# Church behavior



## Mama2 '05'06 (Mar 5, 2006)

My dd is almost 11 months old. When she turned 10 months she started sitting quietly with a few "shh" reminders during Sunday School and at least the morning church service. Then she got sick and we stayed home for about 2 weeks and now when we went back, she won't sit or be quiet. I understand that part of the trouble is that we have a new sanctuary now and she doesn't understand that it is still church- I don't know what she thinks it is but I know she thinks it isn't church. She did fall asleep during Sunday school and when she woke up looked at her books and sat quietly on my lap. The morning service she threw the toys and would not stop talking. Finally gave her to daddy and he took her out and spoke sternly to her to sit still and be quiet. Came back in and she sat for the last 10 minutes.







Then, the evening service, she threw the toys even when I said "no" and then started crying when I didn't give the toy back to her. I took her out and scolded her for throwing the toy and bawling- she bawled louder and wouldn't stop. I sat out in the nursery with her for awhile and finally she was calm so we went back in. Sat for maybe 10 minutes and suddenly started bawling again. We spent the rest of the service in the nursery where she sat on my lap and had some snacks that she really wasn't interesed in and cried every now and then. I don't know what to do with her any more. I am trying to sit down every evening and read a story or have daddy read and hold her on my lap or his and insist on a "quiet" time before bed. In case you're wondering why she needs to sit in church, all the kids are expected to sit in church by 1 yr. If they get hungry or wet or something you can take them out but they are suppossed to sit for most of the time which is about 45 min of preaching. Any ideas?


----------



## frenchie (Mar 21, 2006)

You can't expect an 11 month old child to sit still for 45 minutes during a church sermon....it's unreasonable IMO. Why do they have to be able to sit through a sermon by the age of 1? Why don't they have a nursery for young toddlers?


----------



## tiffany21074 (Jan 22, 2006)

I agree with the pp. I think that is unreasonable; my daughter is 14 months and would be doing the same thing. I don't think many children have the capacity to understand "shhh, this is church, you need to be quiet now" I know that isn't much help, but know that your child is doing what a normal 1 year old does. that doesn't seem like a fair rule.


----------



## octobermom (Aug 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *frenchie*
You can't expect an 11 month old child to sit still for 45 minutes during a church sermon....it's unreasonable IMO. Why do they have to be able to sit through a sermon by the age of 1? Why don't they have a nursery for young toddlers?

I completely agree this is just completely unreasonable.

Deanna


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Yep. MY 2.5 yo is very "well behaved" by most people's standards and she still cannot handle an hour long church service. It is just not age approriate to expect a 1 yo (or a 3 yo IMO) to sit still for one hour. I barely can.


----------



## Hayes (Nov 20, 2001)

I think it is completely reasonable to work with an 11 mo and help them learn to sit and be quiet during services. For us, the quiet part is about 5 minutes for the Lord's supper, and about 20-25 minutes for the sermon.

Our 11 mo is doing ok. He goes to Sunday school while we are in classes. Then we all go to services. This way he is awake at first and sleeps through the sermon. We let him talk and "sing" while everyone else is singing. For the Lord's supper, we say, silent time, no talking. This applies to everyone in our family, big kids, grown ups, and the baby.

We just repeat it over and over and over again. We are going through the throwing then shrieking when toys aren't returned thing too. I have found that keeping the "stuff" to a minimum helps. We take ONE book, the same one every week. I take a cup of water and a pacifier. Occassionally I will let him play with a pen for a few minutes to keep him quiet.

We do occassionally have to go out when he just gets too rowdy. We have a pew in our foyer. I sit on the pew there, so it is like being in the auditorium. I hold him in my lap and explain that church is quiet time. I feel like this way we are simulating the church auditorium without disrupting others.

As for the nursery, we don't have one. All children go to the worship services so all the adults can attend as well. We have 4 little ones and another on the way.

Keep working on it mama. You are doing fine. It just takes a bit of patience. I SWEAR it gets easier.

Feel free to PM me if you'd like.


----------



## mom2owen1 (May 12, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mama2 '05'06*
he took her out and spoke sternly to her to sit still and be quiet. Came back in and she sat for the last 10 minutes.







Then, the evening service, she threw the toys even when I said "no" and then started crying when I didn't give the toy back to her. I took her out and scolded her for throwing the toy and bawling- she bawled louder and wouldn't stop.

In addition to thinking it is an unrealistic expectation to sit through (multiple?) church services in one day, I also think it is unrealistic for an 11 month old to 'understand' when you scold her for anything. I really don't understand why you would be punishing a BABY for CRYING. I would protest if my things didn't get returned to me.

She doesn't see the big picture about not throwing toys, let alone what is expected at church.

My suggestion is to listen to what your baby is telling you she is ready and not ready for. And if that doesn't conform to whomever set up the church rules, then maybe that needs evaluated not punishing your child.


----------



## delicious (Jun 16, 2003)

well... i agree with everyone who said it's kinda unreasonable to expect an 11 month old to sit quietly through church.

i wouldn't really expect my 4 year old to sit quietly for an hour either though.


----------



## CarenSwan (Sep 29, 2005)

I think it is absolutely unreasonable to expect a baby or small child to sit quietly for any long amount of time. That being said, I think it's great to have kids in church! I love the coos and the talking, and if a baby or kid gets to rowdy, the parent can take him or her out. I think that a church should be a place where all members of the family are welcomed, and in age-appropriate ways, with no one age group expected to conform to another's standards. Jesus welcomed little children, and I wish the church in America today was truly welcoming to kids as well! Just my $.02!


----------



## octobermom (Aug 31, 2005)

Working with a small child is one thing we have always had our child in service with us there is no nursery and untill recently no cryroom, we gently worked with her on using a quiet voice we allowed snacks small toys ect if she got too noisey we just walked with her in the back but did say we had to use qiet voices and calm hand for sitting. Shes three now and does well. Whats rubbed me wrong was this

Quote:

Finally gave her to daddy and he took her out and spoke sternly to her to sit still and be quiet. Came back in and she sat for the last 10 minutes. Then, the evening service, she threw the toys even when I said "no" and then started crying when I didn't give the toy back to her. I took her out and scolded her for throwing the toy and bawling-
Your using threats thats just not fair a 10 month old is just too young to be expected to have the same impulse controll as an adult. Also to scold her for crying??







:
Deanna


----------



## richella (Nov 30, 2004)

We are in a very kid-friendly church. It is a small congregation, though, so there aren't many kids. One lady sitting in front of us one time said, "don't shush her! I like the sound of her voice." It's been interesting to me because I never liked distractions before I had dd (17 mos now), but everyone else seems to be more tolerant than I was! She waves at people in pews behind us and they smile and wave back. If she's too talky, I whisper in her ear, "the people want to hear what that man is saying," and sometimes it helps a little. What makes the most difference is bfeeding. That keeps her pretty quiet.

I probably wouldn't have kept going this long but MIL is the preacher. She has loads of experience with kids, and she sees church as a place for families, which includes all ages. She even brought in some rocking chairs for the back so people can take a baby there to rock.


----------



## klondikesky (May 27, 2004)

Agree with pp... please don't scold your baby.







But I'm glad you're working at staying together during church. I've found this website helpful, Faith At Home. Keeping children in service is very challenging, even in a highly liturgical setting with lots of repetition week-to-week, congregational responses verbal children can participate in, and a 15-20 minute sermon.

When my girls were tiny like your little one, we had lots of in the pew nursing, and I carried them in a wrap carrier walking the back of the church as needed (often entire services) until about age 18 months or so. Then they were able to stay in our aisle and draw and look at books, eat cheerios and have a sippy cup. Of course I take them out if they are fussing and give them a chance to settle down. This past Sunday dh and I actually had one dd each on opposite sides of the entrance when they melted down at the beginning of the sermon. We are in a very tolerant and child-friendly congregation, so children are not expected to be "seen and not heard".

You may also want to read the book Families Where Grace is in Place by Jeff VanVonderen, Arms of Love Family Fellowship, and Gentle Christian Mothers for encouragement in gentle discipline from a Christian worldview.

You're on the right path, mama. Hang in there.


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

Quote:

*I don't know what to do with her any more*. I am trying to sit down every evening and read a story or have daddy read and hold her on my lap or his and insist on a "quiet" time before bed. In case you're wondering why she needs to sit in church, all the kids are expected to sit in church by 1 yr. If they get hungry or wet or something you can take them out but they are suppossed to sit for most of the time which is about 45 min of preaching. Any ideas?
Have you considered alternatives to how y'all are currently attending services? Would it be possible to attend for part of the time? Trading off being in the sanctuary? IMO, just because others in your congregation think a 12 month old *should* be able to do something doesn't make it so. I would be concerned they don't have the child's best interest at heart. It's difficult for many adults to sit through a 45 minute service







IMO, I would look to why it's important _to you_ for her to behave in whatever way you are expecting her to. Do you feel it's a reflection on your parenting (it's not!!!) when she behaves in ways that are not acceptable to you/the congregation?

It sounds like she might have been frightened in the surroundings and feeling the anxiety surrounding you and dh's reactions to her behavior. Do you think this might be the case?

There are lots of creative ways that families work out handling religious services/meeting spiritual needs with young babies. IMO, it's setting yourself up for disappointment and frustration to expect such a young baby to understand and comply with 45 mins. of quiet. Goodness, some days we're lucky to have 5 minutes of quiet, happy time around here.

Hope you find some solutions that feel right to your heart.


----------



## klondikesky (May 27, 2004)

Richella, I







rockers in the back of the sanctuary. What a great idea!


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

I've been taking our three kids in services for four years. Things that have helped me:

- small, non terribly messy snacks (cereal, small crackers...)
- a pad of paper and crayons
- small soft toys
- instruments to give the kids during worship time (a tamborine, maracas)
- cardboard books with flaps

Make sure you have all that stuff packed in a bag the night before so that you're not rushing to get ready in the morning. When you see that she's about to freak out in service, offer her something different from your "magic bag." Don't use up everything in the beginning or even during one service. Only get out the bag for church. As she gets older, you can gear it more towards the content of the service, using the paper and crayons to draw little pictures together about the sermon or throwing in biblical kids' books.

At her age now, keep the distractions coming. Don't punish, scold or take toys away. That will take away from what you're trying to accomplish. Remember that the goal is for her to *want* to sit through service, so make it fun and rewarding. Try to avoid taking her out of service if you can, because then you're showing her (more as she gets older than now) that if she's loud then she gets to leave. And if she's bored, she's going to want to do what it takes to get to leave.

Anyway, remember, set it up so that she looks at going as a positive experience.


----------



## mom2owen1 (May 12, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phathui5*
I've been taking our three kids in services for four years. Things that have helped me:

- small, non terribly messy snacks (cereal, small crackers...)
- a pad of paper and crayons
- small soft toys
- instruments to give the kids during worship time (a tamborine, maracas)
- cardboard books with flaps

Make sure you have all that stuff packed in a bag the night before so that you're not rushing to get ready in the morning. When you see that she's about to freak out in service, offer her something different from your "magic bag." Don't use up everything in the beginning or even during one service. Only get out the bag for church. As she gets older, you can gear it more towards the content of the service, using the paper and crayons to draw little pictures together about the sermon or throwing in biblical kids' books.

At her age now, keep the distractions coming. Don't punish, scold or take toys away. That will take away from what you're trying to accomplish. Remember that the goal is for her to *want* to sit through service, so make it fun and rewarding. Try to avoid taking her out of service if you can, because then you're showing her (more as she gets older than now) that if she's loud then she gets to leave. And if she's bored, she's going to want to do what it takes to get to leave.

Anyway, remember, set it up so that she looks at going as a positive experience.

great suggestions!


----------



## Soundhunter (Dec 13, 2003)

Wow, I guess it must sometiems depend on the kid no? We don't go to church, but my daughter is very, very, very physically active, as she approached her 1st birthday and was able to walk she did not stay still when she was awake, and kept moving until she was about 20 months old. She just didnt sit still. She wasn't into coloring or drawing, she was very into throwing, jumping, climbing, running etc. I really don't see ow it would've been possible, with a physical kid like her, to have gotten her to stay still and quiet so long at that age. Her cousins loved to color and quietly puruse books at that age, Emma did not. I think the only thing that would've worked with Emma at that age, to accomplish silence and stillness, would've been severe, SEVERE corporal punishment. I'm not sure all kids are capable of doing what your church expects at that age, without stepping far out of GD practises. I'm always open to the possibility that I'm wrong, but with the way Emma was at that age, I just can't see it.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Soundhunter*
Wow, I guess it must sometiems depend on the kid no? We don't go to church, but my daughter is very, very, very physically active, as she approached her 1st birthday and was able to walk she did not stay still when she was awake, and kept moving until she was about 20 months old. She just didnt sit still. She wasn't into coloring or drawing, she was very into throwing, jumping, climbing, running etc. I really don't see ow it would've been possible, with a physical kid like her, to have gotten her to stay still and quiet so long at that age. Her cousins loved to color and quietly puruse books at that age, Emma did not. I think the only thing that would've worked with Emma at that age, to accomplish silence and stillness, would've been severe, SEVERE corporal punishment. I'm not sure all kids are capable of doing what your church expects at that age, without stepping far out of GD practises. I'm always open to the possibility that I'm wrong, but with the way Emma was at that age, I just can't see it.









:

DS is still too active at 26 months to be able to sit still for more than 10 mintues at any one activity really. I mean, I could "make" him be still, I suppose, but as Soundhunter said above, I would have to use some pretty serious non-GD parenting techniques to get him there, which kind of defeats the purpose, as far as I'm concerned. And, to be perfectly honest, neither of us would be getting anything out of a service at this point right now if I had to keep entertaining him and he was bored, KWIM? I figure in another year he'll have settled down a bit and we'll start going to services...but until at least ONE of us is going to get something out of it, I don't get the reason to go (then again I'm not into the "required attendance" thing, so that makes a difference, too).

...and I AM sure that not all kids are capable of sitting for an hour-long service at 12 months....I have one, and Soundhunter wrote she has one, so there's at least 2 right there.







I echo all of the PP who suggest that your church is expecting way too much from "all" 1-yos. SOME 1-yos, sure, will sit quietly for periods of time...but some won't....and there's nothing "wrong" with them, they're not "bad". They're just different.

I'd go with your child's disposition and temperament, and base your attendance on that.

Oh, and ditto on not scolding her for crying - she's not even a year old - this is just the beginning of her beign frustrated at not being able to verbalize her emotions - if your'e scolding her now, you're going to be in a world of hurt when she's 2.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

I agree that it's unrealistic to expect her to be quiet for that long. One thing that worked for us was to sit at the back where it was less crowded and let them crawl around the pew and on the floor. Also you might want to practice sitting still and quietly at home during the day--before bed might not be the best time because she's tired and cranky.


----------



## frenchie (Mar 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CarenSwan*
I think it is absolutely unreasonable to expect a baby or small child to sit quietly for any long amount of time. That being said, I think it's great to have kids in church! I love the coos and the talking, and if a baby or kid gets to rowdy, the parent can take him or her out. I think that a church should be a place where all members of the family are welcomed, and in age-appropriate ways, with no one age group expected to conform to another's standards. Jesus welcomed little children, and I wish the church in America today was truly welcoming to kids as well! Just my $.02!

I totally agree with this.....I just don't think it should be a requirement. Family worship is wonderful, but if a child is unable to be in the sanctuary and comply to the "quiet rule", then they should be in the nursery playing with the other kids thier age. Crying babies and restless children are a distraction to others trying to listen to the sermon.


----------



## allgirls (Apr 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *frenchie*
I totally agree with this.....I just don't think it should be a requirement. Family worship is wonderful, but if a child is unable to be in the sanctuary and comply to the "quiet rule", then they should be in the nursery playing with the other kids thier age. Crying babies and restless children are a distraction to others trying to listen to the sermon.

God visits noisy places too


----------



## MamaPam (Oct 8, 2005)

My Oldest DD will sit fairly still but just doesn't get the quiet concept. Really the only time that it is quiet enough to need to take her out is prayer time or during the Lords Supper. I am a big proponent of family worship but it has its challenges. One thing that helps us is haveing family Bible time in the evenings where we read 1-2 chapters and sing a hymn. I would keep the stuff going into church to a small amount. A cup, small non messy snack, maybe a picture Bible....Having family worship is a wonderful thing and the congergation and pastor should be tolerent while children learn appropriate church behavior or if they cause an interruption of some sort. Now that I think about it at 11months we sat in the back and let DD play on a blanket at our feet. I think we just have to be careful not to get too idealistc with our expectations of children in worship services.

Pam


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

My son is pretty "good" in church, but I do have to do at least one of these things in almost every service:
*nurse
*whisper, "Shhh, listen to the story."
*catch the eye of one of the (many







) people who are fond of him and encourage some peek-a-boo
*let him play with the kneeler cushions or turn the pages of a hymnal
*let him walk back and forth on the floor between pews, or on the pew holding onto the back
*hold him upside down (he really likes that)
*carry him into the side chapel or narthex (entry area at the back) to admire the stained glass; I still can hear from there
*take him outside or into the parish hall if he's really freaking out, but come back as soon as he calms down.

One thing I've found really makes a difference is my attitude. If I let myself feel annoyed and tense and like I'm just dreading the next thing he'll do, HE is much more annoyed and tense and acts almost threatening, like, "Give me constant attention or I'll scream!" But if I think about how much I love sharing church with him and how cute he is, not only can I see a few minor misbehaviors as cute rather than irritating, but those will be the ONLY misbehaviors. Sure, sometimes he acts up because he slept poorly or something, but in general it's up to me to set the tone.







Oh, and it helps to sing a hymn on the way to church to get both of us in the mood.


----------



## writermommy (Jan 29, 2005)

All 3 of my girls have been attending Mass since birth. They can learn to be quiet in church, but it's a process that takes time and patience. It happens gradually. Going to church regularly is the best way to learn, just like being taken to restaurants is the best way to learn to behave appropriately in a restaurant. I agree that 2 services each day is a bit much to ask. Scolding won't help and is upsetting to the baby.

