Can We Talk about the Pearls Here?

[nmoira]

 

Hey Janet I slept with my babies too. Got alot of grief for it but nursing is much easier that way. I also found that when they are hungry and you tend to feed them they cry alot less. Mine did anyway.:grouphug:

Me too... and extended nursing/nursing on demand. It just felt right, and I have no regrets.

[WTMindy]

My concern(s) about the Pearls are not about *spanking*.

 

Agreed!!!!!

[WTMindy]

But good golly, they make it into a ritual and it is disturbing. When you outline what implement to use, what position to put the child in, etc it is too much.

 

Disturbing on many levels!!

[Kelli in TN]

I will say I am very sorry about my punctuation. I really just never think of it. I guess I should realize that even as an adult some may find that it is hard to read without all the grammer tricks. I hate proper grammer and all that nicety nonsense I will admit. I hated doing it in highschool. I hated doing it in college. I really hated it when I was a tutor. I will try to make all correct posts from now on. In a conversation that is centering around child abuse, moral bancruptcy and harmed families punctuation is very important. I really appreciate the poster who stated that should not be done in public, thank you. I will ask that if anyone feels the need to be an english teacher to me please do it in private and I don't think it deserves negative rep. .

 

 

I think you might be overreacting here. Nobody was putting you down. But when you do not puncuate and you do not use paragraph indentions and such it is very hard to read the post.

 

Some of us are getting older and we are too stubborn to get our eyeglass prescription filled!!!:lol: Well, okay, maybe only one of us is too stubborn to get it filled!:001_huh:

 

Nobody is trying to be your English teacher and there is an unspoken rule on these boards that you just let the spelling and grammar errors slide unless they were made by Elaine because her typos are too funny to ignore.

 

I think all Pensguys was saying to you is that we want you to add to the virtual conversation but could you please make it easier on our old worn out eyes by punctuating and spacing. That is all there was to it. I am certain of that.

[clarkacademy]

If I had to follow all those rules and remember the positions etc. I would give up on spanking. :)

[Kelli in TN]

If I had to follow all those rules and remember the positions etc. I would give up on spanking. :)

 

:lol: It IS a lot to keep track of, isn't it? Seems easier just to find a kinder, simpler way to parent!

[WTMindy]

I think you might be overreacting here. Nobody was putting you down. But when you do not puncuate and you do not use paragraph indentions and such it is very hard to read the post.

 

Some of us are getting older and we are too stubborn to get our eyeglass prescription filled!!!:lol: Well, okay, maybe only one of us is too stubborn to get it filled!:001_huh:

 

Nobody is trying to be your English teacher and there is an unspoken rule on these boards that you just let the spelling and grammar errors slide unless they were made by Elaine because her typos are too funny to ignore.

 

I think all Pensguys was saying to you is that we want you to add to the virtual conversation but could you please make it easier on our old worn out eyes by punctuating and spacing. That is all there was to it. I am certain of that.

 

That's how I took the post. I will confess that I skip over posts that I can't read easily, so it really does help to have punctuation and paragraph breaks. Not because I care about the grammar, but because I'm lazy and I don't want to work that hard when I'm reading posts.

[Kelli in TN]

This last thing,then I have got to get a shower and start my day....

 

My 10 year old just slid up next to me on the couch while I was typing one of my responses. She read over my shoulder and then leaned back and looked at me quizzically and said "Mom, what are you talking about?"

 

And I explained to her that some people believe that parents should hit kids with a stick as a way of spanking.

 

You should have seen her face.

 

Then I said to her, "I used to believe it too. In fact I have hit Robby, Bekah and Sarah with a stick" and I went on to explain about leaning over the bed and they were not allowed to move or wiggle and we had a chart of how many hits you would get for certain wrongdoings.

 

She is in shock.

 

Of course I explained to her that God brought me away from that and that is why she and the two siblings closest to her in age have never experienced that.

[LisaNY]

The very idea that someone would say to a room full of women, "write down the three things you most like your husband to do differently" and then, when the women have entrusted you with that information to use it to mock them later is just cruel. The women, including myself, wrote down our most heartfelt desires on those slips of paper. He used them to bully us as a group.

 

He sure did. That is a tactic used by people who control/intimidate via use of public humiliation. It was just his little way of "Sticking it to the woman."

[clarkacademy]

:lol: It IS a lot to keep track of, isn't it? Seems easier just to find a kinder, simpler way to parent!

 

 

 

For sure there is. You can just grab them and wop em a few. I AM KIDDING!!!! JOKING REALLY!!! I don't beat my kids. I have spanked I won't lie but nothing horrible and only when they are totally out of control. Not a baby who dumps her plate either. My just turned 7 year old is a wild child. He has gotten a few spanks in his life but not major. No whip stick or whatever that is. Yes there is a kinder way and it does not include ritual beatings. I like bed sitting to get them in a quiet type space that they can calm down.

