How would you answer this statement about a Pearl book?

[TranquilMind]

Yes, the 'more hidings' comment was in reference to her own children. I don't think that she will spank the oldest two (who are already taller than I am) again, but I know that the youngest still gets spanked.

 

I am not going to end 10 years of friendship over this. We have always had our differences about corporal punishment and have managed to stay friends in spite of it. She is the only other homeschooler in the area who has similar academic standards and we have been supporting each other for years.

 

My friend won't push her opinions on me. I think my unusually vehement criticism of and opposition to the Pearls has caught her off guard and that is why she wants to pursue the discussion.

 

The links provided up thread have been very helpful - thank you to the PP's who posted them. I feel better prepared for any future discussions and will be able to counter some of her arguments directly.

 

ETA: I have read the book myself and it is the only book I've ever thrown into the trash.

You sound like a rational and reasonable person. Discussions could help a lot.

[Lovedtodeath]

What it tells me is not that she regrets not giving them enough "hidings" as if that is important in itself, but she regrets how they have turned out in some ways, and thinks she should have done something differently. She's thinking maybe spanking them might have helped. Who knows. It could have hurt or helped. Millions of people are raised with spankings or without and turn out well either way (or not).

 

It's kind of late to do anything like that differently now, anyway.

Should we introduce her to people who have received "hidings" with a bad result? I know some who were not considered abused, but the whippings didn't help. Surprisingly, they still go around telling people that they should whip their kids more. ::rolleyes::

[TranquilMind]

there are some things i am not prepared to be open minded about.

 

eg. beating your wife is not okay. there is nothing you can say to me that will make it okay. whether you beat her with a tree branch or a small stick doesn't make it okay. whether you can quote me bible passages about disciplining your wife or not doesn't make it okay.

 

if you are reading a book that recommends beating your wife, that is enough for me to end a friendship over. i am actually not prepared to be friends with or be around and influenced by someone who believes that is okay. particularly not if they read the book and announce "i should have beaten my wife more".

 

sigh....

 

eta: yes, i know the pearls are discussing children, not wives. but one technique for checking one's reasoning for undiscovered biases and/or prejudices is to substitute something else in and see if the reasoning holds.....

But beating one's wife is NOT equivalent to spanking one's children in any way.

[TranquilMind]

SKL: Andrea Yates is severely mentally ill, went off her meds, and intentionally drowned her five children. Not sure what that has to do with the Pearls.

 

Oh, it MUST have been the Pearls' fault. :confused:

 

If anyone can find that she ever happened to see one of the Pearl books, I guess that could clinch that ridiculous argument.

 

 

 

Do the Pearl books instruct parents to drown their children in the bathtub?

 

Um, I'm seriously thinking NO, but I haven't read one in at least a decade. He did have some good stuff about Teens "jumping ship" recently and why they walk away from the values of the family. But I digress.

 

The friend said that she felt she didn't discipline her kids enough. Many parents have said that. Many kids have even said it about their own parents. Sometimes it's true. The word "hidings" is just a substitute word for "spanking."

 

 

Yes, I just commented on this. This says more about her regret about what she is seeing now than about the Pearls or their books.

 

Really, I'm getting a little scared hearing people jump from "I should have spanked my kid more" to "I drowned my five kids in the bathtub."

 

 

 

Yeah, that's just seriously whacked.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

But beating one's wife is NOT equivalent to spanking one's children in any way.

 

A stronger person strikes a weaker person in both cases. Pain is inflicted on another living being, a human, in both cases. Relationships are harmed and trust is shattered in both cases.

 

I'm looking for ways that spanking and wife-beating are different...

[TranquilMind]

I'm not defending the book. I'm saying that ending a friendship over open-mindedly reading (and discussing) ANY book is way over the top.

Yes, it is. And I've read the book. And a lot of books, actually, on all sides of many issues.

[Happy2BaMom]

For me, it all boils down to "what kind of relationship do I want to have with my child?"

 

Is that relationship to be based primarily in punishment for any and every infraction until the child is cowed?

 

Is that relationship to be based on love and respect and teaching love and respect (largely through modeling), with discipline where necessary (but in a way that allows the preservation of relationship)?

 

What does your friend want?

 

I have friends who have spanked their children, but they were the type who could keep their tempers under control - they didn't spank when they themselves were angry - and it was done rarely - and their kids are fine. However, they had full relationships with their children, of which punishment was a tiny, tiny part. It's all part of the whole

 

The Bible has been used as justification for a lot of things (slavery, targeted elimination and "breaking" of the Native Americans, targeting of Jews during the Holocaust, etc.) - does your friend recognize this and see the limitations of couching philosophies under very specifically selected Bible verses?

 

And - just for the record - my grandmother, born in 1918, heard of the Pearls' at church, paged through their book and their recommendations and was horrified - she says people in the 30's - 50's "had better sense than to listen to that kind of garbage"...so, at least from one "old-timer", the Pearl's methods would not be any less acceptable in the "good ole days" than now....

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't think stating something baldly like this is effective or even accurate. This is the kind of thing that just turns people off, as it is unsubstantiated opinion.

