• Sky
  • Blueberry
  • Slate
  • Blackcurrant
  • Watermelon
  • Strawberry
  • Orange
  • Banana
  • Apple
  • Emerald
  • Chocolate
  • Charcoal
keen23

Jill, Derick and Israel- Lucky Number 13

459 posts in this topic

I don't think blanket training per se is a big deal. If it weren't for the hitting of babies, I wouldn't be at all against the idea of training babies/toddlers to stay on a blanket for when a parent really can't have them crawling all over the place (it sounds like a fantastic convenience when you're at someones else's home, for example, and don't want them putting their hands on other people's stuff). So I do agree with @THERetroGamerNYthat there is a hyperfocus on blanket training specifically, when the real issue is that "spare the rod, spoil the child" is a philosophy that too many embrace. 

-4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@quiverofdoubt,  you mean your friend hit her toddlers with a frat paddle AKA a cricket bat?  Ye gods! That just makes me wince.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, PennySycamore said:

@quiverofdoubt,  you mean your friend hit her toddlers with a frat paddle AKA a cricket bat?  Ye gods! That just makes me wince.

Gotta train 'em up right!  Just ask Gil Bates who has a bio on the IBLP website that says the following:

"Not only does Gil bring to the Board a wealth of practical wisdom on marriage and training up sons and daughters..."

Son of a BATES - huh?

Edited by Whoosh
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, lascuba said:

I don't think blanket training per se is a big deal. If it weren't for the hitting of babies, I wouldn't be at all against the idea of training babies/toddlers to stay on a blanket for when a parent really can't have them crawling all over the place (it sounds like a fantastic convenience when you're at someones else's home, for example, and don't want them putting their hands on other people's stuff). So I do agree with @THERetroGamerNYthat there is a hyperfocus on blanket training specifically, when the real issue is that "spare the rod, spoil the child" is a philosophy that too many embrace. 

Actually, I do have a problem with it, hitting or no.  It's developmentally inappropriate to ask an infant to remember a stay or a no command. Babies on average understand the meaning of "no" around 12 months, rarely before.  And even then they can't remember it from place to place or situation to situation. Their minds are working constantly and they learn through physical activity. To ask them to sit for any length of time with no activity, or very little activity, is border line cruel.  Children are inconvenient. That's just how it is.  If you are at a friends house where they can't explore than you have to cut socializing short to parent. Or leave. 

5 minutes ago, PennySycamore said:

@quiverofdoubt,  you mean your friend hit her toddlers with a frat paddle AKA a cricket bat?  Ye gods! That just makes me wince.

I'm not sure about cricket bat, it's a large wood paddle with a handle, maybe 18" long? and flat.  she has a mini one that she keeps in her diaper bag when they go out. 

14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keeping the baby/young toddler safe while you do household things it the job of the portacrib, and the gate things that make a big circle. My youngest who broke down a baby gate at less than one and went down the stairs....and flipped said port a crib....and "hopped" a high chair across the room.....well, I was just tired. Because I knew I always had to keep an "eye" on him. My least favorite time with the young ones. He is now my 6'5" sweetie at 21.

HItting children is just wrong to me. Especially a very small child. 

17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 2manyKidzzz said:

Keeping the baby/young toddler safe while you do household things it the job of the portacrib, and the gate things that make a big circle. My youngest who broke down a baby gate at less than one and went down the stairs....and flipped said port a crib....and "hopped" a high chair across the room.....well, I was just tired. Because I knew I always had to keep an "eye" on him. My least favorite time with the young ones. He is now my 6'5" sweetie at 21.

HItting children is just wrong to me. Especially a very small child. 

The porta crib things have sides and defined boundaries, so you don't have to "train" them. that's why they are so useful. A visual barrier for them, beyond a blanket they can just crawl off of. In theory they can't get out of the play pens, or over the gates. clearly super effective in your case :my_rolleyes:

Baby wearing helped me out a ton during that stage. Allowed me to get household chores done while the baby was safe and got to observe and feel like she was participating. 

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, quiverofdoubt said:

she has a mini one that she keeps in her diaper bag when they go out. 

When I flew to Botswana and my friend from the embassy met me, another embassy wife was meeting someone.  The embassy wife had her small son with her...and a paddle.  She showed us the paddle and let us know she used it.  It was unnerving.  I can well believe that fundies (and I think she was) do the same.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My last babysitting job years and years ago was with a toddler who had just learned to walk. They didn't have a porta-crib or anything like that  

I spent all day till her bedtime following her around the house, making sure she didn't hurt herself. I loved her but It was exhausting.

She is part of the reason that I never had kids of my own. ;) 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, quiverofdoubt said:

The porta crib things have sides and defined boundaries, so you don't have to "train" them

Fundies are not purposed to contain their children safely.  They are convicted to turn them into obedient robots of Jebus, come hell or high water.  Even tears of exhaustion might be deemed as defiance.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, THERetroGamerNY said:

I must say, with some trepidation - and a careful consideration of everything - that I sometimes think all these claims of blanket training are a touch ... over done.

