Death linked to Pearls' advice--sensitive

[cklewis]

Originally Posted by jadensmom

I don't for one minute think that the Pearls want any child to be killed I think they are just as sickened by that level of violence as we all are. However, I do think their eyes and hearts are blinded to the fact that their mindset, and forceful advocacy of such mindset, can lead to this. GBD has never been the death of any child, physically or spiritually. Punitive parenting has

Legally, I hope a link can be proven. I pray it can. Not because I'm wishing trouble on the Pearls, but because maybe then they will be made to stop instigating a violent paradigm.

And I'm not sure how they can easily defend against charges of abuse when they mention things like hosing off a toddler, naked, in the yard - because he was 'enjoying' the 'loving attention' of his mother during diaper changes. That in and of itself is abusive, as is so much more.

Our society has allowed teaching like that to hide behind a cloak of religious liberty for far too long. And as non-interventionist as I'd like our government to be - well....I don't see any women complaining that our rights were violated by the domestic violence laws. I don't see any persons of color wishing for a return to the pre-civil rights era.

I'd love to see the evil satan intended with this senseless death turned to the good of protecting our most vulnerable fellow human beings

I'm praying that God stops this stronghold.

C

[katiekind]

Legally, free speech/free press laws cover the Pearls. There is a presumption in our country that the burden is on readers to sort out the good from the bad.

That's not to say that God can't redeem this horrible tragedy by drawing attention to what a book like this can do in the hands of some people who may not have what it takes to not lose control or perspective. (Not to mention that the concept of "perspective" is dicey in a book that describes the author hitting a two year old repeatedly with a plastic toy with all her might, just to give him the message to stop hitting her. )

Anyways this incident should really cause people who buy the book in bulk to hand out pause.

[milkmommy]

Originally Posted by UltraMother

No words, no words. I could've been that mama too, several years ago.

would you really have been? From the CPS reports it sounds like there was a lot of lying done to cover what was going on. Like saying he fell off the bed to cover brusies...
Deanna

Anyways this incident should really cause people who buy the book in bulk to hand out pause.

I don't know... most likely they'd shrug it off and say the person was just using it to cover abuse which doesn't happen if the material is used correctly since they strongly advocate not spanking kids in anger (which is a whole 'nother unhealthy dynamic... stuffing anger or emotionally disconnecting is just as bad as expressing anger badly).

I think the only ones that it will give a pause to is the ones who aren't doing a good job stuffing their anger or emotionally disconnecting..

[Treenahurricane]

I originally read the store from a poster on the MOPs website.... it made me so sad to read posters DEFENDING the Pearls methods on there.... makes me ill honestly. I have thought about it all day long and it just makes me want to cry.

[QuiltinGramma]

I went over to church earlier this afternoon and tried to find all the Dobson books about children (and any other books) in the church library and pulled them out. At Christmas when DD was here we found one of Dobson's books there that mentions him beating his dog with a belt... well, now I can't find it. Anyone remember the name? As soon as I can find it and reread portions of it, I am going to write him. I was too scared when I read it the first time, but now 32 years later, I'm not. Pray that I will remember where I put that silly little book.

Thanks.

P.S. I've never done anything with Adobe before but maybe I'll try to put the pamphlets in the Abode form because most people have it. I don't know how many would have Microsoft Publisher. I do have most of Crystal's articles in Publisher now, so if anyone who has Publisher wants any, I'll just attach the article to and e-mail and send it to you.

[Soliloquy]

Originally Posted by QuiltinGramma

Anyone remember the name?

I think it might be in The Strong Willed Child. That's a great idea. ALL authors who advocate hitting children should be awakened by this--hitting someone is NOT discipline.

[Titus2Momof4]

Originally Posted by jadensmom

Titus2Momof4: are you endorsing or defending the Pearls? I don't want to misunderstand where you are coming from, but I've read several posts you've written that seem to be defending them.

I'd also like to gently remind you of this:

The Pearls encompass other punitive ideas, I'd think we all agree

Jadensmom,

I know about that board rule , and that is why I was trying to be very careful in how I stated my last post. I know this is not the controversial forum, and is not a message board to endorse spankings and such. So, again, I was trying to be careful in how I stated things. But to answer your question... am I endorsing the Pearls? Well, if I were I wouldn't do it here LOL I know that wouldn't be well received. I do not agree with everything that they write; there are some specific things that I do not agree with. However I do not believe that they advocate 'beating' one's children, either, and certainly not killing a child. Debra mentioned that

Pearl advocates that you continue beating a child until his spirit is broken.

Do you have a reference for this Debra? I know that they are very big on tying strings, so that statement doesn't seem to blend with the tying strings, and to my knowledge Pearl doesn't recommend 'beating' a child. I honestly believe that common sense does play a big role, though I also realize that some people do not seem to have much common sense, or cannot think on their own and will apply a book's methods to a T, instead of tailoring things to their family's needs.