He decided three times now that he would kick the wall. I mean kick it as in I had to have repair work done. He got some spanks then. I cannot deal with destructiveness like that. Other wise I am pretty open and I try to talk about why whatever he has done is not a good choice etc. He is just really impulsive. Not a bad boy really, he does things without thinking. He is always sorry once he has calmed down. I am hoping it improves with age.:001_smile:

[Joanne]

It is the Ezzo stuff I did the longest though and did the most damage because I kept at it for her whole babyhood. More than anything it was the demonizing of AP. AP when she was an infant would have been exactly the therapy she needed. If I have another child with this disorder they will do much better because I no longer believe that baby wearing is sinful!

 

Ezzo not only demonizes AP; he misrepresents it. Rosemond does that as well. When they describe AP, they use charicatures and hyperbole and assume permissiveness. OTOH, the AP community (not the principles, but the community) does, IMO, have a higher percentage of what I believe to be permssive parenting.

 

The Pearls actually advocate and support several of the AP approaches to baby care. It's a creepy juxtaposition.

[Colleen]

Because the comments are usually based on other people's misquoting of what the Pearls wrote. Someone could say she wasn't interested in reading what the Pearls have written, but they really couldn't have a valid POV about what the Pearls say or do, could they? They only have 2nd- or 3rd-hand knowledge, not much more, really, than gossip.

 

I understand what you're saying. You justifiably prefer that people go directly to the source rather than form an opinion based on hearsay. That doesn't require actually reading the books. One might have heard the Pearls in person. Or read many of their articles. Or newsletters. And so on. In which case many of the comments shared here from those who haven't read the books (plural, at that) are still valid and appropriate. Do you agree?

[Danestress]

Because the comments are usually based on other people's misquoting of what the Pearls wrote.

 

Someone could say she wasn't interested in reading what the Pearls have written, but they really couldn't have a valid POV about what the Pearls say or do, could they? They only have 2nd- or 3rd-hand knowledge, not much more, really, than gossip.

 

That the quotes on this board are wrong? Can you point to a misquote? Because some of them (like the one that Colleen quoted below) are just totally bizarre, and it wouldn't really matter the context. There is no context in which that quote wouldn't seem freakish.

[MelissaM]

I bought their books hoping for some Biblical guidance on being a better disciplinarian. It still makes me sick to think that they would actually tell about hitting their five month old baby with a switch.

 

It turned me off to anything they would ever have to say. I found the books recently while cleaning the attic and put them in the garbage bag. I would hate for for someone to read their materials and think it was good parenting.

[Colleen]

I do agree with whoever said that they shouldn't comment if they haven't read the books.

 

As I said earlier:

 

"We discuss and formulate opinions about all manner of things in life without necessarily having delved into the primary sources at length. I watch a movie preview and determine whether or not it's fare that appeals to me. I read excerpts from and reviews of a given book and decide whether I want to commit to a full reading. I even, admittedly, make assumptions at times with very little info to go on. A place of business called "The Lusty Lady", for example (and it does exist...a stone's throw away from the Seattle Art Museum), doesn't necessitate a firsthand visit on my part to determine it isn't my cuppa.

 

Have I read the Pearls' books? Nope. But I've read a good deal of their philosophy in order to give them (and some friends) a fair hearing. I don't merely make offhand assumptions based on a few lines shared on a message board. I do investigate. I do inform myself."

 

...and added today:

 

"You justifiably prefer that people go directly to the source rather than form an opinion based on hearsay. That doesn't require actually reading the books. One might have heard the Pearls in person. Or read many of their articles. Or newsletters. And so on. In which case many of the comments shared here from those who haven't read the books (plural, at that) are still valid and appropriate."

 

Articles in magazines or online do not do them justice at all. They have twisted their words instead.

 

Who are "they"? If I read articles written and published by the Pearls, shared in their newsletter, on their website...who's twisting their words?

 

Please read their books then you can comment.

 

Please don't tell others what standards you feel we have to meet in order to comment. My opinions are not based on hearsay, nor are they less than worthwhile of consideration than yours.:)

[Ashleen]

I was blinded to my child's obvious special needs because of this teaching. I was convinced that if I spanked her enough she would be a calm godly little girl. All the while she was suffering from a real medical condition and I was making it worse.

 

:grouphug::grouphug::grouphug:

[Sweetpeach]

But you will notice that most of the posters in this thread are speaking out against this, right?

 

Yes, Kelli . . . and I admire your courage to speak your deepest about how you listened to your heart and transitioned into a different kind of parent/discipline style. I have deep respect for people like you . . . I'm not proud to admit this, but I too followed the Ezzo "stuff" closely with my first child. (I could probably find some different words but for the sake of politeness, I'll call it "stuff") Thankfully, by the time #2 came along, I'd flushed the books, jumped wholeheartedly in AP and am so very thankful that we were led along that path.

 

I'm talking about the article that was linked at the very beginning of this thread. There was no good reason for me to start Canada Day off with that bunch of baloney. sigh.

