# Blanket-training and alternatives (spinoff)



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

This is a spinoff from the thread "Church Behavior." On that thread I mentioned that I blanket-trained both of my kids as babies, and several people commented that they thought this was unreasonable. Rather than derail that thread any more than it already is I thought I would start a new one to discuss blanket-training and any alternatives.

I guess one of the things that perplexes me about all of you who think blanket-training is so evil and it's unnatural, conditioning, etc. is that I'm still not getting what y'all do instead. As far as I can tell, when a baby reaches that crawling/scooting/early walking stage, they have the mobility and physical skills to get around but not the logical or rational skills to deal with their newfound freedom safely. So it seems like we parents have a few options:

Restrain baby in a safe place physically (pens, gates, etc)
Restrain baby in a safe place psychologically (I gather this is Ezzo-style blanket-training)
Supervise baby with your undivided attention 100% of the time and make sure he is never in an unsafe situation
Let baby roam free, or
Supervise him most of the time, but for those rare occasions when it isn't a realistic option, teach him how to keep himself safe (what I do)
I would never do #1; I just wouldn't. I agree with y'all that #2 is cruel and unreasonable for the baby. #4 seems way too unsafe to me. Those of you who think #5 is evil seem to be advocating #3, which is fine and I'm glad it works for y'all, but I am really not understanding how. I carried and wore mine with me a lot and stayed with them while they played, but do y'all not eat, drink, answer the phone, or go potty? And what about when there are other children? I could have maybe, possibly, assuming nothing ever went wrong, done this with my first, although I think it would have meant a lot more fits and a lot more hassle for us both. But for my second one, absolutely not. Not only did I also have a 3 yr old to deal with, but he was even more active and orally fixated than my first.

I'm serious--we're going to have at least one more baby and y'all have made me reconsider whether I should blanket-train him. But I need an alternative. So how do you do it?


----------



## shalena (May 31, 2004)

I baby-proofed my living room and hall, and gated off or shut doors where DS shouldn't have been with out my supervision. I do think blanket training sounds rather odd. I train my dog to stay on her rug, I don't do that with my baby.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Well, I already chimed in on the other thread, and I have to say that if I'd known about blanket training, I'd have done it.

With my two closely spaced children, I tried pulling out a very exciting and interesting toy and hoped that ds would stay there long enough for me to do whatever needed to be done. Which I worried about. But I also felt guilty about taking him with me. There were times when he was in the middle of something, and I had to take him in to the bathroom to wipe dd, or answer the phone, or get dd out of some mess. He didn't like that very well.

I do have my house largely child-proofed, but I agree that they surprise you. They figure things out so quickly, and now my older child seems to always have hidden some little chokeable thing laying around that I missed, or pulled the furniture around so he can where it's not safe. And we don't have room for a playpen.


----------



## bass chick (Sep 7, 2005)

I babyproofed my kitchen and living room and dining room - which is just one big huge room. There are stairs going down to our fireside room, stairs going down to the front door, and stairs going up to the upstairs off of the living room. They had baby gates on them. I rarely used the gates as I basically gave DS 100% of my attention. When I had to go to the bathroom, he came with me. Answering the phone was not an issue since we have a phone in our baby proofed room. Eating and drinking....why would that be an issue. Babies are so portable - take them with you! Babyproof your kitchen!
I have not even heard of "blanket training" before this, and would never have thought to do this. I don't know anything about it being a non AP practice, or unreasonable....I would just have never thought to do this. And since it feels wrong to me, I would not do it, since I have travelled most of this mama road on gut instinct alone. Does it not feel a little "off" to you?


----------



## slightly crunchy (Jul 7, 2003)

Yeah, I'm not getting what's wrong with gates? It seems to me that gating off a large space, still gives them more room than asking them to stay on a blanket. Why is a blanket better than a playpen?

As for me, I have never put my babies in a playpen or in a very confined gated space. In fact, I hardly use gates at all...I have one to keep baby from going up the stairs unsupervised, that's it. Everything else in our common living areas is babyproofed. I close bathroom doors. If I need to go to the bathroom and there are older child's unsafe toys about, I take baby with me. I have a portable phone, and another one with a super long cord...but I don't spend extended periods of time on the phone when I am with the kids alone.

I am talking about crawling babies to toddlers here. I agree that when babies are later on in their 2nd year, it is harder...they can open doors, and get in to lots of other things. Still never really thought of blanket training them, though.

If you don't do it like Ezzo suggests, how exactly do you accomplish blanket training? (genuinely curious)


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

I posted so much in the other thread, I can only add here:

*Training a baby to remain on the blanket when you walk away from him undermines the very nature of attachment. For this reason I would call it unfriendly to attachment parenting. The baby, though he could physically crawl after you, has been psychologically conditioned to ignore his instinct and remain seated until you return. It is this state of a mental conditioning, along with the training behind it, which is directly at odds, to me, from attachment parenting.*

I could go into other reasons, but to me this is the most relevent challenge blanket training makes to attachment parenting.


----------



## eightyferrettoes (May 22, 2005)

First, I would seriously doubt that blanket-training works for most babies without a pretty serious degree of coercion... which is why folks like the Pearls devote a lot of time to describing ways to punish babies into submission on the issue.

Most babies have got a lot on their minds, and "sitting still for Mommy" just ain't on the list of priorities.







Show me a baby who compliantly sits on the blanket, and I'll show you fifteen who turn into screaming banshees at the very notion.

Second, I really believe that a lot of the... let's call it paranoia, for lack of a better word, about "unsupervised babies" is just a tad overblown. No, you cannot prevent 100 percent of possible accidents with even the most thorough babyproofing.

But you can sure reduce it significantly. And given the (rather low) risk of my kid doing something deadly in any room of my house, I am comfortable with accepting that risk for long enough to take a leak.







Some folks aren't.

Hell, my friend is utterly horrified that we let our one-year-old climb the stairs unassisted. But you know what? He has never once fallen. And I do consider a certain amount of bumping and bruising and crying par for the course with a newly mobile baby. My hovering presence or harsh forms of blanket-training _might_ prevent a few spills. But at what cost?


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

I just find the concept to be useless. Training a baby to stay on a blanket is not going to keep them safe. Staying on the blanket to "stay safe" will only work if you are right there in the room with them. I don't care how well you think you've "trained" them; if your intent on blanket training them is because you don't trust them to be unconfined in a room safely, you have absolutely no business leaving them alone in that room on a blanket. 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.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

_I just find the concept to be useless. Training a baby to stay on a blanket is not going to keep them safe. Staying on the blanket to "stay safe" will only work if you are right there in the room with them. I don't care how well you think you've "trained" them; if your intent on blanket training them is because you don't trust them to be unconfined in a room safely, you have absolutely no business leaving them alone in that room on a blanket. 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._








:


----------



## Bluegrass (Dec 31, 2001)

how exactly do you teach them to stay on the blanket?

Isn't this akin to learned helplessness?

Is it natural and healthy and conducive to learning and development for a baby to stay in one place?

I think many, if not most, of us just try to supervise our kids while they do what is developmentally appropriate.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
So it seems like we parents have a few options:

Restrain baby in a safe place physically (pens, gates, etc)
Restrain baby in a safe place psychologically (I gather this is Ezzo-style blanket-training)
Supervise baby with your undivided attention 100% of the time and make sure he is never in an unsafe situation
Let baby roam free, or
Supervise him most of the time, but for those rare occasions when it isn't a realistic option, teach him how to keep himself safe (what I do)
I would never do #1; I just wouldn't. I agree with y'all that #2 is cruel and unreasonable for the baby. #4 seems way too unsafe to me. Those of you who think #5 is evil seem to be advocating #3, which is fine and I'm glad it works for y'all, but I am really not understanding how. I carried and wore mine with me a lot and stayed with them while they played, but do y'all not eat, drink, answer the phone, or go potty? And what about when there are other children? I could have maybe, possibly, assuming nothing ever went wrong, done this with my first, although I think it would have meant a lot more fits and a lot more hassle for us both. But for my second one, absolutely not. Not only did I also have a 3 yr old to deal with, but he was even more active and orally fixated than my first.

What is your objection to No. 1? Everyone does it on some level, sometimes. Do you use a crib? A carseat? You're restraining your baby. I have three children bout 2 1/2 years apart each, and I use a combo of slings, carriers, backpack, the occassional baby gate (in front of the fireplace, for example, but that's more to keep them out than to keep them in). If I was going to do something where they were going to be out of my sight, I would put them in the bassinette or crib, because this was truly the safe option. If you blanket train baby 3, what are you going to be doing to make sure child 1 and child 2 stay away from the baby? Even supposing it is safe to train a baby and trust them to stay on a blanket--and I don't believe for a minute that it is--what about the other children? Will you be trusting them to stay on their blankets as well? Will you tell them not to touch the baby and just trust that they will unquestioningly obey?

Swings, chairs, cribs, etc can be overused as mama substitutes, but they are not evil in and of themselves for tiny "go to the bathroom"-sized chunks of time. They're certainly safer than trusting a baby to stay on a blanket and other children not to touch the baby.

I just don't understand how you can call blanket training a baby "teaching him how to keep himself safe." It's a baby. Or a toddler. Or a young child. It shouldn't be responsible for keeping itself safe, that's your job.


----------



## Snowy Owl (Nov 16, 2003)

I didn't see the other thread. How do you train the baby to stay on the blanket, supposing that you wanted to? Do you use physical pain in any way? Withdrawal of affection? Of food? What kind of coercion does it take to make a baby do what is unnatural for him?


----------



## GoodWillHunter (Mar 14, 2003)

I have five children. Three are extremely close... i.e. twins then 16 months later another one.

We baby proofed our home. And we used gates. I have no problem using gates.

Blanket training is for animals, not humans. My children are people deserving of my utmost respect. And, as for teaching a child to "keep himself safe"....

Not his job. It's yours. Children aren't able to understand how to keep themselves safe when they are infants, toddlers, young children...even young adults. It's up to you as a parent to shoulder that responsibility.

Period.


----------



## IncaMama (Jun 23, 2004)

i don't like the concept. i'd rather have my child think that he or she can't get somewhere bc there's a gate in the way than because mommy will be angry if they get off their little square. my babies shouldn't need to think about approval/disapproval. it was just never a necessity with me. i can't think of a time when what i did was insufficient.


----------



## **guest** (Jun 25, 2004)

first of all, i can't see how anyone would perceive blanket training as anything other than conditioning. this is something that you obviously strongly believe in, but don't shy away from calling things their names.

i won't be the first here to say that it is developmentally inappropriate at the age of 8 months. or a year. or even 2 years. but guess what. there is a point, and i don't know when this happened with my dd, but she is almost 4 now, and i can ask her to stay in one place, and in most situations i can trust her for short periods of time (a minute or so, i never needed to do this for more). not when she is upset, or frustrated, or angry. but when she is in a calm mood, and i explain and reason with her, i can trust her. because she is developmentally ready. i didn't have to 'prepare' her in advance.

when she was a crawling baby, or now with her 15 month old brother we baby proofed our apartment. not 'completely' -- there still were things that she could potentiall ruin. but there is nothing that could hurt her.

dd was a sling baby -- i carried her for up to 8 h a day, because she liked it. her brother is a 'down baby' -- he loves being on the floor and exploring.

when at home, they are never in an 'unsafe' situation. and i do let them raom free. but this does not mean that i do not pay attention to them.

another problem with blanket training is that by asking the baby to stay on the blanket you basically require the baby to be responsible for his own safety. this is a very unreasonable request, and it is a burden. babies and young children are impulse driven. and on some level they are aware that they are not safe by themselves, or they would not naturally attach to their parents -- they need our guidance and reassurance. blanket training diminishes their trust that the parent is there for them. all of a sudden they are on their own, responsible for themselves. this is a violation of trust. entrusting a young child with their own safety does not make any practical or psychological / emotional sense.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

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

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

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

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
*Training a baby to remain on the blanket when you walk away from him undermines the very nature of attachment. For this reason I would call it unfriendly to attachment parenting. The baby, though he could physically crawl after you, has been psychologically conditioned to ignore his instinct and remain seated until you return. It is this state of a mental conditioning, along with the training behind it, which is directly at odds, to me, from attachment parenting.*

I don't think he's really ignoring his instinct, but even if he were, don't we teach our children to ignore their instincts all the time for their own safety?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
I just find the concept to be useless. Training a baby to stay on a blanket is not going to keep them safe. Staying on the blanket to "stay safe" will only work if you are right there in the room with them. I don't care how well you think you've "trained" them; if your intent on blanket training them is because you don't trust them to be unconfined in a room safely, you have absolutely no business leaving them alone in that room on a blanket. 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.

It wasn't useless for us because it did work. They did learn to stay on the blanket. So I don't think it's true that they are somehow incapable of learning this.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
What is your objection to No. 1? Everyone does it on some level, sometimes. Do you use a crib? A carseat? You're restraining your baby. I have three children bout 2 1/2 years apart each, and I use a combo of slings, carriers, backpack, the occassional baby gate (in front of the fireplace, for example, but that's more to keep them out than to keep them in). If I was going to do something where they were going to be out of my sight, I would put them in the bassinette or crib, because this was truly the safe option.

We never used a crib; both of the kids slept in bassinets and then went straight to "grown-up beds." Carseats are required by law, but as I said on the other thread, I really hated doing that to them, and they objected much more strenuously to the carseats than they did to blanket-training. I don't consider slings, backpacks, etc. to be restraint devices like pens and gates and cribs.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
If you blanket train baby 3, what are you going to be doing to make sure child 1 and child 2 stay away from the baby? Even supposing it is safe to train a baby and trust them to stay on a blanket--and I don't believe for a minute that it is--what about the other children? Will you be trusting them to stay on their blankets as well? Will you tell them not to touch the baby and just trust that they will unquestioningly obey?

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

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GoodWillHunter*
Blanket training is for animals, not humans. My children are people deserving of my utmost respect.

I agree that children are people deserving of utmost respect. But I think that teaching them to stay on a blanket for short periods of time is more respectful than locking them in a pen or behind a gate.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GoodWillHunter*
And, as for teaching a child to "keep himself safe"....

Not his job. It's yours. Children aren't able to understand how to keep themselves safe when they are infants, toddlers, young children...even young adults. It's up to you as a parent to shoulder that responsibility.

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


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annabanana*
first of all, i can't see how anyone would perceive blanket training as anything other than conditioning. this is something that you obviously strongly believe in, but don't shy away from calling things their names.

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

Quote:

_i won't be the first here to say that it is developmentally inappropriate at the age of 8 months. or a year. or even 2 years. but guess what. there is a point, and i don't know when this happened with my dd, but she is almost 4 now, and i can ask her to stay in one place, and in most situations i can trust her for short periods of time (a minute or so, i never needed to do this for more). not when she is upset, or frustrated, or angry. but when she is in a calm mood, and i explain and reason with her, i can trust her. because she is developmentally ready. i didn't have to 'prepare' her in advance._
I think that they can understand staying in one place as babies, but they need a concrete reminder of what that place is (the blanket).

Quote:

_another problem with blanket training is that by asking the baby to stay on the blanket you basically require the baby to be responsible for his own safety. this is a very unreasonable request, and it is a burden. babies and young children are impulse driven. and on some level they are aware that they are not safe by themselves, or they would not naturally attach to their parents -- they need our guidance and reassurance. blanket training diminishes their trust that the parent is there for them. all of a sudden they are on their own, responsible for themselves. this is a violation of trust. entrusting a young child with their own safety does not make any practical or psychological / emotional sense_.
I think it enhances their trust because it shows that I trust them enough to stay put and I don't need to lock them up. I don't think it makes them responsible for themselves though.


----------



## Mommy Piadosa (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:

I do not believe in pens, gates, cages, etc. for children. This is a deeply personal issue with me. I'm not saying that those who use these things are wrong, but I would not do it.
Isn't your home a pen- a big one, but a cage nonetheless? Don't we fence in our yards? To me- to say you do not believe in these things- do you close doors? Isn't that caging a child? Do you leave your front door open all the time as to not "pen" your child? How is a physical barrier a problem? Especially if it occurs in our daily world?

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

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


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:



Originally Posted by heartmama

Training a baby to remain on the blanket when you walk away from him undermines the very nature of attachment. For this reason I would call it unfriendly to attachment parenting. The baby, though he could physically crawl after you, has been psychologically conditioned to ignore his instinct and remain seated until you return. It is this state of a mental conditioning, along with the training behind it, which is directly at odds, to me, from attachment parenting.

Response:

I don't think he's really ignoring his instinct, but even if he were, don't we teach our children to ignore their instincts all the time for their own safety?


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

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

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

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

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

Do you want agreement with the blanket training method? Do you just want to advocate it? Do you feel something unfair was said which is prompting you to press the issue for clarification?

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


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
Basically I just said "please stay on the blanket" and if they got off, I put them back and reminded them again. I explained it in more detail on the other thread. But there was no punishment or reward involved.

What was their response to their desire to explore or get to you being thwarted?

Quote:

I do not believe in pens, gates, cages, etc. for children. This is a deeply personal issue with me. I'm not saying that those who use these things are wrong, but I would not do it.
It's strange to me that you don't seem to realize that you're basically subjecting your children to a pen without the physical pen. You're still restraining them in one place, you're just doing it with a blanket instead of a gate.

Quote:

I agree that children are people deserving of utmost respect. But I think that teaching them to stay on a blanket for short periods of time is more respectful than locking them in a pen or behind a gate.
I guess I don't understand why it has to be one or another. I never locked ds in a pen - not even when I had three other children to attend to. I also never stuck him on a blanket and made him stay when he wanted to leave.

And, still, I think blanket vs. pen is a distinction without a difference. Blanket vs. gate? Well, it depends on how the gate is used. If it's used to block off dangers yet allow the baby to still have access to you, then there's a difference in favor of the gate. If it's used as a pen, it's the same as the blanket, just higher.

Quote:

Yes, it's my job to keep them safe while they're babies, but it's also my job to teach them how to keep themselves safe, because I won't always be able to do it for them.
Why are you so intent on doing this when they aren't ready to have that responsibility? Ds is 5. He's gradually becoming more and more aware of how to keep himself safe. It's an ongoing process. I don't think it's fair to burden children with responsibility before they're ready. And I don't think not training them from the time they enter the world does any harm whatsoever in the long run.


----------



## IncaMama (Jun 23, 2004)

Quote:


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

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

My house is babyproofed, but that is still not totally safe. As I mentioned on the other thread, both of my kids were very oral babies. Anything that got in their hands went in their mouths. If I had left them unsupervised in a room even for a minute, even with babyproofing, something would have wound up in baby's mouth. Hence the blanket-training.
wouldn't it just be better to focus on teaching them not to put things in their mouths? i mean, later on you say:

Quote:

I guess I just have a lot more faith in young children's capacity for self-control. I think if we treat them like they have self-control, they are much more likely to act accordingly.
but i really think that you're demonstrating the opposite with the blanket training. their self-control is limited to staying in one place when determined appropriate by your words of "please stay on the blanket"...but not when it comes to putting things in their mouths, playing with sockets, pulling things off shelves, etc? if they are so able to self-control, why don't you focus on those behaviors instead?

Quote:

Yes, it's my job to keep them safe while they're babies, but it's also my job to teach them how to keep themselves safe, because I won't always be able to do it for them.
but...i mean, you have time...at 8months you are still there MOST of the time (i hope!)...do they really need to learn this at such a young age?


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

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

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

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

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

Neither option sounds good to me.

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


----------



## **guest** (Jun 25, 2004)

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

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

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


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

Quote:


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

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

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

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

Neither option sounds good to me.

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

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


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

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


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


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

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

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

Quote:

Yes, it's my job to keep them safe while they're babies, but it's also my job to teach them how to keep themselves safe, because I won't always be able to do it for them.
Baby.
Toddler.
Small child.
They will learn eventually, and if you're not willing to dedicate yourself to keeping them safe their first few years, then I guess we're at an impasse. Motherhood is a full-time vocation, and I see blanket-training as an attempt to circumvent a child's natural growth process and give the mama an easy way out that is, in reality, not safe at all.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


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


















To your entire post.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Brigianna

Quote:

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

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

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

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


----------



## Rainbow Brite (Nov 2, 2004)

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


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


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

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

Quote:

_As far as blanket training goes- the term is a Gothard one- do you follow his other methods as well? I balk at the term training and young infants._
I don't know anything about Gothard or what he teaches. I know he has a Christian homeschooling curriculum and said something about dolls being sinful but that's about it.

Quote:

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


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

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

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?

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.

Quote:

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:

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

Quote:



Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
_But what if you have children who don't comply and stay on the blanket, even if you say please? Your polite version of blanket training isn't going to work for every child_.


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



_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:

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:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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:



_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 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.

Quote:

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

_If there is a way to do both, is that preferable? Within attachment theory, yes._
I agree.

Quote:

_Do you want agreement with the blanket training method?_
Not necessarily. I was actually looking more for alternatives. Although I would prefer if people would disagree respectfully instead of assuming the worst.

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


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

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


----------



## Clarinet (Nov 3, 2005)

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

And this







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


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


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

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

Quote:

_deeply personal? that's confusing to me...can you explain why?_
I do not want any symbols of captivity in my home, especially not in any context associated with children. Honestly I can't even stand to look at them. It just isn't an option.

Quote:

_wouldn't it just be better to focus on teaching them not to put things in their mouths?_
Trust me, I tried. But my efforts were in vain. Eventually they got past it though.

Quote:

_but i really think that you're demonstrating the opposite with the blanket training. their self-control is limited to staying in one place when determined appropriate by your words of "please stay on the blanket"...but not when it comes to putting things in their mouths, playing with sockets, pulling things off shelves, etc? if they are so able to self-control, why don't you focus on those behaviors instead?_
I taught them about those other things too, but it took a lot longer. In the meantime I had to keep them safe. It isn't an absolute, either they have self-control or they don't. It's a gradual process.

Quote:

_but...i mean, you have time...at 8months you are still there MOST of the time (i hope!)...do they really need to learn this at such a young age?_
8 months is when I start, because that's when mine started moving around. Yes I'm there most of the time, but I still need to keep them safe for the minute I might happen to be out of the room.


----------



## alybeans (May 22, 2005)

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

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

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


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


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

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

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

Quote:

_I am the crazy radical who lets my young infant explore and when it is a legitimate safety issue at hand, either help her explore safely, sling her, take her with me (like in the shower etc) or the very rare time, in a pack n play within sight (of me showering or vacuming etc) which she goes in willingly and happily for a few minutes with no training on my part and no attempt on her part to get out (by standing up, fussing etc). You may think there is no difference but I think the difference is huge. I didn't have to *train* her to go in her pack n play for a couple minutes. She was completely free to protest (and believe me, she knows how lol) and in that event, I would and have removed her happily. The difference with blanket training is by the child crawling off, that is their protest, and it is repeatedly ignored._
No, my kids know how to protest, trust me. And yet neither of them did. When they crawled off the blanket it was because they didn't yet understand what I was asking of them. After they "got it" they had no problem doing what I asked.


----------



## shayinme (Jan 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*

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


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
















Shay


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


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

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

Quote:

_Am I being a bit overdramatic. Perhaps. But just because these things aren't likely to happen doesn't mean they won't_.
But things can happen while you're supervising them too, it's just less likely. And a child who has been taught to stay on a blanket is less likely to get into trouble than a free-roaming one who hasn't been taught.

Quote:

Baby.
Toddler.
Small child.
They will learn eventually, and if you're not willing to dedicate yourself to keeping them safe their first few years, then I guess we're at an impasse. Motherhood is a full-time vocation, and I see blanket-training as an attempt to circumvent a child's natural growth process and give the mama an easy way out that is, in reality, not safe at all.
So what is the alternative? Constant undivided supervision is not realistic. I find it very hard to believe that most people would never ever leave a young child unattended for a brief moment.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Brigianna

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

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

Than please do







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

Quote:

_I am curious if you have considered the ways that attachment and safety CAN work together? I think this is really the key to understanding ap alternatives to blanket training_.
Well, I was thinking that blanket-training *was* the most attached way to accomplish safety. But as I say, if you know a better way, please share it and I promise to keep an open mind.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


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

And I do all of those things. But what about when they don't want to come with you and throw a fit when you try to take them away from playing? What about when it's just not practical to carry them with you?

