Blanket-training and alternatives (spinoff) - Page 2

[IncaMama]

Originally Posted by Brigianna

I blanket-trained both of mine when they were about 8 months old, but they had already been playing on blankets on the floor from as soon as they could hold their heads up. Basically I just said "please stay on the blanket" and if they got off, I put them back and reminded them again. I explained it in more detail on the other thread. But there was no punishment or reward involved. It did not take long at all for either of them to "catch on" that I wanted them to stay on the blanket and they did so. I never kept them on the blanket for more than a few minutes.

so when you didn't need for them to be confined for the blanket, would they stay there anyway? i mean...did they learn (at 8mos) that they can roam free when you're there but as soon as you say "stay on the blanket" they couldn't? or did they just assume that they are never allowed to leave the blanket?

I do not believe in pens, gates, cages, etc. for children. This is a deeply personal issue with me. I'm not saying that those who use these things are wrong, but I would not do it.

deeply personal? that's confusing to me...can you explain why?

My house is babyproofed, but that is still not totally safe. As I mentioned on the other thread, both of my kids were very oral babies. Anything that got in their hands went in their mouths. If I had left them unsupervised in a room even for a minute, even with babyproofing, something would have wound up in baby's mouth. Hence the blanket-training.

wouldn't it just be better to focus on teaching them not to put things in their mouths? i mean, later on you say:

I guess I just have a lot more faith in young children's capacity for self-control. I think if we treat them like they have self-control, they are much more likely to act accordingly.

but i really think that you're demonstrating the opposite with the blanket training. their self-control is limited to staying in one place when determined appropriate by your words of "please stay on the blanket"...but not when it comes to putting things in their mouths, playing with sockets, pulling things off shelves, etc? if they are so able to self-control, why don't you focus on those behaviors instead?

Yes, it's my job to keep them safe while they're babies, but it's also my job to teach them how to keep themselves safe, because I won't always be able to do it for them.

but...i mean, you have time...at 8months you are still there MOST of the time (i hope!)...do they really need to learn this at such a young age?

[captain crunchy]

I think blanket training is well, let me just say I am truly, truly against it. I think it goes against every instinct a child has to roam and explore.

I feel that forcing a child to stay on a blanket by placing them back on the blanket each time they crawl off is borderline mean and just plain controlling. It was mentioned in the other thread that their was no punishment, because you knew your baby wanted to please you and knowing you wanted them to stay on the blanket was enough (I'm paraphrasing). I think that sounds very manipulative. It sounds to me like someone who is playing on thier infants love and deep desire to do the appropriate thing to please their mama. It does not sound like attachment parenting to me, but hey, who am I.

I am the crazy radical who lets my young infant explore and when it is a legitimate safety issue at hand, either help her explore safely, sling her, take her with me (like in the shower etc) or the very rare time, in a pack n play within sight (of me showering or vacuming etc) which she goes in willingly and happily for a few minutes with no training on my part and no attempt on her part to get out (by standing up, fussing etc). You may think there is no difference but I think the difference is huge. I didn't have to *train* her to go in her pack n play for a couple minutes. She was completely free to protest (and believe me, she knows how lol) and in that event, I would and have removed her happily. The difference with blanket training is by the child crawling off, that is their protest, and it is repeatedly ignored.

I just have a huge issue with "training" an infant to go against their very nature in general --especially for something that in reality, offers absolutely NO safety whatsoever. Either two things happen, you leave the room and they make their great escape right off the blanket... or you leave the room and they stay on the blanket out of fear of dissaproval and the futility of knowing that if they attempt to crawl off, you will just put them where they don't want to be again.

Neither option sounds good to me.

It reeks of the Pearls and I don't like the idea at all.

[**guest**]

>>If I had left them unsupervised in a room even for a minute, even with babyproofing, something would have wound up in baby's mouth. Hence the blanket-training.<<

unless the object is small enough to choke on, what is really a big deal with having it in the mouth? i don't get it.

or teach them not to put things in their mouths? which is a more concrete, safety oriented response?

[the_lissa]

Originally Posted by captain crunchy

I think blanket training is well, let me just say I am truly, truly against it. I think it goes against every instinct a child has to roam and explore.