With our girls, they were carried in a sling and breastfed when they are little. As they grow, we switch to distraction and redirection. I also pack a bag of toys for church. These are different toys that will keep their attention. I like softer and not noisy toys for throwing. If they throw a soft doll, it won't make noise. Board books are great too. Snacks and sippy cups work wonders when the baby gets bigger. By 11 months, I'd be using this tactic. When all else fails, dh or I will walk outside for a few minutes to give the little one a chance to calm down and be ready to go back in.

It also depends on your church and if you have a choice of service times. We have three choices for Mass times. When the babies are small, I take them when I know they will sleep. For my youngest, this was the 11 am service. I could count on her to sleep through at least half the service in the sling or in arms. This cut down on the amount of time I would need to distract her. When they don't want to be in arms anymore, dh and I sit apart, creating a nice little area for her to play between us.

We've done this with all three of our girls. With a little patience and planning, it is possible to be GD in church. They are now 7, 6, and 3 and are all very well behaved in church with very few reminders. Even my youngest has no trouble in church anymore. Over Lent, she and I have been going alone to Stations of the Cross on Friday mornings. Twice I was asked to read. She actually sat in the pew right in front of me by herself. She played happily and quietly during the service, even though neither of her parents were right next to her. I got so many compliments on her behavior after the service ended. Had we never taken them, I'm sure none would know how to sit quietly. They learned by going. We are also blessed with a great priest who really doesn't mind the kids in church. He likes to see them. A few times when the littlest was not well, I left her home with dh and took the other two. He asked where his little friend was.


----------



## cchrissyy (Apr 22, 2003)

mama,
we're serious about church. 3 hours a week, actaully. but neither of my kids can sit for it. My bottom line recomendation- take her out, let her crawl/eat/cry there, and when you're ready to go back in, tell your husband it's his turn! repeat 6-12 months.

Our 13 month old hasn't stayed in a pew more than 10 minutes since Christmastime. I think that's normal for her age. She is certaintly too young to undertand "be quiet" and is a long ways off from developing the mental capacity to control herself even if she understood that order.

Our 3yo is not the type who can sit still and read or color. Maybe your 3yo will








So with him, we're just glad when he stays in our row and is quiet. We can expect that much. but we need toys, snacks, and other kids to keep him busy, and not make him sit, but be on the floor or whatever he needs ot do, as long as he's quiet.


----------



## brown eyed girls (Jan 2, 2006)

I nurse mine... I try to keep her awake through the singing part, then during transition to sermon I get her settled into the sling and latch her on... then she nurses and sleeps through the sermon.

About oh, 16-18 mos that stopped working, and for a few months I sat with her in the foyer... there's a tv there to watch what you are missing. There are usually several families in the foyer. By 25 mos, she was sitting nicely in church with me again. She's 27 mos and I manage to keep her reasonably quiet for about half the sermon. About that time, my dh (who is on staff) comes and stands in the back to count heads... I watch to make sure he's done with his count, and then I point him out to her and send her running down the aisle into his arms. He keeps her with him until the end so I can have the last half without wrestling.

Pretty soon we'll have a newborn and she'll either try out the preschool class or my 12yo and 9yo will take over holding her during service.


----------



## newmommy (Sep 15, 2003)

There is no way DS will sit still in church. He doesn't do that at home. We have a Children's Ministry attached to the main santuary.

We haven't tried it yet (heck, we haven't been to church in almost 3 years) because I am afraid of Separation Anxiety...he is always either with me or DH.

I was trying to wait until Age 4. I dunno know....


----------



## frenchie (Mar 21, 2006)

*Crying babies and restless children are a *distraction* to others trying to listen to the sermon.*

Quote:


Originally Posted by *allgirls*
God visits noisy places too









I wasn't disputing whether or not God visits noisy or quiet places. When my son became mobile (and vocal), we decided to bring him to the nursery during the sermon....I worked in the nursery, or my husband did, until Kai was comfortable with us leaving him there to play. Once he turned 2 he went to "Sunday school" class and listened to stories about Jesus, sang songs and made crafts.
When I'm in church listening to a sermon, I prefer not to have any distractions. I assume other people like to listen without distractions as well. I know our pastor gets frustrated when people talk, or kids goof around during a sermon.....and I understand why....it's distracting. Just my .02


----------



## octobermom (Aug 31, 2005)

Not all churches have a nursery option. Ours doesn't If my DD gets too noisey I walk with her outside age 3 (we can still hear the mass) I expect some noise from kids but do try to stay respectfull of others with in reason.

Deanna


----------



## bellona (Feb 17, 2006)

If you just switched churches and aren't too attached to this one yet...I'd keep looking. I know there are some more child friendly churches out there. I'd think that those people who are bothered by children making noises would be less likely to attend them so it wouldn't be too much of an issue.

There is no way my 19mo would sit through any part of the cermon. He doesn't do toys (what's the matter with my kids??? none of them really have. Unfortunatly that doesn't mean we can just get rid of all those presents of toys they've gotten cause "I play with that ALL THE TIME" ...ok sure....let me brush off the 6 inch layer of dust and you can have it back







), isn't distracted by snacks unless he's truly hungry and he loveslovesloves to explore. The only way I could get him quiet for that whole time would be to start pushing the benadryl














Jk!


----------



## Mama2 '05'06 (Mar 5, 2006)

We have a nursery but not one where parents leave the kids. You take them ther to feed them and take care of them. Since the church is still in the process of finishing the new sanctuary, the TV screen isn't up out in the nursery yet. Eventually, the service will be able to be broadcast through out the whole building. I wouldn't worry so much but my inlaws are saying she should sit through church. I agree with the pp who said that my nevrousness/uptightness affects her- I KNOW it does and it has since she was born. I need to just relax and remember that she's still a baby and not be so concerned with what others say. I have a bag of toys only for church and that works pretty well. I just need to avoid getting so upset with her. I find myself doing it at home too and have to stop and say out loud that she's a baby and this is what babies do, so relax. I feel like a terrible mother sometimes and wonder why I thought I could do this.







I am guessing that it has something to do with the pregnancy hormones- the fact that I get upset and frustrated so easy; and the feelings of everything being out of conrol.
We do sit in the very back pew right by the door so it isn't too hard to go in and out. I think we'll try letting her sit on the pew tomorrow night since she really doesn't want to be held and holding her is uncomfortable for me- one in wiggling and one out wiggling







Thanks for all the input and advice!


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

Quote:

I wouldn't worry so much but my inlaws are saying she should sit through church.
Yeesh. Then in that case, they're a bigger problem than her behavior is. Her behavior is age appropriate; by their age, they should know better than to make you feel bad about it.

Maybe you could try something like,

"I really don't want to discuss the situation with dd in service."
"I know you think dd should sit and be quiet but it's really not realistic at this point."

Then quickly change the subject.


----------



## Hoopin' Mama (Sep 9, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mama2 '05'06*
I just need to avoid getting so upset with her. I find myself doing it at home too and have to stop and say out loud that she's a baby and this is what babies do, so relax. I feel like a terrible mother sometimes and wonder why I thought I could do this.







I am guessing that it has something to do with the pregnancy hormones- the fact that I get upset and frustrated so easy; and the feelings of everything being out of conrol.

Oh Mama








I bet you are doing a wonderful job.
If you feel that your mood swings are bad, please talk to someone. And stick around here, these ladies are super.
When we have a baby we have lost control in a sense. I found it best just to relax and go with it, it will all be over so quickly.


----------



## artgoddess (Jun 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *georgia*
Have you considered alternatives to how y'all are currently attending services? Would it be possible to attend for part of the time? Trading off being in the sanctuary? IMO, just because others in your congregation think a 12 month old *should* be able to do something doesn't make it so. I would be concerned they don't have the child's best interest at heart. It's difficult for many adults to sit through a 45 minute service







IMO, I would look to why it's important _to you_ for her to behave in whatever way you are expecting her to. Do you feel it's a reflection on your parenting (it's not!!!) when she behaves in ways that are not acceptable to you/the congregation?

It sounds like she might have been frightened in the surroundings and feeling the anxiety surrounding you and dh's reactions to her behavior. Do you think this might be the case?

There are lots of creative ways that families work out handling religious services/meeting spiritual needs with young babies. IMO, it's setting yourself up for disappointment and frustration to expect such a young baby to understand and comply with 45 mins. of quiet. Goodness, some days we're lucky to have 5 minutes of quiet, happy time around here.

Hope you find some solutions that feel right to your heart.

Please do not scold or speak sternly to your baby. I would really consider finding a new church if it is "expected" that babies sit still for a 45 minute service. That's just not reasonable in any sense. If you can't find a new church, or really don't want to change churches, then can you and hubby alternate Sunday's? You go one week, he stays home or in the lobby with baby, then you switch next Sunday.


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

Quote:

I just need to avoid getting so upset with her. I find myself doing it at home too and have to stop and say out loud that she's a baby and this is what babies do, so relax. I feel like a terrible mother sometimes and wonder why I thought I could do this.
It sounds like you're putting a lot of pressure on yourself







It can be really, really scary to suddenly realize everything you've ever thought about babies/children might be totally different than you'd ever anticipated or what you've expected. Babies are a lot of work! Meeting and understanding their needs can be a real challenge, especially w/unsupportive, though well-meaning, family members.

PM me if you wanna chat or need an ear or a shoulder


----------



## bass chick (Sep 7, 2005)

To the PP, I am sorry that you feel the way you do and that you feel pressured to "make" your baby sit through a church service. I don't think that expectation is fair to both you and your DD. I wouldn't even expect a 4 year old to sit quietly during a sermon. (I am a pastors wife and I find it hard to sit through a sermon!!!) It's boring for them at that age. That's what children's ministries are for. I know not all churches have children's ministries though.
My DS is approaching his 2nd birthday. We hang out in the church service during the music part of the worship just because I really value that time (even as a toddler I did) and DS loves music, especially if there are drums that day. Then once the music has stopped we trot off to the nursery. I have not sat through a sermon in almost 2 years because I believe that right now my biggest ministry in life is to my child(ren). If it's the message you want to hear, you could get a recording of it, or even record a TV church to watch at home. Or, you could just get "fed" by other means. IMO the most important thing about church attending is the fellowship (which doesn't actually happen much during the service, but before and after the service) and not the message. You can worship alone at home, you can learn alone at home, but it is hard to fellowship with other believers alone at home.
Phooey on those people who expect your DD to sit through a service. It is not a fair expectation. I'm sure there are babies out there somewhere who are content to sit quietly, but the majority are not hard-wired that way. My suggestion is to ease up on yourself and your DD and explain to those whose expectations are whacked-out that sitting quietly through church is not age-appropriate behavior for a babe.
FWIW, I am also pregnant and feeling the same - upset and frustrated when I shouldn't be - with my DS. I'm pretty sure it's the hormones.


----------



## eightyferrettoes (May 22, 2005)

I was flustered and mortified about my ten-month old fussing through a service once, but a lady came up to me afterwards and said, _"If you can't hear the babies crying, the congregation is dying."_

I think your church's membership really needs to think hard about whether or not they really value little kids and families, or whether it's all just lip service.

Because they won't know what they've got till it's gone. Plenty of churches would LOVE to hear a bunch of crying babies... a sign of vitality.


----------



## Viola (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mama2 '05'06*
We spent the rest of the service in the nursery where she sat on my lap and had some snacks that she really wasn't interesed in and cried every now and then. I don't know what to do with her any more. I am trying to sit down every evening and read a story or have daddy read and hold her on my lap or his and insist on a "quiet" time before bed. In case you're wondering why she needs to sit in church, all the kids are expected to sit in church by 1 yr. If they get hungry or wet or something you can take them out but they are suppossed to sit for most of the time which is about 45 min of preaching. Any ideas?

My first thought was that you need to find a different church, but I wasn't going to say that. Then I read how you feel like you don't know what to do with your baby anymore because this is such a frustrating situation for you, and I thought maybe I should reply. Having children is challenging and downright maddening at times, and adding outside pressures in the form of people who convince you that an infant should be able to sit quietly is too much. It sounds like it is interfering with you feeling the joy in being a parent, but of course we do that to ourselves enough without needing any help.









There are churches that welcome the sounds of babies and toddlers and want them to be part of the congregation. There are other churches that want a distraction free adult positive experience, and they often provide other alternatives, like separate rooms for people with noisy children, or a nursery with lots of fun play and activity. I don't feel comfortable with how my children are in church, and sometimes I feel like I don't want them there because they will disrupt the service. But I would feel really upset if people tried to imply there was something wrong with my parenting if my 1 year old couldn't sit quietly through a 45 minute sermon. I don't think I could sit quietly through a 45 minute sermon, to tell you the truth.

I have been in situations where my toddler was making noise in a quiet place, and I've overreacted and felt so angry at my child and myself, and there is so much I wish I could do over again in this regard.


----------



## DebraBaker (Jan 9, 2002)

This is very Pearlesque, Ezzoesque, Gothardesque sort of teaching and should raise big bold red flags.

How are babies *taught* to sit passivly and behave in church?

Spanking.

Blanket-training.

You are expected to teach your children "Sit" and "quiet."

If they don't, they get taken to the bathroom for a spanking.

Blanket-training is a term used by neocons (abovenamed) to teach a baby to sit and be quiet.

Think crate training for dogs but with a spanking.

The child is placed on a blanket and beaten when she attempts to crawl off or get her mother or father's attention.

Some natural effects for this type of negative reinforcement.....

Learned helplessness.

A negative association between churh and beatings.

Adversrial relationship with parents.

Stunted development (babies are wired to move around.)

Would Jesus do this?

Did Jesus chide His Disciples for a negative attitude toward children when He was on this earth?

I wouldn't darken the door of a church that would pressure you to abuse your child in the name of quiet.

Quiet is not a virture.

It isn't a gift of the Spirit.

It is not a fruit of the Spirit.

In fact, there are verses that say if there is no praise out of the mouths of people, the very rocks will cry out.

Would these people blanket train the rocks as well?

I wouldn't darken the door of a church that didn't have babies worshipping the L-rd in their own language.

Debra Baker


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mama2 '05'06*
I wouldn't worry so much but my inlaws are saying she should sit through church.

I think this, and the church's expectations are the problem, not your little one. Expecting ALL small children to sit quietly for 45 minutes is not realistic, unless you employ some of the decidedly NOT GD methods outlined by DB above.

DB, I really







you! I was obsessed with the "Duggar" thread a while ago, though I didn't post much, and always felt like cheering when I read your posts!


----------



## Mama2 '05'06 (Mar 5, 2006)

I should clarify the inlaws situation- MIL says "MY kids were sitting in church at 1 yr and I think that's resonable to expect that." BIL says his ds sits in church most of the time which is true- his ds is 1 month older than our dd. However, his dd who is 3 didn't sit in church at 1 yr or 2 yrs for that matter. (She does now looking at her books and drawing.) I know that when MIL and my mom were raising kids the expectations were much stricter than now. I don't know that I personally have been told that "your child should be sitting" in so many words. Just advice about getting her to sit and be quiet and bragging about kids who do sit, so I get the point.
To clarify the scolding- I just frown and say "no, we don't throw toys whatever, we do this" Dh frowns and says "SHH" in a stern voice. I know some kids are spanked to get them to sit- I was, dh was and that was by 9 months of age that we were to sit. I don't agree with doing that at all.
I know dd understands "No" and she generally complies if I say "No, not for you. Let's do this." She is totally different at home than at church as far as complying with what I ask. I don't want her to think church is the only place that I don't want her to talk or what ever and make a connection that church means doing what she doesn't like and being "punished". Dh is in agreement with me on that and we try to not let it bother us when "people" (his relatives) say things. I think that I need to just go back to my original idea that "she'll sit when she's ready and trying to force it will make the whole situation worse". That's what my grandma says too. My mom says that we can teach her "no" but she wouldn't force the sitting issue either. She says she wishes she had not done so with me and my siblings and has gone as far as to apologize to us for the way we were treated as children. I am considering talking to my dr about the mood swings since they are sooo dramatic and I feel soo bad afterwards














.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mama2 '05'06*
My dd is almost 11 months old. When she turned 10 months she started sitting quietly with a few "shh" reminders during Sunday School and at least the morning church service. Then she got sick and we stayed home for about 2 weeks and now when we went back, she won't sit or be quiet. I understand that part of the trouble is that we have a new sanctuary now and she doesn't understand that it is still church- I don't know what she thinks it is but I know she thinks it isn't church. She did fall asleep during Sunday school and when she woke up looked at her books and sat quietly on my lap. The morning service she threw the toys and would not stop talking. Finally gave her to daddy and he took her out and spoke sternly to her to sit still and be quiet. Came back in and she sat for the last 10 minutes.







Then, the evening service, she threw the toys even when I said "no" and then started crying when I didn't give the toy back to her. I took her out and scolded her for throwing the toy and bawling- she bawled louder and wouldn't stop. I sat out in the nursery with her for awhile and finally she was calm so we went back in. Sat for maybe 10 minutes and suddenly started bawling again. We spent the rest of the service in the nursery where she sat on my lap and had some snacks that she really wasn't interesed in and cried every now and then. I don't know what to do with her any more. I am trying to sit down every evening and read a story or have daddy read and hold her on my lap or his and insist on a "quiet" time before bed. In case you're wondering why she needs to sit in church, all the kids are expected to sit in church by 1 yr. If they get hungry or wet or something you can take them out but they are suppossed to sit for most of the time which is about 45 min of preaching. Any ideas?

I think you are expecting an awful lot of an eleven month old baby. You claim she doesn't "understand" that the new sanctuary is church; I seriously doubt she understood the old one was church either. Church is a very adult construct. It makes me so sad to hear that you are "scolding" your little baby girl, especially in reference to a worship service. And to scold her for crying? My goodness, no wonder she bawled. How would you feel if you were upset and crying, and someone then you loved scolded you for communicating the only way you knew how?

