The results of the godly tomatoes method on kids

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

I've already stated one should do better when they know better. It's why dh and I don't spank. I've also stated that my parents didn't need to spank and could have done better.

 

I'm also stating that being spanked while growing up did not cause issues with us. I hear you that it does with some, maybe even most, but it's not factual that it does with all.

Well the studies certainly don't say 100%.

 

I'm glad you are one of the okay ones.

[momof4inco]

 

“We as a society think of spanking and physical abuse as distinct behaviors,†she says. “Yet our research shows that spanking is linked with the same negative child outcomes as abuse, just to a slightly lesser degree.â€

 

 

 

I disagree with the article as a whole, but particularly with this part. Spanking and physical abuse are not the same thing. I was spanked as a child, that part is barely a blip on my radar. One of the abuses I suffered was being yanked down the stairs by my hair (for years). To this day, I can't walk up the stairs at home without looking behind me. I don't think about watching my brother be spanked, but I think about him being kicked into a wall and finding out years later that it broke one of his vertabrae. There is a major difference between a swat on a diapered butt and abuse.

 

I also think anyone can go into a "study" with a preconceived idea, and say the study proves their point. 

 

I'm not pro or anti spanking. I think comparing the physical abuse kids experience to spanking isn't even like comparing apples to oranges because at least they are both fruit.

[Guest]

You know, this constant refrain that "spanking is no big deal," despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary looks a lot like the stuff tobacco execs used to say. The world would be a much better place if people were less defensive about their choices, and instead adopted "when you know better, you do better" as their mantra.

Exactly.

 

For the measely little record, I received very few spankings myself, though both my parents and my school instituted corporal punishment without reservation. My earliest views against spanking were formed because of my observations of others who were spanked. The three boys who were regularly hit with that "Board of Education" paddle at the ACE school I attended...you could hear the "whack!" And their pleading and begging and promises to "never do that again." It is seered into my memory and still sickens me.

 

Even in my family, I got few spankings, but one sibling got many. MANY. My mother broke a wooden spoon beating my sister's butt. And then BRAGGED about it. Had there been a Facebook at the time, she probably would have posted photos of the broken spoon and hash-tagged something about godly tomatoes.

 

It therefore isn't that I reference spanking from my childhood and think it messed me up so much. (If anything that 'paste a smile on your face' mind-messing is more harmful IMO.) But yes - if you know better, you do better. I would NEVER send my kid to a school where they even might possibly hear, much less endure, a beating with a plank of wood. Just knowing that that was sanctioned and perfectly allowable is totally nauseating.

[SeaConquest]

I disagree with the article as a whole, but particularly with this part. Spanking and physical abuse are not the same thing. I was spanked as a child, that part is barely a blip on my radar. One of the abuses I suffered was being yanked down the stairs by my hair (for years). To this day, I can't walk up the stairs at home without looking behind me. I don't think about watching my brother be spanked, but I think about him being kicked into a wall and finding out years later that it broke one of his vertabrae. There is a major difference between a swat on a diapered butt and abuse.

 

I also think anyone can go into a "study" with a preconceived idea, and say the study proves their point. 

 

I'm not pro or anti spanking. I think comparing the physical abuse kids experience to spanking isn't even like comparing apples to oranges because at least they are both fruit.

 

Again, this isn't one study, or one article, which I agree with you would not be compelling. This is an analysis of the data from 5 decades of studies, involving over 100,000 kids. They are looking for statistically significant outcomes over a substantial period of time, not just some correlation from a single study or two.

 

My post is not about singling out any specific member here; it is about people generally. A skeptical mind is a good thing; burying one's head in the sand when the evidence becomes overwhelming, on the other hand, not so much. 

[gardenmom5]

My parents didn't spank.  they used other methods to *seriously* screw up their kids.

 

 

 

Yes, this.

I used to be someone who said I was spanked and it didn't harm me, my parents loved me and did what needed to be done. I was lying. Not on purpose, but I was in denial.

That doesn't mean I think everyone who says that is in denial, I just don't find it convincing. Because I know that my situation isn't unique.

 

 

I disagree with the article as a whole, but particularly with this part. Spanking and physical abuse are not the same thing. I was spanked as a child, that part is barely a blip on my radar. One of the abuses I suffered was being yanked down the stairs by my hair (for years). To this day, I can't walk up the stairs at home without looking behind me. I don't think about watching my brother be spanked, but I think about him being kicked into a wall and finding out years later that it broke one of his vertabrae. There is a major difference between a swat on a diapered butt and abuse.

 

I also think anyone can go into a "study" with a preconceived idea, and say the study proves their point. 

 

I'm not pro or anti spanking. I think comparing the physical abuse kids experience to spanking isn't even like comparing apples to oranges because at least they are both fruit.

 

[Murphy101]

And for thousands of years, human society looked like an episode of Game of Thrones (and still does, sadly, in much of the world). Is that really what we are aspiring to, as a species?

I don't watch that show, but my point was we are not the first generation to care about the emotional well being and relationships of our children. It's seems hubris based conjecture to suggest we know the "right" way it should have been for every parent before us or around us now.

 

All we know is ourselves and our own children.

[wonderchica]

[quote name="momof4inco" post="7077001" timestamp="1467149338

 

I also think anyone can go into a "study" with a preconceived idea, and say the study proves their point.

 

.

Well... That's how studies work. You have a hypothesis of how it's going to turn out, then you carry it out to see if the hypothesis is correct or not. Scientific method and all.

[momof4inco]

Well... That's how studies work. You have a hypothesis of how it's going to turn out, then you carry it out to see if the hypothesis is correct or not. Scientific method and all.

 

Unless your purpose is to prove that hypothesis without considering the evidence. Wouldn't it be nice if all studies were pure? Then we wouldn't have contradicting studies.

 

If someone known to be against vaccines published a study saying that vaccines are bad... Would you not question the results of the study?

Edited June 28, 2016 by momof4inco

[momof4inco]

Again, this isn't one study, or one article, which I agree with you would not be compelling. This is an analysis of the data from 5 decades of studies, involving over 100,000 kids. They are looking for statistically significant outcomes over a substantial period of time, not just some correlation from a single study or two.

 

My post is not about singling out any specific member here; it is about people generally. A skeptical mind is a good thing; burying one's head in the sand when the evidence becomes overwhelming, on the other hand, not so much. 