I feel that forcing a child to stay on a blanket by placing them back on the blanket each time they crawl off is borderline mean and just plain controlling. It was mentioned in the other thread that their was no punishment, because you knew your baby wanted to please you and knowing you wanted them to stay on the blanket was enough (I'm paraphrasing). I think that sounds very manipulative. It sounds to me like someone who is playing on thier infants love and deep desire to do the appropriate thing to please their mama. It does not sound like attachment parenting to me, but hey, who am I.

I am the crazy radical who lets my young infant explore and when it is a legitimate safety issue at hand, either help her explore safely, sling her, take her with me (like in the shower etc) or the very rare time, in a pack n play within sight (of me showering or vacuming etc) which she goes in willingly and happily for a few minutes with no training on my part and no attempt on her part to get out (by standing up, fussing etc). You may think there is no difference but I think the difference is huge. I didn't have to *train* her to go in her pack n play for a couple minutes. She was completely free to protest (and believe me, she knows how lol) and in that event, I would and have removed her happily. The difference with blanket training is by the child crawling off, that is their protest, and it is repeatedly ignored.

I just have a huge issue with "training" an infant to go against their very nature in general --especially for something that in reality, offers absolutely NO safety whatsoever. Either two things happen, you leave the room and they make their great escape right off the blanket... or you leave the room and they stay on the blanket out of fear of dissaproval and the futility of knowing that if they attempt to crawl off, you will just put them where they don't want to be again.

Neither option sounds good to me.

It reeks of the Pearls and I don't like the idea at all.

I agree with this post. The nicest way I can put it is that I think blanket training is sick.

[heartmama]

The difference with blanket training is by the child crawling off, that is their protest, and it is repeatedly ignored.

Well said.

[annettemarie]

Originally Posted by Brigianna

Yes, I would trust them not to touch the baby. I taught dd not to touch ds when he was a baby (when he was a toddler was another story...) I guess I just have a lot more faith in young children's capacity for self-control. I think if we treat them like they have self-control, they are much more likely to act accordingly.

I have plenty of faith in children's capacity for many things. However, where we obviously disagree is that I would never expect a child--an infant or toddler especially--to self-regulate. And what will you if you're in the bathroom, baby is on the rug and starts fussing, and your oldest decides to help mama, pick Baby up, and drops him? Of course, that's a worse-case scenario, but that and worse has happened to parents just as conscientious as you. The bottom line is that the only person's behavior you can control is your own. If your baby decides to crawl off the blanket, or your toddler decides to toddle over and sit on Baby's head, or your oldest decides to try to pick the baby up, and you're not in the room, it's on your head, not thier's. THAT is what I have been saying over and over and over again, and you just don't seem to be hearing or understanding me. Unless you can absolutely 100% guarantee that nothing will happen when you are out of the room you shouldn't be leaving your child unattended on the blanket, honestly trusting and believing they aren't going to go wandering off. Even blanket trained babies need babysafe houses and lots of adult supervision. Your logic reminds me of the people who "teach" their children to swim and then are shocked when they drown. After all, the children were taught and should know better.

Am I being a bit overdramatic. Perhaps. But just because these things aren't likely to happen doesn't mean they won't.

Yes, it's my job to keep them safe while they're babies, but it's also my job to teach them how to keep themselves safe, because I won't always be able to do it for them.

Baby.
Toddler.
Small child.
They will learn eventually, and if you're not willing to dedicate yourself to keeping them safe their first few years, then I guess we're at an impasse. Motherhood is a full-time vocation, and I see blanket-training as an attempt to circumvent a child's natural growth process and give the mama an easy way out that is, in reality, not safe at all.

[annettemarie]

Originally Posted by captain crunchy

I think blanket training is well, let me just say I am truly, truly against it. I think it goes against every instinct a child has to roam and explore.

To your entire post.

[heartmama]

Brigianna

I don't believe in it strongly; that's why I'm open to alternatives. But I don't agree that it's wrong or abusive or conditioning.

I think it's great that you are open to alternatives.

I also think most of us are very sensitive to being told we should have parented differently on an issue, and if the alternatives rest on hearing that, many people aren't going to change. So, if you want to explore alternatives, I'm hesitant to say much more that puts you on the defensive. I'd really prefer to give you alternatives than to keep pointing out what's wrong with blanket training.

