# "To Train Up a Child"...



## mystic~mama (Apr 27, 2004)

A well meaning person just gave me this book...her sister actually sent it to her from Arkansas because she told her that her new boyfriend (my dad) has a granddaughter and I guess she thought I should read it since her sisters kids behave PERFECTLY...they dont even have tantrums...only when there parents tell them too!!

With in the first few pages I felt like I was going to throw up or cry or both...has anyone else heard of this book...I believe he says this is an Amish way of training children...when he wrote about teaching the 10-12 month old to come when his/her name is called by hitting them on the leg with the switch, I just about cried! He talks about children as if they are little monsters that need there wills broken so they will obey and submit...sick!









I'm going to finish reading this book (if I can get through it) and tell the people that gave it to me exactly what I think of it!

blessings


----------



## DebraBaker (Jan 9, 2002)

There is no way to exaggerate the damage this book can do in the wrong hands. This book is the exat opposite to the gentle parenting methods advocated here at Mothering.

There is no Biblical justification for the abuse advocated in TTUAC.

Oh, by the way, the *reason* these kids are "so well behaved" is because they're so afraid of their parents they behave or the consequences for even minor misbehavior is too much to bear.

Yes, this book is as bad as you imagine.

Debra Baker


----------



## mommyofshmoo (Oct 25, 2004)

I really need to stop reading these threads about child abuse-encouraging books. Especially since I'm trying to clean up my language.

What, oh what is the future of this country? People are talking child-rearing advice from sadists who have such a loose grasp of the english language that they can't even name a book correctly.

I suddenly feel the need to head out and do a little book burning.


----------



## achintyasamma (Aug 4, 2004)

someone gave you this book







: there was a thread about it in activism a while ago and i read the first chapter online. it's amazing that it's legal to publish such a book, let alon to hit a baby. whatever you do with it, don't give it away to a used bookstore or thrift shop. just destroy it.


----------



## our veggie baby (Jan 31, 2005)

There is a wonderful quote by Thomas Jefferson that I think applies here:

"I tremble for my species when I reflect that God is just."


----------



## atomicmama (Aug 21, 2004)

BURN IT!!!!!


----------



## hallesmom (Oct 27, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *atomicmama*
BURN IT!!!!!











Definatly! and don't give it back to those people!!







: that is horrible!!


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

I've read that too. That book is horrible, absolutely horrible. Note that they have a section on their website about dealing with Child Protective Services. I wonder why?


----------



## mystic~mama (Apr 27, 2004)

My df gf was telling me about the way her sister's children behave so wonderfully and they are so happy, this was the second or third time I met her she also told me about the switch and how they only gently tapped them with it...sure...something sounded wrong to me about all that right when she started to tell me about it...in fact, something has been telling me ever since I got to know her a bit that my Dad has no idea what he has gotten himself into...but thats a whole other issue...at first I thought I would return the book out of respect but after reading what I did, that book is going to *BURN*!!!!

thx mamas


----------



## Evan&Anna's_Mom (Jun 12, 2003)

For those who haven't encountered this before... This is the Pearls at their worst. They have a whole website of this ... garbage... and it is utterly poisen. You are right, their premise is that children are, at birth, utterly displeasing to God and must be broken to obey parents and God with unquestioning and instant obediance. They base their arguements on some very twisted readings of scriptures and claim their way is the only way to raise children and be Christian. For those of us in the GD world, this is about as sickening as it gets.

THIS IS NOT THE WAY ALL CHRISTIANS THINK!!!! Please, this stuff always starts a backlash against all of us who call ourselves Christians. Really, these people are not the norm and the vast majority of Christians do not believe or act this way.


----------



## mystic~mama (Apr 27, 2004)

I still have the book...I'm actually not sure whether she is just loaning me the book or if she actually gave it to me...she didnt really say. My dad has asked me not to burn it because of this...he also said he is Done with the woman!


----------



## Marsupialmom (Sep 28, 2003)

I would ask your df to read the book and then read one by Dr. Sears.


----------



## mommyofshmoo (Oct 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Evan&Anna's_Mom*

THIS IS NOT THE WAY ALL CHRISTIANS THINK!!!! Please, this stuff always starts a backlash against all of us who call ourselves Christians. Really, these people are not the norm and the vast majority of Christians do not believe or act this way.

I think we all know it's not.

I've been known to go off on "Christians" when I hear about extremists, and when "releigious groups" attack things that are important to me.

I know that most religious people are not like this, though.

A good friend of mine knows a lot about sociology and told me, when we were discussing issues such as this book, that the USA experiences a puritan revival/backlash every 50 years or so. (Placing the last one in the early 1950's.) He beleives we're at the tip of the iceberg. The horror!

I was a kid in the Free-to-be-You-and-Me seventies and came of age during the Clinton era. Sometimes I wonder what the heck country I've found myself living in!


----------



## DebraBaker (Jan 9, 2002)

If we feel this bad about that book just imagine how Jesus feels








With all that done in HIs Name. If I was the Pearls I'd want to







: and







: Because I







and can find no place where it says we're to hit our kids in the







But Jesus told us to







our children and He is called the Prince of







and I can only imagine He's














and perhaps even uke

I will














:





















:







and verbally







: these people at every opportunity.

DB


----------



## warriorprincess (Nov 19, 2001)

This infuriates me too. Especially that some parents may read it and actually think God wants them to do this.......









I once was given copies of the Ezzo books, anmd we had fun burning them.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)




----------



## luv my 2 sweeties (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:

their premise is that children are, at birth, utterly displeasing to God and must be broken to obey parents and God with unquestioning and instant obediance. They base their arguements on some very twisted readings of scriptures and claim their way is the only way to raise children and be Christian.
Since "Christians" are so named because we try to be like Christ, I believe Jesus's own words are sufficient to show how wrong and un-Christian the Pearls' ideas are:

"Permit the children to come to me and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truely I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it at all." --Jesus (Luke 18:17)

Doesn't sound like they were "utterly displeasing" to him. Quite the opposite. I'm sure the Pearls twist this verse and many others to justify their sick and abusive methods. It makes me ill and sad and angry all at the same time. I imagine they must have pretty low opinions of themselves as well, if they see their relationship to God as analagous to the parent-child relationship they espouse. Sorry -- getting off into theology a bit. Can't help myself when it comes to stuff like this.


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

I know you'll probably kill me for this...

My parents LOVE the Pearls, and are raising my sisters (unborn to 10 yrs) using these methods. I've read the book, and while I agree that it could be very dangerous in some hands, as a PP said, I think that I've seen only good things come of it with my sisters. I can say this only b/c I see my parents' methods, and know that they are loving and never discipline in anger.

Also, I like the creative parenting ideas in there for the actual training (as opposed to disciplining), such as having quarreling siblings stand nose-to-nose for 5 minutes, b/c by the end they are giggling and enjoying each other. Or, to teach a kid to close the door when coming inside, have him do it 10 times in a row, as a game, so he'll never forget it. Make it fun.

Anyways, I know that it's been ok for my family, and that my sisters adore my parents, are not afraid of them at all, and the whole family is really joyful. I can also say that I thoroughly enjoyed bringing all 5 girls to the zoo by myself. They were easier and more fun than the 1 girl I nanny for. Oh, and also, they rarely, if ever, need to be disciplined. I think they are disciplined maybe once a year, if that.

Anyways, sorry about going off. While I understand where everyone here is coming from, and I know this forum is for GD, I just wanted to put in my experience with TTUAC/Pearls. And to let you know that you are right, not all Christians believe this stuff, but also that not all that do subscribe to the Pearls' theology are abusers.

Just to clarify: I am not, by any means, trying to convince anyone to change their GD methods.


----------



## meco (Mar 1, 2004)

please destroy it after you are done.

It is pure crap uke


----------



## meco (Mar 1, 2004)

Kateana,

No disrepect but maybe you could offer other suggestions to them. I cannot believe people actually follow it.

And as for making learning fun, why not read "Playful Parenting" or some other great book. No one needs to reasd a book by the baby whipping Pearls to learn this stuff.


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Oh! Shoot! I forgot to even address the theology thing. I feel like a jerk even going into this here, b/c it's not the place for it, but since I didn't bring it up, maybe it's ok?

I believe what the Pearls were saying was not that children are inherently bad, or displeasing to God. Mankind was created in perfect communion with God, but Adam and Eve disobeyed, and now we are all in need of reconciliation. (I don't pretend to know or understand the whole explanation for how sin was transfered from Adam to us, but that's what the Bible says, and therefore the Pearls.) They say that until a child is able to make that reconciliation themselves, parents are responsible for being their conscience. It seems logical enough: we can't expect kids to do what is right naturally, on their own, until they have been taught how and why. (If you really need an example: candy.)

One last thing, and this is more my opinion than me trying to rephrase the Pearls for you: I think that for me, as a Christian, it would be best to parent in a way that mirrors God's relationship to us, so that one day my child will desire a relationship with his heavenly Father. What I have experienced in life so far is that sometimes the consequences for my actions (disobedience to God) are painful. I wouldn't want a toddler to have to learn this by getting hit by a car b/c he won't listen to "NO", but rather by a flick (thumb and middle finger) on the hand in the living room while learning not to use the phone, for example. I just think it's important for kids to learn that there are rules that we sometimes don't understand, but they are there for a reason. And that's just me, and thank you again for listening.


----------



## mommyofshmoo (Oct 25, 2004)

I come from a perspective of science, but I think the reason children need "guidance" is because children's first and most important need is to learn.

I think G-d made children so inquisitive so that the human race would survive, rather than be eaten by animals. For those who haven't noticed, the ONLY thing we have going for us from an evolutionary standpoint is that we are really, really, really smart compared to other animals. (And by smart, I mean able to solve new problems.)

So the reason I object to flicking a child's wrist to stop them from touching the phone (not dangerous by the way) is that studies have shown that kids who have their hands slapped gentle to teach them to stay away from objects decrease their reaching for and touching ALL objects. Well, touching things is how we learn- so you're basically discouraging learning so that you don't have to put the phone higher up away from the kids.

My child has never been hit by a car and has a healthy fear of the road even though I've never hit her. This is a big issue for me because I've seen a toddler run over.

I think it's quite possible to teach and guide a child without hitting them. Maybe not if your goal is unquestioning obedience, but I wouldn't want my child to be unquestioningly obedient to authority figures anyway. As for her obedience to G-d? I beleive G-d is in her heart and if she follows her heart she'll make the right decisions.

Maybe this is why I can't be part of this conversation usually. I don't beleive in the idea of stewardship- that those with power and control need to expect unblinking obedience from the powerless. I don't beleive that those with power have the right to hit those without it.

But that's just me. I'm not terribly religious, if the pope himself tried to slap my child, I'd kick his butt.


----------



## mommyofshmoo (Oct 25, 2004)

By the way- I think hitting people is wrong, heck even hitting animals is wrong. Just becauise children have no rights does not make it OK for me to hit them.


----------



## julesinottawa (Apr 4, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phathui5*
I've read that too. That book is horrible, absolutely horrible. Note that they have a section on their website about dealing with Child Protective Services. I wonder why?


This might be a trivial point but there is a whole association dedicated to dealing with the defence of homeschoolers...so the fact that they give you tools for dealing with CPS doesn't automatically make them bad (IMO they are still monsters). It seems that any way of thinking, good *OR* bad, off the beaten track has the potential to get you in trouble with government agencies.


----------



## NYCVeg (Jan 31, 2005)

I just read part of the first chapter of this book online--I couldn't get through the whole thing. Hitting a TEN-MONTH-OLD with a switch for not coming when called (umm...can these 10-month-olds even walk)? Pulling a baby's hair if it accidentally bites while nursing? Calling infants problematically "self-centered"?!?

*shudder*


----------



## dido1 (Aug 12, 2004)

Why oh why do people think this is okay? It makes me sick.

Now, I'm not a christian but it seems to me that Adam and Eve committed sin as ADULTS. So why should innocent children suffer for it? That's sort of like visiting the sins of the father on the son. Rather pointless.

The poster who is advocating this method of parenting really bugs me. I just had to have the conversation with my MIL that "flicking" is not okay, since she just suggested that I do this to my son, who is biting a lot right now. How in the H-E-double hockey sticks is flicking my 9 mo old's cheek going to teach him not to bite? It's just going to teach him that mommy hurts him.

Hitting, HAIR PULLING (that just makes me ill), flicking, etc, is NOT OKAY.

I wish I had the link to an article I read by a Christian mother who followed Ezzo's "Growing Children God's Way" or what ever the heck it's called, with her first child and then came to realize that she had created a fearful, vengeful child who thought hurting his baby sister was okay. It was a great article and really highlighted the problems "flicking" as discipline created in her home.

Thank God some of us are raising children non-violently. It gives me hope for the world.


----------



## LizD (Feb 22, 2002)

nak

Free To Be...is available on amazon, btw---perhaps everyone should buy it to prepare for the worst of this backlash (ita about that too).


----------



## Dechen (Apr 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kateana*
I wouldn't want a toddler to have to learn this by getting hit by a car b/c he won't listen to "NO", but rather by a flick (thumb and middle finger) on the hand in the living room while learning not to use the phone, for example. I just think it's important for kids to learn that there are rules that we sometimes don't understand, but they are there for a reason. And that's just me, and thank you again for listening.









With all respect, I am not interested to hear that you think flicking a child in punishment is okay. Really, I'm not!


----------



## mommyofshmoo (Oct 25, 2004)

Original Sin- it's been used to justify so much cruelty throughout the ages. I think my child is born innocent and why should I be so arrogant as to think I understand G-d better than she does?

My dad is a lawyer and for the past few years has been developing expertise in biblical law and it's interpretation in modern business law- so I hear all about passages and what various professors he works withthink about them. It's really amazing how easy it is to misinterpret the bible if you don't know the historical context. At the very least, it may be said that learning the historical context lends itself to a more complex and different interpretation than we might take if we read it today.

That said, I am always suprised people even try to justify their actions using biblical passages. The bible also mentions having several wives, keeping slaves, and lots of rules that can only be truly understood by looking at the various translations, their meaning, the historical context, etc.

Maybe I'll pick my dad's brain somtimes about some of the passages that talk about children.


----------



## DebraBaker (Jan 9, 2002)

If my siblings were being subjected to the Pearls' teaching I would be actively working on getting them removed from their home and into my protective care.

There is nothing you can say in defense of this teaching.

I don't give a rat's ass whether the children are turning out ok. How do you measure ok? They are pleasent? Do they have a choice???

In fact the first thing I noticed about this teaching is they advocate you *provoke* an altercation of wills between the parent and toddler if no event takes place during the course of the day. They actually teach parents to set up an event that will end up with the child ignoring the voice of the parent, be beaten, and finally pass the artificially induced test of wills (if you read the book it is in there!!!!)

This defies the Scriptural injunction against parents provoking their children.

In other words, they disobey Scripture to acheive their ung-dly ends.

If someone is following the advice found in the Pearls' books they are violating civil law and could have their children removed from their homes. I am no fan of cps but this is one case where they are needed. If my sisters or brothers (or even grandchildren) were being treated to the abuse the Pearls advocate I would be in sin if I didn't intervene.

Sorry for the strong words but I sincerely believe they are warrented.

Debra Baker


----------



## our veggie baby (Jan 31, 2005)

I completely agree...coming from a Christian, it is completely NOT imo how God intended children to be guided, taught, etc...people will L O V E to throw scripture aorund, usually out of context, OLD testament text that has nothing to do with Jesus Christ (isn't he the one CHRISTians are meant to be following anyway?)...then smugly sit back and use their alleged "Godliness" to justify sadistic acts such as hitting a defenseless child.

It absolutely sickens me. I was hit as a child, not severely "abused" but hit, and hit a lot nonetheless. I still love my parents and am close with my Mother, but boy did I have A L O T of resentment until pretty recently (I am 27)....I have control issues (as in, NO ONE can "control" me even if it is only my warped perception)...I had discipline issues as a teenager, trust issues, etc and the like....

I hate, absolutely H A T E when people make statements like "I was hit (or hit my kids) and they turned out fine"...please tell me what the H*LL fine means???? There are people who survived Nazi concentration camps who are "fine"....there are women who have been brutally raped who are "fine"...there are children who are severely beat and tortured who turn out "fine....there are people who see their whole families murdered in places like Sudan who turn out "fine".....
Of course all of these people probably have deep seeded emotional issues that will last a lifetime and everything that goes along with it, but they are "fine" in terms of most of them can hold jobs, obey the law, have friends, carry on with their lives the best they can...but are they "fine"?

Please don't mistake me, I am in no way comparing myself to a concentration camp victim or anything of the like, I am merely saying, these people who claim they were hit or that they hit their kids and their kids turn out "fine"...you really don't have any idea of that do you? Just because they aren't robbing 7-11s or whatever doesn't mean they are fine. I know I wasn't "fine" for a long time, even though all outward appearances would seem that I was.

Anyway, people who advocate hitting of any kind on a child to me have a sadistic, controlling side and it is hard for me to be close to them in any capacity. That may sound harsh, as I do believe many parents who "spank" are decent people who love their children and want to do the best by them...but we all kow the road to hell is paved with good intentions isn't it?

I have a bumper sticker I love. It simply says: The Christian right is neither.

Live your life how JESUS CHRIST (Christ being the root word of Christian after all) wanted us to live if you claim to be so Christian. That is what I try to do, I am by no means perfect, but I do know enough to know Jesus never slapped anyone around.


----------



## PurplePixiePooh (Aug 5, 2003)

Just to clarify one small thing...the Pearl's methods are not how the Amish train children - it is how they train *horses*. Ther eis one example of an Amish father and his son on his lap, but this is still different than what the Pearls advocate. Don't want to give the Amish a bad name


----------



## mommyofshmoo (Oct 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PurplePixiePooh*
Just to clarify one small thing...the Pearl's methods are not how the Amish train children - it is how they train *horses*. Ther eis one example of an Amish father and his son on his lap, but this is still different than what the Pearls advocate. Don't want to give the Amish a bad name









Really, how do you know that? (Interested, not accusing.)


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

First of all, I want to say that I am sorry, but I don't know how to reply to more than one post at a time using the "quote" thingie...









Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommyofshmoo*
I come from a perspective of science, but I think the reason children need "guidance" is because children's first and most important need is to learn.

I think G-d made children so inquisitive so that the human race would survive, rather than be eaten by animals. For those who haven't noticed, the ONLY thing we have going for us from an evolutionary standpoint is that we are really, really, really smart compared to other animals. (And by smart, I mean able to solve new problems.)

So the reason I object to flicking a child's wrist to stop them from touching the phone (not dangerous by the way) is that studies have shown that kids who have their hands slapped gentle to teach them to stay away from objects decrease their reaching for and touching ALL objects. Well, touching things is how we learn- so you're basically discouraging learning so that you don't have to put the phone higher up away from the kids.

My child has never been hit by a car and has a healthy fear of the road even though I've never hit her. This is a big issue for me because I've seen a toddler run over.

I think it's quite possible to teach and guide a child without hitting them. Maybe not if your goal is unquestioning obedience, but I wouldn't want my child to be unquestioningly obedient to authority figures anyway. As for her obedience to G-d? I beleive G-d is in her heart and if she follows her heart she'll make the right decisions.

Maybe this is why I can't be part of this conversation usually. I don't beleive in the idea of stewardship- that those with power and control need to expect unblinking obedience from the powerless. I don't beleive that those with power have the right to hit those without it.

But that's just me. I'm not terribly religious, if the pope himself tried to slap my child, I'd kick his butt.

I understand what you are saying re: science, and evolution, etc., but you can probably guess that I don't come from that POV.







But by "smart", I would mean given the ability to choose.

The phone not being dangerous is the whole point. If a child will listen to you on small things, you can trust them to listen with big things. I would be interested in seeing the studies you are talking about. In my experience, kids will learn that the only reason they can't touch something is b/c it's out of reach (using that method). Personally, that would make me try harder to reach something. Or, at least, that is what I'd like to teach my kids: if something seems hard, try harder. (BTW, I am really not trying to argue or convince anyone here, I'm just trying to sort this out, and I'm hoping you'll help me.)

I am glad your DC has a healthy fear of the road (and I am sorry for your experience), but how and when did the healthy fear happen? Did you have a discussion with her or was this before she was able to understand...? Maybe the road thing was a bad example, b/c I am sure I would never leave my DC anywhere near the road...









I would also not want my DC to unquestioningly obey any person, ever. However, I do want to teach my DC to obey God unquestioningly. As Creator, I believe that He knows what's best for us, always.

I am definitely up for looking for other ways to teach this to my DC without flicking or spanking, which is why I am here. I thank you for being nice while giving me your POV.

I'm with you on the Pope. It makes me cringe (but not offended) when people automatically think I am Catholic b/c I am "religious". Yuck.







Also, if ANYone came near my DC to discipline him/her, I would freak out on them.


----------



## DebraBaker (Jan 9, 2002)

But when parents force their children to obey them immediately and unconditionally they are ascribing for themselves the place that should only be reserved for G-d.

If a child is in such a family and he sees his parents and, as he grows up, notices that the parents are not perfect and did not deserve that unconditional obedience they may start to doubt G=d as well.

Children are apprentices, they are learning.

Also, the scriptures tell children to obey their parents but nowhere does it tell parents to force their children to obey. The companion verse to the parents is to not provoke your children (the very one the Pearls are not obeying in their teachings.)

Debra Baker


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dido1*
Why oh why do people think this is okay? It makes me sick.

Now, I'm not a christian but it seems to me that Adam and Eve committed sin as ADULTS. So why should innocent children suffer for it? That's sort of like visiting the sins of the father on the son. Rather pointless.

The poster who is advocating this method of parenting really bugs me. I just had to have the conversation with my MIL that "flicking" is not okay, since she just suggested that I do this to my son, who is biting a lot right now. How in the H-E-double hockey sticks is flicking my 9 mo old's cheek going to teach him not to bite? It's just going to teach him that mommy hurts him.