 

I'm not burying my head in the sand, I'm going from my extensive experience of both spanking and abuse. There are also studies saying that spanking is not bad. I wouldn't accuse someone of having their head in the sand if they didn't listen to those studies, I would accept they have a differing opinion.

[Guest]

Unless your purpose is to prove that hypothesis without considering the evidence. Wouldn't it be nice if all studies were pure? Then we wouldn't have contradicting studies.

 

If someone known to be against vaccines published a study saying that vaccines are bad... Would you not question the results of the study.

I agree. The scientific method is not foolproof. It has flaws. Scientists don't know everything. I didn't read the studies but I'm sure there are limitations in all of them. There is no such thing as a study without limitations, which is another way of saying "things that could invalidate our results should you choose to replicate it." And if anyone thinks some scientists aren't above massaging their data to get their paper published.....I just suggest looking for replicated studies by other authors outside of the original institution, funded by a different organizations. It unfortunately happens and it rarely, if ever, makes the news. I mean how many years did it take the Lancet to withdraw the famous autism study when many of us in academia knew FOR YEARS it was a total BS study. I'm not trying to talk anyone into or out of spanking, but I am saying its a good idea to take a lot of studies with a grain of salt until the original study is EXACTLY replicated again and again

 

ETA- this is a link about the Autism/vaccine study and how difficult it was to have it recalled. Even though so many realized it was a fraud. It took a journalist to accomplish it. Science has its place but blind trust in it gives far too much power to completely fallible people. Also note 12 people were involved in the original, fraudulent article, so corruption can run in groups. http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452

Edited June 28, 2016 by texasmom33

[Murphy101]

Nm. Not in the mood to argue it.😊

Edited June 28, 2016 by Murphy101

[SeaConquest]

It is ludicrous to suggest some giant conspiracy among scientists the world over. You are talking about 5 decades of data, over a hundred studies, and well over 100,000 children analyzed. If you (the general you) don't want to even attempt to parent in a science-based way, fine. But, just own that. There is no need to try to take down the scientific method.

 

Edited June 28, 2016 by SeaConquest

[Murphy101]

It is ludicrous to suggest some giant conspiracy among scientists the world over. You are talking about 5 decades of data, over a hundred studies, and well over 100,000 children analyzed. If you (the general you) don't want to even attempt to parent in a science-based way, fine. But, just own that. There is no need to try to take down the scientific method.

Nope. I openly admit my children are not some scientific social experiment and therefore I do not parent in a science-based way and have no desire to do so.

 

But no, the scientific method does not work in psychology and sociology the same as it does in say chemistry or physics. That is actually an established scientific fact. Again, that's why it's called a "soft science". It is not possible to maintain ethical treatment of people and apply a rigorous scientific method to the study of those same people. Control and test groups of the hearts and minds of humans are just not as possible as with inanimate objects.

 

Also 100,000 is hardly representative of the world over.

[Murphy101]

100 000 is actually a huge sample, which increases statistical certainty vastly.

 

I don't mean to be rude, because until two years ago I didn't understand about sample size either, but people often misunderstand what sample sizes are needed in order for studies to be valid and reliable.

 

100 000 is past gold standard. It's a big deal to have a sample of that size.

Oh I agree. But it still depends on what it is a sample of too. It is not a sample intended to be representative of the world over for example. And questionable study is not going to be more valid just bc it's done bigger or longer.

 

I didn't think you were rude at all. 🙂

[Caroline]

100 000 is actually a huge sample, which increases statistical certainty vastly.

 

I don't mean to be rude, because until two years ago I didn't understand about sample size either, but people often misunderstand what sample sizes are needed in order for studies to be valid and reliable.

 

100 000 is past gold standard. It's a big deal to have a sample of that size.

Agreeing! A sample size of 100,000 is massive!

[Ausmumof3]

I think you could probably say any particular tools are not necessary, as in we could get along without them. Time outs are something people can and do without, in some places they would be very inconvenient or impossible. If we got rid of them, as Things We Should Never Do - as some think we should - we could use other tools. And lots of tools are abusive if misused, including just talking.

Yes some commonly recommended non physical parenting techniques that I've tried felt wrong almost abusive. I think often abuse happens when a high level of perfectionism is operating or a high level of compliance is demanded. Many of the techniques in rgt described here disturb me less because of the physical aspect and more because of the persistent mind control aspect. When we try to deny our kids their own personalities we risk moving into abusive territory. However we go about it.

[SeaConquest]

It was actually 160,927 children, but don't let that stop anyone from ignoring the evidence.  

Edited June 28, 2016 by SeaConquest

[Caroline]

Oh I agree. But it still depends on what it is a sample of too. It is not a sample intended to be representative of the world over for example. And questionable study is not going to be more valid just bc it's done bigger or longer.

 

I didn't think you were rude at all. 🙂

So what are your problems with all of these studies? Why are they questionable?

[SeaConquest]

Further details:

 

The researchers raised concerns that previous meta-analyses had defined physical punishment too broadly, including harsher and more abusive behaviors alongside spanking. So for this meta-analysis, they defined spanking as “hitting a child on their buttocks or extremities using an open hand.â€

 

They also worried that spanking was only linked to bad outcomes for kids in studies that weren’t methodologically outstanding. It’s hard to study real-world outcomes like this; there are only a few controlled experimental studies in which some mothers spanked their kids and some didn’t, in a laboratory setting. Those were included in this analysis, along with cross-sectional and longitudinal studies, for a total of 75 studies, 39 of which hadn’t been looked at by any previous meta-analyses. Altogether, these studies included data from 160,927 children.

 

The researchers looked at the effect sizes from these studies, to see how strong their results were. There were 111 different effect sizes for 75 studies (some of the studies included more than one result). Of those, 108 found that spanking was linked to poor outcomes. Seventy-eight of the negative results were statistically significant. Only nine results indicated that there could be a benefit to spanking, and only one of those was statistically significant.

 

“Thus, among the 79 statistically significant effect sizes, 99 percent indicated an association between spanking and a detrimental child outcome,†the study reads. Those outcomes were: “low moral internalization, aggression, antisocial behavior, externalizing behavior problems, internalizing behavior problems, mental-health problems, negative parent–child relationships, impaired cognitive ability, low self-esteem, and risk of physical abuse from parents.â€

 

Harsher forms of abuse were excluded from the analysis, so this paper shows that spanking alone puts children at risk for some serious problems. The authors also looked at a subset of studies that compared spanking with physical abuse, and found that both were linked to bad outcomes “that are similar in magnitude and identical in direction,†they wrote.