My husband is a pastor, and I lead several workshops of faith development and children. Your baby is "talking" to you because she is trying to communicate with you, not because she is trying to disobey or annoy you. Whoever made the rule about children sitting through 45 minutes of preaching plus however long the rest of your church service is knows nothing about child development or faith development. Children are active beings. This is how the Lord created them. What possible good comes out of trying to bend their God-given natures in a path its not intended to go? I don't see how it possibly pleases the Lord to see mothers shaming His children and making worship a negative experience. This whole post makes me very, very sad. I will pray for you, your family, and your church.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bass chick*
I am a pastors wife and I find it hard to sit through a sermon!!!









but














:
Maybe it's because we hear them "preaching" all the time at home?


----------



## Joannarachel (Dec 10, 2005)

I didn't read the rest of the replies.

11 months old is a baby. You can't expect her to sit quietly during church. And you also can't expect her to understand when you 'scold' her for behaving in a way that's exactly as she is supposed to be behaving.

Sorry if everyone all ready said this


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

OK, I was thinking about this, and the thought that kept leaping into my mind was _Why_? Why should an eleven-month-old be expected to keep quiet and still in church? Is she supposed to be gaining something through the teachings? That seems hardly likely. Is it because they're afraid that if a parent is tending to his or her children, she's missing the teaching? That seems sort of insulting to me. Your vocation right now is to be a mother. There's just as much grace in that as there is in formal church. Or is it an attempt by the church (and congregation and in-laws, apparently) to try to strengthen the parents' resolve to always have the upper hand with the child? Is it an attempt to introduce, early on and with a stigma of shame, the concept that the parents have to rule the child with an iron fist and subjagate the child's will? Because if that's so, frankly, it stinks. It's not godly. It sets up a conflict and power struggle that's going to be there for the rest of your lives.

Maybe there's some other reasoning that I'm missing.


----------



## Hayes (Nov 20, 2001)

So when SHOULD a child be expected to sit through a church service? Not going to church is NOT an option for me.We don't have a nursery and I like it that way. Is it too much to expect my 3 year old to be quiet for the 5 minutes during the Lord's supper and the 20 minute sermon? What about my 5 year old? Is it soo much to expect her to draw or read quietly for 20 minutes? What about my 1st grader?

I think that by setting simple guidelines and helping, even a very young child, to stay within those guidelines, we make everyone in our family work better together.


----------



## Maggi315 (Aug 31, 2003)

Well, I am on my 5th baby and wouldn't even dream of expecting him to be quiet and still during a service! Especially at that age when he wants to move and explore so much. Why put yourself through all the stress? I haven't been going to our church for a few months because I don't want to deal with all the kids! so usually my husband takes the older ones and I stay home with the baby.

Don't beat up yourself, your parenting, or your baby. Others have the problem, not you. Try to find a church where babies are welcomed and embraced. I am catholic and it always amazes me when I find some of our churches that are so anti-children. Seems hypocritical and judgemental to me.

We have an old, stern priest who used to be a high school principal at our church. I expected him to have low tolerance. One sunday, my toddler son wouldn't sit in the pew, we were in the back and I was letting him walk back and forth from window to window. I saw the priest watching him during the service. Afterwards, I expected a stern warning or something. Instead, he came up and said how refreshing it was to have a little one in the back roaming around and how he never minds kids in the aisles, it helps keep the parish young and alive! wow! Now that's a service you can feel good at!


----------



## Maggi315 (Aug 31, 2003)

Annette:

You make me laugh!!!!







Sometimes I think, how can I expect my kids to pay attention, I don't remember a word that was said!!!!


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Hayes*
So when SHOULD a child be expected to sit through a church service? Not going to church is NOT an option for me.We don't have a nursery and I like it that way. Is it too much to expect my 3 year old to be quiet for the 5 minutes during the Lord's supper and the 20 minute sermon? What about my 5 year old? Is it soo much to expect her to draw or read quietly for 20 minutes? What about my 1st grader?

I think that by setting simple guidelines and helping, even a very young child, to stay within those guidelines, we make everyone in our family work better together.

When they're ready









Seriously, I think our job as mothers is to meet our child's needs where they are. I believe children should be in church. They're just as much part of God's family as everyone else. It's expecting them to keep quiet and still I take issue with. Does that mean we shouldn't bring them toys and snacks to distract them? No. Does it mean we shouldn't keep them right there in the service with us? No again. What it does mean is that when they fuss or otherwise act according to thier God-given natures, we don't scold, punish, fuss, or humiliate them. We gently explain what is happening. We say something along the lines of "Do you see God's family worshipping God? Can you hush so we can hear Pastor?" and if the baby--BABY, mind you, is what we are discussing--shows us through her words or actions that no, she can't hush, then quietly slip out and entertain her elsewhere. When she quiets, or acts as if she's ready to go back in, we remind her lovingly of the "rule" and try again. Good parenting takes lots of time. There aren't easy solutions of yelling and scolding and shaming. It takes dying to yourself time and time again, missing a little of the service, and meeting your baby's needs. At least that's how I see it.

Hayes, I don't know your kids so I don't know what's right for you and your family. My seven-year-old participates fully in the service. My four-year-old still requires a bag of tricks. My two-year-old is a complete nutball who sees his daddy preaching and yells out hello to him and has an embarassing if not entertaining habit of yelling out "AMEN!" when he (the toddler) feels the prayers have gone on a little too long. I take him out during the sermon. Some day, I won't. But he'll grow in his own sweet way and will grow up loving church as a welcoming place, not a shaming, boring, unfriendly one.

I'm not perfect; I've been working out my technique for seven years now, and I'm flying solo every Sunday. (The youth committee rejected my proposition that part of their confirmation service project should be to assign me a teenager to help out each week.







) But it's doable. It's not easy, but it's doable.


----------



## katebleu (Feb 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
OK, I was thinking about this, and the thought that kept leaping into my mind was _Why_? Why should an eleven-month-old be expected to keep quiet and still in church? Is she supposed to be gaining something through the teachings? That seems hardly likely. Is it because they're afraid that if a parent is tending to his or her children, she's missing the teaching? That seems sort of insulting to me. Your vocation right now is to be a mother. There's just as much grace in that as there is in formal church. Or is it an attempt by the church (and congregation and in-laws, apparently) to try to strengthen the parents' resolve to always have the upper hand with the child? Is it an attempt to introduce, early on and with a stigma of shame, the concept that the parents have to rule the child with an iron fist and subjagate the child's will? Because if that's so, frankly, it stinks. It's not godly. It sets up a conflict and power struggle that's going to be there for the rest of your lives.

Maybe there's some other reasoning that I'm missing.

this is exactly what i was thinking.

and whose rule is it that children must sit quietly by 1 yr? your church's? your family's? just because some children can sit quietly or did sit quietly doesn't mean that all will.


----------



## Maggi315 (Aug 31, 2003)

For me, it is absollutely too much to expect my three old to behave during church for any period of time! My 7 year old is fine. Also, we have several different services and it depends on the time of day. Plus how many other little ones are around or if the kid in front us have a better snack/book/toy! We will probably be going to another non-catholic church for easter because holidays are always a zoo. way too many people crammed into a very long boring service and kids that are all keyed up! Not my idea of fun!!! And no nursery at our church. I LOVE that we finally got a nursery. Makes life so much easier for me, other kids, and folks around us







But it is closed during the summer and holidays









I think instead of setting guidelines by age, we need to address each individual child's needs. My kids have been so different, it's really not fair to compare them to one another.


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

ITA about not comparing. Just as we don't expect our children to magically stop nursing at an arbitrary age, or "sleep through the night" at whatever month some outside expert deems appropriate...temperaments and abilities are so incredibly different. IMO, it's really all about listening and honoring the child, family's and your needs and finding creative solutions that will work to nurture ourselves. If a service becomes more about keeping your baby from bothering other people, who benefits?


----------



## writermommy (Jan 29, 2005)

I also agree with not comparing or basing the decision on an arbitrary age. So far, all of mine have been able to sit through by age 2 with distractions and about 3 1/2 without much distracting. Right now, they are 7, 6 and 3 1/2 and we have peace during Mass. Of course, it's only an hour from beginning to end, so much shorter than some are talking about. I don't know how they'd do with a longer service. This was accomplished without any scolding or punishment of any kind. There have been times over the years where I've barely heard what is going on or didn't get to participate much, but that's ok with me. God knows the intention is there and that I need to take care of the kids at the same time. Gradually they have learned to sit quietly and the older 2 now participate. The youngest participates at certain times and plays quietly the rest of the time. I think, as with all parenting decisions, that the decision should be based on the individual child and family.


----------



## luv my 2 sweeties (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
OK, I was thinking about this, and the thought that kept leaping into my mind was _Why_? Why should an eleven-month-old be expected to keep quiet and still in church? Is she supposed to be gaining something through the teachings? That seems hardly likely. Is it because they're afraid that if a parent is tending to his or her children, she's missing the teaching? That seems sort of insulting to me. Your vocation right now is to be a mother. There's just as much grace in that as there is in formal church. Or is it an attempt by the church (and congregation and in-laws, apparently) to try to strengthen the parents' resolve to always have the upper hand with the child? Is it an attempt to introduce, early on and with a stigma of shame, the concept that the parents have to rule the child with an iron fist and subjagate the child's will? Because if that's so, frankly, it stinks. It's not godly. It sets up a conflict and power struggle that's going to be there for the rest of your lives.
Maybe there's some other reasoning that I'm missing.

I agree with annettemarie on this. You have to look at the motivation for this unwritten expectation of sitting quietly by age 1 and evaluate the Spirit of the congregation based on that. The only reason for keeping young children quiet that Annette didn't mention is to remove distractions for the adults in the service. This is a more benign goal -- one that many congregations share -- and requires alternative activities for the children. If this is truely the reason, then there should be a staffed nursery or other children's program. Many churches hire childcare workers from outside the congregation to get around the problem of adults missing the service.

We attend an unprogrammed Quaker meeting, which means the worship hour consists of sitting in silence with people occassionally speaking briefly as moved by the Spirit. Sometimes no one is so moved and the hour passes in total silence. The children are with us for about 15 minutes of the hour so that they may experience a taste of worship. (The nursery is available the entire hour for those babies and toddlers who can't take even 15 minutes.







) I'm amazed by how still and silent most of the children are during the 15 minutes -- even the preschoolers. Of course they fidget a little, but for the most part they are very quiet. I think the secret is that *everyone* is being quiet. The silence itself is contagious, and they seem to be reluctant to break it. This idea is reinforced by the fact that during announcements at the end, all heck breaks loose!







Most traditional worship services are seldom or never *silent*. Even when no one is speaking (such as during communion) there may be music playing. I think for young kids, any ambient noise makes it harder to be still and quiet. I agree with everyone else that it's an unreasonable expectation.








for the mood swings. I know how hard it can be to control yourself when your hormones/emotions are running high.


----------



## Think of Winter (Jun 10, 2004)

Our ds is 27 mos, and we too struggle with the question of whether we should be trying to alter his behavior for church. I know that I would be more comfortable if he were quiet and still, but that's just not normal behavior for a toddler, at least not my toddler. I have to continually remind myself (as with all of our parenting choices) that discipline should not be about making things easier for me, but teaching our ds.

I try to focus on the big picture. What do I want him to learn? What is most important to our family? I want ds to have a relationship with God, I want him to be respectful of other people's feelings, and I want him to enjoy church and find it a stimulating and rewarding place to be. For us, forcing him to be quiet and still would not accomplish those things. The mass is just not designed to entertain a child. So we try to minimize discomfort to others by sitting in the cry room, we use the same gd approach that we do with everything else to encourage consideration for others, and we model the behavior we want to see in him. We also try to get him excited about certain parts of the service that might appeal to him, like the sign of peace, putting our envelope in the basket, singing the Lord's Prayer, stuff like that.

He does run around, visit other families, make some noise. And we do sometimes get a dirty look. But he likes going to church, and the folks giving the dirty looks should really get out of the cry room.

With respect, maybe you should ask yourself what is most important to you long term? If it's that your dd develops a love for God and her church, I think you need to find age-appropriate ways to encourage that. At 11 mos, for my ds, it was more about making friends and looking forward to seeing them, exploring the colors, sounds, and textures of the room and pew, knowing it was a place mom and dad liked to be, finding the baby Jesus, things like that.

God bless you. Say lots of prayers and ask God what to do. I know this is really difficult, especially since your church has very difficult rules and your dh's family attend. Hope you can find a way to make it work for you all.


----------



## PennyRoo (Dec 7, 2004)

annettemarie said:


> My two-year-old is a complete nutball who sees his daddy preaching and yells out hello to him and has an embarassing if not entertaining habit of yelling out "AMEN!" when he (the toddler) feels the prayers have gone on a little too long.
> 
> This is hilarious!
> 
> ...


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

sorry haven't read all the responses. Have you tried taking herin when shuch wasn't going to get her used to new environment. maybe once the newness wears off she will get back to her owld self.

speaking of her old self, are yousure she is 100% better. she may **** be out of sorts a bit.

otherwise I would just keep working on it. the more you work on it the better it will get. She will figure it out. Lather rinse repeat. Some people I know work on it home. put in a tape of one of the pastors sermons and just work on being quiet when pastor is speaking. Some kids really respond to that kind of conditioning. I never tried this but some have found it very helpful. Also a midweek service might help remind her during the week that we sit nicely and talk quietly during church. Or it might make things worse. good luck with that.









toys- we allow toys and snacks up until about a year. toys on tethers though. no trow it down games.

as for weather or not an 11month old can be expected to get through church I think that they absolutely can but it takes a lot of practice. I have seen lots of babies at a year who can sit quite nicely with a little help and distraction through a church service. it helps that you have had her in with you since the beginning. and since she could do it before she is obviously capable. but several things converged to interupted her good habit. just patience and time will restore it.


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

Quote:

My two-year-old is a complete nutball who sees his daddy preaching and yells out hello to him and has an embarassing if not entertaining habit of yelling out "AMEN!" when he (the toddler) feels the prayers have gone on a little too long.
That is absolutely priceless. I can just picture it in my head. Amen, daddy, can we go now???


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *georgia*
That is absolutely priceless. I can just picture it in my head. Amen, daddy, can we go now???









But you know what's great? It's not a big deal. The congregation may not get to see the perfect pastor's family, and they might not get to go through the whole service without a little one (mine or someone else's!) giving a shout-out, but they do get to see a daddy who unreservedly loves his little boy, a little boy who is so confident in his daddy's love that he can call out to him in a church-full of people, and a church that, as a whole, respects children not only for who they will become, but who they are right now.

Lilyka, I don't think anyone is arguing that it can't be done. I'm sure a child will adapt to anything, no matter how developmentally inappropriate, given the right "conditioning". I, for one, would not want to "train" my child to do something so against his nature, especially in a place like church where I want him to experience love and grace.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

wow, annettemarie, you REALLY nailed it in this thread.. I completely agree with EVERYTHING you said!!

I couldn't have said it better. Thank you!


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

That's one more reason I believe it's so crucial that we offer our children the opportunity to experience childhood as an actual _child_, and not a tiny adult.


----------



## luv my 2 sweeties (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
but they do get to see a daddy who unreservedly loves his little boy, a little boy who is so confident in his daddy's love that he can call out to him in a church-full of people.











What a beautiful model for your son of the love of God and of his relationship to the Divine as a beloved child of God. Your dh sounds like a wonderful father and pastor.


----------



## indie (Jun 16, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *frenchie*
Crying babies and restless children are a distraction to others trying to listen to the sermon.

"Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes You have prepared praise for Yourself."

Psalm 8:1, quoted by Jesus in Matthew 21:16 and quoted by our priest the other day when my baby jabbered through the entire Eucharist.

I can't sit still through a 45 minute sermon. That's why I switched to an Episcopal church with 10-15 minute sermons. (Not really, but its an added perk.) We spend a lot of time sitting in the cry room. I've thought about having my name put on the door since I feel like its my personal cry room. Our three year old thinks that she is an acolyte and trys to participate. I admit that I'm embarassed but they just keep telling me that she's going to be a priest someday.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *luv my 2 sweeties*









What a beautiful model for your son of the love of God and of his relationship to the Divine as a beloved child of God. Your dh sounds like a wonderful father and pastor.









Eh, he's OK.









Seriously, I bet we could start a whole other thread on positive GD-friendly ideas for helping a small child get through church. My secret for toddlers? STICKERS and an itty bitty notebook. If you peel the backing away, it's a lot easier for little hands to get the stickers off (a practical tip for out of church as well)

And speaking of acolytes...my two-year-old LOVES to "blow out" the candles when the acolyte is snuffing them at the end of the service. This really keeps him quiet during this silent time in our service.


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

Annettemarie, this would be a wonderful idea for a thread in Spirituality! We like to use Band-aids, in addition to the sticker repetoire. One of mine loves peeling and sticking bandaids


----------



## Mama2 '05'06 (Mar 5, 2006)

Since I started this thread, can I end it too? She sat through the service tonight just fine. I don't expect her to be completely still or quiet all the time. She has had no spankings or any other form of punishment. She understands "shh" and "no" and complys with those requests. Our services aren't completely quiet since there are 18 babies 1 yr and younger there and numerous children older than that. I appreciate all the input- I really didn't think I'd get so much or that it would present such an area of controversy.


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

wow! 18 babies. that is so cool. It is a large church or just a lot of peolpe who dig kids?


----------



## Stayathomemommy (Jun 7, 2002)

Mama2 '05'06, just wanted to tell you that i think you have the right idea. going consistantly to church is the best form of getting the children to learn how to stay still. if we miss one service it feels like we are starting all over the next week. also just expect that you will have to leave 1 or 2 times in the service to quiet her down. i still have to take our 3 yr old out sometimes when she refuses to stop chatting. its never easy and at parents of little ones we dont always get a lot out of the service but hey at least we are there and thats what counts!!!


----------



## DaryLLL (Aug 12, 2002)

:


----------



## frenchie (Mar 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *indie*
"Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes You have prepared praise for Yourself."

Psalm 8:1, quoted by Jesus in Matthew 21:16 and quoted by our priest the other day when my baby jabbered through the entire Eucharist.