It isn't conditioning because, once they've been taught, they're staying on the blanket of their own free will because I've asked them to, not because there's a gate there.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


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

I think plenty of experienced mamas have given you alternatives on this thread. I'm not sure what else you want. I don't claim to have never left my babies alone, but I've never left them alone on the floor trusting them to see after their own safety. If I left them free-range, the room was babyproofed, and if I wasn't confident in that, I put them in some sort of infant containment device. If I would have left them in an unbabyproofed room, and something happened to them, it would be 100% my responsibility. Infants, toddlers, and young children should not be charged with their own safety.

Honestly, you say you're looking for alternatives, but you say none of them would work for you. You seem perfectly happy with justifying blanket training. I just pray that the sense of security you seem to think you have is never proven wrong. Good luck.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


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
















Shay

The blanket isn't a physical restraint, it's a symbolic boundary. They accomplish the same purpose, but one involves teaching and one involves confining.

But even if my kid's didn't hate being confined, which they do, and even if I weren't philosophically opposed to putting them in a pen, which I am, I still wouldn't want one of those things in my home. It just isn't an option.


----------



## Bluegrass (Dec 31, 2001)

I agree with the PP that I think it gives you a false sense of security.
It is also no less confining than a gate or pack and play.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
I think plenty of experienced mamas have given you alternatives on this thread. I'm not sure what else you want. I don't claim to have never left my babies alone, but I've never left them alone on the floor trusting them to see after their own safety. If I left them free-range, the room was babyproofed, and if I wasn't confident in that, I put them in some sort of infant containment device. If I would have left them in an unbabyproofed room, and something happened to them, it would be 100% my responsibility. Infants, toddlers, and young children should not be charged with their own safety.

Honestly, you say you're looking for alternatives, but you say none of them would work for you. You seem perfectly happy with justifying blanket training. I just pray that the sense of security you seem to think you have is never proven wrong. Good luck.

I am looking for alternatives, and I am keeping an open mind. But confining them with a pen/gate/etc is not an option and neither is keeping them with me 100% of the time. I do babyproof but that isn't a total solution. Blanket-training is in addition to babyproofing, not a substitute for it. But I am interested in hearing alternatives.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

It isn't conditioning because, once they've been taught, they're staying on the blanket of their own free will because I've asked them to, not because there's a gate there.
They're not staying of their own free will. You've conditioned them to respond a certain way and they're staying put as a result of that conditioning.

So let me understand: You need a way to make sure that your babies will not get into anything while you leave them unsupervised? Apart from the fact that I can't comprehend leaving a baby unsupervised in any place that wasn't safe enough to give them free reign, I think it's playing with fire to rely on a young child staying on a blanket simply because you've made it a rule.

Honestly, I don't see an alternative if you're not willing to sufficiently babyproof, keep them with you (i.e., if you need to go to the bathroom, bring them and whatever they happen to be doing in with you), and/or watch them. I just don't understand why one of those options won't always work when they seem to for other people.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

ITA with Dragonfly's post. You cannot expect an 8 month old baby, or a young toddler, to stay on a blanket in lieu of providing a safe environment and supervision.

And I agree with whoever said that blanket training is not "teaching" but ignoring the child's protests.

OP, I understand that you have issues with babyproofing devices, but to me they seem a lot safer and more respectful than the training methods you describe.


----------



## calicokatt (Mar 14, 2005)




----------



## Cedarmama (Jun 8, 2003)

This is truly a bizarre conversation. Your plea for alternative solutions seems empty. A baby should not be left unsupervised in a home that is not baby proofed. Period. I agree with pp that leaving your baby on a blanket in a house that is not entirely babyproofed is irresponsible. How DO you babyproof your house? If not locks, gates, pens....do you have stairs? Or is that the point of blanket training. If the animal (oops, I mean baby) stays on the blanket then the rest of the house does not matter?

You talk about leaving baby on blanket for a minute total. Ok. Then what is the big deal? Why does baby have to be "blanket trained" to leave them in a room for a minute. Is your house enormous? Do you have dangerous objects left lying around for baby to grab in that split second you are gone? Do you leave baby on blanket for longer periods? Is this the issue?


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Brigianna I'd be happy to share an alternative that worked for us:

I think this is a holistic scenario~I'm trying to describe a paradigm from which to think of attachment and safety as compatible.

I have lived in several very different houses after ds was born, and found that in them all, when I'm home during the day, there are only a few rooms I really need to use frequently. So I make this a kind of "greenzone", and it was carefully and mindfully babyproofed. More than just thinking of latches and gates (I had both for area's we didn't frequently use), I thought about how I would use a common area as a free flowing continuum, a space where I could live with the newly mobile ds.

~~I should stop and clarify my response with a pre mobile baby. I agree with you that I disliked any kind of "cage" or restraint from birth. When ds was a tiny baby I just moved him from room to room with me, either in a sling or a moses basket. I did not want a little baby out of my sight. My thinking was that if they were not old enough to walk to me or away from me, he had no way to signal someone for help, without crying. And crying is a late indicator of distress. I think a pre mobile baby *needs* a caregiver in his visual field, for his own sense of security.~~

So with a crawler or walking toddler, I spent most of my time in the common area that was made safe for ds. As I said, this was usually the central living area in the house. If I had to go to the kitchen or bathroom or a bedroom, then I would go, leaving access for ds if he chose to follow me. If he followed me, I was obviously "In" those more dangerous rooms, which addressed the risks inherent to them. Or, he could stay in the common area, and he was as safe there as he could possibly be anywhere, short of right beside me, which he was free to be~but older toddlers often prefer to stay where they are, and he had that choice.

This took some creativity in our first home. Our second was ridiculously easy to childproof because it was so tiny~800 square feet. I could see him from almost every angle *LOL*

Our current home is very large but very open, and I could still make it work if we have another.

The wonderful thing about this was that ds and I were free to really enjoy the space together. There was no sense of "danger" lurking over the edge of the blanket for either of us. If there had been, I wouldn't have been able to relax even if I was right beside him! See, that is what I'm viewing differently~the space I shared with him in the home felt completely safe and supportive. I could walk away from him and it did not feel dangerous, because it wasn't. And significantly, this safety didn't depend on his state of mind. It was part of an environment an adult designed to be safe for him, which objectively, is a better indicator of safety to me than a 10 month old's safety awareness comprehension.

It wasn't necessary for him to separate from me or to feel his access to me was restricted at any time. I could go where I needed, and he could go, or stay, or anything in between.

I hope this helps.


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

This is a huge pet peeve of mine. A new thread is started about something without an explanation (at least on the first page) of what exactly is being debated. It's very difficult for people who didn't see the original thread to figure out what is being talked out.

OK so... it's 11:20 and I'm kind of grumpy too.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KristiMetz*
This is a huge pet peeve of mine. A new thread is started about something without an explanation (at least on the first page) of what exactly is being debated. It's very difficult for people who didn't see the original thread to figure out what is being talked out.

OK so... it's 11:20 and I'm kind of grumpy too.

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=436062
Does this help?

The efficacy of "blanket training"--training an infant to stay on a blanket, not, as my husband thought, actually attempted to train a blanket, which we probably all agree would be pointless--is what's being debated, whether or not it's respectful of the child or in alignment with attachment parenting


----------



## delicious (Jun 16, 2003)

alternative suggestions:

baby proof
watch your kids
can't watch them all the time...take them with you to wherever you're going (bathroom? get the mail?)
how will they learn anything if you don't let them explore and learn things on their own. there is something to be said for kids finding some things out on their own.

i have 2 kiddos, two years apart. i didn't have gates until we moved here, and now i have one, blocking off my dp's office so they don't bug him while he's working. they have total free run of the house. i keep an eye and ear on them and they are safe.

i just see absolutely no good reason to "blanket train." i am bewildered over here.

why not let the baby crawl around the living room while you run to the bathroom? i mean, what are these circumstances exactly where they need to stay on the blanket to be safe ?

this whole thing is baffling.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

To clarify a couple of points:
My house is babyproofed and has been since my first was born. Sharp objects and chemicals are locked up, electrical outlets are plugged, and when they were babies, small choking hazards were kept out of reach as much as possible. So blanket-training was in addition to babyproofing, not in place of it. However I still wasn't comfortable with them free-roaming. Maybe y'all are right that I'm paranoid on that issue. But I wouldn't have left them in a totally non-babyproofed area with or without a blanket.

Would it be easier to teach them not to put things in their mouths than to blanket-train them? You would think. And I did teach them about things in their mouths, but it took a pretty long time. Blanket-training was simple and painless.

I will not have captivity devices in my home. It is just not an option. I am not saying this to be hostile or difficult. I do have my reasons. Even if they were the most perfect parenting devices in the world, I would not be able to tolerate having them in my home or even looking at them.

Carrying them with me makes sense, and I did do this a lot. Before they were crawling age I carried/wore them with me everywhere or on the rare occasion I couldn't, I put them in the bassinet. But when my kids don't want to be picked up, they really don't want to be picked up. Once they started crawling and playing on the floor, if I picked them up they would throw a fit. So blanket-training was a sort of non-verbal deal with them that they would stay on the blanket when asked and I wouldn't carry them with me when they didn't want to go. So if my next baby is really mellow, I'll try this. If he's like my first 2, that would be a problem. Is it really more ap to carry off a screaming baby than to ask him to stay on the blanket when he doesn't mind doing so?

As to the claim that blanket-training doesn't work, all I can say is that it worked fine for us. I don't pretend it would work for everyone, but after I taught them what it meant, they willingly stayed on the blanket when I asked.

But I am open to alternatives. I agree that blanket-training is a flawed method; it just seems like the least bad alternatives. I would appreciate it if y'all would give me some specific suggestions rather than just "supervise them" or "there's nothing wrong with pens" or something like that.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Brigianna I'd be happy to share an alternative that worked for us:

I think this is a holistic scenario~I'm trying to describe a paradigm from which to think of attachment and safety as compatible.

I have lived in several very different houses after ds was born, and found that in them all, when I'm home during the day, there are only a few rooms I really need to use frequently. So I make this a kind of "greenzone", and it was carefully and mindfully babyproofed. More than just thinking of latches and gates (I had both for area's we didn't frequently use), I thought about how I would use a common area as a free flowing continuum, a space where I could live with the newly mobile ds.

~~I should stop and clarify my response with a pre mobile baby. I agree with you that I disliked any kind of "cage" or restraint from birth. When ds was a tiny baby I just moved him from room to room with me, either in a sling or a moses basket. I did not want a little baby out of my sight. My thinking was that if they were not old enough to walk to me or away from me, he had no way to signal someone for help, without crying. And crying is a late indicator of distress. I think a pre mobile baby *needs* a caregiver in his visual field, for his own sense of security.~~

So with a crawler or walking toddler, I spent most of my time in the common area that was made safe for ds. As I said, this was usually the central living area in the house. If I had to go to the kitchen or bathroom or a bedroom, then I would go, leaving access for ds if he chose to follow me. If he followed me, I was obviously "In" those more dangerous rooms, which addressed the risks inherent to them. Or, he could stay in the common area, and he was as safe there as he could possibly be anywhere, short of right beside me, which he was free to be~but older toddlers often prefer to stay where they are, and he had that choice.

This took some creativity in our first home. Our second was ridiculously easy to childproof because it was so tiny~800 square feet. I could see him from almost every angle *LOL*

Our current home is very large but very open, and I could still make it work if we have another.

The wonderful thing about this was that ds and I were free to really enjoy the space together. There was no sense of "danger" lurking over the edge of the blanket for either of us. If there had been, I wouldn't have been able to relax even if I was right beside him! See, that is what I'm viewing differently~the space I shared with him in the home felt completely safe and supportive. I could walk away from him and it did not feel dangerous, because it wasn't. And significantly, this safety didn't depend on his state of mind. It was part of an environment an adult designed to be safe for him, which objectively, is a better indicator of safety to me than a 10 month old's safety awareness comprehension.

It wasn't necessary for him to separate from me or to feel his access to me was restricted at any time. I could go where I needed, and he could go, or stay, or anything in between.

I hope this helps.

This does sound like a good idea and I like the way you've described it. I agree that a pre-mobile baby needs to be in sight all the time. For a mobile baby I have a couple of questions: how could you make the common areas completely safe? Was yours an oral baby? If so, how could you completely keep the common areas free of anything "mouth-able"? Or did you just not worry about it? Did you have older children also at the time? If so, did you just make sure that their stuff stayed out of the common area? Also, it sounds like even when you were out of the room, you were still in sight--baby could find you. How would you do it if this were not the case?

These aren't "trap" questions; I'm really curious. It does seem like you've given this a lot of thought.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

For a mobile baby I have a couple of questions: how could you make the common areas completely safe? Was yours an oral baby? If so, how could you completely keep the common areas free of anything "mouth-able"? Or did you just not worry about it?
I think "completely safe" is an individual perception. For me, it meant having a space that was easy to assess visually with a glance. Even knowing it was baby proofed, I always took a careful look around the area if I was stepping out of the room, just as a matter of habit. I did this when I was in the room occassionally too, if I felt the need. (I want to say here that every accident ds had, he had standing right beside me. Sigh.). Knowing he was in that oral stage (and he was), I never had him out of my sight for more than a minute~the time it takes for a quite bathroom trip or to grab the phone~Heaven forbid he did find something, it would take him several minutes to really choke, and I think I had an internal "timer" that reset whenever he was out of my sight (regardless of who walked, or crawled, away), and it never failed me. After a minute I had to get him back in sight, for my own peace of mind. I think this changed when he was about 2 and a half or 3. At that point we had a little system that has evolved over the years, where I call out "Beep" and he says "Beep beep!" which is a nice way to reassure yourself when they get " too quiet", that they are not having a problem or stuck or choking or anything else a parent can suddenly fear has happened. He does this to me too. Sometimes I would here a "Beep!" and I'd call out "Beep beep!" from wherever I was in the house. He really liked that!



> Did you have older children also at the time? If so, did you just make sure that their stuff stayed out of the common area?
> 
> 
> > No, he's the first. So experienced advice will have to come from someone else. I will say though, I think the above approach would still work. I think most families have to do something like this with a baby in the house, and older siblings learn to keep lego's and other small things in their own room. But that is where the visual assessment comes into play~I wouldn't ever assume the other children remembered~and if I keep the common area free of clutter, I should be able to see at a glance if the baby is safe. I would probably be doing this kind of re assessment regularly when I was in the room too, if I had other children running in and out.
> ...


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

Once they started crawling and playing on the floor, if I picked them up they would throw a fit. So blanket-training was a sort of non-verbal deal with them that they would stay on the blanket when asked and I wouldn't carry them with me when they didn't want to go.
This is helpful information. Do you always ask the baby if they prefer to go with you? I think it's a good idea in any event.

I think many parents have fears, I do too. I think it would be possible for you to change the way you present the blanket so that it isn't coercive, if you really need something to leave them "with" while you step out of the room. Try getting something like a soft lambswool blanket, and securing toys and things around the edge. See if you can create an air of magic and a familiar routine with it.Maybe have a song that starts when you bring out the cuddly blanket, that you continue to sing while you walk out of the room. The baby could get used to expecting a surprise re appearance and silly end to the song. It could be something like singing about cuddle cuddle up with the sheep, some kind of song that gets his attention on the blanket, so that he is choosing to sit and play there. I don't know, but if all your children are extremely mellow and laid back, why not try approaching it this way?


----------



## maddysmama (Jul 28, 2003)

WOW! How did humanity even survive in the first place, without *BLANKET TRAINING*?!


----------



## Jennisee (Nov 15, 2004)

Oops, double post.


----------



## Jennisee (Nov 15, 2004)

I think plenty of PP's have already articulated my feelings against blanket training, so I'll just stick with how we have made our house the "safe zone" the OP seems to desire.

I'm trying to picture a home in which gates and babyproofing didn't result in a safe environment. Our house is 2200 square feet, over 100 years old, with nearly floor-to-ceiling windows and an open staircase, not to mention two pet cats. Sounds like a death trap, right? It's actually extremely safe, and I can leave DD in any room for a moment if I need to, with the exception of the home office, and it's closed with toddler-proofed doorknobs. We start out by moving anything dangerous, chokable, valuable, etc. up high or behind locked cabinet doors, and replaced them with safe things--toys, books, pots and pants, etc. Every single thing that DD could find by crawling/walking around is safe for her. _Every thing_. We don't leave dishes, mail, change, jewelry, knick knacks, etc. out where she can reach it. If we can't put it away immediately, it gets stuck somewhere high until we can put it away--on top of the fridge, kitchen counter, entertainment center, etc. We moved furniture to cover dangers like phone cords and power strips. Then we babyproof what is left--cabinet locks, outlet plugs, window blind cordwinders, a gate on the stairs, toilet locks, etc. The cat's food, water, and litter box are behind a hook-and-eyed door.

Granted, even with all that babyproofing, I still don't feel comfortable leaving DD alone in the bathroom while I shower. So, I have a playpen in our bathroom that is used ONLY for the 15 or so minutes I'm showering or if I, ahem, need an extended potty break. I put books, toys, and snacks in there, and she has a blast. Before she was mobile, I had a bouncy chair in several rooms b/c she went through a stage where she preferred it to being on the floor. I also occasionally take advantage of the fact that she happily eats in her high chair by doing chores that are difficult to do when she's down, particularly mopping. I have a cordless phone, so I'm not tied to one place if I need to answer a call.

If I'm understanding the OP's posts correctly, the house is babyproofed and the baby is never left for more than a minute, so I'm having a difficult time picturing what dangers the baby could be getting into that "require" blanket training. Maybe it's b/c I'm picturing my own house, but I simply don't see what these dangers even are.


----------



## wednesday (Apr 26, 2004)

I don't really get this thread, I confess. I am someone who never used a playpen because I don't feel it's appropriate to confine a young baby/toddler who is supposed to be moving around and exploring their environment. However we did use a gate in between the kitchen and living room. But I didn't think of this as a "confinement device" - I was always on the same side of the gate as the baby! DS had a large living room where he could move around freely and play with his toys. As for going to the bathroom - he would always rather be taken with me if I was leaving the room, then be left behind to play with something. So that was never an issue for us. I can't imagine what it would have taken to condition him to not protesting if I left him alone in a room by himself.

I also don't understand how it is impossible to prevent babies putting small things in their mouths without confining them to a blanket. That is the entire POINT of babyproofing.







: You remove/put up high all the small objects in a room. If they are still able to find some small item down at their level and get it in their mouth -- the room was not in fact babyproofed.

Frankly I don't think teaching baby to stay on a blanket is any different than using a playpen, and I would not use a playpen, no offense to those who do but I don't like them. Anyway it just baffles me that you're so opposed to pens/gates but confining to a blanket is a good thing? It's confinement either way.


----------



## simonee (Nov 21, 2001)

Or thrice


----------



## simonee (Nov 21, 2001)

I don't see why everyone's jumping on Brigianna as if she were advocating something bad? Is it because she calls her technique the same as some other members here call a technique that's something completely different and despicable?

It sounds like she's doing what I did, too, namely childproofing hte house as best I could and then tell dd "just stay here with the soft toys while I go pee, okay?" and sometimes she would and I'd be all excited and sometimes she'd toddle after me and maybe try to pull over the lamp on the way. Some of you may know that I"'m a tcs-leaning parent, definitely not into any type of less than gentle discipline and very limited on any form of coercion or manipulation.

The OP seems to work at agreeing on something with her kids, when they seem old enough to understand, she agrees with them to stay in a certain place for a little while, and it seems to work. I don't think she tells them to go on the blanket and then checks on them after having her nails done and eaten her lunch. She's babyproofed the house, but she knows that a kid will always find something to eat or otherwise get in trouble with, so she tries to reduce the risk by doing the thing with the blanket.

Truly, I honestly think the name "blanket training" is the big trigger here, but attacking brigianna's childrearing practices because of it is like rolling your eyes over someone who weans a child at 3yo because he kept biting instead of fighting the nurses who hand out formula after birth.


----------



## simonee (Nov 21, 2001)

Of course my post was brilliant, but not so good it needs to be said twice


----------



## familylove (Mar 14, 2006)

I have followed this discussion with curiousity. I have never heard of blanket training. I gotta say, the idea of training a baby to stay on a blanket sounds a heck of a lot more difficult than most of the other alternatives I've seen suggested.

Brigianna, it sounds like you have a genuine concern for keeping your kids safe without the use of "captivity" devices. I can certainly respect that decision. But, as many pps have pointed out, I think this provides a false sense of security. It also, IMO, takes away learning experiences and turns them into rules. IE: If baby crawls toward a (whatever you consider dangerous), instead of making them sit on the blanket, why not use those same repetitive technique ("stay on the blanket") to repeat the safety lesson? "We don't put things in our mouth". We hyper-babyproofed. We removed sharp furniture, anything with glass, cleaned the floor several times a day, nothing within baby's reach that was harmful, gated off the basement and upper stairs, removed dog/cat food and cat litter, chemicals, all utensils and knives out of reach, any heavy pans out of reach. And then, I followed my baby EVERYWHERE he went. I figured this was my job as a parent...I am the responsible one who understands the dangers. It is my job to impart this knowledge to him when he is capable of understanding. As far as showers and going to the bathroom, he went with me everytime...the bathroom was babyproofed too and he could crawl freely. For showers, he sat in a bouncie when he was small and then I let him crawl around while I kept the shower door open, maintaining visual and auditorory contact.

I'm sorry if I've repeated much of the advice given already, but I really feel that what others pp's have suggested are great ways to keep baby out of danger while still allowing him/her to be a baby.

No disrespect intended, Brigianna, I just feel that 8 mos is a bit young to expect that kind of "obedience" out of a child. I think one of the main arguements among parents and "parenting experts" is the true nature of children. Some would argue, as has been said before, that they are merely adults in training and think the training start early and often. Others believe that children have lots of time to grow and learn to make healthy, smart decisions. I believe that we have the responsibility for protecting without expecting too much.


----------



## DaryLLL (Aug 12, 2002)

I'm confused and distressed by this thread.

The OP seems to have had no problem training two 8 mo babies to sit on a blanket when she was out of sight range. I find this odd b/c object permanence is shaky at best in the average 8 mo. When Mom is out of sight, Mom is gone from the face of the earth, to most children this age.

So, perhaps they developed object permanence at an abnormally young age. This I believe, is one of the disconnects here. The huge majority of babies will crawl after Mom at this age, unless conditioned by a much stronger method than, "please stay here." Ie: being violently struck and/or frightened into it.

Next: Brigianna admits her dcs had strong oral needs. She was not able to "teach" (condition) them to not put inappropriate things in their mouths for a long long time. Brig, don't you see, most mothers here can not "teach" their kids to stay on a blanket for a similar reason, by merely asking them to? Did you have to say "Please take that out of your mouth" for months and yrs on end (not 2 days)? Did the child object when the object was taken away? Did he find something else to mouth a few minutes later, when he tired of the boring old pacifier you gave as a substitute?

Babies put things in their mouths to explore their world through the senses of taste and touch.

Babies can not be trusted to stay on a blanket b/c of their need to explore their world, as well as for the instinct to be in the same room as their mother, who they see as an extension of themselves.

Now, you say both your kids stubbornly put things in their mouths for a long time, yet both at 8 mos could be trusted after 2 days of mild reproof, to stay on a blanket. Similarly, you say the toddler could be trusted to never touch the baby as well.

Do you not see the average baby can NOT be trusted to stay on a blanket (unless violent methods are used), and the average toddler can NOT be trusted to never touch a baby?

These horrifying "containment devices" you can't even look at (perhaps you were left in them for hours as a baby) are used by the majority of mothers here to keep the baby safe for a few minutes, not to confine it as in a jail for hours at a time. Most babies can't be trusted to stay on blankets. Can you not step out of your own headspace and see that just as you could not trust your child to not mouth everything in sight, so most parents can not trust babies not to crawl off a blanket and onto stairs, or pulling to stand and then falling and clunking their head, etc (name your danger)?