 

Given that spanking is still such a common—and controversial—form of punishment, careful examination of the research will be important for parents and policymakers alike. And as the researchers concluded here,“there is no evidence that spanking does any good for children and all evidence points to the risk of it doing harm.â€

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/04/the-strong-evidence-against-spanking/479937/

Edited June 28, 2016 by SeaConquest

[Joanne]

I haven't thought about this stuff in a LONG time. This issue and these discussions made up much of my early parenting years and my response to it paved the way to my current career.

 

I am going to mention some good Christian parenting authors for those looking and at an earlier season of life:

 

Scott Turansky and Joanne Miller

Sally Clarkson

Ross Campbell

Edited June 29, 2016 by Joanne

[Mergath]

I disagree with the article as a whole, but particularly with this part. Spanking and physical abuse are not the same thing. I was spanked as a child, that part is barely a blip on my radar. One of the abuses I suffered was being yanked down the stairs by my hair (for years). To this day, I can't walk up the stairs at home without looking behind me. I don't think about watching my brother be spanked, but I think about him being kicked into a wall and finding out years later that it broke one of his vertabrae. There is a major difference between a swat on a diapered butt and abuse.

 

I also think anyone can go into a "study" with a preconceived idea, and say the study proves their point. 

 

I'm not pro or anti spanking. I think comparing the physical abuse kids experience to spanking isn't even like comparing apples to oranges because at least they are both fruit.

 

In your opinion. Because really, where is the line? I don't want to be part of a culture that says, "Okay, you can inflict this much physical pain on your kid before it crosses the line into abuse." I mean, when someone spanks a child, they are hitting their kid. Period. The idea that slapping a child on the face or leg or back is abuse, but slapping them on the butt is magically okay is just wishful thinking. 

[Guest]

 

Further details:

 

The researchers raised concerns that previous meta-analyses had defined physical punishment too broadly, including harsher and more abusive behaviors alongside spanking. So for this meta-analysis, they defined spanking as “hitting a child on their buttocks or extremities using an open hand.â€

 

They also worried that spanking was only linked to bad outcomes for kids in studies that weren’t methodologically outstanding. It’s hard to study real-world outcomes like this; there are only a few controlled experimental studies in which some mothers spanked their kids and some didn’t, in a laboratory setting. Those were included in this analysis, along with cross-sectional and longitudinal studies, for a total of 75 studies, 39 of which hadn’t been looked at by any previous meta-analyses. Altogether, these studies included data from 160,927 children.

 

The researchers looked at the effect sizes from these studies, to see how strong their results were. There were 111 different effect sizes for 75 studies (some of the studies included more than one result). Of those, 108 found that spanking was linked to poor outcomes. Seventy-eight of the negative results were statistically significant. Only nine results indicated that there could be a benefit to spanking, and only one of those was statistically significant.

 

“Thus, among the 79 statistically significant effect sizes, 99 percent indicated an association between spanking and a detrimental child outcome,†the study reads. Those outcomes were: “low moral internalization, aggression, antisocial behavior, externalizing behavior problems, internalizing behavior problems, mental-health problems, negative parent–child relationships, impaired cognitive ability, low self-esteem, and risk of physical abuse from parents.â€

 

Harsher forms of abuse were excluded from the analysis, so this paper shows that spanking alone puts children at risk for some serious problems. The authors also looked at a subset of studies that compared spanking with physical abuse, and found that both were linked to bad outcomes “that are similar in magnitude and identical in direction,†they wrote.

 

Given that spanking is still such a common—and controversial—form of punishment, careful examination of the research will be important for parents and policymakers alike. And as the researchers concluded here,“there is no evidence that spanking does any good for children and all evidence points to the risk of it doing harm.â€

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/04/the-strong-evidence-against-spanking/479937/

Here are some questions :

How many swat constituted a spanking? One? Ten?

Is spanking with something besides a hand included, or are those outside of the population? Like a paddle or the infamous "go pick a switch from the tree"? Did they separate those out?

Who is doing the recall- the children, or the parents?

Were the parents administering the spanking mentally sound?

Were the parents abused?

What constitutes abuse?

What was the difference between socioeconomic status?

Race?

Age of children being spanked?

How and where did they recruit for the studies?

Did all studies use the exact methodology?

 

Questioning studies is not a bad thing. These are questions that good peer review committees ask. I've published quite a few studies myself. Sometimes you get called out on weaknesses you didn't see and it's back to the drawing board. The problem is you don't always get asked the good studies. Reading the retractions section of scientific journals says a lot. The media fails to often mention that. That's why people should read the original journal article. News blurbs tend to leave some things out, but unfortunately in day to day life a lot of people don't care to do that. They read "counter tops cause cancer" and freak out. I'm not saying anyone here is doing that, but I haven't seen a whole lot of definitive social science in my life. People don't live in a vacuum so it's hard to point at any one cause as being detrimental because of that. Why do some kids who suffer horrible abuse turn out to be amazingly successful with strong families of their own, and why do some end up sociopathic? Why do some kids who were never spanked and had the world as their oyster turn into life long substance abusers who never manage to pull it together? I think the point is parenting is a crap shoot. Saying that one thing derails everything seems rather like the book we are all aghast at.

[ikslo]

Quill, I was also a child who can claim to have had a wooden spoon broken on my behind. Me laughing at the situation probably did not help.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

Nope. I openly admit my children are not some scientific social experiment and therefore I do not parent in a science-based way and have no desire to do so.

 

But no, the scientific method does not work in psychology and sociology the same as it does in say chemistry or physics. That is actually an established scientific fact. Again, that's why it's called a "soft science". It is not possible to maintain ethical treatment of people and apply a rigorous scientific method to the study of those same people. Control and test groups of the hearts and minds of humans are just not as possible as with inanimate objects.

 

Also 100,000 is hardly representative of the world over.

I do pay attention to science when parenting

 

Studies shows car seats save lives.

Studies shows back to sleep is safer for young babies.

Studies helps us know medically what is ideal for children (vaccines, nutrition, other safety issues).

 

I also refer to science when evaluating my child's mental health and well being. Especially when dealing with special needs.

 

Referring to science, for useful parenting techniques is just one more thing.

 

As we know more, we learn, and do better going forward.

 

 

So as more and more studies show spanking kids has negative long term outcomes, it makes sense to use other methods.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

160,000 is a great sample size.