I can't sit still through a 45 minute sermon. That's why I switched to an Episcopal church with 10-15 minute sermons. (Not really, but its an added perk.) We spend a lot of time sitting in the cry room. I've thought about having my name put on the door since I feel like its my personal cry room. Our three year old thinks that she is an acolyte and trys to participate. I admit that I'm embarassed but they just keep telling me that she's going to be a priest someday.

I think maybe I'm not being understood...so I'll give an example. I used to go to a church without a nursery for the children. I *loved* (and still do) seeing babies and little ones in the church pews....I believe family worship should be encouraged in churches, but alas, so many completely discourage it. What I found frustrating at the old church we went to, was the parents who would just sit in the pew while their infant bawled, and when it became obvious that people were distracted, the momma would stand right on the other side of the door where the cry was just slightly muffled. Or the couple with the adorable 3 year old that would run back and forth on the church pew, clump clump clump...weeeeee!!...I swear, every sunday they sat in the pew right in front of us, no matter where we sat. We eventually left the church for many reasons, the distractions being one of them. I'm not a bitter old child hater (obviously)....I just like to listen to the sermon without *constant* distractions, and I don't believe for one minute that that is an unreasonable expectation when attending church. I love hearing a squeaky little voice of a 2 year old...or "shout out" from an infant....I love seeing kids in the sanctuary. I just think that there is a time and a place for child play, tantrums, squaking and whatnot...and the church sanctuary during a Sunday service is not it.


----------



## DebraBaker (Jan 9, 2002)

I would prefer some child noise with said children feeling the love of Jesus than children who have been negatively reinforced to be kept quiet who associate their pain with Jesus.

DB


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *frenchie*
I just like to listen to the sermon without *constant* distractions, and I don't believe for one minute that that is an unreasonable expectation when attending church. I love hearing a squeaky little voice of a 2 year old...or "shout out" from an infant....I love seeing kids in the sanctuary. I just think that there is a time and a place for child play, tantrums, squaking and whatnot...and the church sanctuary during a Sunday service is not it.

I guess I'm not understanding you, because I would never put tantruming and playing in the same category. I'm not sure what "squaking" is; maybe Lutheran kids don't do it.







If my child was running around or having a crying jag, I would of course take them out, because obviously they aren't happy. I don't feel that I have any sort of God-given right to enjoy a sermon distraction-free, especially as a mother. If one truly believes that children are a blessing from the Lord, then it naturally follows that ones main occupation when they are tiny little would be meeting their needs. If my child was running wild, I would take them out not because they were being naughty (who, after all, is church for, if not for the naughty!) but because they were having trouble participating in the service. It's not that I wouldn't encourage them to sit and be still--I would--but I wouldn't assume that they could or should do it just because I want them to.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mama2 '05'06*
She has had no spankings or any other form of punishment. She understands "shh" and "no" and complys with those requests.

Here's the thing. You said:

Quote:

Finally gave her to daddy and *he took her out and spoke sternly to her* to sit still and be quiet. Came back in and she sat for the last 10 minutes. Then, the evening service, she threw the toys even when I said "no" and then *started crying when I didn't give the toy back to her*. I took her out and *scolded her for throwing the toy and bawling- she bawled louder and wouldn't stop.*
I'm saying this with all gentleness and love, but you are punishing her and she obviously is not complying with your requests. I think you need to ask yourself what your sweet little girl is trying to tell you. It sounds like she's saying "Mama, this is too much to ask of me." It sounds like she's also saying that she doesn't understand why you won't give her her toys or why you're speaking sternly to her and scolding her. And to scold a baby for crying? How confusing that must be to her. She has no other way of telling you she's upset! God does not parent us by scolding us when we come crying to Him. I think we should be extending the same grace and mercy to His littlest ones.


----------



## writermommy (Jan 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *frenchie*
I think maybe I'm not being understood...so I'll give an example. I used to go to a church without a nursery for the children. I *loved* (and still do) seeing babies and little ones in the church pews....I believe family worship should be encouraged in churches, but alas, so many completely discourage it. What I found frustrating at the old church we went to, was the parents who would just sit in the pew while their infant bawled, and when it became obvious that people were distracted, the momma would stand right on the other side of the door where the cry was just slightly muffled. Or the couple with the adorable 3 year old that would run back and forth on the church pew, clump clump clump...weeeeee!!...I swear, every sunday they sat in the pew right in front of us, no matter where we sat. We eventually left the church for many reasons, the distractions being one of them. I'm not a bitter old child hater (obviously)....I just like to listen to the sermon without *constant* distractions, and I don't believe for one minute that that is an unreasonable expectation when attending church. I love hearing a squeaky little voice of a 2 year old...or "shout out" from an infant....I love seeing kids in the sanctuary. I just think that there is a time and a place for child play, tantrums, squaking and whatnot...and the church sanctuary during a Sunday service is not it.

I think this is more an issue with parents, rather than the children. The kids are just being kids, but the parents should know better. I've taken all three of mine to church since they were infants. When the babies cry, I take them out and walk them until they calm down. Or breastfeed them. If they are too wild, I take them out. Not for punishment, but out of respect for the other people in church. There's a difference between a normally playing child and one who needs a few minutes of a break and a short walk.


----------



## DebraBaker (Jan 9, 2002)

I'm a bit discouraged to see intolerent expressions here.

The "Baby understands no and quiet," sounds like the Ezzos or Pearls. I wonder how deeply punitive mentalities have seeped into the core of many Christian people.

Children are part of the Body. Would it be right to complain about the old man hacking and coughing in church? Or the one who sings out of tune? What's next?

I wouldn't subject the entire congregation to a tantruming child, but if my baby made a happy, squeaky noise while playing in the sanctuary, no one would or should mind.

I don't understand the baby understands no and quiet. There are many levels of understanding. She may understand the concept, somewhat, but she is wired to explore and make noise. If she never tried things out and investigated, she would be retarded. Literally, If she didn't articulate sound, she would never learn how to talk. Forcing a child to go against her nature stunts her development. It robs the child of energy she needs in other arenas.

Expecting a child to sit and be quiet when they haven't even celebrated their first birthday is not appropriate from a developmental perspective.

db


----------



## Kathryn (Oct 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
Here's the thing. You said:

I'm saying this with all gentleness and love, but you are punishing her and she obviously is not complying with your requests. I think you need to ask yourself what your sweet little girl is trying to tell you. It sounds like she's saying "Mama, this is too much to ask of me." It sounds like she's also saying that she doesn't understand why you won't give her her toys or why you're speaking sternly to her and scolding her. And to scold a baby for crying? How confusing that must be to her. She has no other way of telling you she's upset! God does not parent us by scolding us when we come crying to Him. I think we should be extending the same grace and mercy to His littlest ones.









:


----------



## Mama2 '05'06 (Mar 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lilyka*
wow! 18 babies. that is so cool. It is a large church or just a lot of peolpe who dig kids?

Counting the babies- there are only 350 people approx. Most families have at least two kids some have 5 or more. (I have 8 siblings.)

I'm saying this with all gentleness and love, but you are punishing her and she obviously is not complying with your requests. I think you need to ask yourself what your sweet little girl is trying to tell you. It sounds like she's saying "Mama, this is too much to ask of me." [/QUOTE]

To me punishing is not saying "no" or being stern with her. Punishing would be hitting or isolating her. Punishing to me is what I grew up with - being spanked for any and every offense from the time I was 4 months old,being screamed at and humiliated. Frowning and saying "no" in a stern voice isn't punishment it's direction. I think that NOT teaching a child "no" would be wrong and unloving. If we don't say it now, how will we ever say it? When they are hitting the parents or siblings? Maybe when they are reaching for the hot stove or grill or fireplace? After they've been seriously injured in an incident that could have been prevented by them obeying "no"? I understand that sometimes she can't do what I ask her to do and then we change what I expect. I don't give her back the toys she throws while we're driving b/c then I'd never get anywhere or get anything done stopping every 2 min to pick up what she has thrown down when she wants it back. I will give her something different to play with instead. I agree that telling her "no, shh" (scolding complete) for crying isn't the best way to deal with it. I will try to figure out what she is trying to say rather than telling her to be quiet.








God may not scold us when we come crying to Him but we often have to live with the consequences of our mistakes. Crying isn't going to remove them. Maybe she is too young to understand that now but eventually she will have to learn that actions have consequences.


----------



## Kathryn (Oct 19, 2004)

If she doesn't learn her alphabet today, how is she going to learn?
If she doesn't learn how to drive tomorrow, when will she?
If she doesn't learn how to sleep by her self tonight, she never will.

See how silly that is?

She will learn when she NEEDS to. She doesn't need to be scolded and told no for being a normal baby. When you tell her no, and she cries like that, you are hurting her spirit. It is *normal* for her age to act the way she is. That's how babies are supposed to act. It saddens me to think of scolding a sweet young baby that has only been on this earth for 10 short months. Everything is still so new to her. She needs to be able to love to make noise and love to be a baby. Yelling at her for it isn't going to make her love it.


----------



## fek&fuzz (Jun 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mama2 '05'06*








God may not scold us when we come crying to Him but we often have to live with the consequences of our mistakes. Crying isn't going to remove them. Maybe she is too young to understand that now but eventually she will have to learn that actions have consequences.

But your baby isn't making a mistake when she cries, and the only consequence to that action should be loving and understanding and hugs and kisses by mama and daddy. Not frowning, or no-ing, or toy taking away.


----------



## katebleu (Feb 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mama2 '05'06*







God may not scold us when we come crying to Him but we often have to live with the consequences of our mistakes. Crying isn't going to remove them. Maybe she is too young to understand that now but eventually she will have to learn that actions have consequences.

whao!

crying is how she tells you something is wrong. it's the only communication she has. it is not a mistake.

that's your mistake.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mama2 '05'06*
To me punishing is not saying "no" or being stern with her. Punishing would be hitting or isolating her. Punishing to me is what I grew up with - being spanked for any and every offense from the time I was 4 months old,being screamed at and humiliated. Frowning and saying "no" in a stern voice isn't punishment it's direction.

To *you*, perhaps it's not punishment. But to a tiny eleven month old baby who thinks the sun rises and sets on your love? It's punishment. It's withdrawal of affection.

Quote:

I think that NOT teaching a child "no" would be wrong and unloving. If we don't say it now, how will we ever say it? When they are hitting the parents or siblings? Maybe when they are reaching for the hot stove or grill or fireplace? After they've been seriously injured in an incident that could have been prevented by them obeying "no"?
I'm wondering who here said saying no is wrong? It's saying no "sternly" and "scolding" that I take issue with.

Quote:

I understand that sometimes she can't do what I ask her to do and then we change what I expect. I don't give her back the toys she throws while we're driving b/c then I'd never get anywhere or get anything done stopping every 2 min to pick up what she has thrown down when she wants it back.
In that case, of course you can't give her back her toys. Why don't you give them back in church? Because they way I read it, you were refusing to give them back to punish her for throwing them. There's no reason not to give her the toy (or you could be proactive and tether it as Lilyka suggested). But to simply not give them back to teach her a lesson in an already potentially volatile situation seems awfully punitive to me.

Quote:

I agree that telling her "no, shh" (scolding complete) for crying isn't the best way to deal with it. I will try to figure out what she is trying to say rather than telling her to be quiet.








That's great!

Quote:









God may not scold us when we come crying to Him but we often have to live with the consequences of our mistakes. Crying isn't going to remove them. Maybe she is too young to understand that now but eventually she will have to learn that actions have consequences.
She's eleven months old. Trust me, she has plenty of time. God meets us where we are. I think he expects us as mothers to do the same for our babies.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DebraBaker*
I
Children are part of the Body. Would it be right to complain about the old man hacking and coughing in church? Or the one who sings out of tune? What's next?

That is a most excellent point, DB!


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *frenchie*
I think maybe I'm not being understood...so I'll give an example. I used to go to a church without a nursery for the children. I *loved* (and still do) seeing babies and little ones in the church pews....I believe family worship should be encouraged in churches, but alas, so many completely discourage it. What I found frustrating at the old church we went to, was the parents who would just sit in the pew while their infant bawled, and when it became obvious that people were distracted, the momma would stand right on the other side of the door where the cry was just slightly muffled. Or the couple with the adorable 3 year old that would run back and forth on the church pew, clump clump clump...weeeeee!!...I swear, every sunday they sat in the pew right in front of us, no matter where we sat. We eventually left the church for many reasons, the distractions being one of them. I'm not a bitter old child hater (obviously)....I just like to listen to the sermon without *constant* distractions, and I don't believe for one minute that that is an unreasonable expectation when attending church. I love hearing a squeaky little voice of a 2 year old...or "shout out" from an infant....I love seeing kids in the sanctuary. I just think that there is a time and a place for child play, tantrums, squaking and whatnot...and the church sanctuary during a Sunday service is not it.

Hey frenchie, I'm right there with you...but I think we're the only ones that understand what we're saying







. I've just decided I have to agree to disagree with the majority on this board on this particular topic...it was the same when there was a "roaming in a restaurant" thread a long time ago...

And I LOVE kids.....LOVE them. Love their enthusiasm, their creativity, etc. And don't think they should be restricted from being anywhere JUST BECAUSE they are children, but at the same time, I do think that there is a time and place for everything, and I am conscious of how my DS's actions affect other people's enjoyment and appreciation of whatever it is (restaurant, church, what have you), especially if he's too young to be getting anything meaningful out of it anyway. So, I'm the one who keeps him home, until he's able to be a little more calm and respectful of the people around him. I understand that taking them frequently is one way of getting young chilren acclimated to situations that require a little more reserve, but so is waitign until you don't really have to teach them about it, waiting until they acquire it naturally.

Then again, as before, I'm more spiritual in my beliefs than feeling like I have to go to church every week, so this works for me. Everyone is different. Just wante dto let you know you're not alone, frenchie. It's hard to express how you can love children and everything that they are about, but not feel like it's always appropriate for their "everything" to be around all the time. Makes me look like a grinch, and I'm really, REALLY not.


----------



## Mama2 '05'06 (Mar 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kathryn*
If she doesn't learn her alphabet today, how is she going to learn?
If she doesn't learn how to drive tomorrow, when will she?
If she doesn't learn how to sleep by her self tonight, she never will.

See how silly that is?

She will learn when she NEEDS to. She doesn't need to be scolded and told no for being a normal baby. When you tell her no, and she cries like that, you are hurting her spirit. It is *normal* for her age to act the way she is. That's how babies are supposed to act. It saddens me to think of scolding a sweet young baby that has only been on this earth for 10 short months. Everything is still so new to her. She needs to be able to love to make noise and love to be a baby. Yelling at her for it isn't going to make her love it.

I don't yell at her just so you know. Soft but firm words work better than yelling. I am not trying to get her to not be a baby or to not love making noise. One question- When IS the time to learn "no"? You say when she needs to but how does she know/I know when that time is? I see way too many kids running around, sassing off to their parents, and having screaming tantrums when they don't get what they want; screamimg and bawling b/c they are "communicating the only way they know" whenever I go to the store.







: Many things are learned with time and learning "no" is too. It isn't an overnight thing- it takes time to learn and to understand and follow. I don't expect her to listen every time I say it b/c she's a baby. But she"ll hear it and gradually understand it and follow it.

"whao!

crying is how she tells you something is wrong. it's the only communication she has. it is not a mistake.

that's your mistake. "


> Today 10:09 AM
> 
> I'm not talking about a baby crying here- I am talking about an adult. I know that crying is her way of comminucating right now and I know that it isn't a mistake for her to cry- it's normal.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kathryn (Oct 19, 2004)

I see scolding a baby enough to make them cry and yelling as the same.







:
The more you say no, the less affect it will actually have. I say "please stop", or I redirect and say "ooh! Lets play with this!". Saying NO to a child isn't going to stop them from having meltdowns in stores. I honestly think you are expecting way too much out of young children.


----------



## DebraBaker (Jan 9, 2002)

Mama2 '05'06,

I believe your childhood sounds very familiar to me.

I have had to break out of the punitive pattern (I'm still working on things,) I feel for you because this is very difficult.

I also want to be careful because I don't want you to feel picked on, but I believe a vestige of the old familiar punitive mindset could be at play here. Especially if you have family and church people putting some sort of pressure on you.

It takes a lot of really hard work, a lifetime of work, to pull the weeds of punitive philosophies out of your garden. The rewards are great, however, because whatever issues you address will not be there for your own children to overcome when they are adults trying to gently parent your grandchildren.

Debra Baker


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *donosmommy04*
Hey frenchie, I'm right there with you...but I think we're the only ones that understand what we're saying







. I've just decided I have to agree to disagree with the majority on this board on this particular topic...it was the same when there was a "roaming in a restaurant" thread a long time ago...

I'm confused as to what we are agreeing to disagree to. No one here said children should be running around church beating drums.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mama2 '05'06*
One question- When IS the time to learn "no"? You say when she needs to but how does she know/I know when that time is? I see way too many kids running around, sassing off to their parents, and having screaming tantrums when they don't get what they want; screamimg and bawling b/c they are "communicating the only way they know" whenever I go to the store.







: Many things are learned with time and learning "no" is too. It isn't an overnight thing- it takes time to learn and to understand and follow. I don't expect her to listen every time I say it b/c she's a baby. But she"ll hear it and gradually understand it and follow it.

I hear what you're saying, I really do. But if let fear guide your decisions in how you parent (fear of the future, or that she'll grow up bratty) rather that love, you're not doing yourself or your daughter any favors. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of "no". I lean towards distraction and redirection. No, especially to a small baby, draws a line in the sand. It's a real "do as I say OR ELSE" kind of word. Because if you say "no" because she "needs to learn," and she does it anyway, what happens then? It seems logical to me that you would have to them punish her so she does indeed learn that no means no, or let her go on with her baby ways, teaching her that no sometimes means less. Does that make sense? So if, instead of no, you use language like, "listen to pastor?' "here's your book!" and "can you find the candles?" you're only giving her a chance to succeed. If, in the grocery store, a mama pays attention to her children and says "can you show me your quiet voice?" "where are the apples?" or "let's look for things that are red!" the mother is gently guiding the child towards appropriate behavior without being punitive. It takes more time, but it is so, so worth it.