I have to laugh b/c at my current LLL mtgs we have a highly spirited 10 mo who is the fastest crawler in the planet. He sees something and goes for it. You can be sure we use a baby gate on the open doorway of our mtg room to keep him from crawling out to the rest of the library! No way could this active baby be taught in 2 days to stay on a blanket.

And one more thing that has not been addressed is, your kids slept in "bassinets" for 8 mos, I think you said. A bassinet is a containment device. Then they moved to a bed? Alone? Did it have rails? Do you not see the sides of a bassinet as creating a containment device b/c they are woven reeds and not bars?

BTW, my kids outgrew bassinets at 4 mos. Not 8. We mostly co-slept however and I could trust my kids to sleep in the big bed for naps alone, but they would always call to me upon awaking. I understand some babies won't do this. They will crawl off the bed. Other mothers can't let their crawling babies sleep alone in the family bed at this age. I understand this is so, b/c I know all kids are different. They must put the mattress on the floor. I didn't have to but I understand others may have to.

Please step out of your box of personal experience and see that your exp is not typical.


----------



## **guest** (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
And I do all of those things. But what about when they don't want to come with you and throw a fit when you try to take them away from playing? What about when it's just not practical to carry them with you?

if they are so engaged in their play, it seems much safer and much more respectful to leave them playing, rather than transfer them to the blanket, don't you think?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
It isn't conditioning because, once they've been taught, they're staying on the blanket of their own free will because I've asked them to, not because there's a gate there.

this is ridiculous. they are staying there because they've been conditioned to stay -- they know that leaving the space is futile and because they got used to needing your approval.

what you are have been saying throughout is a very clear illustration of your complete lack of understanding of babies and children's development.


----------



## bellona (Feb 17, 2006)

I haven't read all the posts yet...just the first page. And since I only have a few minutes I just wanted to respond.

I don't like trapping my children either. I don't use playpens except for when we are in a place where the floor is not a safe environment for them to be on. And even then, I only stick them in there when they want to get down. I don't use bouncy chairs, walkers, saucersizers or whatever they're called, or carseats (except when we are going in the car..I do not leave my baby to just hang out in it all day). In the summer time when I have a napper they sleep on a blanket outside on the ground (with me beside them of course).

What do I do to make sure that they're safe? Well, supervision is a big one. I do keep toddlers with me most of the time because I feel it's better for their development and my sanity. If I need them to be entertained for a moment or two while I turn my attention to something else I'll give them a fun activity - like dumping out all the markers. I childproof the best I can, but there are cords around the computers, there is a filing cabinet that they could get hurt on if they played with, there are cats that may bite or scratch if provoked enough, there is a piano that can be climbed. I try to teach them that cords are dangerous, cats need to be treated gently, the filing cabinet is only for daddy, and the dining room chairs are much more fun to climb than the piano.

Honestly, for a really young baby nothing beats supervision. A young child has to be put in situations where he can explore and sometimes encounter things that he can't do because that's how he learns about the world around him. When he goes for the cords under the computer desk instead of veiwing it in a negative way because he was getting into stuff I thought it was a good thing because it was a learning op. I would tell him that cords were dangerous and move him. If you figure there is probably a certain number of times you're going to have to tell your child that before they 'get' it (whether that's 10 or 10,000) you're one step closer to your goal that they learn that cords are dangerous each time you do it.

I don't like the idea of a young baby not being allowed to explore his environment, whether it's because he's strapped into an infant seat on the living room floor or because he's been trained to sit on a blanket until he's taken off.

I also don't like the idea of training my children and try not to do it in anyway.

I do want to add though, with my two youngest I've taught the others that the blanket is the baby's space and only their hands are allowed. I've also taught them how to touch the baby nicely. This prevents the baby from being trampled and still allows them to explore. But I would never tell my baby that he had to stay on that blanket.

I don't mean to make the op feel bad. I think it's great you're looking for other alternatives. I hope you got some.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

The OP seems to work at agreeing on something with her kids, when they seem old enough to understand, she agrees with them to stay in a certain place for a little while, and it seems to work.
Simonee you mentioned you were a TCS leaning parent.

How do you view the training process? You don't think it involves coercion? The op described her process this way: Beginning at about 8 months, the baby is put on the blanket during short training sessions. Mama says "Please stay on the blanket". The baby crawls off, and is put back on the blanket. She mentioned that the babies would frown and try to crawl off several times. She put them back on repeating the command until they remained there.

It's not the name that I objected too.


----------



## Mommy Piadosa (Jul 4, 2005)

It may not be the name that's objected to by some, but those of us who are familiar with Gothard's teachings- the name conjors up some horrible awful images. I can't find the link but "blanket training" is a term coined by him to describe putting an infant on a blanket- swatting the edges of that blanket with a wooden spoon (which by this age the infant should be very familiar with







) and using that wooden spoon to swat the infant as they leave the blanket repeatedly. I cannot get that image out of my head while discussing this topic. If you truly believe you are doing something right and nessesary- then you may want to call it something else.
Dana


----------



## Mommy Piadosa (Jul 4, 2005)

I missed this- such a long thread....

Quote:

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

Can you give a concrete example?
Sure- when I am not actively watching my youngest (age 18 months now)- for whatever reason, homework with bigger kids, cooking dinner, playing on the computer...







: we make sure the doors are closed around the living / computer room. The hallway has a regular door- the entrance to the family room has accordian doors- which I use a child lock to close. That leaves a space about 500 square feet. In that room I have all of his toys, sofas, our tv and computers. Everything is child proof and the big kids (19, 14, 13, 8, and 6) are not allowed to bring their toys into these two rooms. If I close the doors the older children know to close them behind them if they come into this room. He is never left in their alone. If during the day I have to leave the area- mail, laundry, bathroom- I tell him I'm leaving and he runs to be held. Really there is no toy or activity he would rather do then leave with me- so I am not dragging him away from something. If during the afternoon or evening I go cook etc, and I don't feel its safe for him to be with me- I ask a bigger kid to play with him, or my husband. Most of the time while cooking etc in the evening- my dh will carry him and they will watch me.
The closed off space is used to help children with homework, they sit at the computer desk if they need direct supervision, (6 year old) or bring problems to me and sit in the kitchen or their own room.
Now just to add another concrete example as a sinngle mama I lived in a condo that was only 700 square feet. I closed the bedroom and bathroom doors, put latches on everything in the kitchen and did the same thing when I had a 5, 2 and 1 year old. It was easier back then, cause the home was smaller- but it still works today.
Dana


----------



## Snowy Owl (Nov 16, 2003)

DaryLLL, great point about the basinette. Your whole post made a lot of sense.


----------



## DaryLLL (Aug 12, 2002)

Thx, Snowy. It turned out so long, I just assumed no one would read it.


----------



## DebraBaker (Jan 9, 2002)

There is a strong association between blanket training and punitive teachers like Gary Ezzo and the Pearls.

I think that is enough not to have it advocated on a gentle parenting board.

Confining a baby and limiting their exploration is not good for their development.

Generally, parents need to employ negative reinforcement to keep them on the blanket making a playpen (something I never owned) sort of like a fenced in yard, and blanket training like the invisible fence.

I'm wondering what sort of shock to the collar is an acceptable means of delivering the usually negative reinforcement to keep a baby passively on a blanket.

DB


----------



## DaryLLL (Aug 12, 2002)

Do you release your baby from her "Stay" on the blanket when you come back in the room? Do you say OK! and snap your fingers?


----------



## DebraBaker (Jan 9, 2002)

Perhaps you wave your want and say, "Expectro=patronis"

db


----------



## simonee (Nov 21, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Simonee you mentioned you were a TCS leaning parent.

How do you view the training process? You don't think it involves coercion? The op described her process this way: Beginning at about 8 months, the baby is put on the blanket during short training sessions. Mama says "Please stay on the blanket". The baby crawls off, and is put back on the blanket. She mentioned that the babies would frown and try to crawl off several times. She put them back on repeating the command until they remained there.

It's not the name that I objected too.

I think she didn't repeat till they stayed, she said she did it a few times and they stayed. If not, she wouldn't have done it for a while. Her kids didn't deal well with the in-the-mouth stuff, so she doesn't "trust" them with small objects; since hte blanket works, she chooses that one. That's why DaryLLL's argument, sound as it may seem, is not relevant; it's like she tries to "catch" the OP on something. LIke the "object permanence" argument, as if that's relevant for the blanket time but not for play pens or other things used by parents that several PP's know and like.

I dunno, to me this thread is about a woman sharing something that worked for her. I "taught" my dd that a certain place in one of our rooms felt safe to me, and that's where she sat when I peed or put the laundry in the dryer when it was wet out. She would pretty much hang out there for a few minutes; not every time but often enough that it felt safe to me. Maybe this experience colored my perception of "training", because I see the OP doing pretty much the same thing. And that's not coercion, no; my dd didn't "have" to stay somewhere; but I liked it and she generally did.

I never used any type of containment (except car seats and stairs/window gates, very limited) on my children.

sorry gotta go ds wants playtime.

and sorry Ireally didn't know that the term "blanket time" has so many bad association. I had only read it in gossipy relation to a few notoriously fundie parents here; didn't know it came with a "philosophy" . Looks like the OP chose a bad term for her strategy.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Simonee I'm refering to the other thread. She said she "began training at 8 months" and that even if the baby frowned and tried to leave the blanket, he was put back on it. This training continued until she felt sure the baby understood he could not leave the blanket when asked to stay there. At one point she said that training "began" at 8 months to clarify that they did not understand in the beginning what was expected, but eventually made the association that when she instructed them to stay on the blanket, they were not leave it. So I think I'm a bit confused. How would a baby protest if not by frowning and trying to get off the blanket? If you put him back, then he is not "free to leave" as your daughter is? You seem to be comparing two very different examples, and saying they are similiar since one aspect in similiar. Sure, I would say to ds "Will you wait here for mommy?" if I thought it was necessary to ask, and of course, he was free to disagree with that. This would be a TCS or consensual exchange, and I *think* it's what you are saying you did in your home? This is completely different than saying "please stay here" and then, if he chooses not too, repeatedly putting him back "there" until he stays.

And I don't want to pick on the OP by delving into this. I don't think she's doing something shocking or abusive. I just think there are better ways to support attachment and keep the baby safe.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

I don't think it helps to be this sarcastic towards the OP. I don't agree with her blanket training. Why get her feeling defensive and "stuck" having to justify her idea's, which is what a person will do if they are compared to something worse? Who wants to be compared to using a shock collar? I think I'd be really freaked out if I was doing what I thought was gentle, realized maybe it wasn't, and then was compared to some truly abusive and dangerous things. If change depends on accepting that view of herself, I don't think the OP would have any desire to change. I wouldn't.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
I think "completely safe" is an individual perception. For me, it meant having a space that was easy to assess visually with a glance. Even knowing it was baby proofed, I always took a careful look around the area if I was stepping out of the room, just as a matter of habit. I did this when I was in the room occassionally too, if I felt the need. (I want to say here that every accident ds had, he had standing right beside me. Sigh.). Knowing he was in that oral stage (and he was), I never had him out of my sight for more than a minute~the time it takes for a quite bathroom trip or to grab the phone~Heaven forbid he did find something, it would take him several minutes to really choke, and I think I had an internal "timer" that reset whenever he was out of my sight (regardless of who walked, or crawled, away), and it never failed me. After a minute I had to get him back in sight, for my own peace of mind. I think this changed when he was about 2 and a half or 3. At that point we had a little system that has evolved over the years, where I call out "Beep" and he says "Beep beep!" which is a nice way to reassure yourself when they get " too quiet", that they are not having a problem or stuck or choking or anything else a parent can suddenly fear has happened. He does this to me too. Sometimes I would here a "Beep!" and I'd call out "Beep beep!" from wherever I was in the house. He really liked that!

Quote:

Did you have older children also at the time? If so, did you just make sure that their stuff stayed out of the common area?
No, he's the first. So experienced advice will have to come from someone else. I will say though, I think the above approach would still work. I think most families have to do something like this with a baby in the house, and older siblings learn to keep lego's and other small things in their own room. But that is where the visual assessment comes into play~I wouldn't ever assume the other children remembered~and if I keep the common area free of clutter, I should be able to see at a glance if the baby is safe. I would probably be doing this kind of re assessment regularly when I was in the room too, if I had other children running in and out.

I think you will agree blanket training doesn't offer any protection from this either. An older child can just as easily drop a lego on the blanket with the baby, as they can drop it anywhere else in the room.

Neither house had bedrooms or bathrooms in sight of the common area. In one house they were off a hallway. In the other, the bedrooms were off the common area, and the bathrooms were accessible only through the bedrooms. The kitchen had a view in both houses, which did help. It was possible for the baby to follow me anywhere though, because all the homes were single level.

Are you talking about a two story home? I need an example of how it wouldn't be possible for the toddling baby to find you. If it's a two story home, I'd set up "camp" on the ground floor, gate the stairs, and wait until the baby was asleep or in an agreeable mood to come along, before I'd spend a period of time up there.

That makes sense. I do like your system, but I'm not sure whether it would work for us. We have a 2-story house, upstairs is bedrooms, the bathroom, a work room, and a storage room; downstairs is the living room, kitchen, dining area, 1/2 bath, and laundry room. The storage room and the laundry room are the "unsafe stuff" areas and the doors to those rooms are kept shut and latched. Right now I am teaching my dd to do laundry and one of the things I'm impressing upon her is to close and latch the door after her because there's still things in there that would hurt her little brother. I wouldn't bring a child under about 4 into the laundry room because even if I'm right there, I'm distracted with loading clothes and measuring soap and whatnot, so I'm not carefully supervising (this is from experience).

I don't leave a child alone in the downstairs while I'm in the upstairs until about 22 months when they get past the oral stage. So with blanket-training, baby is on the blanket in the living room while I'm somewhere downstairs, or baby is on the blanket upstairs while I'm upstairs, or baby is roaming free in our bedroom. We always let them roam free in our room because they slept in there until they moved from the bassinet to a bed. And of course once they started crawling they could crawl out of the bassinet and roam free while we were asleep. So we just didn't keep *any* stuff in our room and we kept the door closed at night. I guess it would have been an option to take baby into our room and lock him in there, but there still would have been the fit-throwing issue.

When ds was being blanket-trained, dd was turning 4, so she could understand that no stuff except baby toys went on baby's blanket, so that wasn't really a problem.

Quote:

_Do you always ask the baby if they prefer to go with you? I think it's a good idea in any event_.
Sometimes I did, after they were verbal. But not always.

Quote:

_I think it would be possible for you to change the way you present the blanket so that it isn't coercive, if you really need something to leave them "with" while you step out of the room. Try getting something like a soft lambswool blanket, and securing toys and things around the edge. See if you can create an air of magic and a familiar routine with it.Maybe have a song that starts when you bring out the cuddly blanket, that you continue to sing while you walk out of the room. The baby could get used to expecting a surprise re appearance and silly end to the song. It could be something like singing about cuddle cuddle up with the sheep, some kind of song that gets his attention on the blanket, so that he is choosing to sit and play there. I don't know, but if all your children are extremely mellow and laid back, why not try approaching it this way?_
That is a really good idea. I did give them baby toys on the blanket and tried to make it fun for them, but the song is a really good idea. The only problem would be that he might think I was "talking" to him and wanted him to follow me. But I'll have to remember to try that.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

The thing that bothers me about blanket training is that it is "training".

An infant (or any child for that matter) should not be trained. IMO that is.

However, I am surprised that people on this forum are so opposed. I have seen positive reinforcement, charts, and consequences advocated on here many a time which is pretty much the same thing. Is it the age that bothers people? If so, at what age does it become OK to use conditioning to modify behavior?

There have been lots of good suggestions here. Either you can remain comfortable with training methods, you can babyproof, or you can supervise 100% of the time. I do not think there are any other alternatives.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *simonee*
I don't see why everyone's jumping on Brigianna as if she were advocating something bad? Is it because she calls her technique the same as some other members here call a technique that's something completely different and despicable?

It sounds like she's doing what I did, too, namely childproofing hte house as best I could and then tell dd "just stay here with the soft toys while I go pee, okay?" and sometimes she would and I'd be all excited and sometimes she'd toddle after me and maybe try to pull over the lamp on the way. Some of you may know that I"'m a tcs-leaning parent, definitely not into any type of less than gentle discipline and very limited on any form of coercion or manipulation.

The OP seems to work at agreeing on something with her kids, when they seem old enough to understand, she agrees with them to stay in a certain place for a little while, and it seems to work. I don't think she tells them to go on the blanket and then checks on them after having her nails done and eaten her lunch. She's babyproofed the house, but she knows that a kid will always find something to eat or otherwise get in trouble with, so she tries to reduce the risk by doing the thing with the blanket.

Yes, that's pretty much what I do. But I think the "controversial" part is that I actively *teach* staying on the blanket by putting them back on it, which I gather some people think is mean and punative. But I don't punish them or "enforce" it any way like that.

Quote:

_Truly, I honestly think the name "blanket training" is the big trigger here, but attacking brigianna's childrearing practices because of it is like rolling your eyes over someone who weans a child at 3yo because he kept biting instead of fighting the nurses who hand out formula after birth._
Well, maybe that's not such a good example because I did wean my kids shortly after they turned 2... but it was happy and mutual







(but I got a lot of "you're *still* nursing?!"... I can't win)


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *familylove*
Brigianna, it sounds like you have a genuine concern for keeping your kids safe without the use of "captivity" devices. I can certainly respect that decision. But, as many pps have pointed out, I think this provides a false sense of security. It also, IMO, takes away learning experiences and turns them into rules. IE: If baby crawls toward a (whatever you consider dangerous), instead of making them sit on the blanket, why not use those same repetitive technique ("stay on the blanket") to repeat the safety lesson? "We don't put things in our mouth". We hyper-babyproofed. We removed sharp furniture, anything with glass, cleaned the floor several times a day, nothing within baby's reach that was harmful, gated off the basement and upper stairs, removed dog/cat food and cat litter, chemicals, all utensils and knives out of reach, any heavy pans out of reach. And then, I followed my baby EVERYWHERE he went. I figured this was my job as a parent...I am the responsible one who understands the dangers. It is my job to impart this knowledge to him when he is capable of understanding. As far as showers and going to the bathroom, he went with me everytime...the bathroom was babyproofed too and he could crawl freely. For showers, he sat in a bouncie when he was small and then I let him crawl around while I kept the shower door open, maintaining visual and auditorory contact.

I'm sorry if I've repeated much of the advice given already, but I really feel that what others pp's have suggested are great ways to keep baby out of danger while still allowing him/her to be a baby.

No disrespect intended, Brigianna, I just feel that 8 mos is a bit young to expect that kind of "obedience" out of a child. I think one of the main arguements among parents and "parenting experts" is the true nature of children. Some would argue, as has been said before, that they are merely adults in training and think the training start early and often. Others believe that children have lots of time to grow and learn to make healthy, smart decisions. I believe that we have the responsibility for protecting without expecting too much.

I understand what you're saying, and you would *think* I could teach them not to put stuff in their mouths if I could teach them to stay on the blanket, but it was actually much harder. I *did* use those same methods and others, but it took several months for them to "get it."

I agree that children are not little adults, but I also think that people (not anyone on this site necessarily, but society in general) underestimates children's capacities and abilities. And, let me point out again, blanket-training *did work* for both of my kids. They did learn to stay on the blanket sooner than they learned about oral safety. So I guess that is my only response to the point that they can't do it--some of them can, and mine did. So I don't think blanket-training and the idea that children are children are mutually exclusive.


----------



## Pynki (Aug 19, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
It isn't conditioning because, once they've been taught, they're staying on the blanket of their own free will because I've asked them to, not because there's a gate there.

I have figuired out what my basic problem is with this. It is conditioning. It like conditioning an elephant from infancy.

Get a baby elephant. Put a leash around it's leg it isn't strong enough to break. It stops trying. As it grows the leash stays the same. The full grown elephant is big enough to break the leash but doesn't because it was never able to before.

Blanket training is the same kind of conditioning. You put the child in the same place after it moves. Making it an impossible "chain" for the child to break. It learns it can't "break" the "chain" and stops trying.

Just because the chain your using is a 3ftx3ft square of fabric makes it no less of a chain than the baby elephants.


----------



## **guest** (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Pynki*
I have figuired out what my basic problem is with this. It is conditioning. It like conditioning an elephant from infancy.

Get a baby elephant. Put a leash around it's leg it isn't strong enough to break. It stops trying. As it grows the leash stays the same. The full grown elephant is big enough to break the leash but doesn't because it was never able to before.

Blanket training is the same kind of conditioning. You put the child in the same place after it moves. Making it an impossible "chain" for the child to break. It learns it can't "break" the "chain" and stops trying.

Just because the chain your using is a 3ftx3ft square of fabric makes it no less of a chain than the baby elephants.

exactly. it is called 'learned helplessness'.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DaryLLL*
I'm confused and distressed by this thread.

The OP seems to have had no problem training two 8 mo babies to sit on a blanket when she was out of sight range. I find this odd b/c object permanence is shaky at best in the average 8 mo. When Mom is out of sight, Mom is gone from the face of the earth, to most children this age.

So, perhaps they developed object permanence at an abnormally young age. This I believe, is one of the disconnects here. The huge majority of babies will crawl after Mom at this age, unless conditioned by a much stronger method than, "please stay here." Ie: being violently struck and/or frightened into it.

Next: Brigianna admits her dcs had strong oral needs. She was not able to "teach" (condition) them to not put inappropriate things in their mouths for a long long time. Brig, don't you see, most mothers here can not "teach" their kids to stay on a blanket for a similar reason, by merely asking them to? Did you have to say "Please take that out of your mouth" for months and yrs on end (not 2 days)? Did the child object when the object was taken away? Did he find something else to mouth a few minutes later, when he tired of the boring old pacifier you gave as a substitute?

Babies put things in their mouths to explore their world through the senses of taste and touch.

Babies can not be trusted to stay on a blanket b/c of their need to explore their world, as well as for the instinct to be in the same room as their mother, who they see as an extension of themselves.

Now, you say both your kids stubbornly put things in their mouths for a long time, yet both at 8 mos could be trusted after 2 days of mild reproof, to stay on a blanket. Similarly, you say the toddler could be trusted to never touch the baby as well.

Do you not see the average baby can NOT be trusted to stay on a blanket (unless violent methods are used), and the average toddler can NOT be trusted to never touch a baby?

[...]

Please step out of your box of personal experience and see that your exp is not typical.

I don't know whether my experience is typical or not. I know I'm not the only parent to have used blanket training. But I'm not saying that it would work for every child. Obviously, every child is different, every parent is different, every situation is different.

I don't think my kids are all that atypical though. My dd I know is "advanced" for her age--she learned to read at 4 and thinks very logically. Ds is less mental and more physical--he's smart but he's a tactile learner. And yet both of them were able to learn staying on the blanket with very little effort. Again, I'm not saying it would work for everyone or even necessarily most people. But I don't think it's as rare as you're suggesting.

Quote:

_These horrifying "containment devices" you can't even look at (perhaps you were left in them for hours as a baby) are used by the majority of mothers here to keep the baby safe for a few minutes, not to confine it as in a jail for hours at a time. Most babies can't be trusted to stay on blankets. Can you not step out of your own headspace and see that just as you could not trust your child to not mouth everything in sight, so most parents can not trust babies not to crawl off a blanket and onto stairs, or pulling to stand and then falling and clunking their head, etc (name your danger)?_
I'm sure that most parents especially on a gd board like this are using the containment devices responsibly and not keeping the baby there all day, just as I didn't keep mine on the blanket all day. Actually I wasn't left in a pen as a baby, or if I was I don't remember it, but I do know that I was blanket-trained.