 

I actually provided links for this up the thread. Here are some more:

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/3/16/132347/107

 

http://blogs.alternet.org/vyckie/tag/debi-pearl/

 

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/category/michael-and-debi-pearl

 

http://www.elizabethesther.com/2011/04/church-sanctioned-spanking-of-infants-the-2020-investigation-of-ifb-churches.html

 

 

Or look at their own website. The Pearls offer *dangerous* advice. Here's a classic example (this deals with an abused wife, rather than a child):

http://nogreaterjoy.org/articles/abusive-husband/

 

That is *on their website*, advice straight from the horse's mouth.

 

Here's advice (again, this is on their website) to switch a 7 month old BABY who cries when put down to sleep at night:

http://nogreaterjoy.org/articles/spanking-a-7-month-old/?topic_slug=babies

 

Guns don't kill people. But, if you advise someone to shoot everybody they are mad at, then that would be dangerous advice.

 

I'm in sin, they are not, and their children are somehow going to turn out perfect while mine will be hedonistic sinners the rest of their lives.

 

Right. This is the dangerous bit, IMO. Advising people that switching tiny babies is the only way to raise good, happy, God-fearing adults.

[rwjx2khsmj]

If you don't mind a little reading, here is (what I consider) a good source for understanding the original meaning of the "rod verses."

 

http://aolff.org/spare-the-rod/the-rod-or-shebet-an-in-depth-examination

 

 

Thank you so much for sharing this site! I can't wait to read more and share it with others. It's nice to have someone articulate so clearly my own parenting style.

[TranquilMind]

I can't speak for everyone, but I read the OP to mean that her friend told her that HER (the OP's) children hadn't been given enough "hidings." Since, the OP has clarified.

 

Personally, I find a big difference between reading the Twilight fiction series and reading the Pearls, employing their techniques and then recommending I do the same.

 

Could you be friends with someone who engaged in something you find completely abusive? Everyone's entitled to their opinions here.

 

So just to clarify....you're saying that all those Conservative Christians who break ties with former friends over books such as "Harry Potter," etc. are in the wrong, too, correct?

 

astrid

 

You didn't quote anyone so I do not know if you are directing this to me, but it is possible.

 

I AM friends with epople who have read Harry Potter. I hate creepy stuff like that with demonic creatures, etc. I saw some movie trailers. My kids did not read this stuff. One of them has now seen one movie, recently.

 

So yes, I am quite able to separate people from the viewpoints they hold contrary to mine. I am not knowingly friends with "abusers" but I do know people who have spanked their children from time to time. This does not equate to abuse, so if you are using it that way, that would be inaccurately representing what MOST people do.

[TranquilMind]

Spy Car: There would be pedophiles without the man-boy love association too, doesn't mean we have to read their literature to know they are sickos.

 

 

True. But this is very different. There is NO scenario in which engaging in sex with children is appropriate. However, there are scenarios in which reasonable people can conclude that spanking is appropriate, when others might disagree.

[Parrothead]

Whoa, I thought this was strictly a BAC text??? Catholics are using this?

I don't know about the person you quoted, but there are other Christians that send their children to Catholic schools.

[Spy Car]

True. But this is very different. There is NO scenario in which engaging in sex with children is appropriate. However, there are scenarios in which reasonable people can conclude that spanking is appropriate, when others might disagree.

 

In what scenario is beating toddlers with plumbing supply lines "reasonable?"

 

The Pearl's methods go way (way) beyond "spankings." They advocate child abuse. Pure and simple.

 

Bill

[TranquilMind]

coffeefreak: I've had many friends go through this and they absolutely WILL NOT agree to let it drop. They drop comments, judge my kids, post on facebook, and quote the Pearls all the freaking time. Nothing I say makes a difference. I'm in sin, they are not, and their children are somehow going to turn out perfect while mine will be hedonistic sinners the rest of their lives.

 

The proof is in the pudding, as they say. I've known people who do this about all kinds of things. Ex smokers, who religiously pontificate on the evils of smoking. Ex bad eaters, who pontificate on why they and everyone around them must never let a doughnut pass their lips. Former couch potatoes who now run religiously and pontificate on why everyone else must do so too. It happens. People find a thing, think it will work, and talk about it some. It usually passes or they lose interest in talking about it.

 

Some are still in this phase and we rarely talk. Some are not and we have discussions about how the Pearls almost ruined our lives. I'd say pray, and if she won't agree to drop it, you'll have to distance yourself from her.

 

Sounds like the OP is holding her ground quite well. It is true that it could go either way. Or it will be a blip in time, quickly over, and they will move on.

[TranquilMind]

Happy2BaMom: For me, it all boils down to "what kind of relationship do I want to have with my child?"

 

Well stated. I think you find out how true this is and how many mistakes you really did make as the kids get older. I know I did.

 

Is that relationship to be based primarily in punishment for any and every infraction until the child is cowed?

 

Is that relationship to be based on love and respect and teaching love and respect (largely through modeling), with discipline where necessary (but in a way that allows the preservation of relationship)?

 

What does your friend want?

 

Are the two, spanking (young children) and a relationship based on love and respect - really totally incompatible? I'm not convinced they are, as all the nonspankers seem to be assuming.

 

I have friends who have spanked their children, but they were the type who could keep their tempers under control - they didn't spank when they themselves were angry - and it was done rarely - and their kids are fine. However, they had full relationships with their children, of which punishment was a tiny, tiny part. It's all part of the whole

 

Exactly. And other kinds of "discipline" that is not spanking can also take place at the hands of an angry parent, which negates any value.