Hitting, HAIR PULLING (that just makes me ill), flicking, etc, is NOT OKAY.

I wish I had the link to an article I read by a Christian mother who followed Ezzo's "Growing Children God's Way" or what ever the heck it's called, with her first child and then came to realize that she had created a fearful, vengeful child who thought hurting his baby sister was okay. It was a great article and really highlighted the problems "flicking" as discipline created in her home.

Thank God some of us are raising children non-violently. It gives me hope for the world.

Adam and Eve sinned as adults, b/c they were created as adults. The thing about sins visiting the sons (or as the Bible says, second and third generations) is something I struggle to understand. I don't understand the Why of it, but I am starting to understand the How, especially when I hear "It runs in my family" with obesity, or addiction, or whatever. It seems that even though we don't understand it, it happens around us all the time. Maybe it was God's way of telling us that these things are genetic, but since the people in Bible times didn't have the science to back it up, He just told them "Hey, don't do ____, or it will be visited on your children's children." That's my theory, anyway...

I'm sorry I bug you.







It bugs me that you get so bent out of shape about me coming here to ask questions or offer my POV.

Thank God there are some people here with the patience to help me work through this...


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dechen*
With all respect, I am not interested to hear that you think flicking a child in punishment is okay. Really, I'm not!

Then kindly pass over my posts.


----------



## Prajnamommy (Feb 2, 2005)

I feel like I have been hiding under a rock!! When I saw this thread and started to read the first post I thought ....Did somebody dig a book up from a several decades ago? ...but sadly it is not what I thought. I have to say the last few months for me have been eye openers..I really thought hitting (spanking, tapping whatever) your children was a thing of the past...On another parenting forum I was on someone wrote in to explain how to do it properly..Huh? I thought most people would find this shocking but no for the most part there were a lot of pro spankers....And they also said that it is all us non-spankers that have created teens who go and shoot up classrooms etc...I could hardly believe it and I did have to let them know that I was never spanked AND I never even thought about shooting up any classrooms!! I really thought this was rare and an unpopular sort of thing. I have worked in childcare for the last fifteen years and most spanking incidents I found were isolated incidents where the parent felt that nothing else was working at this point. I should say I have worked in programs that were for children who were considered environmentally at risk so yes I knew of spankings/ beatings and all sorts of violence in those homes.

Also the poster who told us how to spank our kids said she was a Christian and this is how children should be brought up...WHAT?!! I am not a Christian but I think the most effective way to follow that path would be to ask yourself, "What would Jesus do?" Seriously could you see Jesus hitting little children???


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommyofshmoo*
Original Sin- it's been used to justify so much cruelty throughout the ages. I think my child is born innocent and why should I be so arrogant as to think I understand G-d better than she does?

My dad is a lawyer and for the past few years has been developing expertise in biblical law and it's interpretation in modern business law- so I hear all about passages and what various professors he works withthink about them. It's really amazing how easy it is to misinterpret the bible if you don't know the historical context. At the very least, it may be said that learning the historical context lends itself to a more complex and different interpretation than we might take if we read it today.

That said, I am always suprised people even try to justify their actions using biblical passages. The bible also mentions having several wives, keeping slaves, and lots of rules that can only be truly understood by looking at the various translations, their meaning, the historical context, etc.

Maybe I'll pick my dad's brain somtimes about some of the passages that talk about children.

I agree with you on the justification issue. It's also sad to me that religion itself has been, and still is so misused. I guess that's what we get when humans get involved.









I also agree with you on the Historical context. I am all for digging deeper to find the intended meaning, rather than the apparent meaning. If your father finds anything on this I would be interested. My first reaction, though is to think that the subject of children is not cultural or contextual, b/c every culture in history has them.







But that is my first reaction, I would love to know what your father finds...


----------



## our veggie baby (Jan 31, 2005)

Personally, blind compliance is a VERY dangerous thing to teach a child imo...if they blindly obey you, what stops them from blindly obeying anyone else?

There is no way to prove this of course, but it would be my educated guess that more children get abducted, abused (and don't tell), hurt, peer pressured into drugs, sex, whatever else as teens---who are taught to be "polite" and blindly obey every adult, than children who learn a healthy sense of questioning and skepticism about things---which is learned (imo) when you teach your children to "behave" by example and effective, positive discipline rather than an "obey or else" type situation...

I dunno, I am all about teaching by example...if a child can recite the whole freaking Dora show line by line, SURELY you can agree they are watching us like hawks and wanting to imitate what we do...so if you live your life in a Christian manner, etc, most often children will follow suit (or attempt to, that is where guidence comes in)--I think probably 90% of issues could be avoided by ditching the whole "do as I say, not as I do" attitude that many parents seem to have regarding their children.

Someone brought up the "making children stand nose to nose for 5 minutes when they are fighting"---what kind of ludicrous crap is that?? The pearls are really nutters imo---how the HECK would that EVER fly in the real world?---and, our goal as parents (among others) is to prepare our children for the world isn't it?....See, I would consider that in reality when you are arguing with someone or you are mad at them, no way is ANYONE going to make you stand nose to nose, or even talk to eachother, or anything, so I would modify my parenting skills more toward that---firstly teaching my child that you CAN and SHOULD remove yourself from a situation where someone is hurting you or your feelings...secondly, I would validate everyone's feelings and *attempt* and *guide* them towards resolution, which more often than not happens---but this nose to nose crap is only a fraction of what gets me about people like the Pearls...could you see your boss doing that if you and a co-worker disagreed??

Obviously, children have not mastered adult-like behavior, that is where the guidence and teaching and gentle discipline comes in etc, but to me, implementing foolish, harmful, ridiculous "techniques" like flicking, spanking, nose to nose, standing in a corner, stuff that in an adult world would NEVER fly...is not preparing them in any way for the eventuality that they are going to face, which is leaving your home and going into the world...


----------



## monkey's mom (Jul 25, 2003)

It is against the rules of this board to advocate physically punishing children. No one should have to avoid reading that here--it is not allowed to be here. Please check the forum guidelines if you have question about this.

Please continue to pose GD questions, though! Lots of very wise mamas here!

Thanks.


----------



## Prajnamommy (Feb 2, 2005)

Kateana,
When I mentioned the other poster in my above post I did not mean you, it was another forum. I am glad you are posting I don't think shutting down communication is a good way to problem solve and I like that you are open to hearing a view that is different than your own


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Well, what the heck- I'm in!

First of all, you cannot sanctify your children. You cannot beat the sin out of them, lecture the sin out of them, flick the sin out of them, or even love the sin out of them. They are who they are, and it's not a parents job to change that.

Second, how does God parent us? He does not beat us up until we agree to do what he says- that choice is always left to us. There are consequences if we choose wrong things, the ultimate consequence being hell, I suppose, but the choosing is always up to us. He does not force us to obey him.

Third, God has never commanded that we obey him unquestioningly. What did Mary say when the angel appeared to her? She wanted an explanation! How can this be, since I have not known man. God explains. God gives second chances. God forgives. God does not set us up to fail and then smack us when we do. God does not do this:

Quote:

Place an appealing object where they can reach it, maybe in a "No-no" corner or on an apple juice table (That's where the coffee table once sat). When they spy it and make a dive for it, in a calm voice say, "No, don't touch it." They will already be familiar with the "No," so they will pause, look at you in wonder and then turn around and grab it. Switch their hand once and simultaneously say, "No." Remember, you are not disciplining, you are training. One spat with a little switch is enough
As for this:

Quote:

Mankind was created in perfect communion with God, but Adam and Eve disobeyed, and now we are all in need of reconciliation. (I don't pretend to know or understand the whole explanation for how sin was transfered from Adam to us, but that's what the Bible says, and therefore the Pearls.) They say that until a child is able to make that reconciliation themselves, parents are responsible for being their conscience. It seems logical enough: we can't expect kids to do what is right naturally, on their own, until they have been taught how and why. (If you really need an example: candy.)
it's a load of tripe. There is only one person who can reconcile us to God, and that is Jesus Christ. Show me in Scripture where it says a parent is a child's conscience. You can't because it's not there.

The Pearls compare children to dogs.
They compare them to horses.
They compare them to mules.

The Pearls are not sharing the gospel according to Christ, they are preaching the gosepl of BF Skinner.

Kateana, welcome to Mothering.com. I hope you find here what you are looking for. However, you will not go far if you insist on defending the Pearls.


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DebraBaker*
If my siblings were being subjected to the Pearls' teaching I would be actively working on getting them removed from their home and into my protective care.

There is nothing you can say in defense of this teaching.

I don't give a rat's ass whether the children are turning out ok. How do you measure ok? They are pleasent? Do they have a choice???

In fact the first thing I noticed about this teaching is they advocate you *provoke* an altercation of wills between the parent and toddler if no event takes place during the course of the day. They actually teach parents to set up an event that will end up with the child ignoring the voice of the parent, be beaten, and finally pass the artificially induced test of wills (if you read the book it is in there!!!!)

This defies the Scriptural injunction against parents provoking their children.

In other words, they disobey Scripture to acheive their ung-dly ends.

If someone is following the advice found in the Pearls' books they are violating civil law and could have their children removed from their homes. I am no fan of cps but this is one case where they are needed. If my sisters or brothers (or even grandchildren) were being treated to the abuse the Pearls advocate I would be in sin if I didn't intervene.

Sorry for the strong words but I sincerely believe they are warrented.

Debra Baker

Yes, my sisters have plenty of options when it comes to displaying their feelings. If they didn't, I would be concerned. Like I have said, the Pearls' teaching CAN be dangerous in some hands, but not necessarily in all hands.

The Bible says to not provoke your children unto anger. I suppose if the Pearls' "training sessions" made the children angry, that would be true. Regardless, I agree with you about provokation, b/c kids present plenty of opportunity for "training" without it.

While there is probably nothing I can say to you in defense of this teaching, there is still plenty to say. I don't expect us to agree completely, but I thank you for taking the time to let me know what you think.

One thing I realized while reading other posts last night... my sisters get spanked less often than a lot of kids who are "accidentally" spanked by their parents on this board. And it seems that if a parent who is committed to never spanking, spanks... it would be out of anger, and out of control. Which really saddens me, and would also make me want to call CPS on them. So I guess that puts us somewhere on the same page...


----------



## mommyofshmoo (Oct 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kateana*
First of all, I want to say that I am sorry, but I don't know how to reply to more than one post at a time using the "quote" thingie...









I understand what you are saying re: science, and evolution, etc., but you can probably guess that I don't come from that POV.







But by "smart", I would mean given the ability to choose.

The phone not being dangerous is the whole point. If a child will listen to you on small things, you can trust them to listen with big things. I would be interested in seeing the studies you are talking about. In my experience, kids will learn that the only reason they can't touch something is b/c it's out of reach (using that method). Personally, that would make me try harder to reach something. Or, at least, that is what I'd like to teach my kids: if something seems hard, try harder. (BTW, I am really not trying to argue or convince anyone here, I'm just trying to sort this out, and I'm hoping you'll help me.)

I am glad your DC has a healthy fear of the road (and I am sorry for your experience), but how and when did the healthy fear happen? Did you have a discussion with her or was this before she was able to understand...? Maybe the road thing was a bad example, b/c I am sure I would never leave my DC anywhere near the road...









I would also not want my DC to unquestioningly obey any person, ever. However, I do want to teach my DC to obey God unquestioningly. As Creator, I believe that He knows what's best for us, always.

I am definitely up for looking for other ways to teach this to my DC without flicking or spanking, which is why I am here. I thank you for being nice while giving me your POV.

I'm with you on the Pope. It makes me cringe (but not offended) when people automatically think I am Catholic b/c I am "religious". Yuck.







Also, if ANYone came near my DC to discipline him/her, I would freak out on them.

I forgot to mention that I am catholic- so the pope is a real example for me. I was just meaning to illustrate that I don't beleive any religious authority figure has my child's interest at heart more than I do. (BTW- catholics are not bad people, and there are all kinds of catholics- most of whom don't carry around incense, drink whisky and clutch rosaries all day like they do in the movies.)

As for the car thing- I did the method advocated by the Sears' in that I made a BIG deal about the road and would make a sharp sound when dd looked like she was heading that way- a sound that let her know I was scared.

Granted, during the trying twos dd once or twice chose to stand in the road just to "get my goat"- ie knowing it was "wrong" but wanting to see what I'd do. In those instances I just picked her up and dragged her out of the road. I don't take her defiance personally or make a big deal out of it. When it comes up it's usually a phase and if I keep a steady course in what I allow and don't, it generally blows over. I figured "some days she needs my help to make the right decisions." As she is getting closer to three the "No!" is replaced more and more with "Sure mom."

When I meant- put it out of reach, I meant "out of sight." Sorry for the confusion.

Anyway- I generally don't like to argue religious points, because I'm not religious in the fundamentalist or evangelical sense. I just think that hitting children is the last vestige of the type of hierarchy that allows hitting servants and wives. I know my husband wouldn't THINK of hitting me- and I think that children deserve the same rights and respect as other people.

and besides- it's not OK to hit people.


----------



## monkey's mom (Jul 25, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kateana*
Like I have said, the Pearls' teaching CAN be dangerous in some hands, but not necessarily in all hands.

These people are advocating hitting babies under the age of one year old with a whip. How in the name of all that is holy is that not 100% dangerous advice??

I'm sure there's some stuff in the neo-nazi literature that could be OK too, but given the OVERALL SCOPE of their message, I certainly wouldn't defend or advocate their teachings or actions.


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *our veggie baby*
I completely agree...coming from a Christian, it is completely NOT imo how God intended children to be guided, taught, etc...people will L O V E to throw scripture aorund, usually out of context, OLD testament text that has nothing to do with Jesus Christ (isn't he the one CHRISTians are meant to be following anyway?)...then smugly sit back and use their alleged "Godliness" to justify sadistic acts such as hitting a defenseless child.

It absolutely sickens me. I was hit as a child, not severely "abused" but hit, and hit a lot nonetheless. I still love my parents and am close with my Mother, but boy did I have A L O T of resentment until pretty recently (I am 27)....I have control issues (as in, NO ONE can "control" me even if it is only my warped perception)...I had discipline issues as a teenager, trust issues, etc and the like....

I hate, absolutely H A T E when people make statements like "I was hit (or hit my kids) and they turned out fine"...please tell me what the H*LL fine means???? There are people who survived Nazi concentration camps who are "fine"....there are women who have been brutally raped who are "fine"...there are children who are severely beat and tortured who turn out "fine....there are people who see their whole families murdered in places like Sudan who turn out "fine".....
Of course all of these people probably have deep seeded emotional issues that will last a lifetime and everything that goes along with it, but they are "fine" in terms of most of them can hold jobs, obey the law, have friends, carry on with their lives the best they can...but are they "fine"?

Please don't mistake me, I am in no way comparing myself to a concentration camp victim or anything of the like, I am merely saying, these people who claim they were hit or that they hit their kids and their kids turn out "fine"...you really don't have any idea of that do you? Just because they aren't robbing 7-11s or whatever doesn't mean they are fine. I know I wasn't "fine" for a long time, even though all outward appearances would seem that I was.

Anyway, people who advocate hitting of any kind on a child to me have a sadistic, controlling side and it is hard for me to be close to them in any capacity. That may sound harsh, as I do believe many parents who "spank" are decent people who love their children and want to do the best by them...but we all kow the road to hell is paved with good intentions isn't it?

I have a bumper sticker I love. It simply says: The Christian right is neither.

Live your life how JESUS CHRIST (Christ being the root word of Christian after all) wanted us to live if you claim to be so Christian. That is what I try to do, I am by no means perfect, but I do know enough to know Jesus never slapped anyone around.

I absolutely agree that to be a Christian literally means to be Christ-like. However, Jesus Himself said that he came to fulfill the Law, not that the OT was now useless. So I guess I would like to reconcile how Jesus would treat children (you are right about not slapping anyone around!), with other passages.

I think it's fair to say that there are a lot of "fine" and "not fine" kids in both the GD and spanking camps. It seems to me that spanking may not be the difference between "fine and not fine."

I also try to live as Christ did, and would want me to today, which is why I am here trying to figure this out.

One of my favorite bumper stickers is: Lord, protect me from your followers. It is so sad and true.


----------



## our veggie baby (Jan 31, 2005)

I completely agree. I am happy that you are seeking out other ways to discipline and hopefully you will learn a lot of alternative, more effective (imo) ways to do that here, however, the previous poster is right about the Pearls. I wouldn't even treat my dog the way they advocate treating children. I don't believe you "train" a child, so that is their first mistake. You guide a child, teach a child, protect a child, love a child--training is more for animals and don't even get me started on that either as I am a staunch animal rights activist







yet I digress...

See, the first step in my humble opinion, is seeing children as people. It is funny to me actually (in a sad way) that we finally for the most part, see African Americans as people instead of animals who needed to be controlled, whipped, owned etc...we finally (for the most part) see women as people who have the right to exsist, to have a voice, to have a right to an opinion--where as recent as 100 years ago that wasn't the case....one of the last frontiers is seeing children as actual people and not as property or as little sinful troublemakers who are trying to make our lives difficult. To actually see them as little people who want all the same things we do--love, understanding, guidence, a voice, an opinion, an important place to belong...and DESERVE the same things we do--not to be yelled at or hit, or shamed, or to be controlled like some second class citizens...

Yes, we do have a greater responsibility as their parents to guide them, lead them, gently steer them towards being compassionate, productive, well adjusted, happy people...but please do tell me how we are to achieve that by acting in manners which are punishing, unproductive, unhealthy, shaming, controlling...it just doesn't make sense.
Yes, there is the option of instilling fear in your children, which to me is not a viable one for several reasons. One being that it is unhealthy emotionally and can damage them far into adulthood. Two being that one day they won't be scared of you and that is where ALL of the pent up resentment and anger and hurt comes out....among several other things.

We teach our children "treat others as you would like to be treated" and yet many of us do exactly the opposite!!! I mean, as an adult, the hypocritical "do as I say not as I do" attitude bugs the @#$#@ out of me....and it doesn't fly with children either...they can smell it from a mile away and in one way or another will call you on it (rightfully so)...

I am not saying let your child go completely wild and run the whole house, which is a lot of people's fear when they are not familiar with gentle discipline etc, but you have to come from a place first of all where you know and believe that children AREN'T inherently evil, that 99% of the time, the WANT to please you, WANT to make you happy, WANT to do well...and that is your starting point to guiding them and teaching them....taking every oppurtunity to teach and to learn...

To me the only thing "techniques" like spanking and the like teach is that mommy and daddy hurt you when you are not acting "right"...


----------



## mommyofshmoo (Oct 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
Well, what the heck- I'm in!
The Pearls compare children to dogs.
They compare them to horses.
They compare them to mules.

The Pearls are not sharing the gospel according to Christ, they are preaching the gosepl of BF Skinner.


Totally!


----------



## Book Addict Jen (Mar 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *atomicmama*
BURN IT!!!!!

Yes!!!


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DebraBaker*
But when parents force their children to obey them immediately and unconditionally they are ascribing for themselves the place that should only be reserved for G-d.

If a child is in such a family and he sees his parents and, as he grows up, notices that the parents are not perfect and did not deserve that unconditional obedience they may start to doubt G=d as well.

Children are apprentices, they are learning.

Also, the scriptures tell children to obey their parents but nowhere does it tell parents to force their children to obey. The companion verse to the parents is to not provoke your children (the very one the Pearls are not obeying in their teachings.)

Debra Baker

I see what you are saying about parents being in a place reserved for God... but aren't we as parents, in a way, in that position? We give them life, teach them, protect and provide for them, and above all, *love* them...? Even without expecting obedience, we are kindof put in that position.

And from what I have seen, people doubt God no matter what kind of home or family they grow up in. It is part of the human journey...

I believe that humans are apprentices, and always learning. At least, I hope we are always learning... I feel for most of the country that has turned off their brains.







:


----------



## mommyofshmoo (Oct 25, 2004)

I thought about this based on another thread, but didn't say it, and I think it's worth mentioning:

Kids like to have limits and know their boundaries.

some parents who use spanking or other methods we may not agree with do provide children with this.

some parents who spank don't give kids clear boundaries.

Clearly, a child in the first family is better off than in the second- provided that the parents are in general kind, understanding, loving, etc.

In that respect, some parents who spank end up doing an overall OK job.

However, in my mind that does not justify spanking- which i think is wrong.

Also, it does not justify the Pearls' book, which suggests some very cruel things.

I guess I'm trying to make a distinction between the parents who spank and the action of spanking.


----------



## famousmockngbrd (Feb 7, 2003)

I just would like to say quickly that the end result is not necessarily the goal in parenting. It would be nice if we could measure our success as parents by how well our children turn out, but we can't. There are plenty of horrible parents out there whose kids manage to become well adjusted adults in spite of them, and there are also plenty of great parents whose kids end up in drug rehab or prison. Parenting is not a results oriented undertaking in many ways, unfortunately. It is much more about the process, about how you do things, and the lessons you teach in the little things that make up your days. If you are coming from a philosophy of kindness, respect and cooperation, your actions will reflect that. If your POV is one of control and domination, your actions will bear that out also. All we can do is guide, instruct and model. Our kids will choose their own path.


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *our veggie baby*
Personally, blind compliance is a VERY dangerous thing to teach a child imo...if they blindly obey you, what stops them from blindly obeying anyone else?

There is no way to prove this of course, but it would be my educated guess that more children get abducted, abused (and don't tell), hurt, peer pressured into drugs, sex, whatever else as teens---who are taught to be "polite" and blindly obey every adult, than children who learn a healthy sense of questioning and skepticism about things---which is learned (imo) when you teach your children to "behave" by example and effective, positive discipline rather than an "obey or else" type situation...

