Somethings' bothering me

[ServantofGod]

I've been seeking ways that I can improve Mason's behavior because, as I've been saying since he was like 7 months old, he is hard! I read a lot on this forum and the GD forum. For whatever reason, as I surfed around one night a few days ago, I went to the Pearl's site. :shifty So I've been browsing the articles. I do find there are lots of things that I don't like and disagree with. But reading several of the articles also gives me a different picture of Michael Pearl than what I would get from just "hearing" about him. Personally, I think he's rough around the edges, like an old army general might be. But he believes in loving your children and having a great personal relationship with them. He believes the same things about families that I do. He's pro-natural living. He doesn't think children should be broken down. He even mentions several instances where you can't spank and he points out that training children is about consistency, not spanking. (That is what is taught here, except a lot of people here balk at the word training, but if you show them, for example that "help" is inevitable and your directions will be carried out, that is training! ;))

I would like to appologize for anytime in the past when I might have written posts that attributed characteristics to the Pearl's or the Ezzos that were based on my imagination going away with a few things I *have* read by them. I think there is a sticky caution to be gracious towards mothers coming here deprogramming from Ezzo or Pearl, but I don't feel that the same grace is extended to Pearl or Ezzo themselves. What is bothering me is that I think people who have "heard" about the Pearls will just assume other things about them and will post their assumptions here. And no one, naturally, reminds the poster to extend grace. No one refutes the statements.

One article in particular just really opened my eyes about my own childhood. As many of you know, my parents were Basic Youth Conflicts (Gothard) and Dobson fans. For this I have blamed a lot of my extensive childhood hurts and the almost non-existence family relationship I now have with my parents and siblings. But it really wasn't Gothard. (Although a lot of Gothard's teachings were carried out by my parents.) It wasn't Dobson. It was the missing relationship that harmed me so much. Ultimately, the relationship is the entire point! Why do we do GBD, anyway? Why nurse, why homeschool, why carry a baby around? We do it because we want the relationship to be strong. A strong relationship will not be demolished by a few punitive practices. It won't collapse the day we blow it and scream at our son, "Just straighten up, quit acting stupid and practice your piano!" :/ THAT is the reason why we all probably know a punitive family with wonderful kids, a punitive family with "broken" kids, a GBD family with wonderful kids and a GBD family with horrible kids. It's not so much about the way discipline is carried out (well, I mean within the bounds of a bell-curve norm) as it is what the relationship is. Of all people, Michael Pearl is the one who just let me realize that that is the whole of why my parents essentially failed. It could have failed just as badly if my folks had never dreamed of spanking.

I think I'm rambling a little bit here and my point is not as concise as it could be. I'm just thinking though we generally extend grace to mothers who are *leaving* Pearl, we are not gracious towards Pearl himself. I'm just saying Pearl is not Satan Incarnate, though I may disagree with many of his techniques, even strongly so.

[SouthPaw]

Yes, we are all human and it does no good to demonize a specific person. And I think it is very true that it is easier to blame some parenting guru for a bad relationship, than the people in the relationship themselves :hug2

[AprilBr]

Yeah I agree with you, but there is a lot I don't like, but mostly it is related to marriage stuff.

[CelticJourney]

But he believes in loving your children and having a great personal relationship with them.

What he 'says' and 'says he believes' are in sharp contrast to what he teaches and does. I remember reading an article on his site that talked about how glorious it was to hear from a dad who had instucted his 11 yo son to whip his 2 yo daughter. Now why he felt it was appropriate to give that burden and authority to the 11 yo was never addressed. What was addressed was how proud Pearl was that the father had the boy whip the baby until she stopped crying and submitted all the while she screamed and begged for her daddy to make it stop. Lovely picture of 'loving your children', yes?

As individuals, I am willing to extend grace to the Pearls and Ezzos. But the day they established themselves as teachers they accepted a different Biblical standard. As leaders and, in my opinion based on Titus, clearly false teachers who lead parents away from that loving relationship with their children and into a damaging legalism and 'must win/must dominate' dynamic, I have no tolerance for them. Strong relationships are not the fruit of punitive/legalistic teachings.

[cklewis]

As leaders and, in my opinion based on Titus, clearly false teachers who lead parents away from that loving relationship with their children and into a damaging legalism and 'must win/must dominate' dynamic, I have no tolerance for them.Strong relationships are not the fruit of punitive/legalistic teachings.

Sadly, yes, I agree. Studying the whole of Pearl you can see the heresy he teaches. I'm not saying he's a heretic, but he is slippery and is responsible for that slipperiness.

C

[Mother of Sons]

What is bothering me is that I think people who have "heard" about the Pearls will just assume other things about them and will post their assumptions here.

I read his entire book and I don't get the same positive feelings that you do. I don't know him personally so I cant' speak about him personally but I can speak about what he is teaching and 98 percent of it is just plain wrong. You can talk all you want about loving your children and having a good relationship with them but it is just talk when you beat them.

[AmyDoll]

Ewww and how about the article about the little boy in the car who was crying and his dad pulled over every so often to whip him. And the boy was clearly tired and hungry. That's relationship building? That's a dad who is tuned in to his child?

I don't care - anyone who suggests that isn't worthy of a nanosecond of my time. The only thing that's for darn certain is that Pearl has a GIANT millstone around his neck and I wanna be no where and in no way associated with him. :td

There's a BAZILLION better places and people to garner advice from -

[RubySlippers]

What he 'says' and 'says he believes' are in sharp contrast to what he teaches and does. I remember reading an article on his site that talked about how glorious it was to hear from a dad who had instucted his 11 yo son to whip his 2 yo daughter. Now why he felt it was appropriate to give that burden and authority to the 11 yo was never addressed. What was addressed was how proud Pearl was that the father had the boy whip the baby until she stopped crying and submitted all the while she screamed and begged for her daddy to make it stop. Lovely picture of 'loving your children', yes?
:jawdrop :sick2

[Epieikeia]

He does believe in the breaking down of children---take for example his wife who found out via others that her son was a liar (she did not catch him red handed).

The punishment to "rid" a little one from the sin of lying was to have her 6-year-old go out and get his own switch. The child would spend the whole morning picking out his switch. Promptly at noon (because if he was not prompt he would get additional "licks"), he would come to his mother and she would say this:

“You are a liar, and lying is an ugly, hateful thing. In order that your soul shall be spared, I’m going to whip you.”

He would then bend over and receive his 10 "licks." She states she "grieved over it"....yet continued with her plan for 7 days. Since he was so young, he lost track of the days. On the 8th day she allowed him to pick out his own switch and come to her (even though she knew the 7 days was over). At that point he handed her the switch and she finally declared the 7 days were over after he stated he hated lying and would never lie again.

Now, Debi admits that this might now work for everyone and states that she wishes that she had started younger so that her son would never have been a "liar" (which is a joke as none of us is immune from lying or any other kind of sin...which is exactly why Jesus came!)

Now, I would expect most would say that the 70 lickings total he received over the 7 days was the worst part of this form of discipline.

While I agree that 70 lickings is excessive and very much abusive, that is not what bothers me the most.

What bothers me the most is two-fold:

1) There was no mention of Jesus and how He paid for all our sins...even lying. The boy was told he was dirty, filthy...a liar----but he was cleansed by physical punishment and not the Gospel. Debi Pearl in this instanced failed to proclaim the love of Christ to her child. The lickings produced a good external outcome, but it did nothing for the heart. And that is the thing that should be foremost in our minds as God sees/cares about the heart.

I think so much of our parenting is on the external--we judge how "good" our children are by how "good" they act. But, it is the heart that needs our foremost attention and that can only be changed and built up by the Gospel---through love. The law has it's place, but it can't stand alone---our little ones need to hear about Jesus--their souls need the comfort that comes from Christ alone.

2) My second concern flows from the first concern. I am uncomfortable with the idea that we can "save" our children from sin by "beating" it out of them. No amount of whipping or punishment will cleanse anyone's heart. By doing so a parent takes the place of Christ and that is blasphemy.

I used the above example because it is a good display of what the Pearl's believe over all imo. While they talk about God and good morals, etc. they place themselves in the role of God. This is not uncommon with false teachers.

I don't believe in demonizing anyone---however, one can't ignore false teaching. Every book in the NT warns against false teaching except Philemon.

In the case of the Pearls, they hold to a lot false teaching that influences many Christians and puts undue burden on the hearts of many. :sad2

I agree with you that relationship is important and the relationships we have with our family members will flow much better when they are built on love in Christ and not on the harshness of the law.

ETA: http://www. nogreaterjoy.org/index.php?id=51&tx_ttnews [swords]=lying&tx_ttnews[tt_news] =212&tx_ttnews[backPid]=118&tx_ttnews[sViewPointer]=1&cHash=6e1d0e7775

I added the link so that one could read the story I described for themselves.

[4blessings]

He doesn't think children should be broken down.

See, when I read his stuff, all I saw was him breaking down children, breaking their will, breaking their spirit. That story about the little boy in the car seat demonstrates that.

I find nothing at all redeeming in his writings. He may say that he's all about relationship building, but what he does speaks to the contrary. I'm sorry, but he isn't "walking his talk".

[hsgbdmama]

The two stories mentioned are very representative of their true nature. Where is the "tying of heart strings"? How does "whipping" your child bring either of you closer to one another? Why must "whipping" be the preferred or only tool?

Have I read all of their stuff? No. I have read parts of TTUAC and needed to stop because I was getting nauseas. :sick You don't need to read all their writings in order to get a representative sample of what they believe, preach and practice.

FTR, I own and have read CTBHHM and there is more of their bad theology as well. :td

ETA: Yes, he does believe children's wills should be broken down. It is in his writing. In his constant comparison of children to various animals (i.e., dogs, mules), he gives the comparison that like you break an animal, you need to break your child. :bheart

[Epieikeia]

My previous post and the idea of using a "whipping" to cleanse us from sin made me think of Martin Luther.

Martin Luther would spend hour upon hour whipping himself, hoping to cleanse himself from his sin. It was never good enough, no matter how hard he tried---no matter how much he bled or how deep the cuts---he still had the burden of sin weighing upon him.

That burden lifted immedialtey when he discovered the Gospel message and realized that Christ had paid for all of his failings.

We recognize as adults that a whipping cannot save us---why do some Christians reverse their thought in this area when it comes to children? Would MP subject himself to a whipping when he sinned? If it can save his son---could it not save him also then?

[hsgbdmama]

Here's another article that talks directly about comparing children to mules and the need to break their will. :cry

http://www. nogreaterjoy. org/index.php?id=20&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=98&tx_ttnews[backPid]=29&cHash=7f557fe3c1

[ArmsOfLove]

I've found that since the Pearls put up their new and improved website the icky stuff is much more hidden and even more than before the wording of things is very deceptive :(

He even mentions several instances where you can't spank and he points out that training children is about consistency, not spanking.Well, this is because he is using the same words to mean different things. He defines training as setting children up for failure and then swatting them. It's "proactive" in that you don't wait until they disobey on their own and then spank them. That's why he recommends not spanking--spanking is reactive. But his training is most assuredly swatting/use of the rod to physically strike :(

I do believe we need to be careful about speaking from our impressions or second hand information.

A strong relationship will not be demolished by a few punitive practices. It won't collapse the day we blow it and scream at our son, "Just straighten up, quit acting stupid and practice your piano!" confused THAT is the reason why we all probably know a punitive family with wonderful kids, a punitive family with "broken" kids, a GBD family with wonderful kids and a GBD family with horrible kids. It's not so much about the way discipline is carried out (well, I mean within the bounds of a bell-curve norm) as it is what the relationship is. Of all people, Michael Pearl is the one who just let me realize that that is the whole of why my parents essentially failed. It could have failed just as badly if my folks had never dreamed of spanking. I'm glad you were finally able to hear this in a way that it made sense :hug It's true--our mistakes are minor compared to our love and relationship. That's why I emphasize relationship more than the tools that make things happen. Within healthy relationship you have good days and bad but the relationship is the guiding force. I talk about this a lot more in the new book :) Scripture tells us that love covers over a multitude of sins :tu

[AprilBr]

I also do not know the Pearl's personally but I truly believe he loves his children but has a very, very screwed up way of showing it and also to his wife. He doesn't know the definition of a servant leader. He also claims that he is learning to be more Christ-like but Jesus is the definition of a servant leader. He seems to be one of those people that believe they are right and everyone else is wrong and no one can change their mind and if they try, THEY are of the devil. My bil could be the son of MP. But I will not continue to bash them...just their tactics, are they giving out free glue sticks this week. Ok that was bad, I am just kidding about that.

[katiekind]

The Pearls have a lot of good stuff to say. I think they portray a warmth and understanding toward children that (for instance) Ezzo lacks. And even apart from that warmth, I find there is a lot to agree with in their articles.

But as you point out, there is also some very troubling material.

I think the "grace" differential that you observe is the difference between the responsibility/accountability of a Christian teacher and leader and compassion towards a sheep who gets led astray by a shepherd who operates without accountability. :/ I find it no end of frustrating.

I'm glad you found an insight that helped you. I agree with you that relationship is very important. Also when I look out over the families I know that have been successful over the years, there is one common thread that I see: parents who are very involved with their kids, who never give up, who keep their heads in the ballgame. (And it is tempting to lose one's focus as the kids get older.)

[Mother of Sons]

I'm glad you found an insight that helped you. I agree with you that relationship is very important. Also when I look out over the families I know that have been successful over the years, there is one common thread that I see: parents who are very involved with their kids, who never give up, who keep their heads in the ballgame. (And it is tempting to lose one's focus as the kids get older.)

I agree and in rereading this thread Danielle, I think this was alot of what you were trying to say, no?

[ServantofGod]

It's "proactive" in that you don't wait until they disobey on their own and then spank them. That's why he recommends not spanking--spanking is reactive. But his training is most assuredly swatting/use of the rod to physically strike

No, I'm sorry, you're mistaken in this instance. Yes, I know he does promote the training sessions that include the switch, but the article I was speaking about (I'm sorry I don't know which one it was) said, (paraphrase, not an exact quote) "Some are not able to use physical discipline at all, such as if you are a child-care worker or a government-sponsored foster care provider. You can still do this training without ever using a switch, it will just take longer." That was something I had been looking for.

Also, I feel that it is correct to train them in advance for something you know will be an issue, or if you see the beginnings of something. That is being proactive! You can do that without spanking.

What it comes back to in their instance, is that they believe using the rod is fundamentally commanded by the Bible, so for them (not defending them, I'm putting myself in their shoes) trying to find non-punitive ideas is *MOOT*. Naturally, they would say it is you who is the false teacher. (But you know this.)

I am sort of unusual in that I don't base my view of spanking on what I think the Bible says, but I'm sorry to say that if I did, I would conclude that I must spank at least some of the time. I really don't think the non-spanking exegesis holds much water. Although, to be fair, I tire of reading the big paragraphs of possible definitions for every word, so maybe I haven't given it as thorough attention as I could.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic...I decided to start this thread when I read the goodbye thread from fruitofthewomb. I have thought a lot of times I should just leave because I see a lot of flaws in non-punitive philosophy, although I am still 90% non-punitive. So, I thought I would dialog about some things and see if it leads me anywhere good.

Oh, and this is kind of a tag-on, but some of the articles I really liked were "Low Self-Esteme", "Fear of Bees" and I loved "A Husband for Laura Rose". I think Fear of Bees was a brilliant angle on de-sensitizing a child to a fear. I also think it shows that they are not unreasonable, i.e, "Yeah, throw that child in their bedroom, close the door and if she screams there's bees in her room, don't give in! Just hold the door shut until she conks out!" I think A Husband for Laura Rose shows the love of a grandfather beautifully! And it's funny, too.

I agree and in rereading this thread Danielle, I think this was alot of what you were trying to say, no? This is part of what I was saying. :) The other part is that speaking at least for myself, I feel that I have misjudged some aspects of the Pearls and I am sorry for it.

[CelticJourney]

"Some are not able to use physical discipline at all, such as if you are a child-care worker or a government-sponsored foster care provider. You can still do this training without ever using a switch, it will just take longer."
But did you catch the difference in subject: 'Some adults are not allowed to spank' - not 'Some children do not need spankings'.
Naturally, they would say it is you who is the false teacher. (But you know this.)
Yes, but I base my opinion on more than the spanking issue, so my opinion still stands. Also remember that no false teacher gets very far if he doesn't mix in a balanced measure of truth to make the lies more paletteable.
I feel that it is correct to train them in advance for something you know will be an issue, or if you see the beginnings of something. That is being proactive! You can do that without spanking.
Well, that would depend on your definition of proactive. Talking to my girls about what is expected before a public gathering is proactive. Pearl says it is proactive to take a toddler to the edge of a pond and push them in so they will learn to stay away from the pond. Again, not seeing much 'love' or 'relationship' in his actions.

[ArmsOfLove]

It's "proactive" in that you don't wait until they disobey on their own and then spank them. That's why he recommends not spanking--spanking is reactive. But his training is most assuredly swatting/use of the rod to physically strike

No, I'm sorry, you're mistaken in this instance. Yes, I know he does promote the training sessions that include the switch, but the article I was speaking about (I'm sorry I don't know which one it was) said, (paraphrase, not an exact quote) "Some are not able to use physical discipline at all, such as if you are a child-care worker or a government-sponsored foster care provider. You can still do this training without ever using a switch, it will just take longer." That was something I had been looking for. :scratch I'm so confused. *Even* Michael Pearl admits that training can be done without a switch. I do realize that. I'm not sure, though, how that makes him a good guy when he considers the only appropriate time to do this when you are legally forbidden to switch. And I believe that is the topic of the article you're referring to? The one I'm referring to is the one where he asks the question how young is too young and concludes that when you define "training" the way he does (using a switch to teach a child to not do what you don't want them to do) it's never too young :cry

Also, I feel that it is correct to train them in advance for something you know will be an issue, or if you see the beginnings of something. That is being proactive! You can do that without spanking. Of course you can! Was there any doubt about that? I try to make that perfectly clear.

What it comes back to in their instance, is that they believe using the rod is fundamentally commanded by the Bible, so for them (not defending them, I'm putting myself in their shoes) trying to find non-punitive ideas is *MOOT*. Naturally, they would say it is you who is the false teacher. (But you know this.) Yes, I do know this. And I believe that fruit speaks volumes . . .

I am sort of unusual in that I don't base my view of spanking on what I think the Bible says, but I'm sorry to say that if I did, I would conclude that I must spank at least some of the time. I really don't think the non-spanking exegesis holds much water. Although, to be fair, I tire of reading the big paragraphs of possible definitions for every word, so maybe I haven't given it as thorough attention as I could. I suspect deeper study would yield a different conclusion, but I appreciate your honesty about the issue on both sides.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic...I decided to start this thread when I read the goodbye thread from fruitofthewomb. I have thought a lot of times I should just leave because I see a lot of flaws in non-punitive philosophy, although I am still 90% non-punitive. So, I thought I would dialog about some things and see if it leads me anywhere good. I hope it helps

[Teribear]

I could break his anger in two days. He would be too scared to get angry. On the third day he would draw into a quiet shell and obey. On the fourth day I would treat him with respect and he would respond in kind. On the fifth day the fear would go away and he would relax because he would have judged that as long as he responds correctly there is nothing to fear. On the sixth day he would like himself better and enjoy his new relationship to authority. On the seventh day I would fellowship with him in some activity that he enjoyed. On the eight day he would love me and would make a commitment to always please me because he valued my approval and fellowship. On the ninth day someone would comment that I had the most cheerful and obedient boy that they had ever seen. On the tenth day we would be the best of buddies.