[Tanaqui]

Science has its place but blind trust in it gives far too much power to completely fallible people.

 

People who believed Andrew Wakefield were not putting "blind trust in science", because every bit of scientific data out there showed that his results could not be replicated and were complete BS.

[Guest]

160,000 is a great sample size.

It definitely is but I can't access the article to read about it. None of the links are taking me to anyplace with access to anything except the abstract because I don't have a subscription.

[Caroline]

I agree that questioning studies is good. However, the questions should pertain to the study and should come after actually reading the study and should show a fundamental understanding of statistics. Saying that 160,000 is not a big enough sample size is not good questioning of a study. When the study defines spanking as on the buttocks with an open hand, asking if a paddling or switching counts is not good questioning. Eschewing it because it is a soft science is not good questioning.

[Guest]

People who believed Andrew Wakefield were not putting "blind trust in science", because every bit of scientific data out there showed that his results could not be replicated and were complete BS.

Yet it took them over ten years to retract the study, right? It was published in the late 90's and wasn't retracted until 2010 or something. And it never stopped the anti-vaxers from using it as one of their key pieces of data. They are still using it. It was a failure of the scientific community to let it hang out there as long as it did. And if a journalist hadn't turned on the heat I really wonder if they would have still retracted it.

[Guest]

I agree that questioning studies is good. However, the questions should pertain to the study and should come after actually reading the study and should show a fundamental understanding of statistics. Saying that 160,000 is not a big enough sample size is not good questioning of a study. When the study defines spanking as on the buttocks with an open hand, asking if a paddling or switching counts is not good questioning. Eschewing it because it is a soft science is not good questioning.

Do you have an link to the actual study? That's all I would like to see. You can't make judgements off of an abstract.

[Tanaqui]

Yet it took them over ten years to retract the study, right? It was published in the late 90's and wasn't retracted until 2010 or something. And it never stopped the anti-vaxers from using it as one of their key pieces of data. They are still using it. It was a failure of the scientific community to let it hang out there as long as it did. And if a journalist hadn't turned on the heat I really wonder if they would have still retracted it.

 

And? That's completely opposite of the point you seem to be trying to make.

 

You're talking about "blind faith in science", but you can only hang on to that idiotic bit of mendacity if you don't care about science at all. You talk about how it took "ten years to retract one study", but we have decades and decades of hundreds of studies on spanking, all saying the same thing. They weren't all faked.

 

If people had given the same weight to the evidence on autism and vaccines as we're trying to do now with the evidence on spanking, nobody would ever have thought that vaccines and autism were connected, not after the first initial flurry of attention.

Edited June 29, 2016 by Tanaqui

[Guest]

And? That's completely opposite of the point you seem to be trying to make.

 

You're talking about "blind faith in science", but you can only hang on to that idiotic bit of mendacity if you don't care about science at all. You talk about how it took "ten years to retract one study", but we have decades and decades of hundreds of studies on spanking, all saying the same thing. They weren't all faked.

 

I'm not taking a position on those studies. I haven't read them. What I'm pointing out is science isn't infallible and that is hardly the first study to be retracted. They are corrected and retracted. All The Time. It just isn't covered by the media, and if you get your science from abstracts and new blurbs you aren't getting the whole picture. I made my living in science. I published in journals. I didn't think my whole career was for naught- but it isn't a cut and dry issue in th social sciences. Today's radical thought more often than we care to admit, is tomorrow's thrown out tripe. I'm not saying one way or another about spanking, I'm just saying what is pointed out here isn't showing an actual study. It's showing segments of reprinted news articles about the study. I don't die on a hill for studies I haven't read.

[Murphy101]

From the excerpts in this thread, this is not A study of 160k+ children. It is actually a combined analysis of 75 various studies, which combined total 160K+ test subjects. Each of the 75 studies would have their own questions of use and validity.

 

I never said 100,000 is not a good number for a single study. I said it hardly represents the entire world, which is still true.

[Murphy101]

It's representative enough that parents erring on the side of caution and using other methods of (non-abusive) discipline, is a reasonable response.

To you.

 

To me, I take all parenting experts with a hefty grain of salt.

 

It's safer to lay them on their belly, no their back, no their side, no we were wrong it's back. Feed solids starting at 4 months. Put cereal in formula bottles to help them sleep, no don't do either bc it's dangerous. Baby should sleep through the night by 2 months, no wait, make that 6 months, but just let them cry. Never let them cry or they will feel abandoned and unloved. Boobs aren't as nutrious as formula and are low class, no breast is best! Either way, wean at one year old, no normal is 2-3, but only weirdos breastfeed past 18 months or so. Cribs are a must, you'll kill your baby if they sleep with you. Well it's not really likely so go ahead and cosleep.

 

Parenting studies come and go. They are just as fickle and liable to fads as the Ezzos and Dr Sears.

Edited June 29, 2016 by Murphy101

[ChocolateReignRemix]

From the excerpts in this thread, this is not A study of 160k+ children. It is actually a combined analysis of 75 various studies, which combined total 160K+ test subjects. Each of the 75 studies would have their own questions of use and validity.

 

I never said 100,000 is not a good number for a single study. I said it hardly represents the entire world, which is still true.

.

 

Still not necessarily true.

[gardenmom5]

To you.

 

To me, I take all parenting experts with a hefty grain of salt.

 

It's safer to lay them on their belly, no their back, no their side, no we were wrong it's back. Feed solids starting at 4 months. Put cereal in formula bottles to help them sleep, no don't do either bc it's dangerous. Baby should sleep through the night by 2 months, no wait, make that 6 months, but just let them cry. Never let them cry or they will feel abandoned and unloved. Boobs aren't as nutrious as formula and are low class, no breast is best! Either way, wean at one year old, no normal is 2-3, but only weirdos breastfeed past 18 months or so. Cribs are a must, you'll kill your baby if they sleep with you. Well it's not really likely so go ahead and cosleep.

 

Parenting studies come and go. They are just as fickle and liable to fads as the Ezzos and Dr Sears.

 

I have two kids past 30.

 

I've been through all that with my own kids firsthand.  big. huge. eyeroll.

 

and the ped nurse who had a cow because I hadn't weaned #4 by the time he was a year old . . . she started giving me extremely detailed instructions.  then didn't believe me when I pointed out I'd already weaned three kids. . . .

 

eta: I dont' think she had kids - let alone nursed and weaned a real life baby herself.