 

Not being angry is the key, regardless of what manner of discipline you do. I wish I'd been better at that, regardless of what I was doing.

[Mrs Mungo]

In what scenario is beating toddlers with plumbing supply lines "reasonable?"

 

The Pearl's methods go way (way) beyond "spankings." They advocate child abuse. Pure and simple.

 

:iagree:

 

Are the two, spanking (young children) and a relationship based on love and respect - really totally incompatible? I'm not convinced they are, as all the nonspankers seem to be assuming.

 

I never said I was anti-spanking. I am anti hitting BABIES with plumbing line. It's an insane thing to do, imo.

[Abigail4476]

It's impossible for me to read a thread about the Pearl's and not be upset. I am encouraged by the number of people who have embraced childcare and discipline that requires no violence, but I'm always disheartened by the number of people who don't realize they can raise a wonderful child without hitting them. Or the number of people who may think it's possible to raise a child without hitting, and either think it's too much trouble to go another route or prefer spanking/CP to a gentler route. Why would anyone prefer a harsher discipline? I want to apply the least amount of pressure necessary to get the required behavior from my children. Not the maximum....

 

But beating one's wife is NOT equivalent to spanking one's children in any way.

 

No, somehow it seems less evil to beat a grown woman than a child who can't defend him or herself. Relatively speaking, anyway. I would never defend spousal abuse--even for those spouses with very difficult personalities. [TIC]

[SKL]

I want to apply the least amount of pressure necessary to get the required behavior from my children. Not the maximum....

 

Pressure from a spanking can be less damaging (and more effective) than pressure from mind games. It depends on the child, the maturity of the adult, and various other factors. Sometimes a spank on the butt is the least traumatic in the long run. Many people who are afraid to spank do worse to their kids in their quest to "control" them. (Note that this is not a defense of the Pearls, but of the choice to spank.)

 

BTW, am I the only person who finally felt it necessary to go look up "plumbing supply line"?

[TranquilMind]

In what scenario is beating toddlers with plumbing supply lines "reasonable?"

 

The Pearl's methods go way (way) beyond "spankings." They advocate child abuse. Pure and simple.

 

Bill

 

In no scenario is "beating" anyone with anything reasonable. That is not what I said.

 

You are making a judgment call that the Pearls "advocate child abuse" and I do not think that is justified. I do not agree with their techniques, btw.

[TranquilMind]

Pressure from a spanking can be less damaging (and more effective) than pressure from mind games. It depends on the child, the maturity of the adult, and various other factors. Sometimes a spank on the butt is the least traumatic in the long run. Many people who are afraid to spank do worse to their kids in their quest to "control" them. (Note that this is not a defense of the Pearls, but of the choice to spank.)

 

BTW, am I the only person who finally felt it necessary to go look up "plumbing supply line"?

So true.

[Spy Car]

Pressure from a spanking can be less damaging (and more effective) than pressure from mind games. It depends on the child, the maturity of the adult, and various other factors. Sometimes a spank on the butt is the least traumatic in the long run. Many people who are afraid to spank do worse to their kids in their quest to "control" them. (Note that this is not a defense of the Pearls, but of the choice to spank.)

 

BTW, am I the only person who finally felt it necessary to go look up "plumbing supply line"?

 

If you are unaware that the Pearls advocate savagely beating toddlers with plastic hoses (while the parents maintain big smiles on their faces) then I would respectful suggest you have no business defending something you clearly do not understand.

 

These peole are evil. Their methods are evil. There is nothing good to be gained from them.

 

Bill

[Mrs Mungo]

You are making a judgment call that the Pearls "advocate child abuse" and I do not think that is justified.

 

I think it's abusive to hit a little baby for crying when put to bed alone. I linked directly to an article on their website that advocates for that.

[LucyStoner]

I think it's abusive to hit a little baby for crying when put to bed alone. I linked directly to an article on their website that advocates for that.

 

:iagree:

 

They also say that if a baby bites a nursing mom to pull the baby's hair and remark that an alternative option will need to be found for bald babies. How about just taking the baby, who is doing a normal thing, off the breast every time they bite? That stops the problem for many mothers, including me, without hitting the child. They are not biting with intent to hurt they are biting because they are teething.

 

I have read enough of the book to be quite convinced that they are describing abuse, right down to the being kind after a beating to convince the child you are their friend. The steps he describe are in the playbook of any master abuser. It is precisely what abusive spouses do and precisely what psychotic kidnappers have done to their victims in some cases. Further, they explicitly state that women should stay married to men who sexually abuse their children. :confused: What message does that send to the abused and raped child? That the abuser and the marriage to him are more important than the abused and raped child. Excuse me while I vomit up my lunch.

Edited February 27, 2012 by kijipt

[mytwomonkeys]

This is one of my favorite pieces, a letter to a pastor posted on Mothering.com's forums.

 

:iagree: I have this letter saved in my favorites. Beautifully written and excellent rebuttal to pro-Pearl

[Parrothead]

Bottom line is the Pearls advocate child abuse, in may forms. Children have died as a result of their teachings. I did read their book initially with an open mind, contrary to your belief. About four pages in, whilst reading about how exactly to beat an infant so as not to leave bruises for the rest of the world to see, I formed an opinion.