I dunno, I am all about teaching by example...if a child can recite the whole freaking Dora show line by line, SURELY you can agree they are watching us like hawks and wanting to imitate what we do...so if you live your life in a Christian manner, etc, most often children will follow suit (or attempt to, that is where guidence comes in)--I think probably 90% of issues could be avoided by ditching the whole "do as I say, not as I do" attitude that many parents seem to have regarding their children.

Someone brought up the "making children stand nose to nose for 5 minutes when they are fighting"---what kind of ludicrous crap is that?? The pearls are really nutters imo---how the HECK would that EVER fly in the real world?---and, our goal as parents (among others) is to prepare our children for the world isn't it?....See, I would consider that in reality when you are arguing with someone or you are mad at them, no way is ANYONE going to make you stand nose to nose, or even talk to eachother, or anything, so I would modify my parenting skills more toward that---firstly teaching my child that you CAN and SHOULD remove yourself from a situation where someone is hurting you or your feelings...secondly, I would validate everyone's feelings and *attempt* and *guide* them towards resolution, which more often than not happens---but this nose to nose crap is only a fraction of what gets me about people like the Pearls...could you see your boss doing that if you and a co-worker disagreed??

Obviously, children have not mastered adult-like behavior, that is where the guidence and teaching and gentle discipline comes in etc, but to me, implementing foolish, harmful, ridiculous "techniques" like flicking, spanking, nose to nose, standing in a corner, stuff that in an adult world would NEVER fly...is not preparing them in any way for the eventuality that they are going to face, which is leaving your home and going into the world...

One thing that really bothers me about the way my parents are raising my sisters, is how they force the youngest one to come to me when she doesn't want to (I am married, and obviously not living with them, so she's probably very confused that I claim to be her sister







). He is teaching her to obey every adult, rather than just her parents. That's overboard, IMO, b/c, as you say, who is to say that some freak won't try to take her! I don't remember that part being in the Pearls' book, but I do know it's a part of some other stuff my parents subscribe to. Oh, well. I trust God to pick up where my parents leave off... He will protect them...

I am so with you on living by example... I think that is the best way, for sure. And kids are SO much more observant than we give them credit for, sometimes, much to our embarassment.









It's funny to me that you would get so upset about the nose-to-nose thing. I thought it was a great alternative to a time out or whatever. But I'll explain: Obviously, if a sibling is being hurtful, that is a different story (or, I thought it would be obvious). But a more innocent argument (maybe territorial, or "you can't play with me" situation) could very well be handled this way. It isn't harmful or mean, and kids can come away from it with a better attitude, maybe even foretting why they were fighting in the first place. It seems like a peaceful lesson, at worst.

Sigh. If you and a co-worker didn't get along, would you expect your boss to say, "that's ok, just don't come in to work anymore" or even, "you can move your cubicle"? No... you would probably be expected to share your workspace as usual, and either deal with it, or work it out on your own.

I think a lot of times, kids get really bored hearing all the explanations we think they need to hear (I know I did as a kid), and would so much more appreciate a creative lesson instead. I know I would never say to a sibling: "Remember that meaningful lecture mom gave us? It was so helpful." But would more likely say something like: "Remember the time we had to stand nose-to-nose for fighting? Your breath stunk so bad. They should have been teaching you to bush your teeth instead."

Need I mention that kids do a lot of things that would never fly in the adult world? Like bouncing all around in their chair at the DR table? I crack up all the time when I see a kid doing kid stuff, and try to imagine an adult doing it. They are so hilarious, and I think they appreciate a sense of humor from adults, too.


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
It is against the rules of this board to advocate physically punishing children. No one should have to avoid reading that here--it is not allowed to be here. Please check the forum guidelines if you have question about this.

Please continue to pose GD questions, though! Lots of very wise mamas here!

Thanks.

I read the rules before I posted. I didn't read that I can only post my opinion if it is exactly the same as everyone else's. If someone *really* cannot tolerate me exploring this issue, then I suggest they pursue having me removed from the forum.

I also thought that this would be a good place to have the issue addressed, since this is the only place I know of where people are (supposedly) free to discuss this issue and learn more. As you can tell from my posts, I am fairly ignorant on GDing, and that is why I am here.


----------



## famousmockngbrd (Feb 7, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kateana*
I trust God to pick up where my parents leave off... He will protect them...

I know you are probably feeling like we are all ganging up on you, but surely you know there are many children, Christian and non-Christian alike, who are abducted and abused and worse every day? Did God not want to protect those chldren? Being Christian does not mean nothing bad will ever happen to you.

About the nose-to-nose thing... what I don't like about it is it's an invasion of the child's physical space. Forced physical contact is not respectful. In "Kids Are Worth It" (a great book to read if you are interested in learning more about GD, BTW), the author describes a similar method where the fighting kids have to sit on the couch together, and neither of them can get up until they both have given each other permission to. IMO this is a better approach because it gives the kids more power over their own fate and allows them to determine when the problem is resolved, instead of the more punitive way of having them stand nose to nose until you say they can stop.


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Prajnamommy*
Kateana,
When I mentioned the other poster in my above post I did not mean you, it was another forum. I am glad you are posting I don't think shutting down communication is a good way to problem solve and I like that you are open to hearing a view that is different than your own









No problem...


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kateana*
I read the rules before I posted. I didn't read that I can only post my opinion if it is exactly the same as everyone else's. If someone *really* cannot tolerate me exploring this issue, then I suggest they pursue having me removed from the forum.\

Really? The you saw this:

Quote:

Welcome to Gentle Discipline. This forum has a specific aim: to help parents learn and apply gentle discipline methods in raising their children.

Quote:

Quote:
Effective discipline is based on loving guidance. It is based on the belief that children are born innately good and that our role as parents is to nurture their spirits as they learn about limits and boundaries, rather than to curb their tendencies toward wrongdoing. Effective discipline presumes that children have reasons for their behavior and that cooperation can be engaged to solve shared problems.
Hitting is never the best way to teach a child. Even in the case of real danger - as when a child runs out into the road - you can grab him, sit him down, look him in the eyes, and tell him why he must never do that again. The panic in your voice will communicate your message much more effectively than any spanking. You can be dramatic without being abusive.

'Natural Family Living' by Peggy O'Mara

*Please appreciate that this forum is not a place to uphold or advocate physical punishment of children. Personal preferences for and encouragement of use of physical punishment are inappropriately posted here. Posts of that nature will be edited by the member upon request or will be removed.*

Please feel free to discuss your problems and needs with the intent to learn more about Gentle Discipline.


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
Well, what the heck- I'm in!

First of all, you cannot sanctify your children. You cannot beat the sin out of them, lecture the sin out of them, flick the sin out of them, or even love the sin out of them. They are who they are, and it's not a parents job to change that.

Second, how does God parent us? He does not beat us up until we agree to do what he says- that choice is always left to us. There are consequences if we choose wrong things, the ultimate consequence being hell, I suppose, but the choosing is always up to us. He does not force us to obey him.

Third, God has never commanded that we obey him unquestioningly. What did Mary say when the angel appeared to her? She wanted an explanation! How can this be, since I have not known man. God explains. God gives second chances. God forgives. God does not set us up to fail and then smack us when we do. God does not do this:

As for this:

it's a load of tripe. There is only one person who can reconcile us to God, and that is Jesus Christ. Show me in Scripture where it says a parent is a child's conscience. You can't because it's not there.

The Pearls compare children to dogs.
They compare them to horses.
They compare them to mules.

The Pearls are not sharing the gospel according to Christ, they are preaching the gosepl of BF Skinner.

Kateana, welcome to Mothering.com. I hope you find here what you are looking for. However, you will not go far if you insist on defending the Pearls.

Thank you for the welcome. I do insist on defending my own POV (which is not completely pro-spanking or pro GD or totaolly AP for that matter), and learning from others. I do not have it all figured out, and that is why I like to discuss things with others. So here we go.









You are irght, if we could sactify our children, there would have been no reason for God to send Jesus to die for us.

Sometimes (usually, I think) our consequences are very physical. For example (and this is a real obvious one, I'm sure you've heard before), if we all obeyed God on the premarital sex issue (guilty), there would be no STDs going around. I would consider that a light spanking for disobeying. But that is MO. ANyways, I think God is very concerned with bringing us back to him, lovingly and faithfully. However, love and peace also include justice, and having no consequences for our actions would be unjust, and therefore ungodly.

God does not set up temptations, you are right about that.

Ok, saying a parent is the childs' conscience was not a good use of words. But parents are responsible for teaching right and wrong, which is what adults use their conscience for.

I don't know who Skinner is.







But that is probably a good thing?









I am looking to find which way of parenting is the most consistent with Christ.


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommyofshmoo*
I forgot to mention that I am catholic- so the pope is a real example for me. I was just meaning to illustrate that I don't beleive any religious authority figure has my child's interest at heart more than I do. (BTW- catholics are not bad people, and there are all kinds of catholics- most of whom don't carry around incense, drink whisky and clutch rosaries all day like they do in the movies.)

As for the car thing- I did the method advocated by the Sears' in that I made a BIG deal about the road and would make a sharp sound when dd looked like she was heading that way- a sound that let her know I was scared.

Granted, during the trying twos dd once or twice chose to stand in the road just to "get my goat"- ie knowing it was "wrong" but wanting to see what I'd do. In those instances I just picked her up and dragged her out of the road. I don't take her defiance personally or make a big deal out of it. When it comes up it's usually a phase and if I keep a steady course in what I allow and don't, it generally blows over. I figured "some days she needs my help to make the right decisions." As she is getting closer to three the "No!" is replaced more and more with "Sure mom."

When I meant- put it out of reach, I meant "out of sight." Sorry for the confusion.

Anyway- I generally don't like to argue religious points, because I'm not religious in the fundamentalist or evangelical sense. I just think that hitting children is the last vestige of the type of hierarchy that allows hitting servants and wives. I know my husband wouldn't THINK of hitting me- and I think that children deserve the same rights and respect as other people.

and besides- it's not OK to hit people.

You are too funny re







holics.









I recently bought the Sears' discipline book, I can't wait to read it...

I find it funny (odd, not haha) that I am on this side of this argument, b/c I am the biggest friggin peacenic I know (I know you wouldn't believe it, but it's true). I think me having a pro-spanking view is probably just residual from when I was growing up, and yet another view of my parents' that I have yet to shed... And I hope that more GDing Christians decide to get involved in this discussion, too, b/c I would like to hear more specifics about what the Bible says, and how to reolve the apparent conflicts between "spare the rod" and the Life of Jesus...


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

I have to go for a few hours, but I look forward to talking more with you all later.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

You my want to hop over to the religious studies board in the spirituality forum- there was a HUGE discussion on spanking and Christianity the other day


----------



## pamelamama (Dec 12, 2002)

I think I've removed the rule-breaking posts. If not, please bring them to my attention via PM. Please remember the forum guidelines:

Quote:

Welcome to Gentle Discipline. This forum has a specific aim: to help parents learn and apply gentle discipline methods in raising their children.

Quote:
Effective discipline is based on loving guidance. It is based on the belief that children are born innately good and that our role as parents is to nurture their spirits as they learn about limits and boundaries, rather than to curb their tendencies toward wrongdoing. Effective discipline presumes that children have reasons for their behavior and that cooperation can be engaged to solve shared problems.

Hitting is never the best way to teach a child. Even in the case of real danger - as when a child runs out into the road - you can grab him, sit him down, look him in the eyes, and tell him why he must never do that again. The panic in your voice will communicate your message much more effectively than any spanking. You can be dramatic without being abusive.

'Natural Family Living' by Peggy O'Mara

Please appreciate that this forum is not a place to uphold or advocate physical punishment of children. Personal preferences for and encouragement of use of physical punishment are inappropriately posted here. Posts of that nature will be edited by the member upon request or will be removed.

Please feel free to discuss your problems and needs with the intent to learn more about Gentle Discipline.


----------



## DebraBaker (Jan 9, 2002)

I cannot overemphasize the danger of coercing children to obey every adult.

Pediphiles seek out and prey upon such children.

I think the new poster is representing her parents' not her own personal point of view.

Sort of playing Devil's Advocate rather than her own views.

In that light I welcome her thoughts.

Debra Baker


----------



## LizD (Feb 22, 2002)

I have had various things to say while reading this but am unsure what to include and how to do it.







I don't ever, ever, ever advocate hitting children, but sometimes the best of parents give their children a swat and it's not the end of the world. It's also not something that should be repeated or meted out in some kind of chit system of discipline. Frankly that's the creepiest thing I find about these "methods" of training or discipline: the recipes for how to do it properly.

FWIW I do know many AP folks who, when their babies first bite them at the breast, react by flicking them or some other sharp instinctive response. I myself have not, but I do know many who have and they don't otherwise advocate or use corporal punishment.

I read the sample chapter of the Pearl's book online (my daughter asked how they could have a website if they're Amish







) and it seems pretty stupid if you ask me. But at risk of offending people I think most religion is hooey, too.

As far as I have ever been able to understand it the "rod" refers to a shepherd's rod and anybody knows you don't hit sheep. You nudge them along with the stick if they're going the wrong way. Dr Sears (who has some Christian-focused literature available as well as his more commonly known books) makes this same analogy.

As a landowner in PA (though I do not live there) and in defense of the Amish, I will say that, as someone said about Christians, most whom I have met would not advocate this treatment of children (or animals). Most Amish are not sister-raping, drug-dealing animal-abusing puppy farmers (to include references to some recent news stories). Most just fasten their clothes with straight pins and grow some mighty good corn.


----------



## pammysue (Jan 24, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kateana*
However, love and peace also include justice, and having no consequences for our actions would be unjust, and therefore ungodly.

No one here is saying there should be no consequences for behavior. Just that the consequences should be natural (when possible), logical and appropriate. Switching a baby becuase they do not come to you the first time you call is not natural, logical or appropriate. It seems to me you are teaching your child "after Mommy says my name, she comes over to hurt me. So next time Mommy calls my name I should be ready to be hurt" How is this teaching a child to come to you?

It is unreasonable to expect a 10 month old to come to you when you call them or not touch everything on the coffee table when they pull up there.

I read something recently (I am sorry I have no idea where, maybe here!) that really resonated with me. The idea of gentle discipline is to help your children learn and to do so in a way that leaves them feeling better about themselves.

As for the nose-to-nose punishment, my problem is that it is not natural, logical or approprite and it does not teach children anything. It is a much better idea to help children work through things. ie, Bobby, you may use the car after Jane is finished. Jane, Bobby is using the car, you may use it when he is finished. The idea being that someday Bobby will be able to say to Jane "I'm using this but when I am done I will give it to you."


----------



## LizD (Feb 22, 2002)

The nose-to-nose thing sounded like it could be positive if used properly, depending on the situation. It reminds me a bit of some things we did now and then in the Waldorf kindergarten though I doubt anyone would do that particular thing there precisely because of the "invasion of space" aspect. With siblings in your own family, though, it seems it could be an amusing way to make sparring kids turn their argument into laughter. It also seems it could backfire badly, but of course I am used to dealing with children who've not had their spirits broken and souls saved as the Pearls recommend.


----------



## gentlestrengths (Feb 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Evan&Anna's_Mom*
For those who haven't encountered this before... This is the Pearls at their worst. They have a whole website of this ... garbage... and it is utterly poisen. You are right, their premise is that children are, at birth, utterly displeasing to God and must be broken to obey parents and God with unquestioning and instant obediance. They base their arguements on some very twisted readings of scriptures and claim their way is the only way to raise children and be Christian. For those of us in the GD world, this is about as sickening as it gets.

THIS IS NOT THE WAY ALL CHRISTIANS THINK!!!! Please, this stuff always starts a backlash against all of us who call ourselves Christians. Really, these people are not the norm and the vast majority of Christians do not believe or act this way.

Hi. I'm a Christian. I've gone back and forth between GD, and the Pearls' idea of discipline. When I was a child I was spanked (w/hands, belts, wooden spoons..), and I was yelled at (a lot). That was my parents way - they really didn't know any better (now they do) at the time. Anyway, I've forgiven them for that. But when I was a kid I remember thinking "I will never spank my children, I think it's wrong" - well, I have spanked. I did it because I was raised that way, and in all honesty, it was TRULY almost an instinctual thing for me to do at the time. I'm not saying that was right, because I don't feel that it is. But I do think that it depends a lot about how you're raised. I've found other ways now (GD), and I'm happier for it. BUT - I don't think that people who follow the Pearls are wrong. To me, it is none of my business what other people do with their children. I think that every person needs to read and find their own way of doing things. I am not always the BEST GD parent, by any means - but I continue to read and listen to others who can share ideas and learn from them. Likewise, people who follow the Pearls truly believe they're doing what is best for them and their family. It's like this to me: We have chosen not to vaccinate our children. We don't delay, we don't selectively vaccinate, we just don't do it at all. There are PLENTY of people here at MDC that DO vaccinate. I do *not* tell them that I think they're horrible parents that are endangering the life of their child (and I don't think that btw, just trying to be dramatic here







). Likewise, I wouldn't tell someone who was interested in the TTUAC techniques that it was crap and needed to be burned, etc. I think it's a choice for everyone - and I think a better approach to bringing someone to the GD side of things is to explain their differences, and your belief in why one is wrong and the other is right. Not just bashing one or the other. Factual information is always better than just slamming words!

Anyway, this is just my opinion on the matter, and for some reason I felt compelled to share. Thanks for listening.


----------



## DebraBaker (Jan 9, 2002)

Some things are debatable and some things are just too horrible to be debated.

Pearlesque parenting is abuse in most jurisdictions. It is abuse in my opinion. If I was a family law judge I would take accusations seriously and would take action against parents who implemented Pearls' advice.

Do you believe you should stay married to a man who raped your children? Michael Pearl does. He thinks you should welcome him back into your home and marriage bed when he gets out of jail.

If that isn't sick what is?

DB


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:

Likewise, people who follow the Pearls truly believe they're doing what is best for them and their family.
Well, they would be wrong.

Quote:

Likewise, I wouldn't tell someone who was interested in the TTUAC techniques that it was crap and needed to be burned, etc. I think it's a choice for everyone - and I think a better approach to bringing someone to the GD side of things is to explain their differences, and your belief in why one is wrong and the other is right.
[/QUOTE]
When I see someone doing something that could, in the extreme, kill their child and will probably, in the best case, damage their relationship with their child, all in the name of God, I have absolutely no problem calling it what it is- abusive, heretical, nand non-Biblical.


----------



## pamelamama (Dec 12, 2002)

Temporarily closing this thread.

I am going to temporarily close this thread so we can take a deep breath and come back to the discussion without insulting others, which is a violation of the user agreement.


----------



## cynthia mosher (Aug 20, 1999)

Hello mamas









I'm posting this directly to the thread for the benefit of the entire community as well as anyone who comes here to do a search on "To Raise Up a Child" or the Pearls. As we have done this dance several times with members defending this book and it's authors and adherents, it might help to address things here for everyone to read.

gentlestrengths, on the issue of vaccinations Mothering does not hold a complete and unequivocal advocacy against vaccinations. Mothering and MDC advocates informed decision and the right to make that decision rather than forced or 'the doctor said so' vaccination.

Contrary to this is corporal punishment. Mothering upholds a very strong and unequivocal advocacy against physical and emotional punishment of a child. There is no leeway there, no "informed decision" that would support a parent that chooses to use such punishment to discipline their child.

That doesn't mean that a parent that normally upholds gentle discipline as a rule would never, out of blind anger or loss of control, hit their child. That's something you brought up as well Kateana. I'm sure it happens to some as we have seen posts from parents who have come here to admit such and seek support and help. They may be the very people who were hit as children. But that does not put them on the same page as the Pearls or those who practice TTUAC. There's a tremendous difference.

I'll assume, Kateana, that you did not read the rules of the Gentle Discipline forum. Perhaps you read the general rules in the User Agreement and missed the fact that this forum has more specific rules that specifically do not permit a defense of opinion that hitting a child is appropriate discipline. To defend an such an opinion is, in our definition, advocacy of hittting. Now that you know that, you can post to understand why the advice in the book is wrong but not to defend your opinion that it is not wrong. You seem inclined to explore the issue. I invite you to do that but without defending or advocating physical punishment.

I also invite our members to remember that a child is behind a parent posting to these discussions. If you have that child's best interests at heart you will serve that cause much more by posting in a respectful manner. Let's avoid the use of statements such as "a load of crap" and "freakin' fanatics". Better words can be used to open doors of communication. For the sake of the children we don't want to close those doors.

This thread is reopened for what we hope will be beneficial discussion. Any subsequent posts that defend this book, it's authors, or practice of the teachings therein will be removed and the member warned.

Peace mamas


----------



## pamelamama (Dec 12, 2002)

thanks CM!


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *our veggie baby*
I completely agree. I am happy that you are seeking out other ways to discipline and hopefully you will learn a lot of alternative, more effective (imo) ways to do that here, however, the previous poster is right about the Pearls. I wouldn't even treat my dog the way they advocate treating children. I don't believe you "train" a child, so that is their first mistake. You guide a child, teach a child, protect a child, love a child--training is more for animals and don't even get me started on that either as I am a staunch animal rights activist







yet I digress...

I completely understand your aversion to the word "train"... that was my first reaction when I saw the book. I think that word is used mostly b/c it is a direct quote (of part of a verse) from the King James Bible. From my understanding, it was meant to be "teach". At least, that is how I always took it...

Quote:


Originally Posted by *our veggie baby*
See, the first step in my humble opinion, is seeing children as people. It is funny to me actually (in a sad way) that we finally for the most part, see African Americans as people instead of animals who needed to be controlled, whipped, owned etc...we finally (for the most part) see women as people who have the right to exsist, to have a voice, to have a right to an opinion--where as recent as 100 years ago that wasn't the case....one of the last frontiers is seeing children as actual people and not as property or as little sinful troublemakers who are trying to make our lives difficult. To actually see them as little people who want all the same things we do--love, understanding, guidence, a voice, an opinion, an important place to belong...and DESERVE the same things we do--not to be yelled at or hit, or shamed, or to be controlled like some second class citizens...