I agree that your version of blanket training isn't abusive~conditioning, to me yes, but that isn't "abuse", in the sense that slapping or neglecting to feed a baby is abuse.

I am curious if you have considered the ways that attachment and safety CAN work together? I think this is really the key to understanding ap alternatives to blanket training.

[Rainbow Brite]

Well for dogs, they have those collars to shock them when they leave the yard. Seems like an alternative to your idea.

[Brigianna]

Originally Posted by Madre Piadosa

Isn't your home a pen- a big one, but a cage nonetheless? Don't we fence in our yards? To me- to say you do not believe in these things- do you close doors? Isn't that caging a child? Do you leave your front door open all the time as to not "pen" your child? How is a physical barrier a problem? Especially if it occurs in our daily world?

In a symbolic sense maybe, but I don't really see them as comparable. And I fence in my yard and lock my doors to keep strangers out, not to keep my family members in. We have a privacy fence in the backyard that both of my kids could easily cross, but they don't, because I've asked them not to. It's a symbolic boundary, just like the blanket.

As far as blanket training goes- the term is a Gothard one- do you follow his other methods as well? I balk at the term training and young infants.

I don't know anything about Gothard or what he teaches. I know he has a Christian homeschooling curriculum and said something about dolls being sinful but that's about it.

As far as alternatives- I do a combination of closing doors- (creating a pen- yes I know- but a big one)- babyproofing and supervision. And to answer the argument about being able to take care of other children I have 5 under 18 in my home. I manage to care for all of them while providing heavy supervision for my toddler- so it is possible!
Dana

Can you give a concrete example?

[Brigianna]

A couple of y'all have asked questions that I answered on the other thread, so I'm just reposting some of the things I wrote over there about how and why I do this, because I'm too lazy to re-type it:

I put the blanket on the floor and baby on the blanket with a sippy cup and a couple of toys. Say "please stay on the blanket." If baby crawls off, move baby back and remind "please stay on the blanket." After awhile baby gets the message. For about a minute at first, then gradually increasing the time. But never for more than a few minutes--I agree that keeping baby on the blanket all afternoon or some such would certainly be cruel. Is that what Ezzo advocates?

It's a useful skill to teach them because it's something tangible they can understand. If you say to a toddler "please stay right here" or "don't go anywhere," what does that mean? Stay in this chair, this room, this house? They're very literal at that age. So making it something clear and tangible--"please stay on this blanket"--eliminates the confusion.

I have never and would never hit my children. I am not an Ezzo/Pearl follower. I teach blanket training the same way I teach everything else, by gently reminding. I say "please stay on the blanket" and put baby back on the blanket. It doesn't take long for the baby to figure out what that means.

This makes no sense to me. Are you going to carry a blanket around with you for the rest of your life so they know where to stay?

Of course not. My kids are currently 6 and 3 and I don't use the blanket anymore except occasionally for the younger one. It's a question of what they can understand at what age. Most 1 yr olds can not understand a more generic request, most 5 yr olds can. I might ask my 6 yr old to put her stuff in her room and she knows what I'm asking, but I would ask my 3 yr old "please pick up the duck, those two books, and the car and take them to your room." It's the same thing with the blanket.

Babyproofing isn't perfect and constant vigilance isn't always realistic. [...] I do not see how it is any different from saying "please stay right here" except that the baby is more likely to understand it.

Originally Posted by annettemarie

But what if you have children who don't comply and stay on the blanket, even if you say please? Your polite version of blanket training isn't going to work for every child.

No, although I suspect it would work for most. Anyway, I never suggested that everyone should blanket train, I just didn't know why it was being denounced.

I'm only curious because you mentioned that a toddler doesn't understand what "stay here" means. Eventually a child will have to learn that. Why not wait til they're ready?

Well, he probably knows what "stay here" means, just not what *exactly* what it means. I remember babysitting for a little girl about 2--I went into the other room for some reason and said "I'm going into the other room for a minute; don't move" and she literally froze in place. I thought it was funny, but that was really what she thought I meant.

And I guess I am a bit confused because first you argue that blanket training is to keep the child safe, and then you argue that it is to give them a concrete, tangible place where they are allowed to be

.