 

You are certainly free to agree or disagree with me. But I will not waver in my belief (shared by many) that the Pearls are evil, their teachings are evil, and I would not be friends with anyone who not only employed their techniques but felt I should as well.

 

Couch it in whatever terms you please. Advocating the beating of children with tools until they cannot breath and no longer flee is abuse. I will not condone it by failing to stand up against it.

 

astrid

:hurray::hurray:

[mytwomonkeys]

If you are unaware that the Pearls advocate savagely beating toddlers with plastic hoses (while the parents maintain big smiles on their faces) then I would respectful suggest you have no business defending something you clearly do not understand.

 

These peole are evil. Their methods are evil. There is nothing good to be gained from them.

 

Bill

 

Yes! Even James Dobson abhors them and he is very in favor of corporal punishment

[SKL]

If you are unaware that the Pearls advocate savagely beating toddlers with plastic hoses (while the parents maintain big smiles on their faces) then I would respectful suggest you have no business defending something you clearly do not understand.

 

These peole are evil. Their methods are evil. There is nothing good to be gained from them.

 

Bill

 

It doesn't matter. This isn't about whether the Pearls are right or wrong. It's about what the OP should say to her friend who is reading one of their books.

 

"I am no longer your friend, you evil abusive insane hag."

 

"I read that and threw it in the garbage, and so should you, before the Pearls swallow your brain."

 

"That's not for me, shall we change the subject?"

 

"Sure, I'll discuss it with you, as long as you're respectful of my point of view."

 

Spycar, I don't agree with everything you say either, but I read what you write. Does that make me evil or someone who should be kept away from others' kids?

 

People should be able to have an intelligent discussion without sounding like raving lunatics. I'm sorry. The word "evil" is way overused and rarely useful. I see that and I move along. Perhaps that is why I haven't read the Pearls. (My whole family was labeled as "evil" by our next door neighbor because my then-4yo brother peed in the backyard. So maybe I'm jaded.)

 

It's a book. Not a human, not a paddle, not an electric shock machine. A book. It has NO POWER on its own.

[Rosie_0801]

Hannah, suppose you tell your friend that you think she is worrying unnecessarily; that you don't see any reason she should have given her children more hidings because they are turning out to be civilised and likable people anyway.

 

Rosie

[NanceXToo]

I think it's abusive to hit a little baby for crying when put to bed alone. I linked directly to an article on their website that advocates for that.

 

Yep. Here, in part, is what Michael Pearl says on his website in answer to how to handle a 7 month old who cries when put down to bed:

 

"When you have taken the child through her night-time paces and left her to sleep, never, never allow her to come out of the snooze mode and become active again. To do so is to leave her with the belief that time and place of sleep is left to her discretion. Humans are made by God to operate according to stimulation. Things that activate any of the senses are stimulating and pleasurable. Children love pleasure, and they love to be stimulated. They so love excitement that they will fight going into the “shut-off†mode. Wind them down gently so sleep comes naturally.

If the child has been mistrained, or if you have failed to provide a good prelude to sleep, and the child rises up to fight and resist, you should evaluate your whole procedure so as to improve your pre-sleep ritual for tomorrow night. But for the moment, you must constrain the child to obey authority and remain lying down. As a last resort, you may have to prove the power of your word by enforcing it with one or two stinging licks (applied with a small flexible switch) to the child’s leg that says to the child, “There is no reward for getting up; Mama means business; she is not going to give over to my demands; the path to greatest pleasure is to go to sleep; there is no alternative; my parents always get their way; what can I say? Good night.â€

Commands are not negotiable; authority must be obeyed. The soul of the child needs that kind of authority in her life to be stable emotionally and to develop a will to accept discipline."

 

In regard to a six month old dumping his food on the floor, he says, in part:

 

"Dumping it is not a great offense for a six-month-old, but he will not always be six months old, and it won’t be cute for long. It will make you downright mad when he is three years old and flings a whole plate of food into your lap. So we watch him, knowing his propensity to selfish compulsion. When he seizes his bowl with intentions of dumping it, swat the offending hand with a little instrument (light wooden spoon, rubber spatula, flexible tubing less than a quarter inch in diameter, or any instrument that will cause an unpleasant sting without leaving any marks). As you swat the offending hand, say “No†in a normal commanding voice. The tone is more important than the word―not angry―but decisive. Children understand the temperament in your tone before they are born, and will recognize it. This swat is not punishment. Probably, it will not even cause the little guy to cry. He will be shocked and stop any action in which he is engaged. Explain to him that he is not to throw his food onto the floor. If he again makes an attempt, swat his hand again and say, no. The third time is the charm. He now knows that “No†uttered in a commanding tone, is something serious. He will not try that stunt again—at least not for this meal.

Understand well, if he has already dumped his food onto the floor, it is too late to swat him. He will not make the intellectual association, and any spanking would then be “punishment†for past deeds, entirely counterproductive for a small child. If you didn’t catch him as he was attempting to spill it, then you must put the plate and food back in front of him and be ready to respond when he tries it again. This is training for the purpose of discipline. The child will actually profit emotionally from this exercise, for he is constrained to act in ways that will make him more loved and cause him to find wide approval from everyone he is around. A child with unacceptable habits becomes a rejected child, then a dejected child, and eventually a self-loathing kid who feels that he can never please anyone and that no one likes him. I am sorry the psychologists and secular child advocates don’t get it, but then if all parents practiced child training as I have suggested, there wouldn’t be any need for abnormal psychologists or child protection agencies. A lot of people would move on to more practical kinds of work, and there wouldn’t be any more crime or war.