This sounds like Stockholm Syndrome rather than anything resembling realtionship building to me.

[milkmommy]

I rember reading the fear of bees and I found it disturbing but couldn't remember exactly why.. From a fear of bees
Once she is comfortable around bees in the yard, it is time to stop catering to her fears in the house. Place her in the bed and leave her there. If she claims that there are bees in her room, put her in an uncomfortable room to sleep—one that is further from yours. Put her down on a towel on the laundry room floor, or in the kitchen. If the alternative is not pleasant, she will be glad to stay in her room. Do not reward her fears by cuddling her and allowing her to dominate your time and presence. If she is really afraid, the laundry room is a nice, safe place. If she is just working herself up in order to gain attention, then nothing will satisfy her but special treatment.


:sad2 Where is grace in this? Why does she need to be placed someplace uncomfortable why does the child need to be moved furthur from the parent?

On this Some are not able to use physical discipline at all, such as if you are a child-care worker or a government-sponsored foster care provider. You can still do this training without ever using a switch, it will just take longer."
Hes refering to those not allowed to spank he also talks about ways to cover up his reccomended training (switching) secessions incase CPS gets involved.

I feel that it is correct to train them in advance for something you know will be an issue, or if you see the beginnings of something. That is being proactive! You can do that without spanking.
preparing our kids to tackle the real world is one thing we practice street safety for example everytime we go outside we talk about the dangers we pactice stopping looking both ways and holding hands etc.. we however will not set her up for failure we will not go stand her at age three on the curb place her favorite ball in the road and spank yell or punish in any way when she tried to go retrieve it. :sad2 I did not need to tach my child the stove was hot by delibertly sticking her hand onto a hot stove :sad2 I didn't need to teach her water could be dangerous by setting her up to fall in a lake and watch while she struggled or worse yet trip her when she proved more gracefull. :sad2

Over time I have read boh TTUAC and no greater joy volume 1 and 2 and have visited their daughters site. I do believe he loved his kids and in his mind is correct I also think hes grossly missing the mark and his advice is full of wholes and sets up kids for failure. Hes view of kids as sinners and manuplaive members needing their wills broken. I frankly find his writing toxic I have had horrible relationships with my own DD and husband after reading his stuff becasue its just that toxic.

Deanna

[Katigre]

I wanted to comment on the Husband for Lara Rose article b/c when i read it awhile ago it really bothered me. His affection for his grand-daughter is sweet. But the perfectionistic standards he holds up for her future husband made me mad - he even says at one point that if the young man had been involved in certain sins God can forgive him and use him - but that those sins make him not good enough to be her husband. He basically said that his standard is higher than God's, and i thought it was really harsh and judgemental and lacking in grace.

[glassangel]

  I rember reading the fear of bees and I found it disturbing but couldn't remember exactly why.. From a fear of bees
Once she is comfortable around bees in the yard, it is time to stop catering to her fears in the house. Place her in the bed and leave her there. If she claims that there are bees in her room, put her in an uncomfortable room to sleep—one that is further from yours. Put her down on a towel on the laundry room floor, or in the kitchen. If the alternative is not pleasant, she will be glad to stay in her room. Do not reward her fears by cuddling her and allowing her to dominate your time and presence. If she is really afraid, the laundry room is a nice, safe place. If she is just working herself up in order to gain attention, then nothing will satisfy her but special treatment.

  :sad2 Where is grace in this? Why does she need to be placed someplace uncomfortable why does the child need to be moved furthur from the parent?

YEAH??????
:cry :cry :cry

This upsets me SO much as my son IS afraid of bees ATM...why ON EARTH would I NOT comfort him???? :cry :cry :cry Why would I send him to the LAUNDRY??? Why is cuddling him rewarding his fears :hunh - sorry but that is just STUPID!!!!!!! Cuddling him is COMFORTING him in his fears -- If I was afraid should I go to the laundry??????

:cry :cry :cry

(apart from that I don't know much about the topic...)

[Chris3jam]

*Even* Michael Pearl admits that training can be done without a switch. I do realize that. I'm not sure, though, how that makes him a good guy when he considers the only appropriate time to do this when you are legally forbidden to switch.

Notice that the people he says cannot switch are "workers", not the parents. This is covering himself legally. . . . .it is so the parents will not complain and get them in trouble. He also admits that discipline *can* be done without switching. . . .so why even switch at all? Why do the parents' own children not merit the same grace that another's does? MP is charismatic. He is a whiz with words. Seriously, if you are concerned about second hand information, read it for yourself. I still have my copy of TTUAC. I read it more than once, crying, weeping, because I was trying as hard as I could, and *still* did not have the children that were the promised result of this training. I still get his newsletter. His *words* are not consistant. The switching is the road by which you build the relationship with the child (the Stockholm Syndrome described above). And it's micromanaging; creating robots; taking away free-will; making things convenient and 'easy' for the parent. It may be nice. . . . .but how is that Biblical?

Let me share something. I was fully in Pearl mode when I read this account. And, after I read it, was when my blood ran cold. Even still while I revered and respected MP (at the time). He was describing the "training" of a little girl. It was in the newsletter. It started when she was born . .. . .she cried a lot; non-stop. Now, no attempt was made to find out *why*. All that was said was that "you're going to have trouble with this one." As I kept reading, I started crying. He was describing a little girl with such clear symptoms of a disorder that even *I* could see it. As he described this little girl, my mind said, immediately, "Wow! She has some sort of sensory integration disorder! And reflux!" (This was before he started to describe her "training"). She had colic and she had sensory issues, and what seemed *clearly* like autistic tendencies. What finally broke me was when he wrote about how she would constantly take off her shoes, even in the coldest of weather. And he described her training (so she would 'learn' to keep on her shoes). :bheart :bheart And it was still all wrapped up in "loving" and "lovingly" and "special", etc. And I remember this cold, cold feeling. A chill ran across my body, like a ghost had just passed. The treatment of this little girl - - -over a period of *so* many years --- if this had been an animal, they would have surely been prosecuted and the animal taken away post-haste! But, no one saw it. . . no one cared. .. . and the *words* of love may have been used. . ..but the "love" that was being described was hardly that. No one loved that little girl. :bheart :bheart :bheart :bheart :bheart :bheart That special little girl, that doesn't even know the hell she's in, because she's been told it is love. :bheart It was MP himself, from an article he wrote, that started me *really* looking at him and his 'methods'.

I do not attack the man (he will have to answer to God). I have a *huge* problem, though, with the heresy he teaches. He puts himself on equal, if not higher, level than God. . .as in, his standards are higher than God's. That is straight-out blasphemy, and I am told by God himself in His Word to stay away from people like that, no matter the "good" they may preach.

[katiekind]

The fears we all feel for our children can make us vulnerable to bad advice.

My deepest concern for those who dip their toes in the Pearls' books and articles is this: there is poison in that brew. Part of the poison is in hidden premises that, if you dig them out, turn out to be false. But if you are just reading along you notice you're starting with Common Sense Point A, but by the end of the article you're at Bizarre Punishment Point W. But it may not be possible to see where the train jumped the tracks, especially if fear for your child is making you feel desperate and open to something new.

Parents with a normal emotional make-up, in my opinion, cannot manage to be sweet and compassionate in combination with the training sessions and bizarre punishments the Pearls are fans of. The Pearls portray those two things in side-by-side combination, but I find that real people who are dealing with a full deck, emotionally speaking, can't do that.

People with normal emotional makeup will tend to be either Pearl-failures--unable to stomach the training or to be dispassionate (as recommended) about the punishments [and of course the articles and testimonials are designed to increase your capacity to stomach it or to break your natural resistance to the punishments]...

--or on the other hand, normal parents will be love-and-compassion failures and who are unable to honestly FEEL Pearl's folksy level of "shucks, ain't he a cutie-pie, though" goodwill and compassion toward their children when they are requiring so many stinging licks and bizarre punishments to change their children's will and emotions. You find them lamenting this to one another.

Every mistake that I made in parenting my children was an over-reaction based on fear--fear that if I didn't get a grip on this RIGHT NOW, my child was headed for big trouble. I was leaving out God's work and I was leaving out the natural maturation process.

:hug

Now in my parenting, having raised two to adulthood, so that I know my fears aren't founded, I know the secret is the relationship and the willingness to walk beside your child every step of the way. Never, ever giving up. You don't have to be harsh and you don't have to punish them, but you DO need to guide them, help them, set boundaries and limits and be consistent. You have to be their first and best resource person. :hug It's tiring. I would say, don't give ground to your fears. You have lots of time and God does His best work with sinners.

[DogwoodMama]

Kathy, I just wanted to say thank you, and how much I appreciate your wisdom as a mother of older children. :grin :heart

This has been so true in my experience thus far...

Every mistake that I made in parenting my children was an over-reaction based on fear--fear that if I didn't get a grip on this RIGHT NOW, my child was headed for big trouble. I was leaving out God's work and I was leaving out the natural maturation process.

Sally Clarkson talks a lot about this in "The Mission of Motherhood" one of my all-time favorite Mommy inspiration books... just that children *are* immature and it *is* tiring, but it is a long process. But they do mature, and guidance and correction and consistency yield good fruit! I find that the Pearls put an emphasis on "perfect" behavior along the way and have developmentally inappropriate expectations for children's behavior.

[4blessings]

Every mistake that I made in parenting my children was an over-reaction based on fear--fear that if I didn't get a grip on this RIGHT NOW, my child was headed for big trouble. I was leaving out God's work and I was leaving out the natural maturation process.
:yes Me, too. I can't use the past tense, though. I'm still making those mistakes.

[AprilBr]

Every mistake that I made in parenting my children was an over-reaction based on fear--fear that if I didn't get a grip on this RIGHT NOW, my child was headed for big trouble. I was leaving out God's work and I was leaving out the natural maturation process.
:yes Me, too. I can't use the past tense, though. I'm still making those mistakes.


We all do at times but the difference is that we recognize them as mistakes, ask forgiveness and move forward in becoming more Christ-like.

[Chris3jam]

Every mistake that I made in parenting my children was an over-reaction based on fear--fear that if I didn't get a grip on this RIGHT NOW, my child was headed for big trouble. I was leaving out God's work and I was leaving out the natural maturation process.

But, the writers like Ezzo and Pearl use that fear. Ezzo makes a big deal that if you don't bf like he says the child will not get enough hind milk for proper brain development, will get *too* much milk that will curdle and give them tummy aches, and won't get enough sleep for proper growth. Pearl says that if you do not start with the switching "a year before their first birthday", your child will become a lost soul, with no hope of being saved. Yes, he does say that. ....I don't remember verbatim, but that is the most important idea that I got from TTUAC. And I've been able now to recognize the authors for what they do. . . .fear-mongering. So, when I pick up a book, and I see, "Do this, or, if you don't, this horrible thing *will* happen", I put it down right away, or read it with extreme caution.

[ServantofGod]

Too many things here to comment to each one, but just a few things that I have a minute to speak to:

One, with Fear of Bees, first, he talked about all the ways you would show/educate/teach the child that bees are not horrible and terrifying. Plus, the child had not even been STUNG by a bee; some "flew by her head", so I think Pearl's assessment that *someone* conditioned her to think a few bees flying by is terrifying was right on the money. The teaching/showing/educating about bees was to recondition that bees were not terrifying. After that, yes - I do think a child can use the Terrified of Bees excuse to have the parents dancing to her tune. I wouldn't necessarily put her to bed in the laundry room, cause I think that's too weird, but I do think a child can use something like this to control the parents her way.

Is the idea of "assigning a positive intent" supposed to mean that the child never has a negative intent???

Let me tell you about something that recently happened. I didn't want to post this before, but I think I need to to ask the question. I was teaching a class of 3 and 4 year olds. One girl was fine and happy, but being a constant disruption by fiddling with her cousin. I told her several times she needed to put her hands on her lap, etc. Eventually, I told her she needed to move one seat over. She didn't move, so I sckooched her over. She dissolved in tears and screamed, "I want my mommy!" for the next 40 minutes. Many attempts were made by me and others to help her relax and join in the class, but she would only kick and lash out. No one could find her mother. She couldn't be moved on at the end of class, either. Finally, someone found her brother, who came and got her. When her brother appeared and put his arm around her, she instantly stopped crying and was triumphant in her face. Separately I was told by two other ladies that this is was her MO in every class LAST YEAR. She is fine until she is corrected or any limit is placed on her. Her class info card says that she is "sensitive to sugar", so I gather that her mother has heard of food issues and has aimed to find out what food(s) trouble her. Yet her behavior is still terrible.

I believe the girl has an intention, but it's not positive. I believe her intention is to have things go along as she would like. If anyone alters her plans, she will scream for her mother, who rescues her from the bad limit-setting people. Mind you, in this whole scenario, no outrageous demands were placed on her. Thirteen other children are able to sit in a circle and, if their attention goes astray for a minute or two, they can be brought back to joining in the activities by a simple request of, "Jordan, we're sitting down right now." or "You will be able to hold the stuffed animal in a few minutes, but right now, we're all looking at it with our eyes." Thirteen other children have learned that there is no need to (or benefit it) collapsing into tears when someone reminds you what the limits are. Talk about fear - yes, I do fear my now-two-year-old becoming a four-year-old like that. If I can prevent it, I intend to.

About fear of not getting control of the behavior now - this is a rational concern for a parent to have. It's one I feel keenly. Because children do not grow up to be wonderful adults just because you love them and talk to them kindly. The jails are full of people whose mothers love them. If your child has outrageous behavior when they are two, how can a parent not be concerned that they will also have outrageous behavior when they are three? Or four? Etc. I've seen GBD people excusing the outrageous behavior of a ten-year-old! At what point do you say, the child has troubling behavior at ten; things don't look good for his future? See I don't want to wait until Mason is a terrible 10 year old and then say, "Sadly, I was right when he was two. I accommodated him when he was two because 'he's a sensitive child', 'he has food issues and yesterday he ate a tiny peice of cheese', 'he is still young yet'." Why is it every other child now has a food sensitivity or autism spectrum disorder? Why is it every other baby has reflux? Mason was a screamy, spit-up-ish baby and every other mother told me, "He probably has reflux; you should put him on Zantac." When my first child was born and was screamy, nobody at all said, "she has reflux"; I never even heard the word until a few years ago.

Also, I know Pearl was not saying it isn't necessary to spank, but only, if you legally can't, you can still train. Of course this is what he would say, because this is what he believes via the Bible! My point was that it isn't the spanking that teaches the child and HE DOES SAY THIS, though he believes the spanking is Biblically mandated if the child is yours and it's legal to spank him.

Maybe more later.

[Hermana Linda]

--or on the other hand, normal parents will be love-and-compassion failures and who are unable to honestly FEEL Pearl's folksy level of "shucks, ain't he a cutie-pie, though" goodwill and compassion toward their children when they are requiring so many stinging licks and bizarre punishments to change their children's will and emotions. You find them lamenting this to one another.

IMHO, this is the root of my horror of the Pearl's teachings, that they change their children's will and emotions. Also the Stockholm Syndrome. I was not totally sure what that means, but I assumed that it is the brainwashing captors use on their victims. The syndrom that made Patty Hearst join the SLA. Turns out that I was right. I found an interesting article on that http://www.apologeticsindex.org/353-stockholm-syndrome. The Pearl's adult children defend and embrace the teachings by which they were raised. I read an article by Rebeka Joy Anast of them gushing about how wonderful it was that she can only feel joy. All negative emotions have been brainwashed out of her during her youth. This is not healthy. I have searched for the article but am unable to find it. If anyone has a link to it, please post.

[Epieikeia]

I had a few thoughts.

The first thought I had was that there is no understanding of normal childhood development in the teachings of the Pearls. I find this disturbing that we would expect a 10-month-old to act the same as a 3-year-old or a 8-year-old. Expecting all 3/4 year olds to be mature enough to be able to handle a separation from mom is not a fair expectation of all children. To naturally assume a child must be spoiled or indulged is not necessarily fair either.

Also, the herd mentality. The idea that all the little ones must align "just so" or something evil is going on. Again, everything based on the external display. Now, I know we as human are limited by the external--what we can see as only God can see the heart. However, our goal with our children should be the heart--you reach the heart (via the Holy Spirit) there will be an external change (though it doesn't guarantee perfect children who only display perfect little emotions).

I also think you are confusing permissiveness with GBD. Even secular psychology recognizes that permissive parenting is just as dangerous as heavy authoritative parenting.

For so many people, not spanking must equal permissive---of course that is a myth. A mother could actually be permissive and spank---spanking when she hits her limit and than compensating her guilt with indulgence.

The teaching/showing/educating about bees was to recondition that bees were not terrifying.

This is secular behaviorism ala the likes of Pavlov or Watson. :sad2

Also, I know Pearl was not saying it isn't necessary to spank, but only, if you legally can't, you can still train.

Well, I prefer teach (train is what I do with my dog or birds)--but still, if it is true that it can be done without spanking--then why not? Now I know he reads Scripture differently, but I have to say that as a foster parent of a 3 and an 11 year old---if all I knew was the Pearl method (which I do understand by reading their materials and actually you will find on GCM that I rarely discuss the Pearls here)--I could never ever foster.

Why could I never ever foster? Because my tools and abilities would be narrowly limited. The best I could hope for would be to maybe be very permissive with the foster kids and extremely authoritative with my own kids---which would mean that I would have 2 methods of discipline in my home causing division and ill feelings between the children in my care.

The key to everything is the Gospel--and that is the biggest issue I have with the Pearls. When I read their writings I rarely hear anything about Jesus. We cannot save our children though bevhavioralism or spanking or sheer human will. Our children are saved through faith in Christ (via the Holy Spirit)---if I fail to share that with them, then I have truly failed as a parent. It's the internal one needs to start with not the external. You get the internal, you will get the external---however, you will never eradicate the struggle of sin in anyone's life--no amount of "training" will produce a perfect child.

[katiekind]

Regarding becoming vulnerable to extreme advice on account of fear:

Because children do not grow up to be wonderful adults just because you love them and talk to them kindly.

Hmmm. If that's what you heard me say, then I need to try again, because that is definitely not what I meant or intended, and definitely not what I believe.

I know the secret is the relationship and the willingness to walk beside your child every step of the way. Never, ever giving up. You don't have to be harsh and you don't have to punish them, but you DO need to guide them, help them, set boundaries and limits and be consistent. You have to be their first and best resource person. :hug It's tiring. I would say, don't give ground to your fears. You have lots of time and God does His best work with sinners.

Danielle, you're going to have to work through your issues with your son as God leads you, of course. I know you're afraid and you want to help him grow up to be a fine young man. :hug

I would avoid Pearl because of his problems, but there are many other fine sources of good information on parenting that you might want to check out for additional support and ideas. What I find when I talk to older, experienced parents is that the differences between punitive and grace based parents are quite minimal if you really sit them down to talk about heart-level issues. There is a pool of common wisdom that is shared. Maybe you need to go looking for that. :hug

[4blessings]

Because children do not grow up to be wonderful adults just because you love them and talk to them kindly. The jails are full of people whose mothers love them.