 

I know many folks are reading this thread, rolling their eyes and thinking we should be more "biblical" in our child rearing . . . that's what makes me crazy. There is nothing biblical about beating/whipping/switching a child into submission.

 

 

Warmly, Tricia

[Aubrey]

So I looked up the Pearls' website last night, to see how bad it was, really. I was in the middle of reading several articles when dh came home, & I read some of them to him.

 

I just want to say, I LOVE that man. (dh, not Pearl, lol) Dh never gets angry, about anything. And he was LIVID. He suggested that the couple be given a dose of their own medicine.

 

Apparently, the pipe-thingy they rec for spanking really hurts. I read that it doesn't leave a mark & figured people were just freaked out by *what* it is. Dh says no. He & his friends used to joust w/ these. They *hurt.* Even covered w/ layers of foam & duct tape, apparently, they really hurt.

 

Anyway, the 2 points from the website that I thought were particularly revealing were:

 

1. the couple's advice to women in abusive marriages ( *if* your dh hits you hard enough to leave marks that last more than 2 hrs, you can *tell* him you're going to call the police the next time he does it, as long as you do this w/ the right spirit. Great op for "3 minute romantic phone calls once a week." And in the case of child molestation, *if* you think he's not repentant, you can "have him serve 10-20 years"--like that's up to the wife--by which time "you'll have the kids raised"--so his behavior's not an issue & you can "welcome him home w/ open arms.")

 

2. There was an article about "Jezebel" wives that concluded w/ support from Genesis 3: Your desire will be for him, & he will rule over you. So they're basing pretty much their whole marriage philosophy on the CURSE.

 

Dh summed it up like this: a bottle of 98% water & 2% arsenic is much more dangerous than a bottle labeled w/ a skull & crossbones. The way they mix *some* truth w/ SUCH evil has the potential to cause much more damage than something that's labeled as such.

 

Btw, when reading about the child who runs away from being spanked, did anyone feel like they were a kid again watching Tx Chainsaw Massacre or some other first horror film? "There is no escape..." :w00t:

[Kelli in TN]

So I looked up the Pearls' website last night, to see how bad it was, really. I was in the middle of reading several articles when dh came home, & I read some of them to him.

 

I just want to say, I LOVE that man. (dh, not Pearl, lol) Dh never gets angry, about anything. And he was LIVID. He suggested that the couple be given a dose of their own medicine.

 

Apparently, the pipe-thingy they rec for spanking really hurts. I read that it doesn't leave a mark & figured people were just freaked out by *what* it is. Dh says no. He & his friends used to joust w/ these. They *hurt.* Even covered w/ layers of foam & duct tape, apparently, they really hurt.

 

Anyway, the 2 points from the website that I thought were particularly revealing were:

 

1. the couple's advice to women in abusive marriages ( *if* your dh hits you hard enough to leave marks that last more than 2 hrs, you can *tell* him you're going to call the police the next time he does it, as long as you do this w/ the right spirit. Great op for "3 minute romantic phone calls once a week." And in the case of child molestation, *if* you think he's not repentant, you can "have him serve 10-20 years"--like that's up to the wife--by which time "you'll have the kids raised"--so his behavior's not an issue & you can "welcome him home w/ open arms.")

 

2. There was an article about "Jezebel" wives that concluded w/ support from Genesis 3: Your desire will be for him, & he will rule over you. So they're basing pretty much their whole marriage philosophy on the CURSE.

 

Dh summed it up like this: a bottle of 98% water & 2% arsenic is much more dangerous than a bottle labeled w/ a skull & crossbones. The way they mix *some* truth w/ SUCH evil has the potential to cause much more damage than something that's labeled as such.

 

Btw, when reading about the child who runs away from being spanked, did anyone feel like they were a kid again watching Tx Chainsaw Massacre or some other first horror film? "There is no escape..." :w00t:

 

I am out of rep and that makes me very sad because you have several points in here that so deserve it.

 

Someone get this woman some rep!!!

[Liz CA]

Personally, I find the Pearls and Ezzos *at least* borderline abusive. I disagree with their world view that all children are automatically mean, sneaky, rebellious, etc and must have their spirits broken so that they can be controlled. Babies do not need to be discipline, they need guidance.

 

I think people who are parented this way are put in danger of further abuse down the road. It's not present in *all* of the materials presented by either group but it is unquestionably there.

 

I have only read their website now and then but by that time my ds was in his teens. I did not know they advocate spanking babies.

I have followed (more or less) the teachings of John Townsend and Henry Cloud in their book *Boundaries with Children*. It made sense to me. In one church, the Ezzo's principles were espoused and dh and I sat through a video presentation of their methods. While I remember thinking that some statements were correct (i.e a 3 year old does not choose if she wears a coat in F30 weather or not), I still went back to the "Boundaries" principles.

