Somethings' bothering me

[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?

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]

Originally Posted by ServantofGod

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.

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

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.

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. I did not need to tach my child the stove was hot by delibertly sticking her hand onto a hot stove 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.

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.

Originally Posted by milkmommy

  I rember reading the fear of bees and I found it disturbing but couldn't remember exactly why.. From a fear of bees

  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??????


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



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

*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). 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. That special little girl, that doesn't even know the hell she's in, because she's been told it is love. 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.



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. 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.

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.

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.

Me, too. I can't use the past tense, though. I'm still making those mistakes.

[AprilBr]

Originally Posted by 4blessings

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.

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.