Quote:

_And one more thing that has not been addressed is, your kids slept in "bassinets" for 8 mos, I think you said. A bassinet is a containment device. Then they moved to a bed? Alone? Did it have rails? Do you not see the sides of a bassinet as creating a containment device b/c they are woven reeds and not bars?_

_BTW, my kids outgrew bassinets at 4 mos. Not 8. We mostly co-slept however and I could trust my kids to sleep in the big bed for naps alone, but they would always call to me upon awaking. I understand some babies won't do this. They will crawl off the bed. Other mothers can't let their crawling babies sleep alone in the family bed at this age. I understand this is so, b/c I know all kids are different. They must put the mattress on the floor. I didn't have to but I understand others may have to._
They slept in a bassinet until about 1 (it was a big bassinet). After that they moved into a grown-up bed with guard-rails. The difference I think is in intent. The purpose of the walls of a bassinet or the guard-rails on a bed is to keep baby from rolling out of bed in his sleep, not to confine him when he doesn't want to be there. As soon as they were of crawling age they could crawl out of the bassinet when they wanted to and I didn't try to stop them. Also, bassinets and guard-rails don't look like cages. They aren't symbols of captivity. So I'm not bothered by looking at them.

Co-sleeping is a good idea but it wasn't an option for our family.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Madre Piadosa*
It may not be the name that's objected to by some, but those of us who are familiar with Gothard's teachings- the name conjors up some horrible awful images. I can't find the link but "blanket training" is a term coined by him to describe putting an infant on a blanket- swatting the edges of that blanket with a wooden spoon (which by this age the infant should be very familiar with







) and using that wooden spoon to swat the infant as they leave the blanket repeatedly. I cannot get that image out of my head while discussing this topic. If you truly believe you are doing something right and nessesary- then you may want to call it something else.
Dana

That is just sick. What is it with these people and their child torture fetishes? How old is this baby supposed to be? Because I don't see how that could not cause serious injury.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DebraBaker*
There is a strong association between blanket training and punitive teachers like Gary Ezzo and the Pearls.

I think that is enough not to have it advocated on a gentle parenting board.

Confining a baby and limiting their exploration is not good for their development.

Generally, parents need to employ negative reinforcement to keep them on the blanket making a playpen (something I never owned) sort of like a fenced in yard, and blanket training like the invisible fence.

I'm wondering what sort of shock to the collar is an acceptable means of delivering the usually negative reinforcement to keep a baby passively on a blanket.

DB

I am not using any negative reinforcement, nor am I keeping them on the blanket for such amounts of time as to really have an effect on their exploration or development. I don't think this is a fair criticism. Just because something is advocated by someone you don't agree with doesn't ipso facto make it a bad idea.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DaryLLL*
Do you release your baby from her "Stay" on the blanket when you come back in the room? Do you say OK! and snap your fingers?

I usually came and joined her on the blanket. And when she wanted to get up I picked her up.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DebraBaker*
Perhaps you wave your want and say, "Expectro=patronis"

db

Sorry, my Latin isn't what it once was







--something expelled from the country?


----------



## veganf (Dec 12, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GoodWillHunter*
Blanket training is for animals, not humans.

I don't even think animals deserve that kind of treatment, or should be expected to comply with MY schedule in that way. And we are animals after all.
But I agree that's parents should be responsible for their children, and teach them to "keep themselves safe" only when they are developmentally able to do so. Blanket training just seems like the ultimate in parent convenience, sort of the "children should been seen and not heard" mentality where children are left with no free will.
My opinion.

- krista


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Simonee I'm refering to the other thread. She said she "began training at 8 months" and that even if the baby frowned and tried to leave the blanket, he was put back on it. This training continued until she felt sure the baby understood he could not leave the blanket when asked to stay there. At one point she said that training "began" at 8 months to clarify that they did not understand in the beginning what was expected, but eventually made the association that when she instructed them to stay on the blanket, they were not leave it. So I think I'm a bit confused. How would a baby protest if not by frowning and trying to get off the blanket? If you put him back, then he is not "free to leave" as your daughter is? You seem to be comparing two very different examples, and saying they are similiar since one aspect in similiar. Sure, I would say to ds "Will you wait here for mommy?" if I thought it was necessary to ask, and of course, he was free to disagree with that. This would be a TCS or consensual exchange, and I *think* it's what you are saying you did in your home? This is completely different than saying "please stay here" and then, if he chooses not too, repeatedly putting him back "there" until he stays.

And I don't want to pick on the OP by delving into this. I don't think she's doing something shocking or abusive. I just think there are better ways to support attachment and keep the baby safe.

I do understand your point, but I think when I started training them they crawled off the blanket because they didn't understand, not because they were consciously choosing to do something different from what I asked. So I put them back on the blanket to reinforce what I was saying.

And this is why I don't agree that it's conditioning--I started out with conditioning, if you want to call it that, but after they'd learned it I just trusted them. Maybe at 8 months they didn't know any better, but at 15 months when I was out of the room, nothing was holding baby to the blanket except his own free will and desire to do what I asked.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

I really don't know what y'all are talking about with the elephants and dogs and stuff... people have a lot more free will than animals. So I don't think you could train a person the way you train an animal. And I don't see the comparison to a leash or electric collar. There is no physical punishment involved.

And blanket-training is, in my opinion, significantly different from a pen or gate. Blanket-training is based on a relationship of trust--I trust baby to stay on the blanket, and baby trusts me not to leave him there forever. Also, my kids never minded blanket-training, but they hated and still do hate physical restraints. Finally, a blanket is not a symbol of captivity I have to look at everyday. Having a pen or gate or crib in my house where I could see it would be harmful to my mental health, no matter how sparingly I used it. It's just not an option.

I am trying to be open-minded and I am listening to y'all's suggestions, but I don't know what some of you want me to admit--that I really did beat my children into submission and I'm just denying it now? I didn't. Please take my word for it, or this discussion is meaningless.


----------



## Pynki (Aug 19, 2002)

I think we have a basic disconnect if you can't see why so many of us here make that connection in ourminds and you can't see it. I don't know that there is ANY way we can describe it that you would understand where our feelings come from.

I don't know if you've taken any psychology courses, but any basic psychology text would maybe be able to show you why it's conditioning.

You admit it started as conditioning and now she just does it. Well, your child does it BECAUSE they were conditioned to. One is a causation for the other.


----------



## Victorian (Jan 2, 2003)

I guess I just don't see the need to blanket train. I use to just keep them with me. (what baby doesn't want come along with mommy on an adventure?) The only places that I couldn't really hold them is in the bathroom (although sometimes I did) and cooking. I had an excersauser (which is a toy, not a confinement device) that was used just for those times.

V.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

I am not using any negative reinforcement,
Respectfully, I think putting the baby back when he tries to crawl off, because you want him to learn to stay on the blanket, is the negative reinforcement. What would you call it?

Negative-expressing negation, refusal, or denail.
Reinforcement-to strengthen; support

Negative reinforcement as it relates to behavior doesn't have to mean hitting or yelling. It means to reinforce a desired behavior by actively denying the alternatives. That is what happens when the baby crawls off the blanket and finds himself right back on it. He frowns, tries again, finds himself back on it. Eventually he accepts the desired goal of staying put, because the alternative was denied. Negative reinforcement.

A postive reinforcment uses "a display of affirmation" to reinforce the desired behavior. When he crawls on the blanket, he gets a postive affirmation which then reinforces the behavior as desirable. The baby chooses to go back to the blanket because he associates it with a positive experience.


----------



## Victorian (Jan 2, 2003)

wanted to add that I Daryllls point about the abilities of an 8-month old is very valid. Your children are not "trusting" you to come back. That is a developmentally inappropriate belief.

And it is conditioning. Conditioning happens all the time in societies. Heck, I am trying to condition my child to not pick her nose by saying "gross" when she does it. What people are trying to tell you is that the conditioning that you are doing is not age-appropriate, there are better ways, and it is affording you a false sense of security.

V.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

I do understand your point, but I think when I started training them they crawled off the blanket because they didn't understand, not because they were consciously choosing to do something different from what I asked. So I put them back on the blanket to reinforce what I was saying.
I agree they did not understand what you were asking. When they crawled away they only knew they wanted to crawl away. I am saying, it wasn't necessary to stop them in order to communicate the blanket as desirable, especially if your children are this mellow. You could work cooperatively, or you could use positive reinforcement. I think you just need to tweek your view of the crawling away, so that you don't see it as something you have a right to stop. In that moment there was no immediate danger and it was valid for the baby to crawl away. I would really encourage you to think about that.

Quote:

And this is why I don't agree that it's conditioning--I started out with conditioning, if you want to call it that, but after they'd learned it I just trusted them. Maybe at 8 months they didn't know any better, but at 15 months when I was out of the room, nothing was holding baby to the blanket except his own free will and desire to do what I asked.
I feel like sighing a bit here, because honestly I wonder if you really, really think it is this simple? Have you ever seen a battered wife go back to her husband? I am *not* comparing you to that, I am making a point about conditioning and free will. Free will doesn't explain any number of predictable patterns of behavior every one of us possesses. It is so much more complicated than looking at a person and saying "If they don't like this, they can risk the alternative, they have free will". It negates a whole other set of human conditions that are ever present~the need for approval, the fear of abandonment, etc.

I am actually curious as to your aversion to things that represent a cage. I am not asking you to share your reasons. But it does make me wonder if something in your own past has persisted into your present. It certainly is true for me, that I can trace back some of my strongest aversions to aspects of my childhood that still influence me.


----------



## bri276 (Mar 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Victorian*
I guess I just don't see the need to blanket train. I use to just keep them with me. (what baby doesn't want come along with mommy on an adventure?) The only places that I couldn't really hold them is in the bathroom (although sometimes I did) and cooking. I had an excersauser (which is a toy, not a confinement device) that was used just for those times.

V.

ITA with this. I cannot imagine the use of this, even if my baby hated the excersaucer, if I had to put her in it for 10 minutes to do something dangerous, ie use a sharp knife or hot stove, it would not be discouraging her from normal development or punishing her for normal baby behavior, which is what the baby WILL perceive if you are consistently stopping them from moving off the blanket. anyone who doesn't get that really, really needs to think about taking a infant development course.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Pynki*
I think we have a basic disconnect if you can't see why so many of us here make that connection in ourminds and you can't see it. I don't know that there is ANY way we can describe it that you would understand where our feelings come from.

I don't know if you've taken any psychology courses, but any basic psychology text would maybe be able to show you why it's conditioning.

You admit it started as conditioning and now she just does it. Well, your child does it BECAUSE they were conditioned to. One is a causation for the other.

I do understand the arguments y'all are making against blanket-training--you think it's unnecessary, it's punative, it doesn't work, it creates learned helplessness, and it prevents them from learning. I understand these points. I don't agree with them, but I understand them. What I don't understand is the comparison to a leash or electric collar. Those are physical restraints--what I'm trying to avoid. Blanket-training isn't like putting an electrical collar on a dog to keep him in the yard, it's more like *showing* the dog the boundaries of the yard and teaching him to stay within them so he doesn't need a fence or electrical collar.

I have taken psychology classes, but I don't agree with most of mainstream psychology. I know that to most people that's like saying I don't agree that the earth is round, but while I think there is some truth to mainstream psychology, I consider it mostly a lot of prejudices and speculations dressed up in scientific language--let's come up with an arbitrary standard of "normal" and then try to explain what's wrong with all the people who deviate from that. It's a vertical integration type of thing. Anyway, this concept of conditioning is one of the many problems I have with mainstream psychology. But that is really a topic all its own.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Respectfully, I think putting the baby back when he tries to crawl off, because you want him to learn to stay on the blanket, is the negative reinforcement. What would you call it?

Negative-expressing negation, refusal, or denail.
Reinforcement-to strengthen; support

Negative reinforcement as it relates to behavior doesn't have to mean hitting or yelling. It means to reinforce a desired behavior by actively denying the alternatives. That is what happens when the baby crawls off the blanket and finds himself right back on it. He frowns, tries again, finds himself back on it. Eventually he accepts the desired goal of staying put, because the alternative was denied. Negative reinforcement.

A postive reinforcment uses "a display of affirmation" to reinforce the desired behavior. When he crawls on the blanket, he gets a postive affirmation which then reinforces the behavior as desirable. The baby chooses to go back to the blanket because he associates it with a positive experience.

Okay, by this standard it is negative reinforcement. I was meaning negative reinforcement as punishment, which it isn't. Of course by this standard *any* thwarting of baby's will is negative reinforcement, whether it's blanket-training or taking away something he wants to put in his mouth or holding him back from running in the street.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
I agree they did not understand what you were asking. When they crawled away they only knew they wanted to crawl away. I am saying, it wasn't necessary to stop them in order to communicate the blanket as desirable, especially if your children are this mellow. You could work cooperatively, or you could use positive reinforcement. I think you just need to tweek your view of the crawling away, so that you don't see it as something you have a right to stop. In that moment there was no immediate danger and it was valid for the baby to crawl away. I would really encourage you to think about that.

There was no immediate danger, but I was trying to teach the meaning of "please stay on the blanket" so that they would understand it in the future. If I had waited until there was immediate danger I would have made the request and baby wouldn't have known what it meant. By putting them back on the blanket, I wasn't punishing them for crawling away, but showing them tangibly what I wanted them to do. And I did try to make it fun for them. Maybe this wasn't clear, but the blanket was not just used for blanket-training; it was where the babies played. So I think they did view it as fun and desirable, as evidenced by the fact that they didn't want to be picked up, but I was just teaching them the boundaries of where I wanted them to be.

Quote:

_I feel like sighing a bit here, because honestly I wonder if you really, really think it is this simple? Have you ever seen a battered wife go back to her husband? I am *not* comparing you to that, I am making a point about conditioning and free will. Free will doesn't explain any number of predictable patterns of behavior every one of us possesses. It is so much more complicated than looking at a person and saying "If they don't like this, they can risk the alternative, they have free will". It negates a whole other set of human conditions that are ever present~the need for approval, the fear of abandonment, etc_.
I feel like sighing too, but actually I do think it's that simple. As I posted before I am very skeptical of mainstream psychology and its attempt to "explain" why people do things. The other things you mentioned--need for approval, fear of ababdonment--factor into our decision-making, but in the end we still have free will. Many, many people choose not to live in the confines of those predictable behavior patterns. Many, many people choose to use their God-given minds to make logical choices that are separate from their instincts.

Quote:

_I am actually curious as to your aversion to things that represent a cage. I am not asking you to share your reasons. But it does make me wonder if something in your own past has persisted into your present. It certainly is true for me, that I can trace back some of my strongest aversions to aspects of my childhood that still influence me_.
Yes, it's based on my past experiences, but not from childhood. I actually don't mind sharing the reasons, but not on this public forum.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bri276*
ITA with this. I cannot imagine the use of this, even if my baby hated the excersaucer, if I had to put her in it for 10 minutes to do something dangerous, ie use a sharp knife or hot stove, it would not be discouraging her from normal development or punishing her for normal baby behavior, which is what the baby WILL perceive if you are consistently stopping them from moving off the blanket. anyone who doesn't get that really, really needs to think about taking a infant development course.

How is putting her in an exersaucer not discouraging her from normal development? She isn't getting to roam free in the exersaucer any more than she's getting to roam free on the blanket.


----------



## Mommy Piadosa (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
That is just sick. What is it with these people and their child torture fetishes? How old is this baby supposed to be? Because I don't see how that could not cause serious injury.

The baby who Gothard and others talk about hitting with a wooden spoon to blanket train is crawling but not yet walking- so between 6 and 12 months- yes it is sick- and it is why the term blanket training makes me bristle.- I've seen the sad defeated look in the eyes of children who are trained this way.
As far as what you are talking about- it's my opinion that you'll find a wide continuum of parents on the gentle discipline board- those who will see any boundry setting as coersion- like TCS- all the way to those who enforce boundries with consequences. It seems to me that teaching a baby to stay on a blanket the way you described is within that continuum- just barely if you get me- as for me I'm much more on a middle ground- so I would (and do) try to find a solution that kept baby safe, but was more likely to keep baby a part of my every day living (a la continuum concept). I do not see much difference in conditioning a child to stay on a blanket from getting a child used to any other "containment device" like an exersaucer or a playpen. For my daughter with SID- none of these things were helpful to her- her little brother got used to them quickly- for a 10 minute shower or his sister's therapy session. My last little free spirit will not be contained so we don't use them.
Just my 2 cents- but I don't thinks its awful or anti-AP, but I do think that you need to call it something else







and that there are more "attached" options.
Dana


----------



## delicious (Jun 16, 2003)

brigianna, can you describe a situation where you would need your child to stay on a blanket?

i'm afraid i'm not quite understanding the purpose if your house is all babyproofed and safe and everything...

i am pretty sure i've read the whole thread, but if i missed where you already said this, i am really sorry. thanks.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
Those are physical restraints--what I'm trying to avoid. Blanket-training isn't like putting an electrical collar on a dog to keep him in the yard, it's more like *showing* the dog the boundaries of the yard and teaching him to stay within them so he doesn't need a fence or electrical collar.

It's still confinement. It's still physical restraint. It's just doing so without a tangible tether or barrier (though in your case, the blanket is a physical symbol of the barrier). It's so weird to me that you don't see that.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
Okay, by this standard it is negative reinforcement. I was meaning negative reinforcement as punishment, which it isn't.

I respectfully disagree. It may not be *intended* as punishment, but it is likely *perceived* as punishment. You are exerting your will and imposing a consequence for behavior (baby chooses to leave blanket, the consequence - i.e., punishment - is being returned to the blanket).


----------



## bri276 (Mar 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
How is putting her in an exersaucer not discouraging her from normal development? She isn't getting to roam free in the exersaucer any more than she's getting to roam free on the blanket.

for the record, I was giving a "for instance" in fact, my baby doesn't mind being in the excersaucer for short times.

the difference is that the baby is thinking "aw crap, mom put me in this restrictive, uncomfortable thing I don't like again! I can't wait to get out and get back on the floor where I can move around freely or to be picked up where I'm held and can see what the other people are doing better! oh, here's mom, that wasn't so long...."
whereas on the blanket, baby is thinking
"huh. I'm learning to move my arms and legs and crawl! this is great! this is...wait, why did mom pick me up and move me back where I was? let me try that again! wait, she put me back again! why doesn't she want me to crawl?"

THAT is the difference. being restrained temporarily in safety device=irritating, frustrating-but (should be) temporary and transient between being held/free play time. being actively discouraged from learning how to crawl and move= confusing, perceived as punishment. you have to always look at it from baby's POV.


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

Is the blanket merely symbolic? Did you find with your children you could have used masking tape to stick down on the floor to form a box and say, "Stay inside the lines?" I can appreciate the trust aspect, but I'm concerned with the expectations of compliance.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Madre Piadosa*
The baby who Gothard and others talk about hitting with a wooden spoon to blanket train is crawling but not yet walking- so between 6 and 12 months- yes it is sick- and it is why the term blanket training makes me bristle.- I've seen the sad defeated look in the eyes of children who are trained this way.

I don't see how hitting a 6-12 month old baby with a *wooden freakin' spoon* could not cause severe injury. I mean that would be like hitting an adult with a club or a piece of furnature or something. What is *wrong* with these people?

Quote:

_As far as what you are talking about- it's my opinion that you'll find a wide continuum of parents on the gentle discipline board- those who will see any boundry setting as coersion- like TCS- all the way to those who enforce boundries with consequences. It seems to me that teaching a baby to stay on a blanket the way you described is within that continuum- just barely if you get me- as for me I'm much more on a middle ground- so I would (and do) try to find a solution that kept baby safe, but was more likely to keep baby a part of my every day living (a la continuum concept). I do not see much difference in conditioning a child to stay on a blanket from getting a child used to any other "containment device" like an exersaucer or a playpen. For my daughter with SID- none of these things were helpful to her- her little brother got used to them quickly- for a 10 minute shower or his sister's therapy session. My last little free spirit will not be contained so we don't use them._
_Just my 2 cents- but I don't thinks its awful or anti-AP, but I do think that you need to call it something else







and that there are more "attached" options._
_Dana_
I understand about the continuum, and I am actually much more on the non-coercive side (not tcs though), but not for babies. I don't think it's really possible to be non-coercive with babies. And I do think there's a significant difference between blanket-training and containment devices, but I don't know that I could explain it any better than I've already tried to do...

Blanket-training was recommended to me by a couple of people who called it "blanket-training." I didn't know until I read it here that it was used by the child-torture fetishists (the people who recommended it to me were not). I'm pretty sure blanket-training has been around for centuries before these people co-opted it. I was blanket-trained and, while my parents weren't quite ap/gd, they didn't beat or torture me.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *delicious*
brigianna, can you describe a situation where you would need your child to stay on a blanket?

i'm afraid i'm not quite understanding the purpose if your house is all babyproofed and safe and everything...

i am pretty sure i've read the whole thread, but if i missed where you already said this, i am really sorry. thanks.

If I were in the room with baby, baby was playing on the blanket on the floor, and I needed to leave the room for a brief minute, like to answer the phone or go to the bathroom, I told baby "please stay on the blanket." I never left them alone for more than a few minutes. I don't think they were in that much danger even if they "forgot" their training and left the blanket, which didn't happen. But they were safer on the blanket than roaming free. And when they were a bit older, maybe over 1, I would ask them to stay on the blanket briefly to keep them occupied while I was there in the room, but again, never for very long.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dragonfly*
It's still confinement. It's still physical restraint. It's just doing so without a tangible tether or barrier (though in your case, the blanket is a physical symbol of the barrier). It's so weird to me that you don't see that.









Yes, it is confinement, but it isn't captivity or physical restraints. To me there is a big difference. In the adult world, we as a society accept restraints that don't involve captivity all the time, like in the example I gave earlier of an office waiting room where you're told to "wait right here." There's no fence or pen making you wait there; you comply because you're asked and it's expected of you. You also trust that you aren't being held captive. In the adult world, most people only support physical captivity for people who are so dangerous to society that the rest of us need to be protected from them, or people who have done something so bad that most people think they need to be punished to set an example for others not to do the same thing, or in some cases where mainstream society thinks it knows what's best for us. So if you think about an office waiting room vs. a prison, it's true that they both have the effect of people being asked to stay in a particular place, but I certainly hope you see that there's still a big difference.

And no, I'm not saying that those of y'all who use pens and gates responsibly and not excessively are jailing your kids; it's just an analogy.

Quote:

_I respectfully disagree. It may not be *intended* as punishment, but it is likely *perceived* as punishment. You are exerting your will and imposing a consequence for behavior (baby chooses to leave blanket, the consequence - i.e., punishment - is being returned to the blanket)._
It's possible; I can't read my kids' minds, but I think if they thought they were being punished they would cry, fuss, and throw a fit. I also think they perceive a containment device as punishment. Maybe your kids would think of being put on a blanket as punishment but not being put in a pen; I don't know. But I don't think my kids felt punished by blanket-training.


----------



## delicious (Jun 16, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
If I were in the room with baby, baby was playing on the blanket on the floor, and I needed to leave the room for a brief minute, like to answer the phone or go to the bathroom, I told baby "please stay on the blanket." I never left them alone for more than a few minutes. I don't think they were in that much danger even if they "forgot" their training and left the blanket, which didn't happen. But they were safer on the blanket than roaming free. And when they were a bit older, maybe over 1, I would ask them to stay on the blanket briefly to keep them occupied while I was there in the room, but again, never for very long.

well. i guess that's where i differ from you. i see absolutely no need to do that with my kids, and never have. i've never used a playpen or anything, either. i have no problem running to grab the phone or pee or something while they play. 9 times out of 10, though, when they were crawing babies, they'd follow me, if not ask me to pick them up.

anyways, thanks for responding to my post.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bri276*
for the record, I was giving a "for instance" in fact, my baby doesn't mind being in the excersaucer for short times.

the difference is that the baby is thinking "aw crap, mom put me in this restrictive, uncomfortable thing I don't like again! I can't wait to get out and get back on the floor where I can move around freely or to be picked up where I'm held and can see what the other people are doing better! oh, here's mom, that wasn't so long...."
whereas on the blanket, baby is thinking
"huh. I'm learning to move my arms and legs and crawl! this is great! this is...wait, why did mom pick me up and move me back where I was? let me try that again! wait, she put me back again! why doesn't she want me to crawl?"