I think most people would agree with this. I think to raise wonderful adults, you have to love them and treat them kindly while respectfully setting boundaires and limits and enforcing them. I believe that GD encourages focus on the relationship you have with your children, but also encourages the setting of firm boundaries and consistently enforcing them. It's not an either/or situation.

[milkmommy]

Why is it every other child now has a food sensitivity or autism spectrum disorder? Why is it every other baby has reflux? Mason was a screamy, spit-up-ish baby and every other mother told me, "He probably has reflux; you should put him on Zantac." When my first child was born and was screamy, nobody at all said, "she has reflux"; I never even heard the word until a few years ago.
:scratch What is your point. Reflux Autism etc are VERY real are you suggesting mammas here are using these things as excuses?? :hunh :scratch. I'll use my DD as an example.
We starte the PT process around age 2.5 we did everything by the book did rewards even took awy privleges because we were told it was up to us to make it happen. Yet nothing. We finially had to ask is there something medically wrong and had her tested and YES their is! Her brain does noot make the connection bran scans DON"T lie :shrug. Yet I still get people who tell me she should just be spanked or punished becaue shes manuplating me :banghead According to her nurlogist many many kids with this disorder end up abused because parents assume there just stubborn and assume its a power stuggle they must win. :sad2
Another issue food for the looongest time we had serious food issues a DD who eaither refused to eat to the point of starvation and vomiting up what she did take in. We tried everything from permissive to gracefull to punitive I'll admit didn't work. We finially got a dianoisis of her apraxia then we were able to get her the proper help an things have greatly improved. :shrug
All her diagnoises are real they are not excuses. We teach her to be the best she can be our standards are very high but we still have to face reality. I expect my DD not to say toss her food or go Ewww thats gross. She expected to sit with us and have appropiate manners. I expect her to coperate while I change her diaper and to help me know if shes wet/messy.
Do you think for example my child would magically not have these issues if we punished?

Deanna

[milkmommy]

Because children do not grow up to be wonderful adults just because you love them and talk to them kindly. The jails are full of people whose mothers love them.
sastically this isn't true not saying there are none but studies have found far more who come from punitive backgrounds or very permissive ones.

Deanna

[milkmommy]

I read an article by Rebeka Joy Anast of them gushing about how wonderful it was that she can only feel joy. All negative emotions have been brainwashed out of her during her youth. This is not healthy. I have searched for the article but am unable to find it. If anyone has a link to it, please post.


I think it was this one http:// www.nogreaterjoy. org/
index.php?id=52&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=125&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=24&cHash=c6560ac911d

Deanna

[OpalsMom]

If your child has outrageous behavior when they are two, how can a parent not be concerned that they will also have outrageous behavior when they are three? Or four? Etc.

It's reasonable to be concerned, and to assist children. But it's also reasonable to understand that some outrageous behavior is normal for 2-year olds. Not acceptable, but normal. It's also reasonable to understand that some behavior that would be outrageous in a 4-year old is acceptable in a 2-year old. My 2-year old gets a retry when she forgets to say please and thank-you, and most of the time when she whines. As long as she's trying to eat with utensils, I accept table manners that would be unacceptable in somebody with more motor skills.

I don't let my 2-year old pull my hair. But I don't worry that it's a strategy she's still going to be trying when she's 5, either.

I don't think wanting your own way is necessarily negative intent, either. And I think that a normal child in a functioning family, regardless of its parenting style, doesn't choose to be hysterical for 40 minutes (this is not a pleasant experience -- this is, in fact, much less pleasant for your average child than going along with what you want). There are non-normal children and non-functioning families in every parenting style.

[Chris3jam]

so I think Pearl's assessment that *someone* conditioned her to think a few bees flying by is terrifying was right on the money.

I'm sorry. But that is not a valid observation. . .it is an opinion. I am deathly afraid of heights. . .and I know, full well, that no one conditioned me to be afraid of heights. :no2 You are basing your opinions on conjecture. You are assigning total negative intent to a small child, and total positive intent to Pearl. Why not try to assign positive intent to both?

Let me give you an example from my own past. I have a 23 yo son. When he was younger, and in school, we had no end of problems with him. There was one elementary class that I remember vividly. He was the only student (due to his ADHD and other issues, he was in 'special' classes). Twice, the police were called, because he ran away. I was called many, many times to come pick him up from class, because he was so unmanageable. And I remember thinking the same thing. . . ."How in the world are we going to teach him anything, if he always gets his way when he gets violent!?". Because, I would see his whole body relax, and I would see this 'look' on his face when he "got his way". He wanted out of that class. He needed out of that class. I see things a bit differently now. He was too young to control himself. He just couldn't. All he knew was that he was panicked. And the psychiatrist we were seeing was a bit condescending when he said, "You will never understand what he's going through." and got really miffed when I said, "Yes, I do, he's having what equates to a panic attack." His heart rate would go through the roof, his blood pressure, etc. And I am pleased to announce that he is now old enough to control these physiological nightmares. And, yes, I spanked him. I would get him home and I would spank him (well, I loved him, how could I not? :rolleyes) and isolate him in his room. And you know what? It only made the behaviour much worse.

And I have a question. . .. do you really think a spanking would have solved that little girl's problems? Or would it have solved the teacher's and the school's and the parent's problems? *What* is the reason for this behaviour?! In our case, we found out later what my son's problems were. He had to start having seizures before we would dig deeper. And, I even started to think that he was having grand mal seizures on purpose! :jawdrop :no2 That is where the adversarial mindset will take you.

. I just re-read some of your post! She is in the 3 and 4 yo class?!?!?!? I teach a 3 and 4 yo class myself. These are *babies*! Of course she has that look on her face! She *needs* a comfort figure, which she is obviously not getting in the class! It's not triumph! It's relief!!! I've seen the same scenario, many, many times! She was "bothering" her cousin because it was giving her comfort somehow! And she needs to be taught how to get comfort another way, not have it jerked away, and then ultimately, she has to try and do what she knows will get her the comfort! And, comparing her to the other children isn't going to help! Yes, other children may have bent to the will of the relevant authority figure and can mimic the correct behaviour, but that does not mean that *she* can!!!

I've seen GBD people excusing the outrageous behavior of a ten-year-old!

GBD or permissive? Is this a child that has been dx'd with disablity? Is it the same outrageous behaviour that he had when he was 2? Or, has it changed? For instance, a bi-polar child will behave much differently from a 'normal' child. And it may not be an excuse. . .it can just be an explanation. There were many times it looked like I was either abusing my child or otherwise 'excusing' his behaviour. Another example. . . we were somewhere where we had to cross a busy 4-lane street. So, we needed to go to the crosswalk and wait for the light. My child (probably 8 to 10) started to cross the street. I held him back, and he melted down (it was part of his disability, even though I didn't know it at the time, before the EEG and other tests). I had to hold him in a bear hug until he calmed. For all the world it looked like I was abusing him. But, I had to, to keep him from running out into the traffic! He was screaming and crying and fighting. And I did feel it necessary to tell the folks looking on why he was doing what he was doing. . .. otherwise, I'm sure someone would have called CPS!!

Also, I know Pearl was not saying it isn't necessary to spank, but only, if you legally can't, you can still train.

My question stands. Then why spank, if 'training' will still work? And there are many times and places you cannot legally spank. . . and he gives suggestions in how to hide it and 'perform' it in hiding.

I apologize for sounding upset. But. . . .. I am. :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry I totally ruined one child with these adversarial methods and I am reaping the consequences with my other 3 right now of having used these 'methods' when they were young.

And I'd like to throw this out here, too. If MP has done such an indepth Bible study, then he should have found out this, as well.

Proverbs has a verse that reads: Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.

That is the reading in the English translation. In the ancient Hebrew it reads, literally: “You are to reveal the activity of life that is allowed, surrounding what destroys the household, and take authority over the activities of desire by consuming the activity of life with communication, and not allow desire to set the path.”

nakah shebet natsal nephesh sh@'owl

You read Hebrew from right to left so the last symbol is actually the first and you go up the list.

nakah is made up of the Hebrew symbols:
noon: activity, life
kaf: to cover, to open, allow
hey: 'the', to reveal

So --- To reveal the allowed activity

shebet is made up of these Hebrew symbols:
sheen: to consume, to destroy
bet: household, in, into, family
tet: to surround

So ----- surround the household from what destroys

natsal (Hebrew symbols):
noon: activity, life
tsadik: catch, desire, need
lamed: control, authority, tongue

So ----- speak authority over the desires of activity

nephesh =
noon: activity, life
pey: to speak, avoid, to open
sheen: to consume, to destroy

So ---- to consume with communication the activity of life

sh@'owl =
sheen: to consume, to destroy
alef: strong, leader, first
reysh: a person, the head, the highest
lamed: control, authority, the tongue

So -------- what controls the person and leads to destruction

Now, putting it all together:

”Reveal the allowed activity and surround the household from what destroys speaking authority over the desires of activity and consuming with communication the activity of life to avoid what controls the person and leads to destruction.”

This is one of the verses that he says backs up the Biblical mandate to spank. :no2

[4blessings]

I apologize for sounding upset. But. . . .. I am. I totally ruined one child with these adversarial methods and I am reaping the consequences with my other 3 right now of having used these 'methods' when they were young.

:hugheart :hugheart :hugheart

[Titus2Momof4]

Yes, we are all human and it does no good to demonize a specific person. And I think it is very true that it is easier to blame some parenting guru for a bad relationship, than the people in the relationship themselves :hug2


:yes Agreed. Just like on the same token, I don't think it's fair to blame the Pearls (or anyone) when you beat your kids to death. Although I'm sure the materials parents read influence them, but people need to own up to their own mistakes, and not try to blame someone else.

On that note.... As someone who was diligently trying to follow the Pearls: Without getting into some big long diatribe lol... I just want to say, Yes, he does say to love your kids (tying heart strings) and yes he does emphasize the importance of having their heart, having a bond, attached relationships, etc. This is all very good, and I also know they advocate breastfeeding too. Very nice.

*But* --in *practice* there is no way that their methods actually encourage all of the things that they write down in their books, that I just wrote above. It just doesn't happen. I mean, look at me example....here I am dealing with all of these emotions that are coming out in my kids, one of my kids seems to be unsure about hugging/loving me (she loves to do it but seems to give me this "really? do you mean it? wierd/confused look, and so on) There is no flipping way that hosing down your kid for peeing on himself (either accident or intentional), or swatting a 4-5month old's thighs, or keeping a 1 y/o on your lap swatting him every time he dares to move, or pulling over repeatedly to spank your crying 2 y/o, etc......no way does that bring about the nurturing that they also suggest. I mean, 2+3 not equal 4, no matter how you may want it to, no matter how you may *claim* it does... it just doesn't! :bheart

[Katherine]

Just a big :yes to what Titus said... from another former Pearl follower.

More comments later, perhaps.

[AngelBee]

I totally agree with what you wrote. :yes

[Mother of Sons]

I think you are being very offensive. I'm going to come back to some other things but in regards to this:

Why is it every other baby has reflux? Mason was a screamy, spit-up-ish baby and every other mother told me, "He probably has reflux; you should put him on Zantac." When my first child was born and was screamy, nobody at all said, "she has reflux"; I never even heard the word until a few years ago.

Reflux is real, as are the other disorders you mentioned. Reflux damages and leaving a baby to scream and cry in pain when you could help them is wrong. Most babies outgrow reflux but at some cost if it's not treated (not all reflux needs to be treated) My dd already has damage and she IS being treated. Sure there are babies being treated when they don't need to be, that doesn't make it a made up diagnosis. Ask the babies who have had their vocal chords damaged and can't speak or who had to undergo surgery or as is the case of my dd, isn't growing because she associates food with pain. BTW, I used to think the same as you. Funny how that works.

There is no one here saying that behavior never needs to be addressed. Sometimes it's a disorder, sometimes it's food allergies. Sometimes it's just plain permissiveness. Permissiveness does exist and it doesn't work. GBD isn't permissive.

BTW, I also have a child who has Sensory integration. Another diagnosis you may feel is made up. You would have wanted to spank the snot out of him when he was two. Believe me, I wanted to. I got TONS of nasty looks. I even got people demanding I spank and telling me I was being permissive. Now he is 7 and VERY well behaved. I'd dare say you'd be impressed by him. Most people are. I didn't address every single infraction. I'm not the police. I'm not out to catch my kids in every little mistake. What I did do was get him appropriate therapy, remove dairy from his diet and I was patient (as much as possible) and let him grow. I did discipline him, but not harshly. They aren't adults yet, but he's not acting like he did when he was 2. I knew he wouldn't and I didn't have to hit him or break his spirit or do anything like the pearls suggest to make that happen.

[hsgbdmama]

so I think Pearl's assessment that *someone* conditioned her to think a few bees flying by is terrifying was right on the money.

I'm sorry. But that is not a valid observation. . .it is an opinion. I am deathly afraid of heights. . .and I know, full well, that no one conditioned me to be afraid of heights. :no2 You are basing your opinions on conjecture. You are assigning total negative intent to a small child, and total positive intent to Pearl. Why not try to assign positive intent to both?

ITA. I also have a deathly fear of heights, and no amount of whipping "training" will cure me of it. It is something I live with. I'm not real keen on bats either, even though I've never been bitten by one -- should I have someone "condition" that fear out of me? :no2 :td

When ds1 has a bad dream and wants to sleep with us, should I whip him? Will that 'cure' him of the bad dreams? No. Now I have a child who is doubly scared -- scared of the dream and now scared of us. :bheart

Pearl is not the only game in town. There are other, more theologically sound experts out there who you can receive advice from. :amen

[RubySlippers]

Is the idea of "assigning a positive intent" supposed to mean that the child never has a negative intent???
Let me tell you about something that recently happened. I didn't want to post this before, but I think I need to to ask the question. I was teaching a class of 3 and 4 year olds. One girl was fine and happy, but being a constant disruption by fiddling with her cousin. I told her several times she needed to put her hands on her lap, etc. Eventually, I told her she needed to move one seat over. She didn't move, so I sckooched her over. She dissolved in tears and screamed, "I want my mommy!" for the next 40 minutes.
I believe the girl has an intention, but it's not positive. I believe her intention is to have things go along as she would like. If anyone alters her plans, she will scream for her mother, who rescues her from the bad limit-setting people. Mind you, in this whole scenario, no outrageous demands were placed on her. Thirteen other children are able to sit in a circle and, if their attention goes astray for a minute or two, they can be brought back to joining in the activities by a simple request of, "Jordan, we're sitting down right now." or "You will be able to hold the stuffed animal in a few minutes, but right now, we're all looking at it with our eyes." Thirteen other children have learned that there is no need to (or benefit it) collapsing into tears when someone reminds you what the limits are. Talk about fear - yes, I do fear my now-two-year-old becoming a four-year-old like that. If I can prevent it, I intend to.

I teach 4yo's at church as well, and I can tell you out of a class of 20+ children, there are always 2-3 who do not sit quietly and find that kind of restraint too much to take. We encourage them to cooperate, but if they don't it isn't a big deal. :shrug The point is that they are there, listening, and learning from the behavior of others. It will get through in time. Forcing it is not an option. :rolleyes2
You said the child was fine and happy until you made her stop socializing. How hard do you think it is for 3 or 4 yo to stop socializing just because you say so? She doesn't know you, she doesn't trust you, you don't have a relationship with her and yet you're trying to CONTROL her behavior with HER cousin.
Of COURSE, she's going to be happy when someone whom she knows loves her and has a relationshp with her comes and shows compassion to her. Why wouldn't she get the idea that you're the big bad person, especially when she can sense your frustration and anger and perhaps judgement?
I feel sorry for your dc if you feel that you must squelch any sense of independence in them because you don't understand a 4yo girl from Sunday school class. :bheart

[SouthPaw]

blah, he even has his behaviorism wrong. counter-conditioning fear is not done using negative punishment (removing a reinforcer - attention). i just read the fear of bees thingy and his final steps are totally loopy. no sane behaviorist would even suggest it. Just in case anyone was wondering, here is a blurb on how you ACTUALLY counter-condition fear

Pairing stimuli that evoke one response with an opposite response, so that the stimulus now evokes the new response. Counter conditioning is typically used to eliminate phobias. Thus, a child might be given a food treat while the feared object is gradually moved closer and closer to the child. At the first sign of fear, the object is be removed. The procedure is be repeated until the child no longer shows a fear response. The child then associates pleasure with the stimulus that previously evoked fear.

Just had to jump in and point that out. If you're going to use a psychological technique, at least do it right, Pearl.

[Chris3jam]

When ds1 has a bad dream and wants to sleep with us, should I whip him? Will that 'cure' him of the bad dreams? No. Now I have a child who is doubly scared -- scared of the dream and now scared of us.

That is *exactly* the fallout I deal with. When my 8 yo was still young, I was still mostly a Pearl/Gothard follower. 3 nights ago, my little 8 yo got sick in the night. He made it to the bathroom to throw up in the sink and the toilet. Then he would make it back to bed and would do it again. He did this for 3.5 hours. And when I asked him why in the world didn't he come to get a parent, he said, "I was afraid to wake you up.". :bheart :bheart :bheart :bheart :bheart :bheart :bheart :bheart :bheart Now. . . this child could have choked. . . .this child could have had a very bad fever. . . .anything could have happened. The effects are very long lasting (we've not been "Pearl followers" for a while now) . . . . .and devastating to a relationship, no matter what they say. :bheart Now, some people (Pearl followers mostly) would applaud me for "training" my child not to bother my sleep and take care of things himself. I see it very differently now. . . . . .as in, I was not there for my child . . . .. I did not help my child. . . . .something more devastating could have happened, and I would have been too late to help him. . . . :bheart I. don't. care. how. Pearl. sugarcoats. it. There. is. no. relationship. when. using. his. "method". I've *seen* it in my own family. Now, when my 8 yo gets into trouble. . . .he will *not* come to me. For anything. How dangerous is that?!?! What definition of relationship is that?!!?

OH. . . .. just. . . . :bheart :bheart :bheart :bheart :bheart :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry

[Katherine]

A couple more thoughts...

I understand feeling taken aback by how MANY kids have special needs or "defined" conditions. I, personally, think that it is a combination of two elements:

1) I do believe there are more kids with real limitations and dysfunctionalities now than there used to be, due to our modern diets, a toxic environment, and our lifestyle. Research show some really enlightening comparisons to cultures that are very different than ours.

2) I believe some of these circumstances existed before and nobody knew what to call them. I'm sure people died of cancer long before we understood what it was or attched the name "cancer" to it. swim? ETA: It's easy to think of it as excusing bad behavior when you haven't personally experienced the reality of a child with one of these conditions. I feel sure that our special needs mamas would testify that they work WAY harder with their special kids than with the others.

As for the Pearls:

Michael Pearl could publish a million statements that I agree with, or that advocate some element of healthy parenting. :shrug It would not, in any way, relieve him of responsibility for the grotesque examples of abuse and the horribly damaging *concepts* that his books teach. Let's be honest here. His books have sold MILLIONS of copy, and at the end he asks the reader to pass the book on to someone else (that's how I received them). The community of people who regularly keep abreast of his website is probably miniscule compared to the people who have been exposed to his books. His books are the most widespread representation of who he is and what he believes . If there is anything misleading or incomplete in those books--anything that could cause damage if not properly understood, he is morally and ethically responsibly to change that. He has not done so.