[Jami]

 

ETA: I did actually read the Ezzos book on teens, this was their published book for the general public, and it was really good. I wish I had read it earlier than I did. It was about respecting your teens feelings and creating a positive relationship with your teen. But it may have been a sanitized version as well.

 

And yet, the Ezzos (last I knew) were estranged from both their adult daughters. So even if they wrote worthwhile advice, I"m not sure they lived it out very well.

[Kelli in TN]

And yet, the Ezzos (last I knew) were estranged from both their adult daughters. So even if they wrote worthwhile advice, I"m not sure they lived it out very well.

 

Really! Wow. I did not know that. I was reading the sanitized version, so maybe they had a really good editor?

[Aubrey]

I have only read their website now and then but by that time my ds was in his teens. I did not know they advocate spanking babies.

I have followed (more or less) the teachings of John Townsend and Henry Cloud in their book *Boundaries with Children*. It made sense to me. In one church, the Ezzo's principles were espoused and dh and I sat through a video presentation of their methods. While I remember thinking that some statements were correct (i.e a 3 year old does not choose if she wears a coat in F30 weather or not), I still went back to the "Boundaries" principles.

 

Oh, man. My mom read "Growing Kids God's Way" when I was...either a sr in hs or f'man in college. He says you can even spank your married children if they're living w/ you. Imagine my reaction. (My mom was already...unstable. And I was already a really, really good kid. No winking guy. I mean it.)

 

Anyway, there were some good points, like you said, so when I was expecting #1, I went to visit her & read the book myself. I was 20, & I'd been raised *very* conservatively w/ the idea that a parent *must* spank to do a decent job parenting, etc.

 

So I was reading about spanking in GKGW, & it was unsettling. Not like the Pearls, mind you, just...so non-sequiter (sp?). When I commented on this to mom, she blew up. She screamed at me that not everyone could be an English major. I told her that anyone *publishing* material had an obligation to make it clear & logical. She told me that if I wasn't going to spank my dc, they'd be better off dead.

 

Now. In her defense, she wrote me a letter apologizing for that. She's profusely complimented the behavior of my dc since then, & she's read WTM & learned what logic is.

 

But the forcefulness, arrogance, tone, & lack of logic surrounding the spanking arguments in GKGW did not convince me of his argument. LOL. And ftr, I never told my mom that we weren't going to spank. I just said I didn't think he really put forth a good argument *for* it in his book. (Ezzo)

 

Ok, I think I'm off-topic now. Sorry.

[LisaNY]

I am out of rep and that makes me very sad because you have several points in here that so deserve it.

 

Someone get this woman some rep!!!

 

I took care of it for you, Kelli. :001_smile:

[Jami]

Really! Wow. I did not know that. I was reading the sanitized version, so maybe they had a really good editor?

 

Here was the information I was thinking of

 

http://ezzo.info/Timeline/timeline2.htm

 

Scroll down to November 2002 and June 2005 to see references to Ezzo's interactions with his adult daughters.

 

Jami

[Aubrey]

I took care of it for you, Kelli. :001_smile:

 

Oh, my. Thank you. :blush:

[Liz CA]

Oh, man. My mom read "Growing Kids God's Way" when I was...either a sr in hs or f'man in college. He says you can even spank your married children if they're living w/ you. Imagine my reaction. (My mom was already...unstable. And I was already a really, really good kid. No winking guy. I mean it.)

 

Anyway, there were some good points, like you said, so when I was expecting #1, I went to visit her & read the book myself. I was 20, & I'd been raised *very* conservatively w/ the idea that a parent *must* spank to do a decent job parenting, etc.

 

So I was reading about spanking in GKGW, & it was unsettling. Not like the Pearls, mind you, just...so non-sequiter (sp?). When I commented on this to mom, she blew up. She screamed at me that not everyone could be an English major. I told her that anyone *publishing* material had an obligation to make it clear & logical. She told me that if I wasn't going to spank my dc, they'd be better off dead.

 

Now. In her defense, she wrote me a letter apologizing for that. She's profusely complimented the behavior of my dc since then, & she's read WTM & learned what logic is.

 

But the forcefulness, arrogance, tone, & lack of logic surrounding the spanking arguments in GKGW did not convince me of his argument. LOL. And ftr, I never told my mom that we weren't going to spank. I just said I didn't think he really put forth a good argument *for* it in his book. (Ezzo)

 

Ok, I think I'm off-topic now. Sorry.

 

Hats off to you Aubrey that at 20 you realized that neither your mother or the Ezzos had the right idea. I didn't become a parent until I was 25 and I was so clueless that I can only thank God that he directed me to the "Boundaries" book! I thought I was so unqualified to be a parent that I may have taken advice from anyone. Oh, another good book I read was by James Dobson. He made it very clear when he considered spanking appropriate and when not.

[Rebecca in GA]

Btw, when reading about the child who runs away from being spanked, did anyone feel like they were a kid again watching Tx Chainsaw Massacre or some other first horror film? "There is no escape..."

 

I did! And I actually felt like I did when I was a child and had horrible nightmares and couldn't get away from the monster who was chasing me.