Like how somebody recently said over in the Bate's thread: The Bates allegedly do it, with a ruler, but have denied it. Translation: You have zero evidence for an accusation of abuse.

Trust me: I wouldn't put it past these people, nor even be surprised ... but I kinda do want to see a touch more actual proof.

I don't think the Duggars would recommend books that advocate beating babies if they were so opposed to it. I think anyone that is opposed to the idea of beating babies/toddlers would be absolutely disgusted by those books and NEVER recommend them to anyone. That coupled with the police report makes me think they do blanket train, beat their babies/kids, etc. 

Can someone refresh my memory of the names of the books the Duggars recommended. If I'm not mistaken they were the same books that Candace Cameron Bure used to recommend on her old blog, To Train Up a Child by Michael and Debi Pearl & Shepherding a Child's Heart by Tedd Tripp. I'm getting the exact details of the two books mixed up but I remember that they were both very similar and they were the most revolting books I've ever read. The crazy thing about the books was that even if a person didn't beat their children, and instead substituted some other form of discipline for hitting them, and then followed the rest of the stuff in the book, they would still be doing a great deal of damage to their children. The books advised punishing/beating your child for playing with their toys the wrong way. Not playing with the toys in a destructive way. I can understand intervening in that situation (not beating them) but perhaps taking the toy away for a set period of time and then giving them a second chance later. No, this example was for a child who was merely using the toy for a different use than originally intended (which normal, emotionally healthy, non-controlling parents would refer to as being creative.) Another example given was to hit them for crying after falling off a swing set. This was referred to as whining. I just don't understand how anyone could label a child crying because they were injured or scared as misbehavior. 

Both books were strongly encouraging parents to beat any creative/independent thoughts out of their children and to teach them to suppress their real feelings. Disgusting. 

9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What ever happened to baby proofing a house? 

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, SportsgalAnnie said:

What ever happened to baby proofing a house? 

We more or less babyproofed. Not totally, we have hardwood/tile throughout, and never covered outlets or put padding on furniture or anything. But she was never allowed access to anything she could really get hurt on.  

Blanket training isn't about keeping a babe safe, ultimately it's about teaching them total obedience to authority

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, the prevailing thought in these circles is that babies are born depraved and are capable of conscious sin. Parents who spank their children are really convinced that they are, as the verse in Proverbs states, saving the child's soul from hell. When my oldest son was barely a year old and I wearily confided my frustrations to an older woman at church, I was told the only way to get my baby to behave was to spank him every time he disobeyed my wishes . The frustrations I had were with what I now know are normal behaviors for a baby - squirming and resisting when being diapered or clothed, crying when expressing anger, sadness, frustration, fear. This is one reason why I now am anti church. I hate spanking for so many reasons but the thought of striking an innocent baby is especially appalling.

10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember both JB and M mentioning that Jessa was particularly difficult to train.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SassyPants said:

I remember both JB and M mentioning that Jessa was particularly difficult to train.

Michelle also said on the blog that Jana was an explorer and would go headfirst into things, even as a toddler, and John-David would follow after her, so Jana may have also been a bit on the difficult side.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

I remember both JB and M mentioning that Jessa was particularly difficult to train.

and that is Both Brilliant and happy because Jessa can't be controlled 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, quiverofdoubt said:

We more or less babyproofed. Not totally, we have hardwood/tile throughout, and never covered outlets or put padding on furniture or anything. But she was never allowed access to anything she could really get hurt on.  

Blanket training isn't about keeping a babe safe, ultimately it's about teaching them total obedience to authority

I know that, I meant in general.I know a bunch of people who dont 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My firstborn was one of those kiddos that constantly bumped his head.....and always the same spot on his forehead. It would instantly swell into a goose egg....just a histamine response, I was told. Then a few days later the bruising would be spectacular. It always seemed to happen right before we had pictures scheduled to be taken, or a holiday. I remember the first time it happened...he was cruising around the couch, lost his balance, and hit the side of a wicker trunk on his way down. I was right there, but couldn't stop it. It swelled instantly and I called his pediatrician in sheer terror. One bit of info they gave me was that external swelling is usually a skIn injury, not a skull or brain injury. That helped a lot....as did the shoe store's advice to not buy sneakers with rubber 'bumper' style trim around the foot. It has a tendency to catch or grab the floor. We switched to soft leather shoes with a thinner sole and it worked wonders. We became frequent flyers at the Stride Rite shop......and our 'boo bunny' has had a place in the freezer ever since. Well, that and a package of frozen peas marked 'Ice pack use only'.....

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sioux taught their infants taught their infants not to cry. They accomplished this by pinching the child's nose. It was a matter of survival. I don't remember if other Native America's followed this practice. Perhaps this was an early for of blanket training.

Oops- didn't read before posting. Sorry.