I was raised being spanked, like most of us probably were, so I never equated it with thinking a child was sub-human. My dad (I was raised by him, w/o my mom) did excessively spank, and yet I never felt afraid of him, or like he thought badly of me. I guess even then, I understood that he was doing what he thought was right, and that he loved me. I know that it was balanced with lots of fun, and a good relationship. So, while I see what you're saying, and I agree, I do not think that the viewpoints (subhuman, sinful troublemakers, etc) and spanking always go hand in hand, in the same way that you can have time outs, and you can have isolation, and you can have both together, KWIM?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *our veggie baby*
Yes, we do have a greater responsibility as their parents to guide them, lead them, gently steer them towards being compassionate, productive, well adjusted, happy people...but please do tell me how we are to achieve that by acting in manners which are punishing, unproductive, unhealthy, shaming, controlling...it just doesn't make sense.
Yes, there is the option of instilling fear in your children, which to me is not a viable one for several reasons. One being that it is unhealthy emotionally and can damage them far into adulthood. Two being that one day they won't be scared of you and that is where ALL of the pent up resentment and anger and hurt comes out....among several other things.

Anyone that would have the goal of instilling fear in their children should be sterilized. Is there a study or something that shows how many spanked children did in fact fear their parents, and how many are really damaged by it, and how the spanking was done... or anything? All I know is my experience, along with the knowledge that spanking CAN lead to abuse (like many other forms of discipline, I'm sure).

Quote:


Originally Posted by *our veggie baby*
We teach our children "treat others as you would like to be treated" and yet many of us do exactly the opposite!!! I mean, as an adult, the hypocritical "do as I say not as I do" attitude bugs the @#$#@ out of me....and it doesn't fly with children either...they can smell it from a mile away and in one way or another will call you on it (rightfully so)...

The one I'm noticing most recently is the "If you don't talk like us (or look like us or act like us), you can't play with us" mentality. Hopefully the MDC kids out there don't see that going on IRL... I would like to think that when my kids grow up, they can talk with other, differently minded adults, and have good conversation and learn from each other. I hope that my kids also learn to seek out the truth, even when they are told to shut up about what they think.

This rat wasn't just for you, OVB, b/c you seem to be very nice and willing to talk this out with me, but rather for whoever thinks it's bad for me to pose Q's here... the FA, maybe?

ANYways, I really hope my kids do call me on any hypocrisy they might see in my parenting or other areas of life. Kids are so aware of things that many adults aren't, and I hope that they correct me, rather than take up a hypocrisy of mine.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *our veggie baby*
I am not saying let your child go completely wild and run the whole house, which is a lot of people's fear when they are not familiar with gentle discipline etc, but you have to come from a place first of all where you know and believe that children AREN'T inherently evil, that 99% of the time, the WANT to please you, WANT to make you happy, WANT to do well...and that is your starting point to guiding them and teaching them....taking every oppurtunity to teach and to learn...

So will I completely fail at GD if I believe that humans are born with a sinful nature, or a conflict between Spirit and Flesh?


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *famousmockngbrd*
I know you are probably feeling like we are all ganging up on you, but surely you know there are many children, Christian and non-Christian alike, who are abducted and abused and worse every day? Did God not want to protect those chldren? Being Christian does not mean nothing bad will ever happen to you.

About the nose-to-nose thing... what I don't like about it is it's an invasion of the child's physical space. Forced physical contact is not respectful. In "Kids Are Worth It" (a great book to read if you are interested in learning more about GD, BTW), the author describes a similar method where the fighting kids have to sit on the couch together, and neither of them can get up until they both have given each other permission to. IMO this is a better approach because it gives the kids more power over their own fate and allows them to determine when the problem is resolved, instead of the more punitive way of having them stand nose to nose until you say they can stop.

Well, I did come onto a thread where everyone was HATING a book that I have read, and didn't hate. So I knew I'd be ganged up on.







And I'm ok with that. I know people are passionate about what they believe, and sometime lose their respect for people who believe otherwise. What I failed to mention from the beginning, and I keep trying to tell people, is that I am here to learn. I failed to explain that while I am a Christian, I am usually shunned by people in Christian circles... b/c I am a Truth seeker, not a blind follower. So, while I read and liked TTUAC, I do want other views so I can make a balanced and informed decision, based on my standard of Truth, the Bible. Some people have brought up very good points that I am considering, and still trying to address (particularly the part about the conflict between "spare the rod" and Jesus being the ultimate peacenic). Someone wisely suggested that I go to the Religion forum. I think I may be better recieved (and treated) there, or at least I would like to think so.







However, I am enjoying this thread despite people who lose their temper.

I hope I am gentle in saying that you are insulting me by pointing out something as rediculously obvious as "bad things happen to Christians, too". But I can take it.







While I do not agree with everything my parents do to raise my sisters, I know they are better off there, in an exceptionally well-balanced home, than in foster care, or even with other members of the family. My parents are also Truth seekers, and while they do not always come to the same conclusions as I do, they are not bad people.

Wouldn't the "sitting on the couch" thing give each kid control over the other?


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
These people are advocating hitting babies under the age of one year old with a whip. How in the name of all that is holy is that not 100% dangerous advice??

I'm sure there's some stuff in the neo-nazi literature that could be OK too, but given the OVERALL SCOPE of their message, I certainly wouldn't defend or advocate their teachings or actions.

Point taken.


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *famousmockngbrd*
I just would like to say quickly that the end result is not necessarily the goal in parenting. It would be nice if we could measure our success as parents by how well our children turn out, but we can't. There are plenty of horrible parents out there whose kids manage to become well adjusted adults in spite of them, and there are also plenty of great parents whose kids end up in drug rehab or prison. Parenting is not a results oriented undertaking in many ways, unfortunately. It is much more about the process, about how you do things, and the lessons you teach in the little things that make up your days. If you are coming from a philosophy of kindness, respect and cooperation, your actions will reflect that. If your POV is one of control and domination, your actions will bear that out also. All we can do is guide, instruct and model. Our kids will choose their own path.

True, true... As much as I want to prepare for having kids, I know that I have to do what I believe is right, and pray and trust that they will turn out decent, and hopefully even good! I hope my kids will learn the one thing I learned from my dad: don't take anyone's word for it...


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
Really? The you saw this:

Yes, particularly the part about "to help parents learn and apply gentle discipline methods in raising their children." and "Please feel free to discuss your problems and needs with the intent to learn more about Gentle Discipline.", which it seems a lot of other people have missed.








:


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DebraBaker*
I cannot overemphasize the danger of coercing children to obey every adult.

Pediphiles seek out and prey upon such children.

I think the new poster is representing her parents' not her own personal point of view.

Sort of playing Devil's Advocate rather than her own views.

In that light I welcome her thoughts.

Debra Baker

You are so kind to be one of the few people who are actually nice in here, while disagreeing.









I can't agree more about making kids obey every adult. It saddens me to see it with my sisters...

You are mostly right about me telling my dad's views. I have, though, read the book, and I thought it was ok. But I also am more concerned with learning, and doing what is right, than saying, "Yup, I've found something to subscribe to, and I won't budge." Since my dad is/was a spanker, I grew up thinking it was ok, and I am trying to figure out if I need to change that. Having said that, I really appreciate the people like you in here.


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LizD*
As far as I have ever been able to understand it the "rod" refers to a shepherd's rod and anybody knows you don't hit sheep. You nudge them along with the stick if they're going the wrong way. Dr Sears (who has some Christian-focused literature available as well as his more commonly known books) makes this same analogy.

Thank you thank you thank you! This is the specific issue I needed addressed, and I thank you. That is very good insight. Being raised in a Christian, pro-spanking house, I was taught that the rod was a spanking "tool", b/c it isn't good to hit with your hand, or a child will flinch unnecessarily, yadda, yadda. You have given me a bit more clarity on this, and I so appreciate it.

Where do I find the Sears' Christian-focused stuff?


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pammysue*
No one here is saying there should be no consequences for behavior. Just that the consequences should be natural (when possible), logical and appropriate. Switching a baby becuase they do not come to you the first time you call is not natural, logical or appropriate. It seems to me you are teaching your child "after Mommy says my name, she comes over to hurt me. So next time Mommy calls my name I should be ready to be hurt" How is this teaching a child to come to you?

It is unreasonable to expect a 10 month old to come to you when you call them or not touch everything on the coffee table when they pull up there.

I read something recently (I am sorry I have no idea where, maybe here!) that really resonated with me. The idea of gentle discipline is to help your children learn and to do so in a way that leaves them feeling better about themselves.

As for the nose-to-nose punishment, my problem is that it is not natural, logical or approprite and it does not teach children anything. It is a much better idea to help children work through things. ie, Bobby, you may use the car after Jane is finished. Jane, Bobby is using the car, you may use it when he is finished. The idea being that someday Bobby will be able to say to Jane "I'm using this but when I am done I will give it to you."

The reasonable-ness of switching a baby isn't disputed here, as far as I know...

First of all, let me clarify that the nose-to-nose issue wasn't intended to be taken as a blanket discipline tool, like a time out. My problem with always giving kids *repetitive* explanations for things, is that it is so BORING for everyone involved. I would have LOVED it if my parents were creative, or had a sense of humor and sometimes acted like a kid, or thought like me rather than treating me like an adult all the time. Explaining something once is fine, and indeed very respectful of the child's intelligence, etc. But to repeat the same lesson over and over (hoping that one day they get it) seems pointless and frustrating. Especially when something like standing nose-to-nose isn't harmful. And I do think it teaches something: first of all, not to always take everything so seriously, that perspective can change everything (my sister looks like she has one eye from here), and that it is good (and so much more fun) to be peacable with a sibling. The whole reason I brought up the example to begin with was b/c I think that there are some really interesting and fun ways to teach lessons. Personally, I think it is easy to forget lectures, and easier to tune people out when they are giving them in the first place.


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DebraBaker*
Some things are debatable and some things are just too horrible to be debated.

Pearlesque parenting is abuse in most jurisdictions. It is abuse in my opinion. If I was a family law judge I would take accusations seriously and would take action against parents who implemented Pearls' advice.

Do you believe you should stay married to a man who raped your children? Michael Pearl does. He thinks you should welcome him back into your home and marriage bed when he gets out of jail.

If that isn't sick what is?

DB

You seem to be like many people who have to either believe everything or nothing a person says. It's too bad... there are a lot of people who have some good points and some bad. There is a saying that you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, but I guess it only applies to discerning people...


----------



## pamelamama (Dec 12, 2002)

Check the sticky at the top of the forum regarding no-spank resources!


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
Well, they would be wrong.

When I see someone doing something that could, in the extreme, kill their child and will probably, in the best case, damage their relationship with their child, all in the name of God, I have absolutely no problem calling it what it is- abusive, heretical, non-Biblical crap.[/QUOTE]

When something is taken to the extreme, it is usually a different matter altogether. (And I am trying to illustrate the something done to the extreme is not the same as something done in moderation, or rarely. It seems obvious, but you seem to need to hear it...) For example, eating done in the extreme could kill someone. But that doesn't mean it is bad for a person to eat in general.

"Could be" and "is" are different things. It is so strange to me that this even needs to be said...


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Cynthia Mosher*
Hello mamas









Contrary to this is corporal punishment. Mothering upholds a very strong and unequivocal advocacy against physical and emotional punishment of a child. There is no leeway there, no "informed decision" that would support a parent that chooses to use such punishment to discipline their child.

That doesn't mean that a parent that normally upholds gentle discipline as a rule would never, out of blind anger or loss of control, hit their child. That's something you brought up as well Kateana. I'm sure it happens to some as we have seen posts from parents who have come here to admit such and seek support and help. They may be the very people who were hit as children. But that does not put them on the same page as the Pearls or those who practice TTUAC. There's a tremendous difference.

I'll assume, Kateana, that you did not read the rules of the Gentle Discipline forum. Perhaps you read the general rules in the User Agreement and missed the fact that this forum has more specific rules that specifically do not permit a defense of opinion that hitting a child is appropriate discipline. To defend an such an opinion is, in our definition, advocacy of hittting. Now that you know that, you can post to understand why the advice in the book is wrong but not to defend your opinion that it is not wrong. You seem inclined to explore the issue. I invite you to do that but without defending or advocating physical punishment.

Peace mamas









I just got to your post, CM, so I hope that instead of deleting an entire post, you would be so kind as to take out the offensive part. However, I believe that I have been doing an ok job of telling people what I need addressed. Yes, I do believe certain things that others do not, but as I said, I am here to learn, and the things I talk about here are things I would like addressed, things I have questions about. If you delete what I say, I will unfortunately remain in ignorance about that particular point. Being so adamant about your beliefs (and I am referring to all the posters here that don't agree with spanking), I would hope that you would take this as an opportunity to enlighten me, since that is what I am here for. As I have repeatedly said, I am not here to convince anyone, but rather to learn from you.

It also seems to me, (but apparently I am wrong?) that saying "I believe" is very different than "You should". I have tried over and over to let you all know that I came from a spanking home, didn't know differently, and this is my first experience learning about GDing, which I would like to know more about.

It is sad to me that a forum should be so regulated as to have a FM have to tell us how to treat each other. It seems that many adults need to learn respect and kindness as well as kids... Not to mention that we are not trusted to talk to each other about differing views... Really, I can understand if I was trying to push spanking on others, but it is really sad to me that it has come to this. Maybe I am misunderstanding, also... can I talk about this with people on a different forum? Or will I be censored for saying what my current beliefs are, even though I am very open to changing them...?


----------



## cynthia mosher (Aug 20, 1999)

Kati, I have no intention to delete any part of your posts. I'm just asking that you refrain from further defense of hitting and those who hit.

It's fine that you want to explore this issue here. That's a purpose of the forum. But there's a huge difference in saying "Please explain to me how this is wrong and what is better" and saying "I believe the Pearl's approach has some benefit" while backing it up with experience and opinion. The latter conveys a desire to support the Pearls and hitting children while the former expresses a desire to examine why the Pearl's way is wrong and what you can do better.

Unfortunately, though we have clear rules in place people interpret them differently and sometimes ignore them completely. So moderation is necessary on a forum such as MDC. It has nothing to do with trust. It has to do with the reality of what people will say and do in defending their beliefs.

"I believe" is a personal advocation of something. "You should" is a step further.

Ask questions. Set the stating of your beliefs and defense of them aside. If you can do that then you will probably be welcomed and offered plenty of help and support in your desire to learn gentle discipline.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kateana*
When something is taken to the extreme, it is usually a different matter altogether. (And I am trying to illustrate the something done to the extreme is not the same as something done in moderation, or rarely. It seems obvious, but you seem to need to hear it...) For example, eating done in the extreme could kill someone. But that doesn't mean it is bad for a person to eat in general.

But that's the whole point- To Train Up a Child *is* extreme- the whole book is extreme. To follow the book, as written, is to engage in extreme parenting. That is what makes it so scary.

Hitting a baby with a rod is extreme.

No allowing a child to ever express their feelings if they are in opposition to yours is extreme.

Forcing a child to smile when they feel like crying is extreme.

Pushing a child in a pond and letting them almost drown is extreme.


----------



## BlueStateMama (Apr 12, 2004)

Something I saw way earlier in this thread, and I'm not quoting exactly, but I don't understand.....how exactly does one hit "with love"? (this was in the context of using physical punishment as disciplining, and then saying that discipline was done "with love"?) I don't get it...

Why is it people can defend hitting children as being done "with love"...has anyone ever hauled off and smacked their spouse, coworker, or neighbor "with love"?


----------



## LizD (Feb 22, 2002)

Well, I only read that sample first chapter online, but it made no sense and was just bizarre IMO. I was quite disturbed to see the comment on this thread about "[welcoming back a rapist to the marriage bed]," and would appreciate more clarification on that.

What a waste of time, to have a whole method of corporal punishment, when you could simply be enjoying your children and being a good parent with common sense. Sometimes you have to be quite stern with an older child, yes, very firm indeed; but what I read was about "training" a _baby_. It is completely contrary to what is now known about psychological and physical development, and the authors made wild blanket statements about the dire consequences of raising a "badly trained" child. Again, I don't know many people (even Amish, even Christians







) who treat their animals that badly, let alone their children.

The author makes ridiculous comparisons, too. Why would you want to run a family the way they run the Army (guess the Pearls haven't seen Full Metal Jacket, eh?)? And when you "break" a horse, you "gentle him;" the Pearls make no mention of how carefully, how gently, how kindly you need to train a colt; they just mention the total submission that is the result of training a horse well. But you don't hit a horse so that it stings.

They also describe a method for keeping your baby from snatching people's glasses. I have never met a baby who snatched glasses to the point that he needed to be hit. Most people think it's sweet and amusing when Baby tries to get Uncle's unfamiliar glasses. My baby doesn't usually bother my glasses or my daughter's anymore, and we didn't need to hit him or even tell him no. I don't even know how we "did it." Probably just gently moved his hand away and said something like "That's Mommy's."

It just seems a shame to me that the authors of this book seem so warped they can't enjoy parenting for what it is. If there is any sort of god out there, why would it be so malign as to want you to treat your babies this way?


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
But that's the whole point- To Train Up a Child *is* extreme- the whole book is extreme. To follow the book, as written, is to engage in extreme parenting. That is what makes it so scary.

Hitting a baby with a rod is extreme.

No allowing a child to ever express their feelings if they are in opposition to yours is extreme.

Forcing a child to smile when they feel like crying is extreme.

Pushing a child in a pond and letting them almost drown is extreme.

What I heard you say, and I seem to be mistaken,







is that something (spanking) taken to the extreme (beating to death) could kill and is therefore abuse.

I agree thast those things are extreme, but that they kill, I think is a bit extreme to say.


----------



## famousmockngbrd (Feb 7, 2003)

I realize what I said was obvious - I was not trying to insult you, I was merely responding to your words, which I quote below:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kateana*
...who is to say that some freak won't try to take her! I don't remember that part being in the Pearls' book, but I do know it's a part of some other stuff my parents subscribe to. Oh, well. I trust God to pick up where my parents leave off... He will protect them...

I don't know how else to take this, other than you saying God will keep them safe.







If it's as obvious to you as it is to me that this is not by any means a certain thing, then I fail to see why you said it, other than maybe just to try to make yourself feel better about a situation you can do nothing to change.

Some Christians actually do think God will prevent bad things from happening to them. I have known people who believe this, maybe you have too. I have no way of knowing your personal belief system, beyond what you tell me on this message board. I am sorry to have offended you but I was just going by your statements, at face value.

As far as the couch thing goes - I think it supposed to emphasize cooperation, rather than control over each other. The key here is that neither child can get up until they *both* have given each other permission to. If one child refuses to give that permission, (s)he has to sit there too. It is up to the parent to decide if this has gone on long enough, and stop the stalemate if one develops.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

You think someone couldn't kill a baby by beating them with a rod, or make a mistake when pushing their child in a pond to almost drown?


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

CM, thanks for the further explanation. When I asked about deleting posts, I just wanted you to know that I didn't see your post until I replied to it. So if I had violated between the posts, it was an accident.


----------



## mommyofshmoo (Oct 25, 2004)

I wanted to throw in an agreement with famousmockingbird about the dangers of training children, ESPECIALLY GIRLS, to be obedient.

I grew up in NYC and we live in a city now. I was sometimes followed as a child walking alone in the city - so I know there are dangers. I teach my child that if anyone talks to her she doesn't know to scream at the top of her lungs- and run. If someone touches her she doesn't know to kick, bite- do whatever it takes. So what if she mistakenly yells at someone not trying to kidnap her? I'd rather her be safe!

Not only have I been followed, but I've been around enough to realize it's the obedient girls who get date raped. It's the women who don't scream, and sock a guy in the head who get backed into a dark street corner.

As for STD's being a punishment for premarital sex- of the many people I've known who've gotten STD's it's more often than not been the innocent ones who were trusting enough to beleive their partners would't cheat on them- and got the STD's. Most of the promiscuous people I knew were more careful/less trusting and didn't catch anything.

(Granted I don't know anyone who didn't have premarital sex, or who were religious/dating religious people- so I'm sure many people in many communities are more trustworthy than I'm giving them credit for.)


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *famousmockngbrd*
I realize what I said was obvious - I was not trying to insult you, I was merely responding to your words, which I quote below:

I don't know how else to take this, other than you saying God will keep them safe.







If it's as obvious to you as it is to me that this is not by any means a certain thing, then I fail to see why you said it, other than maybe just to try to make yourself feel better about a situation you can do nothing to change.

Some Christians actually do think God will prevent bad things from happening to them. I have known people who believe this, maybe you have too. I have no way of knowing your personal belief system, beyond what you tell me on this message board. I am sorry to have offended you but I was just going by your statements, at face value.

As far as the couch thing goes - I think it supposed to emphasize cooperation, rather than control over each other. The key here is that neither child can get up until they *both* have given each other permission to. If one child refuses to give that permission, (s)he has to sit there too. It is up to the parent to decide if this has gone on long enough, and stop the stalemate if one develops.

I understand about you taking my statements at face value, that is more than fair. I guess, to go a bit more in depth about trusting God to protect them, what I should have said from the beginning is that while I do not agree with everything they do, I do not think that their overall style of parenting is going to be permenantly damaging, and any damage that might come from it, I trust, will be easily fixed, or at least still not as bad as kids who, for example, are paid by their parents to be primarily raised by complete strangers. For example (and I know people hate the "I turned out fine" thing, understandably, but...) my mom left for CA (from MN) when I was 6, and I hadn't lived with her that I could remember. She was mentally unable to take care of me, and had great fun in CA doing drugs and God knows what else. My dad raised me, with the help of other family members. As you can imagine, a 20-something man raisning a little girl on his own was not an ideal situation. He was great fun, but terribly irresponsible when I look back on it (and of course, the excessive spanking was an issue). For example, he let me sleep under a pool table instead of a bed (actually, it's unclear whether I even had a bed), and when I was about 2, he made this wierd bike seat for me to sit on his bike, with no belt, just sitting on a seat with his arms around me (hard to explain, but you get the idea: not very safe). So, while he didn't make the best decisions, I am alive and for the most part healthy (I never have broken a bone, even). And despite the screwed up dynamics of my family, I feel like I am better off than a lot of people out there on brain meds for whatever reason. I know bad things happen to Christians, a few have happened to me, but I can come out of bad situations with greater faith, and an appreciation for God getting me through.