[Holly IN]

I guess I have miffed a few people here. The only reason I said to read their books is because when I read the articles it has been taken out of context. When I first heard about them, I just read the articles and other people's opinions of them and thought they were crazy nutcases. Like I said in my previous post, somebody challenged me to read their books then I can have my opinion. So that is why I am challenging you to read them.

 

Now I do not agree with some their method only some of it I agree with it. My beef with them (Pearls) is the Created to be his helpmeet book. My dh was livid over this book and told me to either return it or pitch it in the trashcan as it is trash.

 

 

I follow more of the Raising Godly tomatoes website as it deals more with tieing heartstrings than what the Pearls does. Discussions of the Pearls grieves me greatly. Why? because I think they are misunderstood by people. Like I said I do not agree with some of their advice but it is not enough for me to look at them with disdain. It is like throwing a baby out with the bathwater. I have taken with me from the books that I agree with and left the rest.

 

My point is when I read their books I got the whole point even though I disagreed with a few of their points.

 

If I had a choice between the Pearls or Ezzos. I would pick the Pearls over the Ezzos. Ezzos scare me and I have read all of their books.

 

My biggest beef with the Pearls is the trickery that is played out with the child. I am more on the lines when it presents itself then discipline then but not through trickery as the Pearls advocate.

 

We spank our kids. There is a big difference between abuse and spankings. What the OP talked about was plan abuse. Media will apply that situation to anything such as homeschooling, church going, pearl advocate, ezzo advocate, dobson advocate and so on. They will tag anything like that if it is fits per family so there really is a no win win situation. Abuse is abuse whether the situation is. no rotten fruit pretty please. Just my opinion on this discussion which I have enjoyed. I am afraid though that those of us that do spank or do believe nothing is wrong with spanking will be painted as bad parents.

:confused: which is what I felt on a few of the post (which I can't copy it right now because I have no idea how to do the multiple quotes within a reply...help??)

 

Carry on!! :D3

 

 

Holly (who needs to step out of this conversation...:auto:)

[Scarlett]

It makes me sick that so often the Ezzo stuff is so often church sponsored. The only thing of use I got from his book was eat/play/sleep. Of course the baby whisperer book said the same thing without the presumption of "godly" parenting coming into it.

 

Funny you said that because that is all I got from it too! And it was so helpful to me that I guess I just didn't 'see' the rest of the book.

[Joanne]

I am afraid though that those of us that do spank or do believe nothing is wrong with spanking will be painted as bad parents.

 

Many, if not most, people in this thread made it clear that are not objecting to "spanking" when discussing the Pearls.

 

I've heard of spanking parents who get upset by what they feel they can't do it public. I have to say that most public spanking I've observed has not been appropriate. It's been from angry, hurried and upset parents. But I've never heard a credible story of parents having ramifications from spanking. It's not considered abuse in the courts and CPS does not follow up on "spanking" if it's been reported.

 

I've never really articulated a way to respond to related issues. It's *my* perception that most people don't equate normal spanking with abuse. It's also been estimated that most parents spank. When I say "most", I'm referring to what is estimated to be over 95%. I find the assertions of some authors and spanking advocotes and much circulated emails that conclude our country/culture began to deteriorate when spanking went away to be silly and erroneous.

 

1) Spanking never went away

2) Spanking has actually grown in ritualism and rules. A simple example would be documented in the Little House books where spanking was rare and never contrived, and never as systematic "training".

 

I don't know. I don't spank; I don't believe in spanking as a useful or Biblical parenting tool. But I think focusing on spanking - either the lack of or presence of - misses the real mark of excellent parenting.

 

I don't think our culture is "against spanking". There are more vocal people who don't believe in it; but as a culture, I think most people do spank and do so on occassion.

[Kelli in TN]

. Discussions of the Pearls grieves me greatly. Why? because I think they are misunderstood by people. :)

 

Maybe we are misunderstanding them as people. All we have to go by is the message they bring. I have read 2 of their books, received their newsletter for 2 years, attended their live seminar and that is what I base my opinion on.

[dirty ethel rackham]

Do they have an emoticon for vomiting? I wouldn't even train an animal like that!

[Kelli in TN]

Do they have an emoticon for vomiting? I wouldn't even train an animal like that!

 

I was thinking that same thought earlier today. I was considering Henry the Psycho Dog who came to us with personal issues because he apparently had a bad childhood. That dog bit my mother on the leg!! I still won't hit him.

 

Instead I taught him a coping technique, when the doorbell rings he is to go lay on his bed until he feels safe about our visitor and then he may get up and sniff them. All I have to say is "Henry, you better go lay down" and he knows the drill.

 

If I can rehabilitate a biting dog without violence, surely I can raise my children without it.

[Nakia]

I have been reading this thread today with interest. I haven't read the Pearls books. And I NEVER will. Browsing their website was enough to make me want to puke. What can be misunderstood about them? They advocate child abuse and also suggest a mother stand by her husband if he molests her children. That is messed up.