I take Leleche league with a grain of salt regarding BF too.   they dont' allow for differences in moms or babies.

everyone is different, and what works for moms and babies/children is different.

If I ever doubted that - 2dd and 1ds showed me otherwise! in dramatic fashion.

Edited June 29, 2016 by gardenmom5

[Joanne]

The thing is, usually any criticism of spanking doesn't just read as "you're a bad parent" but "and so were your mom and dad". People don't like to hear that, which is why you'll see people who were really, 100% abused - like, broken bottles thrown at them and beaten with sticks until bloody and all - who will claim their parents "loved them" and "had to be a little tough". And if your parents weren't clearly, unambiguously abusive, it's even harder. Close to impossible if other people in your community spanked. Then it's "and by the way, your entire culture is stupid" on top of you and your parents. I mean, it's not, but that's what people seem to hear.

 

The other problem is that talking about "spanking" from a productive and accurate standpoint is like a unicorn. Most parents spank. Some spank their kids a handful of times, with their hand on diapered bottom. Others "spank" their children well into double digits, or in a frequent, contrived way. Some, indeed, equate "spanking" with discipline almost exclusively.

 

It's often mentioned about earlier generations and spanking/discipline. Although research is not available, I don't believe generations before the last 3 decades used "spanking" as the contrived, formulaic parenting described in the books we are discussing. Dobson (good lord) changed that and it's gotten worse from there.

[Joanne]

160,000 is a great sample size.

 

Yes.

 

The "numbers" at which science and math grant statistical significance is quite low, relatively.

 

 

[lamppost]

Even more mainstream, secular parenting stuff can be problematic if parents don't use discernment regarding the needs and abilities of their own children. Dh and I took a Love and Logic parenting class when our children were young, it advocated using time outs and letting a child come out when they were calm. Didn't take me long to figure out that my three year old absolutely did not have the ability to calm down on her own. She could have ended up in a time out indefinitely if I tried to strictly apply what I had been taught. (I found that a major drawback of that method overall was its emphasis on logic when it was not logic but emotion that was driving behavior. It did have some good points though.)

 

Not sure if anyone's mentioned these books, but The Whole Brain Child has been life-changing for our parenting. There are a few others by the same author that are also real gems. They go into the science behind how children's experiences affect their brain development and give parents tools to talk to kids about their emotions. When kids learn how to take notice of their own physiological responses, they can name their emotions and start to regulate them. I highly recommend all of these:

 

The Whole Brain Child

The Whole Brain Child Workbook

 

No-Drama Discipline

No-Drama Discipline Workbook

[momof4inco]

Again, this isn't one study, or one article, which I agree with you would not be compelling. This is an analysis of the data from 5 decades of studies, involving over 100,000 kids. They are looking for statistically significant outcomes over a substantial period of time, not just some correlation from a single study or two.

 

My post is not about singling out any specific member here; it is about people generally. A skeptical mind is a good thing; burying one's head in the sand when the evidence becomes overwhelming, on the other hand, not so much. 

 

 

It is ludicrous to suggest some giant conspiracy among scientists the world over. You are talking about 5 decades of data, over a hundred studies, and well over 100,000 children analyzed. If you (the general you) don't want to even attempt to parent in a science-based way, fine. But, just own that. There is no need to try to take down the scientific method.

 

 

And? That's completely opposite of the point you seem to be trying to make.

 

You're talking about "blind faith in science", but you can only hang on to that idiotic bit of mendacity if you don't care about science at all. You talk about how it took "ten years to retract one study", but we have decades and decades of hundreds of studies on spanking, all saying the same thing. They weren't all faked.

 

If people had given the same weight to the evidence on autism and vaccines as we're trying to do now with the evidence on spanking, nobody would ever have thought that vaccines and autism were connected, not after the first initial flurry of attention.

 

I'm not sure how you some of you argue with people in real life, but wow! Using words like idiotic, ludicrous and saying someone has their head buried in the sand if they happen to have a different opinion... That's not the way to persuade people of anything. I just disagreed with a study, you would think someone on here wrote the study and that my disagreeing was offensive.

 

As I said earlier, I don't really have a position on spanking. The study says that spanking is as damaging as physical abuse. I have firsthand experience with both and I disagree. I didn't personally attack anyone by saying that, unless you are the person who ran the study and then I might take issue with you.

 

I thank everyone on these boards, I have learned some great things from some great people (including how NOT to argue with people). I've seen how other posts have devolved like this (actually, many have been much worse than this), it's rather interesting to me that people do this. Anyway, this forum was here long before me and will exist for a long time after I leave today. Thanks again!

[calihil]

These kinds of posts are all kinds of triggering for me. We are devout Christians and most of the other Christians we know are very punitive. I've heard GKGW and Raising Godly Tomatoes recommended at times but in my honest opinion, most Christian parenting books are so punitive and controlling that I've given up reading them. "Shepherding a Child's Heart" is recommended so much but it's just as bad. Use a "rod," spank infants and toddlers repeatedly until they obey, instant obedience, if a child is upset after you have a discipline session, spank them until they are sweet. I just don't believe it's God's heart at all for us to have that kind of punitive, adversarial relationship with our children. A good friends of mine has 7 children and she and her husband carry around a leather Rod to use on their kids whenever they disobey, talk back, etc, which just when they are around us is a lot. I just can't imagine doing that.

 

I fell into the trap with my first when she was little of harsh spanking and instant obedience and I'm still trying to heal our relationship. Go figure she's the difficult one now that has a hard time handling her emotions. But when you know better, you do better, right?

[SeaConquest]

I'm not sure how you some of you argue with people in real life, but wow! Using words like idiotic, ludicrous and saying someone has their head buried in the sand if they happen to have a different opinion... That's not the way to persuade people of anything. I just disagreed with a study, you would think someone on here wrote the study and that my disagreeing was offensive.

 

As I said earlier, I don't really have a position on spanking. The study says that spanking is as damaging as physical abuse. I have firsthand experience with both and I disagree. I didn't personally attack anyone by saying that, unless you are the person who ran the study and then I might take issue with you.

 

I thank everyone on these boards, I have learned some great things from some great people (including how NOT to argue with people). I've seen how other posts have devolved like this (actually, many have been much worse than this), it's rather interesting to me that people do this. Anyway, this forum was here long before me and will exist for a long time after I leave today. Thanks again!