Your point about not bashing him is totally reasonable. IME, as a former moderator of THIS forum, it does happen occasionally, but is addressed if need be. (I have personally defended him as a person on these boards, and I am an outspoken opponent and former follower whose family was directly damaged.) However, most of what is said here is not bashing, but frustration directed at someone who set himself up as an expert, but whose words proved false. (much the same as you would feel if you consulted a doctor who gave you advice that you later found was known by others to be harmful instead of helpful) We speak out strongly and passionately against his teachings and his ministry and against him as a teacher because many of his teachings are false, because many are abusive, because they have and are continuing to damage families all over the world.

Furthermore, I am bothered by the many Christian women (not directed at the OP, but in general) who are willing to internalize *some* of the teachings of a man or woman who promotes a philosophy with such obvious flaws. Character, spiritual perception, and ability to make sound judgements are critical qualities to look for in a Christian leader or advisor, IMO. Someone who can be so vastly misled as to make some of the statements he makes, and give some of the examples he gives--KNOWING that millions of people are learning from them--is not someone from whom I am willing to look to for ANY piece of advice. Someone who realizes that he has taught things which could be damaging or misunderstood, and does not *RUSH* to clarify or retract those teachings is NOT someone I have any respect for as a teacher, and is, in fact a person I would keep myself far, far away from.

Pearl is not the only game in town. There are other, more theologically sound experts out there who you can receive advice from.

:yes ServantofGod, I know you're not trying to defend him, as you said. :hug I'm just curious what prompted you to search out the "good" things and particularly that one statement where he says that training can be accomplished without the switch. :shrug

I feel sorry for your dd if you feel that you must squelch any sense of independence in her because you don't understand a 4yo girl from Sunday school class.


This strikes me as a personal dig at the OP. :(

[RubySlippers]

I feel sorry for your dd if you feel that you must squelch any sense of independence in her because you don't understand a 4yo girl from Sunday school class. This strikes me as a personal dig at the OP. :(

I edited because she's likely talking about a ds, not dd.
It wasn't a dig, it was my honest feelings based on her statement (emphasis in bold):
Thirteen other children have learned that there is no need to (or benefit it) collapsing into tears when someone reminds you what the limits are. Talk about fear - yes, I do fear my now-two-year-old becoming a four-year-old like that. If I can prevent it, I intend to.

[Katherine]

(( calmom ))

I hope I can prevent my kids from being like that, too. ;) For us, it's going to mean controlling food allergies, addressing sensory issues, and doing lots of other proactive, firm, non-punitive parenting stuff. :)

The OP never stated that she is trying to squelch any sense of independence in her child. And I guess I'll bow out of that issue. If she feels the need to defend herself, she can. :O ;)

[Titus2Momof4]

Now, some people (Pearl followers mostly) would applaud me for "training" my child not to bother my sleep and take care of things himself. I see it very differently now. . . . . .as in, I was not there for my child . . . .. I did not help my child. . . . .something more devastating could have happened, and I would have been too late to help him. . . . I. don't. care. how. Pearl. sugarcoats. it. There. is. no. relationship. when. using. his. "method".

Exactly what I was saying before. People (did this myself in the past, trying to defend them) can look at articles by the Pearls, and their books, etc, and pull out blurbs where he talks about tying strings and loving your kids, etc. Yes, he most definitely does say that...no one is arguing that. But IT DOESN'T HAPPEN THAT WAY WHEN YOU USE HIS METHODS. I don't care what he claims, it isn't the way it works, I've seen this in my family. I hate it, but it's true. And we are trying to undo some damage now, but I can at least accept the fact that it was me/us who did this, influenced by their (and a couple other authors) books, yes, but we did it, we are fixing it.

The real "softie" in my dh has really come out since we stopped spanking. It's like all along he's wanted to be gentle, and I forced us into spanking when I decided it was what we should do. Course he feels even worse when I mentioned that some ladies here suggested that dd might have Aspergers. :cry Anyay, Chris ((((((hugs)))))) I kwym about how in some circles you would be applauded for your kid taking care of himself while he's sick :sick :(

[Rbonmom]

ServantofGod, I think the most important key to remember is that we are told explicitly in the Bible to be on guard for false teachers. It's not something to take lightly. MP is a false teacher regardless of spanking or not spanking. His doctrines are heretical so why would you risk you family around that? To me, saying MP has anything of value to add, would be like taking my D's to a Dr. that repeatedly harmed children in his practice. True, he may be competent in some areas, but I'm not willing to risk my D's life or wellbeing to continue seeing this particular Dr. who's known to cause harm.

Honestly, and I'm not speaking for anyone else here, I don't believe MP is a follower of Christ. I see evidence of the wake of families his teachings have destroyed or significantly harmed and I believe he's not working for our Saviour. The kind of advice he gives to women that advocates taking in the dh's who sexually abused their kids as a way to model forgiveness is an evil thing. I hope for his sake that he is saved, but honestly either way he's going to have some serious accounting to deal with one day. The milestones he's helped to tie around precious children's necks are innumberable. I wish the body would rise up in one voice against false teaching like his, and rather than trying to find the good in a pile of garbage, toss it out!

[Benjaminswife]

Honestly, and I'm not speaking for anyone else here, I don't believe MP is a follower of Christ. I see evidence of the wake of families his teachings have destroyed or significantly harmed and I believe he's not working for our Saviour. The kind of advice he gives to women that advocates taking in the dh's who sexually abused their kids as a way to model forgiveness is an evil thing. I hope for his sake that he is saved, but honestly either way he's going to have some serious accounting to deal with one day. The milestones he's helped to tie around precious children's necks are innumberable. I wish the body would rise up in one voice against false teaching like his, and rather than trying to find the good in a pile of garbage, toss it out!

You know I have been thinking a lot lately about how you could being truly following Christ and then give out this garbage and say it is "biblical" it just seems so wrong to me. And so so so unbiblical. It would seem like you could follow his advice and assume it was biblical because you trust him, but to be the author of the stuff, it just doesn't seem to work for me.

I wonder too if a lot of the followers of Pearl need someone to say, "This is the Biblical way to parent" and that is what Pearl does. When friends have mentioned the Pearl method to me they say it is "the biblical way to parent" almost like any other way would be wrong. And that right there sends up some red flags to me.

Whenever I hear from someone using the Pearls about a method they have used I just feel so sad and sick in my stomach. I ache because I feel like Jesus is being strongly misused and it really bothers me. And I do wonder what we as Christians should do about it. And it isn't just about spanking. Spanking is one thing, the Pearls take it to a whole different level.

[cklewis]

blah, he even has his behaviorism wrong. counter-conditioning fear is not done using negative punishment (removing a reinforcer - attention). i just read the fear of bees thingy and his final steps are totally loopy. no sane behaviorist would even suggest it. Just in case anyone was wondering, here is a blurb on how you ACTUALLY counter-condition fear

Pairing stimuli that evoke one response with an opposite response, so that the stimulus now evokes the new response. Counter conditioning is typically used to eliminate phobias. Thus, a child might be given a food treat while the feared object is gradually moved closer and closer to the child. At the first sign of fear, the object is be removed. The procedure is be repeated until the child no longer shows a fear response. The child then associates pleasure with the stimulus that previously evoked fear.

Just had to jump in and point that out. If you're going to use a psychological technique, at least do it right, Pearl.


Interesting. . . . So since I'm afraid of roller coasters, I could counter-condition this fear by eating cheesecake while on one? :yum I wanna try that! :applecrisp

C

[ServantofGod]

Expecting all 3/4 year olds to be mature enough to be able to handle a separation from mom is not a fair expectation of all children.

Re-read the story. She didn't have the slightest trouble leaving her mother. She only wanted her mother when she wasn't pleased with me and my co-teacher, and two mothers who intervened after passing by the room and hearing her. I don't believe her trouble has anything to do with leaving her mother. I believe it has everything to do with respecting the limits someone else places on her. Particularly since two other people said this is not new for her and she was doing this routine last year as well.

I wanted to reply to each post, but this thread is moving so quickly that I can't even read that far back to reply, so I'm sorry if I miss anything I meant to discuss.

Because children do not grow up to be wonderful adults just because you love them and talk to them kindly. The jails are full of people whose mothers love them. sastically this isn't true not saying there are none but studies have found far more who come from punitive backgrounds or very permissive ones.


What I meant was that I can't say that the terrible behavior today is not a preview of more to come. I love my children and bring them up the best they can, but it's not enough to love them and be kind to them if I don't also teach them "the way they should go".

I also feel compelled to clarify that I'm not saying, "Well, hey,I live on ten wooded acres; we have enough switches out there to train an elementary school, let's get busy and trim the underbrush!" I'm not making a turnaround in my parenting to Pearl-style bootcamp. But I do feel like I am more doubtful than ever that you can raise great kids with 100% non-punitive measures. Negative outcomes do speak volumes. I would never, ever dream of hitting my child with a stick, a spoon, a paddle or any such thing. There are too many memories in my head that illustrate the wrongness of it. For starters, I *know* my older children take cues on how to cope with my toddler from me; I see that enough just in the things they say. Anyway...

There are non-normal children and non-functioning families in every parenting style. I wasn't saying otherwise; I know this is true. But I'm also not one who thinks, "Man, a 40-minute tantrum is totally outrageous, but it surely couldn't be the parenting style." I don't know *why* this is what this child does. I came home and talked to my dh about for an hour because I want to know. I wish I could live unseen in the family for a week so I might have a better guess.

Proverbs has a verse that reads: Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.

That is the reading in the English translation. In the ancient Hebrew it reads, literally: “You are to reveal the activity of life that is allowed, surrounding what destroys the household, and take authority over the activities of desire by consuming the activity of life with communication, and not allow desire to set the path.”

See, I don't understand this at all. This is why I can't manage the examination of every word. I don't know if you are saying the correct translation is this, or that Pearl is saying this, but it doesn't make a bit of sense to me either way. :shrug The only way it makes a bit of sense is like this:

Thou = You
shalt = must
beat = to strike
him = the subject of the command
with a rod = the implement with which to strike

The reason we have a Bible that has been translated into English is so that English-speaking people don't need to try to find some way to interpret Hebrew. The far-more-schollarly-than-I translators studied the words in Hebrew and said, "This is how it is translated - Thou shalt beat him with a rod..." :shrug Plus, if one believes that God has protected the Bible from mistranslation through Divine protection, then why would He have allowed generations of parents to be wrong about it? :shrug Shouldn't anyone be able to read a Bible and have God speak to their heart if the Bible is living, active and sharper than a two -edged sword? Millions of people depend on the Bible for guidance and it says very little in particular to raising children. Why would the few scriptures that pertain to this topic be messed up translations? Why would they be not able to be read and understood at face value? For myself, I remember first reading that, I think it was before I had kids. I actually wrote notes in my journal where I copied the scripture and said, "That's what it says!!!??? :jawdrop :jawdrop"

My question stands. Then why spank, if 'training' will still work? *I'M* not saying spank. I'd be happy to have training still work w/out spanking! I've been looking for just that.

GBD or permissive? I think it's hard to tell the difference anymore. When I first came to this board (about 4 or 5 years ago), it seemed to me that it was less permissive, more firm. A lot of the "solutions" seem to me to just be accommodation or else looking for a food allergy or SID-type problem. What I mean is that it doesn't seem like the answer is ever seen in a limit the child has to learn. I don't feel that I see as high of standards here as I did when I first came. I don't want to spot-light the particular post, but a mom posted about something her child did and I felt through the whole post that her concern was justified and the behavior was very serious. This was not a baby; it was an older child. Maybe it's that, even if someone was going to post something "firm", they don't because they're afraid it will be moderated as punitive and they will be reprimanded. :shrug I don't know. But the effect was that it seemed like everyone who responded practically said, "Keep a better eye on him. He's not mature enough." The idea of good discipline is that as they grow, you don't have to stand over them all the time. My oldest child is 9.5. She is often out of my sight for several hours and I never have concern that she's going to harm herself or destroy something or whatever. If this were not so at this age, I would be very :nails for her future! You can't keep them at your side at all times until they move out!

I'm not saying any particular child who has food allergies or autism or whatever is just the parent making excuses, but I start to think that this is thrown out as an excuse whenever someone cannot make headway with the recommended GBD approach to some problem. My own child is off dairy and food dyes, but he still behaves badly a lot. It seems worse when he's had dairy, but I could be making excuses. I'm hoping sometime after he turns 2 his behavior will be decent enough, often enough that I can again thouroughly test dairy and see if it really DOES make a difference. My dh goes along with the no dairy program, even though he suspects there is nothing in it and ds has no issue with dairy, he's just behaving badly a lot.

You would have wanted to spank the snot out of him when he was two. Believe me, I wanted to.

I don't think this is a fair assumption of me. :no2 How could you possibly know what I would want to do?

I'm sorry. But that is not a valid observation. . .it is an opinion. I am deathly afraid of heights. . .and I know, full well, that no one conditioned me to be afraid of heights. You are basing your opinions on conjecture. You are assigning total negative intent to a small child, and total positive intent to Pearl. Why not try to assign positive intent to both?

It's an opinion he gave and which I agree with. In the story as he wrote it, I don't believe the child had a pathological fear that just materialized one day. Some bees flew past her and after that, she feared bees were in her room. It is *highly*probable that when the bees flew by, mother said with alarm, "Oh, look out! There are bees!" and maybe even, "Bees STING! Stay away from bees!" with alarm and dread. My BIL is arachnaphobic. He's irrationally terrified of spiders. No matter that he's 6'3 and could squash one with his pinky toe - he's scared to death of them. Now his 3-year-old is, too. He has picked up on his father's absolute terror of spiders. Now, ultimately, so what? I wouldn't much care; people have quirks and it wouldn't kill me if my child had an irrational fear. But I agreed with what the article said about why she most likely was afraid in the first place and also showing her how bees are wonderful was cool. But, moving on...
You said the child was fine and happy until you made her stop socializing. How hard do you think it is for 3 or 4 yo to stop socializing just because you say so? She doesn't know you, she doesn't trust you, you don't have a relationship with her and yet you're trying to CONTROL her behavior with HER cousin.
Of COURSE, she's going to be happy when someone whom she knows loves her and has a relationshp with her comes and shows compassion to her. Why wouldn't she get the idea that you're the big bad person, especially when she can sense your frustration and anger and perhaps judgement?
I feel sorry for your dc if you feel that you must squelch any sense of independence in them because you don't understand a 4yo girl from Sunday school class.

This is a perfect example of how I feel that this site has gone much more permissive than it once was. There is nothing unkind or outrageous about expecting a child not to constantly giggle with, touch, poke, tickle, etc. another child in class. Why even have a class if the kids can just do what they want, go where they want, touch what they want, talk, sing or stand on their head whenever? Have you read the FIVE STEPS? Where you state, "You need to..." and "then help them."? I helped her control her interactions with her cousin because she (I suppose) couldn't control them for herselves. She hated it, not because I was unkind or angry or frustrated. She hated it because it wasn't what she wanted to do. And BTW, one of the mothers who happened by the class and knew the child well did an extremely good job of being kind and reflective toward her, but it didn't make any difference, except that at least she wasn't kicking just then.


And BTW, I believe in behaviorism, at least up to a point. People do moderate their behavior based largely on what responses they get. That is why I shave my armpits and style my hair and wear lipstick.

[ServantofGod]

I'm just curious what prompted you to search out the "good" things and particularly that one statement where he says that training can be accomplished without the switch.

Because I can't find much that holds children to a high standard and is not permissive, but doesn't use switching or spanking. So, I'm looking for training ideas that don't include switching.

[cklewis]

I'm just curious what prompted you to search out the "good" things and particularly that one statement where he says that training can be accomplished without the switch.

Because I can't find much that holds children to a high standard and is not permissive, but doesn't use switching or spanking. So, I'm looking for training ideas that don't include switching.


What do you mean by "high standard" and "not permissive"? Just trying to understand. . . .

C

[MidnightCafe]

:popcorn Not sure if I'm going to reply here or not, but I've read the whole discussion here so far and the dialogue is interesting.

[Epieikeia]

Because I can't find much that holds children to a high standard and is not permissive, but doesn't use switching or spanking. So, I'm looking for training ideas that don't include switching.

I don't believe in high standards because none of us in our imperfect state can reach them without going crazy (believe me, I've tried).

I do believe in realistic expectations though and I get that from both my foster kiddos and bio kiddos via GBD.


And BTW, I believe in behaviorism, at least up to a point. People do moderate their behavior based largely on what responses they get. That is why I shave my armpits and style my hair and wear lipstick.

Obviously as described, yes. However behaviorism is mainly the external. You are so stuck on that---what about the internal? Does that matter or is it only what the desired external outcome that matters?

Behaviorism cannot change the heart or produce GOD-PLEASING behavior and isn't that what we want? We want our children to not just "look" good to the world, but to live for God.

As the mother of PKs...this is an huge issue for me.

[katiekind]

Regarding being a follower of Christ....he is a professing believer. Let's leave it at that. :cross

[Katherine]

I'm looking for training ideas that don't include switching.

This statement has caught my attention every time you've used it. I know we tend to be a little jumpy about the word "trained" ;) but it's not a bad word at all. :tu I *do* think it's important to know what we mean by it.

There is a difference between discipling and conditioning. Pearl is extremely articulate about the fact that he is all about behavioral conditioning. He uses the word more than once in the early chapters of his first book. He makes it clear that the child can and should be forced to display certain behaviors even before they're able to understand why.

Discipling is about spiritual leadership. You can't disciple a tree or a dog. You have to have a relationship with a person... you're leading, guiding, teaching, and helping them to grow. It's not about how they act or don't act... it's about what they KNOW, feel, believe, and internalize. :heart ETA: (And from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks... inside-to-outside... not the other way around)

When I started learning GBD I spent a *lot* of time feeling frustrated, disillusioned, disappointed, and doubtful. I even felt angry and judgemental at times. I was trying to use GBD "tools" and techniques to weild the same *type* of influence (e.g. power), the same brand of control, and to reap the same external results (controlled kids) as what I had expected from punitive parenting. It wasn't working. :banghead I didn't really GET the relationship-centered, FIRM, age-appropriate authority thing yet (and some days still don't :doh ) I was simply trying to use "gentle" techniques to control my kids and make them behave. I found that I had quickly slipped into the realm of threatening and manipulating, or that I swung back and forth from punitive to permissive. :blush It's a pretty common experience for people who are coming from where I was. My ideas and goals and attitudes about my kids had to change before gentle parenting started to make any sense, and I've change a lot even in how I understand GBD/GD. (I was probably very permissive and over-cautious at first, trying so hard not to be punitive... now I think/hope I'm moving to a more balanced and healthy middle ground where authority is firm and consistent)

All that to say....

*WHAT* do you want to train your kids to do or be? I will be the first to assert that controlling their behavior simply cannot be achieved without punishment (or with it, IME). :shrug But I've also come to believe that it's not my job to control, but rather to lead, guide, protect, teach, and shepherd.

ETA: and this is just my opinion.. other members may disagree.. but when you do see advice that falls outside of GBD here you probably will see permissive more often than punitive, b/c punitive is clearly defined and restricted. Also b/c those of us "recovering" form permissive parenting often do swing toward permissive before we come back to a balanced middle ground. Permissive advice is not supported, of course, but it's hard to quantify and define it, and therefore hard to effectively restrict it. :shrug

[OpalsMom]

Because I can't find much that holds children to a high standard and is not permissive, but doesn't use switching or spanking. So, I'm looking for training ideas that don't include switching.