Quote:

She has the tether on some of the toys but being pregnant and fat means I can't bend over to get the toys off the floor to give back so I don't try.








That is tough, Mama, and I remember it well. God willing, I'll be reliving it soon.







Maybe one of your in-laws or hubby could help you out by picking up a toy? Or, if you sling her, you could connect them with those plastic links to the sling ring? Or you could just have one or two toys tethered, and maybe some o's or other easy snack?


----------



## frenchie (Mar 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *donosmommy04*
Hey frenchie, I'm right there with you...but I think we're the only ones that understand what we're saying







. I've just decided I have to agree to disagree with the majority on this board on this particular topic...it was the same when there was a "roaming in a restaurant" thread a long time ago...

And I LOVE kids.....LOVE them. Love their enthusiasm, their creativity, etc. And don't think they should be restricted from being anywhere JUST BECAUSE they are children, but at the same time, I do think that there is a time and place for everything, and I am conscious of how my DS's actions affect other people's enjoyment and appreciation of whatever it is (restaurant, church, what have you), especially if he's too young to be getting anything meaningful out of it anyway. So, I'm the one who keeps him home, until he's able to be a little more calm and respectful of the people around him. I understand that taking them frequently is one way of getting young chilren acclimated to situations that require a little more reserve, but so is waitign until you don't really have to teach them about it, waiting until they acquire it naturally.

Then again, as before, I'm more spiritual in my beliefs than feeling like I have to go to church every week, so this works for me. Everyone is different. Just wante dto let you know you're not alone, frenchie. It's hard to express how you can love children and everything that they are about, but not feel like it's always appropriate for their "everything" to be around all the time. Makes me look like a grinch, and I'm really, REALLY not.


THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm bigining to feel like I don't fit in here at all.

Wintermommy...I know this is a parental issue...and that's my point!!! I understand that the children don't know any better, and can't be *expected* to sit through a sermon. However, I am hyper aware of people around me. *I* don't like to be distracted in church, therefore I don't like others to be distracted in church. As soon as my son was unable to sit through church without being a distraction to others, I took him to the nursery and stayed with him. My husband and I would switch Sundays now and again, but I almost always stayed with Kai...unless he he was OK with me leaving him in Sunday school class.

Annettemarie...does it really matter that I put playing and tantrums in the same sentence? My point is both are *distracting* in church. I'm not talking about coloring, reading a book, playing with a doll or anything like that. I think the example I gave was very clear....a child running back and forth in a pew is not only distracting, but inappropriate behavior in church during a sermon. It's not the kid I have a problem with, it's the parent. As for "squaking"...I call it squaking when a baby gets real loud....not coos and gurgles....I'm talking about screaming to hear their voice...it's cute, I love it, but I don't want to hear it during a church sermon....and I don't expect that anybody else does.

I go to a huge church. We have a school campus as well. There is a section of the campus that is used for an infant nursery, there is a nursing room as well. We have a play room for the young toddlers, a class room for the 2-3 year olds, and a huge child's ministry that goes up to Jr. High. ALL are welcome in the sanctuary for Sunday service.....most of the parents choose to put their children in an age appropriate classroom so their children will enjoy church.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *frenchie*
Annettemarie...does it really matter that I put playing and tantrums in the same sentence? My point is both are *distracting* in church. I'm not talking about coloring, reading a book, playing with a doll or anything like that. I think the example I gave was very clear....a child running back and forth in a pew is not only distracting, but inappropriate behavior in church during a sermon. It's not the kid I have a problem with, it's the parent. As for "squaking"...I call it squaking when a baby gets real loud....not coos and gurgles....I'm talking about screaming to hear their voice...it's cute, I love it, but I don't want to hear it during a church sermon....and I don't expect that anybody else does.

Sorry. Didn't realize you were narrowly defining "playing" as "running around the church stomping on pews and distracting the congregation." I don't think there are many people here who would condone that as appropriate church behavior.


----------



## frenchie (Mar 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DebraBaker*
Would it be right to complain about the old man hacking and coughing in church?

Would it right to complain.....no, Would it be ok to be annoyed...yes. In the past when I've been is that exact situation...I was the one hacking...I got up and walked out of church until I could control it....again, I don't like to distract people during church. IDK, I must have been raised with a completely different book of ettiquette.


----------



## frenchie (Mar 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
Sorry. Didn't realize you were narrowly defining "playing" as "running around the church stomping on pews and distracting the congregation." I don't think there are many people here who would condone that as appropriate church behavior.

Well, I *thought* I made it quite clear what I meant in the post you quoted from....alas, this *is* the internet and it isn't always easy to get one's point across. At any rate, I'm done with this topic. I'm getting more frustration out of it than anything, and that's not what I'm here for.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *frenchie*
Would it right to complain.....no, Would it be ok to be annoyed...yes. In the past when I've been is that exact situation...I was the one hacking...I got up and walked out of church until I could control it....again, I don't like to distract people during church. IDK, I must have been raised with a completely different book of ettiquette.









Perhaps this is venturing into spirituality, but I am so glad people in our church don't feel this way. We have a young man with tourette's syndrome who can't help himself. No one expects him to walk out when he's having an episode. And there are many older people who have difficulty getting around. No one expects them to leave if they're coughing, either. I guess I lean more towards the etiquette that says "bear one another's burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ."


----------



## Maggi315 (Aug 31, 2003)

I agree with some of the others that it is reasonable to expect the parents to do something with an out of control child. But there is a big difference between that and the op'ers issues.

This is going to sound snarky and I don't mean to...however...sounds like you aren't understanding child development and age appropriateness. Mommy "scolding" and withdrawing attention/affection is definitely a punishing behavior at this age. She is acting totally age appropriate in the church situation, but you are responding like she is much older thinking it is going to work and it really isn't. You are setting yourself up for frustration and anger which is not good for either of you.

Babies and toddlers are going to make noise during church. period. they are going to want to move about and grow restless easily. You are learning that you can't always control how your children act in social settings. Believe me, it only gets worse, wait until they are teens and decide how they will act. You can't control their behavior, you can guide, direct, set boundaries, but you cannot control.

Please study up on child behavior and development. Learn what she is thinking, what is age appropriate and some age appropriate responses. have you read any Dr. sears books? like his christian parenting book? Or the discipline book? There's some good stuff in there about techniques for different age groups.

Again, I realize I sound snarky and I don't mean to be. Just trying to be helpful and save you and your baby lots of aggravation and problems later on down the road!


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

I actually don't agree with the concept of church nurseries or "cry rooms." I think children should be openly welcomed as community members and adults who are offended/distracted should have the option of sitting in a soundproof room in the back.

And babies can be taught to sit still without abuse. I blanket trained both of mine from about 8 months. Why on earth would this be considerd an ap/nfl no-no? It's certainly more respectful than locking them in a playpen.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*

And babies can be taught to sit still without abuse. I blanket trained both of mine from about 8 months. Why on earth would this be considerd an ap/nfl no-no? It's certainly more respectful than locking them in a playpen.

Quite possibly because the concept of blanket training comes from Gary Ezzo, possibly the most anti-AP person on God's green earth.

How did you blanket train an eight-month-old?


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
Quite possibly because the concept of blanket training comes from Gary Ezzo, possibly the most anti-AP person on God's green earth.

How did you blanket train an eight-month-old?

I didn't know that was an Ezzo thing; I'm sure it predates him and he just took the credit. I imagine it was a necessity in the pre-babyproofing days.

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.

What is the prefered alternative to blanket training? Carry them with you 100% of the time? I carried and wore them a lot, but sometimes it was just better to put them down, and if I wasn't right there I needed them to stay safe.


----------



## eightyferrettoes (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
What is the prefered alternative to blanket training?

Picking my crap up offa the floor.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
I didn't know that was an Ezzo thing; I'm sure it predates him and he just took the credit. I imagine it was a necessity in the pre-babyproofing days.









Really? I think they also tied kids up and smacked them in "pre-babyproofing days." I don't think it makes it a particularly admirable child-rearing technique.

Quote:

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?
Ezzo and the Pearles advocate smacking them if they get off the blanket. What would you do if your baby refused to stay there?

Quote:

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.
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?

Quote:

What is the prefered alternative to blanket training? Carry them with you 100% of the time? I carried and wore them a lot, but sometimes it was just better to put them down, and if I wasn't right there I needed them to stay safe.
Well, I have three. I have never blanket trained, exclusively worn them, or penned them up, and they have all managed to make it safely though infancy. Two out of three made it out of toddlerhood. The verdict is still out on the third. How did I do this? A little bit of babyproofing and a lot of vigilence. The way I see it, it's my job to keep their world safe, not their job to limit their world to a blanket.

Seriously, even the phrase blanket *training* makes me cringe. Babies are not puppies.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eightyferrettoes*
Picking my crap up offa the floor.

What on earth does one have to do with the other?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*







Really? I think they also tied kids up and smacked them in "pre-babyproofing days." I don't think it makes it a particularly admirable child-rearing technique.

That was far from universal. Many people in many places treated children respectfully, which didn't preclude teaching them to stay in one place.

Quote:

_Ezzo and the Pearles advocate smacking them if they get off the blanket. What would you do if your baby refused to stay there?_
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.

Quote:

_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.

Quote:

_Well, I have three. I have never blanket trained, exclusively worn them, or penned them up, and they have all managed to make it safely though infancy. Two out of three made it out of toddlerhood. The verdict is still out on the third. How did I do this? A little bit of babyproofing and a lot of vigilence. The way I see it, it's my job to keep their world safe, not their job to limit their world to a blanket._
Babyproofing isn't perfect and constant vigilance isn't always realistic. And teaching them to stay put on a blanket for a few minutes is hardly "limiting their world to a blanket." You make it sound as if I were ignoring them while my neglected children sit woefully stranded in their cloth prisons, never to see freedom. Are you against teaching toddlers to stay in one place for a few minutes under any circumstances, or is it just the blanket that bothers you? Because 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.

Quote:

_Seriously, even the phrase blanket *training* makes me cringe. Babies are not puppies_.
"Training" does have a sort of negative connotation, but would it be any different if we called it "blanket teaching" or "staying-in-place learning"?


----------



## Pynki (Aug 19, 2002)

I with you AM. I *TRAIN* my dog, I *GUIDE* my _children_.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
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.

Well, that's good to hear.







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.

Quote:

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.
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? 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.

Quote:

Babyproofing isn't perfect and constant vigilance isn't always realistic. And teaching them to stay put on a blanket for a few minutes is hardly "limiting their world to a blanket." You make it sound as if I were ignoring them while my neglected children sit woefully stranded in their cloth prisons, never to see freedom. Are you against teaching toddlers to stay in one place for a few minutes under any circumstances, or is it just the blanket that bothers you? Because 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.
Why does the baby have to stay right there? It is a baby's nature to explore. Your signature says as much. I just don't understand. It seems to me that blanket training is purely for the mother's convenience. Which isn't bad, per se, there are lots of things in our world that make life easier for mamas, but this just seems like one that can potentially stifle the child's inherent need to explore. Additionally, it risks setting up a power struggle where one doesn't need to exist. This is what makes it NOT AP or gentle discipline. To tell you th truth, I almost think a playpen would be less stressful than blanket training for a little baby. At least it would be four solid walls holding her in, and not the fear of mama's disapproval.

Are you truly leaving the room for a few minutes after telling the baby to stay on her blanket, and expecting her to stay there and be safe? I guess I am just not understanding under what circumstances one would expect one's baby to hang out on a blanket. And what are we talking about here--toddlers or eight-month-old babies? Because there is a vast developmental difference.

Quote:

"Training" does have a sort of negative connotation, but would it be any different if we called it "blanket teaching" or "staying-in-place learning"?
At the risk of sounding like my three-year-old, but why? Why does a baby need to learn to stay in one place? It seems to me to go completely against the God-given nature of a baby.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Pynki*
I with you AM. I *TRAIN* my dog, I *GUIDE* my _children_.

Well, on occasion I have attempted to train my husband, but that generally doesn't work out very well.


----------



## Pynki (Aug 19, 2002)

Well, I've been working on the husband for almost 9years now AM... I think we're making some progress. He's no longer a neanderthal, now he's just a repressed conservative... Wait... is that progress?







:


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Pynki*
I with you AM. I *TRAIN* my dog, I *GUIDE* my _children_.

What is the difference? Train, guide, teach, discipline, assist--they all mean basically the same thing.


----------



## eightyferrettoes (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
What on earth does one have to do with the other?

"Training" does have a sort of negative connotation, but would it be any different if we called it "blanket teaching" or "staying-in-place learning"?

What I mean is that if my house ain't safe enough for my kid to explore, that's my failing, not his. A little bit of responsible housekeeping on my part goes a lot further than repeatedly trying to defeat his exploratory instincts.

And about the word "training--" you can "crate train" a dog, in keeping with its ingrained natural instincts. But calling it "crate teaching" and then applying it to human babies wouldn't make it somehow okay, because it goes against what human babies are designed to do. I fail to see how "blanket teaching" is one whit different.


----------



## Pynki (Aug 19, 2002)

They all may mean the same thing, but allogorically they are used differently. Spanking and discipline are used interchangable. I'd argue they AREN'T the same thing, and I think you would too. Guidance is gently showing the way. TRaining is bending to your will. Like Basic Training or Boot camp. I'd call neither of those gentle.


----------



## eightyferrettoes (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Pynki*
They all may mean the same thing, but allogorically they are used differently. Spanking and discipline are used interchangable. I'd argue they AREN'T the same thing, and I think you would too. Guidance is gently showing the way. TRaining is bending to your will. Like Basic Training or Boot camp. I'd call neither of those gentle.

True. The connotations of "teach" and "train" are pretty distinctly different.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
Well, that's good to hear.







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.

Quote:

_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.

Quote:

_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.



_Quote:_

_Why does the baby have to stay right there? It is a baby's nature to explore. Your signature says as much. I just don't understand. It seems to me that blanket training is purely for the mother's convenience. Which isn't bad, per se, there are lots of things in our world that make life easier for mamas, but this just seems like one that can potentially stifle the child's inherent need to explore. Additionally, it risks setting up a power struggle where one doesn't need to exist. This is what makes it NOT AP or gentle discipline. To tell you th truth, I almost think a playpen would be less stressful than blanket training for a little baby. At least it would be four solid walls holding her in, and not the fear of mama's disapproval._

If we were talking about keeping the poor baby on the blanket all the time or for hours on end I would of course agree with you. But I really don't see how putting him there for a minute or so is going to stifle his need to explore. Sure it's for my convenience, but if it were causing a power struggle I wouldn't do it.

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?



_Quote:_

_Are you truly leaving the room for a few minutes after telling the baby to stay on her blanket, and expecting her to stay there and be safe? I guess I am just not understanding under what circumstances one would expect one's baby to hang out on a blanket. And what are we talking about here--toddlers or eight-month-old babies? Because there is a vast developmental difference._

No, sorry if that wasn't clear. I wouldn't leave an 8 month old alone in a room, blanket or no. A toddler I would, but never for more than a couple of minutes.



_Quote:_

_At the risk of sounding like my three-year-old, but why? Why does a baby need to learn to stay in one place? It seems to me to go completely against the God-given nature of a baby._

It's against their nature, but not their capability. But the same could be said of any self-control. I don't think it's wrong to teach reasonable, age appropriate self-control.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eightyferrettoes*
What I mean is that if my house ain't safe enough for my kid to explore, that's my failing, not his. A little bit of responsible housekeeping on my part goes a lot further than repeatedly trying to defeat his exploratory instincts.

My house is safe to explore. Maybe not quite hygenic, but safe to explore. But there are all kinds of circumstances in which it might not be safe at that particular moment for a baby to roam free if I'm in another room.

Quote:

_And about the word "training--" you can "crate train" a dog, in keeping with its ingrained natural instincts. But calling it "crate teaching" and then applying it to human babies wouldn't make it somehow okay, because it goes against what human babies are designed to do. I fail to see how "blanket teaching" is one whit different.
_
Not being a dog person I have no idea what "crate training" is--I thought they *locked* the dogs in crates. I'm not locking my kids to the blanket.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Pynki*
They all may mean the same thing, but allogorically they are used differently. Spanking and discipline are used interchangable. I'd argue they AREN'T the same thing, and I think you would too. Guidance is gently showing the way. TRaining is bending to your will. Like Basic Training or Boot camp. I'd call neither of those gentle.

I would associate training with teaching a skill--in basic training you learn the basic skills you need. From Proverbs 22, "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it." I don't think this refers to bending the child's will, but teaching him values and things he needs to know.


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

I think it would be an excellent place to either start a new thread or scooch back over to the original poster's topic







While I understand all this can be viewed as interrelated, a new thread to discuss training vs. learning seems practical at this point. Does that sound agreeable?


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Pynki*
Well, I've been working on the husband for almost 9years now AM... I think we're making some progress. He's no longer a neanderthal, now he's just a repressed conservative... Wait... is that progress?







:









Does that mean he's secretly a conservative but won't admit it or he's pretending to be a conservative but isn't really? Or are you saying he's repressed *and* conservative?

I mean that in a nice way


----------



## eightyferrettoes (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
But there are all kinds of circumstances in which it might not be safe at that particular moment for a baby to roam free if I'm in another room.

I'm not locking my kids to the blanket.

Then, er, what exactly is the point of the exercise? If you can't be sure that they'll "sit and stay" whilst you do whatever it is in the other room, how is it better or safer for them?

I've yet to see a situation where I couldn't bring a kid into the room I was in, or put him in a safer room (for instance, if I'm frying hot spattery grease, the child cannot be underfoot. Obviously. But he CAN be playing in the living room behind a babygate while I keep an ear on what he's doing.)

The blanket thing strikes me as being an attempt to "teach a kid a lesson-- obey me!" and not so much a convenience for parents. There are so many simpler, more respectful, developmentally-appropriate, reliable ways to keep a kid out of trouble for five minutes than blanket training.