 

We spank, rarely. We do not leave marks on our children. We don't use a weapon to do it. We don't spank infants. Spanking is reserved for serious offenses in a child who is old enough to know better. Not for a baby/toddler wiggling while being read to. I just can't even imagine. This people need help. I am committing right now to pray for them.

[LisaNY]

I guess I have miffed a few people here. The only reason I said to read their books is because when I read the articles it has been taken out of context. When I first heard about them, I just read the articles and other people's opinions of them and thought they were crazy nutcases. Like I said in my previous post, somebody challenged me to read their books then I can have my opinion. So that is why I am challenging you to read them.

 

My point is when I read their books I got the whole point even though I disagreed with a few of their points.

 

 

Holly, speaking for myself, I *did* read their books. I "got the point", too, but the more I read of their materials, the less I was able to see "the point" as a fruitful or viable one. Too much of the material smacked of arrogance. As I shared in another post, this man, I'm sure, has made himself accountable to no one. He is his own self-proclaimed authority. That's dangerous. When a person is like that, it speaks volumes to me, and discounts them as an authority on ANYTHING.

[Ellie]

 

I understand what you're saying. You justifiably prefer that people go directly to the source rather than form an opinion based on hearsay. That doesn't require actually reading the books. One might have heard the Pearls in person. Or read many of their articles. Or newsletters. And so on. In which case many of the comments shared here from those who haven't read the books (plural, at that) are still valid and appropriate. Do you agree?

 

There are other child-rearing philosophies which have value (Joanne is my hero, BTW). I have no problems with people disagreeing with the concept of spanking (even though I will disagree with them that *all* spanking is abuse). I just think it's inappropriate to comment on the *Pearls'* philosophy without having read their own words. Of course reading their newsletters, Web site, et al counts :-)

 

I do wonder, though, why people focus so much on the Pearls' comments about "spanking" while seeming to skip over their other comments about child rearing. The Pearls have so much to say about relationships and general instruction, much more than the small comments about using physical correction.

[Kelli in TN]

There are other child-rearing philosophies which have value (Joanne is my hero, BTW). I have no problems with people disagreeing with the concept of spanking (even though I will disagree with them that *all* spanking is abuse). I just think it's inappropriate to comment on the *Pearls'* philosophy without having read their own words. Of course reading their newsletters, Web site, et al counts :-)

 

I do wonder, though, why people focus so much on the Pearls' comments about "spanking" while seeming to skip over their other comments about child rearing. The Pearls have so much to say about relationships and general instruction, much more than the small comments about using physical correction.

 

In all fairness, I think I did comment on more than their spanking. I commented on their marriage advice. I commented on how they deal with a teen who shows disappointment. Others have commented on their theology. I would disagree that the spanking comments are small.

[Aubrey]

I do wonder, though, why people focus so much on the Pearls' comments about "spanking" while seeming to skip over their other comments about child rearing. The Pearls have so much to say about relationships and general instruction, much more than the small comments about using physical correction.

 

I think it's like dh said about the water & the arsenic. If you've got a glass of 98% water & 2% deathly poison, people are just going to focus on the 2%. Human nature, I guess.

[Kelli in TN]

I think it's like dh said about the water & the arsenic. If you've got a glass of 98% water & 2% deathly poison, people are just going to focus on the 2%. Human nature, I guess.

 

Or perhaps the arsenic poisons the water and makes it all contaminated?

[Murphy101]

what they endorse and encourage is not spanking, imnsho.

 

I'm like Kelli altho I have never followed them. (God bless you dear all parents make mistakes, you were a loving wife and mother trying to seek guidance and found a dud.:grouphug:) I was given their books and someone put me on their magazine mailing list. My dh's cousin was a beginning mother with a toddler and another baby on the way. She thought that since I was okay with spanking, I'd be a pearl fan.:glare: I actually went so far as to call my dh home from work so we could both have a serious talking to to her about what is normal for children and what spanking should look like - and to admonish her strongly to trash those hateful books. My dh said if she ever hit an infant in any way in our presence she'd see real parental wrath. Scared the bejebees out of us to think someone would actually contemplate taking a switch to a 6 month old.:ack2:

 

I'm okay with spanking, under certain very clear circumstances.

1. It's for an abusive or dangerous offense for a child at least 2 yrs old. For example, running out of the house into the street. It's not something to discuss. Or a 4 yr old hitting another child. I also do not spank on the bum. I spank on the palm of the hand. It stings terribly, but there's little chance of hurting another body part and it makes mroe sense to me as I'm actually spanking the offending part - the hand that hit.

 

2. Spanking is not the be all end all solution. It should be consistantly expected for certain behaviors, but should not be a daily part of life or discipline.