Yes, we spank our little ones, but only as we define spanking, not as others might imagine it to be. We obey God in applying the rod of training, not because we are gullible and blind religious fools, but because the Word of God has made us wise beyond our secular peers. We know what is good for our children."

 

Somebody asks them to describe the rod they so often speak of, and Debi writes:

 

"The rod we speak of is a plumbing supply line that can be bought at any hardware store or large department store. It is a slim, flexible, plastic tubing that supplies water to sinks, and toilets. Ask for “¼ inch supply line.†They cost less than one dollar. I always give myself one swat before I swat the child to remind myself how much force to exert. It stings the skin without bruising or damaging tissue. It’s a real attention-getter."

[TranquilMind]

SKL: It doesn't matter. This isn't about whether the Pearls are right or wrong. It's about what the OP should say to her friend who is reading one of their books.

 

 

Exactly. Somehow this fact has been lost in the ranting.

 

"I am no longer your friend, you evil abusive insane hag."

 

"I read that and threw it in the garbage, and so should you, before the Pearls swallow your brain."

 

 

This is apparently how people here speak to their friends.

 

"That's not for me, shall we change the subject?"

 

"Sure, I'll discuss it with you, as long as you're respectful of my point of view."

 

 

This is how I speak to friends.

 

Spycar, I don't agree with everything you say either, but I read what you write. Does that make me evil or someone who should be kept away from others' kids?

 

 

 

Right. Makes as much sense.

 

People should be able to have an intelligent discussion without sounding like raving lunatics. I'm sorry. The word "evil" is way overused and rarely useful. I see that and I move along. Perhaps that is why I haven't read the Pearls. (My whole family was labeled as "evil" by our next door neighbor because my then-4yo brother peed in the backyard. So maybe I'm jaded.)

 

 

LOL. Similar things have happened here, I'm sorry to say.

 

It's a book. Not a human, not a paddle, not an electric shock machine. A book. It has NO POWER on its own.

 

 

Thank you for being a voice of reason.

Edited February 27, 2012 by TranquilMind

[SKL]

If you are unaware that the Pearls advocate savagely beating toddlers with plastic hoses (while the parents maintain big smiles on their faces) then I would respectful suggest you have no business defending something you clearly do not understand.

 

These peole are evil. Their methods are evil. There is nothing good to be gained from them.

 

Bill

 

Oh, and by the way, my mother used to "beat" me with an extension cord. She had a particular favorite cord that was just the right length and flexibility. Probably more painful than a "plumbing supply line." I do not consider my mom to be evil.

 

But again, as I mentioned before (I guess you were too angry to read it), I am not defending the Pearls. Just people's right to read them without being treated like criminals.

[joannqn]

Give her this book. It gives the attachment parenting version of Christian parenting, refuting a lot of what is in books like the Pearls and Babywise.

[Mrs Mungo]

It doesn't matter. This isn't about whether the Pearls are right or wrong. It's about what the OP should say to her friend who is reading one of their books.

 

No, it's about what she should say to her friend who is pushing the belief that the book comes from a Biblical standpoint. I provided links with rebuttals to those specific claims in my first post.

 

To quote the OP:

I've told her that we should just agree to disagree (and I strongly disagree!) on this issue, but I know she is not going to let it drop and I need to be able to have some replies ready for her as I don't know that I'll be able to pass the bean-dip on this either.

[LucyStoner]

Hannah, suppose you tell your friend that you think she is worrying unnecessarily; that you don't see any reason she should have given her children more hidings because they are turning out to be civilised and likable people anyway.

 

Rosie

 

That is a good idea. People are more likely to agree with you when you complement their children. :001_smile:

[SKL]

No, it's about what she should say to her friend who is pushing the belief that the book comes from a Biblical standpoint. I provided links with rebuttals to those specific claims in my first post.

 

Right, what she should say to her friend who is reading their book (and agreeing with SOME of it).

 

OP disagrees and wants rebuttals. You and others provided them.

 

Not sure what the problem is.

 

ETA: Though, the Bible does say you should stone your child to death if he's gone really bad. So in my mind, whether it's Biblical or not is not the deciding factor in how I discipline my kids. But that's not what the OP asked, either.

[KungFuPanda]

Cradle Catholic jumping in here. This is NOT a Catholic thing. I've never seen nor heard a Catholic supporting this book. Myself and my Catholic friends tend towards the 'no spanking' method of discipline.

 

 

 

I don't know about the person you quoted, but there are other Christians that send their children to Catholic schools.

 

Ah, that makes sense. I'd never heard of a Catholic following the Pearls' advise either and it gave me the shivers for a minute. It gives me some comfort to believe this is a practice that is dying out; not spreading. I prefer to believe this is an extremist philosophy practiced by a small, distinct religious group and not something "most Americans" embrace.

 

To the OP: Wasn't there a website, Gentle Christian Mothers . . .or something like that that would arm you for a battle of scriptural interpretation?