Crate training, ftr, means training a dog to run to his crate on command, or when it's time to sleep. Not locking them in.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
I would associate training with teaching a skill--in basic training you learn the basic skills you need. From Proverbs 22, "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it." I don't think this refers to bending the child's will, but teaching him values and things he needs to know.

Actually, the Hebrew word used in that verse is _chanokh_ and means simply to raise a child in knowledge of the Lord or to dedicate. Interestingly enough, the word is only used three other times in Scripture, and in the other instances speaks of dedicating a house or a temple. It doesn't refer to discipline at all, but to love, and commitment on the part of the parent. Additionally, the structure of the original Hebrew allows for two possible interpretations: dedicate a child in the way he should go, or dedicate a child according to the way he goes (or according to his God-given nature and temperement). The problem with translations is that it never truly or completely captures the author's intent.


----------



## liawbh (Sep 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
What on earth does one have to do with the other?

Seriously?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
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.

And when baby is screaming, and crying to get away? To follow her/his innate need to explore the surroundings and learn? Do you hold baby on the blanket? Stand over him/her?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
"Training" does have a sort of negative connotation, but would it be any different if we called it "blanket teaching" or "staying-in-place learning"?

Except that wouldn't be accurate. "Teaching" and "learning" imply some sort of important future lesson, or developmental progress. Punishing a baby until he/she learns to sit in one spot, in contrdiction to developmental stage, instinct, and natural curiosity, *is* training. (And, yes, it is punishment. Behaviorally speaking, a punishment is the taking away of something enjoyable(negative punishment), or the inflicting of something unpleasant(positive punishment), in order to change a behavior. )


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*

It's against their nature, but not their capability. But the same could be said of any self-control. I don't think it's wrong to teach reasonable, age appropriate self-control.

Forgive me for glossing over the rest of your post, but I really do think it comes down to this. It is not reasonable or appropriate to blanket train an infant. The very fact that one needs to resort to repetitive, behavioristic, controlling techniques to make it occur speaks to the fact that it is developmentally inappopriate.

And again I ask, why? Just to show them that you are in charge? So you can push a child into "self-control" (which is really still mama-control) at an extremely early age? I'm completely serious here. I can't imagine one good reason in the circumstances you describe to blanket train a baby.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *georgia*
I think it would be an excellent place to either start a new thread or scooch back over to the original poster's topic







While I understand all this can be viewed as interrelated, a new thread to discuss training vs. learning seems practical at this point. Does that sound agreeable?

Sorry Georgia, I didn't see this before! I have no problem with it; it just becomes difficult to continue on with conversations.


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

I know


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eightyferrettoes*
Then, er, what exactly is the point of the exercise? If you can't be sure that they'll "sit and stay" whilst you do whatever it is in the other room, how is it better or safer for them?

I *can* be sure that they'll stay there, that's why I teach them.

Quote:

_I've yet to see a situation where I couldn't bring a kid into the room I was in, or put him in a safer room (for instance, if I'm frying hot spattery grease, the child cannot be underfoot. Obviously. But he CAN be playing in the living room behind a babygate while I keep an ear on what he's doing.)_
Actually I wouldn't do that--if he was old enough to understand, I'd bring him into the kitchen with me and ask him to stay away from the stove area; otherwise I'd wait to cook my grease food until there was another adult to occupy him. I'm not saying you're wrong or anything, just pointing out that that would not be a situation where would use a blanket.

Quote:

_The blanket thing strikes me as being an attempt to "teach a kid a lesson-- obey me!" and not so much a convenience for parents. There are so many simpler, more respectful, developmentally-appropriate, reliable ways to keep a kid out of trouble for five minutes than blanket training._
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_._



_Quote:_

_Crate training, ftr, means training a dog to run to his crate on command, or when it's time to sleep. Not locking them in._

So why use a crate? Why not a doggie bed or something that isn't a cage?


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
Actually, the Hebrew word used in that verse is _chanokh_ and means simply to raise a child in knowledge of the Lord or to dedicate. Interestingly enough, the word is only used three other times in Scripture, and in the other instances speaks of dedicating a house or a temple. It doesn't refer to discipline at all, but to love, and commitment on the part of the parent. Additionally, the structure of the original Hebrew allows for two possible interpretations: dedicate a child in the way he should go, or dedicate a child according to the way he goes (or according to his God-given nature and temperement). The problem with translations is that it never truly or completely captures the author's intent.

Thanks, I didn't know that







. Someday I'll have to learn Hebrew.

But isn't "raising a child in knowledge of the Lord" basically the same thing--teach or train him in these values, and they'll stay with him?

Quote:

_Forgive me for glossing over the rest of your post, but I really do think it comes down to this. It is not reasonable or appropriate to blanket train an infant. The very fact that one needs to resort to repetitive, behavioristic, controlling techniques to make it occur speaks to the fact that it is developmentally inappopriate._
It isn't behavioristic or controlling, and repetitive is how we learn. And it wasn't that repetitive; both of mine were blanket-trained within two days--hardly repetitive at all compared to getting them "don't-hit-your-sibling-trained," which we still occasionally need to work on.

Quote:

_And again I ask, why? Just to show them that you are in charge? So you can push a child into "self-control" (which is really still mama-control) at an extremely early age? I'm completely serious here. I can't imagine one good reason in the circumstances you describe to blanket train a baby_.
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.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *liawbh*
Seriously?

And when baby is screaming, and crying to get away? To follow her/his innate need to explore the surroundings and learn? Do you hold baby on the blanket? Stand over him/her?

No. They didn't scream or cry to get away. If they had I would have done something else.



_Quote:_

_Except that wouldn't be accurate. "Teaching" and "learning" imply some sort of important future lesson, or developmental progress. Punishing a baby until he/she learns to sit in one spot, in contrdiction to developmental stage, instinct, and natural curiosity, *is* training. (And, yes, it is punishment. Behaviorally speaking, a punishment is the taking away of something enjoyable(negative punishment), or the inflicting of something unpleasant(positive punishment), in order to change a behavior. )_

How is it punishment? Where is the taking away of something enjoyable or the inflicting of something unpleasant?


----------



## eightyferrettoes (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
So why use a crate? Why not a doggie bed or something that isn't a cage?

Sigh. Because, for a dog, a confined crated area provides a sense of security, being in line with its origins as an animal that loves a den.

I give up. If you don't think it's worth babyproofing a living room thoroughly enough to let a baby "roam" for two minutes while you pick up a phone, I'm not gonna get any further discussing this with you than with my seventy-year old grandma.


----------



## liawbh (Sep 29, 2004)

You are *taking away* freedom, the developmentally appropriate behaviors of exploring, crawling, and playing. You are *inflicting* unnatural expectations, disapproval, enforced stillness.
The goal is to *change behavior*. The method used is *punishment*. It is a behavior modification technique, hence the word "training."

My child development books are in the bedroom with the sleepers right now, but I strongly suggest the OP and the PP research developmental stages and expectations. Babies are *supposed* to be curious and explore their world. It is the parents' responsibility to provide a safe space for this.


----------



## Viola (Feb 1, 2002)

Brigiana, I will admit I am a little confused by what you are saying about the blanket. It sounds like you get your children acclimated to staying on blankets when they are infants, so in situations where you want them to stay in a certain area for a short period of time for your own peace of mind, they will obey. They are not caged in a playpen or kept out of a certain room or off the stairs by a baby gate. The space of the blanket merely symbolizes the area within a playpen with the edges of the blanket are analogous to the walls of the playpen, the barrier that should not be crossed. So you can simultaneously know that they are not truly confined and could conceivably move off the blanket if they so desired, but you know they will not. That is where I get hung up.

Is it their desire to do what you ask that keeps them on the blanket when they are young? Then when they reach a different developmental stage where they are likely to test the boundary and leave the blanket, that is when they've outgrown it and you give it up? I'm not sure I see the point, really. If I were leaving a room for a short period of time where I felt like I could trust my baby to stay on a blanket, I wouldn't really need the baby to stay on the blanket. If I had a roaming toddler and I needed him to stay on the blanket just because he could so quickly be into mischief even in the minute I was gone, I'm not sure I could fully trust him to stay on the blanket. I guess if you start when they are much younger, though, they become accustomed to it and maybe it seems normal and doesn't occur to them to question it as much for awhile.

I like the idea that you are telling a child that you trust her enough to stay in a certain space and that's why you don't need a physical restraint, but at the same time I'm wondering what is guiding the child. With a playpen or baby gate, there is a physical barrier, and the child comes in contact with it with his various senses. So the brain sees the physical restraint and the child understands there is a barrier and may not like it and will figure out different ways of making things change in the situation by trying to physically manipulate it, or make noises and voice displeasure at being in the playpen. Or maybe he will find it interesting to explore and tolerate the confinement for a short time before looking for a way out. But with a potential barrier, a blanket where he could move off at any time, how does it work? Is he interested in what is in the space for awhile, and then when he starts fussing, you no longer ask him to stay on the blanket? It sounds like the baby stays on the blanket because he's been asked to, and knows that if he tries to get off, he'll just be put back. So it's the exercise in futility.

Gordon Neufeld, the author of _Hold On to Your Kids_, gave a talk at the last LLL conference I attended about the keys to resourcefulness in children being futility. Helping children to realize a situation is futile, to accept it, and to move on. Supposedly this helps them figure things out in new and different ways as the brain only learns when given new situations. I think I heard something similar on NPR Science Friday about the human brain needing novelty to develop. So now I'm just trying to understand what makes the blanket more respectful or useful than, say, a baby gate keeping a child in a room or out of another room.

I'm not sure why I've gone on about this as such length, and what it is I'm really stuck on, it just seems like the child is staying on the blanket for a different reason than being faced with a physical barrier that he can't traverse--it's because an adult constantly moves him back onto the blanket and eventually he learns either that this adult is happy when he complies, or that he doesn't like the frustration of being moved back to the blanket just when he's gotten somewhere, so he gives up.

I end up doing similar things with my children, except that the only thing that is consistent about me is my inconsistency. So I know my toddler hates to hold hands if she wants to run, and I want her to run, but when she runs in the street I grab her up and put her back on the sidewalk. So she keeps trying and I keep grabbing her, and eventually she just runs in the grass or on the sidewalk, especially if I show signs of unhappiness when she runs in the street. I know that in my household, I use my displeasure and even anger as signs to my children that certain behaviors or situations are not ideal, hoping it will spur them to do something that they feel has a better outcome. I'm not sure it has ever really worked, though. LOL

Anyway, I think I'm just hung up on something about this blanket training thing, like there is a concept I don't understand. I have put blankets on the floor for pre-crawlers and after a long time of rolling and inching along, they have gotten off the blanket. So I would straighten it all out, move it a little and put the baby back down for more exploration. My goal was mainly to keep them off the dirty carpet.

I think at the bottom line what is hanging me up is the barrier to moving off the blanket is a reaction from an adult, which has a different emotional component than, say, the physical barrier provided by a gate. When I was a child, I obeyed pretty well, and my fear of censure by an adult was so severe that I did what I was told even when I misunderstood and thought my life was in danger. So maybe I have a strong reaction to that just as you have a strong reaction to physical restraints.


----------



## DebraBaker (Jan 9, 2002)

The Proverbial, "Train up" a child is "Channuk," as AnnMarie noted.

Channuk is best translated as "Dedicate," it is the same word as the holiday, Channukah, which is the "Feast of Dedication." (as in the Macabees wanted to *dedicate* the Temple, couldn't find the oil for the Menorrah, and the scant bit of oil they had (one day's worth) lasted eight (which gave them time to make a batch of oil to continue with the lights burning, hence the name of the holiday.

Oh, I did that nerd thing, sorry.

The *only* time Channuk is translated "train up" is here in the Proverbs verse directed at *children.*

Is there something wrong with the Holy Scripture? NO!! I hold suspect the Northern European *men* who would translate "Dedicate" over and over again with the only exception, "train up" as it relates to children.

"Dedicate your child in the way he should go and when he grows old he will not depart from it." sounds more in harmony with gentle parenting methodology.

Now, I will accept that there is an occasional rare child who is content to sit on a blanket and just sort of be there, but that is very extremely rare in healthy children. If one of mine sat there I would be worried about an illness, seriously.

For the rest of the children (the vast majority,) blanket training is equated with those invisible fences for dogs. Oh, how cute, nice doggy-doggy-doggy. He won't go near the border because he has been *shocked* sufficiently to not take his chances.

What's wrong with this picture?

First, it's mean, even for dogs.

Second, I really don't care if a dog is stunted mentally, but I don't want to see children stunted mentally and if you are a young child sitting pretty on a blanket you aren't *doing* *exploring* doing what needs to be done to integrate your environment into your neural network.

All those opportunities to learn are being wasted.

Debra Baker


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DebraBaker*
The Proverbial, "Train up" a child is "Channuk," as AnnMarie noted.

Channuk is best translated as "Dedicate," it is the same word as the holiday, Channukah, which is the "Feast of Dedication." (as in the Macabees wanted to *dedicate* the Temple, couldn't find the oil for the Menorrah, and the scant bit of oil they had (one day's worth) lasted eight (which gave them time to make a batch of oil to continue with the lights burning, hence the name of the holiday.

Oh, I did that nerd thing, sorry.

The *only* time Channuk is translated "train up" is here in the Proverbs verse directed at *children.*

Is there something wrong with the Holy Scripture? NO!! I hold suspect the Northern European *men* who would translate "Dedicate" over and over again with the only exception, "train up" as it relates to children.

"Dedicate your child in the way he should go and when he grows old he will not depart from it." sounds more in harmony with gentle parenting methodology.

Exactly! A woman after my own heart. I was very sleepy last night when posting. Another time channuk is used is when a man builds and "dedicates" a new house. He is expected to take a leave from his job (I believe in this case it's military) and dedicate his entire life to building up his new home for a year. It seems to me to be the antithesis of the concept of blanket training. The man is not expected to bend the house to his will, but to seep it in love and gentleness and make it his very life. It's anything but convenient, I'm sure. It's the type of mindset I believe God calls us to have as mothers. When Paul said that "women will be saved through childbirth" I truly believe he didn't mean through the actual act of childbearing, but through the grace that comes from a daily dieing to self and doing things not out of convenience but out of a sense of love and channuk, making our very lives a dedication.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
But isn't "raising a child in knowledge of the Lord" basically the same thing--teach or train him in these values, and they'll stay with him?

No, I don't believe so. See my below post. I believe Solomon was issuing a directive that had more to do with our personal attitudes and behaviors as parents than with our actions towards our children.

Quote:

It isn't behavioristic or controlling, and repetitive is how we learn. And it wasn't that repetitive; both of mine were blanket-trained within two days--hardly repetitive at all compared to getting them "don't-hit-your-sibling-trained," which we still occasionally need to work on.
Of course it's behavioristic! You are creating an environment (a Skinner blanket it you will) and a reward (mama's approval) and a punishment (mama's disapproval) and Baby has absolutely no choice in the matter. She will comply, or she will face punishment, no matter how benign that punishment is.

Quote:

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.
We're still talking about an eight-month-old, correct? If your living room is so unsafe that you cannot trust your baby daughter in there alone for a minute, then I think it is foolish to trust her to stay on a blanket. She is, after all, only a baby, and no matter how well-trained you think you have her, she could still venture off the blanket.

To be honest, your reasoning reminds me a bit of people who claim they have to spank for safety issues. I always think really? So after you spank your one-year-old, are you really going to let go of their hand in a busy parking lot because, after all, you have now "trained" them not to run in front of a car? Of course not. They're still impetuous, will-driven children. The spanking serves only to vent the fear and anger in the parent. It's a false sense of security.


----------



## Hoopin' Mama (Sep 9, 2004)

My heart fell into my stomach when I actually saw blanket-training advocated here.
Thank you AnnetteMarie and DebraBaker for being able to respond in such an intelligent and experienced manner.


----------



## Mama2 '05'06 (Mar 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
It's the type of mindset I believe God calls us to have as mothers. When Paul said that "women will be saved through childbirth" I truly believe he didn't mean through the actual act of childbearing, but through the grace that comes from a daily dieing to self and doing things not out of convenience but out of a sense of love and channuk, making our very lives a dedication.

Thanks for this clarification! I always wondered what it meant. I had heard that it meant that the only way a woman could be saved was to give birth and that with out any pain medication and what not. Can't remember where I heard it but it was when I was a child -probably from my dad's uncle who's







- anyway I felt guilty about having pain relief with dd. My dh assures me that it doesn't mean that at all








As far as blanket training I've never heard of it but I definately don't agree with it.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

*** (covered already







)


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

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.
You know, I have been posting and reading at Mothering for about 6 years, and this is on of the oddest statements I've ever read. Could you explain what this means?


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eightyferrettoes*
Sigh. Because, for a dog, a confined crated area provides a sense of security, being in line with its origins as an animal that loves a den.

Okay, I didn't know that. None of the dog owners I know keep them in crates except to transport them.

Quote:

_I give up. If you don't think it's worth babyproofing a living room thoroughly enough to let a baby "roam" for two minutes while you pick up a phone, I'm not gonna get any further discussing this with you than with my seventy-year old grandma_
.

My house is babyproofed, but babyproofing isn't 100%. Besides which there are certainly times when it *isn't* babyproofed, in which case if I'm not right there watching the baby at that exact moment, baby needs to stay safely on the blanket.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *liawbh*
You are *taking away* freedom, the developmentally appropriate behaviors of exploring, crawling, and playing. You are *inflicting* unnatural expectations, disapproval, enforced stillness.
The goal is to *change behavior*. The method used is *punishment*. It is a behavior modification technique, hence the word "training."

My child development books are in the bedroom with the sleepers right now, but I strongly suggest the OP and the PP research developmental stages and expectations. Babies are *supposed* to be curious and explore their world. It is the parents' responsibility to provide a safe space for this.

By your definition, any teaching of a child of anything would be "punishment." I know that babies are meant to be curious and explore. I have given them plenty of time to explore. Is picking up a baby to keep him safe "punishment"? If not, than how is asking him to stay in one place punishment?