 

I do not believe we should provoke our children to anger and I feel the Pearls do exactly that. For example, the blanket training thing. They say you put a infant, 4 mos or so, just at that moving around age, on a blanket. You place a enjoyed and wanted toy just off the blanket. When the infant reaches off the blanket for the toy, you smack their hands and put them back on the blanket. How stupid is that?! All of my babies have stayed near my feet until about 6 months because they find comfort being near me. Once they reach an age of exploration, I make sure the environment is safe or I keep returning them to the blanket. But I do not ever purposely set my child up for failure or to distrust me.:glare:

 

Another example was the 6 month old that is trying to climb or pull themselves up the stairs. The Pearls say if the child is old enough to do it, they are old enough to be punished for it. So that 6 month old should get the switch on the back of the legs every time they touch the stairs. The Pearls went so far as to clearly say the infant should not be spanked on teh bum because they wouldn't feel it enough thorugh the diaper. I propose that the loving parent seeing a healthy and curious baby, is thrilled at yet another mental and physical acheivement and makes the effort to be extra vigilant and child proof such things.

 

Now I'll state up front that I have zero doubt some of the Pearls methods do in fact work to acheive the goal of obediance. Torture works. People don't like it and will make every effort to avoid it if they can.

 

But I pose that effective parenting is NOT the #1 goal of parenting. I don't want just obediance. Although I am often considered a very strict parent because I do value it highly! Absolute obediance is not my primary goal. No, I want it all when it comes to my kids. I want their heart, mind, and soul. Children are born with so much love for us and curiosity about the world they live in. They are given to us without fear and so much joy. I know I can't prevent them learning hard lessons of what is good and what is not, it's my job to teach those things, but I'd like to think my children have never had cause to fear me.

 

I read the Pearls and was absolutely disgusted they would advocate such a mean and vendictive way of expressing parental and Godly love. My God is one of compassion and mercy and justice. My father in heaven doesn't just want obediance. That's a poor second to the goal.

[unsinkable]

There are other child-rearing philosophies which have value (Joanne is my hero, BTW). I have no problems with people disagreeing with the concept of spanking (even though I will disagree with them that *all* spanking is abuse). I just think it's inappropriate to comment on the *Pearls'* philosophy without having read their own words. Of course reading their newsletters, Web site, et al counts :-)

 

I do wonder, though, why people focus so much on the Pearls' comments about "spanking" while seeming to skip over their other comments about child rearing. The Pearls have so much to say about relationships and general instruction, much more than the small comments about using physical correction.

 

For me, I consider the source. Everything that man says is tainted. I'm not going to "take the best and leave the rest" or anything like that. For me, he is nothing short of a psychopath. Maybe a psychopath is correct or right or smart about something but I am not going close enough to find out. For me.

[Paz]

but I do have experience with Ezzo's teaching from my past church. Dh and I were one of the few people who did not go through the training offered at our church or follow their teachings. We were basically ostracized from the rest of the young families and it was obvious that they really didn't want our kids playing with theirs. (I believe there is a part of their teaching that talks about being unequally yoked and they use that to mean those who have not gone through the Ezzo's teachings.)

 

My kids have since grown up, we did not spank, or use either parenting program, and while they are not perfect, I have received many positive comments from coaches, teachers, and other adults. My dd got the coach's award this past year on her high school softball team. She has minor LD's, is highly spirited, and is not really intimidated by anyone. I think that is a good thing. We were made to feel like we were horrible, permissive parents who were ruining our kids and weren't worth spending time with because our kids would ruin theirs. What I find most telling in both of these parenting methods is the amount of hurt involved in many families that follow(ed) this advice and also others that these families come in contact with. The Pearls' kids may seem to be wonderful and have a wonderful reationship with their parents but as someone else pointed out, this may be self-preservation. I see the fruits of these parenting programs as based on all the hurt. Why is there all this hurt and bitterness? I am not as familiar with the negative stories about the Pearls methods but I know there are tons of negative experiences I've read about Ezzo's methods. Not just out of misunderstanding, do you think?

[tillie]

Jean, I could have written this post also! There are some great principles in both the Pearls and the Ezzos. These are some of the same things I have liked in what they have written. But, I must also say that I never read the Pearls without having some cringe about something they said. There is such an apparent lack of grace in their writing that I can't read them anymore.

 

I will also say that I do support schedule feeding (using common sense as a guide rather than the clock, not expecting other moms to feel the same way or expect that our kids will grow up sanctified because we did it that "way" :001_smile:) and spanking (which I *do* differentiate from abuse, but please don't throw rotten fruit at me). But, I could not support the materials by the Ezzos or the Pearls because of the lack of grace and tolerance for other methods of parenting.

:iagree: I tried to post a similar message yesterday and the board server timed out or something and it wouldn't post.

[Desert Rat]

when it comes to parenting topics. I have never, ever heard of the Pearls or Ezzo's. I could have lived an entire lifetime without the knowledge they even existed. I am grateful for this thread though because I believe I will never have enough knowledge. At least it helps me know what not to do!

 

Excuse me now while I go throw up a little bit. Hitting a baby?!.......