Well, I can agree to disagree on the couch thing, I definitely think that I would like to parent differently, b/c sitting on the couch seems a lot like a time out to me, but that's just me... and there's time for me to re-evaluate the ways I am going to teach my (future) kids lessons.


----------



## famousmockngbrd (Feb 7, 2003)

Sorry to keep harping on the couch... but I think the way it's different from a classic "time out" is again, it's in the hands of the *children* how long they have to sit there. It's not imposed upon them by the parent. I think time outs can be useful, depending on how they are used, i.e. punitively as in "Go to your room and don't come out until I say you can!" or as an opportunity to regroup, as in "I think we all need time to cool off. Let's be alone for a while until we are calm again, then we can talk about this some more", or something similar, you get the idea.

I think it's interesting that time outs are something to be avoided, in your opinion, but spanking is not. Or am I wrong about that? I was under the impression you thought spanking has its place in a disciplinary system. Not to open a whole can of worms again, I'm not asking you to defend your position, I am just unsure as to what your position is.


----------



## KermitMissesJim (Feb 12, 2004)

Quote:

Anyone that would have the goal of instilling fear in their children should be sterilized. Is there a study or something that shows how many spanked children did in fact fear their parents, and how many are really damaged by it, and how the spanking was done... or anything? All I know is my experience, along with the knowledge that spanking CAN lead to abuse (like many other forms of discipline, I'm sure).
I need no study! My parents purposely raised us to obey them because we feared the consequences of not obeying them (everything from a spanking with a wooden spoon to withholding financial support for college). Now, we were well-behaved kids, but we've got a bundle of neuroses--enough that my youngest sister will NOT have children out of fear of perpetuating the abuse.


----------



## mamahammer (Jul 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kateana*
And I hope that more GDing Christians decide to get involved in this discussion, too, b/c I would like to hear more specifics about what the Bible says, and how to reolve the apparent conflicts between "spare the rod" and the Life of Jesus...

I know this was a couple of pages back, but I had to respond re: the rod.

The rod was a tool for _guidance_ used by sheperds. The rod _was not_ a tool for punishment. If you recall in the 23rd Psalm, []Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me.[/i] The rod was used by sheperds to guide sheep into the herd - to show them the way, to stop them from going into dangerous territory. It showed them the way to go - to be safe, to be with the herd, to be with their sheperd. The rod is a comfort - it is a tool used for _discipline_ - teaching - not punishment. The rod would be akin to the rope at a mive theater than shows where to form a line. It shows you the proper way to go, but it does not dole out punishment for going against it. If the rod were a source of physical discipline, do you really believe David would have written it into his poetry as a comfort? No one who has been beaten with a belt would wax poetic about it's comfort. In fact, most who were beaten with a phyiscal object that was displayed as remindwer in their home speak of it being a constant source of fear - certainly not one of comfort.


----------



## LizD (Feb 22, 2002)

Yes, someone I know was so terrorized by wood spoons she couldn't have them in the kitchen, much to her roomates' annoyance.

Since this isn't the place to debate the merits and demerits of physical discipline, what is the purpose of the continuing discussion? Would it be how to respond to people who use this sort of manual as a guide? How to show them alternatives? It seems we are floundering in defense of hitting vs GD or something about God protecting people or not.

Frankly I don't see what God or belief or lack of belief therein has to do with it. This is a gentle discipline forum, and while not everyone has to agree, I am having trouble following the conversation at this point. Should a thread about what the Bible says to Christians be in the Spirituality/Religious Studies forum?

Regarding extremity, plenty of people think not spanking is extreme on the side of over-permissiveness (like the authors of this dreadful book), and plenty think spanking or threatening to spank is extreme. I count myself among the latter.


----------



## MomInFlux (Oct 23, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kateana*
I do not think that their overall style of parenting is going to be permenantly damaging, and any damage that might come from it, I trust, will be easily fixed, or at least still not as bad as kids who, for example, are paid by their parents to be primarily raised by complete strangers.









:

I'm horrified by this line of thinking. If I had to choose between the parent who puts their child in daycare so that they can work and the parent who stays home and hits their child, I will chose the working parent EVERY time.


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
You think someone couldn't kill a baby by beating them with a rod, or make a mistake when pushing their child in a pond to almost drown?

I think that switching a baby (as TTUAC says) is not going to kill a baby, since it shouldn't even leave a mark. I do think that beating a baby with a rod (the extreme) could kill it.

I also think that a baby going under water will not kill it, but not letting it up for air would. Isn't this obvious? I think I even read a thread on this website about teaching babies to swim, and how letting them go under water before a certain age is not harmful b/c they still have the instinct to hold their breath... it wa something like that. Anyways, you are making things out to be very different than they are, or were meant to be said, by the Pearls or me.


----------



## LizD (Feb 22, 2002)

What on earth does not killing the baby have to do with gentle discipline?


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

You still seem to be defending the Pearls, and this book. When will you let it go? What they are advocating has the very real potential to harm children. Period.

I don't think you will find one "mainstream" source that says this book is OK.


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommyofshmoo*
As for STD's being a punishment for premarital sex- of the many people I've known who've gotten STD's it's more often than not been the innocent ones who were trusting enough to beleive their partners would't cheat on them- and got the STD's. Most of the promiscuous people I knew were more careful/less trusting and didn't catch anything.

(Granted I don't know anyone who didn't have premarital sex, or who were religious/dating religious people- so I'm sure many people in many communities are more trustworthy than I'm giving them credit for.)

Premarital sex is sex before marriage, and unless one of the two spouses breaks a vow to stay faithful, there should be no risk of STD. That was the missed point, I think. My best friend has not yet had sex, and she doesn't have to worry about an STD. If she marries a virgin, there will be zero risk unless someone cheats, which is also a violation of God's laws. So, the whole point is that, according to God's perfect plan, as written in the Bible, 2 people will only have sex with each other, without the worry of STDs creeping in mysteriously.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LizD*
What on earth does not killing the baby have to do with gentle discipline?

True- there is a wide chasm between gentle discipline and death


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *famousmockngbrd*
Sorry to keep harping on the couch... but I think the way it's different from a classic "time out" is again, it's in the hands of the *children* how long they have to sit there. It's not imposed upon them by the parent. I think time outs can be useful, depending on how they are used, i.e. punitively as in "Go to your room and don't come out until I say you can!" or as an opportunity to regroup, as in "I think we all need time to cool off. Let's be alone for a while until we are calm again, then we can talk about this some more", or something similar, you get the idea.

I think it's interesting that time outs are something to be avoided, in your opinion, but spanking is not. Or am I wrong about that? I was under the impression you thought spanking has its place in a disciplinary system. Not to open a whole can of worms again, I'm not asking you to defend your position, I am just unsure as to what your position is.

It's ok, harp away!







It is a bit different from TOs, which are not all that bad. You are irght, I did think that spanking had a place, but thanks to the many people willing to talk to me about it, I am seriously reconsidering. As for TOs, I don't think they are bad, really... I just remember having them, and being told "to think about what I did wrong". I remember wondering if thinking was whispering to myself, or what? It's funny now, but I remember being really frustrated and not even knowing what the big deal was... but regardless, kids are going to be frustrated with lessons/discipline/punishments no matter what they are, so it seems if a TO isn't harmful in the way it's used, why not use it? And for the record, I don't think the couch is a BAD idea, just one that is potentially... abused, for lack of a better word. But any lesson should be taught by a parent who knows her DC well enough to know that it will work. Or maybe I am talking out of my ass now...?







I don't have kids yet, so it's speculation...


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KermitMissesJim*
I need no study! My parents purposely raised us to obey them because we feared the consequences of not obeying them (everything from a spanking with a wooden spoon to withholding financial support for college). Now, we were well-behaved kids, but we've got a bundle of neuroses--enough that my youngest sister will NOT have children out of fear of perpetuating the abuse.

I understand why you stand where you do. I was asking for a study b/c I would like to see one. I am sorry you feared your parents. I was wondering about having kids too, but more from the fact that I don't know what a mother is or should be. I have my dad to use as a model. Luckily I can learn from his mistakes and get to know good mothers and learn from them too...


----------



## our veggie baby (Jan 31, 2005)

Quote:

To me, it is none of my business what other people do with their children
Hmmm, how far does that extend? Child molestation? Beatings? The Pearls ADVOCATE staying with a husband who has sexually molested his children.

Incidentally, someone else asked about the comment regading letting a child molester back into your bed...this is directly from the Pearls website:

_But if your husband has sexually molested the children, you should approach him with it. *If he is willing to seek counseling and repent, then fine and good. If not, then go to the law and have him arrested.* Stick by him, but testify against him in court. Have him do about 10 to 20 years, and by the time he gets out, you will have raised the kids, and you can be waiting for him with open arms of forgiveness and restitution. Will this glorify God? Forever. You ask, "What if he doesn't repent even then?" Then you will be rewarded in heaven equal to the martyrs, and God will have something to rub in the Devil's face. God hates divorce-always, forever, regardless, without exception._

So they basically say DO NOTHING AND STICK BY HIM if he "repents"....that is some sick sh-- in my opinion and only scratches the SURFACE of why these people are ABUSIVE, SICK, SADISTIC people who deserve no less than jail.

I mean, yes, to a point people can do as they like with their children...but I'm sorry, if I know someone is being molested, or beat, or abused, I am going to do something about it...and if you want to sling scripture about it, I will toss this out:

Leviticus 5
1 " 'If a person sins because he does not speak up when he hears a public charge to testify regarding something he has seen or learned about, he will be held responsible.

Usually people who are doing the right thing don't need the Bible to back it up. Of course it makes me feel swell knowing that being a decent person coincides with the teachings of the Bible...but when I am giving someone a hug, no one says to me "WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY THAT!!!....but when a child is being hit, why does it take an arbitrary Bible quote to back it up?

Do you see my point at all?


----------



## kchoffmann (Aug 16, 2004)

I was just going to comment about that how other people parent is not my business line. One need not even take it to such an extreme as abuse. I figure it IS my business because my son has to grow up with these people. These are his potential bullies, people who might well take their feelings out on him because this is what they learned from their models/parents. These are the people who, instead of dealing kindly and assertively with my dear, sweet boy, might be aggressive or passive aggressive, or who knows what else.

Also itching to say, Kateana made a comment way back about how discilining one's child around having to do something s/he doesn't want to do is on par with a grown up leaving the workplace if s/he doesn't like a coworker. This comment misses the point. The goal, I would think, is for our children to be aware of and respectful of their feelings about someone, and then know how to be assertive with their feelings. A grown up can know how s/he feels about a coworker and make work manageable by being assertive and clear with his/her boundaries and feelings. We teach our children these things when we are teaching them about having relationships. Relationships are much more complex, I believe, than just one person is to be obeyed.


----------



## Dechen (Apr 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
True- there is a wide chasm between gentle discipline and death









:


----------



## pammysue (Jan 24, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kateana*
I would have LOVED it if my parents were creative, or had a sense of humor and sometimes acted like a kid, or thought like me rather than treating me like an adult all the time.

I agree that GD and teaching do not need to be very serious all of the time. It is important to have a sense of humor when dealing with children and to have new ways of dealing with things.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kateana*
Explaining something once is fine, and indeed very respectful of the child's intelligence, etc. But to repeat the same lesson over and over (hoping that one day they get it) seems pointless and frustrating.

Well, as I said in my post, to me GD (actually I prefer to not use the word "discipline" at all, I like "guidance" better) is about _teaching_. It is important to repeat the same lesson over and over becuase that is how learning is done. Following your train of thought, I should be able to say to a 18 mo. old "Johnny, this block is yellow" once and expect Johnny to have learned what a block is and what yellow is from that one explanation.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kateana*
Personally, I think it is easy to forget lectures, and easier to tune people out when they are giving them in the first place.

I totally agree.


----------



## our veggie baby (Jan 31, 2005)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kateana
Explaining something once is fine, and indeed very respectful of the child's intelligence, etc. *But to repeat the same lesson over and over (hoping that one day they get it) seems pointless and frustrating.*

(poster response)

Well, as I said in my post, to me GD (actually I prefer to not use the word "discipline" at all, I like "guidance" better) is about teaching. It is important to repeat the same lesson over and over becuase that is how learning is done. Following your train of thought, I should be able to say to a 18 mo. old "Johnny, this block is yellow" once and expect Johnny to have learned what a block is and what yellow is from that one explanation.

I completely agree (with the response)...I mean, I sure as heck haven't learned ANYTHING in my life---from driving to algebra to painting to guitar to even going to the bathroom on a toilet when I was around 2, having only been taught "once"....


----------



## Cutie Patootie (Feb 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kateana*
I see what you are saying about parents being in a place reserved for God... but aren't we as parents, in a way, in that position? We give them life, teach them, protect and provide for them, and above all, *love* them...?

I have reeeeeeally been trying to not post in this thread.







: But...oh well. :LOL
So I'm dragging something out from page 3. I just keep thinking about this. I don't believe we are ever "put" in the place of God in any way, even in the eyes of our children. We don't give them life...God does...God protects and provides for us if we allow him, and we if we are overflowing with gratitude and want to pass that love on to our children, then we will protect and provide for them because God has provided for us.
I have also tried as much to my abilility to study out any and all of the scriptures that refer to "spanking"..."rod"..."beating"...etc. There is so much hidden in there it is quite unbelievable. You really need to study out the words in their original written language, the context of the scriptures. You will find that the Bible does not actually EVER say that you should hit or beat a child, and even more so NEVER a baby.
The thing that I can't understand is how parents consistantly misjudge the developmental stage of babies and toddlers. A tiny bit of research and reading, or a quick conversation with any psychologist and you quickly learn that it is impossible for a 10 month old to comprehend...no throwing...no grabbing glasses...no hitting...no biting...even if they can understand, they do not have the ability to override their impulses to touch and grab. Not to mention these things are stages of learning that every child goes through. Throwing things off a high chair is a developmental stage, not a reason to switch or flick your 1 year old. The world is full of wonder, filled with things that are far too exciting for us to comprehend. :LOL Simply holding the telephone and pushing the buttoms can make a toddlers day. What's wrong with that?
With my ds, it seems the more he is able to explore and the more gentle and respectful we treat him, the more he wants to listen and be respectful to us.


----------



## famousmockngbrd (Feb 7, 2003)

That's true, children do learn by repetition, but I see Kateana's point about how listening to the same old song and dance a million times can get old. There is a fine line between repetition and plain old nagging. It's a good idea to use humor and fun and creativity to get your point across, I think that is much more likely to stick with the child than just stating something over and over.


----------



## famousmockngbrd (Feb 7, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Cutie Patootie*
With my ds, it seems the more he is able to explore and the more gentle and respectful we treat him, the more he wants to listen and be respectful to us.

ITA, I have found this to be absolutely true.


----------



## prairiechild (Feb 9, 2005)

Well, this thread is really interesting to me as I have read this book and grew up in an Amish-Mennonite family. When I started reading the book I was shocked that they spoke highly of the child training methods of the Amish. Believe me, I've been in a lot of Amish, Amish-Mennonite and Mennonite homes and I have seen things and heard stories that make the Pearls look like saints. I was actually relieved when I read the book and found that they were not advocating things like beatings with belts, hitting children in their faces etc. I decided that they really haven't been around the Amish very much.
My parents have offered numerous times to share with me their videos and child training books from the Pearls. I've never taken them up on it. I suppose it is a bit of resentment on my part. I'm thinking yeah, what could Mom and Dad know about good child training methods. My family considers the Pearls methods to be amazing, effective and certainly much more liberal than anything they have ever known.
My veiws? I'm not sure. I'm following this thread with interest.
Im not saying all Amish families are abusive. I have not seen all Amish families. I will say that their beliefs of non-violence and pacifism are beautiful. However, I have found the Amish to be some of the most violent people I have ever known. It is well concealed from outsiders. Believe me, I am happy to be an outsider.
Prairiechild


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kateana
I see what you are saying about parents being in a place reserved for God... but aren't we as parents, in a way, in that position? We give them life, teach them, protect and provide for them, and above all, *love* them...?
Absolutely not. Like some cheesy song I heard on Christian radio today says, "God is God and we are not."


----------



## our veggie baby (Jan 31, 2005)

I consider myself a Christian, but if the God a couple of you are speaking of is one who advocates hitting a child, we obviously believe in a different God.

...and with all due respect, a couple of posts have alluded to "hitting with love" or some such NONSENSE. Please enlighten me as to how the @#[email protected]# one does that? yeah, I could see me accidentally spilling chocolate soy milk all over the desk and computer (I am 27, I actually did this today lol)...and my husband slapping me one across the face out of "love" to "teach" me we shouldn't do that.
How is flicking or hitting a different part of the body ANY different?


----------



## bamamom (Dec 9, 2004)

Okay, I'm chiming in. I actually know lots of folks who subscribe to the Pearls, some loosely and some strictly. I was pretty much raised this way. But coming here and listening to all you mommas talk and flame has caused me to think. think think think, even at night when I should be sleeping. Is it possible I've been lied to all these years? That my kids can actually grow up to be sane caring non criminals if they aren't disciplined/spanked??? I was brought up fundamental Christian and spanking was the only way to go. If you didn't, then you were up a creek as far as your kids were concerned. And then I get here and all these great caring Christian mommas are saying "HEY! Whoa, stop and think. Would Jesus hit a child?? Would Jesus hurt someone??" And the answer is no. Do you know how hard it is to realize this?? I'm nearly crying as I write this, because I feel so duped. I've made mistakes with my baby girl, and she's only 17 months old. Yes we've swatted, no we've never left a mark on her. And we did it because we thought it was the only way to raise her up. This kills me. I'm glad she's not any older, because she won't remember these times. Please keep posting and rest assured that even if I don't post very often, I'm reading and watching.


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

bamamom,

But the beauty of you coming here and realizing this now and now 10 or 20 years down the road is that it's not too late to change.


----------



## bamamom (Dec 9, 2004)

I know, but it still hurts!


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

bamamom,

I couldn't tell from your post if you still believe in God/Jesus. But if you do, remember that He loves you and will forgive you and help you to be gentle now. For as much as you'll beat yourself up, God won't hold it against you. Once you repent for something, it's gone. And there are lots of good Christian books out there that don't recommend hurting your child. You have lots of resources available to you.


----------



## bamamom (Dec 9, 2004)

Yes I still beleive in God and Jesus, and I'm still a Christian. I know that God forgives and forgets forever, it's just hard to reconcile within myself when such a small person is involved.


----------



## Cutie Patootie (Feb 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bamamom*
Okay, I'm chiming in. I actually know lots of folks who subscribe to the Pearls, some loosely and some strictly. I was pretty much raised this way. But coming here and listening to all you mommas talk and flame has caused me to think. think think think, even at night when I should be sleeping. Is it possible I've been lied to all these years? That my kids can actually grow up to be sane caring non criminals if they aren't disciplined/spanked??? I was brought up fundamental Christian and spanking was the only way to go. If you didn't, then you were up a creek as far as your kids were concerned. And then I get here and all these great caring Christian mommas are saying "HEY! Whoa, stop and think. Would Jesus hit a child?? Would Jesus hurt someone??" And the answer is no. Do you know how hard it is to realize this?? I'm nearly crying as I write this, because I feel so duped. I've made mistakes with my baby girl, and she's only 17 months old. Yes we've swatted, no we've never left a mark on her. And we did it because we thought it was the only way to raise her up. This kills me. I'm glad she's not any older, because she won't remember these times. Please keep posting and rest assured that even if I don't post very often, I'm reading and watching.

I am tearing up just reading your post.







You are so humble and I know that is a hard thing when you have been taught one way is right all this time...I'm speaking from experience.







: Your little one is so lucky to have a mama like you who cares more about learning and sharing with other mamas than about being right.


----------



## our veggie baby (Jan 31, 2005)

Quote:

Do you know how hard it is to realize this?? I'm nearly crying as I write this, because I feel so duped.
I went through this as well, it is a mourning of sorts--luckily I went through it before I got pregnant....I was raised in a VERY um, let's say "pro-spanking" family and it was hard when I realized that my parents REALLY messed up in that department. It was hard realizing that they really damaged me in so many ways, while at the same time genuinely loving me and wanting the best for me! It is really easy to just hate a horrible person, but it is SO much harder to take people who you KNOW love you, who you KNOW wanted the best for you, who you KNOW are decent people, but admit to yourself that they made major mistakes---it is hard to reconcille (sp) that within yourself, but the only way I knew that I wouldn't repeat the mistakes of my parents is to first acknowledge that what they did was wrong, hurtful, damaging, and had lasting effects. Believe me, my Mother and I have had many discussions about this, and though I know it upsets her and she feels attacked (though I am not trying to)...it was important to me to let her know that she hurt me and that I thought what she did was wrong. We are having our first child in May (a daughter) and I am confident I will NEVER lay a hand on her---not because I don't think I will have the impulse ingrained in me from years of that being one of the only forms of "discipline" I recieved...but because I confronted it...I stared it in the face...I stopped defending my parents and stopped trying to validate or justify it away, and just accepted it for what it was. They hit me, it wasn't right...no matter what their reasons, pressures, justifications, it wasn't right. I still love them, am still close to my Mom (not to my Dad but for different reasons)....but it took me a long time to heal from their "discipline"---and believe me, they never left marks either so that is not even an issue. It is the marks that are left inside that hurt the most.