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Viola*
Brigiana, I will admit I am a little confused by what you are saying about the blanket. It sounds like you get your children acclimated to staying on blankets when they are infants, so in situations where you want them to stay in a certain area for a short period of time for your own peace of mind, they will obey. They are not caged in a playpen or kept out of a certain room or off the stairs by a baby gate. The space of the blanket merely symbolizes the area within a playpen with the edges of the blanket are analogous to the walls of the playpen, the barrier that should not be crossed. So you can simultaneously know that they are not truly confined and could conceivably move off the blanket if they so desired, but you know they will not.

Right. That's the point exactly.

Quote:

_That is where I get hung up._

_Is it their desire to do what you ask that keeps them on the blanket when they are young? Then when they reach a different developmental stage where they are likely to test the boundary and leave the blanket, that is when they've outgrown it and you give it up?_
Right, 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.

Quote:

_I'm not sure I see the point, really. If I were leaving a room for a short period of time where I felt like I could trust my baby to stay on a blanket, I wouldn't really need the baby to stay on the blanket. If I had a roaming toddler and I needed him to stay on the blanket just because he could so quickly be into mischief even in the minute I was gone, I'm not sure I could fully trust him to stay on the blanket. I guess if you start when they are much younger, though, they become accustomed to it and maybe it seems normal and doesn't occur to them to question it as much for awhile._
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.

Quote:

_I like the idea that you are telling a child that you trust her enough to stay in a certain space and that's why you don't need a physical restraint, but at the same time I'm wondering what is guiding the child. With a playpen or baby gate, there is a physical barrier, and the child comes in contact with it with his various senses. So the brain sees the physical restraint and the child understands there is a barrier and may not like it and will figure out different ways of making things change in the situation by trying to physically manipulate it, or make noises and voice displeasure at being in the playpen. Or maybe he will find it interesting to explore and tolerate the confinement for a short time before looking for a way out. But with a potential barrier, a blanket where he could move off at any time, how does it work? Is he interested in what is in the space for awhile, and then when he starts fussing, you no longer ask him to stay on the blanket? It sounds like the baby stays on the blanket because he's been asked to, and knows that if he tries to get off, he'll just be put back. So it's the exercise in futility_.
There's an element of futility I suppose, but I think mostly it's because I ask them to and they want to do what I ask.

Quote:

_Gordon Neufeld, the author of Hold On to Your Kids, gave a talk at the last LLL conference I attended about the keys to resourcefulness in children being futility. Helping children to realize a situation is futile, to accept it, and to move on. Supposedly this helps them figure things out in new and different ways as the brain only learns when given new situations. I think I heard something similar on NPR Science Friday about the human brain needing novelty to develop. So now I'm just trying to understand what makes the blanket more respectful or useful than, say, a baby gate keeping a child in a room or out of another room_.
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.

Quote:

_I'm not sure why I've gone on about this as such length, and what it is I'm really stuck on, it just seems like the child is staying on the blanket for a different reason than being faced with a physical barrier that he can't traverse--it's because an adult constantly moves him back onto the blanket and eventually he learns either that this adult is happy when he complies, or that he doesn't like the frustration of being moved back to the blanket just when he's gotten somewhere, so he gives up._
Right--because he learns that the expectation is to stay on the blanket, so he does.

Quote:

_I end up doing similar things with my children, except that the only thing that is consistent about me is my inconsistency. So I know my toddler hates to hold hands if she wants to run, and I want her to run, but when she runs in the street I grab her up and put her back on the sidewalk. So she keeps trying and I keep grabbing her, and eventually she just runs in the grass or on the sidewalk, especially if I show signs of unhappiness when she runs in the street. I know that in my household, I use my displeasure and even anger as signs to my children that certain behaviors or situations are not ideal, hoping it will spur them to do something that they feel has a better outcome. I'm not sure it has ever really worked, though. LOL_
That seems totally consistent to me--it's okay to run in the grass or sidewalk, but not on the street. And there's a distinct line between sidewalk and street, like the edge of a blanket.

Quote:

_I think at the bottom line what is hanging me up is the barrier to moving off the blanket is a reaction from an adult, which has a different emotional component than, say, the physical barrier provided by a gate. When I was a child, I obeyed pretty well, and my fear of censure by an adult was so severe that I did what I was told even when I misunderstood and thought my life was in danger. So maybe I have a strong reaction to that just as you have a strong reaction to physical restraints_.
There is a different emotional component, and I know that I'm biased about physical restraints because of my own issues. But I'm saying "please stay on the blanket," not "I won't love you anymore if you get off the blanket." I guess I just don't see how it's any different from any other type of request. But it's certainly eliciting strong responses from people, so maybe I'm just not getting it.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DebraBaker*
The Proverbial, "Train up" a child is "Channuk," as AnnMarie noted.

Channuk is best translated as "Dedicate," it is the same word as the holiday, Channukah, which is the "Feast of Dedication." (as in the Macabees wanted to *dedicate* the Temple, couldn't find the oil for the Menorrah, and the scant bit of oil they had (one day's worth) lasted eight (which gave them time to make a batch of oil to continue with the lights burning, hence the name of the holiday.

Oh, I did that nerd thing, sorry.

The *only* time Channuk is translated "train up" is here in the Proverbs verse directed at *children.*

Is there something wrong with the Holy Scripture? NO!! I hold suspect the Northern European *men* who would translate "Dedicate" over and over again with the only exception, "train up" as it relates to children.

"Dedicate your child in the way he should go and when he grows old he will not depart from it." sounds more in harmony with gentle parenting methodology.

Now, I will accept that there is an occasional rare child who is content to sit on a blanket and just sort of be there, but that is very extremely rare in healthy children. If one of mine sat there I would be worried about an illness, seriously.

For the rest of the children (the vast majority,) blanket training is equated with those invisible fences for dogs. Oh, how cute, nice doggy-doggy-doggy. He won't go near the border because he has been *shocked* sufficiently to not take his chances.

What's wrong with this picture?

First, it's mean, even for dogs.

Second, I really don't care if a dog is stunted mentally, but I don't want to see children stunted mentally and if you are a young child sitting pretty on a blanket you aren't *doing* *exploring* doing what needs to be done to integrate your environment into your neural network.

All those opportunities to learn are being wasted.

Debra Baker

I'm sure it's my own inability to understand, but I don't get "dedicate" in the context of a child--how do you dedicate a child? It would seem that they translated it as "train" or "raise up" based on the context.

I am not putting electrical collars on my children. If y'all are so insistant on using animal analogies, maybe a better one would be cows (I think it's cows--animal people, am I right?) who will stay in a field with a small, symbolic fence around it because they see the fence and know they aren't supposed to cross it.

What opportunities to learn are being wasted in the 5 minutes the baby might spend on the blanket? And who says he can't learn while on the blanket? And isn't learning about boundaries and self-control learning?


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
Of course it's behavioristic! You are creating an environment (a Skinner blanket it you will) and a reward (mama's approval) and a punishment (mama's disapproval) and Baby has absolutely no choice in the matter. She will comply, or she will face punishment, no matter how benign that punishment is.

How is this different from any other teaching or expectation or request? I am really not getting this. How is "please stay on the blanket" different from "please don't throw your food" or anything else?

Quote:

_We're still talking about an eight-month-old, correct? If your living room is so unsafe that you cannot trust your baby daughter in there alone for a minute, then I think it is foolish to trust her to stay on a blanket. She is, after all, only a baby, and no matter how well-trained you think you have her, she could still venture off the blanket_.
I *started* teaching them at 8 months. Maybe I just have the mellowest kids ever known, but it's never been a problem.

Quote:

_To be honest, your reasoning reminds me a bit of people who claim they have to spank for safety issues. I always think really? So after you spank your one-year-old, are you really going to let go of their hand in a busy parking lot because, after all, you have now "trained" them not to run in front of a car? Of course not. They're still impetuous, will-driven children. The spanking serves only to vent the fear and anger in the parent. It's a false sense of security_.
In many cases they probably have trained them. I am against spanking and punishment because it's morally wrong and a violation of the child's natural God-given human rights and dignity. But I don't dispute it's effectiveness. Violence does work, and if you beat someone into submission he probably will submit. Of course it's still wrong.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
You know, I have been posting and reading at Mothering for about 6 years, and this is on of the oddest statements I've ever read. Could you explain what this means?

I mean that while I think it's best to let children do what they want and make their own choices as much as possible, young vulnerable babies need more guidence which is necessarily going to be coercive. That isn't much of an explanation; sorry. This board is wearing me out!


----------



## katebleu (Feb 4, 2005)

i actually think that by dedicate they mean consecrate (or baptize). in the church that i was raised and i am rasing my daughter, when a child is baptized the parents and godparents (who speak for the child too young to speak for themselves) agree to be responsible for seeing that the child is brought up in the Christian faith and life.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *katebleu*
i actually think that by dedicate they mean consecrate (or baptize). in the church that i was raised and i am rasing my daughter, when a child is baptized the parents and godparents (who speak for the child too young to speak for themselves) agree to be responsible for seeing that the child is brought up in the Christian faith and life.

That makes sense, but Proverbs is Old Testament, so before baptism was 'invented.' I don't know; I still think it's talking about teaching because of the context. I could be wrong







.


----------



## katebleu (Feb 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
That makes sense, but Proverbs is Old Testament, so before baptism was 'invented.' I don't know; I still think it's talking about teaching because of the context. I could be wrong







.

dedicate...consecrate...bless...(in the christian context)baptise...mark as christ's own...


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *katebleu*
dedicate...consecrate...bless...(in the christian context)baptise...mark as christ's own...

I don't think so. If you look at the other contexts in which the Hebrew word is used, it's more of a complete seeping in a lifestyle rather than an individual "event" in a church. It's a radical change in the lifestyle of the person in authority, not in the baby. At least that's how I read it.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
That makes sense, but Proverbs is Old Testament, so before baptism was 'invented.' I don't know; I still think it's talking about teaching because of the context. I could be wrong







.

What context would that be? The entire book of Proverbs is written by King Solomon to a "young man" (Hebrew na'ar) Even once one gets past what the Hebrew for "train" truly means, one still has to address the fact that Solomon wasn't talking about little babies or even young children, but a young man. The book of Proverbs addresses sexuality, drinking, gambling, promiscuity, marriage. It was never meant to be a guide for raising small children. The only time na'ar is translated as child is the training (which, again, is somewhat of a mistranslation, or an inaccurate one to say the least) and the ever-controversial rod verse.


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

Y'all....this is veering very close into Religious Studies now. Please, either stick to the original topic or _start a new thread_. If the new thread relates to religious topics, let's move to Religious Studies, ok?

Thank you for your cooperation and understanding


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
How is this different from any other teaching or expectation or request? I am really not getting this. How is "please stay on the blanket" different from "please don't throw your food" or anything else?

We don't throw our food because it is wasteful and messy and attracts ants.
We don't stand up and dance on the table because it is bad for the table and, if we fall, bad for our heads.
We don't drive without being in the car seat because it is against the law and because it is not safe, and we are not respecting our bodies that God gave us if we don't do what we can to keep safe.
We don't get off our blanket...why? Because Mama says so? And again I ask, why?

Yes, there is an element of behavioristic theory to just about any rule enforcement. I wasn't the one who argued that blanket training *wasn't* behavioristic; you were. However, I think that the behaviorist theory applies to the basest, most primal parts of who we are and should be used sparingly and with great caution. God wants so much more for us than to act and react based on reward and punishment.

Quote:

I *started* teaching them at 8 months. Maybe I just have the mellowest kids ever known, but it's never been a problem.
Maybe you do. I would be interested to hear what your plan would be if they didn't comply.

Quote:

In many cases they probably have trained them. I am against spanking and punishment because it's morally wrong and a violation of the child's natural God-given human rights and dignity. But I don't dispute it's effectiveness. Violence does work, and if you beat someone into submission he probably will submit. Of course it's still wrong.
I think you're missing my point. I don't care how harshly you "trained" a child. Any parent who allows a child to wander around a parking lot unrestrained is an idiot, training or no training. Children are wildly unpredictable beings, and you can't smack, whip, or blanket train it out of them. I think it is utter foolishness to think that you have somehow trained the child's natural inclination to explore out of them.


----------



## katebleu (Feb 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
I don't think so. If you look at the other contexts in which the Hebrew word is used, it's more of a complete seeping in a lifestyle rather than an individual "event" in a church. It's a radical change in the lifestyle of the person in authority, not in the baby. At least that's how I read it.

that is more clearly what i was trying to get at actually. just using the parents' and godparents' vow at baptise to be responsible for the child's relationship with God. not the event so as the next day and the next, etc. you put it very well that it's the adult not the child. the child doesn't change the adult changes for the good of the child.

although i see a connection in action.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *georgia*
Y'all....this is veering very close into Religious Studies now. Please, either stick to the original topic or _start a new thread_. If the new thread relates to religious topics, let's move to Religious Studies, ok?

Thank you for your cooperation and understanding









Is there a way to just chop the baby in half and move the religious half to Spirituality?


----------



## artgoddess (Jun 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
Is there a way to just chop the baby in half and move the religious half to Spirituality?


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

I mean that while I think it's best to let children do what they want and make their own choices as much as possible, young vulnerable babies need more guidence which is necessarily going to be coercive. That isn't much of an explanation; sorry. This board is wearing me out!
I'm sorry you feel worn out by this.

I want to point out that what you have explained here leaves more questions than answers, for me at least.

I dislike using labels. It is helpful to use them here to illustrate my questions. I think all the gentle discipline books recommended at MDC begin with a paradigm of infants being driven by needs. The parents role, within ap, is seen as understanding and meeting all of an infants needs. Needs are not distinguished from wants with an infant. What baby wants, baby needs as the saying goes. Gentle discipline picks up at the point that the baby wants something that could hurt them, or that they cannot have. GD with an infant is little more than finding what a baby will accept instead of the dangerous object, or finding a way to make it safe for them, or holding them and giving support if the baby is upset and cries (maybe they wanted a balloon that just floated away). As the baby grows into a toddler and a preschooler, GD grows in correspondence to the developmental awareness of the child. Wants begin to distinguish from needs, and the parent continues to meet all needs, while possibly deciding not to meet all wants.

You mentioned non coercion with your older children. Again, the philosophy of consensual living, or TCS, would be one that stayed the same from birth onward. Possibly, and realistically, even within consensual living an infant is likely to have all needs met, and not until they are a bit older will the parent be looking for agreeable solutions. That's not something said, it's just how it tends to work out.

So, you seem to have reversed this way of thinking.

It might help you to clarify your idea's if I point out that the other parenting theories that would agree to some extent with a reversal of the gentle discipline/ap process are the Pearls. They believe that by strict conditioning from earliest infancy, the need for discipline should be essentially gone (according to Pearl) by age 7.

So I'm trying to pick through your posts and grasp what you are saying.

If you have rejected ap and consensual living with infants but accepted it with older children, please understand I have never heard of anyone else doing that. I can't assume anything at all, as this is a completely new idea to me. I'd like to understand your reasons. The very nature of needs and wants as viewed in the parenting philosophies I've mentioned are defined as going from a state of total need-----> a state of wants and needs (ap and consensual living would deal with the wants differently).

My first questions would be: If a parent is willing and prepared to offer non coercion to a boisterous, mobile, verbal, highly opinionated 3 year old, what is the reason the parent could not offer this when that child was a 1 year old? What does a 1 year old do that requires coercion, which a child does not do at 3?


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
We don't throw our food because it is wasteful and messy and attracts ants.
We don't stand up and dance on the table because it is bad for the table and, if we fall, bad for our heads.
We don't drive without being in the car seat because it is against the law and because it is not safe, and we are not respecting our bodies that God gave us if we don't do what we can to keep safe.
We don't get off our blanket...why? Because Mama says so? And again I ask, why?

Because we need to stay safe. And when they're old enough to understand the examples you gave, they're probably old enough not to need the blanket.

Quote:

_Yes, there is an element of behavioristic theory to just about any rule enforcement. I wasn't the one who argued that blanket training *wasn't* behavioristic; you were. However, I think that the behaviorist theory applies to the basest, most primal parts of who we are and should be used sparingly and with great caution. God wants so much more for us than to act and react based on reward and punishment_.
I am against behaviorism, especially with regards to children. I don't punish them or reward them (I do occasionally bribe them, but that's a bit different). Asking someone to do something isn't behavioristic. I'm not conditioning them to stay on the blanket, I'm teaching them. There's a difference.

Quote:

_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.

Quote:

_I think you're missing my point. I don't care how harshly you "trained" a child. Any parent who allows a child to wander around a parking lot unrestrained is an idiot, training or no training. Children are wildly unpredictable beings, and you can't smack, whip, or blanket train it out of them. I think it is utter foolishness to think that you have somehow trained the child's natural inclination to explore out of them._
Maybe not completely, but you can teach them some self-control. By your standard, why should we bother teaching them anything? Why would you say "We don't throw food because it's wasteful and messy," etc. if they aren't capable of learning self-control?

And I'm not *trying* to train my kids' natural inclination to explore out of them. I teach them to explore *in appropriate ways.* The same as you teach them (I would hope) that it's not okay to explore the sharp knives, or it's not okay to explore some things by putting them in your mouth. That doesn't mean you're training their inclination to explore out of them.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
I'm sorry you feel worn out by this.

I want to point out that what you have explained here leaves more questions than answers, for me at least.

I dislike using labels. It is helpful to use them here to illustrate my questions. I think all the gentle discipline books recommended at MDC begin with a paradigm of infants being driven by needs. The parents role, within ap, is seen as understanding and meeting all of an infants needs. Needs are not distinguished from wants with an infant. What baby wants, baby needs as the saying goes. Gentle discipline picks up at the point that the baby wants something that could hurt them, or that they cannot have. GD with an infant is little more than finding what a baby will accept instead of the dangerous object, or finding a way to make it safe for them, or holding them and giving support if the baby is upset and cries (maybe they wanted a balloon that just floated away). As the baby grows into a toddler and a preschooler, GD grows in correspondence to the developmental awareness of the child. Wants begin to distinguish from needs, and the parent continues to meet all needs, while possibly deciding not to meet all wants.