 

I am not sure why you felt my posts were directed to you. I specifically said this:

 

"My post is not about singling out any specific member here; it is about people generally. A skeptical mind is a good thing; burying one's head in the sand when the evidence becomes overwhelming, on the other hand, not so much." 

 

As a litigator, representing primarily Fortune 500 companies in federal and state courts, I basically argued for a living. I apologize if my words were offensive to you; this is obviously a subject about which I care deeply. I was not singling out any specific poster here, or discussing the specifics of any particular person's parenting. Arguing that a position is ludicrous (in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary) is not the same as a personal attack. 

[maize]

Not sure if anyone's mentioned these books, but The Whole Brain Child has been life-changing for our parenting. There are a few others by the same author that are also real gems. They go into the science behind how children's experiences affect their brain development and give parents tools to talk to kids about their emotions. When kids learn how to take notice of their own physiological responses, they can name their emotions and start to regulate them. I highly recommend all of these:

 

The Whole Brain Child

The Whole Brain Child Workbook

 

No-Drama Discipline

No-Drama Discipline Workbook

Thank you for sharing these.

[8circles]

My parents didn't spank.  they used other methods to *seriously* screw up their kids.

 

Yes, I was spanked very little compared to one sibling in particular.  But it was abusive.  Yet they called it "spanking" and it would have fit the description in the studies.  It was abusive for me to see/hear the spanking of someone else.  The other methods were bad, too, but that doesn't negate the damage done by spanking.

[SeaConquest]

These kinds of posts are all kinds of triggering for me. We are devout Christians and most of the other Christians we know are very punitive. I've heard GKGW and Raising Godly Tomatoes recommended at times but in my honest opinion, most Christian parenting books are so punitive and controlling that I've given up reading them. "Shepherding a Child's Heart" is recommended so much but it's just as bad. Use a "rod," spank infants and toddlers repeatedly until they obey, instant obedience, if a child is upset after you have a discipline session, spank them until they are sweet. I just don't believe it's God's heart at all for us to have that kind of punitive, adversarial relationship with our children. A good friends of mine has 7 children and she and her husband carry around a leather Rod to use on their kids whenever they disobey, talk back, etc, which just when they are around us is a lot. I just can't imagine doing that.

 

I fell into the trap with my first when she was little of harsh spanking and instant obedience and I'm still trying to heal our relationship. Go figure she's the difficult one now that has a hard time handling her emotions. But when you know better, you do better, right?

 

You touch on an interesting point. I am not sure why these types of authoritarian parenting styles seem to appeal to so many conservative Christians. From a Jewish perspective, I never see this style of parenting among my Orthodox Jewish friends. Not that the Orthodox don't have some issues of their own, but I have never heard physical punishment advocated in any of the Orthodox or Conservative synagogues that I have attended. I don't even know a single Jew who spanks. What is it about conservative Christianity that makes people latch onto these methods?

 

Please forgive my ignorance of the New Testament; I am genuinely curious. I generally associate the NT with forgiveness, grace, compassion, etc. And, if it isn't some interpretation of the NT that is the source of these methods, why such a disparity between the Jewish version of the Torah and the Christian version of the OT when it comes to discipline, parenting, etc.?

 

Perhaps this would be an interesting s/o thread.   

[calihil]

You touch on an interesting point. I am not sure why these types of authoritarian parenting styles seem to appeal to so many conservative Christians. From a Jewish perspective, I never see this style of parenting among my Orthodox Jewish friends. Not that the Orthodox don't have some issues of their own, but I have never heard physical punishment advocated in any of the Orthodox or Conservative synagogues that I have attended. I don't even know a single Jew who spanks. What is it about conservative Christianity that makes people latch onto these methods?

 

Please forgive my ignorance of the New Testament; I am genuinely curious. I generally associate the NT with forgiveness, grace, compassion, etc. And, if it isn't some interpretation of the NT that is the source of these methods, why such a disparity between the Jewish version of the Torah and the Christian version of the OT when it comes to discipline, parenting, etc.?

 

Perhaps this would be an interesting s/o thread.

It's all the "rod" verses in Proverbs that most Christians seem to latch onto and hold as Law. I've always found it strange myself. So they feel that it's the only way to discipline in a godly way. That, and a heavy emphasis on the "children obey your parents" verses. Interesting, though, that you don't know anyone Jewish who spanks. How do you think they interpret the Rod verses in Proverbs? I am Reformed so it has always troubled me how people that are so devoted to the Doctrines of Grace can usually be so heavy handed with their kids. I was spanked a lot as a kid... with belts, switches, open hands. I definitely believe I have been negatively affected by it. I struggle with deep depression, I'm aggressive, I have trouble controlling my anger.... All the bad side effects those studies say can happen. We try to use gentle and positive parenting with our kids.

[ebunny]

/snip

 

Anecdotes don't matter; 5 decades of research does. 

 

 

“Our analysis focuses on what most Americans would recognize as spanking and not on potentially abusive behaviors,†says Elizabeth Gershoff,an associate professor of human development and family sciences at The University of Texas at Austin. â€œWe found that spanking was associated with unintended detrimental outcomes and was not associated with more immediate or long-term compliance, which are parents’ intended outcomes when they discipline their children.â€

 

Gershoff and Grogan-Kaylor tested for some long-term effects among adults who were spanked as children. The more they were spanked, the more likely they were to exhibit anti-social behavior and to experience mental health problems. They were also more likely to support physical punishment for their own children, which highlights one of the key ways that attitudes toward physical punishment are passed from generation to generation.

 

The researchers looked at a wide range of studies and noted that spanking was associated with negative outcomes consistently and across all types of studies, including those using the strongest methodologies such as longitudinal or experimental designs. As many as 80 percent of parents around the world spank their children, according to a 2014 UNICEF report. Gershoff notes that this persistence of spanking is in spite of the fact that there is no clear evidence of positive effects from spanking and ample evidence that it poses a risk of harm to children’s behavior and development. \snip

 

 

Slightly OT:

Unfortunately, I cannot access the study published in this month’s Journal of Family Psychology, it's for paid subscribers only. I'm curious to know how the researchers defined 'spanking' vs other forms of abuse; and the frequency of spanking. For eg. Is it spanking if a child is hit maybe 4 times in a year? Hitting on the face vs hitting on the hand? I guess I'm looking for nuanced studies that categorise physical abuse based on degree/frequency…Does a child of 5 who is hit on the hand face the same outcome as a child who has faced incessant and relentless physical punishment?

