Somethings' bothering me

[hsgbdmama]

Originally Posted by Chris3jam

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?

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?

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.

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

[RubySlippers]

Originally Posted by ServantofGod

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. 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.
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.

[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.

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.". 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. 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". 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. . . .

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. 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.

ServantofGod, I know you're not trying to defend him, as you said. 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.

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]

Originally Posted by palil

. 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.

(( 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.

[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. 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

[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]

Originally Posted by DixieKitten

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

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? I wanna try that! :applecrisp

C

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. 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..." 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? 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!!!??? "

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. 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 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. 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...

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.

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]

Originally Posted by ServantofGod

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]

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.