Well, here are two references, one specific to child-rearing and one about training in general: Easy To Love, Difficult to Discipline is about child-rearing. Don't Shoot The Dog is an excellent guide to behavioristic training, and is clear about the author's high standards for behavior in people as well as other organisms, and the reasons why the author believes that punishment, and negative reinforcement in general, are ineffective and have highly undesirable side effects.

The Pearls training advice is really bad, from a behaviorist standpoint.

[katiekind]

Palil,

That was a very insightful and informative post.

This has been a good discussion...helpful in many ways. :grouphug

[hsgbdmama]

See, I don't understand this at all. This is why I can't manage the examination of every word. I don't know if you are saying the correct translation is this, or that Pearl is saying this, but it doesn't make a bit of sense to me either way. The only way it makes a bit of sense is like this:

Thou = You
shalt = must
beat = to strike
him = the subject of the command
with a rod = the implement with which to strike

The reason we have a Bible that has been translated into English is so that English-speaking people don't need to try to find some way to interpret Hebrew. The far-more-schollarly-than-I translators studied the words in Hebrew and said, "This is how it is translated - Thou shalt beat him with a rod..."

Here are the problems with this logic, from a Pearl standpoint:

(1) There is one word in Greek for rod, while there are three (3) in Hebrew. The Hebrew word used in these passages is "shebet," and you can find more discussion on this site or some of the other sites referenced on GCM in regards to this. In brief, a shebet is a 6' long stick (i.e., roughly a broom handle). If we are going to use a rod, then we need to use a rod -- we cannot take some of the verse literally (beat) but then other parts figuratively (get to choose the implement). This is what Pearl and the like do, and that is wrong, IMHO.

(2) Pearl goes only by the Greek (in CTBHHM, Debi brags about how MP studies his **three** Greek Bibles daily), and not the Hebrew. BIG difference.

So "translating into English" doesn't do it alone, as some translators might be erroneous in their translations, as well as the meaning of English words change over time; in some cases, they needed to add words because the literal translation from Greek to English ends up not making much sense. This is why we should use reputable study resources to better understand the meanings and the original words. :glasses

[Epieikeia]

As far as the translation goes, I understand your frustration. My dh has 8 years of Greek and Hebrew training that he uses actively in the ministry. I appreciate that the pastors in my denom are taught the original languages as it adds color sometime to an area of Scripture that may be grayscale.

I do believe one does fine with just an English translation, but having the idea expounded out in the Hebrew/Greek is very cool to. :grin Of course, I didn't always feel that way--in early marriage it made me feel inferior--but now I see it as a tool to understanding the Word better and I know my dh well enough to know he respects my spiritual perspective on many issues. :heart

On an issue such as what does the "rod" mean, the orginal language as well as the understanding of the different types of language styles in God's Word are useful for understanding those few Proverbs verses in context. I didn't read a ton on-line about the rod...rather dh and I did our own study and came to the conclusion that the rod is figurative, not literal.

[milkmommy]

:shrug I guess I'm confused on what you mean by training?? We teach we have standards mine are actually much higher than many of my more punitive mates. IF I see behavior that needs improvment we address it and work on improving it. What I don't do is 1) set her up to fail I will not stick a gun on the counter and train her not to touch it I will not sit her infront of an open door and switch her or repremend her for trying to go outside 2) I won't demand she act older than she is I expect my DD to act like a mature 3 year old soon to be 4 I will be expecting more from her this yer than last I will however not train her to act like I want her to be at say 10 or 14 etc cause shes not there yet.
What "training" do we do?
We practice safety crossing the street holding hands in public places etc (talked about it earlier) how we'd take family walks talk about how X was important we'd practice stopping at intersections we role play "if daddy goes across the street do you run over" we remin their to pull heer back to try again to be there for her.. The results she will NOT run into a street she'll stay she will say I need to hold hands. If we get seperated she stops and says I'm not safe hold my hand please. She does this with other grown ups also.

We practice behavior in public places we go to groccery stores banks etc when we have nothing or very little to get we talk about why one would come what the rules are how she needs to tell me if she needs something, how to accept a no or be thankful for a yes. We role play again give her confidence and let her know were on her team result we can go on long groccery trips to walmart where ever and things go fine. I hold the responsiblity on not pusing things and keeping her age in mind she complies with me because she knows I will repect her.

We practice manners at home we model we give words we say no when we we feel she needs to ask correctly and see to it she does. result shes petty good with the may I's pleases thankyous etc

We practive listening skills we play games. Okay turn around jump and shout horray! now touch your toes count to three and put this plate on the table. everyone gets a turn no one gets punished for messing up as a result she has great listening skills and can follow multi step commands with no issues. Honey please go upstairs and bring the green cup and plate down from mommy's room put whatever left on the plate into the trash and put the plate and cup into the sink. Thank you... "Okay mommy" (and does it)

Are we working on some things? sure for example she great at listening when she wants but weve also entered to NO! stage she even says it when shes doing what we want sometimes :rolleyes we are addressing that we aren't punishing it but we in no way are ingnoring it eaither.

I think one of the biggest diffrences between what we do and Michels way is we don't set up battle. Yes I'm in authority I will firmly say NO and I will physically restrain her from harm if needed. And while I don't believe my child to be sinless neither do I believe

(from low self esteem)
As a member of the human race he tends towards laziness, rebellion, stubbornness, self-will, manipulation, dominance, pride, and one hundred other bad words.
:no2

Deanna

[Katherine]

Thanks, Kathy. :O

I'm off to the state fair to ride the tilt-a-whirl with my kiddos! :woohoo :crazy :mrgreen

[Mother of Sons]

I don't think this is a fair assumption of me. How could you possibly know what I would want to do?

I said that based on the fact that IIRC you used to spank/still spank (not sure which) the fact that I do not spank but wanted to with him and the fact that almost everyone who saw him thought he was undisciplined and should be spanked.

If I'm being honest, I do think some advice here is permissive. Some is punitive. It's the nature of message boards I think. It's all on a spectrum.

I do think the girl you described did not behave properly. The mother should have been close enough to come get her immediately because she was being disruptive to the class. If it would have been me and there were other people available (I think you said there were) I would have had 2 other people take her out of the class, even if they had to wait in the hall with her screaming and crying. That's just me. To me assuming positive intent doesn't mean the intent was always positive. I've seen it used that way and I don't agree, but again, that's just me. I don't know why the girl was screaming. Could be because she doesn't get proper discipline, could be because she was embarrassed at being reprimanded. I once reprimanded a boy at my house and he cried so hard that an abulance was called. It turned out that he was just embarrassed. I wasn't mean, he was just sensitive.

I do have high standards in general. I think standards are important. I don't have high standards for every little thing. I focus on the big things. The things that matter the most. Little things IME are generally outgrown and don't need to be addressed in a big way. Getting nitpicky with issues is just discouraging to the kid because they know they can't measure up and they stop trying. Plus it's tiring to me and IME doesn't help.

I don't want them just behaving any old way they want and I won't let them. They are taught the expectations first and then we help them meet them. Ok, here's an example I guess. My 5 year old loves to belch. He's good at it and very loud. He thinks it's great. I HATE IT. My standard is that he not belch at the dinner table or in front of other people. If he does and it wasn't necessary, I remind him. If he does it again, he leaves the table. If he's off playing by himself or in his room belching his heart out, well, no problem. :shrug

The pearls think that you have to jump on every infraction, every single time or your kids will end up ruined. That's just not true. Find the things that are most important to you and relax with the rest. Spend more time building relationship and trust than disciplining. (which is NOT to say don't discipline) The more you compliment and connect, the less you have to critique. That's my philosophy anyways.

[ArmsOfLove]

I'm not even going to reply to the suggestion that Autism is an excuse. The growing number of children diagnosed with ASD is real and yet it's not an excuse. My child with autism behaves better than most children we encounter who are spanked.

Is the idea of "assigning a positive intent" supposed to mean that the child never has a negative intent??? NO, and I've explained this several times. It means I choose how to respond to someone and if they have a negative intent they will eventually reveal it, as the little girl in your story did. But I'm still going to respond to her as though she has a positive intent because otherwise I'm just attacking her and that doesn't lead to a solution. Ever hear of giving someone the benefit of the doubt for your own sanity? Same idea.

Let me tell you about something that recently happened. I didn't want to post this before, but I think I need to to ask the question. I was teaching a class of 3 and 4 year olds. One girl was fine and happy, but being a constant disruption by fiddling with her cousin. I told her several times she needed to put her hands on her lap, etc. Eventually, I told her she needed to move one seat over. She didn't move, so I sckooched her over. She dissolved in tears and screamed, "I want my mommy!" for the next 40 minutes. Many attempts were made by me and others to help her relax and join in the class, but she would only kick and lash out. No one could find her mother. She couldn't be moved on at the end of class, either. Finally, someone found her brother, who came and got her. When her brother appeared and put his arm around her, she instantly stopped crying and was triumphant in her face. Separately I was told by two other ladies that this is was her MO in every class LAST YEAR. She is fine until she is corrected or any limit is placed on her. Her class info card says that she is "sensitive to sugar", so I gather that her mother has heard of food issues and has aimed to find out what food(s) trouble her. Yet her behavior is still terrible.I had situations like this all the time when I taught Sunday School. I would have left an assistant in charge and carried her from the room and let her know we'd return to the class as soon as she calmed down. I would not let a 4yo hold an entire classroom hostage :shrug

I'm actually quite frustrated by your assertion that GBD is permissive. I am the only one who can actually define it and I assure you it's not permissive. The moms here are learning about it and some moms are going to respond to posts more punitive and some more permissively. Joanne and I talk about she tends to do more straight forward solutions and I'm more comfortable posting theory and helping people understand GBD and their children. I know that some of the GBD pros here fall along that spectrum on one end or the other as well. I don't know what level of perfection you are expecting of us here :shrug

[CelticJourney]

She is fine until she is corrected or any limit is placed on her. Her class info card says that she is "sensitive to sugar", so I gather that her mother has heard of food issues and has aimed to find out what food(s) trouble her. Yet her behavior is still terrible I had situations like this all the time when I taught Sunday School. I would have left an assistant in charge and carried her from the room and let her know we'd return to the class as soon as she calmed down. I would not let a 4yo hold an entire classroom hostage [/quote]

I totally agree. I'm the person that's called into a room of disruptive children when they need help and a firm hand - no one considers me permissive irl :giggle My girls (8 and 11) are constantantly being complimented on their behavior and attitude to the point of being asked to participate in adult dominated activities, such as plays, because they can be counted on. We have not been given the additional learning/growth opportunities that special needs present (apparently God has different challenges for us) but I wouldn't do anything different if they had - GBD is about meeting them where they are and lifting them up from there.

Honestly, I have a problem with this portion of the discussion, though. First there is the assumption that you know how this child is parented. Some of the children I have seen have the worst behavor are those who are punitively parented. Often to the point that the teachers won't tell the parent for fear of their reaction to the child (one family in my homeschool group comes to mind - thier 5yo has some behavior issues at church but I know what they would do to him if I said so, so when they ask I lie :blush). Perhaps the only attention this child receives is that which she has to work for - we can go round and round about this one child and never know anything about what is motivating her behavior because we only have a glimse into her life. Anyway, I would have done what Crystal stated and handled the issue as gently and firmly as possible.

I am just confused as to why, if you say you are not considering spanking, you are pondering the teachings of a person whose dominate discipline form is switching and terrifing children into submission and calling it 'love'. Perhaps Leman would be a better 'middle of the road' alternative - he is certainly not GBD, but I don't consider him abusive either?


Camille, cheesecake on the rollercoaster :laughtears (of course, now I want cheesecake.. :neutral)

[glassangel]

I am just wondering how many people who spank actually do use the Bible as their reference (not just one or two verses?) :scratch - who actually have gone to scripture alone and decided to spank?

It seems there is more that follow a certain person or teaching than actually look to scripture themselves before deciding --and then use the famous rod verses as backing.


The reason I am asking is because of the confusion talked about in this thread surrounding the meaning of the rod verse...

TBH I would like to know how many people would find these verses if they were searching the scriptures for themselves???
If a new Christian thought to look to scripture for help in growing their children - would they stumble across a couple of verses here and there - would they wade through Proverbs and the OT and find one saying and think 'hmm I need to switch, hit, spank my 10mo for touching a vase?'

Would they look for what mention of childraising is there in the NT?

I honestly would like to know how someone who picked up the scriptures and researched it would go??

IMO stumbling across the verse - that has been dissected here - even if read in the English - would still have people going :hunh (as does much of the OT :shifty) - what does that mean??

Just my thoughts :think

[Chris3jam]

My BIL is arachnaphobic. He's irrationally terrified of spiders. No matter that he's 6'3 and could squash one with his pinky toe - he's scared to death of them. Now his 3-year-old is, too. He has picked up on his father's absolute terror of spiders.

Well. . .this first, since it struck me first. My dh is irrationally and terribly terrified of snakes. All of them- - no matter if they be dangerous or not. All of my children are fascinated by them. My 8 yo, in particular, is a miniature Steve Irwin. Now, their daddy has not made any attempt at hiding his fear and dread of snakes. He mentions it a lot. They see. . .they have seen it all of their lives. But. . .*they* are not afraid of snakes. And, as far as I can see, never will be.

There is nothing unkind or outrageous about expecting a child not to constantly giggle with, touch, poke, tickle, etc. another child in class. Why even have a class if the kids can just do what they want, go where they want, touch what they want, talk, sing or stand on their head whenever? Have you read the FIVE STEPS? Where you state, "You need to..." and "then help them."? I helped her control her interactions with her cousin because she (I suppose) couldn't control them for herselves.

We have a few of those kinds of children in our class. It is a 3-4 yo class, with about 20 + children and 8 leaders. There is one in particular that is “hyper”. Now, I am reasonably certain that all these children are spanked. . . our church is very pro spanking, and it is preached from the pulpit. We have children who tend to poke and irritate. . .and we head this off by separating them from the get-go. Everything is very organized and run well. We identify the children for who and what they are and deal with them individually, as according to what they need. I myself have held a crying child almost the whole period (his mom was a leader in the class, so she knew what was going on). As for kicking or hitting, I have restrained a child before more than once. I’ve held them in my lap and held them in a bear hug and moved on from there. We’ve also just left them alone and ignored the tantrum, not giving it the attention it wants (taking them out of the room). Some children, if you keep ‘bugging’ them, will keep acting out. Some need the cooling off period by just sitting away from the activity. We never force a child to join in an activity if they don’t want to (usually it’s a girl or two for game time). I’m just saying. . . .there has to be *something* going on.

And I agree with Crystal. I would not let a 3 or 4 yo hold a room hostage with their behaviour.

It is about being pro-active versus reactive.

And, I am deeply offended at the Bible study comment. :cry "Study to shew thyself approved." Which is what I'm doing. It's there. . .it's fact. Black and white. It's what the Bible actually says, as the way the Jewish scribes wrote it, under inspiration of God. God-breathed. You didn't insult me. . . you insulted God. :bheart For that matter, every Bible scholar that knows the original language should be ashamed of themselves teaching that verse as a reason to spank. During the time it was translated, I would assume that they assumed that *everyone* knew that "rod" meant authority. Look it up in the concordance. In other words, "Consistantly and unrelenting expose them to the authority of God" = "Beat with the rod".

I keep thinking I need to leave this conversation. . . ..I fear I am being offensive and I don't want to be. I'm sorry. But, I have too many big feelings about this. :( :bheart

[Hermana Linda]

I think it was this one http:// www.nogreaterjoy. org/
index.php?id=52&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=125&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=24&cHash=c6560ac911d

That's the one. Thanks.

[Epieikeia]

Expecting all 3/4 year olds to be mature enough to be able to handle a separation from mom is not a fair expectation of all children.

Re-read the story. She didn't have the slightest trouble leaving her mother. She only wanted her mother when she wasn't pleased with me and my co-teacher, and two mothers who intervened after passing by the room and hearing her. I don't believe her trouble has anything to do with leaving her mother. I believe it has everything to do with respecting the limits someone else places on her. Particularly since two other people said this is not new for her and she was doing this routine last year as well.

I missed this the first time around. :O

I stand by what I said. I agree with what Crystal wrote about not allowing the child to hold the class hostage. If it were my child it would say to me that she/he not mature enough to handle a classroom setting. Personally at 3-4 I would pull them out. The concept of putting 3-4 year olds into a class is a fairly new one and not every 3/4 year old can handle it. We've pushed children to be able to do things younger and younger---then we get upset when they don't act the way we want them to. I did put my 3 year old foster child into Sunday school (which happens after church, we do family worship) becaue he wanted to. He ended up doing great as he is emulating his older siblings--but I wouldn't have freaked out if he had a meltdown at the age of 3.

A 3/4 developmentally is not capable of dealing with their emotions properly 100% of the time. Sometimes frustration comes out as anger--they cry instead of talk. Instead of taking such a negative view of the child, this is the crucial time to be acitively working with the child on the healthy way to display and relay emotion. Expecting a 3/4 year old to act like an 8 year old will only bring sorrow for boh parent and child. :sad2

It is so easy to assume a child is a brat---I know as I've done it in the past---but having foster children has reallly opened my eyes to alot. My 3-year-old foster son had a meltdown in Target about a month after he came into our care. I had all 5 kids with me and going home/coming back was not an option. He screamed and we kept trucking. The little guy was tired and missing his mom---it had finally hit him that mommy wasn't coming back anytime soon and that moment happened to come when I was in Target.

It would be so easy for people to judge him and think he was a brat---the truth though is that he was a little boy, missing his mom--so if he was judged so be it.

[Katherine]

There's a few things from earlier in the thread that have been on my mind... so pardon me as I back track a bit...

I am sort of unusual in that I don't base my view of spanking on what I think the Bible says, but I'm sorry to say that if I did, I would conclude that I must spank at least some of the time. I really don't think the non-spanking exegesis holds much water. Although, to be fair, I tire of reading the big paragraphs of possible definitions for every word, so maybe I haven't given it as thorough attention as I could.

See, I don't understand this at all. This is why I can't manage the examination of every word. I don't know if you are saying the correct translation is this, or that Pearl is saying this, but it doesn't make a bit of sense to me either way. The only way it makes a bit of sense is like this:

Thou = You
shalt = must
beat = to strike
him = the subject of the command
with a rod = the implement with which to strike

You stated that you don't base your view of spanking on the Bible, and you've admitted several times that you have not thoroughly studied the verses and the words used, so I'm not sure why you are even making an effort to defend the punitive interpretation of these verses. :scratch If the Bible is not where you're starting from, then this is irrelevant discussion.

(What *do* you base your view of spanking on, just out of curiosity?)

However, you did go into some detail about your objections to the non-punitive translation, and I wasn't offended by it, b/c I've had some of the same questions myself at one point in time. :) but I did want to comment on some of it...

The reason we have a Bible that has been translated into English is so that English-speaking people don't need to try to find some way to interpret Hebrew. The far-more-schollarly-than-I translators studied the words in Hebrew and said, "This is how it is translated - Thou shalt beat him with a rod..."