So while it saddens me that you are so upset, it is a good thing in a way, because it seems like you are finally acknowledging to yourself and about your parents the damaging effects that spanking has on children. Forgive your parents for hitting you, forgive yourself for hitting your child, but never forget the effects it can and does have...and here's to hoping you stay at MDC and really listen to and utilize the techniques of gentle discipline...and I am praying you never spank your child again...I truly believe it is the healthiest way to go, both for your child, for yourself and (imo) in the eyes of God.


----------



## Dechen (Apr 3, 2004)

(((bamamom)))

I wish I could reach through the screen and give you a hug


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamahammer*
I know this was a couple of pages back, but I had to respond re: the rod.

The rod was a tool for _guidance_ used by sheperds. The rod _was not_ a tool for punishment. If you recall in the 23rd Psalm, []Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me.[/i] The rod was used by sheperds to guide sheep into the herd - to show them the way, to stop them from going into dangerous territory. It showed them the way to go - to be safe, to be with the herd, to be with their sheperd. The rod is a comfort - it is a tool used for _discipline_ - teaching - not punishment. The rod would be akin to the rope at a mive theater than shows where to form a line. It shows you the proper way to go, but it does not dole out punishment for going against it. If the rod were a source of physical discipline, do you really believe David would have written it into his poetry as a comfort? No one who has been beaten with a belt would wax poetic about it's comfort. In fact, most who were beaten with a phyiscal object that was displayed as remindwer in their home speak of it being a constant source of fear - certainly not one of comfort.

I definitely see what you are saying. Honestly, I'm not very schooled on shepherding, so I had no idea!







And, actually, I had always thought that David was referring to a rod of punishment, b/c I saw it as a "Thank God He cares enough to discipline me" type of thing. But I totally see what you are saying, and I thank you for explaining. Also, you referred to a beating with a belt, and a few other people keep bringing up beatings... even though I had grown up with occasional excessive spankings, I never thought of myself as having been beaten. I know that there are people who are abused, and beaten with a rod or belt or whatever, so I guess I never really felt too sorry for myself, seeing as I've never had a spanking that left a mark... KWIM? I am not trying to justify spanking by explaining this, but to let people know that I never thought that beating was ok to begin with. And thank you again for explaining the "rod" to me.


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LizD*
Yes, someone I know was so terrorized by wood spoons she couldn't have them in the kitchen, much to her roomates' annoyance.

Since this isn't the place to debate the merits and demerits of physical discipline, what is the purpose of the continuing discussion? Would it be how to respond to people who use this sort of manual as a guide? How to show them alternatives? It seems we are floundering in defense of hitting vs GD or something about God protecting people or not.

Frankly I don't see what God or belief or lack of belief therein has to do with it. This is a gentle discipline forum, and while not everyone has to agree, I am having trouble following the conversation at this point. Should a thread about what the Bible says to Christians be in the Spirituality/Religious Studies forum?

Regarding extremity, plenty of people think not spanking is extreme on the side of over-permissiveness (like the authors of this dreadful book), and plenty think spanking or threatening to spank is extreme. I count myself among the latter.

I don't think it's just one discussion anymore... I think a few have started, and I understand your confusion.







It wasn't really supposed to be a religious discussion, per se, but since the Pearls' base all thier materials on the Bible, it's inevitable.


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MomInFlux*







:

I'm horrified by this line of thinking. If I had to choose between the parent who puts their child in daycare so that they can work and the parent who stays home and hits their child, I will chose the working parent EVERY time.

I am horrified by people who (and there are exceptions!) send their kids to daycare so they can have a nice house in an upscale neighborhood and buy their neglected children lots and lots of Elmo crap. Oh, how fun it is to see the joy on that baby's face for an hour or so each might before putting him to bed. Please.

The line of thinking, if you have been following from the beginning, is that my parents *rarely* spank, but they do believe it's ok. I've seen them do it, and it's never out of control or in anger. So I know that while they are not GDing, they are not abusing (or neglecting), either.


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LizD*
What on earth does not killing the baby have to do with gentle discipline?

That's what I'd like to know!


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
You still seem to be defending the Pearls, and this book. When will you let it go? What they are advocating has the very real potential to harm children. Period.

I don't think you will find one "mainstream" source that says this book is OK.

You think I'm still defending the Pearls, b/c I don't think that they could kill a baby? *sigh* I never said there was no potential to harm children. Good job on pointing out what we ALL knew already.










And what does mainstream have to do with anything? Are we on the same thread here?


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *our veggie baby*
Hmmm, how far does that extend? Child molestation? Beatings? The Pearls ADVOCATE staying with a husband who has sexually molested his children.
***
I mean, yes, to a point people can do as they like with their children...but I'm sorry, if I know someone is being molested, or beat, or abused, I am going to do something about it...and if you want to sling scripture about it, I will toss this out:

Leviticus 5
1 " 'If a person sins because he does not speak up when he hears a public charge to testify regarding something he has seen or learned about, he will be held responsible.
***
Do you see my point at all?

You have very good points. Personally, I think it's pretty sick that the Pearls say that about a molester... it is a prime example of why we shouldn't EVER take everything someone says as Gospel. Anyways, people that know even a bit of the Bible know that it is not a Biblical view...


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kchoffmann*
Also itching to say, Kateana made a comment way back about how discilining one's child around having to do something s/he doesn't want to do is on par with a grown up leaving the workplace if s/he doesn't like a coworker. This comment misses the point. The goal, I would think, is for our children to be aware of and respectful of their feelings about someone, and then know how to be assertive with their feelings. A grown up can know how s/he feels about a coworker and make work manageable by being assertive and clear with his/her boundaries and feelings. We teach our children these things when we are teaching them about having relationships. Relationships are much more complex, I believe, than just one person is to be obeyed.

I may be misunderstanding what you are saying, so please correct me if I'm wrong (I don't get the first sentence)... Are you saying that the kids/coworkers thing is comparing apples to oranges...? I guess I don't know what you're saying here at all, I'm sorry... I do think that they are very different situations, but I was using someione's example in a response to her.


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pammysue*
Well, as I said in my post, to me GD (actually I prefer to not use the word "discipline" at all, I like "guidance" better) is about _teaching_. It is important to repeat the same lesson over and over becuase that is how learning is done. Following your train of thought, I should be able to say to a 18 mo. old "Johnny, this block is yellow" once and expect Johnny to have learned what a block is and what yellow is from that one explanation.

I see what you are saying, and that definitely has a place. But (and of course, we are going really of topic here) it seems like the difference between schooling and unschooling (which I prefer). But like I said, there is a place for the "schooling" approach.


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *our veggie baby*
I completely agree (with the response)...I mean, I sure as heck haven't learned ANYTHING in my life---from driving to algebra to painting to guitar to even going to the bathroom on a toilet when I was around 2, having only been taught "once"....

I learned (sorry, retained) nothing my memorizing facts in a book, and being tested on it. But I learned a whole lot more by going to the museum and exploring things or seeing/experiencing things in a creative way, or learning lessons through real life, rather than hearing lectures and (when I was younger) reading stuff I had no interest in learning about...

So, did you learn these important things by hearing someone talk about them over and over, or by doing them yourself?


----------



## Frogmorest (Jan 31, 2004)

"The line of thinking, if you have been following from the beginning, is that my parents *rarely* spank, but they do believe it's ok. I've seen them do it, and it's never out of control or in anger. So I know that while they are not GDing, they are not abusing"

Hitting is abuse. Period. You GO TO JAIL for hitting a spouse or a stranger... so why is it EVER ok to hit a child ?

Tammy... who being a pagan mama was going to stay out of this...


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Cutie Patootie*
I don't believe we are ever "put" in the place of God in any way, even in the eyes of our children. We don't give them life...God does...God protects and provides for us if we allow him, and we if we are overflowing with gratitude and want to pass that love on to our children, then we will protect and provide for them because God has provided for us.
***
I have also tried as much to my abilility to study out any and all of the scriptures that refer to "spanking"..."rod"..."beating"...etc. There is so much hidden in there it is quite unbelievable.
***
The thing that I can't understand is how parents consistantly misjudge the developmental stage of babies and toddlers. A tiny bit of research and reading, or a quick conversation with any psychologist and you quickly learn that it is impossible for a 10 month old to comprehend...no throwing...no grabbing glasses...no hitting...no biting...even if they can understand, they do not have the ability to override their impulses to touch and grab. Not to mention these things are stages of learning that every child goes through. Throwing things off a high chair is a developmental stage, not a reason to switch or flick your 1 year old. The world is full of wonder, filled with things that are far too exciting for us to comprehend. :LOL Simply holding the telephone and pushing the buttoms can make a toddlers day. What's wrong with that?
With my ds, it seems the more he is able to explore and the more gentle and respectful we treat him, the more he wants to listen and be respectful to us.

I did not try to portray that we are like God, but that we have a relationship with our children that has many similarities to our relationship with our Heavenly Father.

I have no idea how to go about researching the topic in the original language, my resources are all in english. Do you have any links or useful tools to refer me to?

I understand what you are saying about developing, etc... but if they are learning by doing all of this, how is it that they are unable to learn *not* to do them (ex: throwing stuff, etc)? (And not necessarily by flicking, but maybe something else, IDK.) Most babies, at a young age, make throwing things a game, and I can see that, b/c they obviously think it's funny... YK? So it seems that they are much smarter than you may be giving them credit for...? Regardless, you have good points.


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Babamom... I am so with you.







It is really really wierd (for lack of a better word) to have to upheave an entire mindset like this... It really never occured to me before that good parenting wouldn't include spanking (and I know I'll hear a load for saying that). But, knowing what I do about Jesus, it also seems crazy to me that I've never thought of it before (that was what hit me so hard, too... why did I ever think it would be Christ-like to hit?)... I'm just glad to be exploring it now, too.

As for my parents (Dad and step-mom), I will never be angry or bitter at them for how they raised me, even if I raise my kids completely the opposite... I'm a pretty forgiving person, and I think it comes from having to deal with my mom and the whole abandonment issue, which I feel dwarfs the spanking thing (and maybe that's why I'm so anti-daycare?)... Anyways, I had to get over that and stop hating her, so if I can forgive her, why not my dad, YK?

I think your daughter will be so proud of you and love you so much more for being the godly mama you are...


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kateana*
You think I'm still defending the Pearls, b/c I don't think that they could kill a baby? *sigh* I never said there was no potential to harm children. Good job on pointing out what we ALL knew already.










And what does mainstream have to do with anything? Are we on the same thread here?


First of all, the snarkiness really does nothing to help your point.

I'm going to try one more time to explain what I meant originally.

TTUAC used the way it is written is extreme, and damaging to a child's relationship with his or her parents, and his or her relationship with God. As written, with nothing added, it is abusive and , I believe, an affront to God and His lovingkindness.

The things this book suggest have the *potential* of severe abuse or death. The pushing the child in the pond and letting her almost drown to teach her not to go in the pond sticks out in my mind. How easy would it be for a parent not to make it in time. If you think there is absolutely no way someone following this book could kill a baby, that's your opinion. I would definitely disagree.

When a book is so harmful used just how it is written, I refuse to believe there are any redeeming qualities in that book.


----------



## our veggie baby (Jan 31, 2005)

I am also curious...you keep saying your parents never hit you out of control or anger---what did they hit you out of? I am serious. Please don't say love, because I do not see in any capacity how hurting someone physically (even if there was no mark) could be considered love in any shape of the word....

It is like I said above---

yeah, I could see me accidentally spilling chocolate soy milk all over the desk and computer (I am 27, I actually did this today lol)...and my husband slapping me one across the face out of "love" to "teach" me we shouldn't do that.
How is flicking or hitting a different part of the body ANY different?

I would like to know seriously, how that would be ANY different than spanking a child...other than I could have my husband arrested if he dared to do that...


----------



## coopnwhitsmommy (Jan 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *famousmockngbrd*
I know you are probably feeling like we are all ganging up on you, but surely you know there are many children, Christian and non-Christian alike, who are abducted and abused and worse every day? Did God not want to protect those chldren? Being Christian does not mean nothing bad will ever happen to you.


Being one of those children who was abused and worse everyday of her life for 17yrs I felt I should respond to that. Did God want me to be hurt...no Did he allow it? Yes. I don't know why. When I was in the thick of it I cursed God and Begged Him and Struck Bargains with him I wanted to be out and to be free. Now that I'm looking back on my childhood I can see God's hand in my life. It's hard to explain but he protected me from so much. He gave me strength to wake up each day. He gave me strength and peace to tell someone. We don't know what happens in families who have lost a child in this way. We don't know what happens to the child in his/her last moments. We don't know Gods workings. The world is a horrible place with Horrible people in it. I don't think that nit picking on a parenting style that many people ascribe to is an effective way to spend our time. Concentrate on raising your children to be caring loving compassionate children so they can raise caring loving compassionate children. Concentrate on helping others learn how to be caring loving compassionate people. You know from the birth of Christ until the birth of the Roman Catholic Church was over 3 centuries? We can't change the world in a generation. it takes time patience and persistance.

oh and by the way...the comment to "Burn it" seemed very violent to me...nothing like a mob of angry people burning books...reminds me of Nazi Germany using the content of libraries to fuel bon fires in the streets.

JMO


----------



## NYCVeg (Jan 31, 2005)

I just don't understand the logic that children "need" this kind of training. I was never hit, or even really "punished", as far as I remember--certainly no time-outs, and no reward system either. My parents just treated me like a human being--with respect, intellect, and understanding. Knowing that they respected me as an individual, I respected them--I rarely, if ever, "acted out"--no temper tantrums in stores, my parents could always take me to restaurants and I was very well behaved, etc. And, of course, I became a productive, upstanding citizen (went to Yale, married a nice Jewish boy from Long Island, currently working on a PhD and teaching...I'm hardly some out-of-control maniac who never learned about proper boundaries!







).

Why don't people understand that children are people, just smaller?


----------



## mommyofshmoo (Oct 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kateana*
Premarital sex is sex before marriage, and unless one of the two spouses breaks a vow to stay faithful, there should be no risk of STD. That was the missed point, I think. My best friend has not yet had sex, and she doesn't have to worry about an STD. If she marries a virgin, there will be zero risk unless someone cheats, which is also a violation of God's laws. So, the whole point is that, according to God's perfect plan, as written in the Bible, 2 people will only have sex with each other, without the worry of STDs creeping in mysteriously.









Yeah, but where on earth are you going to find two virgins? (This is an homage to '80's teen movies, not a serious question.)

I guess my point was that bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people.

However, there are some natural consquences (or risks) to actions and that is what we need to teach children.

But I don't think everything bad that happens to people is their own fault. and I do think there is danger in being too trusting- especially expecting other people, or even G-d, to protect you, rather than protecting yourslef.


----------



## Wilhemina (Dec 26, 2001)

AnnetteMarie,

Just have to say, I completely understand and agree with you. Thanks for being willing to stay in this crazy thread!


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Oh good- I didn't think I was being all that unclear, but you never know!


----------



## kchoffmann (Aug 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kateana*
I am horrified by people who (and there are exceptions!) send their kids to daycare so they can have a nice house in an upscale neighborhood and buy their neglected children lots and lots of Elmo crap. Oh, how fun it is to see the joy on that baby's face for an hour or so each might before putting him to bed. Please.

What?!?!? I'm sorry, I want to be respectful here, but do you know anyone who has their children in day care? I don't have my kid in day care, for the record, but I feel very confident saying this is not why most have their children in day care. You've created quite an offensive stereotype there. I take offense, in particular, at your suggestion that working mothers are somehow bad parents in comparison to those who stay at home... More importantly, I'm interested in your "horror" about kids in day care -- there's much research suggesting day care is anything but harmful -- but then no similar kneejerk horror about hitting-- plenty of research suggesting hitting is quite damaging.

Also, in response to your response to me (I'm the one who tried to make a point about your comparison of grown ups in the workplace and children). I understand you were using an example to make a point to another poster. You suggested we need to make our children do what they don't want to because when they grow they will need to deal with things they don't like. I was saying, Sure they will. But teaching them to silently swallow their feelings about something is not terribly effective. Rather, the goal is to teach them to recognize and respect their feelings about their environment, and then have an appropriate way to deal with those feelings (such as being assertive, etc.)


----------



## kchoffmann (Aug 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NYCVeg*
Why don't people understand that children are people, just smaller?

Exactly, and in being smaller, are very much victims to bigger people hitting them.


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

Quote:

I'm horrified by this line of thinking. If I had to choose between the parent who puts their child in daycare so that they can work and the parent who stays home and hits their child, I will chose the working parent EVERY time.
Precisely. Between being hit and being with someone else, I'll take someone else, thank you.


----------



## RubyV (Feb 4, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *our veggie baby*
yeah, I could see me accidentally spilling chocolate soy milk all over the desk and computer (I am 27, I actually did this today lol)...and my husband slapping me one across the face out of "love" to "teach" me we shouldn't do that.
How is flicking or hitting a different part of the body ANY different?

I would like to know seriously, how that would be ANY different than spanking a child...other than I could have my husband arrested if he dared to do that...

THIS BEARS REPEATING

IF HITTING AN ADULT IS WRONG, WHY IS HITTING SOMEONE SMALLER AND WEAKER OK?

I"m sorry, but saying that reapeating yourself is tiring, and frustrating, thus making swatting ok, makes me ill. Hell, I"m an adult, and I have never learned anything by seeing/hearing/reading it once. Learning takes repitition. To be so impatient with an infant is sad, and makes me wonder what you think parenting entails? To parent is to teach. It is to explain to my child the whys of the world.


----------



## famousmockngbrd (Feb 7, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kateana*
I learned (sorry, retained) nothing my memorizing facts in a book, and being tested on it. But I learned a whole lot more by going to the museum and exploring things or seeing/experiencing things in a creative way, or learning lessons through real life, rather than hearing lectures and (when I was younger) reading stuff I had no interest in learning about...

So, did you learn these important things by hearing someone talk about them over and over, or by doing them yourself?

You've really hit on a great point here. For me, this is one of the greatest things about the GD philosophy - that children learn by doing. They are allowed to explore, to make mistakes, to test things out, to learn, and to fail sometimes. I'm sure you know that a cornerstone of GD is natural consequences, in other words allowing children as much as possible to experience the results of their actions.

IMO, the Pearls are the direct opposite of this. Their philosophy of strict obedience does not encourage kids to explore the world on their own terms. If you get spanked for disobeying, all you learn is that X action gets you spanked. If you're always being told what to do, you never get to make your own mistakes or learn the lessons that go along with them.

I think parenting philosophies like the Pearls' create obedient children. I think parenting philosophies like GD create independent thinkers. IMO, independent thinking is a more valuable life skill, not just for the individual but for society. Different people have different goals.


----------



## our veggie baby (Jan 31, 2005)

Quote:

Originally Posted by our veggie baby
yeah, I could see me accidentally spilling chocolate soy milk all over the desk and computer (I am 27, I actually did this today lol)...and my husband slapping me one across the face out of "love" to "teach" me we shouldn't do that.
How is flicking or hitting a different part of the body ANY different?

I would like to know seriously, how that would be ANY different than spanking a child...other than I could have my husband arrested if he dared to do that...

RubyV responds:

THIS BEARS REPEATING

IF HITTING AN ADULT IS WRONG, WHY IS HITTING SOMEONE SMALLER AND WEAKER OK?

I"m sorry, but saying that reapeating yourself is tiring, and frustrating, thus making swatting ok, makes me ill. Hell, I"m an adult, and I have never learned anything by seeing/hearing/reading it once. Learning takes repitition. To be so impatient with an infant is sad, and makes me wonder what you think parenting entails? To parent is to teach. It is to explain to my child the whys of the world.

Ummm, I REALLY hope no one, especially you , derived from my statement that I am PRO spanking??? I really hope you were using my statement above to reiterate that spanking a child is ridiculous and cruel....I would hope reading my statement, people would instantly get that I am adamantly ANTI spanking...just wanted to clear that up because readingyour response it sort of looked like you thought I was pro-spanking...


----------



## Chanley (Nov 19, 2001)

Goodness emmanates from love and evil (or what would be considered evil) from fear.

I refuse to parent using fear as a control mechanism. I want my children to trust me and be comfortable with me.

I was molested as a child. Starting around 3 or 4 by my moms brother. This happened every chance he could get until I was 6.5 when I finally told an adult. The only adult in my life who did not hit me was my step mom. We had such a respect for her because she paid attention to us and did not spank us. When I was really young, I often got in trouble for doing things I had no idea were wrong. That has left me with a very real fear that when things go wrong it was due to something I did and just do not know it. So when she asked me if anyone had ever done anything like xyz, I told her. My uncle assured me I would be spanked worse than ever if I told. It made sense that I was doing something wrong and should not tell.

I refuse to have that kind of feeling going on with my kids. I cannot coerce them, I will not manipulate them and I will always be safe and loving. And to say that you can lovingly hit someone is like saying you can gently murder someone. Spanking is hitting no matter how you slice it or dice it. Hitting is wrong, no two ways about it.

Just my buck o five.


----------



## our veggie baby (Jan 31, 2005)

Thanks for your post chanley and I am so sorry that happened to you. I agree with you completely, and I am still waiting for the answer to my question....what exactly DO people's parents or caregivers hit them with when someone says they never hit them out of "control or anger"????

Hitting is hitting is hitting...it is never a positive thing, under any circumstances. Even if I had to resort to physical violence to protect myself against an attacker or something, it would be justified of course, but it still wouldn't make it any less of a violent act, with the intent to hurt someone--hitting someone, ESPECIALLY a child, is NEVER RIGHT...EVER...under ANY circumstance, unless the absolute extreme I mentioned above, like fighting off an attacker or something---which I DOUBT is what you are doing when you hit a child *sigh*....

It sickens me when people say "hit with love" or something, how in the WORLD is that in ANY way a logical statement??


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
First of all, the snarkiness really does nothing to help your point.