 

Edited by Coconut Flan
remove Tapatalk signature.
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be surprised at all if Jill blanket trains. However. The 'bruise' in that picture of the three of them looks like allergies to me. That's exactly how I look when I'm around dandelions. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't know Candace Cameron Bure recommended the Pearls. That makes me sick. How the fuck does she still have a career after admitting that? She's a much bigger public figure than the Duggars. She said they're incredible. Ugh. And gets to be on the "family friendly" Full House reboot. Know what isn't family friendly? Child abuse.

6 hours ago, Whoosh said:

For people that are just catching on to this idea espoused by the Pearls of breaking the spirit of a child totally and completely at a very early age, you should also google "learned helplessness" and read a bit.  It might suddenly start to make more sense why kids raised that way don't just run or even rebel much in smaller ways when they finally have a chance.

ETA - if you have a heart you will want to cry for the dogs.

I've thought about that concept in regards to the Duggars before.  It's just so hard to understand why parents would want that to happen to their child.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to watch two kids before (family friends) and the last thing the mom said to her kids before she left me with the 1.5 and 3 year old was, "don't think just because I'm gone you can act a fool. he will beat your a$$ just like I do if you misbehave, you got that?" especially the 3 yr old looked at me all shyly. On the inside I was like O_O on the outside I stayed calm and said, "I'm sure we'll be good. Right, buddy?" and held out my fist. He pounded it very hesitantly and slowly...there were tons of other issues, too and Child Protection Services were called on that mother not too long after that day but whoa...

Edited by MakeItSo
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, HarryPotterFan said:

Know what isn't family friendly? Child abuse.

Word.

40 minutes ago, HarryPotterFan said:

I've thought about that concept in regards to the Duggars before.  It's just so hard to understand why parents would want that to happen to their child.

It is impossible for me to understand.  There are a lot of horrible things in the world where I can kind of think of the events leading up to the thing and kind of imagine how that happens (even though it is just so beyond horrible).  This I simply don't understand.  Why anyone would want to teach a child that random painful consequences will happen no matter how they act or what they do unless they do nothing (and apparently even that isn't always "good enough" and that the pain will be caused by those who are supposed to love the child and care for the child - I don't understand that at all.

Edited by Whoosh
6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is really upsetting me.

I have 3 dogs and I would never even think about treating them like that- much less a human child.  

I love my dogs.  Maybe that is what the Pearls and their followers don't understand.

i need a bubble bath and a glass of wine, stat! 

 

 

Edited by Jucifer
5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HarryPotterFan said:

 

9 hours ago, Whoosh said:

For people that are just catching on to this idea espoused by the Pearls of breaking the spirit of a child totally and completely at a very early age, you should also google "learned helplessness" and read a bit.  It might suddenly start to make more sense why kids raised that way don't just run or even rebel much in smaller ways when they finally have a chance.

ETA - if you have a heart you will want to cry for the dogs.

I've thought about that concept in regards to the Duggars before.  It's just so hard to understand why parents would want that to happen to their child.

because they want total obedience (they don't realize/recognize what the consequences of that may be). It's sold as a way to keep kids safe. I'll use a quote from the Pearl's biggest leghumper fundie Lori**:

Quote

The purpose for spanking a child is to train them to be obedient. When you ask them to do something, they should obey the first time you ask. The sooner you train them to obey you, the easier child raising will be for you. You don't want to have to count since this won't work if they're running into the street in front of a car or about to touch a hot stove. As soon as you say, "Stop!" they should stop. Train them to obey you the first time! It may save their life someday.

They claim they aren't promoting abuse, in fact they are against it. They tell the people curious about this method that it is the best way to raise children according to God, that modern methods aren't godly because the Bible doesn't mention them. Then they claim that their children weren't harmed in the raising of them and it must work and be good because their kids are all "happily married and loves Jesus" <- which is the fundie end-goal.

And I do think a lot of these parents are looking for a quick (Godly) fix. They've been told that if they use this method consistently they'll no longer have to discipline their kids after the age of 6 or 7 because all the sin is beaten out of them (this I haven't seen literally said, but it's an impression I get). That sounds nice right? a maximum of 5 years parenting and then the hard stuff is over. None of this teenage angst to go through, just a perfect little obedient child. They don't/won't mention any possible harms due to this, because no one would buy into it if they did. And if people bring up the psychological harms it's "omg modern science, it isn't in the bible and therefore must be false" type of arguments.

If you're stuck in a life where God is your end-goal and you're taught to not question things that come from 'godly mentors' or other 'godly sources' then I think a lot of people are willing to accept things that they wouldn't from an outside source. I've seen this a lot in church. People put leaders/other people up on godly pedestals and will not question what they say because they assume that either the person is God's mouthpiece and can't be wrong, or the person has extra biblical training and therefore more knowledge and all your questions come out of ignorance. Because after all who are you to question how the godly 'leader' presents God's word. Which literally does cause quotes like "Who are we to disagree with <insert 'godly leader' here> and argue against the Lord's ways? 

 

**you don't want to enter this rabbithole if you are disgusted by child abuse or spousal abuse. You have been warned

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.