[Lovedtodeath]

Yep. Here, in part, is what Michael Pearl says on his website in answer to how to handle a 7 month old who cries when put down to bed:

I feel sick. :(

[Ellesmere]

Rosie's idea sounds like a good one and if she isn't too far gone in this thinking, I would hope it would work!

 

But if not or if she is surrounded by people condoning the Pearls, I'm going to quote this from another thread. Hannah, maybe you can be a support to your friend if she ever has doubts about the Pearls, if she hasn't pushed you away by then. Hearing something like this post below could mean a lot to her.

 

Yes, indeed. And when that is compounded by a manipulative church or homeschool group environment full of pastors, mothers, and grandmothers insisting that all the parents use the same methods, a Mom can lose the ability to hear her own thoughts.

 

In those impossibly difficult moments at home, she isn't listening for the guidance of the Holy Spirit or for her own common-sense judgment! She can't hear those things anymore, because she is hearing all the many voices telling her 'spare the rod and spoil the child.' And so she reaches for the plumbing supply line.

 

To take it a step further, if she later shares that moment of indecision or difficulty with these mentors and friends, they will tell her she did the right thing by whacking him. Toughen up, Mama, they'll say, and save his soul from hell.

 

And so a mother's heart is hardened. First, by bad teaching, second, by choosing to continue in actions that are against her own instinct, and third, by the relentless ongoing counsel from others telling her to go against herself for the good of her child. She is rewarded by her peer group for following the plan, criticized and shunned if she won't. The mother and her children are all victims of these teachings.

 

This is not the story of all Pearl (or Ezzo) followers, nor the story of all churches where such teachings are embraced. But it certainly happens. It happened to me and to many others of my actual acquaintance.

 

Speaking to Christians here, who may have begun to doubt their own choices in mentors and teachers: The only way to begin hearing oneself again, or the voice of the Holy Spirit, is to cut one's family away from these people. Shut off the voices, throw away the books, and begin to grow in the wisdom and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. Read and re-read the Sermon on the Mount and realize that the sheep will recognize the voice of the Good Shepherd. As you pore over those scriptures, it will become beautifully and abundantly clear that the voice of the Good Shepherd sounds nothing like the voices of Michael Pearl or Gary Ezzo.

 

After you have become steeped in the words of Jesus, begin to study the Bible for God's own references to mothers. The Old and New Testaments are full of beautiful imagery: God sees mothers of infants as ever patient, loving, gentle, and protecting of their little ones. You will not be able to see biblical motherhood in the same light again. God's mothers, as portrayed by the imagery and symbolism of Holy Scripture, do not carry plumbing supply line.

 

You can be delivered from a cycle of abuse. You can go back to being who you were before you heard of the Pearls.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Speaking to Christians here, who may have begun to doubt their own choices in mentors and teachers: The only way to begin hearing oneself again, or the voice of the Holy Spirit, is to cut one's family away from these people. Shut off the voices, throw away the books, and begin to grow in the wisdom and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ

:hurray::hurray::hurray:

[8circles]

I was going to reply but Ann, Mrs. Mungo, NanceX and ThatCyndiGirl have it covered!

 

:grouphug::grouphug::grouphug:

:iagree:

[Ester Maria]

As always in these discussions, I am quite alarmed that a book gets blamed for things. :confused:

 

So fine, it is a book (most of which I have by the way read, out of sheer curiosity), which contains many ideas which many people would find to be dangerous, wrong, or plain evil ideas.

But ultimately, it is not about what a book says. It is about what people DO with what a book says. That is where the responsibility lies. NOTHING and NOBODY can make you treat your child in the proposed fashion without your consent if you are a mature and reasonably sane and healthy adult (and if you lack that maturity, perhaps you should not presume to "raise" other people in the first place?).

 

So, while I share many people's disgust about the Pearls' overall child-rearing philosophy (blind obedience has never been the highest virtue I wish for my children - I do not consider it a virtue at all, to be honest, it creeps the hell out of me because much evil has happened in the world when the good people were "duly fulfilling orders" - nor has switching infants been my preferred way of bonding with them), I still disagree with the statements such as "children have died as a result of those teachings". No, they have not died because of it - they have died as a result of concrete actions by concrete people, not as a result of some vague philosophies out there in the air on the market of ideas.

Pressure from a spanking can be less damaging (and more effective) than pressure from mind games. It depends on the child, the maturity of the adult, and various other factors. Sometimes a spank on the butt is the least traumatic in the long run. Many people who are afraid to spank do worse to their kids in their quest to "control" them.

I agree with this (and I have never hit my kids).

 

I have known people whose parents were polite, self-controlled, progressive, cultured people, who would never hit a child - but who, behind the curtains, did what were in many aspects awful mind games or emotional manipulation of their children (typically recognized as such only in retrospect). I often thought how most of my other friends, who suffered a swat or two in their early and a slap or two in their late childhood / youth, actually grew up in a way healthier home atmosphere even if it on the outside appeared more violent. So, I definitely agree with you here - things are not always what they seem.

Still, it was miles away from anything the Pearls would advocate.

[3peasinWa]

Ester have you read a Pearl book? When i did, I absolutely could see how someone can take it & beat their child to the point of death. The author needs to take some responsibility for saying if your child doesn't yield to your will, keep whipping him, b/c he surely will not die from it.