 

It would also be interesting to see if there is any overlap between parents who primarily spanked as a first line of punishment and parents who were primarily verbally abusive. IME, a parent who spanks may/may not indulge in verbal abuse and vice versa. I don't know which is worse- getting spanked only or getting verbally abused and not spanked. I can imagine a child going through both, but I'd rather not. :(

[SeaConquest]

It's all the "rod" verses in Proverbs that most Christians seem to latch onto and hold as Law. I've always found it strange myself. So they feel that it's the only way to discipline in a godly way. That, and a heavy emphasis on the "children obey your parents" verses. Interesting, though, that you don't know anyone Jewish who spanks. How do you think they interpret the Rod verses in Proverbs? I am Reformed so it has always troubled me how people that are so devoted to the Doctrines of Grace can usually be so heavy handed with their kids. I was spanked a lot as a kid... with belts, switches, open hands. I definitely believe I have been negatively affected by it. I struggle with deep depression, I'm aggressive, I have trouble controlling my anger.... All the bad side effects those studies say can happen. We try to use gentle and positive parenting with our kids.

 

Here are some examples -- an Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform rabbi each answered this question:

 

Q: What's the Jewish perspective on disciplining children? Are there limits on punishments that a parent is supposed to impose on their child?

 

A: The question of discipline is a good example of an area where we have to understand the Torah’s broad values, rather than reading from a list of rules as we bring up our children. Children have two commandments regarding our parents – to both love and respect/be in awe of them. Our parents brought us into the world, and we, thus, have an obligation of gratitude to them during our entire lives, even after their deaths. Clearly, though, most five year olds, let alone 15 year olds, haven’t necessarily gotten that memo, leaving parents in a difficult position where they’ll need all their parenting skills. The two most relevant statements of advice in the Jewish tradition are likely: 1) King Solomon’s reminder to: “Educate your child according to whom he is†(Proverbs 22:6); and 2) the Talmudic statement to “have your left hand push away and your right hand bring closer†(Sotah 47a), which even Bart Simpson reminded Krusty the Clown’s father after he had disowned Krusty . Clearly, every situation must be approached with love, as the Talmud implies. It is only the proverbial left hand, the weaker hand for the majority, that can discipline children, and it is must be guided by the dominant right, loving hand. 

 

In general, discipline plays an important role in raising children by teaching them how to behave appropriately, creating proper boundaries etc. The tricky part is the method of disciplining. If disciplined with love and consistency from an early age, children generally will mature into responsible adolescents and productive adults. What, however, should a parent do if he has read every parenting book, gone to Parenting 101 through 999, and the child still resembles Bam Bam more than Pebbles? Can a parent ever hit a child as a last resort? 

 

King Solomon states that “Whoever spares the rod hates his son but if you love him, you will chasten him at an early age†(Proverbs 13:24). While this would seem to allow hitting one’s child in extreme situations, Jewish law takes very clear stands against the physical and emotional abuse of children, and thus hitting one’s children (beyond constraining them if they are acting wildly) stands outside normative Jewish practice.  In addition, “rod†need not be taken literally, but as a metaphor to “tough love†and discipline – i.e. that parents have to teach their children appropriate behavior, and mustn’t let them run wild, as a lack of involvement leads to various negative consequences. 

 

In addition, the Talmud warns parents not to hit their older children lest they unwittingly cause their children to hit back, a severe Biblical prohibition that the parents would be culpable for causing (Moed Katan 17a).  Similarly, the Shulchan Aruch (Code of Jewish Law) states that parents shouldn’t be overbearing with their children regarding their own honor, and should turn a blind eye when children don’t honor their parents as fully as they could (Yoreh Deah 240:19). 

 

Love and happiness must govern one’s relationship with one’s children. Even if the situation demands that parents display anger to teach children the importance of a certain idea, it must be feigned, for anger is considered one of the most odious characteristics (see Maimonides, Laws of Human Characteristics (De’ot) 2:3). Measured punishments are also appropriate in order to teach lessons, but should never be used out of vindication or frustration – this is a sure way to turn children away from their parents. Parents should explain rationally to their children why they are being punished and how they can ensure that future punishments will be unnecessary with a change of behavior or attitude. 

 

Bottom line, disciplining children is a fundamental responsibility for parents, but can never cross the line into any form of abuse. One must know one’s child in order to determine when a strong or soft hand is most appropriate. While there are no guarantees when it comes to children, raising them with traditional values of belief in God, respect for others and fidelity to Jewish law in a joyous and loving atmosphere should obviate the more difficult parts of discipline, ensuring that children will grow into productive and loving parents themselves. 

 

Answered by: Rabbi Maury Kelman

 

First allow me to give my personal opinion on disciplining our own children.  Whenever I see a parent disciplining his/her child in a way that makes me uncomfortable, it is usually because the parent is uncontrollably angry and stressed.  It is never a good idea to discipline one's own child when you are not in control of your own emotions.  Taking a few deep breaths before disciplining the child is a good value.

 

In Judaism, we have the concept of ben sorer u'moreh from the Torah.  This the stubborn and rebellious child who, the Torah instructs, should be taken by his father to the center of town so that the citizens of the town can stone the boy to death.  It is a troubling text for our modern sensibilities.  However, what is so telling about this text is that the rabbinic commentators explain that this event never actually occurred.  Perhaps it is in the text to scare young people into behaving, but that level of discipline never existed.

 

In our 21st century understanding of discipline, corporal punishment is not a value.  There are sensible ways to discipline children including taking away material possessions or activities that are important to them (i.e., "no video games for two days" or "you will not be able to go to the movie theater with your friends."  Using physical force to discipline children (whether students or one's own child) is not acceptable in our society.  The spanking that was once allowed has become more controversial and I believe there are other (less demeaning and violent) ways to discipline children.

 

Answered by: Rabbi Jason Miller

 

Rabbi Kelman has done an admirable job in summarizing the Jewish approach. My goal is to expand on a few related thoughts.

 

The word discipline is related to the words disciple and discern.   The root meaning has to do with teaching, particularly teaching that shapes and guides a student in developing their character. That definition meshes with the Jewish notion of child-rearing. We want to raise our child(ren) to live as a  mentsch, a good, kind and responsible person. 

 

The Talmud (B. Kidushim 29a) offers an instructive list:

A father [sic] is required to circumcise and redeem his son [sic], to teach him Torah, to find him a mate, and to teach him a trade. Some say he also has to teach him how to swim. 