I'm going to try one more time to explain what I meant originally.

TTUAC used the way it is written is extreme, and damaging to a child's relationship with his or her parents, and his or her relationship with God. As written, with nothing added, it is abusive and , I believe, an affront to God and His lovingkindness.

The things this book suggest have the *potential* of severe abuse or death. The pushing the child in the pond and letting her almost drown to teach her not to go in the pond sticks out in my mind. How easy would it be for a parent not to make it in time. If you think there is absolutely no way someone following this book could kill a baby, that's your opinion. I would definitely disagree.

When a book is so harmful used just how it is written, I refuse to believe there are any redeeming qualities in that book.

Snarkiness sure does make me feel better though. And since you're a mom, I'm sure you can handle it. If you haven't heard it yet, you will.







(I haven't looked at how old your kids are, if it's in your sig...)

You are absolutely entitled to your opinion, and like I have said before, I'm not trying to get you to like the Pearls. Their book, as it is written, is their method of parenting, combined with their personal doctrine. Personal doctrine, in general, always gets sticky (and sometimes downright blasphemous) b/c it is doctrine, and not necessarily God's pure religion (which BTW, the Bible says is to love the fatherless and widows--paraphrased).

As for the pond issue, it's not something I would do. However, by definition, pushing someone into water means that you have to be close enough to touch them, and are therefore not in danger of "not making it in time". At the same time, mistakes can happen anytime and anyplace. Babies drown in bathtubs, and bathing isn't abuse b/c it's *possible* to drown someone.

Maybe the main problem in our communication is different views of physical abuse in general. You have read here how I was raised, so I won't go into that again. But let me contrast it with how a friend of mine was raised, so maybe you will understand more why I have a hard time thinking I was abused by being spanked on the butt... My good friend was chased around the house by his mother, who happened to be wielding a knife. On top of that, she has punched him in the face and broken his nose, at least once that I can remember him telling me about. After hearing that, I feel I have some perspective on what abuse really is.


----------



## beanandpumpkin (Jan 2, 2005)

Count me in on the mamas who were spanked as children. I grew up terrified of making mistakes, because I got spanked for them.

We are a GD family. Yes, I've swatted a hiney a couple of times in my day, and it WAS out of anger. No, I've never left a mark (thank goodness!), and I felt terrible about it afterward, and apologized to my son afterward, saying "I made a big mistake. It is NEVER okay to hit, and I hit you, and I'm so sorry."

I have read excerpts from the Pearl's book before, and it makes me literally want to vomit. I remember one especially about spanking a baby repeatedly, over and over again, for crying in the carseat. It makes me ill to think that children are treated in this way. Physically ill.

I can't even get into the Biblical approach theories. Dr. Sears is a Christian, and I love his Discipline book. He and his wife also wrote a book on Christian Parenting, I'm not sure of the name.

To the OP: perhaps you could destroy the book that you received (I'm so distraught reading over this thread that I don't even remember who sent it to you!), and send the donor a copy of the Sears Discipline book, or any of the other wonderful books written on Gentle Discipline.

I just want to go cry now for all of the poor babies who are being switched and who fear their parents.......

Michelle


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *our veggie baby*
I am also curious...you keep saying your parents never hit you out of control or anger---what did they hit you out of? I am serious. Please don't say love, because I do not see in any capacity how hurting someone physically (even if there was no mark) could be considered love in any shape of the word....

It is like I said above---

yeah, I could see me accidentally spilling chocolate soy milk all over the desk and computer (I am 27, I actually did this today lol)...and my husband slapping me one across the face out of "love" to "teach" me we shouldn't do that.
How is flicking or hitting a different part of the body ANY different?

I would like to know seriously, how that would be ANY different than spanking a child...other than I could have my husband arrested if he dared to do that...

I absolutely see what you are saying, and you had a great point.

What I had meant by "out of love" is that it usually went something like this: "Kati, since you blah-blah-blahed, you are going to get a spanking." I have never, ever been yelled at by my dad, ever. And whenever he has been mad at me, we talk about it. He has never hauled off and hit me. So I never was afraid that I'd be surprised with a blow or anything. Also, knowing that my dad sincerely believes that spanking is necessary for teaching children right from wrong, I think it was out of love that he did what he really didn't want to do by spanking me. At this point, though, I know what you mean about never being able to hurt someone in love, or b/c it's "good for them". You and your husband are a good example.


----------



## our veggie baby (Jan 31, 2005)

It just seems to me there has to be a deeper reason that some people defend spanking. I know no one is perfect, and like the poster right above me, have swatted their child's butt once in a while etc (I am not condoning it)...but at least she is woman enough to admit it was out of anger and frustration and apologized after.

I still see my questions as being dodged though.

How can hitting, in any capacity, be a non-violent act? How can it be done in love?

To be devil's advocate, I see people saying things like "it's just a little tap on the butt, no big deal"...well if that is the case, why the need to do it at all??? It has to be something more than that, done for a deeper reason, to instill fear, or compliance, or whatever....because if it is SO innocent and non-hurtful and just a "tap"...how would you find that any more effective than GD techniques?

Hitting a child, in any way shape or form, to me, is a sign of lazy parenting...a sign that someone has control issues and a sign that someone is obviously out of control of themselves and their own actions that they would resort to laying a hand on a child who is utterly defenseless. It disgusts me, the people who think this is in any way effective or acceptable. It disgusts me that people are actually DEFENDING someone pushing their toddler in a pool of water, saying "well babies drown in bathtubs"....my God, that is some sadistic stuff....it scares me that there are people who think like that...

ETA: okay we posted at the same time so the "out of love" thing weas explained, and while I believe you when you say your Dad never hauled off and panked you...I still believe that hitting someone is in NO way a loving act...

Furthermore, at the risk of sounding like some kind of psychologist or whatever, it actually IS possible to say you love your Dad and that you know he loved you and still maybe admit that how he disciplined was wrong...I mean, I know firsthand I always wanted to defend my Mom for her "discipline techniques" because after all, I turned out "fine"...but there came a point where I had to be real with myself and admit, yes, she loves me, but she really f-ed up in the discipline department and I have to let go of that and get past it....


----------



## beanandpumpkin (Jan 2, 2005)

On the topic of babies drowning, etc: another mama I know online recently had a scare...her preschool aged son slipped in the pool and went underwater. She grabbed him out, sicne she was standing right there, but he had taken a large gasp and was vomiting and gagging. She took him home, and he was up hours later still vomiting...she took him to the ped and he was sent to the ER for "near drowning." I don't know what the treatment, and I'm not going to debate whether any treatment was necessary or not....It was just pool water, but I"d guess he could have be at risk or aspiration pneumonia. Imagine the fear and terror that that little boy felt, simply falling underwater and gasping. I know that I've gotten water in my nose before as a child and as an adult, and it does not feel good. Imagine if it was your PARENT who shoved you in the water! Imagine if you were the parent, shoving your baby underwater (and I've not read Pearl's book so I dont' know why that was advocated) for any reason, and your baby got aspiration pneumonia, or even if he or she was still vomiting for HOURS afterward.

I just don't get it.









Michelle


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *coopnwhitsmommy*
Now that I'm looking back on my childhood I can see God's hand in my life.
***
I don't think that nit picking on a parenting style that many people ascribe to is an effective way to spend our time.
***
the comment to "Burn it" seemed very violent to me...

It sounds like you have tremendous faith, and I am so... unable to find a word. I am just so happy for you that God has brought you out of that hell, and without bitterness toward Him.

I think it's my fault that this has come to nitpicking... I saw the thread, and started arguing, basically. I am so glad this thread is going on though, b/c I am learning a lot, and about something I had never considered questioning before. As hard as it can be sometimes, I love the journey of searching for truth...








I have noticed, too, that for being a *Gentle* Discipline forum, most people here are far from gentle. Oh well...


----------



## Nurturing Mama (Nov 11, 2003)

I've been reading this and staying out of it until now, since other mamas have been making wonderful arguments, but I want to respond to this.

Quote:

"Kati, since you blah-blah-blahed, you are going to get a spanking."
This just doesn't seem very helpful to me. A child isn't supposed to do _x_ . child does _x_ , parent says since you did _x_ you get spanked. If my child did _x_ , I would say, "Remember we're not supposed to do _x_ because (insert various reasons)" and leave the hitting, which is totally irrelevant to _x_ . This way I hope to teach my child the real reason for not doing _x_ , instead of teaching him not to do _x_ because it will result in being hit.


----------



## our veggie baby (Jan 31, 2005)

I would suspect that a lot of people feel passionately about this subject because they feel that while children are defenseless, that adults should probably know better than to be hitting children and babies...

I know it seems like people are ganging up on you, but seriously, hitting is wrong. There is no if, ands, or buts about it. Plain and simple, hitting is wrong, there is no debate.
Just as if you claim to be a Christian, you will admit murder is wrong. Even if you kill someone in self defense, obviously, I think God takes some considerations that you were preserving your life and all, but at the end of the day, murder is murder....there can't be a changed definition just to suit someone else's justification.

So either hitting someone is right or wrong, you have to know where you stand on that, because it seriously is a black and white issue. The only exeption, MAYBE, being self defense, but as I said, hitting someone, even in self defense, is a violent act, though justified.

So if you agree that hitting is wrong, why would you consider doing it to a child?
That is where we come back to the old "what is wrong with a tap on the butt??"...well like I said, that defies logic when you think about it because if your child will respond and behave with just a "tap" on the butt, SURELY they will respond just as well, if not better, with alternative methods.


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NYCVeg*
I just don't understand the logic that children "need" this kind of training...I'm hardly some out-of-control maniac who never learned about proper boundaries!







).

Why don't people understand that children are people, just smaller?

Personally, I would see the contrast between kids like my sisters (who according to some are just to scared to do ANYthing) who are so sweet and amazing little girls, and kids out in public whose parents are miserable and saying things like "Johnny, will you please stop doing that?" no change... "Honey, I said please..." and so on... Anyways, on top of that, I was raised hearing that it was necessary. That's why I've thought that it was. On top of that, when I saw shows like Ricky Lake (I swear, I don't watch it anymore! haha) with guests who are afraid of their kids, I'd think, who is the boss, here, etc., etc... but I suppose those kids are probably produced by people who don't treat their kids right to begin with, in whatever way... I used to just think it was mainly b/c they didn't get spanked, and it somehow backed up my opinion that spanking was necessary...

It sounds like your parents were great.


----------



## famousmockngbrd (Feb 7, 2003)

It's a common misconception, that gentle discipline means no discipline. It's just not true. GD does not mean letting your kids do whatever they want. It also doesn't mean you beg your kids to behave. It's about respect, and compromise, and flexibility, and cooperation, on everybody's part. I really think you should check out the reading list at the top of the forum if you are interested in learning more, there are some great books out there on the subject.


----------



## DebraBaker (Jan 9, 2002)

I am fierce in my defense of children, to answer Katena.

I have never presumed to be gentle.

DB


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommyofshmoo*
Yeah, but where on earth are you going to find two virgins? (This is an homage to '80's teen movies, not a serious question.)
***
I guess my point was that bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people.
***
However, there are some natural consquences (or risks) to actions and that is what we need to teach children.
***
But I don't think everything bad that happens to people is their own fault. and I do think there is danger in being too trusting- especially expecting other people, or even G-d, to protect you, rather than protecting yourslef.

re: movie quote...








***
re: good things... absolutely.
***
That seems logical...
***
Of course it isn't their fault... I guess I may have made it sound that way, but I definitely didn't mean it that way... However I disagree re: trusting God to protect you. Jesus was a hard and perfect example of that: after praying that if it was God's will, please "take this cup from me" (meaning, please don't let me be crucified, hopefully there's another way this can be done?), Jesus was arrested, to be tried and then killed. A disciple, who was a zealot, cut off the ear of a guard to protect Jesus. Jesus' response was to heal the ear, (I think he also rebuked the zealot) and go willingly with the guards. He trusted God, even unto death. Of course, this is also veering way off topic, heading toward pacifism/non-violence, which I also like to discuss.







I'm sure I have a lot to learn about it (like how it applies to spanking!), but what I've learned so far was from Tolstoy's writings on Civil Disobedience and Non-Violence, and of course, the life of Jesus...


----------



## beanandpumpkin (Jan 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kateana*
Personally, I would see the contrast between kids like my sisters (who according to some are just to scared to do ANYthing) who are so sweet and amazing little girls, and kids out in public whose parents are miserable and saying things like "Johnny, will you please stop doing that?" no change... "Honey, I said please..." and so on... Anyways, on top of that, I was raised hearing that it was necessary. That's why I've thought that it was. On top of that, when I saw shows like Ricky Lake (I swear, I don't watch it anymore! haha) with guests who are afraid of their kids, I'd think, who is the boss, here, etc., etc... but I suppose those kids are probably produced by people who don't treat their kids right to begin with, in whatever way... I used to just think it was mainly b/c they didn't get spanked, and it somehow backed up my opinion that spanking was necessary...

It sounds like your parents were great.









It sounds like you have seen lots of cases of inconsistent and ineffective parenting that have nothing to do with spanking or not spanking. I have never asked my child repeatedly to "stop doing that." I will say one time "we have to sit at the table in a restaurant, if you're running around someone could drop something hot on you, and these other people came to enjoy their dinner quietly." then I give him something else to do. If he tries to get out of his seat again I say one time "I cannot let you stay here if you cannot follow the rules. If you cannot stay in your seat, we will have to sit in the car." Believe you me, two times of coming outside and sitting in the car with me while Daddy and baby enjoy dinner in the restaurant was all it took to cure my son of needing to jump out of his seat. That is a logical consequence...behave in a way that bothers others in a restaurant, you cannot stay in the restaurant. Was this convenient or pleasant for me? NO. Did I enjoy hearing him cry in the car with me? Of course not. The first time, we sat outside for about 5 minutes and then I said "do you think you can try again?" And he was fine the rest of the meal. The second time we were nearly done anyway and we did not go back in. This is what I consider effective parenting. Sometimes you have to do things that are inconvenient and hard.

If we'd gone home, and I said "because you jumped out of your seat and ran around and made everyone in the restaurant miserable, you are going to get a spanking," that would have probably been more convenient for me. I would have been able to eat my dinner (while at the same time nagging continuously at my son), and maybe I could even tell myself "this is in love, not out of anger." But maybe part of me WOULD be angry...after all, he all but ruined my dinner, and made me feel embarrassed in public! So the "not spanking in anger" would be a lie, no?

Not to mention, fairly ineffective. My son would have been able to continue with his escapades, would be allowed to ruin the dinner, and for waht price? Maybe to him the spanking a half hour later would be a small enough price to pay for acting up for an hour and getting all that attention.

As far as the teens on Ricki Lake, you do know that it is hyped up and not real, right? Even if it were real, as there are out of control teens, do you think that you're giong to put a 15 year old over your knee? When your prime method of discipline is not working because your child is too big......then what?

Michelle


----------



## famousmockngbrd (Feb 7, 2003)

Jesus was an adult, who freely chose all those things. Children can't make those same choices.


----------



## LizD (Feb 22, 2002)

It's always the kids who were brought up in really strict and/or religious households who go completely nuts and out of control as pre- and teens, anyway. I have certainly seen this over and over when I was a kid and now that my friends have kids that age. It's always the kids who were spanked or treated too rigidly who deceive their parents and get in way over their heads. The children who've been treated respectfully know they deserve respect, know to stay away from people who won't give them the same respect they have enjoyed their whole lives, and don't need to go off the deep end. They get in trouble, sure, but IME for far less than those whose parents spanked or otherwise kept too tight a leash when they were young.

Since not everyone here believes in the Christians' god at all, let alone various particular interpretations of Jesus, it is difficult to keep a gentle discipline discussion on topic if the subject keeps getting turned to whether or not some diety loves one.


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kchoffmann*
What?!?!? I'm sorry, I want to be respectful here, but do you know anyone who has their children in day care? I don't have my kid in day care, for the record, but I feel very confident saying this is not why most have their children in day care. You've created quite an offensive stereotype there. I take offense, in particular, at your suggestion that working mothers are somehow bad parents in comparison to those who stay at home... More importantly, I'm interested in your "horror" about kids in day care -- there's much research suggesting day care is anything but harmful -- but then no similar kneejerk horror about hitting-- plenty of research suggesting hitting is quite damaging.

Also, in response to your response to me (I'm the one who tried to make a point about your comparison of grown ups in the workplace and children). I understand you were using an example to make a point to another poster. You suggested we need to make our children do what they don't want to because when they grow they will need to deal with things they don't like. I was saying, Sure they will. But teaching them to silently swallow their feelings about something is not terribly effective. Rather, the goal is to teach them to recognize and respect their feelings about their environment, and then have an appropriate way to deal with those feelings (such as being assertive, etc.)

I started by saying that there are exceptions... yes I know people w/daycare kids... it was most definitely a generalization (or call it a stereotype, if you want): like I said, there would be exceptions... some people really need to use DC. I wasn't talking about them. sorry you are offended, but I still have a severe aversion to the DC system in general. It saddens me that *some* people would continue to have kids when they can't/won't/don't want to take care of them. Like I said in another post, I see it as a form of abandonment, which I have my own issues with. BTW, did I use the word "all" anywhere in my post re: DC?

Of course there is no research suggesting that DC is damaging... it would cause a huge uproar if anyone suggested that a parent stay home with the kids. We have come so far, remember? That was how it was done prior to the 50's. Can you imagine what it would do to the economy if people downsized and decided it was more important to take care of the family than to work for that vacation/boat/landscaping/luxury? Half the spending and twice the jobs? If research EVER showed that it was more beneficial to have a 2 parent family, with one at home, we would NEVER hear about it. I guarentee it. Until we do hear it, we are left to speculate.

I'm not horrified by the "hitting" (I call it spanking) b/c I am still learning about GD... please be patient with me...









I understand what you are saying now re:co-workers... I think there was a misunderstanding. I don't think that kids need to be made to do what they don't want *solely* b/c they will have to later in life... however, it is something that will have to learned eventually... and I think you are right, that appropriately dealing with feelings is also to be learned. From your response, it seems like maybe I came across as saying that a kid should just buck up and do nothing, bottling it up inside? I can see how it would be taken that way, but I really didn't mean it that way. To be fair, though, in a workplace, asking to be removed from the situation wouldn't usually fly. I think adults would be expected to try to work it out, or just buck it up and do the job they're there for, YK? The point in my original response to whoever brought up the workplace illustration, was that I thought it was a poor one. Standing nose-to-nose has it's place, and it obviously wouldn't be at work.


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RubyV*
THIS BEARS REPEATING

IF HITTING AN ADULT IS WRONG, WHY IS HITTING SOMEONE SMALLER AND WEAKER OK?

I"m sorry, but saying that reapeating yourself is tiring, and frustrating, thus making swatting ok, makes me ill. Hell, I"m an adult, and I have never learned anything by seeing/hearing/reading it once. Learning takes repitition. To be so impatient with an infant is sad, and makes me wonder what you think parenting entails? To parent is to teach. It is to explain to my child the whys of the world.

It looks like you are proficient at doing the TWIST. Maybe you could teach us all...


----------



## RubyV (Feb 4, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *our veggie baby*
Ummm, I REALLY hope no one, especially you , derived from my statement that I am PRO spanking??? I really hope you were using my statement above to reiterate that spanking a child is ridiculous and cruel....I would hope reading my statement, people would instantly get that I am adamantly ANTI spanking...just wanted to clear that up because readingyour response it sort of looked like you thought I was pro-spanking...

I am in agreement with you.


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *famousmockngbrd*
I'm sure you know that a cornerstone of GD is natural consequences, in other words allowing children as much as possible to experience the results of their actions.
***
If you get spanked for disobeying, all you learn is that X action gets you spanked.
***
I think parenting philosophies like the Pearls' create obedient children. I think parenting philosophies like GD create independent thinkers. IMO, independent thinking is a more valuable life skill, not just for the individual but for society. Different people have different goals.

Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt, but I am SO new to GD, that all I know is what I have learned here... I do have a lot to learn... and I like the idea of more natural consequences.
***
True.
***
Personally, I would like to raise children who are obedient to God, and independent of man. I think both obedience and independence are valuable, and IMO they are not exclusive of each other...


----------



## RubyV (Feb 4, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kateana*
It looks like you are proficient at doing the TWIST. Maybe you could teach us all...

My dance training is actually in New York Style "on 2" Mambo. However, I am fairly good at most dances, and can teach for a modest fee.

I can't believe that spanking children is still being excused. I can quote the post for you where you clearly state that you find reptition frustration.

Guess what? It's called parenting. Spanking is simply what people resort to when they are too lazy to parent. There is nothing loving about it. Defend your parents all you want. It's still wrong.

Quote:

I started by saying that there are exceptions... yes I know people w/daycare kids... it was most definitely a generalization (or call it a stereotype, if you want): like I said, there would be exceptions... some people really need to use DC. I wasn't talking about them. sorry you are offended, but I still have a severe aversion to the DC system in general. It saddens me that *some* people would continue to have kids when they can't/won't/don't want to take care of them. Like I said in another post, I see it as a form of abandonment, which I have my own issues with. BTW, did I use the word "all" anywhere in my post re: DC?

Of course there is no research suggesting that DC is damaging... it would cause a huge uproar if anyone suggested that a parent stay home with the kids. We have come so far, remember? That was how it was done prior to the 50's. Can you imagine what it would do to the economy if people downsized and decided it was more important to take care of the family than to work for that vacation/boat/landscaping/luxury? Half the spending and twice the jobs? If research EVER showed that it was more beneficial to have a 2 parent family, with one at home, we would NEVER hear about it. I guarentee it. Until we do hear it, we are left to speculate.

I'm not horrified by the "hitting" (I call it spanking) b/c I am still learning about GD... please be patient with me...
YOur priorities are really screwed up if dc is horrifying but physical abuse is not. YOu are comfortable calling dc damaging, but not hitting? Reality check anyone?