[Wonder Woman]

Titus2Momof4,
Thanks for taking the time to answer my question

And while I think I understand clearly now where you are coming from , you just eloquently made my point in fewer words than I've been doing

I honestly believe that common sense does play a big role, though I also realize that some people do not seem to have much common sense, or cannot think on their own and will apply a book's methods to a T, instead of tailoring things to their family's needs

If a book should be tailored to each family's needs, as opposed to being followed to a T, because following the book to a T is dangerous - then that's not a book that should be advanced in Christian circles.

I know every person takes things from various sorces and meshes them together to make an individual family plan. I certainly do

But I refuse to use as a source any book that I couldn't safely follow exactly as written, even if I choose not to, KWIM?

to my knowledge Pearl doesn't recommend 'beating' a child

It's semantics I think most mamas here would consider beating to be all those repeated 'training swats' that he advocates. One by itself isn't a beating. Repeated inflicted pain is, IMO.

Also, just imagine the outrage if Mr. Pearl advocated repeated training swats for new wives! He long ago would have been stopped because of advocating hate crimes toward women.

As far as the 'until they are broken' part - I'll have to get the book back and check. I have an AP mama friend who borrowed them to refute what her family was pushing at her But it is there...especially in stories like the car seat illustration, where you are supposed to strap them in the car seat in the *living room* just to make them learn to submit to your authority *shudder*

They do advocate tying strings - which is a great concept. I hope one day they allow God to show them that 'repeated training swats' and tripping toddlers into open water isn't the most effective method of doing that.

[cklewis]

I *know* the beating/spanking until they are "happy" or until they are "sweet" or until they are "broken" is standard fare among Tripp, Ezzo, and Dobson. So I wouldn't be surprised if others who advocate corporeal punishment, like the Pearls, are saying the same thing. That doesn't sound like it should/could be a point of contention if even Dobson is saying that and has been saying that for years.

C

[Titus2Momof4]

Originally Posted by JandSmama

Actually, this part is on the Pearl's NGJ website, in the second part of their Biblical Chastisement article -- I looked it up and printed the articles to my disk. I am not going to directly quote but they do state:

* Use a section of 1/4" plumbers supply line for spankings
* That it will fit into your purse or around your neck
* That you can buy it for $1.00 or less at Home Depot or any other store of this kind
* That you get a better deal by purchasing them by the dozen
* That they can be distributed in every room of your home and you can keep one in each of your vehicles

So no, it is not just their article, and the article was quoting what they found at NGJ, which is owned and operated by the Pearls.

I know about that article. All I was saying was that there is a difference between 1/4" flexible plumbing supply line that would fit in a purse.....and a 2 foot long *pipe*. That was not a statement to advocate either item, but there is a difference.

[Titus2Momof4]

OK well.... in re-reading the article, I admit that I do not see anywhere mentioning that a 2-ft "pipe" was used. The article states that she had several pieces of 2-ft plumbing supply lines in several rooms of her farmhouse. Just to clarify that, yes there is a big difference, but I guess I got the "pipe" from another post and not the actual article.

[Titus2Momof4]

If a book should be tailored to each family's needs, as opposed to being followed to a T, because following the book to a T is dangerous - then that's not a book that should be advanced in Christian circles.

Point taken... BUT that is not completely what I said. (not that I think you are 'twisting' my words, I'm just saying that's not totally what I meant) I didn't say that "people should use common sense because following a book to a T can be "dangerous." I just said that people ought to tailor things to their family, *just because*. For instance, in Crystal's book she suggests the 5 steps, which includes the bear hug (right? I mean I have not read her book, but I know the 5 steps is at her site). Now, I remember reading a post in this thread where a mom said that she stopped doing the bear hug because for HER child it was making things worse or something. She was not comfortable with doing that anymore, so she stopped. Now, is it because the bear hug is dangerous? No, it's just that it isn't for her family. This is an example of not following a book to a T, but tailoring it to one's own family. THAT is more what I meant--doesn't have to mean that following it to a T could be dangerous.

Swats, switches, "Licks" (I don't get that one), Knots on the head, whatever.

The hyper punitive teachers (and the Pearls are the worst I've seen,) teach that you must continue spanking until the child's will has been broken. They make some effort to distinguish the spirit from the will but they also have little (I believe pseudo) Q and A sessions in which the A to the Q "I spank and they're still disobedient" is something like, "Oh, that's because you gave up, you need to continue spanking until their will is broken."

Of course, they don't use the word, "beat," but what else is is besides a beating?

I guess we're going to debate Michael Pearl told parents to throw their kids in the pond to teach them to be afraid of water?

DB

[Joanne]

I know this is not the controversial forum, and is not a message board to endorse spankings and such.

Let's be absolutely clear. Our deeply held opinions regarding the Pearls teachings aren't because they include "spankings and such".

The presence of "tying strings" in the Pearl's advice does not mitigate that their entire approach to child rearing is adversarial, punitive and sets the stage for abuse (not spanking, abuse).

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in their writing worthwhile that can't be learned from reasonable sources.