And the reason we have pastors and teachers is so they can tell us what the Bible *means* and how we should respond to it so we don't have to study and think for ourselves.. ? Seriously. That is exactly where this line of reasoning leads. "My pastor knows more than I do... he's studied Greek and Hebrew... so he must know better. I'll just do as he says." Our Christian leaders are there to *disciple* and shepherd us. They are not an intermediate party between us and God, nor do they have a corner on understanding Scripture. Translators are just men and women doing their best to export ideas from one language and import them into another... their words are not God-breathed. :shrug

Plus, if one believes that God has protected the Bible from mistranslation through Divine protection, then why would He have allowed generations of parents to be wrong about it?

generations of parents? There have been parents in every generation who did not parent by using a literal "rod" to beat their children. Even though it seems pervasive in current Christian US culture, the fact is that the systematic spanking/switching methods that are promoted these days are just one teeny subculture within one country, and doesn't reflect the global Christian parenting practices of ANY generation.

Shouldn't anyone be able to read a Bible and have God speak to their heart if the Bible is living, active and sharper than a two -edged sword?

Yes. :) But that's different than what you're saying. You're saying that a person should be able to read a verse, disregard the genre, brush off the historical context, disassociate the verses from the whole of Scripture, neglect to comprehend the original meanings of the individual words, and refuse to admit that cultural biases can and do affect even scholarly translators... AND... that with all those limitations in place, they should still arrive at the true meaning God intended--just from drawing the most commonplace, surface understanding of the words as he/she reads them.

Millions of people depend on the Bible for guidance and it says very little in particular to raising children. Why would the few scriptures that pertain to this topic be messed up translations? Why would they be not able to be read and understood at face value?

I don't think the translations are necessarily "messed up." I just think that *our understanding* of those translated words is often altered by 1) our own ignorance and lack of study/knowledge about the roots of Scripture, 2) our cultural biases, 3) our religious backgrounds, 4) changes in language and grammar, and probably other factors as well.

In short, the Bible is not a quick-reference guide where we just flip it open to a random page (or to the proof texts we're used to hearing on a particular topic), read a few words, and "get" a simple solution for whatever our current problem is. Not saying that God can't speak to us that way ;) but that the Bible is so much more than that, and we miss so much when we skip the deeper studying part.

[Epieikeia]

Yes. But that's different than what you're saying. You're saying that a person should be able to read a verse, disregard the genre, brush off the historical context, disassociate the verses from the whole of Scripture, neglect to comprehend the original meanings of the individual words, and refuse to admit that cultural biases can and do affect even scholarly translators... AND... that with all those limitations in place, they should still arrive at the true meaning God intended--just from drawing the most commonplace, surface understanding of the words as he/she reads them.

Yes, exactly...well put. :tu

[2inHeaven2inMontana]

Very interesting topic
I couldn't help but add a little something about interpreting the bible. Let's say you did interepret "Thou shalt beat him with a rod" exactly as it says...then you are following an Old Testament command and so should also stone your rebellious teenagers to death! Like it also says to do in the Old Testament. Stone the adulterers and fornicators to death, too. You can't be choosy and just pick one abusive verse and not all of them. Jesus came to replace the old with the new and so replaced the harsh punitive methods of the Old with the grace-based, love, and forgiveness of the New. To take some of the teachings of the Old and beat your children isn't fair...it is illegal, just like stoning aldulterers and rebellious teenagers would be illegal. I think for people to change from the punitive mindset to the gracebased mindset they have to change their view of God and religion from the harsh Old Testament rules to the love and grace in the New Testement first. Then once that has changed they can begin to see their children in the new "love & grace" New Testament way.
I think a lot of these punitive parents view God the same way they are being "God" to their children. As harsh, unforgiving, demanding perfection, and needed punishment to forgive sins (such as the Old Testament sacrifices). They need to learn that God loves them for who they are, forgives them for their sin, and is excited at their progress and only disappointed in their failures (not eager to beat them) and then they perhaps can view their children the same way and give them the same grace and love God has extended to us.
Ok this was a little longer than I intended...sorry ~Kristie

[Hermana Linda]

There have been parents in every generation who did not parent by using a literal "rod" to beat their children.

This is very true. I have Jewish friends and none of them parent by using a literal rod to switch their children. When I mentioned these verses to one of them, she was dumbfounded that anyone would use those verses to justify such a thing.

[Rbonmom]

To piggyback off a pp- I find major problems with people who say spanking is Biblical due to the "rod" being a literal interpretation, because those very people don't take the whole verse literally. If a person were to literally interpret the rod verses, than based on proper exegesis (not simply defining English words) then that person would have to use a stick the size of a walking stick (not a paddle or hand), and hit the back (not butt), of their teenagers (not small children). That is the literal interpretation!
Also, you can't take scripture out of context and base ideas off of that. Did you know that the verses in Proverbs that people cite to support spanking, are in the middle of a chapter of advice written to the King's teenage son? That's a KEY piece of information that really matters, you can't just dismiss the context. That's scripture twisting at it's worst, IMO.
I would advise that you learn how to study the bible exegesically (sorry I butchered that word) because it will make a HUGE difference. Some of the most basic things you need to keep in mind are who was the author talking to? what is the context surrounding the verses? what are the Hebrew/Greek words? what was the historical setting/traditions that matter?And you should always use other Scripture to interpret Scripture, not a commentary from a human source.
There's a great book that I heard about from Hank Hanagraff on "the bible answerman" and it's called "how to read the bible for all it's worth" by George Fee. It goes into a lot better detail than I can about the significance and importance of reading and interpreting the Bible properly. I saw it on amazon for less than $10, and it seems like an easy read :tu

[ServantofGod]

Obviously as described, yes. However behaviorism is mainly the external. You are so stuck on that---what about the internal? Does that matter or is it only what the desired external outcome that matters?

Behaviorism cannot change the heart or produce GOD-PLEASING behavior and isn't that what we want? We want our children to not just "look" good to the world, but to live for God.

They are not mutually exclusive. Both matter to me. I hope my children display behavior that is morally good from the heart. But I also want them to put their feet under the table while they eat. The first is about their heart and the second is about external things that are cultural.

I don't think, want or expect that I can "condition" them to live for God! Only they can choose to live for God. But I know people are conditioned to keep their feet under the table or put them anywhere they please by the responses they get and how much those responses matter to them. Which *IS* the relationship part of it. I am not new to parenting or to GBD. I have a 9.5 yo, and an almost 7yo in addition to my toddler. My older children do "right" things because of the relationship, not because anything is hanging over their heads, either punishment or rewards. But also, a 2-year-old is not yet motivated by relationship. They are motivated by the conclusions they draw from their many scientific experiments. "What will happen if I refuse to eat?" (In our home, what happens is you are finished until the next meal rolls around. Mom will not rush around trying to find something you will eat. So the child learns it doesn't pay to give up the food that's offered.) They ask, "If I scream, will mom give me that thing I want? If I kick? If I bite?" All the time, you do give them conclusions for their many scientific experiments. I want to give my little son the best ones I can, so that I don't give him conclusion that I later wish I hadn't.

Are we working on some things? sure for example she great at listening when she wants but weve also entered to NO! stage she even says it when shes doing what we want sometimes we are addressing that we aren't punishing it but we in no way are ingnoring it eaither.

I think one of the biggest diffrences between what we do and Michels way is we don't set up battle. Yes I'm in authority I will firmly say NO and I will physically restrain her from harm if needed. And while I don't believe my child to be sinless neither do I believe

(from low self esteem)

Quote
As a member of the human race he tends towards laziness, rebellion, stubbornness, self-will, manipulation, dominance, pride, and one hundred other bad words.

milkmommy, I didn't want to quote your whole post (to save space), but I agree with everything you wrote and these are all things that I do/have done. It's harder with Mason, though, because at least at 2, he doesn't go easily along with something. He cries and throws a fit a lot, and that I one thing I don't think is okay. I really do want him to learn that being outrageous is not the key to "yes".

About your last quote, I don't believe that, either, but it is a biblical concept. I don't believe in Total Depravity, but a lot of Christians do. So there's really nothing shocking to me in MP writing that, even though I don't agree with it.


And, I am deeply offended at the Bible study comment. "Study to shew thyself approved." Which is what I'm doing. It's there. . .it's fact. Black and white. It's what the Bible actually says, as the way the Jewish scribes wrote it, under inspiration of God. God-breathed. You didn't insult me. . . you insulted God. For that matter, every Bible scholar that knows the original language should be ashamed of themselves teaching that verse as a reason to spank. During the time it was translated, I would assume that they assumed that *everyone* knew that "rod" meant authority. Look it up in the concordance. In other words, "Consistantly and unrelenting expose them to the authority of God" = "Beat with the rod".

I keep thinking I need to leave this conversation. . . ..I fear I am being offensive and I don't want to be. I'm sorry. But, I have too many big feelings about this.

Chris, I didn't understand it. :blush I'm sorry I offended you...I didn't know if you were saying this is Pearl's interpretation or yours, but either way, the rewritten translation of the verse didn't make sense to me. Semanticly - it just looks like a mumble of words that don't make sense together. That's what I was saying; that it only makes sense to me if I read it the way it is written in my Bible and then :bheart I'm not going to do *that*, either. So, really those scriptures have always just left me :scratch :hunh and just move on and do what I know.


Oh, and whomever recommended the books (sorry, I can reply back that far, so I don't have it anymore), I like Easy to Love, Difficult to Discipline. I haven't heard of the other one, but I'd like to. What I wish I had was ETL,DtD on-line. Maybe there is such a thing? I don't know. I'm a solution-oriented person and that is why that book really was wonderful to me. It is really what made GBD click for me in the first place. Theory is nice, but when it comes down to it, I want to do something that *works*. Maybe I need to read it again; it's been awhile.

You stated that you don't base your view of spanking on the Bible, and you've admitted several times that you have not thoroughly studied the verses and the words used, so I'm not sure why you are even making an effort to defend the punitive interpretation of these verses. If the Bible is not where you're starting from, then this is irrelevant discussion.

(What *do* you base your view of spanking on, just out of curiosity?)

Well, it came to discussing that because I was saying I understand why MP or any other Christian says this is what they must do. It's also why I think it's hard to turn the tide away from spanking in the Christian community. Because trying to explain the verses to another Christian as meaning something other than what it plainly says sounds very definately like trying to worm out of what it really says.

The reason I am not in favor of spanking is because I was spanked and I believe it did more harm than good. I heard three boys in my Christian school where corporal punishment was practiced get beaten every day, or almost every day, and it never improved their behavior at all. It wouldn't surprise me if they were in jail now. The few times I have swatted my kids on the butts, I was angry, and it didn't improve anything in the discipline situation one bit. Violence is not what I want to model to my children. My older children will relate to my toddler the way they see me relate to him and I don't want that to be by hitting him. I am part of a conservative on-line community where many woman "use the rod" and they ask many of the same questions that people ask here, so it obviously is not a cure-all.

Okay, that's more than one reason, but that is why.

That's all I have time for right now.

[Chris3jam]

First, I apologize for acting on my big emotions. :sad2 I'm sorry. I think I can be civil, now.

I don't think, want or expect that I can "condition" them to live for God!

Yes. You can. And it is *all* outward behaviour. And that is what the switching and other punitive measures tend to do. I *know* it firsthand. And I see it *all the time*. My mom is not a Christian. And the people at our church do try to be kind and civil and welcoming. She came and visited our church once (she lives out of state). And a few people, and older children, came up to say "hi", etc. and talk with her. They were being friendly. And when we got home, she remarked that it felt. . .weird. It was like "talking to robots." And. .. it is. Brainwashing is conditioning someone to live a certain way. And it can and does happen.

[Titus2Momof4]

I really don't think the non-spanking exegesis holds much water

One verse that really spoke to me was 1 Corinthians 4:1--"Shall I come to you with the rod, or in love and with a gentle spirit?" (emphasis mine)

[ArmsOfLove]

But also, a 2-year-old is not yet motivated by relationship. They are motivated by the conclusions they draw from their many scientific experiments. "What will happen if I refuse to eat?" (In our home, what happens is you are finished until the next meal rolls around. Mom will not rush around trying to find something you will eat. So the child learns it doesn't pay to give up the food that's offered.) They ask, "If I scream, will mom give me that thing I want? If I kick? If I bite?" All the time, you do give them conclusions for their many scientific experiments. I want to give my little son the best ones I can, so that I don't give him conclusion that I later wish I hadn't.I think these are wonderful and perfectly appropriate.

I guess I get the feeling you are reading some of the more permissive posts or posters or the people trying to find their balance and making assumptions about GBD that are simply not fair or true :shrug

Often the women here are coming from a punitive place so what I offer in a thread may be some GBD perspective, bringing them to some balance. I am really struggling with where you are hearing, seeing, perceiving permissiveness in GBD :scratch

and the verse translation that Chris is posting is based on the meaning inherent in each of the Hebrew letters. It's based on very sound study that most Gentile believers (students of Hebrew at Seminary) don't even know about. And MP brags about studying in GREEK! There is ONE word for "rod" in Greek; at least 4 in Hebrew--and they all mean different things.

[Chris3jam]

Crystal, isn't Psalms and Proverbs part of the OT, and, as such, weren't they originally written in Hebrew and not in Greek? When and why would it have been translated into Greek?

(sorry. . .should I start another thread? I seem to have OT-itis today! :O)

[Titus2Momof4]

The first thought I had was that there is no understanding of normal childhood development in the teachings of the Pearls

I just had a really long reply and it didn't send....grrrrrrrr. But this is what it was all about! I was talking about how Wed I took the kids to church, for the first time at this church. It's a Southern Baptist one, and long story short, I was shocked myself that we would have gone there, but loved it and we will all be going Sunday! :) (this was the church DD ended up puking just as I pulled in the parking lot, so I kept her w/me...and then she threw up again as we were leaving) Anyway, in the preschool building, I picked up ParentLife, which is a LifeWay publication. They have an 'ages and stages' type thing, and I read the 1-2, and 3-5 (and skimmed the others). Anyway in the 1-2yrs part, I remember it said "for a child this age to share or cooperate is near impossible....don't expect your toddler to cooperate or share." And then in the3-5 section it talked about one thing that is really normal for kids this age......FEAR!! (And don't get me started on the fear of bees :banghead Who cares if this kid had been stung or not?? Bees *do* sting and she's right to be afraid! For crying out loud-I've never been bit by snakes before, but you bet your behind I'm scared of them! I dont need to have been *bit* to have been *informed* that they bite and have a *fear* of snakes! For that matter I'm scared of things that dont even bite, like lizards!!! LOL) Anyway, all the while I was reading this I was thinking how the Pearls would have just had a field day with what these authors were writing. And then, it hit me....that this really helped to cement in my mind that the Pearls have no earthly clue about *normal child development*. Child developmentalists would totally disagree with the Pearls!!! *where's the big lightbulb icon???*

[milkmommy]

"What will happen if I refuse to eat?" (In our home, what happens is you are finished until the next meal rolls around. Mom will not rush around trying to find something you will eat. So the child learns it doesn't pay to give up the food that's offered.)

Just want to comment a little on things such as this. I have a child with very serious and real eating disorders. However while my rules are a little more relaxed than this they are firm and consistant. There that way 1) because its exhausting battle food day in and out 2) she WILL starve her self anexoria is a real thing 3) for her safety.. so here we did find an appropiate compromise then withthat we keep the boundries firm. What bothers me with the Pearls is again the battles the need to win. HE talks of giving a picky eatter the same food over and over untill he decides its not worth starving. :neutral I wont run around crazy finding just the right things for her but want to know what happned when we tried the one thing method?? She ended up in the hospital because with her disorder she WILL starve. Is it a rare thing? Yes but know what it is real and one you wouldn't guess by just looking at her. :shrug
The Pearls talk about making sure there isn't a medical reason but they also assume the child is manuplitive and sinning long before.

Deanna

[milkmommy]

The first thought I had was that there is no understanding of normal childhood development in the teachings of the Pearls
Thats another biggie I know I was once well lurking on a site that is very pro pearl and one thing that struck me as odd and is a twisted way funny was how may would say things like. I started training my child at 10 months old not to run through the groccery store and guss what now he's 5 and we never have issues. or I trained my 5 month old not to put things in her mouth now shes 2 and doesn't dare. :rolleyes Now I'm not saying that we don't teach that we shouldn't tell out child NO however many issues do resolve them selfs simpily with maturity. It ws very unlikely that is was simply there trainning (and they are clear about what this training is) but rather basic maturityof those kids. :shrug

Deanna

[ServantofGod]

I don't think, want or expect that I can "condition" them to live for God!
Yes. You can. And it is *all* outward behaviour. And that is what the switching and other punitive measures tend to do. I *know* it firsthand. And I see it *all the time*. My mom is not a Christian. And the people at our church do try to be kind and civil and welcoming. She came and visited our church once (she lives out of state). And a few people, and older children, came up to say "hi", etc. and talk with her. They were being friendly. And when we got home, she remarked that it felt. . .weird. It was like "talking to robots." And. .. it is. Brainwashing is conditioning someone to live a certain way. And it can and does happen.

But, Chris, I'm talking about my goals - the things that I see as behavioral conditioning matters *ARE NOT* matters of the heart. It wouldn't be a goal of mine to teach my children to chirp "Jesus Loves YOU!" at passersby, for example, but if their heart is overflowing with joy that Jesus loves everyone and they say it for that reason, then I would be happy. I believe you can make people want to put on a righteous-behavior cloak, but that's not what I'm interested in.

I guess I get the feeling you are reading some of the more permissive posts or posters or the people trying to find their balance and making assumptions about GBD that are simply not fair or true

Often the women here are coming from a punitive place so what I offer in a thread may be some GBD perspective, bringing them to some balance. I am really struggling with where you are hearing, seeing, perceiving permissiveness in GBD

Crystal, I don't feel that the GBD *concept* is permissive, at least not usually...re-read what I said. Well, now I don't know how far back it was, but, what has bothered me is I feel the overall tone at GCM has become more and more permissive. And I think part of it is possibly that people are afraid to make a suggestion that someone might think is on the harsh side and so most of the suggestions are either just commiseration or lean toward some version of "It's too much to expect from the child." You know, like (out-of-the-air example, not anybody's post),"My toddler throws his food." And someone will say, "Well, toddlers throw food; that's normal." If I personally were posting the question, that answer would not help me at all! That it's normal doesn't mean I plan to accept it! If I posted that question, my aim would be for someone to tell me what they've done (or think they could do) that made this behavior subside quickly.But, see I think that someone who has an older child than mine, or more children than me and has been through a food-thrower or two will not post. Because they would post, "Take his plate away and clean him up. Throwing food in our house meant you weren't hungry enough to eat it. Maybe at your next meal, you'll be hungrier." But they won't post that! Really, the only person who springs to mind who has the guts to post something like that is Joanne, but she doesn't post much anymore. (I think? I haven't seen her...anyway.)

The other thing that gives me doubts is the food allergy and autism spectrum suggestions. And I'm not saying these things don't exist...and my son is on no-dairy, so I must believe it to inconvenience myself by having to make and buy special food for him. But it seems to me sometimes that is the catch-all suggestion for any child who has outrageous behavior, throws a mean fit, screams/whines/cries a lot, is violent and behaves like they couldn't care *less* how the parent talks to them about their behavior. Not that far back, hardly any parent would even *consider* removing dairy from their child's diet! Did they all just have "bad" kids? :shrug

And Crystal, I'm confused about your son's autism, too. When I first came here, I think Liam was 4. I read your site then, and the roadblock to gentle discipline, as you describe it was Celiac Disease. Does Liam have CD, or were you mistaken then and it was actually Autism? When was he dxed with Autism? What made you think maybe he had Autism? Why are all your children on gf/cf and no corn diets? Are they all autistic, or have CD, or what? :scratch I guess I missed learning these things because I don't spend as much time here as I did when I first came.