You mentioned non coercion with your older children. Again, the philosophy of consensual living, or TCS, would be one that stayed the same from birth onward. Possibly, and realistically, even within consensual living an infant is likely to have all needs met, and not until they are a bit older will the parent be looking for agreeable solutions. That's not something said, it's just how it tends to work out.

So, you seem to have reversed this way of thinking.

It might help you to clarify your idea's if I point out that the other parenting theories that would agree to some extent with a reversal of the gentle discipline/ap process are the Pearls. They believe that by strict conditioning from earliest infancy, the need for discipline should be essentially gone (according to Pearl) by age 7.

So I'm trying to pick through your posts and grasp what you are saying.

If you have rejected ap and consensual living with infants but accepted it with older children, please understand I have never heard of anyone else doing that. I can't assume anything at all, as this is a completely new idea to me. I'd like to understand your reasons. The very nature of needs and wants as viewed in the parenting philosophies I've mentioned are defined as going from a state of total need-----> a state of wants and needs (ap and consensual living would deal with the wants differently).

My first questions would be: If a parent is willing and prepared to offer non coercion to a boisterous, mobile, verbal, highly opinionated 3 year old, what is the reason the parent could not offer this when that child was a 1 year old? What does a 1 year old do that requires coercion, which a child does not do at 3?

I'll try to answer this as best I can, but I'm not that articulate and I'm not as clear on the terms of discussion as I thought I was. First of all 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.

So does that answer your question?


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

I would keep putting him back on the blanket and wait for him to figure it out.
What is the "it" here the baby should figure out? You said you begin training at 8 months, right?

I think people are really having a problem with two things:

1)When the 8 month old, new to the concept, crawls off the blanket, and you continue to put him back on it, while repeating "Please stay on the blanket", this is a negative reinforcement.

A positive reinforcement would be you waiting until the baby crawled onto the blanket, and rewarding him each time he did it.

2)Using negative reinforcement to condition an 8 month old looks and feels excessive. Conditioning him not to move off a blanket after mama walks away from him seems counter to the very nature of attachment. It is a conditioned repression of the natural and healthy desire of the baby to stay near mama, to have her in sight, and to follow her if she moves out of reach. Putting the baby at conflict with such a basic desire is profound.

I think this bears repeating:

_Conditioning him to to stay on the blanket when you move out of reach is counter to the very nature of attachment._

If you want to understand why people are having a hard time with your idea's, I think that is one important reason.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

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...)
I'm not sure what you mean by "gently corrected instead of taking away"?

So I will give a straightforward example~baby puts something in his mouth and starts to choke. Mama gets it out of his mouth. Baby reaches to put it back in his mouth. Mama takes it out again and baby starts to cry and pull it towards his mouth again. Mama keeps it away from his mouth, comforts his cries, and helps him find something safe that satisfies his need to explore.

That is gd/attachment parenting.

Negative reinforcement looks like this:

Mama takes the trinket out of the baby's mouth. She puts it in reach. Baby waits. He reaches. Mama says "No" and puts his hands down by his side. Baby reaches again. Mama says "no" and puts his hands by his side again". Repeat, repeat, repeat. Baby finally stops reaching. Mama discovers that she can now leave him near trinkets for a short time and he will not reach if she says "No".

Blanket training sounds like the second, not the first approach. Negative reinforcement to accomplish a conditioned response.

These are very different approaches. They are not the same. I think almost everyone in this thread see's the difference. It seems obvious but if it isn't to you, please say so, because I'd be very willing to talk about it some more.


----------



## artgoddess (Jun 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*

I think this bears repeating:

*Conditioning him to to stay on the blanket when you move out of reach is counter to the very nature of attachment.*

You're right it does. So I bolded mine.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
What is the "it" here the baby should figure out?

That I want him to stay on the blanket.

Quote:

_You said you begin training at 8 months, right?_
Yes, but maybe I should clarify--my kids played on blankets on the floor from as soon as they could hold their heads up. So sitting or lying on a blanket on the floor was not new to them even at 8 months. But that was when they really started scooting and crawling around, and so that was when I started teaching them about staying on the blanket. Also, this wasn't a tiny blanket; they had room to move around.

Quote:

_I think people are really having a problem with two things:_

_1)When the 8 month old, new to the concept, crawls off the blanket, and you continue to put him back on it, while repeating "Please stay on the blanket", this is a negative reinforcement._

_A positive reinforcement would be you waiting until the baby crawled onto the blanket, and rewarding him each time he did it._
Maybe it's a mental block on my part but I really don't see how asking him to stay on the blanket and putting him back if he gets off is negative reinforcement. Hitting him or yelling at him or putting him in time-out or taking something away from him--those would be negative reinforcement/punishment. But putting him back on the blanket is just reinforcing and reminding him that I want him to stay on the blanket. I'm not trying to make him suffer for "disobeying" me, I'm trying to teach him to stay in one place.

Quote:

_2)Using negative reinforcement to condition an 8 month old looks and feels excessive. Conditioning him not to move off a blanket after mama walks away from him seems counter to the very nature of attachment. It is a conditioned repression of the natural and healthy desire of the baby to stay near mama, to have her in sight, and to follow her if she moves out of reach. Putting the baby at conflict with such a basic desire is profound._

_I think this bears repeating:_

Conditioning him to to stay on the blanket when you move out of reach is counter to the very nature of attachment.

_If you want to understand why people are having a hard time with your idea's, I think that is one important reason_.
But "attachment parenting" doesn't mean literal constant physical attachment. And 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 (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
I'm not sure what you mean by "gently corrected instead of taking away"?

I would gently correct and also take it away. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Quote:

_So I will give a straightforward example~baby puts something in his mouth and starts to choke. Mama gets it out of his mouth. Baby reaches to put it back in his mouth. Mama takes it out again and baby starts to cry and pull it towards his mouth again. Mama keeps it away from his mouth, comforts his cries, and helps him find something safe that satisfies his need to explore._

_That is gd/attachment parenting_.
I would try to avoid letting it get to that point. I would be right there while he was holding the object and as he went to put it in his mouth, I would say "please don't" while pulling his hand away from his mouth. Then I would give him a teething ring or something like it and say "you can chew this."

Quote:

_Negative reinforcement looks like this:_

_Mama takes the trinket out of the baby's mouth. She puts it in reach. Baby waits. He reaches. Mama says "No" and puts his hands down by his side. Baby reaches again. Mama says "no" and puts his hands by his side again". Repeat, repeat, repeat. Baby finally stops reaching. Mama discovers that she can now leave him near trinkets for a short time and he will not reach if she says "No"._
I wouldn't do this because I wouldn't be sure that baby really understood that he was not to put the trinket in his mouth. It doesn't seem safe to assume that he understood just because he stopped reaching for it one time. I would take the thing out of reach and give him something else.

Quote:

_Blanket training sounds like the second, not the first approach. Negative reinforcement to accomplish a conditioned response_.
I think it's more like a combination of the two approaches. There is verbal direction ("please stay on the blanket") but there's also physically moving him (analogous to taking the trinket out of reach) and an alternative (staying on the blanket).

Quote:

_These are very different approaches. They are not the same. I think almost everyone in this thread see's the difference. It seems obvious but if it isn't to you, please say so, because I'd be very willing to talk about it some more_.
I can see the difference, but I don't think the line between them is as clear as you're suggesting.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
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.

I'm surprised, too, Brigianna. I think it sounds like a great idea, and I don't see it as any different from picking up a baby about to crawl into something they shouldn't, or stopping a toddler from going into the street. Or teaching your child not to put their hand in the poopy diaper. Or stand up in the tub.

Since I'm jumping in late, I wanted to remark on the OP.

You say you don't feel that frowning and saying "No" is punishment, but it is inarguably scary for your child, as evidenced by her crying. Especially because you had taken her out and were then expecting her to understand that when you were sitting down, you expected her to "be quiet". That's just too, too much. No way is she going to understand what you're talking about.

Sure, you can start to teach her no, but make life easy on yourself. The less you use it, the more powerful it will be. It will work much, much better if you need to tell your child no because they're heading for something unsafe if you haven't already told them no 57 times that day for every little infraction, IME.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Going back to the original topic, we went to church tonight and about halfway through my ds started jumping on the pew. I asked him to please be quiet, but he didn't, so I went outside with him for a few minutes, he ran around a bit, and we went back inside, no harm done. Usually he's okay for sitting through the service but tonight he was a bit more energized (maybe related to going in the evening vs. morning). Anyway, there wasn't any expectation that he had to stay still the entire time and he's 3.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
I'm surprised, too, Brigianna. I think it sounds like a great idea, and I don't see it as any different from picking up a baby about to crawl into something they shouldn't, or stopping a toddler from going into the street. Or teaching your child not to put their hand in the poopy diaper. Or stand up in the tub.

There's a huge difference. There's a reason for a child not to go into the street or put their hands in their diapers or crawling where they shouldn't. There is absolutely no reason to pin a child to a blanket by a mother's disapproval. We're not talking about stopping a child from doing something unsafe; we're talking about training a child to do something unchildlike.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
Because we need to stay safe. And when they're old enough to understand the examples you gave, they're probably old enough not to need the blanket.

But staying on the blanket to "stay safe" will only work if you are right there in the room with them. And if you are right there in the room with them, there is no need for the blanket, unless you are constantly otherwise occupied, in which case in hardly seems fair to punish the baby for your interests by confining them to a blanket.

Quote:

I am against behaviorism, especially with regards to children. I don't punish them or reward them (I do occasionally bribe them, but that's a bit different). Asking someone to do something isn't behavioristic. I'm not conditioning them to stay on the blanket, I'm teaching them. There's a difference.
You are engaging in operant conditioning. Teaching can only occur in so far as an individual can understand. I don't think your baby understands the concept of blanket training. You are presenting a behavior (staying on the blanket) and a consequence, however benign you might feel it is (putting baby back on the blanket with a word from mommy). Another reason it isn't teaching? The child has absolutely no choice. According to you, she'll stay on the blanket, her own will be darned, unless you decide to reevaluate the situation and deem her too young.

Quote:

Maybe not completely, but you can teach them some self-control. By your standard, why should we bother teaching them anything? Why would you say "We don't throw food because it's wasteful and messy," etc. if they aren't capable of learning self-control?
I am certainly not opposed to teaching. I teach my babies from the day they come out into the world. I teach them about love and grace and mercy, and how to latch on, and how to keep their fingers away from their poo, and how I'll always come when they're crying (I guess I've been conditioned







) It's (a) your subject matter ("blanket training") and (b) your method ("training") that I take issue with. In the case of the baby learning to eat throwing food, I am right there beside her, gently reminding her that we don't throw food and, if necessary, taking the food away and giving her something we can throw. I don't "train" her out of throwing her food, and then set her up with with a trayful of food and walk out of the room, expecting her not to throw it.

Quote:

And I'm not *trying* to train my kids' natural inclination to explore out of them. I teach them to explore *in appropriate ways.* The same as you teach them (I would hope) that it's not okay to explore the sharp knives, or it's not okay to explore some things by putting them in your mouth. That doesn't mean you're training their inclination to explore out of them.
I wouldn't have knives anywhere where they could get to them, and if they did happen to find something inappropriate to mouth, it would be on me, not them. Babies do not stay primarily orally-fixated forever.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
Going back to the original topic, we went to church tonight and about halfway through my ds started jumping on the pew. I asked him to please be quiet, but he didn't, so I went outside with him for a few minutes, he ran around a bit, and we went back inside, no harm done. Usually he's okay for sitting through the service but tonight he was a bit more energized (maybe related to going in the evening vs. morning). Anyway, there wasn't any expectation that he had to stay still the entire time and he's 3.









That's great. Sometimes I need to get up and move around a bit myself.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
There's a huge difference. There's a reason for a child not to go into the street or put their hands in their diapers or crawling where they shouldn't. There is absolutely no reason to pin a child to a blanket by a mother's disapproval. We're not talking about stopping a child from doing something unsafe; we're talking about training a child to do something unchildlike.

There is a reason, which is to stay safe. Look, I'm a big believer in having reasons for things we ask our kids to do, and "because I said so" doesn't count as a reason. I always explain my requests to my kids if they ask, and if I can't sufficiently explain it, I don't make the request. But we are talking about *babies* and young toddlers, not verbal, conversational, logical children. If they are old enough to understand the rational examples you give, they are for the most part old enough not to need the blanket. And it is our job as parents to keep them safe, even against their will, until they have the knowledge and rational skills to keep themselves safe.

Aren't all those examples teaching a child to be unchildlike? It is childlike to run indiscriminately, put their hands in their diapers, etc. It isn't wrong, they just have no idea why they shouldn't. That's why we have to teach them.

Quote:

_But staying on the blanket to "stay safe" will only work if you are right there in the room with them. And if you are right there in the room with them, there is no need for the blanket, unless you are constantly otherwise occupied, in which case in hardly seems fair to punish the baby for your interests by confining them to a blanket_.
No, that's the point--I taught them to stay on the blanket and then when I had to leave the room for a minute or so I knew I could trust them to stay safely on the blanket. And I did also ask them to stay on the blanket while I was there in the room if I was doing something else, especially something dangerous, but putting them on the blanket isn't punishing them; it's protecting them. And I've said this over and over, but the point still seems to be getting missed--I never kept them on the blanket when it wasn't their choice for more than a few minutes. I didn't keep them on the blanket all day, as an alternative to learning or exploring or being attached to me.

Quote:

_You are engaging in operant conditioning. Teaching can only occur in so far as an individual can understand. I don't think your baby understands the concept of blanket training. You are presenting a behavior (staying on the blanket) and a consequence, however benign you might feel it is (putting baby back on the blanket with a word from mommy). Another reason it isn't teaching? The child has absolutely no choice. According to you, she'll stay on the blanket, her own will be darned, unless you decide to reevaluate the situation and deem her too young_.
I agree that teaching can only occur if the person can understand, which is why the logical examples you gave wouldn't work (or rather wouldn't constitute teaching) for a baby or young toddler. But the baby can and does understand blanket training in the sense that she figures out that I want her to stay on the blanket, which is why she does it.

As I have said I do believe in giving children as much choice about their own lives as possible, but for babies we sometimes have to make choices for them for their own safety, or because they are incapable of making their own choices.

Quote:

_I am certainly not opposed to teaching. I teach my babies from the day they come out into the world. I teach them about love and grace and mercy, and how to latch on, and how to keep their fingers away from their poo, and how I'll always come when they're crying (I guess I've been conditioned







) It's (a) your subject matter ("blanket training") and (b) your method ("training") that I take issue with. In the case of the baby learning to eat throwing food, I am right there beside her, gently reminding her that we don't throw food and, if necessary, taking the food away and giving her something we can throw. I don't "train" her out of throwing her food, and then set her up with with a trayful of food and walk out of the room, expecting her not to throw it._
But why bother "gently reminding her that we don't throw food" unless you expect her eventually to catch on that she should not throw food? And what is the difference between gently reminding her not to throw food and redirecting her to something she can throw, and gently reminding her to stay on the blanket and redirecting her back onto the blanket (other than the fact that you think there's a good reason for one but not the other)?

Quote:

_I wouldn't have knives anywhere where they could get to them, and if they did happen to find something inappropriate to mouth, it would be on me, not them. Babies do not stay primarily orally-fixated forever._
No, it's not forever. But it does last several months and it is awfully frustrating when you're alone in the house with a baby in the oral stage and she's just learned to crawl and scoot really fast and then walk, so you have to watch her constantly, and you can't answer the phone or go to the bathroom or get something out of the kitchen, let alone do any work, because she *will* find a way to injure herself, and if you take her with you she throws a fit. Mainstream people use playpens, cribs, baby gates, and high chairs for this purpose. I happen to believe that it is much more respectful to teach the child to safely stay in one place. If watching baby with your full undivided attention 100% of the time worked for you, I'm glad it did. Really. But I don't think it's realistic for most people.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
There's a huge difference.

Well, I don't see it. And I don't see how saying, "Please stay on the blanket," in a calm and quiet manner displays any sort of "disapproval" whatsoever. Frowning and "scolding", that's how I envision disapproval. I don't see how you can argue that the child does it because they fear disapproval any more than they eventually learn to sit down in the bathtub or not run into the street. They learn it because we calmly and patiently repeat the requests and physically help them.

This is how I see it. She taught them that occasionally she will ask them to stay in one place, a place that is easily defined, and she will quickly return. I think it's clear that her babies trusted her and felt very strongly attached to her, otherwise it wouldn't have worked without corporal punishment. They trusted that she had a good reason to ask that of them, that she didn't expect them to stay there longer than their attention spans could take it, and that she wasn't abandoning them. AND that she wouldn't plop them down in a little cage and disappear. I think a child would be MORE reassured by the fact that they could, if necessary, toddle or crawl after her, whereas the concrete barrier of a baby gate closes off that option completely.

I just can't see what's not GD about this. I think it's a great idea.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

I started a new thread to discuss blanket-training and alternatives so we could let this thread go back to the original topic. My blanket-training thread is here: http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=438203


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
No, that's the point--I taught them to stay on the blanket and then when I had to leave the room for a minute or so I knew I could trust them to stay safely on the blanket. And I did also ask them to stay on the blanket while I was there in the room if I was doing something else, especially something dangerous, but putting them on the blanket isn't punishing them; it's protecting them. And I've said this over and over, but the point still seems to be getting missed--I never kept them on the blanket when it wasn't their choice for more than a few minutes. I didn't keep them on the blanket all day, as an alternative to learning or exploring or being attached to me.

You cannot trust an eight-month-old baby to make wise choices. Or a one-year-old. Or even a two-year-old. It doesn't matter how well you think you've trained them.


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

Thank you, Brigianna


----------



## Rainbow Brite (Nov 2, 2004)

I couldn't even sit quietly through a church service. I would never expect a baby too








Blanket training- OMG







:


----------