It's the same thing--I need them to know to stay in one place for safety; I use the blanket to show in a concrete way what "stay in one place" means.

I don't think being put in a cage is less stressful than being asked to stay in one place. My kidlets have inherited or picked up on my intense aversion to anything reeking of captivity. And isn't a part of gd a focus on internal discipline (self-control) over external discipline?

I have less than no interest in teaching my kids to obey me. We're almost totally non-coercive for preschoolers and up. I just don't think its feasible nor wise to be totally non-coercive with babies. For us blanket training was simple, reliable, developmentally-appropriate, and more respectful than any alternative. I promise I'm not criticizing you, but I really don't think a "baby gate" is respectful.[...]It has nothing to do with being in charge. It's a simple request I make of them, as you say, for my convenience. If I was in the living room playing with baby and the phone rang in the kitchen, I could put baby on the blanket and ask her to stay put, go into the kitchen, pick up the phone, and go straight back into the living room. The total time of baby unsupervised was less then one minute, but *even with babyproofing* I wouldn't want her to spend that minute roaming free in the living room. I suppose I could have picked her up and taken her to the kitchen, provoking a tantrum, but I thought teaching her something to keep her safe for a minute was more respectful.

I'm not punishing them; they have a desire to do what I ask. If they left the blanket I reminded them that I wanted them to stay there. They weren't being defient; they just needed to be reminded. I think they outgrow it when they can be trusted to stay safe in one place without the blanket to remind them.[...]It's not so much a matter of trusting as much as a baby's having a better ability to understand simple, tangible requests--staying within the boundaries of a blanket--than complex, generic requests like "stay here," "don't get into trouble," etc.

It's more respectful because you're trusting baby's own sense of self-control, not an external restraint. When we (adults) are asked to stay in, for example, a waiting room, there's no gate keeping us there, but we stay because we're asked to and it's expected of us. There might be a door or a sign saying "only authorized people beyond this point" or some such, which are symbolic barriers, like the edges of a blanket, but I would be very suspicious of a place that had an actual lock or gate. Along similar lines, I refuse to shop at clothing stores that have locked dressing rooms. If you don't trust me as a customer not to steal from you, I'm not going to trust you with my money.

Maybe you do. I would be interested to hear what your plan would be if they didn't comply.

It would depend--if it was when we were first starting, I would keep putting him back on the blanket and wait for him to figure it out. If this happened over and over again and he never caught on, I would think he was too young and wait a couple of months to try again. If he had been doing it successfully for a while and he just decided one day he wasn't going to stay on the blanket, I would just remind him, and if he still wouldn't do it, I would give up and do something else.

I disagree with your first premise that a baby's needs are the same as his wants. Because babies are new in the world and don't know everything they need to know yet, they can't completely know their own needs. So I do believe that, for very young children, it is part of our job as parents to protect them even from themselves. This diminishes as they become more aware of the world and more able to make rational informed choices. But I do think we can deprive babies of certain wants without depriving them of their needs, and we should deprive them of their wants when their wants conflict with their needs. For example, both of my children were very oral babies--if it went in their hands, it went in their mouths. As an adult, I knew that they could catch germs or possibly choke from this. They didn't know that, though, they just thought "this is a cool-looking thing, I wonder what it tastes like." But I would have been irresponsible to let them do this, because they weren't making an informed choice. And this is where I think ap and respectful parenting comes in--instead of just taking away things they wanted to taste or punishing them, I gently corrected them and gave them access to things they *could* put in their mouths (teething rings, binkies, my fingers...)

Non-coercion is not the same as tcs. I don't agree with tcs (actually I don't agree with Ayn Rand for any age group). What I mean by non-coercion is that I let my kids make their own choices about their own lives as much as possible. But a baby (which I'm arbitrarily defining as about under age 2) is not capable of making his own choices about his own life. He is naturally self-regulating in some areas, and I do allow a lot more self-regulating than the mainstream approach, but he doesn't have the knowledge, experience, or maturity to really understand. So it's the parents' job to make decisions for him. Now as I understand it, the ap approach is to make this as pleasant as possible for him and also give him the maximum amount of freedom that baby's safety and mommy's sanity will permit.

