before). Honestly, I think you assign too much ability to reason in the abstract to very young babies. I understand you disagree but, from what I have seen, the evidence doesn't support your theories.
I did teach them to ignore their impulses, as I hope we all try to teach them to ignore their impulses with things like putting things in their mouths, running into the street, etc. And unlike a generic request like "stay here" or "don't get into trouble," a specific request like "stay on the blanket" doesn't require much abstract reasoning. If they were capable of abstract reasoning I wouldn't need the blanket in the first place because they would know to keep themselves safe. Blanket-training is for before abstract reasoning.

Quote:
See, this doesn't seem sequential to me. Probably because I don't believe babies should ever be left alone so it feels to me as though you begin at the extreme, regress to the beginning, and move again along the continuum. If they were meant to be left alone, they'd be equipped with the ability to reason and rationalize and there would be little need for parents. If I were making your list, it would look like this: baby stays in mama's arms (or sling), roams house (and other places) with adult there, stays in home while parent is outside for short times, stays home alone for short time, stays home alone for longer time, flies the coop.
Of course babies aren't meant to be left alone for long periods of time, but they can be left alone for brief periods. Both of mine slept alone in a bassinet from birth so they were alone then, but of course I was right there in the room. Then gradually I let them sleep while I was in another room, then blanket-training, and now they both freely roam the house except for the younger one in the laundry room and certain select circumstances. But I agree that babies should mostly be carried or worn, and mine were. I was just listing the increasing amount of time and space they could be left alone.
post #132 of 192
Quote:
Sorry, I missed your first post. My house is babyproofed in the way that you mention except for the gates. There are no exposed outlets, chemicals, sharp objects, etc. So baby wouldn't be in danger from any of those things. The main issue was the oral thing. My babies put *everything* in their mouths. When I was right there I could try to teach them, distract them, redirect them to things they could chew, take things away, etc. But if I was away even for a minute I knew that anything they got their hands on would go in their mouths. Now our bedroom was completely stripped of all stuff, so I could leave them briefly unattended in there, but I don't think I could completely strip the entire downstairs of all stuff. There was also the stairs. They did learn how to climb the stairs safely, but there was a period before they learned when the stairs were a danger to them. Those were the only specific things, but also just the hazards of life--babyproofing reduces risk; it doesn't eliminate it. So even though they weren't in very much danger roaming free, they were safer on the blanket.
I am truly trying to understand, but I still don't get it. What things is the baby putting in his/her mouth that you object to? If your home is "babyproofed," there is nothing dangerous out for the baby to chew on, right? I am looking around my living room, and I see nothing that I would object to my daughter putting in her mouth. Can you give some specific examples and explain why you are unable or unwilling to simply put these things away? I'm also wondering what these "hazards of life" are? And what do you mean by a "stripped down" bedroom, and why are you unable or unwilling to repeat that state elsewhere in the house? And can you explain why you are unwilling to gate even the stairs? I swear that I am not trying to be obtuse, but I really am puzzled as to what these dangers are that are so great that you are willing to blanket train a child. As others have said, there seem to be so many easier--and more attached--alternatives. If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that your home is well babyproofed and there are miniscule risks, yet you still think the negatives of training a baby to a blanket are outweighed by the benefits of avoiding these mimiscule risks. If this is correct, then I guess I'm dumbfounded and don't really know what else to say.
post #133 of 192
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennisee
I am truly trying to understand, but I still don't get it. What things is the baby putting in his/her mouth that you object to? If your home is "babyproofed," there is nothing dangerous out for the baby to chew on, right? I am looking around my living room, and I see nothing that I would object to my daughter putting in her mouth. Can you give some specific examples and explain why you are unable or unwilling to simply put these things away? I'm also wondering what these "hazards of life" are? And what do you mean by a "stripped down" bedroom, and why are you unable or unwilling to repeat that state elsewhere in the house? And can you explain why you are unwilling to gate even the stairs? I swear that I am not trying to be obtuse, but I really an puzzled as to what these dangers are that are so great that you are willing to blanket train a child. As others have said, there seem to be so many easier--and more attached--alternatives. If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that your home is well babyproofed and there are miniscule risks, yet you still think the negatives of training a baby to a blanket are outweighed by the benefits of avoiding these mimiscule risks. If this is correct, then I guess I'm dumbfounded.
We tried to keep small things they could choke on out of the way as much as possible, but of course that wasn't a guarantee. But when I say my kids chewed everything I mean *everything*--paper, toys, books, shoes, tapes, cloth, cotton balls, coasters, flashlights--you name it they tasted it. Our bedroom was completely stripped down to just our bed, baby's bassinet, two dressers with latched drawers, and the closet with the door closed and latched. That was it. It wouldn't have been possible to strip down the entire house that way, especially for the second one when we had to keep him away from all of dd's stuff in addition to our own. We did try to keep poisons and choking hazards out of the way, but I think that just as some of y'all have said you wouldn't rely on blanket-training, I didn't feel like I could rely just on babyproofing. We made it as safe as we could, but I still supervised them all the time and when I couldn't, I needed them to be on the blanket.

Gating the stairs is not an option. Having a gate in my house would be harmful to my mental health.

Yes, I do think that the benefits of blanket-training outweigh the negatives, but I don't agree with y'all about what the negatives are. I don't agree that blanket-training is the same as physical captivity or that it produces learned helplessness or that it's punative or that it's ineffective or that it's harmful to attachment. As I have said, it isn't perfect. I don't like being separated from my children or restricting their freedom. So I was asking about alternatives. But absent a better alternative, I do think that, at least for my children, blanket-training was the least bad option.
post #134 of 192
From what I've gathered Brigianna, it sounds almost as if you've adopted the term "blanket training" for simply asking your kids to play on the blanket, and they happen to like it so they do.
I don't think that's what "blanket training" means.
post #135 of 192
also, be careful. It seems that one could derive a false sense of security from such a practice. You cannot depend on a baby to show the self restraint required to NOT move off the blanket to grab a shiny bead. So no matter how much they may enjoy the time they spend on the blanket (which is an interesting trait for sure) make sure that the area around them is safe, and their access to stairs etc. is thwarted somehow.
post #136 of 192
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamajama
From what I've gathered Brigianna, it sounds almost as if you've adopted the term "blanket training" for simply asking your kids to play on the blanket, and they happen to like it so they do.
I don't think that's what "blanket training" means.
As I understand it "blanket-training" means training or teaching a child to stay on a blanket when asked. I didn't even know about the other kind of blanket-training until I read about it here.
post #137 of 192
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamajama
also, be careful. It seems that one could derive a false sense of security from such a practice. You cannot depend on a baby to show the self restraint required to NOT move off the blanket to grab a shiny bead. So no matter how much they may enjoy the time they spend on the blanket (which is an interesting trait for sure) make sure that the area around them is safe, and their access to stairs etc. is thwarted somehow.
I do try to keep the area around them safe, but the blanket-training did work well for us. I'm not sure about the stairs.
post #138 of 192
I do a combination of 1 and 4. Probably more 4 than 1.
post #139 of 192
so I'm not really getting it. You're looking for alternatives for something you no longer do anyway?
post #140 of 192
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamajama
so I'm not really getting it. You're looking for alternatives for something you no longer do anyway?
For the next one . My 2 have outgrown the blanket-training stage; they're 6 and 3.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Gentle Discipline
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Childhood and Beyond › Gentle Discipline › Blanket-training and alternatives (spinoff)