THAT is the difference. being restrained temporarily in safety device=irritating, frustrating-but (should be) temporary and transient between being held/free play time. being actively discouraged from learning how to crawl and move= confusing, perceived as punishment. you have to always look at it from baby's POV.

I don't think so, at least for my kids. I think when I put them back on the blanket they were confused, but after a few attempts figured out, "oh, okay, mama wants me to stay on the blanket. I can do that." I think with a saucer the thinking would be "why can't I get out of this thing? I can't move. Will I ever be free again?" That would be *my* thinking, and I'm considerably older than a baby. Now maybe your baby doesn't feel that way--I don't doubt that there are many babies who don't mind these devices, but mine aren't among them.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *georgia*
Is the blanket merely symbolic? Did you find with your children you could have used masking tape to stick down on the floor to form a box and say, "Stay inside the lines?" I can appreciate the trust aspect, but I'm concerned with the expectations of compliance.

Yes, it's exactly the same as using masking tape or chalk or ribbon or any of the other things people use to draw lines and ask people to stay in a specific place. I think that *most* people use some variation of asking kids to "stay right here" or "don't go anywhere" or "don't get into trouble," but I think these are too abstract for toddlers to understand. What does "stay right here" mean--where is "here"? Whereas with the blanket (or tape, etc) there is a visible concrete boundary that you're asking him not to cross, which is much easier to understand.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

In the adult world, we as a society accept restraints that don't involve captivity all the time, like in the example I gave earlier of an office waiting room where you're told to "wait right here." There's no fence or pen making you wait there; you comply because you're asked and it's expected of you.
Totally different imo. The difference being that if I decided I didn't feel like waiting or didn't have time or whatever...no one would come out and drag me back into the waiting room repeatedly until I realized trying to leave was futile and stayed because I knew if I tried to leave, I would be brought back again.

I mean, hey, your baby *may* have been thinking, mama wants me to stay here so I will --- but how do you know they weren't thinking.... geez, every time I attempt to communicate with my mother that I want off this thing (by crawling away) she puts me back, so what's the point?

I mean, babies eventually stop crying and fall asleep when they are forced to cry it out, are they thinking "gee, I guess my mom wants me to stay here and fall asleep so I will" or do you think they are thinking "no one is coming, im exhausted, why try anymore"...

I am guessing the latter.


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

Quote:

think that *most* people use some variation of asking kids to "stay right here" or "don't go anywhere" or "don't get into trouble," but I think these are too abstract for toddlers to understand.
Yes, we are in agreement that these examples are all too abstract to understand. It's just that I've never expected my children to "stay right here" or "not to go anywhere"...the "burden" of compliance would be upon them, whereas the the responsibility for their well-being and safety should be on me. Not on a blanket or a chalk line.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
Yes, it is confinement, but it isn't captivity or physical restraints. To me there is a big difference. In the adult world, we as a society accept restraints that don't involve captivity all the time, like in the example I gave earlier of an office waiting room where you're told to "wait right here." There's no fence or pen making you wait there; you comply because you're asked and it's expected of you.

You comply because you have a reason to. You're waiting for the doctor and you need to be present when your name is called or you'll miss the appointment. You choose to wait because it is a necessity in fulfilling your need to see the doctor. A child waiting on a blanket is acting contrary to his/her desire (to get off of the blanket) and for the arbitrary reason that mama has made it a rule.

Quote:

It's possible; I can't read my kids' minds, but I think if they thought they were being punished they would cry, fuss, and throw a fit. I also think they perceive a containment device as punishment. Maybe your kids would think of being put on a blanket as punishment but not being put in a pen; I don't know. But I don't think my kids felt punished by blanket-training.
I never actually put ds in a pen or behind gates, so I don't know. I also didn't ask him to stay put because I knew he wasn't ready for it. It's in his nature to want to be where I am (a fact I've relied on to keep him safe) and, when he was so young, not within his ability to heed those sorts of commands. Now, at 5, he can stay put if I really need him to (though such situations are rare because he's learning more about keeping himself safe all the time). It's now age appropriate to ask such a thing for a short time. I just can't agree that it's at all age appropriate to ask the same of a baby.


----------



## Mommy Piadosa (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:

I do think there's a significant difference between blanket-training and containment devices, but I don't know that I could explain it any better than I've already tried to do...
You've been very articulate and open about how this works in your family and I for one appreciate that.
While I completely UNDERSTAND your point of view- I disagree with it. In my opinion there is no difference between the blanket and any other containment device. (which btw I feel have their place- but not for the free spirit I'm raising now.) Many children have to be "trained" to stay in those devices "happily" too- they also may attempt to get out- or fuss and whine to communicate their desire to be out, then mamas sooth them and "train" them that these devices are an ok place to be. In the end both things are accomplishing the same thing... so although I understand what you are trying to say- we'll have to agree to disagree on whether staying on a blanket or in any device is the same thing.
I think that in this regard you may have been blessed with easier babies then most. I've never tried to teach my children to stay on a blanket- but I have tried exersaucers and the like. 1 took to it, 1 couldn't handle it due to her disability and the other- like I said he really is such a free spirit. So my hypothetical for you would be what if the infant did protest, cry and scream every time you put them back on the blanket?
Thank you for putting so much time and thoughts into your posts- I hope you aren't feeling attacked- it is a different parenting technique- I had never heard of it till people at my church started using Ezzo and Gothard (and being an in home interventionist- I was exposed to many many parenting techniques.)
Dana


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
Totally different imo. The difference being that if I decided I didn't feel like waiting or didn't have time or whatever...no one would come out and drag me back into the waiting room repeatedly until I realized trying to leave was futile and stayed because I knew if I tried to leave, I would be brought back again.

Okay, it's an imperfect analogy. But I think if you crossed the line labeled "authorized personnel only beyond this point" someone would be there saying, "excuse me, but you have to be authorized to be in here" or some such. My point was that almost all of us willingly accept symbolic restraints in our adult lives because we're asked to and it's expected of us. But most people, in their adult lives, at least in a free society, will never experience the misery and agony of physical captivity.

Quote:

_I mean, hey, your baby *may* have been thinking, mama wants me to stay here so I will --- but how do you know they weren't thinking.... geez, every time I attempt to communicate with my mother that I want off this thing (by crawling away) she puts me back, so what's the point?_
Because I think if they had been thinking that, they would have cried or fussed or most likely thrown a tantrum. It's possible that they accepted it with quiet resignation, but they accepted very few indignities with quiet resignation.

Quote:

_I mean, babies eventually stop crying and fall asleep when they are forced to cry it out, are they thinking "gee, I guess my mom wants me to stay here and fall asleep so I will" or do you think they are thinking "no one is coming, im exhausted, why try anymore"..._

_I am guessing the latter_.
I don't doubt you're right about ferberized babies, but my babies weren't crying when I was blanket-training them.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


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










The burden of their safety and well-being is still on me, but isn't part of healthy child-rearing gradually making them more and more responsible for themselves? So baby starts out being left in a bassinet alone, then on a blanket alone, then in a room alone, then roaming the house with an adult there, then staying home alone for short times, then home alone for longer times, and finally moving out into his own home. It isn't an overnight thing, but the child becomes more and more responsible for himself until he's an adult and completely responsible for himself. At least that's how I see it.


----------



## MamaPam (Oct 8, 2005)

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

Pam


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dragonfly*
You comply because you have a reason to. You're waiting for the doctor and you need to be present when your name is called or you'll miss the appointment. You choose to wait because it is a necessity in fulfilling your need to see the doctor. A child waiting on a blanket is acting contrary to his/her desire (to get off of the blanket) and for the arbitrary reason that mama has made it a rule.

But you abstain from charging the back room because you've been asked to wait and it's expected of you. Baby stays on the blanket because he's been asked to and it's expected of him. In both cases you are chosing to stay put because it's expected of you without the need for physical restraints.

Quote:

_I never actually put ds in a pen or behind gates, so I don't know. I also didn't ask him to stay put because I knew he wasn't ready for it. It's in his nature to want to be where I am (a fact I've relied on to keep him safe) and, when he was so young, not within his ability to heed those sorts of commands. Now, at 5, he can stay put if I really need him to (though such situations are rare because he's learning more about keeping himself safe all the time). It's now age appropriate to ask such a thing for a short time. I just can't agree that it's at all age appropriate to ask the same of a baby_.
But if the baby is capable of understanding and complies, how is it not age-appropriate? If I kept putting baby back on the blanket again and again and it showed no signs of working, I would assume that baby was too young to understand or had insufficient impulse control to choose to stay put, so I would give it up. But if baby understands and complies, isn't that evidence that it isn't age-inappropriate?


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Madre Piadosa*
You've been very articulate and open about how this works in your family and I for one appreciate that.
While I completely UNDERSTAND your point of view- I disagree with it. In my opinion there is no difference between the blanket and any other containment device. (which btw I feel have their place- but not for the free spirit I'm raising now.) Many children have to be "trained" to stay in those devices "happily" too- they also may attempt to get out- or fuss and whine to communicate their desire to be out, then mamas sooth them and "train" them that these devices are an ok place to be. In the end both things are accomplishing the same thing... so although I understand what you are trying to say- we'll have to agree to disagree on whether staying on a blanket or in any device is the same thing.

Okay, I understand your point, and they are similar in that they are both attempts to keep baby in one safe place. And if you believe in letting babies roam free they're probably equally distasteful.

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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









I agree that the Ezzo/Gothard type of training is evil.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


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

Pam

This is the same thing I did, but most people here seem to believe very firmly that it's wrong.


----------



## Jennisee (Nov 15, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
If I were in the room with baby, baby was playing on the blanket on the floor, and I needed to leave the room for a brief minute, like to answer the phone or go to the bathroom, I told baby "please stay on the blanket." I never left them alone for more than a few minutes. I don't think they were in that much danger even if they "forgot" their training and left the blanket, which didn't happen. *But they were safer on the blanket than roaming free.* And when they were a bit older, maybe over 1, I would ask them to stay on the blanket briefly to keep them occupied while I was there in the room, but again, never for very long.

(emphasis mine)

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

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


----------



## Victorian (Jan 2, 2003)

the difference between using a blanket and the excersaucer is that the excersaucer is WITH me. In view. In the physical area.

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

V.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
But you abstain from charging the back room because you've been asked to wait and it's expected of you. Baby stays on the blanket because he's been asked to and it's expected of him. In both cases you are chosing to stay put because it's expected of you without the need for physical restraints.

The difference is that I'm free to leave if I decide that I don't want to wait.

Quote:

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

Quote:

The burden of their safety and well-being is still on me, but isn't part of healthy child-rearing gradually making them more and more responsible for themselves? So baby starts out being left in a bassinet alone, then on a blanket alone, then in a room alone, then roaming the house with an adult there, then staying home alone for short times, then home alone for longer times, and finally moving out into his own home. It isn't an overnight thing, but the child becomes more and more responsible for himself until he's an adult and completely responsible for himself. At least that's how I see it.
See, this doesn't seem sequential to me.







Probably because I don't believe babies should ever be left alone so it feels to me as though you begin at the extreme, regress to the beginning, and move again along the continuum. If they were meant to be left alone, they'd be equipped with the ability to reason and rationalize and there would be little need for parents. If I were making your list, it would look like this: baby stays in mama's arms (or sling), roams house (and other places) with adult there, stays in home while parent is outside for short times, stays home alone for short time, stays home alone for longer time, flies the coop.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jennisee*
(emphasis mine)

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

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

Sorry, I missed your first post. My house is babyproofed in the way that you mention except for the gates. There are no exposed outlets, chemicals, sharp objects, etc. So baby wouldn't be in danger from any of those things. The main issue was the oral thing. My babies put *everything* in their mouths. When I was right there I could try to teach them, distract them, redirect them to things they could chew, take things away, etc. But if I was away even for a minute I knew that anything they got their hands on would go in their mouths. Now our bedroom was completely stripped of all stuff, so I could leave them briefly unattended in there, but I don't think I could completely strip the entire downstairs of all stuff. There was also the stairs. They did learn how to climb the stairs safely, but there was a period before they learned when the stairs were a danger to them. Those were the only specific things, but also just the hazards of life--babyproofing reduces risk; it doesn't eliminate it. So even though they weren't in very much danger roaming free, they were safer on the blanket.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Victorian*
the difference between using a blanket and the excersaucer is that the excersaucer is WITH me. In view. In the physical area.

Okay, it seems like that works for you. But the saucer is not an option for me.

Quote:

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

_V._
Not exactly the same thing, and the kids probably didn't understand *why* I wanted them to stay on the blanket, but they understood that I did and they complied. Of course a person can choose not to comply with a request even if he understands it, but I don't see how he can comply without understanding (understanding the request, I mean, not necessarily why).


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dragonfly*
The difference is that I'm free to leave if I decide that I don't want to wait.

Right, and a lot of the time the babies were free to come with me if they didn't want to stay on the blanket. And after I stopped training them they were free to disobey my request and roam free while I was gone, but they chose not to, just as you choose to wait in the office. And this is still different from physical captivity.

Quote:

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

Quote:

_See, this doesn't seem sequential to me.







Probably because I don't believe babies should ever be left alone so it feels to me as though you begin at the extreme, regress to the beginning, and move again along the continuum. If they were meant to be left alone, they'd be equipped with the ability to reason and rationalize and there would be little need for parents. If I were making your list, it would look like this: baby stays in mama's arms (or sling), roams house (and other places) with adult there, stays in home while parent is outside for short times, stays home alone for short time, stays home alone for longer time, flies the coop._
Of course babies aren't meant to be left alone for long periods of time, but they can be left alone for brief periods. Both of mine slept alone in a bassinet from birth so they were alone then, but of course I was right there in the room. Then gradually I let them sleep while I was in another room, then blanket-training, and now they both freely roam the house except for the younger one in the laundry room and certain select circumstances. But I agree that babies should mostly be carried or worn, and mine were. I was just listing the increasing amount of time and space they could be left alone.


----------



## Jennisee (Nov 15, 2004)

Quote:

Sorry, I missed your first post. My house is babyproofed in the way that you mention except for the gates. There are no exposed outlets, chemicals, sharp objects, etc. So baby wouldn't be in danger from any of those things. The main issue was the oral thing. My babies put *everything* in their mouths. When I was right there I could try to teach them, distract them, redirect them to things they could chew, take things away, etc. But if I was away even for a minute I knew that anything they got their hands on would go in their mouths. Now our bedroom was completely stripped of all stuff, so I could leave them briefly unattended in there, but I don't think I could completely strip the entire downstairs of all stuff. There was also the stairs. They did learn how to climb the stairs safely, but there was a period before they learned when the stairs were a danger to them. Those were the only specific things, but also just the hazards of life--babyproofing reduces risk; it doesn't eliminate it. So even though they weren't in very much danger roaming free, they were safer on the blanket.
I am truly trying to understand, but I still don't get it. What things is the baby putting in his/her mouth that you object to? If your home is "babyproofed," there is nothing dangerous out for the baby to chew on, right? I am looking around my living room, and I see nothing that I would object to my daughter putting in her mouth. Can you give some specific examples and explain why you are unable or unwilling to simply put these things away? I'm also wondering what these "hazards of life" are? And what do you mean by a "stripped down" bedroom, and why are you unable or unwilling to repeat that state elsewhere in the house? And can you explain why you are unwilling to gate even the stairs? I swear that I am not trying to be obtuse, but I really am puzzled as to what these dangers are that are so great that you are willing to blanket train a child. As others have said, there seem to be so many easier--and more attached--alternatives. If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that your home is well babyproofed and there are miniscule risks, yet you still think the negatives of training a baby to a blanket are outweighed by the benefits of avoiding these mimiscule risks. If this is correct, then I guess I'm dumbfounded and don't really know what else to say.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jennisee*
I am truly trying to understand, but I still don't get it. What things is the baby putting in his/her mouth that you object to? If your home is "babyproofed," there is nothing dangerous out for the baby to chew on, right? I am looking around my living room, and I see nothing that I would object to my daughter putting in her mouth. Can you give some specific examples and explain why you are unable or unwilling to simply put these things away? I'm also wondering what these "hazards of life" are? And what do you mean by a "stripped down" bedroom, and why are you unable or unwilling to repeat that state elsewhere in the house? And can you explain why you are unwilling to gate even the stairs? I swear that I am not trying to be obtuse, but I really an puzzled as to what these dangers are that are so great that you are willing to blanket train a child. As others have said, there seem to be so many easier--and more attached--alternatives. If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that your home is well babyproofed and there are miniscule risks, yet you still think the negatives of training a baby to a blanket are outweighed by the benefits of avoiding these mimiscule risks. If this is correct, then I guess I'm dumbfounded.

We tried to keep small things they could choke on out of the way as much as possible, but of course that wasn't a guarantee. But when I say my kids chewed everything I mean *everything*--paper, toys, books, shoes, tapes, cloth, cotton balls, coasters, flashlights--you name it they tasted it. Our bedroom was completely stripped down to just our bed, baby's bassinet, two dressers with latched drawers, and the closet with the door closed and latched. That was it. It wouldn't have been possible to strip down the entire house that way, especially for the second one when we had to keep him away from all of dd's stuff in addition to our own. We did try to keep poisons and choking hazards out of the way, but I think that just as some of y'all have said you wouldn't rely on blanket-training, I didn't feel like I could rely just on babyproofing. We made it as safe as we could, but I still supervised them all the time and when I couldn't, I needed them to be on the blanket.

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

Yes, I do think that the benefits of blanket-training outweigh the negatives, but I don't agree with y'all about what the negatives are. I don't agree that blanket-training is the same as physical captivity or that it produces learned helplessness or that it's punative or that it's ineffective or that it's harmful to attachment. As I have said, it isn't perfect. I don't like being separated from my children or restricting their freedom. So I was asking about alternatives. But absent a better alternative, I do think that, at least for my children, blanket-training was the least bad option.


----------



## mamajama (Oct 12, 2002)

From what I've gathered Brigianna, it sounds almost as if you've adopted the term "blanket training" for simply asking your kids to play on the blanket, and they happen to like it so they do.








I don't think that's what "blanket training" means.


----------



## mamajama (Oct 12, 2002)

also, be careful. It seems that one could derive a false sense of security from such a practice. You cannot depend on a baby to show the self restraint required to NOT move off the blanket to grab a shiny bead. So no matter how much they may enjoy the time they spend on the blanket (which is an interesting trait for sure) make sure that the area around them is safe, and their access to stairs etc. is thwarted somehow.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamajama*
From what I've gathered Brigianna, it sounds almost as if you've adopted the term "blanket training" for simply asking your kids to play on the blanket, and they happen to like it so they do.








I don't think that's what "blanket training" means.

As I understand it "blanket-training" means training or teaching a child to stay on a blanket when asked. I didn't even know about the other kind of blanket-training until I read about it here.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamajama*
also, be careful. It seems that one could derive a false sense of security from such a practice. You cannot depend on a baby to show the self restraint required to NOT move off the blanket to grab a shiny bead. So no matter how much they may enjoy the time they spend on the blanket (which is an interesting trait for sure) make sure that the area around them is safe, and their access to stairs etc. is thwarted somehow.

I do try to keep the area around them safe, but the blanket-training did work well for us. I'm not sure about the stairs.


----------



## Viola (Feb 1, 2002)

I do a combination of 1 and 4. Probably more 4 than 1.


----------



## mamajama (Oct 12, 2002)

so I'm not really getting it. You're looking for alternatives for something you no longer do anyway?


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamajama*
so I'm not really getting it. You're looking for alternatives for something you no longer do anyway?

For the next one







. My 2 have outgrown the blanket-training stage; they're 6 and 3.


----------



## mamajama (Oct 12, 2002)

OK thanks I do feel a bit confused by this thread.









So you won't do gates. But there are ways to sort of seal off a room. I have a couch that's really easy to move. I would slide it over to block the living-room entrance-way sometimes. That was great because then the baby has the run of the room. The bookshelf was attached to the wall with brackets. And on the lower shelves were all sorts of interesting things. It helps to keep the supply of toys fresh by rotating them frequently. That way the baby never knows what surprise is in store.








I always found with my kids, that if they're interested in things, even at a few months old, they will be occupied for quite some time.
Clearing out the low cupboards in the kitchen and filling them with only things baby can play with/chew on helps while cooking.

I honestly do not see the need for confining baby to a small space. It seems counter to their nature. Your sig. really says it all.








I'm a single mom, and raised two boys past babyhood (and thankfully we're all still in one peice







). It requires so much vigillence regardless of the circumstances. I mean, it's not like you can go soak in a bubblebath because your baby will stay put on a blanket right? (if the answer is "yes" I will have to rethink this whole AP thing







).

Is there an underlying lesson you are attemtping to teach an infant by using this technique? Or is it simply a matter of safety?


----------



## Jennisee (Nov 15, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
We tried to keep small things they could choke on out of the way as much as possible, but of course that wasn't a guarantee. But when I say my kids chewed everything I mean *everything*--paper, toys, books, shoes, tapes, cloth, cotton balls, coasters, flashlights--you name it they tasted it. Our bedroom was completely stripped down to just our bed, baby's bassinet, two dressers with latched drawers, and the closet with the door closed and latched. That was it. It wouldn't have been possible to strip down the entire house that way, especially for the second one when we had to keep him away from all of dd's stuff in addition to our own. We did try to keep poisons and choking hazards out of the way, but I think that just as some of y'all have said you wouldn't rely on blanket-training, I didn't feel like I could rely just on babyproofing. We made it as safe as we could, but I still supervised them all the time and when I couldn't, I needed them to be on the blanket.

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

Yes, I do think that the benefits of blanket-training outweigh the negatives, but I don't agree with y'all about what the negatives are. I don't agree that blanket-training is the same as physical captivity or that it produces learned helplessness or that it's punative or that it's ineffective or that it's harmful to attachment. As I have said, it isn't perfect. I don't like being separated from my children or restricting their freedom. So I was asking about alternatives. But absent a better alternative, I do think that, at least for my children, blanket-training was the least bad option.

I think we are just going to go around in circles here. My next point would be that paper, age-inappropiate toys and books, shoes, tapes, cloth, cotton balls, coasters, and flashlights should be kept up high or behind latched doors, but you would inevitably come up with yet another risk that you didn't mention before. I will simply maintain that if you think there is a potential risk, a risk great enough to train your baby to stay on a blanket, then you have no business whatsoever leaving a mobile baby unattended in that room. None whatsoever. It is simply too dangerous. I apologize for what appears like useless debate and fanning the flames of drama. That is not my style of posting. I only posted b/c I believed you were truly seeking alternatives to blanket training. Many people have posted great alternatives, but you continue to dismiss every last one of them, and I should have realized that before I posted.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamajama*
OK thanks I do feel a bit confused by this thread.









I'm getting confused by it and it's my thread about my life!

Quote:

_So you won't do gates. But there are ways to sort of seal off a room. I have a couch that's really easy to move. I would slide it over to block the living-room entrance-way sometimes. That was great because then the baby has the run of the room. The bookshelf was attached to the wall with brackets. And on the lower shelves were all sorts of interesting things. It helps to keep the supply of toys fresh by rotating them frequently. That way the baby never knows what surprise is in store.







_
_I always found with my kids, that if they're interested in things, even at a few months old, they will be occupied for quite some time_.
Those are good ideas. I did rotate the toys and they were pretty well occupied. I kept the couch against the wall so that if they climbed onto the couch they would fall off the short part (the part you sit on) and not the back part (does that make sense?). I would be afraid if I put the couch against the stairs baby would climb onto the couch and fall off the back onto the stairs.

Quote:

_Clearing out the low cupboards in the kitchen and filling them with only things baby can play with/chew on helps while cooking._
I actually gave up cooking when there wasn't another adult there while they were this age. Sometimes I could wear them in the kitchen and that worked, but once they started wanting to be on the floor it was too much of a hassle to watch them, step over them, and cook at the same time. So I only cooked when dh or someone else could engage them in the living room.