[Titus2Momof4]

NO, and I've explained this several times. It means I choose how to respond to someone and if they have a negative intent they will eventually reveal it, as the little girl in your story did. But I'm still going to respond to her as though she has a positive intent because otherwise I'm just attacking her and that doesn't lead to a solution. Ever hear of giving someone the benefit of the doubt for your own sanity? Same idea.

Crystal...

I remember once you said something to me, and it didn't fully "click" with me for at least 2 more weeks lol, but you said something along the lines of "it doesn't matter whether the child drew on the wall on accident or on purpose, you CHOOSE how you are going to respond" I couldn't grasp how drawing on the wall was ever "accidental", but then someone else pointed out that No it wasnt accidental, but could the child have really known that it was permanent (if they did it with permanent marker)? Chances are, No they had no idea that it wouldn't come off. Whether they did it intentionally or not, we should accept this moment as it is (ETLDTD), and there is still a mess whether on purpose or not. Therefore....get the mess taken care of. This really isn't a discipline issue..it's a "you make a mess, you clean it up" issue. I think most kids (or at least my own) would know that I am upset that the walls are colored on, I would give them the materials and help clean it up, and probably my disappointment would be enough to deter them from doing this again. Meanwhile, being *proactive* my kids are no longer allowed to have crayons except at the table where I can watch, since they have shown that they are too tempted to color on the walls when out of my sight. (I'm just now allowing colored pencils in their room, w/o my direct watchful eye, and so far so good :tu)

[ServantofGod]

*WHAT* do you want to train your kids to do or be?

If I could be granted on wish regarding Mason's behavior that would just be instantly much improved tomorrow, it would be this: I wish he didn't cry/whine or freak out so easily. Some days I tolerate it better than others. Today was one of those days. I spent an hour sitting on the floor of the nursery at the homeschool co-op and missed my yoga class because he *ahem - uh, doesn't separate well. For forty minutes, he wouldn't even let go of my shirt and put his feet on the floor; he stood on my thighs and clung to my shoulders. He was like a cat trying to go up a tree! The nursery worker offered to pry him off so I could leave, but I couldn't do that when he seemed to be *SO* upset, knowing when he goes in there, I leave. Today I felt like, "Oh well. There will be other yoga classes. It won't last forever. " But honestly, I don't always feel that way about things like this. Sometimes I'm just tired of everything taking ten times the effort with him. :yawn

[ArmsOfLove]

As for the Hebrew/Greek--the Hebrew Bible was translated into the Greek as the Septuagint.

Well, now I don't know how far back it was, but, what has bothered me is I feel the overall tone at GCM has become more and more permissive. And I think part of it is possibly that people are afraid to make a suggestion that someone might think is on the harsh side and so most of the suggestions are either just commiseration or lean toward some version of "It's too much to expect from the child." You know, like (out-of-the-air example, not anybody's post),"My toddler throws his food." And someone will say, "Well, toddlers throw food; that's normal." If I personally were posting the question, that answer would not help me at all! That it's normal doesn't mean I plan to accept it! If I posted that question, my aim would be for someone to tell me what they've done (or think they could do) that made this behavior subside quickly.I can understand this and I think that to some extent it's a valid criticism. I happen to think that we have a pretty decent balance--the posters who are great at pointing out what is age expected because many people have unrealistic expectations and the people who post ideas and suggestions and solutions. I do consider this something that the site is working on--I've been overwhelmed in the GD forum for some time and when Joanne is able to be online she posts great non-permissive stuff :tu And we're getting me help there.

As for Mason, I would really encourage you to read Dr. Greenspan's "The Challenging Child" because I think it would really speak to you AND offer you some very practical answers!

I do believe that when "I know this is normal but it's not okay, what have you done to curb this behavior?" is posted there are great solutions offered :shrug

And Crystal, I'm confused about your son's autism, too. When I first came here, I think Liam was 4. I read your site then, and the roadblock to gentle discipline, as you describe it was Celiac Disease. Does Liam have CD, or were you mistaken then and it was actually Autism? When was he dxed with Autism? What made you think maybe he had Autism? Why are all your children on gf/cf and no corn diets? Are they all autistic, or have CD, or what? scratching head I guess I missed learning these things because I don't spend as much time here as I did when I first came.When Liam was 4 I knew he had Celiac and I suspect he had Asperger's but it was undx and I was doing OT with him at home. We finally got him to a specialist a few months ago and he said that Liam has high functioning Autism but appears as Asperger's because of all the work I've done with him and the GF/CF diet we have him on. When he gets gluten he has full blown autism :cry I've always known something was going on in addition to or in conjunction with the Celiac but it took us a long time to find out (in fact, the referral went in LAST YEAR :jawdrop and we didn't get our appt until August :doh). I have Celiac and all of my children have various reactions to gluten and corn (it causes me migraines). (edited to add that corn sensitivity is very common with Celiac)

I want to throw out a suggestion to you . . . first, it is being documented and researched why there are so many children with special needs, food issues and autism spectrum disorders. The doctors are noting this phenomenon and there are a few different theories which I think will probably have some cross over and validity. Second, I am finding through private conversation with many moms that they end up here and with GBD because nothing else "works" when children have special needs. There are methods of conditioning them but they don't *get* that what they're doing it wrong so they don't *get* why you're even upset. Punishing them is really just cruel :cry So when parents have these special children they end up searching for answers and when they find GBD they find that it doesn't matter why a child is doing something, you respond to it! Our specialist highly recommends PD for all of his patients' homes :tu

[milkmommy]

my aim would be for someone to tell me what they've done (or think they could do) that made this behavior subside quickly.But, see I think that someone who has an older child than mine, or more children than me and has been through a food-thrower or two will not post. Because they would post, "Take his plate away and clean him up. Throwing food in our house meant you weren't hungry enough to eat it. Maybe at your next meal, you'll be hungrier." But they won't post that! Really, the only person who springs to mind who has the guts to post something like that is Joanne, but she doesn't post much anymore. (I think? I haven't seen her...anyway.
:giggle you need to read more of my (and others) posts ;) One thing you need to understand is my guess Joanne (who is still here :heart) like myself is an introvert Crystal for example is likely more extroverted. I much like Joanne tend to be well blunt. :P~ We do tend to post more this is the rule do it quit complaining and there you go.. Crystal tends to address the heart remind us that yes tossing food is age appropiate and normal but it doesn't need to be allowed.She'll often point out the need for say textured play etc and many others will do this as well. While some of us are just more heads on deal with the question. It doesn't make me less gracefull and it doesn't make Crystal or others permissive. I kow i had issues with the "ts age appropiate comments as well they felt like excuses but as I've read and learned I realize thats not whats being said..
Oh and I applgize to Crystal or Joanne or any other if I just totally hacked there life apart. :shifty :shifty

Deanna

[katiekind]

uh, doesn't separate well.

I wish he didn't cry/whine or freak out so easily.

Is Mason only one or two years old? I'm looking at your signature line there. I'm sure that's hard with the older kids keeping you on the go.

I just want to share with you about my oldest son--to encourage you. :candle

My oldest was our high need velcro baby/toddler. The others were not like this. But he was. Anyways, I was basically his lifeline to reality when he was little, but one day, he just started separating very easily. For instance, at three, I couldn't put him in pre-school. It was like we were trying to torture him. I trusted this reaction and went on the assumption that if he was ready for this experience, he would show it. The following September I could tell things had changed so we gave it another try. This time he marched right in like he owned the place, made friends with everyone and was only unhappy when it was time to go home.

Today my son is a popular entertainer/musician and a very outgoing, gregarious person. You would laugh to think he once could have been described like Mason as a toddler who "uh, doesn't separate well" ;) If only we could see into the future at those moments when we're really wondering what these toddler behaviors mean. It would help so much! I did struggle with how much to push and how much to trust his reactions--I can identify with that. I am thankful for people who reminded me that kids outgrow these needs when the needs are filled. That's exactly how it worked for us. :hug

[euromom]

Crystal, I don't feel that the GBD *concept* is permissive, at least not usually...re-read what I said. Well, now I don't know how far back it was, but, what has bothered me is I feel the overall tone at GCM has become more and more permissive. And I think part of it is possibly that people are afraid to make a suggestion that someone might think is on the harsh side and so most of the suggestions are either just commiseration or lean toward some version of "It's too much to expect from the child." You know, like (out-of-the-air example, not anybody's post),"My toddler throws his food." And someone will say, "Well, toddlers throw food; that's normal." If I personally were posting the question, that answer would not help me at all! That it's normal doesn't mean I plan to accept it! If I posted that question, my aim would be for someone to tell me what they've done (or think they could do) that made this behavior subside quickly.But, see I think that someone who has an older child than mine, or more children than me and has been through a food-thrower or two will not post. Because they would post, "Take his plate away and clean him up. Throwing food in our house meant you weren't hungry enough to eat it. Maybe at your next meal, you'll be hungrier." But they won't post that! Really, the only person who springs to mind who has the guts to post something like that is Joanne, but she doesn't post much anymore. (I think? I haven't seen her...anyway.)


I just wanted to pipe in and say that in my 5mo here on GCM I have gotten nothing but good help and advice on what to do when there is an "age appropriate behavior that is not appropriate" :tu I've seen and took the advice of plenty of posters who have given advice on things that can be done when our kids are doing things that are, yes, age appropriate, but are not appropriate and I have learned to teach my almost 2yr old ds a very many appropriate behaviors in a GBD way thanks to GCM! :heart

[ArmsOfLove]

"Take his plate away and clean him up. Throwing food in our house meant you weren't hungry enough to eat it. Maybe at your next meal, you'll be hungrier."Well without the snarky little stab at the end :shifty I've posted this thousands of times :shrug

[milkmommy]

"Take his plate away and clean him up. Throwing food in our house meant you weren't hungry enough to eat it. Maybe at your next meal, you'll be hungrier."Well without the snarky little stab at the end :shifty I've posted this thousands of times :shrug


:yes and would be a great example of knowing whats "age appropite" a toddler doesn't have the maturity to think hey you know what I should eat now because if I don't I might be hungry and there wont be a way for me to get food latter. Like you and I can think its 11am I'm not really hungry but I have a meeting thats going to be from 12-3pm I better try to eat something now. Saying maybe you'll be hungry latter :shrug They likley will but they wont relate not eatting earlier to the reason why. :shrug

Deanna

[glassangel]

I also want to say that the advice that I have received here has always included both - 1) that the behaviour is age appropriate: which allows me to think differently about the behaviour and 2) different ways to deal with it.

It's the same when I have offered advice to a friend - I will encourage her to see that the behaviour is normal for her son's age - and then I will suggest ways to deal with it.

I will also say that in the past I have tended to be a lot more permissive and it has actually been GCM that has helped me with setting boundaries :tu and enforcing them of course.

I don' t see that saying something is age appropriate is permissive - I think it helps us to lower our expectations of our child and teach them accordingly.

[euromom]

"Take his plate away and clean him up. Throwing food in our house meant you weren't hungry enough to eat it. Maybe at your next meal, you'll be hungrier."Well without the snarky little stab at the end :shifty I've posted this thousands of times :shrug


And I've seen it posted several times. Having the "snarky little stab" at the end would make that punitive, adding on something to make the kid feel bad for what they have done. Cleaning the kid up and allowing him to go hungry is allowing a natural consequence to help teach them that if they play at the table and don't eat they will be hungry. Or what I do with my son (because *I* don't want to have the natural consequence of waking up *with him* in the middle of the night when he is hungry and can't sleep) I tell him "When we make a mess we clean it up!" and have him, or help him, to clean what he threw, even if he doesn't like the idea of cleaning it. Those last 2 responses would be GBD.

It seems from what you have posted and stated that you are afraid of being too permissive. But the other side of that is being too punitive. GBD is a whole different paradigm. Sometimes I do see myself caught in a pendelum swing between permissiveness and punitive and then I realize I have to step out of that thinking all together and that is where I find GBD.

People are posting while I keep trying to post mine but I will go ahead and post anyway. :)

[euromom]

I will also say that in the past I have tended to be a lot more permissive and it has actually been GCM that has helped me with setting boundaries :tu and enforcing them of course.


:tu me too! :grin

[mamahammer]

I am just horrified by the suggestion that parents go looking for things like autism and/or food sensitivites in order to excuse behavior.   :hissyfit :cry

Angry doesn't even begin to describe it.

For all of the times that I have had to repeat to my MIL that Thomas really does have high-functioning autism, and all of the times that I have felt the need to negate her assertion that we are just "bad" parents who don't know how to deal with their own children - well, for every 1000 tmes I have gone over this with her, it just takes one person, one Christian person, telling her that it's all a made up epidemic, to put us right back at square one.  I cannot tell you how infuriating your assertion is.

There is nothing easy about being a gentle mama to an autistic child.  Especially an autistic child who is "normal" enough to not appear disordered to a stranger's eye.  I have had other mamas use my child as the example of "what not to be" in the grocery store.  Mamas who, when my son gets spooked because a stranger has walked into the aisle we are on at Target, will stoop down to her daughter's level and very loudly proclaim "See, honey.  That is just not appropriate behavior.  Mommy is sooo proud of you for not acting like that boy."  And you want to know what the "easy" thing to do would be?  To smack his leg and tell him to be quiet.  It wouldn't work - in fact, it would make things ten times worse. And it would literally leave him afraid of me for weeks or months afterwards. Weeks and months when he would go around saying over and over again, "No smack Thomas. No smack Thomas. Thomas scared."  But it would make other parents think that I am "doing my job" by beating my child.

It's not easy putting my son on the "short bus" every morning.  It's not easy taking him to OT, PT and ST every week.  It's not easy explaining sensory integration dysfunction to people ignorant of the issue.

It's certainly not easy when my boy wakes up four times at night, scared to death that his mommy and daddy have been killed.  He's 3.5, and my poor boy believes with his whole being at 2am that we are gone forever.  And he screams a scream I hope to heaven you never, ever have to hear.  But MP's suggestion would be that, after I prove to Thomas that death is not to be feared (ummm, how?  By walking him through funerals and cemeteries??) I leave him to his own devices in the laundry room??  

Maybe that would be the easy way because I could get my 8 hours of sleep.  But it certainly isn't the way God would treat my child.  And thus, it isn't the way *I* will treat my child.

I know I am being blunt and perhaps offensive, but as the mama of a special needs, autistic child, I hear this garbage all too often.  And it makes me crazy mad every single time.   :cry

[Katherine]

"Take his plate away and clean him up. Throwing food in our house meant you weren't hungry enough to eat it. Maybe at your next meal, you'll be hungrier."


The crucial difference, I believe, is in saying this in an attempt to elicit a particular behavior (and that comes from the manipulate, control, and GET-the-outward-results mindset) versus saying this because it simply *is*.... because it's the boundary or the standard. (and that's GBD--setting a reasonable standard and helping them meet the standard if possible)

I did this yesterday... can't even remember exactly what with, but I was doing the If/Then routine with my boys... and I realized:

I'm not stating a fact or setting a boundary here... I'm trying to influence their actions by hanging this over their heads. :no2 :doh If they do what I want, I've only gained a temporary convenience, b/c I'm teaching them to be motivated by outward pressure instead of internally. If they don't do what I want, and I follow through, we all lose. I will be enacting the "then" portion of my statement just to make them feel bad (or to maintain my position) for not doing what I wanted, and they will be too upset and focused on the consequence to learn a lesson from it.

[mamahammer]

I will be enacting the "then" portion of my statement just to make them feel bad (or to maintain my position) for not doing what I wanted, and they will be too upset and focused on the consequence to learn a lesson from it.

:yes And thus, it is ineffective and painful.

[SouthPaw]

Let me gently make a comment on the food allergy/disorder issue.

I do see a lot of what you are saying. I know what you are talking about. Someone mentions an issue that is just a little *more* than normal, and someone else says, "well, have you considered X allergy? how's his diet?"

It may look like that person is trying to draw something out to excuse behavior.

In fact, this is just the normal way to diagnose a behavior problem. When I am helping someone train their dog, if they are having X issue (he pees in the house...he growls at dogs)... my first question is always "has he been to the vet? have they checked for X physical problem? is his diet high in wheat?"

It's not because you are just looking for an excuse. It's because, if it IS a medical issue, NO AMOUNT of behavior training OR discipline *can* fix it. So you *have* to ask that question first, even if you actually think the possibility is pretty remote.

I hope that helps you understand why these things are mentioned so often :hug

[ArmsOfLove]

THANK YOU Kathrine! This is what I've been :think about how to say It's not because you are just looking for an excuse. It's because, if it IS a medical issue, NO AMOUNT of behavior training OR discipline *can* fix it. So you *have* to ask that question first, even if you actually think the possibility is pretty remote.

SOOOO often in conversations where it's asked about food issues about 3 posts later from the OP there's a small mention of "well, he was very allergic to milk even in my breastmilk but the doctor said he outgrew it so that can't be it" :doh Or we learn that his older brother has an autism diagnosis--even if that doesn't mean he has autism it means that the child he's been observing to see what an older child at each age looks like and does has autism and that can totally influence their behavior.

Also, if someone has been posting a string of "what about X?" situations and together they create a picture of something bigger being an issue it can be helpful to view the overall picture and see if something comes into focus--autism, food issue, or other.

Asking does not at all mean we are assuming it, hoping for it, or even thinking it. It most often means, "Let's rule this out or if it is an issue let's address it first."

[Katherine]

and, as someone else mentioned, this IS an alternative minded board, and it draws people who are actively LOOKING for different solutions. People who have relatively compliant kids and easy parenting experiences often are NOT out looking for different answers. I know, for me, that nearly every single person I've referred here was already dealing with the possibility of special needs, food allergies, etc. or just had a child who DIDN'T respond well to "normal" parenting (punitive or positive) and had exhausted all the mainstream resources they'd tried.

[ServantofGod]

Let me gently make a comment on the food allergy/disorder issue.

I do see a lot of what you are saying. I know what you are talking about. Someone mentions an issue that is just a little *more* than normal, and someone else says, "well, have you considered X allergy? how's his diet?"

It may look like that person is trying to draw something out to excuse behavior.

In fact, this is just the normal way to diagnose a behavior problem. When I am helping someone train their dog, if they are having X issue (he pees in the house...he growls at dogs)... my first question is always "has he been to the vet? have they checked for X physical problem? is his diet high in wheat?"

It's not because you are just looking for an excuse. It's because, if it IS a medical issue, NO AMOUNT of behavior training OR discipline *can* fix it. So you *have* to ask that question first, even if you actually think the possibility is pretty remote.

I hope that helps you understand why these things are mentioned so often

Thanks for that; that makes a lot of sense. I don't know why dog-context makes things so much more clear to me, but it often does.

"Take his plate away and clean him up. Throwing food in our house meant you weren't hungry enough to eat it. Maybe at your next meal, you'll be hungrier."

I feel a little frustrated by the references to the "snarky tag"....this is how I write. I tend towards sarcasm. But it's not probable that I would *say* this in the situation. I'm not saying I would snatch away the plate and say, "MMMMMHHHAAHHH! Got you now, little brat! STARVE until your next offered morsel! HA! " (Wish we had that devil icon.) YK? It actually would just go like, "This is how we do it."

