blanket training~ the first lesson in "obedience"

It was only around ten days ago that I learned about a "blanket training" a fellow mother about my age called it boundary training. Now I had heard of the term many years before but hadn't quite grasped the gravity of the situation until just these past few days. Something that bothered me enough to blog about it.

The objective is simple and sounds harmless enough- teach a baby to play on a blanket and not to leave that blanket. I was curious as to how this was going to benefit the child, it soon became apparent though that- it doesn't. This training is to the benefit of the parents only. In fact the way that blanket training was put to me it seemed so innocuous that it took me researching it as a potential way to help me deal with children while I study to realize the innocent sounding "play on a blanket" actually means to brainwash the child with fear that stepping, crawling, placing a hand over the blanket, a finger, complaining about the blanket, questioning why they have to stay on the blanket.. with the fear of being spanked.

One woman bragged that her child was so "blanket trained" that she had been calling the child for some time and the child was so used to the rules of staying on the blanket that she wouldn't come when called. This child knew she was being baited and that to step off the blanket would result in punishment. I. Was. Horrified. What if there is a dire need to get off that stupid rug and she refuses to come because she is afraid of a beating?

Mind you Blanket training usually happens in infancy right around the time the child is learning to roll over or crawl.  

Infants are being spanked for wanting to engage in their natural curiosity and explore and learn about their world. So much for development and gaining intelligence. Blanket training removes this ability to question their world with startling efficiency.

This is why they call it "the first obedience" But I have to challenge that statement. Is it really obedience if the only reason they will obey is out of fear of being hit?  The child isn't doing it because it is right, because they want to please their parent or even because it's expected. They do it because they are afraid. I call THAT domestic violence and bullying.

This kind of training is the basis for Quiverful  "teachings". It removes all sense of agency- something that educators strive relentlessly for their students how ever young they may be. All sense of personal choice, free will, desire to learn are stripped away using these methods and primes the individual for the next stages of conditioning.

Lessons that will teach them that if something happens to them that it is their fault. That they did the wrong thing. Lessons that make these individuals Prime. Targets. For. Abuse. Because they don't know how to advocate for themselves. Because they will keep quiet about a beating, a molestation, a sexual assault or rape, emotional abuse, depression, being forced to work in unsanitary or dangerous conditions, to be silent about lack of medical treatment.. the list goes on and on.

This is not to say I am against raising a child in a religion oriented environment. What I am against is brainwashing and the removal of free will.

Apart from mental and emotional scarring what else would forcing a child to stay on a blanket for lengthy periods of time cause?

One very serious result could be developmental delays.

• Speech- because no one is talking with the child 
• gross motor skills- because the child cannot practice their crawling or walking properly, 
• Sensory and hand eye co-ordination issues- because baiting a child into touching things and getting their hand slapped is an important part of teaching them "don't touch" and then eventually if the training has been done correctly they quit trying to explore anything with their hands 
• emotional development because blanket training is dripping with the emotional abuse of children being seen and not heard, gathering your child up to hold them and comfort them and play with them is expressly discouraged because they need to play "independently and quietly" 
• And lastly cognitive or logical development is very pointedly shut down. Because most people not raised in this environment wouldn't ever willingly follow the later teachings if they had not been taught from the very beginning that questioning and experimenting was a bad thing.

So how could anyone think this is a good idea?

Well it isn't for the child. It's solely for the parents. Proponents of blanket training are very upfront that the training is so that a parent can go to church, a meeting, do house work or go to a picnic etc and know without a shadow of a doubt that the child will sit quietly and not move away.

The same way an abusive partner can belittle and cajole their partner knowing that they will meekly and obediently accept that it's all their fault and to be accepted quietly.

Such a tool could be useful; I can see the appeal. I'm even sure that such training could be achieved by using a much gentler method- and if you did it with a gentler method and only used it in such conditions that warranted the child staying in place I am quite certain that none of the above would apply because it wouldn't be all the time and the child would still have the autonomy to come to or speak to the parent for a need to be met.

However there are other ways to prevent a child from going where you don't want them to. A pram, play pen, carrier or safety harness for example.

Better yet choose a venue that has decent fencing so that children can run around, burn off their energy and explore and learn about their world. Take a toy the child loves to a meeting and bring snacks and nurse them when they are hungry or thirsty, let them know their needs will be met if they ask and that you will be all too pleased to hear their small voices tell you stories and ask questions.

I think the truly heartbreaking thing about such methods is that they were ever considered necessary. I cannot help but ask "why?" Who came up with such an idea as to hit babies into subservience? What on earth were they thinking and what must have happened to them as babies for them to think this was the way to handle the most vulnerable in our communities?