My kids are 6 and 3, and they are pretty much treated non-coercively, especially compared to mainstream kids their age. They eat what and when they want, sleep when they want, basically do whatever they want all day. I don't require them to do school or housework, although they often want to. There is really only one non-negotiable "rule" at our house, which is "no hurting another person, even in play." Everything else is up for discussion and consensus. We aren't perfect, but I try to give them the most free environment possible. There is some coercion in that sometimes they have to do things they don't want to do, but sometimes I do things I don't want to do, so it sort of evens out. I don't believe that adults are morally superior to children. I do believe that we know more and should teach what we know to our kids and keep them safe until they can figure it out for themselves.

As to the Pearls--I actually wasn't familiar with the Pearl child-rearing practices (if they can be called that) until I read about them on this site. I knew about No Greater Joy ministries and "Created to be his Helpmeet" and I knew they advocated corporal punishment of children, which I don't agree with, but I didn't know about beating infants with plumbing pipes until I read about it here. Suffice it to say this really taints everything else they have to say. But there is a Jesuit saying that makes a similar point--"Give me a boy before he is ten, and I have the man." Now I don't agree with tabula rasa (the idea that children are completely the products of their environment and upbringing with no innate characteristics or personality), but I do agree with the value of early childhood teaching/training/learning/discipline/guidance/whatever you want to call it. I wouldn't say conditioning because that suggests the removal of free will, but I do understand the point. I make almost all choices for an infant. I make a few choices for my 3 yr old. I make fewer choices for my 6 yr old. By the time they're teenagers I won't be making any choices for them about their lives, except maybe in some kind of bizzare scenario. Basically I believe in giving the maximum possible amount of freedom to kids as soon as they can understand it, but not before.

being momentarily physically separated while he's on the blanket is no different from being momentarily physically separated at any other time. Also, when I started teaching them I alternated between being on the blanket with them and being off the blanket. At 8 months they didn't mind a little momentary separation. They had slept alone in a bassinet since they were born so it wasn't totally strange to them (although we kept the bassinet in our room). And I wouldn't call it "conditioning."

I guess I'm surprised at the intensity of the reaction because neither of my kids *minded* being blanket-trained. They didn't cry, throw a fit, or anything like that. Maybe scowled a little in that baby way, but nothing like being really upset. Now the carseat? That was taking a trip to meltdown-land. And I *hated* doing it to them, and I tried to make it as painless as possible, but it was the law. But I don't think anyone here would say I was wrong to do that. Of course that was a safety issue, but for us, so was blanket-training.

[Brigianna]

Originally Posted by heartmama

With attachment parenting, a baby is encouraged to express his natural attachment-building behaviors, and parents are encouraged to rethink mainstream expectations so they may better support the attachment process. This is part of the foundation of their relationship.

Your theory with blanket training seems to rest upon divorcing safety from attachment.

How does it divorce safety from attachment? I'm not sacrificing any attachment to my kids; actually I think I'm enhancing it, because I know that I can trust them stay put, and they know they can trust me not to abuse this authority.

Considering the myriad issues that arise in daily life that cause us to think about safety, I think it is good to think about how attachment relates to this issue.

Is there a way to keep a baby safe and support attachment? The parents here are saying yes.

If there is a way to do both, is that preferable? Within attachment theory, yes.

I agree.

Do you want agreement with the blanket training method?

Not necessarily. I was actually looking more for alternatives. Although I would prefer if people would disagree respectfully instead of assuming the worst.

Do you just want to advocate it?

I don't want to advocate it. What worked for us might not work for anyone else, and if it goes against someone's convictions I don't think they should do it

Do you feel something unfair was said which is prompting you to press the issue for clarification?

I think some of the assumptions made about me and my family were unfair. I think the assumption that blanket-training is conditioning, punishment, or detachment, or that it isn't possible, are unfair. But mostly I was just trying to redirect the conversation away from how vile I am for doing this and more towards what other people do instead.

I'm trying to understand how blanket training relates to attachment parenting in the first place.

I think it is an example of an ap solution because you are teaching the child rather than just confining him. It's not ideal, but what is? I'm not just trying to be hostile here. If y'all have a better idea, I'm open to hearing it. I'm not married to blanket-training, but it seems like the best alternative.