Is Mason only one or two years old? I'm looking at your signature line there. I'm sure that's hard with the older kids keeping you on the go.

I just want to share with you about my oldest son--to encourage you. candle

My oldest was our high need velcro baby/toddler. The others were not like this. But he was. Anyways, I was basically his lifeline to reality when he was little, but one day, he just started separating very easily. For instance, at three, I couldn't put him in pre-school. It was like we were trying to torture him. I trusted this reaction and went on the assumption that if he was ready for this experience, he would show it. The following September I could tell things had changed so we gave it another try. This time he marched right in like he owned the place, made friends with everyone and was only unhappy when it was time to go home.

Today my son is a popular entertainer/musician and a very outgoing, gregarious person. You would laugh to think he once could have been described like Mason as a toddler who "uh, doesn't separate well" wink If only we could see into the future at those moments when we're really wondering what these toddler behaviors mean. It would help so much! I did struggle with how much to push and how much to trust his reactions--I can identify with that. I am thankful for people who reminded me that kids outgrow these needs when the needs are filled. That's exactly how it worked for us.

He will be 2 in December. I need to update my sig.

This is very comforting to read. I do wish I could see into the future sometimes! I think the sep. issue is a very hard one sometimes. Because people (even moms I generally consider 'gentle'), will tell me, "I know, my son was like that and we just had to peel him off. After a week or two, he finally accepted it." Some nursery workers are pretty agressive with it, too. They will come right up and say, "Give him to me. He'll be okay." I'm really uncomfortable with people like that because I feel like they look down on me for saying, "Oh, no, it's okay...I can stay for a while." Once, I stopped going to a Bible study because the leader was so annoyed by Collin (my now-6 yo) not going downstairs with the babysitter. (Even though he was just sitting quiety on my lap with a book or a car.) I was tired of feeling like I had to defend my right to hold my son. :( So, I just quit the study.

[katiekind]

:banghead

:hug

I hear you. We're not too good at accepting young children's attachment needs.

When I run the toddlers/2 year old nursery at our church, I welcome mothers or fathers to stay with their children as long as it takes to make the children comfortable. My ministry there is to both the parents and the children, so we try to balance the needs there as best we can but for the moms or dads who are willing or wanting to stay with a clingy child, I think that's great and I'll make it clear that they're welcome and also reassure them that the time will come when their child WILL separate.

I've seen it work out beautifully, over and over again. When the child is ready, the child *truly* has a great time--is delightful, expansive, willing to try new things and ready to have fun.

Other parents want to peel off their velcro child and leave pretty quickly, saying he'll calm down pretty soon. We try to be supportive of this choice and can usually get the child to calm down and get interested in something or just hold them. However, they are NOT as happy as the other kids; they go into "coping" mode. You can see they are holding on by a thread. They don't have as much left over to give to the situation they're in--they're not expansive, not as willing to try new things, and little things tend to de-stabilize them. They tend to slip into a glassy-eyed sippy-cup clutching state.

Now, of course, that's in the church nursery so I know the timeframe there means that these kids are coming up on naptimes, so tiredness plays a part. But the ones whose parents don't leave until the child is truly ready to separate seem to cope with their tiredness a little better.

So I would say you're doing the right thing and your patience will pay off!

[DogwoodMama]

I totally agree, Kathy, I've had the same experience. :yes Charlotte would not go in the nursery or separate from me willingly *at all* until 2 yo... It was hit and miss from 2 to 2.5 yo, but now she does great in nursery/other care settings! :tu We recently started MOPS and she willingly and happily went into the 2/3's class for 2.5 hours, and as soon as we left, wanted to know when we would go back! I literally did not leave her for more than 10 minutes her first year of life, or more than 20-30 minutes her second year of life, but she does great now. I am SO GLAD that I did not push the issue and that our decision was generally respected at our church, and that when she was ready to try it, there were sensitive caregivers who worked with both us and her. :tu

In contrast, there is a boy who is a bit older than Charlotte, I'll call him Mikey, in our church... his parents left in the nursery whether he was screaming or just sniffling... sometimes he could tolerate it the whole service, other times he would meltdown so badly they'd call his parents back. He is STILL having a rough time going into nursery! While C is happily playing he's literally trying to run away (there has been incidents where he would attempt to run out of the nursery to find his parents and actually suceeded in leaving unnoticed one time.) He just seems like a really sad little boy at church, though I've seen him in other settings (his home) and he's much happier those times.

[Katigre]

ServantofGod - my sister was a CLASSIC velcro baby (and toddler, and preschooler). She was incredibly attached to my parents, would freak if my mom was gone, etc... - even until she was 4-5. When I mentioned this to one of her high school teachers he laughed and didn't believe me, b/c she is such an independent person! I remember it like a light switch when she was 7-9 (don't remember the exact age) where all of a sudden she didn't 'need' my mom so desperately anymore, she matured to be able to separate so easily without an issue, etc... And she kept growing independent that way - she is now away at college, has a great (non-dependent) relationship with my parents, and NO ONE would ever guess she had such a struggle with that issue before. :)

[me]

Hmmm :scratch
This is a very interesting thread.
I wonder how much of what you have said would even be commented on if it was on a one on one conversation? This is pretty hard to follow, it is getting so long. I had to be sure and read each post to be sure not to jump to conclusions.

I think perhaps much of the different "discussions" are just based on your personality and wording.
I can see where it would be easy to make a statement based on a generalization instead of on an individual basis. Like the whole autism, food sensitivity, statement.
Crystal and Katherine were right on the money with that (thanks ladies).

I am probably waaaaaaaay off but I truly think that you are trying to feel sorry for someone ( who by what I have read has made his own bed) because you are frustrated often by replies you are reading. In trying to find a middle ground you have tipped your toe a bit over to the extreme.
Please try and remember that every poster here is a person. An individual who has a family like no other. When you reply to a person's question, have you checked the child's age, any past posts, looked at their problems as a whole to see if the question is more than just a question, tried to respond according to who they are and not just who you are? Maybe the people who are giving the advice you disagree with have. Maybe they haven't, I don't know?

Just a few thoughts as I am reading, for what ever it might be worth. :)

Your post and everyones responses have truly shown me that the ladies here "prove to be gentle among you, as a nursing mother tenderly cares for her own children".
Isn't it good to be in the company of friends ;)

[CelticJourney]

Because people (even moms I generally consider 'gentle'), will tell me, "I know, my son was like that and we just had to peel him off. After a week or two, he finally accepted it." Some nursery workers are pretty agressive with it, too. They will come right up and say, "Give him to me. He'll be okay." I'm really uncomfortable with people like that because I feel like they look down on me for saying, "Oh, no, it's okay...I can stay for a while."

Oh, my!, have I been there. My dh went to Bosnia when dd1 was a year and half and apparently that signaled 'open season' on my parenting and not leaving her in the nursery. If you know it is the right thing to meet your child's need for security, you will have to accept that you are his protector and that every time you start to do 'what you don't want to do', you are choosing the whims of strangers over the need of your child. When you get a clear picture of what is happening, it helps you stand strong. Spiritual battles come in some very unexpected places - they are more likely to succeed that way. Similar to what a pp stated, my dd is now a very outgoing young lady - I think because she knows she is not trapped into situations that make her uncomfortable

Your post and everyones responses have truly shown me that the ladies here "prove to be gentle among you, as a nursing mother tenderly cares for her own children". Isn't it good to be in the company of friends

Thank you for saying that. GCM is a wonderful sanctuary! :yes

[mamaKristin]

I have a couple of thoughts.

My oldest child had some verbal delays. His younger sister at 18 months could talk circles around where he was at 2.5. My DH, who is very GBD minded, really struggles some days with our middle child. And here is why - she is SO verbal, he forgets what a just turned 2 year old is like. She is a big girl, with a large vocabulary...unlike our son at the same age. He didn't seem quite so grown up at 2 as she does. DH says to me "why doesn't she get it?" "because she just turned 2 hon" DH - :doh In 2 years, he forgot a lot of what age appropriate behaviour is, which is added on to the differences in what 2 looks like in each child.

My point here is that I wonder if it's sometimes hard for us to remember what our older kids were doing at the age of our younger kids. If you have a 6 year old, or a 12 year old, 2 seems like forever ago. I know I have a hard time remembering last month, let alone 2 years ago. I know as my kids are getting older, it's hard not to want to rush them through the stages they have to get through, if that makes sense.

Also, about velcro kids. ;) My youngest is one of those. It's hard sometimes. I'm not dealing with pressure to 'just peel her off' and leave her in the church nursery, but that would be hard to do. I think a lot of times, church nurseries and similar things are a great idea...but don't always 'fit' with every family or every child. As adults, we get to choose where we go to church, what jobs we do, what clothes we wear - we have the say. Kids are often fit into where we need or want them to be. And then if they don't fit that mold, like kids who have bigger separation anxiety, they are seen as 'being difficult'...when really, they are just expressing their needs. As an adult, if a program wasn't fitting our needs, we could work at changing it, or choose not to attend. But a child doesn't get that choice in the same way, and as parents we are often pressured into making our kids fit a mold that we don't even want them to fit.

In the posts on this board, there are sometimes swings between more punitive and more permissive strains of thought. That's just part of the variety of people we have here. Also, what looks permissive in one house, may not be in another. I prefer to try not to be permissive in how I approach things, but I also know that I have to take who my kids are into consideration. My oldest will respond to things much differently than my middle, and in turn, my youngest. One child may require tighter and more strongly enforced boundaries, the other, not so much. I think it's all about finding the balance for your family.

[ArmsOfLove]

I tend towards sarcasmI do to which is why I used the word snarky and the :shifty emoticon :) :hug

And I would think it too :giggle But I would tell my child, "You are throwing food. That means that lunch is over." When I am teaching this I usually give two opportunities to continue eating, then we progress to one, and then I remind as we sit down and end the meal if food is thrown :)

[hsgbdmama]

But I would tell my child, "You are throwing food. That means that lunch is over." When I am teaching this I usually give two opportunities to continue eating, then we progress to one, and then I remind as we sit down and end the meal if food is thrown :)

We just did this with ds2 a little while ago -- he was ozzing around, :poke his brother with his fork :crazy2 and we gave him a couple of opportunities to sit down and eat. When he continued, we took away his dish and said "You're not sitting and eating, which tells us you are done."

[Titus2Momof4]

I am really really enjoying this discussion. It's definitely coming at a very good time for me. Not at *all that I've been thinking of spanking or anything... I just mean I just feel like more and more this (GBD) is the direction our family is meant to be headed in. I just love watching my husband be so gentle too. :heart So this conversation just reiterates for me why we are doing this, and how right it is. :tu

But I had another comment:

I don't think the translations are necessarily "messed up." I just think that *our understanding* of those translated words is often altered by 1) our own ignorance and lack of study/knowledge about the roots of Scripture, 2) our cultural biases, 3) our religious backgrounds, 4) changes in language and grammar, and probably other factors as well.

In addition to this good point, I wanted to add. Someone mentioned earlier a very good point, that we cannot take what we want ("beat"/spank) and then take the other part of the same verse ("with the rod") and take that to mean what we want. We should use the real 6-footer, if we want to use that logic. To further that point, I was thinking, using that same logic, the bible says *rod* (as in, the true shebet in that verse)...it does not say "glue sticks, paddle, wooden spoon, spatula, switch" The next time I am in a confrontation with someone who says I am in sin for not spanking, I'm going to ask them what implement they use (and I know they aren't going to say a 6ft rod lol) and then I'm going to ask, if the bible means spank when it says beat, then why are you not using a real rod?? Why are you using a spatula instead??? :think That should get us into a discussion about what Rod really meant, and how it could not possibly apply to our kids. I still like using 1 Cor 4:1,. which I quoted earlier in this thread. :grin

[MidnightCafe]

I know I was already in this thread :popcorn. :grin

I am *so* glad this discussion is happening. I think it's hard to live life in the middle - between punitive and permission. Many people here are trying to go against the grain in refusing to be punitive that it gets all mixed up and leans toward permissive sometimes. I really like your straight-forward responses in this thread, Danielle, and your honesty has helped keep this conversation moving in a productive direction - IMO, anyway. :grin

I know some people have posted already that they don't feel like they get overly-permissive responses to questions on this board. I feel like I read a fair number of permissive responses here. It's the nature of the board. We give everybody here the freedom to offer advice, and this means that the person asking the question has to be discerning in deciding what advice to follow, which direction they want to go. I don't know if you remember Makeesha or not, but I still miss her. Her DD was a lot like Mane, and I was often so grateful for her firm, structured advice. A lot of people thought she was harsh, but she knew what she was doing. She wasn't spanking or yelling or punishing, but she was willing to firmly state the boundaries and stick to them. I totally appreciate that, as Mane is a child who requires firm boundaries in order to feel safe and in control.

I don't think I have anything else to say right now. :hiding

[ArmsOfLove]

I miss Makeesha too--I think she contributed a lot in that way and others :heart

Someone mentioned earlier a very good point, that we cannot take what we want ("beat"/spank) and then take the other part of the same verse ("with the rod") and take that to mean what we want. We should use the real 6-footer, if we want to use that logic. To further that point, I was thinking, using that same logic, the bible says *rod* (as in, the true shebet in that verse)...it does not say "glue sticks, paddle, wooden spoon, spatula, switch" The next time I am in a confrontation with someone who says I am in sin for not spanking, I'm going to ask them what implement they use (and I know they aren't going to say a 6ft rod lol) and then I'm going to ask, if the bible means spank when it says beat, then why are you not using a real rod?? Why are you using a spatula instead??? think That should get us into a discussion about what Rod really meant, and how it could not possibly apply to our kids. I still like using 1 Cor 4:1,. which I quoted earlier in this thread. And this is where studying the OT from the Greek gets people into real trouble :banghead Because there is one Greek word for Rod and at least FOUR Hebrew words for it, people end up *saying* Shebet but then defeining choter (a small branch or twig) :rolleyes2

[Love_Is_Patient]

ServantofGod--I'm replying because my ds is only two months younger than Mason! So we're dealing with some similar issues, although I have less experience as he is my first.

I did want to mention two realizations that have helped me--one is recognizing that while certain behavior may not be acceptable, that doesn't mean that I can force it to stop. I here you saying 'having a fit is not acceptable', which is ok if you mean 'it's not something that I want to see him doing at 10' but if you mean 'therefore I have to make it stop now', you're likely setting yourself up for frustration. I find that if I can remind myself to relax in the middle of a fit by ds, take a deep breath and remember, 'I can try to help him stop (while still respecting the boundary--I'm not going to revoke the limit just to make him stop crying), but I cannot make him stop', this helps me keep what I'm doing in perspective.

Another thing I have gotten from this board and observed in ds is that children learn by experimentation, but that they also learn by observation. That is, if I am modelling a certain behavior and then expecting my child to gradually start imitating this behavior, it does happen. One example is that ds has gradually learned that the expectation is for him to eat (most) of his meals while sitting up with us in his high chair. He is very active, and several months ago this was very difficult for him. Most solid food that I got into him was a bite at a time, after bringing him back to the table from play. This might seem permissive to you, but it was what we needed to do at the time. And, for the most part, we are not doing it anymore. He sits at the table and eats; when he's satisfied he gets down. If he wants more, he comes back and sits at the table again. To this, I attribute a) more maturity and awareness of his own hunger and the satisfaction afforded by food, and b) the power of imitation--mom and dad are sitting at the table, they expect me to sit too, so--ok.

I have also found he is less likely to throw a fit about something disappointing if he is able to give closure to it himself, usually by doing something that he's seen us do. For example, if I turn of the TV, the result is screaming, but if I lift him up (giving warning that the TV is going off, we need to turn it off), and have him press the button (and then quick-off to other room/activity), he's much less likely to protest.

Anyway, don't know if that's helpful. I find myself wondering similar thoughts to you sometimes, and I try to remember--God did not intend for us to be constantly afraid for how our childern are going to turn out. He wants us to cast those cares on him. Correct and teach your children, but give the burden of the future to God.

[LilySue]

. Second, I am finding through private conversation with many moms that they end up here and with GBD because nothing else "works" when children have special needs. There are methods of conditioning them but they don't *get* that what they're doing it wrong so they don't *get* why you're even upset. Punishing them is really just cruel :cry So when parents have these special children they end up searching for answers and when they find GBD they find that it doesn't matter why a child is doing something, you respond to it! Our specialist highly recommends PD for all of his patients' homes :tu


I just wanted to quickly add to the original poster, this is one of the main reasons why you'll find a lot of parents with children on the autistic spectrum on these boards, nothing else works for us. I have a child with high functioning autism and I spent ages watching programmes or looking at books that would help me with disciplining him...it was frustrating for me to watch say a mainstream programme like Dr Phil and see the tag on at the end of the programme, this will work unless your child has a problem like ADHD or autism. One of the beauties of GBD is that it works for all children :grouphug

[ServantofGod]

I really like your straight-forward responses in this thread, Danielle, and your honesty has helped keep this conversation moving in a productive direction - IMO, anyway.

Thank you! :) I always liked Makeesha, too; she's a champ at firm boundaries.

I did want to mention two realizations that have helped me--one is recognizing that while certain behavior may not be acceptable, that doesn't mean that I can force it to stop. I here you saying 'having a fit is not acceptable', which is ok if you mean 'it's not something that I want to see him doing at 10' but if you mean 'therefore I have to make it stop now', you're likely setting yourself up for frustration. I find that if I can remind myself to relax in the middle of a fit by ds, take a deep breath and remember, 'I can try to help him stop (while still respecting the boundary--I'm not going to revoke the limit just to make him stop crying), but I cannot make him stop', this helps me keep what I'm doing in perspective.

A lot of wisdom, there, for someone on their first child. You'de think I'd get that by now, seeing that my 9 and 6 yold kids are turning out pretty well. :shifty

I tend towards sarcasm
I do to

Really??? Nawwwww.... :giggle

[Bonnie]

Thank you for this thread. I needed the reinforcement. :grin

A quick note on velcro babies. The best way I've seen it put is that if you meet a need, it goes away. If you fight it, defer it, try to beat it out of a child or condition it out, it'll come back later to bite you in the tush. (Taking serious liberties with the original quote, but a thank you to Dr. Sears) I've gotten to where I can laugh if someone says I'm coddling my 23mo dd by not peeling her off and forcing her into the nursery before she's ready, because usually the same person has just finished commenting on how wonderfully social and outgoing my almost 4yo ds is. :giggle If they know they can have me whenever they need me, they don't need to test me all the time. The insecurity I see in some of the kids, usually ones who were dropped off screaming as infants, the "coping mode" as noted in a pp...it's nothing like the security I see in children who know they have a choice. Is it hard to handle sometimes (a lot)? Oh, yeah. Especially at night. I'm so touched out I could scream. But I remind myself of my ds and how he goes to bed now with almost no argument, probably six nights out of seven, and stays in his own bed probably six nights out of seven, until morning, and I know that by meeting my dd's nighttime need for closeness I'm NOT necessarily setting myself up for cosleeping into the college years or CIO in desperation. ;) Is it behavior I don't always enjoy? Yes. Is it something I'd consider totally unacceptable in a much older child? Certainly. Does that mean I must nip in in the bud NOW or suffer untold consequences? NO, because it's age appropriate. :shrug (Do lots of people disagree with me and counsel doom because we cosleep? Of course. Is that my problem? Only if I make it so. :shifty)