The fact of the matter is, children have died from it.

[Lovedtodeath]

Ester have you read a Pearl book? When i did, I absolutely could see how someone can take it & beat their child to the point of death. The author needs to take some responsibility for saying if your child doesn't yield to your will, keep whipping him, b/c he surely will not die from it.

The fact of the matter is, children have died from it.

Yes. and even from parents who remained calm the entire time.

[Ester Maria]

Ester have you read a Pearl book? When i did, I absolutely could see how someone can take it & beat their child to the point of death. The author needs to take some responsibility for saying if your child doesn't yield to your will, keep whipping him, b/c he surely will not die from it.

The fact of the matter is, children have died from it.

I have read what was available online, which I believe was pretty much the integral text of To Train Up a Child (the one with infant switching and all). I would not have considered buying it under any conditions as I do not wish to own a copy or to financially support it, but what I read did appear to be an entire book, pretty much.

 

It is because I *have* read it why I believe it is a lot less potent stuff than many people make it to be. Of course, now you might say - and I will agree with it - that "potent" depends on the person who reads it and their state at the time they read it, so while many people could read it and forget about it, many others would get influenced... but frankly, you can say the same thing about *anything*. And at some point, when it boils down, you can either treat people as though they are responsible for their acts or as though they are not and as though they are too weak to resist such stuff on the market of ideas. I choose the former, taking the attitude that ultimately, it is about the person who acts, not about an abstract idea they act on. They choose to adhere to that idea and implement it.

Of course, there is an element of personal responsibility in promoting certain ideas in print under your full name, and an element of legal responsibility if those ideas cross certain lines, but at the end of the day, it is still about people who do it. I hold that nothing and nobody can make you a child abuser unless YOU allow it (assuming we are talking about mature and reasonably healthy adults), even if they were to openly promote beating a child to death (which the Pearls, IIRC, with all the disgust they do promote, still do not).

 

So, no, I really do not see how that book could make anyone do anything, although it could certainly be a trigger... but for somebody who already has inside of them, or brought about by their circumstances, an inclination to punitive and violent relationships with children, power plays with children, and all the other stuff I abhor about this philosophy. First you have to accept the idea of the whole breaking the child's will, whipping, etc., to even get to the point of practicing it. And one book alone is hardly going to do it. My own mentality is so far away from that one that I could read this book and remain entirely intact by anything I read there. Now, sure, people are different and I come from a different culture and all, but really, it is a *choice* to implement in practice what you read about. I just get slightly disturbed when I read otherwise or when I see, even by implication, the principal fault being placed upon a philosophy rather than adults who chose to embrace it as their own (not speaking of this thread, but more generally).

Edited February 28, 2012 by Ester Maria
I am illiterate

[Joanne]

I don't engage with crazy.

 

I believe that anyone who believes in the Pearls' discipline and theological perspective is on the continuum of legalistic and unwell. How "far" on the continuum varies. I don't engage.

 

It also, IMO, shows a lack of critical thinking skills.

 

The Pearls' and their promises are insidious and seductive. Wrap it in Christian-ese for a wanting, vulnerable audience, and you have danger.

 

As I said, I don't engage. But 4 things:

 

1. You either take the Bible literally OR you don't. The Bible says you can't beat a child to death. YES YOU CAN. The Bible's instructions are to *beat* a youth across the back. Not "spank". BEAT A CHILD ACROSS THE BACK. None of the prolific spanking authors suggest that. They are already offering a non-literal interpretation, but calling it "following God's word".

 

2. Proverbs is a poetic, intentionally dramatic and pithy literary form. It is *Wisdom Literature*. To follow it literally is absurd from both a cultural and literature standpoint.

 

3. A parent can't cleanse a soul. If you believe in Christ in a traditional way, only Christ can cleanse a soul. The degree to which the Pearls' believe in the redemptive function of punishment is *anti*Biblical.

 

4. Spaking children of those ages, especially the older 2, is sexually abusive.

 

I have more; but it is all written in a 27 page paper. ;)

[astrid]

I feel sick. :(

 

But babies are comforted by being beaten! Thy rod and staff! They comfort me! :glare:

 

astrid

[kalanamak]

No, it's about what she should say to her friend who is pushing the belief that the book comes from a Biblical standpoint. I provided links with rebuttals to those specific claims in my first post.

 

 

This is worrisome. It isn't that she is quietly doing this, it is that she wants her friend (OP) to agree. And wanting her to agree because it would be Biblically correct to do this. That sounds like she has become emotionally swept up in the philosophy.

[Bluegoat]

I have read what was available online, which I believe was pretty much the integral text of To Train Up a Child (the one with infant switching and all). I would not have considered buying it under any conditions as I do not wish to own a copy or to financially support it, but what I read did appear to be an entire book, pretty much.

 

It is because I *have* read it why I believe it is a lot less potent stuff than many people make it to be. Of course, now you might say - and I will agree with it - that "potent" depends on the person who reads it and their state at the time they read it, so while many people could read it and forget about it, many others would get influenced... but frankly, you can say the same thing about *anything*. And at some point, when it boils down, you can either treat people as though they are responsible for their acts or as though they are not and as though they are too weak to resist such stuff on the market of ideas. I choose the former, taking the attitude that ultimately, it is about the person who acts, not about an abstract idea they act on. They choose to adhere to that idea and implement it.