Quote:

_I honestly do not see the need for confining baby to a small space. It seems counter to their nature. Your sig. really says it all.







_
_I'm a single mom, and raised two boys past babyhood (and thankfully we're all still in one peice







). It requires so much vigillence regardless of the circumstances. I mean, it's not like you can go soak in a bubblebath because your baby will stay put on a blanket right? (if the answer is "yes" I will have to rethink this whole AP thing







)_.
Right, I would never leave them on the blanket while I took a bubble bath. Only for a few short minutes at a time. They really did have plenty of time to crawl and explore. And it was a pretty big blanket--bigger than most playpens.

Quote:

_Is there an underlying lesson you are attemtping to teach an infant by using this technique? Or is it simply a matter of safety?_
It's safety, but one of the reasons I think it's a better alternative to pens/gates, besides theirs and my aversion to them, is that there is learning involved and it's based on a relationship of trust. With a pen he learns that freedom is fleeting, but with blanket-training he learns self-control, following directions, and object permanance. I still freely admit that it's not ideal, because it does restrict their freedom, but so would any alternatives.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jennisee*
I think we are just going to go around in circles here. My next point would be that paper, age-inappropiate toys and books, shoes, tapes, cloth, cotton balls, coasters, and flashlights should be kept up high or behind latched doors, but you would inevitably come up with yet another risk that you didn't mention before. I will simply maintain that if you think there is a potential risk, a risk great enough to train your baby to stay on a blanket, then you have no business whatsoever leaving a mobile baby unattended in that room. None whatsoever. It is simply too dangerous. I apologize for what appears like useless debate and fanning the flames of drama. That is not my style of posting. I only posted b/c I believed you were truly seeking alternatives to blanket training. Many people have posted great alternatives, but you continue to dismiss every last one of them, and I should have realized that before I posted.










I am looking for alternatives. But how can you eliminate any potential risk? This isn't making sense to me. Granted I'm pretty sleep deprived. But yes even if I put those specific things up there would be other things. That was my point--my babies chewed *everything.*

I am not trying to dismiss people's suggestions. I am not trying to be difficult. But I was asking what I thought were very specific questions. Blanket-training worked for us. I don't believe it's wrong. But since so many people thought it was so wrong, I wanted to know how I could keep a baby safe on the floor for a few minutes when I wasn't right there without the use of pens, gates, or containment devices. But most of the responses were that I shouldn't leave them for even a minute (which I established was not a realistic option) or that I was wrong to be against pens/gates (which I mentioned in the beginning was a non-negotiable) or that blanket-training couldn't possibly work (which it did) or that I must really be punishing them (which I wasn't). So I wasn't trying to dismiss people's suggestions, it just seemed like most people weren't addressing my concerns, just trying to convince me how evil blanket-training is. And I'm not convinced.


----------



## mamajama (Oct 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
I
I still freely admit that it's not ideal, because it does restrict their freedom, but so would any alternatives.

Well of course, because by definition we are discussing the best ways to limit a baby's freedom.

See the reasons you described sound alot like discipline. I (and probably many) parents here do not feel that discipline should be introduced until much later in a baby's development.

If it's solely about safety, then there are literally hundreds of things you can do to make your home safe for the short period of time that your baby is so small.
But it's about more than that. It's about control and discipline. I think you will be hard pressed to find much support for that here. It's just that the approach does not really jive with the philosophies of many Attachement Parents. The first year of a baby's life is so wonderful for me personally because it's absolutely discipline-free. Yay!! You get to just fill them with milk and love a snuggles without worrying about their morals, self-control etc etc. There's PLENTY of time for that later.







The basis for the Attachment philosophy is that it actually instills a calm and feeling of trust and safety in the child towards his/her caregiver which will allow the child to explore the world in peace--knowing the caregiver is there as for support and safety. By attemtping to enforce a code of behaviour as strict as 'blanket-training' can potentially be, you can actually _undermine_ a childs trust in his own ability to make judgements, and also his trust in the safety of the environment his parents have created for him.

If what you're saying in this thread is completely accurate-- you allow the child the freedom to leave the blanket and roam or follow you, you mostly bring the child with you, you have your house baby-proofed, you simply ask the child to stay on the blanket and without fuss the child does so and is happy to--than I don't see why you need an alternative.


----------



## mamajama (Oct 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
I am looking for alternatives. But how can you eliminate any potential risk?

You can't. Nobody can. Having kids is terrifying.

Quote:

I am not trying to dismiss people's suggestions. I am not trying to be difficult. But I was asking what I thought were very specific questions.
I think you can get a lot of tips without mentioning the "blanket training" angle. You can start threads addressing your specific concerns. I also suggest seeking some type of counselling to address the gate/playpen phobia you're experienceing. That must be really debillitating sometimes and you deserve to be freed of what must be a difficult burden. It would also really increase your options







. Gates rock.


----------



## mollyeilis (Mar 6, 2004)

At the end of this post, I'll share with you what our baby-roaming days were like. But first I have to address some things that are bugging me or confusing me or weirding me out. It's going to *feel* like I'm trying to catch you or picking on you, but I'm not. I open a window to reply while reading and I pop things into that window that I want to reply to later. I'm not good at coming up with something cohesive, and generally do better simply replying to, or stating my thoughts about, things that were stated.

Quote:

I will not have captivity devices in my home. It is just not an option. I am not saying this to be hostile or difficult. I do have my reasons. Even if they were the most perfect parenting devices in the world, I would not be able to tolerate having them in my home or even looking at them.

Having a pen or gate or crib in my house where I could see it would be harmful to my mental health, no matter how sparingly I used it.

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

OK, I'm not the best at saying things in nice ways, so please forgive if this comes out horribly wrong. It sounds like there are some serious, deep-seated things going on in your background, causing you to have such a HUGE reaction to something as benign as a gate. I wonder if *maybe* you might want to look into getting your reaction to a less huge level, just for your sake and perhaps so you don't wind up with kids who push your every single button by taking on lifestyles where they WANT to be behind gates, inside boxes, and so on? (cannot figure out what that lifestyle would be...hmm LOL)

Also, I would imagine that your stairs have banisters which might have vertical bars, and I wonder if you have any sort of balcony from second to first floor...if so, if I saw it, I might wonder HOW that looked much different from a gate to you.

Quote:

I would appreciate it if y'all would give me some specific suggestions rather than just "supervise them" or "there's nothing wrong with pens" or something like that.
People have been.

Quote:

I don't know what some of you want me to admit--that I really did beat my children into submission and I'm just denying it now? I didn't.
I don't think that's what is behind people's posts. I think we're just confused b/c you aren't seeing what many of us are seeing.

Quote:

But if the baby is capable of understanding and complies, how is it not age-appropriate? If I kept putting baby back on the blanket again and again and it showed no signs of working, I would assume that baby was too young to understand or had insufficient impulse control to choose to stay put, so I would give it up. But if baby understands and complies, isn't that evidence that it isn't age-inappropriate?
You are seeing "this worked, that means it's age appropriate and OK!"
I am seeing this as "that lady had some EASY kids, let me tell you." I am also seeing it as "she is NOT recognizing that she's conditioning the kids, that it's the shock collar with the shock being picked up and put back, and that even with a shock collar, many dogs end up just wearing the collar with no batteries in it, no shocks to be had, simply b/c they were trained in their early days."

Quote:

most people here seem to believe very firmly that it's wrong.
If that's what you think, you're reading different replies from me, and I've read all of them (in THIS thread). People seem to be trying to show you that the blanket stuff is just as rotten as you see playpens and gates to be.

Quote:

The main issue was the oral thing. My babies put *everything* in their mouths.

when I say my kids chewed everything I mean *everything*--paper, toys, books, shoes, tapes, cloth, cotton balls, coasters, flashlights--you name it they tasted it.
I really really REALLY do NOT understand what the problem is with this. OK, well, the cotton balls, yes. Get the cotton balls out of the way, those ARE chokable, or at least suffocatable.

But I don't see the problem. The things we left out were either his things or things we didn't feel would be a problem, and things we didn't mind getting slobbered on.

*********
OK, here's what our early days were like. The later days changed and you'd have issues with what we have blocking off the kitty's room and our kitchen, but leaving kitty in a closed-door room was causing HER some pretty serious mental issues, and DS learned to open the stupid latches on the cabinets in the kitchen.







:

Early days. All furniture bolted to the wall. Couch up against wall. As DS grew taller and was able to move more, more things got moved up or were put elsewhere (behind closed doors...you should SEE our back room, it's just a disaster with piles of things hastily placed there once we realized DS could reach them).

There are books galore where he can reach them. Hmm. That's about it.







He has always had two shelving units reserved for his stuff.

When we wanted him to not go somewhere, we would put my scrapbooking boxes in the way. They were heavy enough to stay semi-put when he leaned on them, but light enough for me to move around easily.

Problem with those boxes is that he learned to pull up on them, and therefore learned to pull up on something unstable, which DIRECTLY led to his Chinese acrobatic moves he now does with his little chairs...







He was pulling himself to stand on things I would have thought it impossible, before he could sit himself up without help.









His first xmas, when he was about 6 months old, we had the tree out, but surrounded it with the boxes I keep the ornaments in. They were mostly empty, but he didn't have the skills to move them in a meaningful enough manner so as to reach anything. Plus, I was in the room, and could redirect him.

Sometimes he wanted to look at his play mat. So I'd get it out and hang the little dangly things from it, and he would be happy as a clam, pulling those things down to put in his mouth (I thought one of those days he'd let go after pulllllling it so hard, and the whole mat would go reverse bungeeing up to the ceiling, but he's a strong dude and never let go accidentally). Once he discovered the joys of that play mat, I could actually leave the room! I could go pee, I could go into kitty's room to feed her or post on the computer (that was long before I moved the 'puter into the living room!) or stretch my weary back.









But I checked up on him often. OK, editing here b/c that sounds awful! I don't mean "oh I'd go post for hours but check on him every ten minutes." Rather, if I was doing something other than peeing, I'd just let him have his time that he was enjoying (when he was enjoying it), and not bug him by reappearing to play.

I wonder. Did you ever watch your kids when they didn't know you were watching? Because I watched my boy. And he WANTED to be on the play mat, he willingly and happily, without me EVER putting him *back* on it once he'd rolled off, and yet still, he'd move off it then move back, within a very short amount of time. If I hadn't been watching, I'd have thought he'd been on it the whole time. And I would have been sooooooo wrong.

Gotta tell ya. I'm the oldest of five, and we were all pretty nicely raised. There were some issues with our moms' and dad's marriages and some alcohol stuff, but all in all we were raised fairly gently. And I find the whole *trust the older kids to not mess with the younger kids* bit, well, laughable, really. Did you come from a large family? Don't you know what kids get up to when parents aren't looking? I was a really GOOD oldest kid, too, but I know I messed with my brother when our mom wasn't looking...









Oh, when DS was itty bitty and wouldn't let me out of his sight, I put him in his plushy Baby Papasan while I took a shower, and I sang to him the entire time. We just had the clear shower-liner so he could see me, or at least my outline. Besides the car seat, the papasan was the only bit of babygear we got. OK well there was a bath seat thing, but he screamed and screamed in it, so we abandoned it after trying two times in different circumstances (once in the kitchen sink, once in the bathtub hoping it was a air-from-window problem the first time). Other than that, it was the only gear we had.

******
Once he got older we expanded a bit. I think playpens are a bit silly, not the least b/c they are raised up off the ground and therefore have a weight limit. But we saw this interesting octagonal one that FIL insisted on buying us, with camping in mind, and it actually has a zippered opening on the side, and it sits on the ground rather than with the seating area up in the air.. We tried it a couple times, with the zippered opening open, and he was OK wiht it, but it ultimately turned into a really good toy-storage area.

But the gates that we have now, they work (however, they are giving his toes a good workout and physical conditioning b/c he's working on climbing them). Kitty had to be in an open room, and she will NOT be in the room with DS. She developed some issues and had a huge open wound for something like a year, that she would lick open every day. After two big doses of antibiotics, some herbal tincture from a holistic veterinarian, lots of washing with special soap to reduce itching and various other things, it finally took approx 4 months of a collar to prevent her from licking, to clear it up, yay! Yay at it clearing, not at the months. Anyway, I'm sure you can see that I dind't want DS to have open access to an open wound on any creature. And I didn't want him in her water or food or litter, partially b/c I don't want him eating that (barely want kitty to eat that nasty food!), but also b/c he would have upset her and she deserved to be protected from him.

As for the kitchen, well, the attempts at vaulting the gate are increasing, and we have to find those magnetic locks soon, so we can take the gate down. It worked for awhile...doesn't look like a prison, though, looks more like a concrete fence I saw at a Chinese gardens, with interesting shapes in it (DS would say "all the better for climbing up, my dear"...).


----------



## Jennisee (Nov 15, 2004)

Quote:

I wanted to know how I could keep a baby safe on the floor for a few minutes when I wasn't right there without the use of pens, gates, or containment devices.
Last post, and then I swear I'm going to bed.







IMO, if the room is as "babyproofed" as you say it is, _then the room itself is as safe as the blanket_, meaning that the blanket has no added benefit. There is no danger in the baby crawling to a shelf and chewing on a block. If the room IS dangerous enough to require the confining of a child to a blanket, then the child should not be left alone in that room. I really do not understand what part of this you are disagreeing with.

Ok, I'll try to be less theory-based and talk about my own experience. When my DD was learning to crawl at 10 months, we babyproofed the living room first and then the rest of the downstairs. I would sometimes leave her in the living room while I quickly did something elsewhere downstairs--get a drink of water in the kitchen, hit the start button on the washer, grab the cordless phone I'd left in the bathroom. I was always within earshot of my daughter and could be back in the living room in under five seconds. (From your description, this sounds about like your situation as well?) But because I feel that I have removed all imminent dangers from the living room, I did not care if she crawled to the bookshelf and chewed on a toy, crawled to the sliding glass door to look out, crawled to the couch to pull up, because there were no exposed outlets, no choking hazards, no sharp edges, no valuables that could be destroyed. (Yes, I could come up with some very far-fetched risks b/c that is just life--a clock falling off the wall, a lamp short-circuiting and shooting out sparks, a neighborhood kid hitting a baseball through the window--but I do not believe that there are any imminent risks.) Again, I am have been trying to understand why you are not comfortable with this, and I haven't been able to wrap my mind around it. I don't think what you are doing (as you describe it) is "evil," but I do see an alternative b/c I have used that alternative myself.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamajama*
Well of course, because by definition we are discussing the best ways to limit a baby's freedom.

Thank you so much for getting my point on that.







Really.

Quote:

_See the reasons you described sound alot like discipline. I (and probably many) parents here do not feel that discipline should be introduced until much later in a baby's development._

_If it's solely about safety, then there are literally hundreds of things you can do to make your home safe for the short period of time that your baby is so small._
_But it's about more than that. It's about control and discipline. I think you will be hard pressed to find much support for that here. It's just that the approach does not really jive with the philosophies of many Attachement Parents. The first year of a baby's life is so wonderful for me personally because it's absolutely discipline-free. Yay!! You get to just fill them with milk and love a snuggles without worrying about their morals, self-control etc etc. There's PLENTY of time for that later.







The basis for the Attachment philosophy is that it actually instills a calm and feeling of trust and safety in the child towards his/her caregiver which will allow the child to explore the world in peace--knowing the caregiver is there as for support and safety. By attemtping to enforce a code of behaviour as strict as 'blanket-training' can potentially be, you can actually undermine a childs trust in his own ability to make judgements, and also his trust in the safety of the environment his parents have created for him_.
Well, I don't agree that ap means not practicing discipline when they're little. Discipline means learning, and I believe that babies learn from birth. They learn about their environment and about people and about nature. They learn that when you drop things, they fall, and when you bang things together, it makes noise. They learn that when they cry mama will pick them up, and when they're hungry mama will feed them. I don't think you can *stop* a baby from learning. So I don't think that there's an age when discipline starts, because it's a lifelong process.

But discipline isn't the same as control. I'm not trying to control my kids except in the bare minimum way needed to keep them safe. I believe in non-coerciveness, but I don't think this is a realistic option for babies, as you pointed out, we have to limit their freedom, and the only issue is the most respectful way to do so. I didn't blanket-train my kids to control them.

Quote:

_If what you're saying in this thread is completely accurate-- you allow the child the freedom to leave the blanket and roam or follow you, you mostly bring the child with you, you have your house baby-proofed, you simply ask the child to stay on the blanket and without fuss the child does so and is happy to--than I don't see why you need an alternative_
.

I didn't think I did need one, but the people on the other thread were so emphatic that blanket-training is wrong that I wanted to see what the suggested alternatives were. And I am keeping an open mind. One of the things that this thread has made me think about is that maybe I have an exaggerated sense of the risk of a free-roaming baby in a babyproofed room for a brief time. I had always assumed that babyproofing was not sufficient, but I'm reconsidering that.


----------



## mamajama (Oct 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
And I am keeping an open mind. One of the things that this thread has made me think about is that maybe I have an exaggerated sense of the risk of a free-roaming baby in a babyproofed room for a brief time. I had always assumed that babyproofing was not sufficient, but I'm reconsidering that.

That's really cool.









Do you think you'd be willing to look at the issues you have with gates? What if one of your kids decides to grow up and be a professional gate-maker. Or just developes a fascination with gates and fences?














Stranger things have happened.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamajama*
You can't. Nobody can. Having kids is terrifying.

Yes, it is.

Quote:

_I think you can get a lot of tips without mentioning the "blanket training" angle. You can start threads addressing your specific concerns. I also suggest seeking some type of counselling to address the gate/playpen phobia you're experienceing. That must be really debillitating sometimes and you deserve to be freed of what must be a difficult burden. It would also really increase your options







. Gates rock_.
Well, I don't really believe in counselling (see earlier references to my skepticism about psychology). And it's not really about gates or playpens but symbols of captivity, and it's based on my own experiences. It's not that debillitating though. But I really do appreciate your concern.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mollyeilis*
At the end of this post, I'll share with you what our baby-roaming days were like. But first I have to address some things that are bugging me or confusing me or weirding me out. It's going to *feel* like I'm trying to catch you or picking on you, but I'm not. I open a window to reply while reading and I pop things into that window that I want to reply to later. I'm not good at coming up with something cohesive, and generally do better simply replying to, or stating my thoughts about, things that were stated.

OK, I'm not the best at saying things in nice ways, so please forgive if this comes out horribly wrong. It sounds like there are some serious, deep-seated things going on in your background, causing you to have such a HUGE reaction to something as benign as a gate. I wonder if *maybe* you might want to look into getting your reaction to a less huge level, just for your sake and perhaps so you don't wind up with kids who push your every single button by taking on lifestyles where they WANT to be behind gates, inside boxes, and so on? (cannot figure out what that lifestyle would be...hmm LOL)

Also, I would imagine that your stairs have banisters which might have vertical bars, and I wonder if you have any sort of balcony from second to first floor...if so, if I saw it, I might wonder HOW that looked much different from a gate to you.

Those things are not symbols of captivity. And I wouldn't mind if my kids choose lifestyles that involved gates or boxes; I just don't want to look at them.

eta: Also, my aversion to symbols of captivity and my aversion to keeping children in containment devices are two separate issues. I don't have any moral problem with gates per se, so it wouldn't bother me if my kids chose a gated lifestyle (although I'm also not sure what that would be).

Quote:

_People have been_.
And I've been responding as best I can.

Quote:

_I don't think that's what is behind people's posts. I think we're just confused b/c you aren't seeing what many of us are seeing_.
I've been trying to see what y'all are seeing, but honestly it's a bit difficult to rationally evaluate constructive criticism when you're being compared to child-torture fetishists and electrical dog collars.

Quote:

_You are seeing "this worked, that means it's age appropriate and OK!"_
_I am seeing this as "that lady had some EASY kids, let me tell you." I am also seeing it as "she is NOT recognizing that she's conditioning the kids, that it's the shock collar with the shock being picked up and put back, and that even with a shock collar, many dogs end up just wearing the collar with no batteries in it, no shocks to be had, simply b/c they were trained in their early days."_
Maybe my kids were easy, but I wasn't trying to say that blanket-training would work for everyone, just that it worked for us. I don't think I'm conditioning my kids, but teaching them. And I am still not getting how the method I used for blanket-training is any different from the method other people use for things like teaching a child not to run into the street, etc. And being shocked with a collar is a punishment intended to cause pain to the dog. My kids didn't mind being blanket-trained. And I still do not believe that the theory of animal conditioning applies to humans, at least in the same simplistic way.

Quote:

_If that's what you think, you're reading different replies from me, and I've read all of them (in THIS thread). People seem to be trying to show you that the blanket stuff is just as rotten as you see playpens and gates to be_.
Many people did suggest that they thought blanket-training was wrong, but, anyway, I understood the point about it being the same as pens and gates, and I tried to explain why I don't see it that way. I do understand why people think they're no different though.

Quote:

_I really really REALLY do NOT understand what the problem is with this. OK, well, the cotton balls, yes. Get the cotton balls out of the way, those ARE chokable, or at least suffocatable._

_But I don't see the problem. The things we left out were either his things or things we didn't feel would be a problem, and things we didn't mind getting slobbered on._
It wasn't so much the stuff getting slobbered on (well maybe for the books) as much as the germs issue. I tried to keep a relatively sanitary house, but that doesn't do much good when baby's chewing on shoes.

I'll respond to the rest of your post in a little bit.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mollyeilis*
OK, here's what our early days were like. The later days changed and you'd have issues with what we have blocking off the kitty's room and our kitchen, but leaving kitty in a closed-door room was causing HER some pretty serious mental issues, and DS learned to open the stupid latches on the cabinets in the kitchen.







:

Early days. All furniture bolted to the wall. Couch up against wall. As DS grew taller and was able to move more, more things got moved up or were put elsewhere (behind closed doors...you should SEE our back room, it's just a disaster with piles of things hastily placed there once we realized DS could reach them).

There are books galore where he can reach them. Hmm. That's about it.







He has always had two shelving units reserved for his stuff.

So far this doesn't sound different from my house.

Quote:

_When we wanted him to not go somewhere, we would put my scrapbooking boxes in the way. They were heavy enough to stay semi-put when he leaned on them, but light enough for me to move around easily._

_Problem with those boxes is that he learned to pull up on them, and therefore learned to pull up on something unstable, which DIRECTLY led to his Chinese acrobatic moves he now does with his little chairs...







He was pulling himself to stand on things I would have thought it impossible, before he could sit himself up without help.







_

_His first xmas, when he was about 6 months old, we had the tree out, but surrounded it with the boxes I keep the ornaments in. They were mostly empty, but he didn't have the skills to move them in a meaningful enough manner so as to reach anything. Plus, I was in the room, and could redirect him._
That sounds like a good idea.

Quote:

_Sometimes he wanted to look at his play mat. So I'd get it out and hang the little dangly things from it, and he would be happy as a clam, pulling those things down to put in his mouth (I thought one of those days he'd let go after pulllllling it so hard, and the whole mat would go reverse bungeeing up to the ceiling, but he's a strong dude and never let go accidentally). Once he discovered the joys of that play mat, I could actually leave the room! I could go pee, I could go into kitty's room to feed her or post on the computer (that was long before I moved the 'puter into the living room!) or stretch my weary back.







_

_But I checked up on him often. OK, editing here b/c that sounds awful! I don't mean "oh I'd go post for hours but check on him every ten minutes." Rather, if I was doing something other than peeing, I'd just let him have his time that he was enjoying (when he was enjoying it), and not bug him by reappearing to play_.
This confuses me a little--what kind of play mat are you talking about? Something that hangs from the ceiling and baby plays with it like a mobile?

Quote:

_I wonder. Did you ever watch your kids when they didn't know you were watching? Because I watched my boy. And he WANTED to be on the play mat, he willingly and happily, without me EVER putting him *back* on it once he'd rolled off, and yet still, he'd move off it then move back, within a very short amount of time. If I hadn't been watching, I'd have thought he'd been on it the whole time. And I would have been sooooooo wrong_.