[Ashleen]

For me, I consider the source. Everything that man says is tainted. I'm not going to "take the best and leave the rest" or anything like that. For me, he is nothing short of a psychopath. Maybe a psychopath is correct or right or smart about something but I am not going close enough to find out. For me.

 

:iagree:

[Colleen]

I just think it's inappropriate to comment on the *Pearls'* philosophy without having read their own words. Of course reading their newsletters, Web site, et al counts :-)

 

This clears up the misstatement that those who haven't actually read the books shouldn't be commenting; thank you. Since the Pearls own words were shared numerous times throughout this discussion, I'm confident the vast majority who have replied have indeed listened to the source. Granted, they may not have listened to much; they may be focusing on the portions with which they most strongly disagree. I hear you in that. And I know that's why you're saying:

 

I do wonder, though, why people focus so much on the Pearls' comments about "spanking" while seeming to skip over their other comments about child rearing. The Pearls have so much to say about relationships and general instruction, much more than the small comments about using physical correction.

 

I don't think "small comments about using phsyical correction" is an accurate assessment. Beyond that, though, Aubrey and unsinkable offered good insight as to why some people focus almost exclusively on the Pearls advice re adminstering corporal punishment. I'll explain further, since you're wondering.

 

There are indeed instances in which we sift through information, casting aside that with which we disagree while reaping benefit from that which resonates with us. Many of us do just that with a resource such as The Well-Trained Mind, for example. I wouldn't describe myself as a "classical" homeschooler. I don't adhere to many of Susan Wise Bauer's suggestions. Nonetheless, I've gained much valuable insight from her over the years, and I do apply some of her ideas to my schooling. There is nothing she suggests that I consider repulsive and wrong-headed so as to make me disrespect her. On the contrary, I hold her in esteem. For that reason, I can contentedly choose which elements of her program to adopt.

 

The same can not be said of Michael Pearl. By no means do I disagree with his every utterance. Of course I agree that an atmosphere of mutual respect and trust must exist in order for parents to impart anything positive to their children. But the proof is in the pudding. The man's very methodology does not foster such an atmosphere. When the same person who seeks to encourage me in my parenting then provides instruction that I consider evidence of his diabolical nature, I would be foolish to merely overlook the latter.

 

And make no mistake. A grown man who stalks a child fleeing from corporal punishment, laughing at the child's "frail attempts" to escape; a man who advises us to think of ourselves as "high-ranking government officials in charge of negotiations" in such scenarios, such a man is not to be admired. Because a real man knows that government negotiations take place between people on an equal footing. A real man has no need of such role-playing, such power-tripping, such assurance of self that he will win, he will gain surrender...from a mere child!

 

Why do I focus on Michael Pearl's comments (small or otherwise) about using physical correction? Because they reveal him to be a person whose opinion is not worthy of my consideration. It's as simple as that.

[LisaNY]

Well said, Colleen. That pretty much sums up my personal feelings on this issue. I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree.

[Sandy in Indy]

ITA, Colleen.

[HRAAB]

There are indeed instances in which we sift through information, casting aside that with which we disagree while reaping benefit from that which resonates with us. Many of us do just that with a resource such as The Well-Trained Mind, for example. I wouldn't describe myself as a "classical" homeschooler. I don't adhere to many of Susan Wise Bauer's suggestions. Nonetheless, I've gained much valuable insight from her over the years, and I do apply some of her ideas to my schooling. There is nothing she suggests that I consider repulsive and wrong-headed so as to make me disrespect her. On the contrary, I hold her in esteem. For that reason, I can contentedly choose which elements of her program to adopt.

 

The same can not be said of Michael Pearl. By no means do I disagree with his every utterance. Of course I agree that an atmosphere of mutual respect and trust must exist in order for parents to impart anything positive to their children. But the proof is in the pudding. The man's very methodology does not foster such an atmosphere. When the same person who seeks to encourage me in my parenting then provides instruction that I consider evidence of his diabolical nature, I would be foolish to merely overlook the latter.

 

And make no mistake. A grown man who stalks a child fleeing from corporal punishment, laughing at the child's "frail attempts" to escape; a man who advises us to think of ourselves as "high-ranking government officials in charge of negotiations" in such scenarios, such a man is not to be admired. Because a real man knows that government negotiations take place between people on an equal footing. A real man has no need of such role-playing, such power-tripping, such assurance of self that he will win, he will gain surrender...from a mere child!

 

Why do I focus on Michael Pearl's comments (small or otherwise) about using physical correction? Because they reveal him to be a person whose opinion is not worthy of my consideration. It's as simple as that.

 

Stated so much better than I could have done. Also, although a simple count of his words regarding physical punishment might be small in comparison to all the words he has written, they are strong and powerful words and have the potential to ruin lives. A person doesn't have to speak/write volumes in order to do damage. It can be done with very few words. And that outweighs all the good he might write - in my opinion, of course.

 

Janet