Of course, there is an element of personal responsibility in promoting certain ideas in print under your full name, and an element of legal responsibility if those ideas cross certain lines, but at the end of the day, it is still about people who do it. I hold that nothing and nobody can make you a child abuser unless YOU allow it (assuming we are talking about mature and reasonably healthy adults), even if they were to openly promote beating a child to death (which the Pearls, IIRC, with all the disgust they do promote, still do not).

 

So, no, I really do not see how that book could make anyone do anything, although it could certainly be a trigger... but for somebody who already has inside of them, or brought about by their circumstances, an inclination to punitive and violent relationships with children, power plays with children, and all the other stuff I abhor about this philosophy. First you have to accept the idea of the whole breaking the child's will, whipping, etc., to even get to the point of practicing it. And one book alone is hardly going to do it. My own mentality is so far away from that one that I could read this book and remain entirely intact by anything I read there. Now, sure, people are different and I come from a different culture and all, but really, it is a *choice* to implement in practice what you read about. I just get slightly disturbed when I read otherwise or when I see, even by implication, the principal fault being placed upon a philosophy rather than adults who chose to embrace it as their own (not speaking of this thread, but more generally).

 

I understand what you are getting at here, but I think in practice it is much more complicated than that. There are many people who, for various reasons, are really doubting themselves as parents, who are culturally conditioned to accept anything which they understand to be "Biblical" but do not have the tools to really figure out what that means, or come from religious groups that put extreme pressure on them. They are also groups that talk a lot about people being "saved" and the worst thing they can imagine is that their child might one day be someone who is not saved. Although such people are unlikely to go to the extreme of some mentally ill individuals who kill their children in order to save them from hell later on, there are, i think, similar fears at work. They are ready to accept anything they believe will produce a saved child, and are perhaps more likely than most to carry things a bit too far.

 

The Pearl's books make a claim that is deadly to people with the right kind of vulnerable mind-set. These are the same kind of people who tend to join very authoritarian churches with a lot of expectation for conformity. The Pearls aren't just making a suggestion that their way is effective; their claim is that it is the Biblical way to raise children, and that any other way will produce children who will be separated from God. And of course people who see thir church community doing this kind of thing and supporting it are even more likely to doubt whatever worries they may have, and eventually it comes to seem normal.

 

So yes - it isn't that the book or advice itself does anything alone. But it is the claims to authority that are made by people who in fact have none, and the way it preys upon the emotionally and spiritually and intellectually vulnerable that makes it so worrying.

[SonshineLearner]

I have to say that I thought the book was pretty ok, but that when I watched him speak I thought "stupid idiot man." Here's the deal, as long as they don't practice beating an infant, hitting their children with pvc pipe.... Striking them multiple times... (basically as long as they don't try to model their family after the Pearls) I'd be ok... pretty much with them. I seriously have a hard time reconciling what their daughter says her life was like, in comparison to how her Dad speaks. I mean, when he was telling the person interviewing him how spanking a child should be, it looked like a bad mean joke :(

I have no problem with other people deciding to spank their children. I also truly believe that adopted children should be dealt with differently than biological. I also believe that spanking is something that is easy to use for every infraction. (and that it's not good to fall into only using spanking) If I had it to do all over again, I wouldn't spank my children... except for maybe a couple of times. Now that I've experienced parenting longer, I can think of stricter parenting styles than spanking :( Really, just consistently parenting is more effective. For some actions, a swat can stop a huge fit, and save (my) sanity. To me it's incredibly different than using an unbreakable pipe for an endless amount of times to beat a child ;(

[Joanne]

I have to say that I thought the book was pretty ok, but that when I watched him speak I thought "stupid idiot man." Here's the deal, as long as they don't practice beating an infant, hitting their children with pvc pipe.... Striking them multiple times... (basically as long as they don't try to model their family after the Pearls) I'd be ok... pretty much with them. I seriously have a hard time reconciling what their daughter says her life was like, in comparison to how her Dad speaks. I mean, when he was telling the person interviewing him how spanking a child should be, it looked like a bad mean joke :(

I have no problem with other people deciding to spank their children. I also truly believe that adopted children should be dealt with differently than biological. I also believe that spanking is something that is easy to use for every infraction. (and that it's not good to fall into only using spanking) If I had it to do all over again, I wouldn't spank my children... except for maybe a couple of times. Now that I've experienced parenting longer, I can think of stricter parenting styles than spanking :( Really, just consistently parenting is more effective. For some actions, a swat can stop a huge fit, and save (my) sanity. To me it's incredibly different than using an unbreakable pipe for an endless amount of times to beat a child ;(

 

My objections to the Pearls is not because of the presence of spanking. "Spanking" is a nebulous term, anyway, to accurately quantify parenting. Parents who blanket train and spank a la Godly Tomatoes are spanking parents. Parents who spank infrequently are spanking parents. Parents who spank their tired child in WalMart are spanking parents. Parents who spank their child for "very serious" infractions, very infrequently, with counsel before and after are spanking parents.

 

The Pearls *theology* and *parenting orientation* are skewed, questionable, and abusive. Ironically, their very GOD becomes abusive if you follow that paradigm as it is presented.