[Dragonfly]

Originally Posted by Brigianna

I think it is an example of an ap solution because you are teaching the child rather than just confining him. It's not ideal, but what is? I'm not just trying to be hostile here. If y'all have a better idea, I'm open to hearing it. I'm not married to blanket-training, but it seems like the best alternative.

I'm still not understanding why you need an alternative at all? Slinging (or otherwise carrying in arms), babyproofing, vigilance. If you're looking for a way to not have to supervise your child and you don't want to cage them, then I guess blanket-training is what you need to do. But it *is* confining them, and it *is* conditioning. I've yet to see an explanation that distinguishes it.

[Clarinet]

This is a bizarre conversation. I guess it just hasn't occured to me to not take my baby from room to room when I go, whether to the bathroom or whatever.

And this describes my reaction when I thought about "blanket training" my 9-month old. She doesn't even crawl yet but boy can she scoot on her tushie. I can't imagine accomplishing the task of making her stay on her play mat and I have tried doing that but for comfort from the cold hardwood floors, not so I can leave her alone.

[Brigianna]

Originally Posted by michelemiller

so when you didn't need for them to be confined for the blanket, would they stay there anyway? i mean...did they learn (at 8mos) that they can roam free when you're there but as soon as you say "stay on the blanket" they couldn't? or did they just assume that they are never allowed to leave the blanket?

No, we played on the blanket a lot so they were used to being there, but they didn't stay there unless I specifically said "please stay on the blanket."

deeply personal? that's confusing to me...can you explain why?

I do not want any symbols of captivity in my home, especially not in any context associated with children. Honestly I can't even stand to look at them. It just isn't an option.

wouldn't it just be better to focus on teaching them not to put things in their mouths?

Trust me, I tried. But my efforts were in vain. Eventually they got past it though.

but i really think that you're demonstrating the opposite with the blanket training. their self-control is limited to staying in one place when determined appropriate by your words of "please stay on the blanket"...but not when it comes to putting things in their mouths, playing with sockets, pulling things off shelves, etc? if they are so able to self-control, why don't you focus on those behaviors instead?

I taught them about those other things too, but it took a lot longer. In the meantime I had to keep them safe. It isn't an absolute, either they have self-control or they don't. It's a gradual process.

but...i mean, you have time...at 8months you are still there MOST of the time (i hope!)...do they really need to learn this at such a young age?

8 months is when I start, because that's when mine started moving around. Yes I'm there most of the time, but I still need to keep them safe for the minute I might happen to be out of the room.

[alybeans]

Huh I had never heard of this before. In all honesty my #1 concern would be that it could give you a false sense of security. A baby may be trained to stay on the blanket but there is no garuntee that the baby won't forget and wonder off the blanket. I am more comfortable babyproofing my house My DD still puts everything in her mouth so we have worked very hard to make sure that there is nothing chokable within her reach. Not a piece of loose change, not a screw, nothing.

I'm a firm believer in having a baby/toddler friendly home when you have babies and toddlers. Sure babyproofing was a PITA but now she can roam the entire house. This is her house and I don't want her to feel confined in it, babies don't understand that they are being confined for their own safety. All they see is that you can wonder around wherever you want and they can't. Hardly seems fair.

I don't know it just seems strange to me. I certainly survived just fine without ever doing it.

[Brigianna]

Originally Posted by captain crunchy

I think blanket training is well, let me just say I am truly, truly against it. I think it goes against every instinct a child has to roam and explore.

I feel that forcing a child to stay on a blanket by placing them back on the blanket each time they crawl off is borderline mean and just plain controlling. It was mentioned in the other thread that their was no punishment, because you knew your baby wanted to please you and knowing you wanted them to stay on the blanket was enough (I'm paraphrasing). I think that sounds very manipulative. It sounds to me like someone who is playing on thier infants love and deep desire to do the appropriate thing to please their mama. It does not sound like attachment parenting to me, but hey, who am I.

How is it any more manipulative than any other request? If you make a request of someone of any age, isn't it dependent on the person's desire to do what you want?