_Gotta tell ya. I'm the oldest of five, and we were all pretty nicely raised. There were some issues with our moms' and dad's marriages and some alcohol stuff, but all in all we were raised fairly gently. And I find the whole *trust the older kids to not mess with the younger kids* bit, well, laughable, really. Did you come from a large family? Don't you know what kids get up to when parents aren't looking? I was a really GOOD oldest kid, too, but I know I messed with my brother when our mom wasn't looking...







_
Yeah I have a pretty good idea of what kids can do when there are no adults around... and in my kids' case, my presence doesn't even seem to stop them.







But that's why I never left them alone for any length of time in those early days. They actually get along pretty well now, but I occasionally have to intervene.

Quote:

_Oh, when DS was itty bitty and wouldn't let me out of his sight, I put him in his plushy Baby Papasan while I took a shower, and I sang to him the entire time. We just had the clear shower-liner so he could see me, or at least my outline. Besides the car seat, the papasan was the only bit of babygear we got. OK well there was a bath seat thing, but he screamed and screamed in it, so we abandoned it after trying two times in different circumstances (once in the kitchen sink, once in the bathtub hoping it was a air-from-window problem the first time). Other than that, it was the only gear we had_.
I put mine in the bassinet for this purpose, which I guess isn't that different.

Quote:

******
_Once he got older we expanded a bit. I think playpens are a bit silly, not the least b/c they are raised up off the ground and therefore have a weight limit. But we saw this interesting octagonal one that FIL insisted on buying us, with camping in mind, and it actually has a zippered opening on the side, and it sits on the ground rather than with the seating area up in the air.. We tried it a couple times, with the zippered opening open, and he was OK wiht it, but it ultimately turned into a really good toy-storage area._
I'm not really understanding this--did having the zipper open mean that he could get out?

Quote:

_But the gates that we have now, they work (however, they are giving his toes a good workout and physical conditioning b/c he's working on climbing them). Kitty had to be in an open room, and she will NOT be in the room with DS. She developed some issues and had a huge open wound for something like a year, that she would lick open every day. After two big doses of antibiotics, some herbal tincture from a holistic veterinarian, lots of washing with special soap to reduce itching and various other things, it finally took approx 4 months of a collar to prevent her from licking, to clear it up, yay! Yay at it clearing, not at the months. Anyway, I'm sure you can see that I dind't want DS to have open access to an open wound on any creature. And I didn't want him in her water or food or litter, partially b/c I don't want him eating that (barely want kitty to eat that nasty food!), but also b/c he would have upset her and she deserved to be protected from him._

_As for the kitchen, well, the attempts at vaulting the gate are increasing, and we have to find those magnetic locks soon, so we can take the gate down. It worked for awhile...doesn't look like a prison, though, looks more like a concrete fence I saw at a Chinese gardens, with interesting shapes in it (DS would say "all the better for climbing up, my dear"...)._
Poor kitty. Fortunately we haven't had to deal with the animal issue.

This was a clear explanation of how you dealt with various issues. Thanks.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jennisee*
Last post, and then I swear I'm going to bed.







IMO, if the room is as "babyproofed" as you say it is, _then the room itself is as safe as the blanket_, meaning that the blanket has no added benefit. There is no danger in the baby crawling to a shelf and chewing on a block. If the room IS dangerous enough to require the confining of a child to a blanket, then the child should not be left alone in that room. I really do not understand what part of this you are disagreeing with.

Ok, I'll try to be less theory-based and talk about my own experience. When my DD was learning to crawl at 10 months, we babyproofed the living room first and then the rest of the downstairs. I would sometimes leave her in the living room while I quickly did something elsewhere downstairs--get a drink of water in the kitchen, hit the start button on the washer, grab the cordless phone I'd left in the bathroom. I was always within earshot of my daughter and could be back in the living room in under five seconds. (From your description, this sounds about like your situation as well?) But because I feel that I have removed all imminent dangers from the living room, I did not care if she crawled to the bookshelf and chewed on a toy, crawled to the sliding glass door to look out, crawled to the couch to pull up, because there were no exposed outlets, no choking hazards, no sharp edges, no valuables that could be destroyed. (Yes, I could come up with some very far-fetched risks b/c that is just life--a clock falling off the wall, a lamp short-circuiting and shooting out sparks, a neighborhood kid hitting a baseball through the window--but I do not believe that there are any imminent risks.) Again, I am have been trying to understand why you are not comfortable with this, and I haven't been able to wrap my mind around it. I don't think what you are doing (as you describe it) is "evil," but I do see an alternative b/c I have used that alternative myself.

That makes sense. I wasn't really concerned about things like a clock falling off the wall, lamp shooting sparks, etc. because those are things that could just as easily happen to baby on the blanket or happen with me right there.

I think maybe we are talking past each other about babyproofing and the purpose of the blanket. It wasn't that there was all this dangerous stuff lying around that baby could get in to if not confined to the blanket. But I do still think the blanket is safer because it's a smaller area, the only things on the blanket are things baby can chew on, and it's a defined place. The downstairs of our house doesn't have the rooms separated by doors except for the laundry room and the bathroom, so letting baby roam free in the living room would also be letting baby roam free in the kitchen, the dining area, and the stairs. I'm not trying to be nit-picky, I'm really not. But it would seem to me that the blanket would have to be safer. Maybe not as much safer as I'd thought though.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamajama*
That's really cool.









Do you think you'd be willing to look at the issues you have with gates? What if one of your kids decides to grow up and be a professional gate-maker. Or just developes a fascination with gates and fences?














Stranger things have happened.

I'm thinking I must have really come across as obsessed with gates in this thread.







Interestingly enough I don't have a problem with fences. Our backyard has a fence. I wouldn't mind if one of my kids became a gate-maker as long as I didn't have to look at the gates.


----------



## AsYouWish (Apr 20, 2005)

And I just don't understand....how is a gate any different than a door? If you use a door to close off the laundry room to prevent your child from accessing a dangerous area, why not use a gate to block off the VERY dangerous stairs? If you refer to it as a door would it make a difference? If you get the kind of gate that swings open like a door and locks shut like a door, would that help? I just don't see how a gate is the same kind of containment device as a crib or playpen. You can make the safe, childproof zone as large as you want -- with room to roam and explore -- with the use of a gate. That option isn't available with a crib/playpen. So I don't see how both those items can fall under the same category of "containment device". Frankly, the only way I am going to get past your issue with gates is if you stop using the interior doors in your home. I don't mean to sound snarky, but I am just blown away by this whole thread. There seems to be a major disconnect going on, just some inconsistencies, logically speaking, that make me think you really want the mamas here to agree with your method more than you want some rational alternatives.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

I guess the only thing I have to add to this thread is that in the same way that your children didn't seem to mind staying on the blanket, my DS seemed to sincerely like his jumper, saucer, and even his pack n play for the short periods of time I put him in them (to pee, or cook dinner, etc.). Once he started walking, though, he did protest the pack n play (and had outgrown other things), so that went away, for good. I never forced him into it. I also didn't use them for hours on end, just when I needed to be hands free for a few minutes.

Sooo, this seems to be about:
-Your perception that any physical containment device as inherently evil, but an imaginary enforced boundary not being the same....
AND
-Your children seemed to not be bothered by staying on the blanket. But mine wasn't bothered by playing in his playpen for a couple minutes.

This kind of reminds me of another thread here regarding ""it's OK [NOT] to spank your child when they're in danger"......the one example is with them touching a stove. My response is if they get burned by a stove, yes, it will hurt, but it is an inanimate object that they have no emotional attachment or love for, so there is no resentment or sad feeligns towards it. BUT, if the parent hits them because they got too close to the stove, there is that confusion that a person who loves them is also hurting them....

I'm not saying that you're hurting your children, but to me any potential frustration of futility of a physical barrier that the child doesn't have any emotional attachment to is way different (and in my opinion, 'better' ) than an arbitrary, imaginary barrier imposed just by mom repeatedly placing them back on the blanket until they give up and stop trying to crawl away. To me, it's the same as the difference between DS beign frustrated that he can't reach something that is out of his reach physically, versus him being frustrated *with me* that he can reach something but I'm not letting him have it. That, to me, is what babyproofing is all about, so that you don't have to say 'no' a whole lot....I dunno, just my opinion.

Since you are totally against any kind of containment device, then I guess what you did with your kids was an OK option. I still wouldn't do it, for many of the reasons other posters outlined before me.

I also have to agree that even though you're saying you're open to other options, so far almost every option that has been presented to you hasn't been an option for you for one reason or another, based on the beliefs you've given on the thread...so at this point, I don't think there IS another option for you other than what you did. But, that also does not mean that I agree with what you're doing.


----------



## loraxc (Aug 14, 2003)

I haven't read the whole thread yet, so forgive me if this has been said, but...

The problem I have with this isn't the picking up baby and putting him back on the blanket--to me that's not much different than what went on when I trained my toddler to stay away from the road by picking her up a zillion times, saying "No street." It's that you are training a young baby to do something utterly unnatural--to stay put and not explore or follow mama--and that you are making that happen not through an external control, such as a gate or playpen, but by making the BABY responsible for not exploring. And then I feel like that is going to lead to a baby/toddler/child who tends to be passive or hesitant about exploring his/her world....because sometimes I'm rewarded for that and sometimes mama wants that, and might it not be better to just sit here?


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
And after I stopped training them they were free to disobey my request and roam free while I was gone, but they chose not to, just as you choose to wait in the office. And this is still different from physical captivity.

I get the feeling that we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I could go on pointing out distinctions all day but it wouldn't get us anywhere.









I will say that once you've taught your babies that trying to escape from the blanket is fruitless, I think it's disingenous to say staying on the blanket is an exercise of free will.

Quote:

I did teach them to ignore their impulses, as I hope we all try to teach them to ignore their impulses with things like putting things in their mouths, running into the street, etc.
You're teaching them to ignore their impulse to follow you which, IMO, is counter-productive to safety and attachment.

Quote:

Blanket-training is for before abstract reasoning.
I get that you believe this, yet you're also saying that they're staying on the blanket as an exercise of free will. Such an exercise would be contrary to instinct for babies, though, so the only reason this would be true is if they were actually reasoning their way into staying on the blanket (as opposed to just responding to conditioning).

Quote:

Both of mine slept alone in a bassinet from birth so they were alone then, but of course I was right there in the room.
I think it's a fallacy here to compare being alone in sleep and being alone while awake.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamajama*
The first year of a baby's life is so wonderful for me personally because it's absolutely discipline-free. Yay!! You get to just fill them with milk and love a snuggles without worrying about their morals, self-control etc etc.

You just made me want another baby.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
And I am keeping an open mind. One of the things that this thread has made me think about is that maybe I have an exaggerated sense of the risk of a free-roaming baby in a babyproofed room for a brief time. I had always assumed that babyproofing was not sufficient, but I'm reconsidering that.

That's wonderful. And it's one of the things that's been running through my mind during this thread - that many of the things that you seem extremely worried about always seemed like a non-issue to me (and, I imagine, many others). Or just par for the course, at least.

Motherhood is about constant vigilance, sometimes exhaustingly so. But it's also about further developing that internal sense with which we seem to be infused at birth of where our children are, both physically and emotionally. We nurture this connection by encouraging our children to honor their instincts to attach to us, to follow us, to share their feelings openly (whether it's crying as baby or verbalizing later on). I think what you're seeing in this thread is people who are bothered by the idea that you are singing the praises of a practice that encourages children not to honor this natural inclination.

This is something I (and others, I believe) are very sensitive to. Perhaps overly sensitive, at times.







Reality is, though, that society doesn't promote attachment on its own (discourages it, in fact), so it behooves us to do whatever we can to not thwart it in our own homes. What you see as a trust-building exercise, most of us see as a technique that forces children into self-reliance before they're ready for it; a technique that actually threatens the trust relationship by removing mom from baby's view during a time that he cannot understand that she's coming back (or how long it will be before she gets there) and during a time when he should be able to see her (or at least some primary caregiver) constantly.

This has been an interesting thread and I thank you for that. It's really made me think deeply about what attachment means to me and where it comes from.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

I'm coming in late to this monster of a thread. I have to say that, so far (I'm only on page 3) I have got to give major props to Brigianna for being so composed in her responses. That is amazing to me, that you are so calm and respectful, when there are many who are speaking out against what you did/do.
I also have to say that the thought of blanket training gives me the ickies. (lol I talk way to much to kids).
I guess it does say something that they don't get upset about it. I mean, I basically did the same thing to teach ds to not touch the trash can when he was younger- when he went to it, I picked him up and we played with something else, until he figured out that the trash can was not for him to touch. But I never asked him to stay away from me. He basically wanted to be glued to me until well after a year old.
I may have missed where you said this, but are they free to protest much of the time (in general daily life, not just with the blankets)? And you respect their dissent?
I do think that asking a child to stay on a blanket is similar in many ways to a play pen, or some such thing. But in addition to being confined, you are asking your young child to CHOOSE to stay (even if they don't want to). The choice is, essentially, between "making mom happy" and following natural impulses (to explore, to follow mom, etc). I think that is a LOT to ask of a baby. Unless they have the option of leaving the blanket if they desire to do so, then you are asking the baby to have the responsibility of overcoming his impulses and feelings of wanting to leave. While I see that you are obviously against "cages" I don't really see how the blanket is better, unless they are free to leave if they desire to. And if they are free to leave if they desire, and they do so from time to time and you go along with it, then I don't see anything wrong with what you do. If they want to leave, and you change your plans and take them with you, or stop what you're doing to come back to them when they protest, then I don't really see what's so wrong.
If you ignore their protests, or they NEVER protest (which would say to me that they don't feel they CAN), then it seems like a cage, just not a physical one.

I guess here it was never really a thought. He was with me almost all the time. If I left the room, he generally wanted to be with me. If he wanted to stay, I left him if it was just a few seconds. My house is babyproofed as far as stuff that could hurt him, and there's not really anything that he can't play with safely. I guess climbing on the bookcase, but he has tons of suff to climb on- he's never attempted the bookcase. He never was one to put stuff in his mouth, but we still kept small objects off the floor.
It wasn't like I was watching him 100% of the time and nothing else- if he was in the room with me, I could focus on something else, and still see him out the corner of my eye. If he wanders to another room now (he's 20 mos), I let him, and kinda sneak peeks occasionally.
Honestly, its never really occured to me to NOT let him play in another room if he chose to. He pretty much knows the stuff that's fine to play with, and what to be careful with (like our cd's).
Now, if I go to the bathroom, and the door will be closed, I make him come with me. If he doesn't want to, I suggest bringing a toy or book, and he's cool with that.

One thing I don't really get is teaching them to be responsible for their safety as babies, because you won't always be there to be responsible for it. Kids learn responsibility on their own time- its not like its now or never.


----------



## mollyeilis (Mar 6, 2004)

Quote:

And I've been responding as best I can.
You kept saying things that seemed to indicate you weren't recognizing that people were giving you options...

Quote:

It wasn't so much the stuff getting slobbered on (well maybe for the books) as much as the germs issue. I tried to keep a relatively sanitary house, but that doesn't do much good when baby's chewing on shoes.
I figure most things we have in the house are pretty clean. If they aren't, it's old germs, either dead or weak. Either way, I don't worry much about that. I worry about shopping cart handles, but not what's in our house.









We have a pile of shoes (which *are* dirty) at the door (DH is half Korean and was raised with shoes off in the home), and when DS would go for the shoes, we'd just take the shoes away. Taking shoes away from baby vs taking/keeping baby away from shoes...

Quote:

This confuses me a little--what kind of play mat are you talking about? Something that hangs from the ceiling and baby plays with it like a mobile?
Here he is on it at 5ish months. Mat below, arcing things over top, things to hang dangling down. Mat.

Quote:

I put mine in the bassinet for this purpose, which I guess isn't that different.
Well, mine was very portable and went into the bathroom with me (actually it pretty much stayed in the bathroom). I don't know much about bassinettes or their portability.

Quote:

I'm not really understanding this--did having the zipper open mean that he could get out?
Absolutely! I tried it once with the zipper closed and he did NOT like that, so we always showed him that there was a way out if he liked. It usually took him a few minutes to really get that he could get out (figuring out his limbs and such), and I could do what I needed to do (the reason I'd put him in there to begin with; remember, this is LATER, once he was easily standing and walking and such).

Wanted to say that although some allow their kids absolutely free access to the house, we do NOT. We have doors shut, places where he doesn't get to go*, and things he's not allowed to do. But we try to focus on what he CAN do. He's got the entire hallway to run up and down! Ignore the 2 closed closets, one closed room, and the gate into kitty's room, and just look at the room to run! He's got the entire living room and the entry to the kitchen/laundry area, but not the kitchen proper (a very small space compared to what he has). We've rearranged our furniture three times since he arrived, to maximize the space he's got so he can try to forget where he doesn't get to go.

*This is going to change soon, as he can reach the knobs better and get a grip to turn them. sigh. Everything has been babyproofed in steps, and changed around as his interests and abilities change. That will also be very different once there are more babies around, though we are actually hoping against hope for a less curious, physically able, wild kid in the future...yeah, we can HOPE at least.







Anyway, the door to the room with the piles of stuff will at some point not be as impossible for him to get in as it is now...

We've also been lucky in that the doors in our apartment have rather high doorknobs. When he goes to other peoples' houses, he has different access b/c they have different doors.


----------



## EmmaJean (Sep 26, 2002)

So I haven't read the entire thread, but it seems that Brigianna is being very reasonable! So are you all saying you've never put your child down on the floor w/ a few toys and said "Hi, Baby! Play w/ these cool toys for a second while I go pee." And then if they wander off after 1 second, put them back in the spot, make it interesting, rattle the rattle, give a new toy, give a kiss, and leave for another second? This seems like very NORMAL mother-baby interaction. Of course, if the baby is crying or protesting then to pick them up and try something else. I had to do so many things w/ both of my kids b/c neither of them liked being alone.

I am a formerly ezzofied mama, and we tried to do playpen time w/ James, and he hated it! He hated any gates or bounderies. But sometimes they were necessary for his safety and my sanity. Like the gate to our tiny kitchen--not a safe place w/ a klutzy mama! And we had to position our living room furniture in a way that he could play safely in there and not get out to roam the house free.

But I don't understand how you can have NO babygates on the stairs. That just blows my mind. I trip and fall down the stairs almost DAILY (remember, I'm a clutz!), If my 1 yo did the same, it could be life-threatening. Someone mentioned this earlier, and I just had to chime in...

And I know for a fact that w/ both of my kids on rare occasions I had to put them in the crib/swing/etc while they wailed for a _minute_ b/c I HAD to do such and such. I don't think that's throwing my AP philosophy down the toilet. I think it's just not ALWAYS going to work in EVERY situation to hold your baby/toddler/child ALL the time. There will be _brief moments_ when it is not feesable or safe. Also coming in to play is mom being stressed out, the situation being urgent, and not always thinking clearly. So putting in the crib or whatever may not have been the BEST choice, but it was the best I could do at the time.

And the other thing I have to say is that some children are more accepting of limits at a young age than others. My sister's first son amazed me w/ how accepting of certain limits he was. Every baby is different.

That's my rambling. To sum up, I think this is all making a mountain out of a mole hill. I think her just using "blanket training" as the term is what sets you off. What she's talking about isn't shocking......


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

Yes, I wanted to thank everyone, too, for remaining respectful. If there was namecalling or blatant judgement, think of the opportunity lost to learn about others' differing points of view. Thank you for helping make this forum a more positive place to examine our beliefs and practices


----------



## mollyeilis (Mar 6, 2004)

*EmmaJean*, no one's saying they never put baby down.







I know I did! And I may have even flirted with the idea that Eamon should stay where I put him, like my friends' babies all seemed to do. But he quickly showed me that I was being ridiculous, and so the relative babyproofing began in earnest (I don't keep *everything* from him, just the stuff that might hurt him and/or the things I don't want destroyed).

Oh dear, you just reminded me of something! Right at the shelf where I'm standing (I have the laptop on a shelf and I stand to surf), the bottom shelf contains fancy wedding books. It used to contain videotapes, but when he would spend half his day gleefully pulling them out and then eating their covers, we put them back in the room-of-no-return. Then we put books there, and the fancy wedding books only fit there, so they went there.

Even today he will go over there and try to get those books, and I still redirect him elsewhere. "No please don't play with those books, those are my special books, look at all the other books you can pull out and play with!" He does it less often now, but he sure did it a lot for awhile there!

So...I think maybe the difference is that the 'blanket-training', a term I've never heard of before (so I'm not having some emotional response based on what I know about it), focuses on "baby stay THERE" rather than "baby don't go here, but look at all the other places you CAN go!"

Just in this living room alone, I realize, there are two places that I don't want E to go. Shoes and wedding books. But I've never thought of trying to "train" him to stay away, I just redirect him to all the things he CAN do whenever he goes near.

(I could move them, but the room-of-no-return is just about full and there's no other place)


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rosidox*
And I just don't understand....how is a gate any different than a door? If you use a door to close off the laundry room to prevent your child from accessing a dangerous area, why not use a gate to block off the VERY dangerous stairs? If you refer to it as a door would it make a difference? If you get the kind of gate that swings open like a door and locks shut like a door, would that help? I just don't see how a gate is the same kind of containment device as a crib or playpen. You can make the safe, childproof zone as large as you want -- with room to roam and explore -- with the use of a gate. That option isn't available with a crib/playpen. So I don't see how both those items can fall under the same category of "containment device". Frankly, the only way I am going to get past your issue with gates is if you stop using the interior doors in your home. I don't mean to sound snarky, but I am just blown away by this whole thread. There seems to be a major disconnect going on, just some inconsistencies, logically speaking, that make me think you really want the mamas here to agree with your method more than you want some rational alternatives.

You're right that a gate is not a containment device like a crib or playpen is. And it isn't really different from a closed door, except that maybe it would be more frustrating because unlike a closed door, baby can see through a gate to what he's being kept from. But I'm not philosophically opposed to gates the way I am to containment devices, I just can't stand to look at them. Doors don't bother me the same way.

If any of y'all want to know why I'm averse to gates, pm me and I'll tell you. I truly don't mind sharing it, just not on this public board.

I don't care whether anyone agrees with my method. I was just trying to explain it because I thought there were some misconceptions. But I'm not trying to convince anyone that they should practice it.


----------



## **guest** (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*

I don't care whether anyone agrees with my method. I was just trying to explain it because I thought there were some misconceptions. But I'm not trying to convince anyone that they should practice it.

weren't you looking for alternatives, though?


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *donosmommy04*
I guess the only thing I have to add to this thread is that in the same way that your children didn't seem to mind staying on the blanket, my DS seemed to sincerely like his jumper, saucer, and even his pack n play for the short periods of time I put him in them (to pee, or cook dinner, etc.). Once he started walking, though, he did protest the pack n play (and had outgrown other things), so that went away, for good. I never forced him into it. I also didn't use them for hours on end, just when I needed to be hands free for a few minutes.

Sooo, this seems to be about:
-Your perception that any physical containment device as inherently evil, but an imaginary enforced boundary not being the same....
AND
-Your children seemed to not be bothered by staying on the blanket. But mine wasn't bothered by playing in his playpen for a couple minutes.

I don't doubt that lots of children don't mind being in a playpen. Mine did, and I don't believe in them, and I don't want them in my house, but I wouldn't call them inherently evil. I don't think it's necessarily wrong to put baby in a pen for a few minutes, I just wouldn't do it. I do think it's wrong to keep baby in a pen for a long time, but I know that's not what people on this thread are doing or advocating.