Here is my commentary on this list. 

To circumcise and redeem the child: These key rituals both welcome the child into the community and define him or her in the eyes of the world. A parent needs to help their child find his/her place in the family, the community and the world.  Rituals offer a vehicle by which we both impart and enact the values we hold dear.

To teach Torah: In the broadest sense Torah includes a spiritual understanding of the world and a grounded sense of values. Both are necessary. The parent needs to model the behavior they wish to impart to their child. It is a deeply personal task that is not easily handed over to others, whether in the synagogue Hebrew School, summer camp or other activities. Parents are the most effective teachers, but it is hard work.

To find a mate and to teach a trade: Few parents can directly influence a child’s choice of partner or profession these days. But parents can avoid sheltering their children and instead give them the tools necessary to navigate the adult world. Choosing a mate or a profession is not innate. As we mature from adolescence to adulthood we learn how to evaluate people and opportunities, we fail, make mistakes and eventually find our grounding. 

To learn to swim: Swimming is a strange activity – you cannot have your feet on the ground and swim. To succeed you must learn how to let go and find your way in a fluid environment – what a wonderful definition of the adult world. All of our routines can be upended in a moment and yet we need to find a way to move forward. In her wonderful book on child-rearing, The Blessing of a Skinned Knee, Wendy Mogel states “’teaching your child to swim’ is a primary responsibility… because the goal of parenting is to raise our children to leave us.†(pg. 140)  

 

Discipline is related to punishment. No child simply complies with every desire or direction from a parent, and we ought to worry if they were so docile. So we need to find ways to let our children know when they cross boundaries of appropriateness or danger. As Rabbi Kelman says, a parent must know their child well to decide when circumstances call for a strong or a soft response, when compassion or judgment ought to define parental response. And one must always avoid any abusive behavior. Punishment serves the goal of helping direct our children toward a life lived as a mentsh. 

 

Answered by: Rabbi Louis Rieser

http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/79

 

More Examples:

 

http://thejewishreview.org/articles/?id=195

 

http://www.thejewishweek.com/features/hammerman_ethics/sparing_rod

Edited June 29, 2016 by SeaConquest

[gardenmom5]

You touch on an interesting point. I am not sure why these types of authoritarian parenting styles seem to appeal to so many conservative Christians.

 

 

It's all the "rod" verses in Proverbs that most Christians seem to latch onto and hold as Law. 

 

I'm a christian of a particularly conservative bent  - but the first generation in my foo not evangelical/related.  (I see similarities in how my grandmother parented.)

 

in our doctrinal theology, the "rod" verses are NOT a "stick with which to beat the kid".  more like a handrail, representing the word of God, of which to grab hold.  parents are often exhorted to be patient with their kids, to listen to their concerns, etc - 'cause you want them to listen to you.

 

I never heard of pearls/ati/gothard/et. al until I came here.  I've never seen those parenting types rec'd anywhere, except discussed here.

[PeacefulChaos]

You touch on an interesting point. I am not sure why these types of authoritarian parenting styles seem to appeal to so many conservative Christians. From a Jewish perspective, I never see this style of parenting among my Orthodox Jewish friends. Not that the Orthodox don't have some issues of their own, but I have never heard physical punishment advocated in any of the Orthodox or Conservative synagogues that I have attended. I don't even know a single Jew who spanks. What is it about conservative Christianity that makes people latch onto these methods?

 

Please forgive my ignorance of the New Testament; I am genuinely curious. I generally associate the NT with forgiveness, grace, compassion, etc. And, if it isn't some interpretation of the NT that is the source of these methods, why such a disparity between the Jewish version of the Torah and the Christian version of the OT when it comes to discipline, parenting, etc.?

 

Perhaps this would be an interesting s/o thread.   

 

 

It's all the "rod" verses in Proverbs that most Christians seem to latch onto and hold as Law. I've always found it strange myself. So they feel that it's the only way to discipline in a godly way. That, and a heavy emphasis on the "children obey your parents" verses. Interesting, though, that you don't know anyone Jewish who spanks. How do you think they interpret the Rod verses in Proverbs? I am Reformed so it has always troubled me how people that are so devoted to the Doctrines of Grace can usually be so heavy handed with their kids. I was spanked a lot as a kid... with belts, switches, open hands. I definitely believe I have been negatively affected by it. I struggle with deep depression, I'm aggressive, I have trouble controlling my anger.... All the bad side effects those studies say can happen. We try to use gentle and positive parenting with our kids.

Anecdotally, regarding both of the above quoted posts:

 

I am also a Christian who I guess is on the conservative side, but I know no one who disciplines with these tactics, either.  As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the moms group I attended (originally Bible study, turned to reading parenting books when a few of the 'powers that be' decided they liked those better :ugh: ... I stayed because I loved the people and relationships) read several 'parenting' books, none of which were Ezzo, Pearl, etc - the worst one was Creative Correction.  There were others that weren't great, but nothing that really talked about discipline as much as discipling kids, if that makes sense, and understanding personalities and how they think, etc.  They did read Parenting with Love and Logic and I hated that book as much as some of the others lol... though I can't say I particularly liked any of them.

Anyway, one woman had done GKGW and that was the extent.  Someone gave me Shepherding a Child's Heart once, or maybe I won it somewhere? ... anyway, I got into like the first chapter and never went further.  Just not my thing.

 

Anyway, all that to say, I think that the majority of conservative Christians - at least the ones that seem to be in my area/social circles - do not follow a method of discipline like the ones described here.  

 

And:

 

I'm a christian of a particularly conservative bent  - but the first generation in my foo not evangelical/related.  (I see similarities in how my grandmother parented.)

 

in our doctrinal theology, the "rod" verses are NOT a "stick with which to beat the kid".  more like a handrail, representing the word of God, of which to grab hold.  parents are often exhorted to be patient with their kids, to listen to their concerns, etc - 'cause you want them to listen to you.

 

I never heard of pearls/ati/gothard/et. al until I came here.  I've never seen those parenting types rec'd anywhere, except discussed here.

 

Agreed with all, especially the bolded.

 

 

ETA: except I guess I might be evangelical.  I don't know.  I don't know what all the different terms that divide the different parts of Christianity mean.  I go to church. I believe Christians are supposed to love God and love people.  That pretty much sums it up.

Edited June 29, 2016 by PeacefulChaos