I am the crazy radical who lets my young infant explore and when it is a legitimate safety issue at hand, either help her explore safely, sling her, take her with me (like in the shower etc) or the very rare time, in a pack n play within sight (of me showering or vacuming etc) which she goes in willingly and happily for a few minutes with no training on my part and no attempt on her part to get out (by standing up, fussing etc). You may think there is no difference but I think the difference is huge. I didn't have to *train* her to go in her pack n play for a couple minutes. She was completely free to protest (and believe me, she knows how lol) and in that event, I would and have removed her happily. The difference with blanket training is by the child crawling off, that is their protest, and it is repeatedly ignored.

No, my kids know how to protest, trust me. And yet neither of them did. When they crawled off the blanket it was because they didn't yet understand what I was asking of them. After they "got it" they had no problem doing what I asked.

[shayinme]

Originally Posted by Brigianna

I do not want any symbols of captivity in my home, especially not in any context associated with children. Honestly I can't even stand to look at them. It just isn't an option.

Excuse me for sounding dumb but what the heck is the difference between a blanket being used in the way you describe and say a pack and play. They both acheive the same effect to some degree except that with the blanket training it sounds a heck of a lot less gentle than a pack & play. I've been trying to follow this thread and I guess this is just not making sense for me.

Shay

[Brigianna]

Originally Posted by annettemarie

I have plenty of faith in children's capacity for many things. However, where we obviously disagree is that I would never expect a child--an infant or toddler especially--to self-regulate. And what will you if you're in the bathroom, baby is on the rug and starts fussing, and your oldest decides to help mama, pick Baby up, and drops him? Of course, that's a worse-case scenario, but that and worse has happened to parents just as conscientious as you. The bottom line is that the only person's behavior you can control is your own. If your baby decides to crawl off the blanket, or your toddler decides to toddle over and sit on Baby's head, or your oldest decides to try to pick the baby up, and you're not in the room, it's on your head, not thier's. THAT is what I have been saying over and over and over again, and you just don't seem to be hearing or understanding me. Unless you can absolutely 100% guarantee that nothing will happen when you are out of the room you shouldn't be leaving your child unattended on the blanket, honestly trusting and believing they aren't going to go wandering off. Even blanket trained babies need babysafe houses and lots of adult supervision. Your logic reminds me of the people who "teach" their children to swim and then are shocked when they drown. After all, the children were taught and should know better.

And I do supervise them. I'm certainly not leaving them unattended all day. But for those brief moments when I can't be right there, teaching them to stay safe is, at least to me, a much better alternative to either locking them up or letting them roam free. Of course things happen, but some circumstances are better than others. And of course blanket-training isn't the ideal. The ideal is constant round-the-clock supervision and a perfectly safe environment. What I'm saying is that *that isn't realistic,* at least not for me. So I'm talking about safety in an imperfect world.

Am I being a bit overdramatic. Perhaps. But just because these things aren't likely to happen doesn't mean they won't.

But things can happen while you're supervising them too, it's just less likely. And a child who has been taught to stay on a blanket is less likely to get into trouble than a free-roaming one who hasn't been taught.

Baby.
Toddler.
Small child.
They will learn eventually, and if you're not willing to dedicate yourself to keeping them safe their first few years, then I guess we're at an impasse. Motherhood is a full-time vocation, and I see blanket-training as an attempt to circumvent a child's natural growth process and give the mama an easy way out that is, in reality, not safe at all.

So what is the alternative? Constant undivided supervision is not realistic. I find it very hard to believe that most people would never ever leave a young child unattended for a brief moment.

[Brigianna]

Originally Posted by heartmama

Brigianna



I think it's great that you are open to alternatives.

I also think most of us are very sensitive to being told we should have parented differently on an issue, and if the alternatives rest on hearing that, many people aren't going to change. So, if you want to explore alternatives, I'm hesitant to say much more that puts you on the defensive. I'd really prefer to give you alternatives than to keep pointing out what's wrong with blanket training.

Than please do . I will freely admit that blanket-training is not the ideal. It seems like the least bad alternative, but if you have a better idea that doesn't involve gates or pens or captivity, I would love to hear it.

I am curious if you have considered the ways that attachment and safety CAN work together? I think this is really the key to understanding ap alternatives to blanket training.

Well, I was thinking that blanket-training *was* the most attached way to accomplish safety. But as I say, if you know a better way, please share it and I promise to keep an open mind.