Quote:

_This kind of reminds me of another thread here regarding ""it's OK [NOT] to spank your child when they're in danger"......the one example is with them touching a stove. My response is if they get burned by a stove, yes, it will hurt, but it is an inanimate object that they have no emotional attachment or love for, so there is no resentment or sad feeligns towards it. BUT, if the parent hits them because they got too close to the stove, there is that confusion that a person who loves them is also hurting them...._

_I'm not saying that you're hurting your children, but to me any potential frustration of futility of a physical barrier that the child doesn't have any emotional attachment to is way different (and in my opinion, 'better' ) than an arbitrary, imaginary barrier imposed just by mom repeatedly placing them back on the blanket until they give up and stop trying to crawl away. To me, it's the same as the difference between DS beign frustrated that he can't reach something that is out of his reach physically, versus him being frustrated *with me* that he can reach something but I'm not letting him have it. That, to me, is what babyproofing is all about, so that you don't have to say 'no' a whole lot....I dunno, just my opinion._
I agree that it's different, but to me it's better to stay in a certain place because you've been asked to than because there's a pen there. I understand your point, but I disagree with your interpretation. And using a pen is absolutely not comparable to spanking--let me repeat that, using a pen is *not* comparable to spanking--but your argument reminds me a bit of people who say it's better to hit a child with an object than with your hand, because then it's the object that's hurting the child and not the parent. Which seems silly to me because surely the child can see that the parent is holding the object. Similarly I think baby could see that the parent was putting him in the pen.

Quote:

_Since you are totally against any kind of containment device, then I guess what you did with your kids was an OK option. I still wouldn't do it, for many of the reasons other posters outlined before me._

_I also have to agree that even though you're saying you're open to other options, so far almost every option that has been presented to you hasn't been an option for you for one reason or another, based on the beliefs you've given on the thread...so at this point, I don't think there IS another option for you other than what you did. But, that also does not mean that I agree with what you're doing_.
Okay. We can agree to disagree.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loraxc*
I haven't read the whole thread yet, so forgive me if this has been said, but...

The problem I have with this isn't the picking up baby and putting him back on the blanket--to me that's not much different than what went on when I trained my toddler to stay away from the road by picking her up a zillion times, saying "No street." It's that you are training a young baby to do something utterly unnatural--to stay put and not explore or follow mama--and that you are making that happen not through an external control, such as a gate or playpen, but by making the BABY responsible for not exploring. And then I feel like that is going to lead to a baby/toddler/child who tends to be passive or hesitant about exploring his/her world....because sometimes I'm rewarded for that and sometimes mama wants that, and might it not be better to just sit here?

Okay, I understand that, but how is it different from teaching your baby to stay out of the street? Isn't that unnatural too? Sorry, but I'm really not seeing the distinction.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dragonfly*
I get the feeling that we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I could go on pointing out distinctions all day but it wouldn't get us anywhere.









I will say that once you've taught your babies that trying to escape from the blanket is fruitless, I think it's disingenous to say staying on the blanket is an exercise of free will. [...]I get that you believe this, yet you're also saying that they're staying on the blanket as an exercise of free will. Such an exercise would be contrary to instinct for babies, though, so the only reason this would be true is if they were actually reasoning their way into staying on the blanket (as opposed to just responding to conditioning).

But if they're alone on the blanket, crawling off isn't fruitless, because I'm not there to put them back. I'm sorry for sounding repetitive, but I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of putting baby back on the blanket when I'm first teaching him. It isn't to force him to stay there or to punish him for getting off or to convince him that resistance is futile. It's to show the meaning of the words "please stay on the blanket."

Look, I'm sure you know or have known some parent of a toddler who was constantly chasing baby around saying "no-no" or "don't touch that," and baby was completely oblivious, because what does "no-no" mean to him? But if you say "don't touch that" *while* pulling baby away or removing the object, you are showing tangibly what you're asking him to do (or to refrain from doing). It isn't to force compliance or induce despair, but to show what the words mean. If I just said "please stay on the blanket," baby wouldn't know what I was talking about. Putting him back on the blanket "explains" what I'm asking him to do. He still has the option to comply or not.

Quote:

_You're teaching them to ignore their impulse to follow you which, IMO, is counter-productive to safety and attachment_.
They didn't have an impulse to follow me.







It would have been easier if they had.

Quote:

_I think it's a fallacy here to compare being alone in sleep and being alone while awake_.
Sure, but they spent some time awake in the bassinets too. I carried them almost all the time, not all the time.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
Okay. We can agree to disagree.

I gotta say, I really like when discussions, even between those of us that disagree, can end up this way, very cool and not hostile. Have a good night!


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dragonfly*
That's wonderful. And it's one of the things that's been running through my mind during this thread - that many of the things that you seem extremely worried about always seemed like a non-issue to me (and, I imagine, many others). Or just par for the course, at least.

Motherhood is about constant vigilance, sometimes exhaustingly so. But it's also about further developing that internal sense with which we seem to be infused at birth of where our children are, both physically and emotionally. We nurture this connection by encouraging our children to honor their instincts to attach to us, to follow us, to share their feelings openly (whether it's crying as baby or verbalizing later on). I think what you're seeing in this thread is people who are bothered by the idea that you are singing the praises of a practice that encourages children not to honor this natural inclination.

This is something I (and others, I believe) are very sensitive to. Perhaps overly sensitive, at times.







Reality is, though, that society doesn't promote attachment on its own (discourages it, in fact), so it behooves us to do whatever we can to not thwart it in our own homes. What you see as a trust-building exercise, most of us see as a technique that forces children into self-reliance before they're ready for it; a technique that actually threatens the trust relationship by removing mom from baby's view during a time that he cannot understand that she's coming back (or how long it will be before she gets there) and during a time when he should be able to see her (or at least some primary caregiver) constantly.

This has been an interesting thread and I thank you for that. It's really made me think deeply about what attachment means to me and where it comes from.









I agree that society doesn't promote attachment or respect for children generally. And I agree about the importance of attachment and encouraging our children to be open, which I've always tried to do. And I agree that ideally babies should be with mama all the time. I'm just not seeing how it's realistic not to ever leave baby alone even for a minute. I don't think a few minutes of separation will undo hours and days and months of constant attachment.

But this thread has made me rethink a few things.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Brigianna I haven't had time to come back to this since yesterday.

I am not sensing that you see any problem with the blanket training. If you change your mind you can always come back to this thread and re read. I think the ways in which blanket training conflicts with ap have been laid out carefully, and alternatives have been detailed.

Good luck.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy*
I'm coming in late to this monster of a thread. I have to say that, so far (I'm only on page 3) I have got to give major props to Brigianna for being so composed in her responses. That is amazing to me, that you are so calm and respectful, when there are many who are speaking out against what you did/do.

Thank you.









Quote:

_I also have to say that the thought of blanket training gives me the ickies. (lol I talk way to much to kids)._
_I guess it does say something that they don't get upset about it. I mean, I basically did the same thing to teach ds to not touch the trash can when he was younger- when he went to it, I picked him up and we played with something else, until he figured out that the trash can was not for him to touch. But I never asked him to stay away from me. He basically wanted to be glued to me until well after a year old._
_I may have missed where you said this, but are they free to protest much of the time (in general daily life, not just with the blankets)? And you respect their dissent?_
Absolutely! My kids know how to protest with the best of them, and we are very minimally coercive. I sometimes tease them that I always taught them to be anti-authoritarians, but I didn't know that I would be the power for them to speak truth to.









Quote:

_I do think that asking a child to stay on a blanket is similar in many ways to a play pen, or some such thing. But in addition to being confined, you are asking your young child to CHOOSE to stay (even if they don't want to). The choice is, essentially, between "making mom happy" and following natural impulses (to explore, to follow mom, etc). I think that is a LOT to ask of a baby. Unless they have the option of leaving the blanket if they desire to do so, then you are asking the baby to have the responsibility of overcoming his impulses and feelings of wanting to leave. While I see that you are obviously against "cages" I don't really see how the blanket is better, unless they are free to leave if they desire to. And if they are free to leave if they desire, and they do so from time to time and you go along with it, then I don't see anything wrong with what you do. If they want to leave, and you change your plans and take them with you, or stop what you're doing to come back to them when they protest, then I don't really see what's so wrong._
_If you ignore their protests, or they NEVER protest (which would say to me that they don't feel they CAN), then it seems like a cage, just not a physical one._
I do understand what you're saying; to me there are several key differences between blanket-training and a pen, but I don't know that I can explain them any more than I already have. And if I'm not watching them, then of course nothing is keeping them on the blanket unless they choose to stay there.

Quote:

_I guess here it was never really a thought. He was with me almost all the time. If I left the room, he generally wanted to be with me. If he wanted to stay, I left him if it was just a few seconds. My house is babyproofed as far as stuff that could hurt him, and there's not really anything that he can't play with safely. I guess climbing on the bookcase, but he has tons of suff to climb on- he's never attempted the bookcase. He never was one to put stuff in his mouth, but we still kept small objects off the floor._
_It wasn't like I was watching him 100% of the time and nothing else- if he was in the room with me, I could focus on something else, and still see him out the corner of my eye. If he wanders to another room now (he's 20 mos), I let him, and kinda sneak peeks occasionally._
_Honestly, its never really occured to me to NOT let him play in another room if he chose to. He pretty much knows the stuff that's fine to play with, and what to be careful with (like our cd's)._
_Now, if I go to the bathroom, and the door will be closed, I make him come with me. If he doesn't want to, I suggest bringing a toy or book, and he's cool with that._
That makes sense. I'm curious, though, what you would do if he really didn't want to come with you and you couldn't talk him into it? Especially when he was younger?

Quote:

_One thing I don't really get is teaching them to be responsible for their safety as babies, because you won't always be there to be responsible for it. Kids learn responsibility on their own time- its not like its now or never_.
I agree. It's a gradual process.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mollyeilis*
You kept saying things that seemed to indicate you weren't recognizing that people were giving you options...

I recognize that people were giving me options, and I really wasn't meaning to be snippy. I was just a little frustrated. And I did respond to some of the options and I was and am thinking about them. But containment devices and gates are *not* an option for me and neither is never being separated even for a minute. So it was a little frustrating to me that I was asking a very specific question and several responses seemed to attack my concerns rather than address them.

Quote:

_I figure most things we have in the house are pretty clean. If they aren't, it's old germs, either dead or weak. Either way, I don't worry much about that. I worry about shopping cart handles, but not what's in our house.







_

_We have a pile of shoes (which *are* dirty) at the door (DH is half Korean and was raised with shoes off in the home), and when DS would go for the shoes, we'd just take the shoes away. Taking shoes away from baby vs taking/keeping baby away from shoes..._
I mean this nicely, but what is the difference? When my babies went for the shoe pile, I moved/redirected baby.

Quote:

_Here he is on it at 5ish months. Mat below, arcing things over top, things to hang dangling down._ _Mat_.
Okay.







Now I know what you're talking about.

Quote:

_Well, mine was very portable and went into the bathroom with me (actually it pretty much stayed in the bathroom). I don't know much about bassinettes or their portability_.
Ours was heavy enough that they couldn't tip it but still portable. So it went wherever we needed it.

Quote:

_Absolutely! I tried it once with the zipper closed and he did NOT like that, so we always showed him that there was a way out if he liked. It usually took him a few minutes to really get that he could get out (figuring out his limbs and such), and I could do what I needed to do (the reason I'd put him in there to begin with; remember, this is LATER, once he was easily standing and walking and such)._
Okay. I wouldn't consider a pen that he could get out of to be really a pen, but more like... a blanket with walls.









Quote:

_Wanted to say that although some allow their kids absolutely free access to the house, we do NOT. We have doors shut, places where he doesn't get to go*, and things he's not allowed to do. But we try to focus on what he CAN do. He's got the entire hallway to run up and down! Ignore the 2 closed closets, one closed room, and the gate into kitty's room, and just look at the room to run! He's got the entire living room and the entry to the kitchen/laundry area, but not the kitchen proper (a very small space compared to what he has). We've rearranged our furniture three times since he arrived, to maximize the space he's got so he can try to forget where he doesn't get to go._

_*This is going to change soon, as he can reach the knobs better and get a grip to turn them. sigh. Everything has been babyproofed in steps, and changed around as his interests and abilities change. That will also be very different once there are more babies around, though we are actually hoping against hope for a less curious, physically able, wild kid in the future...yeah, we can HOPE at least.







Anyway, the door to the room with the piles of stuff will at some point not be as impossible for him to get in as it is now..._

_We've also been lucky in that the doors in our apartment have rather high doorknobs. When he goes to other peoples' houses, he has different access b/c they have different doors_.
We closed off doors too, and the doors to the laundry room and the upstairs storage room are latched so ds can't get in even though he can reach the knobs.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EmmaJean*
So I haven't read the entire thread, but it seems that Brigianna is being very reasonable! So are you all saying you've never put your child down on the floor w/ a few toys and said "Hi, Baby! Play w/ these cool toys for a second while I go pee." And then if they wander off after 1 second, put them back in the spot, make it interesting, rattle the rattle, give a new toy, give a kiss, and leave for another second? This seems like very NORMAL mother-baby interaction. Of course, if the baby is crying or protesting then to pick them up and try something else. I had to do so many things w/ both of my kids b/c neither of them liked being alone.

I am a formerly ezzofied mama, and we tried to do playpen time w/ James, and he hated it! He hated any gates or bounderies. But sometimes they were necessary for his safety and my sanity. Like the gate to our tiny kitchen--not a safe place w/ a klutzy mama! And we had to position our living room furniture in a way that he could play safely in there and not get out to roam the house free.

But I don't understand how you can have NO babygates on the stairs. That just blows my mind. I trip and fall down the stairs almost DAILY (remember, I'm a clutz!), If my 1 yo did the same, it could be life-threatening. Someone mentioned this earlier, and I just had to chime in...

And I know for a fact that w/ both of my kids on rare occasions I had to put them in the crib/swing/etc while they wailed for a _minute_ b/c I HAD to do such and such. I don't think that's throwing my AP philosophy down the toilet. I think it's just not ALWAYS going to work in EVERY situation to hold your baby/toddler/child ALL the time. There will be _brief moments_ when it is not feesable or safe. Also coming in to play is mom being stressed out, the situation being urgent, and not always thinking clearly. So putting in the crib or whatever may not have been the BEST choice, but it was the best I could do at the time.

And the other thing I have to say is that some children are more accepting of limits at a young age than others. My sister's first son amazed me w/ how accepting of certain limits he was. Every baby is different.

That's my rambling. To sum up, I think this is all making a mountain out of a mole hill. I think her just using "blanket training" as the term is what sets you off. What she's talking about isn't shocking......

Thanks for your response. Fortunately the stairs haven't been an issue for us mostly because I'm right there almost all the time, and also I teach them stair safety almost as soon as they can crawl. But that is one of the things I'm worried about with free-roaming.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annabanana*
weren't you looking for alternatives, though?

Yes, and I've gotten some good ideas and rethought some things.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Brigianna I haven't had time to come back to this since yesterday.

I am not sensing that you see any problem with the blanket training. If you change your mind you can always come back to this thread and re read. I think the ways in which blanket training conflicts with ap have been laid out carefully, and alternatives have been detailed.

Good luck.

I do see that there are problems with blanket-training. I'm not convinced it's wrong or in conflict with ap though. And I am looking at alternatives.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *donosmommy04*
I gotta say, I really like when discussions, even between those of us that disagree, can end up this way, very cool and not hostile. Have a good night!

Thank you.


----------



## loraxc (Aug 14, 2003)

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by loraxc
I haven't read the whole thread yet, so forgive me if this has been said, but...

The problem I have with this isn't the picking up baby and putting him back on the blanket--to me that's not much different than what went on when I trained my toddler to stay away from the road by picking her up a zillion times, saying "No street." It's that you are training a young baby to do something utterly unnatural--to stay put and not explore or follow mama--and that you are making that happen not through an external control, such as a gate or playpen, but by making the BABY responsible for not exploring. And then I feel like that is going to lead to a baby/toddler/child who tends to be passive or hesitant about exploring his/her world....because sometimes I'm rewarded for that and sometimes mama wants that, and might it not be better to just sit here?

Okay, I understand that, but how is it different from teaching your baby to stay out of the street? Isn't that unnatural too? Sorry, but I'm really not seeing the distinction.
The difference is that when I taught when DD to stay out of the street (which I did do, in a similar kind of way) I would pick her up, say "No street!" and turn her around to explore one of the million other things that she could explore in the yard. I have successfully taught my DD to avoid/not play with/not do quite a few things, but I have done so by saying "Baby, do not explore X--explore Y instead" rather than saying "Baby, do not explore." Does that make sense?


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

Quote:

I do not believe in pens, gates, cages, etc. for children. This is a deeply personal issue with me. I'm not saying that those who use these things are wrong, but I would not do it.
I'm sure this has been said, but you are "penning" them, just with a blanket. Instead of a physical barrier, you set up a psychological one.


----------



## mamasaurus (Jun 20, 2004)

Brigianna - I just got through this thread. I read almost all of it! Whew! I just have to say your responses to everyone have been so calm, courteous and patient. I am very impressed. You did a much better job than I could have with all the negativity (and quite a bit of sarcasm, too) aimed at you.

About the "blanket-training", personally I don't see anything wrong with what you are doing. You have said time and time again that your home is very well babyproofed, you only use the blanket for a minute or two, etc. I really don't see the difference between a blanket and what I do when I ask my girls to stay in a particular area of the house while I do this or that for a minute. I can't believe how many times you've had to explain and re-explain what you are doing to make people understand. And still they don't. But that's fine. We can all agree to disagree.

I just wanted to give you a great big public support.







You sound like a great Mom and I think this whole thing has been completely blown out of proportion.


----------



## DebraBaker (Jan 9, 2002)

I think a major element of the problem I have is the phrase, "blanket-training" is associated with draconian parenting methods advocated by Pearl, Ezzo, and Gothard.

I believe Gary Ezzo coined the phrase. Along with "Parent-directed feeding," and "Neoprimitivistic Marsupial Earth Mother."

Unfortunately Ezzo's spanking advice is tied to blanket-training.

I don't understand how you get a mobile baby to stay on a blanket without coercive methods.

db


----------



## LoveBeads (Jul 8, 2002)

A blanket is a tiny piece of cloth. A gate at one end of the room gives a child an entire room to explore and play. I see a significant difference between setting up a boundary which still enables a child to explore and a cloth on the floor which directs them to sit still.

But I don't think that it is "evil". It just isn't my cup of tea.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

OK, I read through page 4 and bailed out. So maybe this point has been raised - please gloss over this if it has been covered...

1. We almost all use some sort of very short-term confinement like a PnP for times when we have to get hot things out of the oven, or something. Right? So all the wonderful thoughts about how restricting baby's exploration - while perfectly valid - seem to be detracting from what I see as the main point here... which I'll get to. We almost all have to restrict the kiddos for a moment here or there. Bringing this aspect up seems to keep us from really thinking about what's so disturbing about _this_ scenario.

2. *This is about the method.* Annettemarie hit the nail on the head in the other thread... The bars from a blanket are invisible, and made of mother's disapproval. Invisibility does not make them harmless - quite the opposite. They are insidious and only work when baby internalizes the confinement.

3. In the spirit of offering alternatives, though up to page 4 I saw no indication that the OP actually really wanted any, I do just what Captain Crunchy suggested. I've also frequently used the sling as confinement. DS is almost always happy to be there, but if he protests even that, I do something else.

Quote:


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


----------



## la mamita (Apr 10, 2005)

Quote:


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

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

Quite frankly, it sounds like you haven't baby-proofed enough. I have one room in my house that is completely and totally baby-proofed. My DS is also an extremely active, oral child who will put everything in his mouth. In this room, I have cleaned it out enough so that anything that DS puts in his mouth is safe and there are no other dangers. On the very rare occasions that I need to leave DS alone to do something (usually to pee), he goes in that room and I go real quick. I feel comfortable knowing that he won't get into any trouble. EVERYTHING that is within his reach is something that is OK to go into his mouth. And yes, there are quite a many things and I've had to let go of some of my ideas of "germy-ness".

When DS was unhappy with being left alone, I would put him in a carrier and do whatever it was that I had to do.

This is what works for me, and I have to say that when I have tried to keep DS in one arbitrary place (ie when we were on the plane and DS couldn't crawl around everywhere and had to stay in the seat with me) he HATED it. i think that if i tried this blanket-training, DS would throw a fit. if i really wanted to do it (and i don't), i think i would need some SERIOUS physical punishment to keep him on that blanket--and obviously that's not even an option.


----------



## CaraboosMama (Mar 31, 2005)

Quote:


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

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

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

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

Neither option sounds good to me.

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











I had nver heard of blanket training so I opened the thread out of curiosity. I have to say - I am still not understanding why anyone would want to "train" their child in such a way that curbs their desire to explore the world around them - or teaches them that you (the parent) do not want them to explore the world around them. What a sad way to break a child's natural desire & will to learn!!














:


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Thank you for all of your replies. I am reading and thinking about what y'all are saying. This thread has been very informative for me. A week ago I had no idea that blanket-training was controversial or disapproved of, and it wouldn't have occurred to me to ask about alternatives.

However, at the risk of sounding like my 6 yr old, I don't want to do this anymore. I feel like I have explained myself over and over again and people are still misunderstanding. I'm sure this is because of my own lack of communication skills, but I don't know how to explain any better.

I have read and tried to understand all of your objections to blanket-training--it limits baby's freedom, it promotes detachment, it's punitive and conditioning, it's ineffective and impossible, it's no different than a pen, it teaches baby not to explore, it constrains baby with disapproval, it's unnatural, and it is a term used by child-torture fetishists. I understand, but respectfully disagree with these points. I have tried to explain as best I can why I disagree, but I don't think there's much benefit to further debating the issue. The only objection I do agree with is the one about limiting baby's freedom. I agree that is problematic, which is why I wanted to ask for alternatives.

If you believe that there is nothing wrong with containment devices or gates, I respect your opinion. If you believe that it is always wrong to leave a young child alone in a room for even a minute, and this is a realistic option for you, I respect your opinion and your ability to do this. However neither of these are options for me. I cannot have baby with me at every single moment, and I have many problems with containment devices which I have partially explained here and which I would be willing to more fully explain by pm.

I am sorry if I have offended anyone on this thread, and I'm sorry for anyone who has had any kind of experience with the child-torture fetishists. I understand that some of y'all might be sensitive about that in the same way that I have a strong sensitivity to symbols of captivity.

If anyone has any more questions about how or why I used blanket-training, or how or why I came to the views that I have, or anything else, please pm me and I will respond as best I can. Or if you want to tell me what "expecto-patrionis" means. If you want to continue a community discussion about the relative merits of blanket-training, please start a thread to discuss just that. But I do not want to debate the relative merits of blanket-training on this thread anymore. It isn't what I wanted and I don't think it's productive.

What I would like is some continued suggestions for leaving a baby alone for a short time without containment devices or gates. Some of the suggestions I've gotten so far that have made a lot of sense to me are:

making the entire downstairs a harmonious open area where baby can roam free without boundaries
singing to baby while out of the room
keeping doors to less safe rooms closed off (I already do this)
keeping only chewable baby toys in reach and moving all adult things higher up
rotating toys on the blanket to keep baby entertained
using furniture and boxes to block off an area, and
being less paranoid about free-roaming babies
All of these are good ideas, especially being less paranoid. This thread has really changed my assumptions about what constitutes safety in a babyproofed room. I would love to hear any other of these types of suggestions that any of you may have. I don't promise I'll implement them but I will take them into consideration.

I don't know whether I'll blanket-train future babies or not. Fortunately I have a while to decide. But y'all have made me reconsider it and given me some good ideas for other options. So maybe I will use the blanket but with less emphasis on training. But if you have any other suggestions please share them, and I promise to be nice.









Thanks.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Brigianna, while my stance against blanket training, even in the modified form you use, is as strong as ever, I do want to tell you how much I appreciate the grace and dignity with which you've handled yourself on this thread. Please forgive me I've come across as strident or angry.
Wishing you the best!


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
Brigianna, while my stance against blanket training, even in the modified form you use, is as strong as ever, I do want to tell you how much I appreciate the grace and dignity with which you've handled yourself on this thread. Please forgive me I've come across as strident or angry.
Wishing you the best!

Thank you.


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

And with that, I will close this thread. Please feel free to start a new thread if you wish. Thank you so much for all the respectful and mindful responses. There is no doubt we all learn so much from each other.

Much love and peace


----------