BTW, the phenomenon of the stay at home mom was not a reality prior to the fifties. it was a reality for a small segment of the population post WWII through to the 60's. Women have worked from the beginning of time, in the fields, etc, with children being worn while momma worked, or the extended family/community providing child care. One can still see evidence of this in indigenious cultures.


----------



## our veggie baby (Jan 31, 2005)

I am all for natural and logical consequences...that is why I am such a fan of GD...it certainly DOES NOT mean letting your child run the house or do whatever they want to...to me, GD is all about teaching your child to think for themselves and also teaching them how things work in the real world, which after all, is where they will be spending most of their life when they are out of your care. It is the same example of the restaurant as stated above by another poster....in the real world, if you acted nutty at a restaurant, the staff isn't going to continuously ask you nicely to "behave" just as a parent shouldn't...on the flip side, the staff is not going to start kicking your @ss either until you behave---they will ask (or tell) you to leave and not to return. The only difference with a child, is that the parent is responsible for doing that (like the above poster made the great example) and seriously, kids don't get nearly enough credit---if eating out is something they enjoy which almost ALL children do, it will only take once or twice of "we don't run in a restaurant, if you don't feel you can sit and eat, we will go to the car while Daddy and baby finish" (or whatever) and consistently following through, that children quickly learn it is more beneficial for everyone involved (most of all them) if they eat at the table and run around after dinner at a park or whatever---

A lot of pro-spanking parents and negative discipline parents I have come in contact with are real control freaks imo...they get this haughty, offended attitude...my child shouldn't run my life!! I shouldn't HAVE to sit in a car while everyone eats because my child acts up!!!...kind of attitude...and to a point they are right in a roundabout way, but at the same time, we make A LOT of sacrifices as parents, it comes with the territory and should be expected. I'm sorry, children aren't some afterthought or some accesory to your life to put in cute clothes to prance around in front of company to show everyone how "well-behaved" they are---children are hard work, they take A LOT of patience, sacrifice, understanding, compassion, sometimes they will drive you nuts, but in my humble opinion, if you aren't willing to sign up for that, you seriously need to consider whether you should have children in the first place. I mean, yes, children can be wonderful and sweet and loving and a joy and the best thing that ever happened to you, but on the flip side, there is a whole world of work involved--and that is not a bad thing, it is what it is, and if you feel resentment because you have to give up a meal or 2 to effectively teach them something, rather than taking the lazy, ineffective, cruel way out and just whoppin them one, then it would seem that some priorities need to be examined.


----------



## LizD (Feb 22, 2002)

RubyV,










(and I miss nyc too!







)


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *our veggie baby*
It disgusts me that people are actually DEFENDING someone pushing their toddler in a pool of water, saying "well babies drown in bathtubs"....my God, that is some sadistic stuff....it scares me that there are people who think like that...

ETA: okay we posted at the same time so the "out of love" thing weas explained, and while I believe you when you say your Dad never hauled off and panked you...I still believe that hitting someone is in NO way a loving act...

Furthermore, at the risk of sounding like some kind of psychologist or whatever, it actually IS possible to say you love your Dad and that you know he loved you and still maybe admit that how he disciplined was wrong...I mean, I know firsthand I always wanted to defend my Mom for her "discipline techniques" because after all, I turned out "fine"...but there came a point where I had to be real with myself and admit, yes, she loves me, but she really f-ed up in the discipline department and I have to let go of that and get past it....

I am *a little bit* sorry that it took me too long to respond to you, but as you can see, there are a lot of people here that have things to say to/at me (being the only one here not so familiar with GD), and I respond to most in the order that I read them. On top of that, I have a few other things to do during the day. But believe me, I am back here to continue the discussion when I get a chance. And yet another thing: I actually think about this stuff before I reply, so I did mull your question over a bit before I had a proper response for you.

I find it really hard to talk to people who ignore important points and nitpick. If you read the discussion re: the pond... my WHOLE point, after saying I also think it's extreme and wouldn't do it, is that just because an act COULD cause death, accidentally, doesn't make it abuse. The pond seemed to me to have little to do with spanking, except that it was also advocated by the Pearls.

If you are going to be sick, I suggest you cover your keyboard with plastic or something.

I get what you are saying about spanking not being a loving act. What I try to tell you, and explain since you asked, is that I was told that from my first spanking. Forgive me for having believed it, but I am here for a reason, and that is to learn. If I repulse you, then you probably feel you have nothing to contribute to helping me in my learning, or you don't believe I am here to learn... When your DC are confused or misunderstanding, I hope you are more gracious to them.

Maybe you haven't read my post yet, where I say pretty much what you just said re: forgiving my dad.


----------



## our veggie baby (Jan 31, 2005)

To put it bluntly, anyone who doesn't think throwing a child who can't swim into a pool of water against their will is abuse, is sadistic and sick....if that doesn't apply to you, then don't be upset. If it does apply to you, then yes, I think that is a sick way of thinking. Sorry if that offends you.


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

beanandpumpkin: That story of the "near drowning" is so sad. I know if my dad or mom did that, I would be... damaged, most likely.


----------



## our veggie baby (Jan 31, 2005)

You don't repulse me, but truthfully, some of your um, opinions and beliefs concerning discipline are quite offensive and upsetting to me and some others on here. Repeating again, that we are happy you are seeking to learn more about gentle discipline and REALLY REALLY hope that you do, honestly, but when you seem to continuously defend the actions of the Pearls and those of your parents in terms of spanking and even saying that the pool thing wasn't abuse, it is disconcerting and upsetting to say the least.
I am sincerely glad you are seeking this out BEFORE you have your child and hope that a lot of it sticks with you when you actually have him/her...for both your sakes...


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nurturing Mama*
This just doesn't seem very helpful to me. A child isn't supposed to do _x_ . child does _x_ , parent says since you did _x_ you get spanked. If my child did _x_ , I would say, "Remember we're not supposed to do _x_ because (insert various reasons)" and leave the hitting, which is totally irrelevant to _x_ . This way I hope to teach my child the real reason for not doing _x_ , instead of teaching him not to do _x_ because it will result in being hit.

It sounds like you would have handled it much better than my dad did.







Believe me, I have a couple of spanking sessions in my memory that make that example look like GD, but if I shared them, most people here would think I was advocating it, or somehow defending my dad just because I'm not bitter at him. Although he did it the way he thought was best, and I can understand and appreciate that, I will do things differently with my own kids. Luckily, I have some time to think about it and learn before I have to deal with a spirited child.


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *our veggie baby*
I would suspect that a lot of people feel passionately about this subject because they feel that while children are defenseless, that adults should probably know better than to be hitting children and babies...
***
I know it seems like people are ganging up on you, but seriously, hitting is wrong. There is no if, ands, or buts about it. Plain and simple, hitting is wrong, there is no debate.
***
Just as if you claim to be a Christian, you will admit murder is wrong. Even if you kill someone in self defense, obviously, I think God takes some considerations that you were preserving your life and all, but at the end of the day, murder is murder....there can't be a changed definition just to suit someone else's justification.
***
So either hitting someone is right or wrong, you have to know where you stand on that, because it seriously is a black and white issue. The only exeption, MAYBE, being self defense, but as I said, hitting someone, even in self defense, is a violent act, though justified.
***
So if you agree that hitting is wrong, why would you consider doing it to a child?
***
That is where we come back to the old "what is wrong with a tap on the butt??"...well like I said, that defies logic when you think about it because if your child will respond and behave with just a "tap" on the butt, SURELY they will respond just as well, if not better, with alternative methods.

I would expect people feel passionaltely about it for any number of reasons, and I respect that. Who better to talk to about it, huh?
***
Ganging up on me has nothing to do with anything. I was fully aware, coming in here, that I would be on my own. I can handle it. As for you telling me it's wrong, great. But like I said before, I don't take any one person's word for ANYthing. That's why I am here, why can't you understand that? If I did, I would be doing things EXACTLY like my dad did, instead of spending the better part of a week of my life in front of my computer talking to you and others here.
***
I told you why I considered doing it to a child... go back and re-read some posts. I am considering NOT doing it to a child.
***
I'm sorry, who said that? Besides, plenty here have given lots of good examples to back up the fact that other methods are effective. And I acknowledged that, didn't I?


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *famousmockngbrd*
I really think you should check out the reading list at the top of the forum if you are interested in learning more, there are some great books out there on the subject.

I definitely will.







At the moment though, I have no time for anything but replying to this thread... my husband would probably like me to make good on my promise to pick up the house a bit... one of these days.


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DebraBaker*
I am fierce in my defense of children, to answer Katena.

I have never presumed to be gentle.

DB

Children aren't the only people who need a gentle response. But maybe it isn't your calling to have good conversation with the end result being understanding. Thank you for making your position clear. I won't waste either of our time anymore by responding to you. There are plenty of people here who can talk to adults, like adults.


----------



## kspade (Feb 15, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RubyV*
YOur priorities are really screwed up if dc is horrifying but physical abuse is not. YOu are comfortable calling dc damaging, but not hitting? Reality check anyone?
.

This manner of speaking just doesn't seem to be consistent with GD to me. Kateana has stated over and over that this is her background. Her mother abandoned her but her father, who STAYED, used spanking. It is all she knows. She has stated over and over that she is willing to learn and has even already agreed with many points made so far. As stated before, GD involves TEACHING and GUIDANCE. What better spot to show just how effective GD can be than with someone who has come here open to both teaching and guidance?


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *beanandpumpkin*
It sounds like you have seen lots of cases of inconsistent and ineffective parenting that have nothing to do with spanking or not spanking.
***
That is a logical consequence...behave in a way that bothers others in a restaurant, you cannot stay in the restaurant.
***
This is what I consider effective parenting. Sometimes you have to do things that are inconvenient and hard.
***
So the "not spanking in anger" would be a lie, no?
***
Not to mention, fairly ineffective. Maybe to him the spanking a half hour later would be a small enough price to pay for acting up for an hour and getting all that attention.
***
As far as the teens on Ricki Lake, you do know that it is hyped up and not real, right?
***
When your prime method of discipline is not working because your child is too big......then what?

Michelle

You are so right
***
Totally.
***
It sounds like it is. And more peaceful than spanking.








***
In that situation, absolutely. Personally, I don't get angry at much of anything, and I have a ton more patience with kids than a lot of people I know. So that probably wouldn't even irk me... But I definitely see how it would to some people, I'm not trying to be argumentative.








***
Definitely. But then it would never be a good idea to wait to discipline. But that's me.








***
RL and the such are definitely staged... and the shows I was referring to had, literally, 5 and 6 yr olds... little kids. Besides, even if that show was not based on real events whatsoever, I don't doubt that it represented some real families.
***
I always thought that spanking was appropriately used while kids were too young to understand or benefit from other methods.


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LizD*
The children who've been treated respectfully know they deserve respect, know to stay away from people who won't give them the same respect they have enjoyed their whole lives, and don't need to go off the deep end. They get in trouble, sure, but IME for far less than those whose parents spanked or otherwise kept too tight a leash when they were young.
***
Since not everyone here believes in the Christians' god at all, let alone various particular interpretations of Jesus, it is difficult to keep a gentle discipline discussion on topic if the subject keeps getting turned to whether or not some diety loves one.

In general, I've noticed that, too. I went to a christian HS (seen SAVED anyone?...my school to a T) where that was the rule...
***
Since the topic is TTUAC, which is based on the authors' interpretation of the Bible, the Christian God, and Jesus would be completely on topic... IMHO.


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RubyV*
I can't believe that spanking children is still being excused.
***
I can quote the post for you where you clearly state that you find reptition frustration.
***
Guess what? It's called parenting. Spanking is simply what people resort to when they are too lazy to parent. There is nothing loving about it. Defend your parents all you want. It's still wrong.
***
YOur priorities are really screwed up if dc is horrifying but physical abuse is not. YOu are comfortable calling dc damaging, but not hitting? Reality check anyone?
***
BTW, the phenomenon of the stay at home mom was not a reality prior to the fifties. it was a reality for a small segment of the population post WWII through to the 60's. Women have worked from the beginning of time, in the fields, etc, with children being worn while momma worked, or the extended family/community providing child care. One can still see evidence of this in indigenious cultures.

Is it?
***
Oh, I remember it clearly, and I'm tempted to repeat it here. If you don't understand the point of that post, or the ones to follow, please rephrase your question b/c I don't know where the confusion lies.
***
Did you read the post that explained why I had said something about loving and spanking having anything to do with each other? Maybe I wrote it after you wrote this... if not, please read it, and try to understand it. Also notice that I used the past tense where it was appropriate. I will defend my parents all I want, and you are free to attack them all you want. But please do not ignore the fact that I am here to learn how to do things differently.
***
Oh, but my reality is so fun... The sky is purple here, you know, because I like purple better than blue.







I hope you see this as a lighthearted response to your rude and fairly ignorant comment, since I would like to keep the peace while continuing the conversation.
***
Absolutely, and I have no doubt that every SAHM is a WAHM. I think parenting is the most noble job there is.


----------



## MomInFlux (Oct 23, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kateana*
Children aren't the only people who need a gentle response. But maybe it isn't your calling to have good conversation with the end result being understanding. Thank you for making your position clear. I won't waste either of our time anymore by responding to you. There are plenty of people here who can talk to adults, like adults.

Is this a good example? "Snarkiness sure does make me feel better though. And since you're a mom, I'm sure you can handle it." I'm sure you remember making this comment.


----------



## pamelamama (Dec 12, 2002)

Moderator Request:

Please comply with forum rules which request your civility:

Quote:

You are expected to avoid the following when you post:

Posting in a disrespectful, defamatory, adversarial, baiting, harassing, offensive, insultingly sarcastic or otherwise improper manner, toward a member or other individual, including casting of suspicion upon a person, invasion of privacy, humiliation, demeaning criticism, namecalling, personal attack, or in any way which violates the law.
from the user agreement here.

I request that you return to your previous posts and edit out the disrespectful, sarcastic comments and remember that in Gentle Discipline especially, we are challenged to strive for ideals of behavior even in difficult circumstances!!

Respectfully,
Pamela


----------



## pamelamama (Dec 12, 2002)

(sheesh, that came out larger than I expected.)


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *our veggie baby*
I am all for natural and logical consequences...that is why I am such a fan of GD...it certainly DOES NOT mean letting your child run the house or do whatever they want to...to me, GD is all about teaching your child to think for themselves and also teaching them how things work in the real world, which after all, is where they will be spending most of their life when they are out of your care...
***
A lot of pro-spanking parents and negative discipline parents I have come in contact with are real control freaks imo...they get this haughty, offended attitude...my child shouldn't run my life!!

It really seems like a great method, and I thought the restaurant was a good ex, too...
***
IME, I can't say whether I've come across a lot, just b/c I don't know most of them that well. But I know my dad has actually said some of these things out loud. And the situation that makes me cringe the most, is the one where he makes my sisters do what they don't want to do (be held be someone or something like that), just b/c they "shouldn't get used to getting their way". That really bothers me. I don't know how related it is to spanking, b/c I hadn't put them together before coming to this thread... but the controlling attitude really saddens me.

I'll be back in awhile, it's one of those times that I actually have to go do something else...


----------



## MomInFlux (Oct 23, 2003)

Pamelamama - my apologies - I've edited my post. To all you wonderful MDC mamas trying to help out here -







You have my upmost admiration and respect


----------



## carolsly (Oct 5, 2004)

I get the Pearls magazine, I have TTUAC and several other of their books. I don't hit, spank or flick my kids. I do use some of their techniques for my life. As far as my kids..I stick with most AP and GP books. and of course..my crunchy AP mama. I don't hit anyone, and my children are not hitters (well..they do fight..but it's good old sibling rivalry). I used to spank, but I always felt out of control and I'm a control freak..so that ended that..LOL

I read all kids of stuff, but the books I have from the Pearls have been given to me and I do not share them with parents who don't have a firm grasp in AP. I do have a book on the oldest daughter going on a mission and the book is wonderful and I hope to share it with my daughter as she grows older.

I do have friends who claim that TTUAC works for them. I've taken care of their children. They always obey in my home but are in awe of my lax style of parenting. I only have one real rule "stay out of my yummy body stuff." They can go in my room, they can play with the computers, they can climb in the cuboards...they think we're bazar...but ya know what..my kids follow directions, do what they are told, are respectful and don't throw fits..and we use our words not our hands or sticks.

You (general term) figure it out..


----------



## our veggie baby (Jan 31, 2005)

CAROLSLY QUOTED:
"I get the Pearls magazine, I have TTUAC and several other of their books. I don't hit, spank or flick my kids. I do use some of their techniques for my life."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I dunno, I completely disagree with supporting the Pearls in ANY way, shape or form based on their views of hitting, flicking, throwing children in pools of water who can't swim, and especially their view on welcoming your child's molester back into your bed and marriage if he "repents"...

I am all for taking parts of things you agree with and utilizing them, and disregarding the things you don't agree with---except when it comes to extreme cases of violence and disgusting "advice" such as the Pearls advocate. I can't support them AT ALL, in ANY capacity, even if they had an article or 2 I agreed with in theory.

It is kind of like someone saying they don't wear their baby, okay I don't necessarily agree, but I won't disregard them as a person if they generally share the same belief system towards parenting etc...or if someone used disposable diapers I might not think that was too cool but I wouldn't be all bent out of shape about it if I thought they were decent people who did a, b, c for their kids...or taking it a step further, even someone who spanked once or twice or whatever...I DO NOT advocate that AT ALL and would try to steer them away from that but if I saw in every other way they were decent, loving parents who tried to do the best by their children I wouldn't disregard them completely etc...

On the other hand though, you can be the most child wearing, cloth diapering, co-sleeping, non crying it out, crunchy organic food feeding, non plastic having, homeschooling person on the planet, but if you throw your child who can't swim into a pool against their will or repeatedly make them go to you, then tell them to go away, then the one time they ignore your "command" whip them to let them know who's boss, or welcome their molester back in your bed if they "repent" (things the Pearls advocate)...all freaking bets are off and please don't come near me because I am not listening to a word you have to say because those sick, sadistic things alone cancel out any "good" things you might be doing ...kwim?


----------



## monkey's mom (Jul 25, 2003)

OT--

I find it ironic how frequently people who are pro-spanking/on-the-fence-spanking/non-GD get all riled up about how the mean old mommies in GD aren't gentle with them.

If you are an adult, and other adult strangers on the INTERNET make you feel bad with WORDS, how in the name of the lord do you think a small child feels getting HIT BY HIS/HER PARENTS?!


----------



## Kateana (Feb 2, 2005)

So, I was on my way to picking up my DH from work, and of course, thinking about this whole discussion when I started crying. I hate to think that I could be so affected by a bunch of people who I don't know or care about (no offense, but I don't know any of you or really care what you think about me, honestly...it's not like I'm talking w/my best friend here...), but I really am affected. I usually don't take things personally, or get my feelings hurt easily. But somehow, having to hear that myself and my family are sadistic, sick, abusive, disgusting, etc over and over again, is really getting to me. Going through this (for me, spiritually) intense conflict means that I am going back and forth between 2 ideas, and weighing things out. I realize now that I shouldn't have come here to explore this issue.

I came here, initially, defending my views that the Pearls weren't so bad. I quickly realized I had a lot to learn, and was glad to have the discussion turn into a way to learn things so foreign to me. This all started less than a week ago, and in that time I have been going through this big inner conflict, which was being vomited all over my computer, where I was hoping to get some guidance and gleam some wisdom. Much to my dismay (although, not surprise), I was met with anger and insults. Still, I expected to have some strong reactions, and I figured the more I explained, and was explained to, the more peaceful and constructive the conversation would be (I am on an AP board, right?). Boy, was I wrong. The majority of the people who talk this out with me, are the people who all but hate me, insist that I am defending the Pearls or (gasp!) even my family who I love despite my supposed abuse in being spanked. While I am still in conflict about the exact way I will parent (especially since my baby has another parent







), I have tried repeatedly to remind people that I am searching, and so willing to be open and taught.

The few kind mamas here who dared to say something in my defence, or further clarify something for me, or even send me a PM of encouragement are overshadowed by the rest. Unfortunately, one of the main things I learned here is that a lot of the Mamas who say "kids are people too" find it too easy to treat people like crap. I really did not expect that so many Mamas from the kind, loving, patient, gentle and natural AP parenting style could act so contrary. I see that you say you want to explain something over and over again kindly to teach your children, but when it comes to teaching me (and probably next, Carolsly), you become abusive with your words.

When I am looking for wisdom, I will go elsewhere. If I need diaper advice, I'll come to MDC.

MomIn Flux: it wasn't a good example at all. You are absolutely right.







And I swear, that's not snarkiness this time.

Carolsly: Good luck in here. I've learned that if you like the Pearls, you like abuse.

OurVeggieBaby: You are a different breed of Christian than I've encountered before.

Monkey's Mom: How is it ironic to be shocked that people so against abuse are abusive?


----------



## monkey's mom (Jul 25, 2003)

Kati,

I'm really sorry you feel so yucky. Truly.









I see that a mod request was made earlier, and I never saw the original post there...but, aside from that, no one here has been abusive. People have reacted strongly and disagreed vehemently, but that's not the same as abusing someone.

I would just encourage you to look at how crummy you feel/felt in a situation where you are new to what's going on and trying to do your best to understand and learn. You wanted loving guidance and patience. That's understandable.

And it's that EXACT scenario that I put children in: new to the world, new to social mores and customs, trying to do their best, only wanting someone to lovingly show them the way, and feeling like crud when people "come down on them" for not having it perfect yet.

But there is a BIIIIIIIIG difference between the way people "came down on" you here and the way people like the Pearls recommend "coming down on" children.

No one laid a hand on you and think how crummy you felt.

Imagine if someone here had slapped you for your questions or naivite or because they mis-understood you?

*That* is the level of crummy that people here react so strongly against.

And I'm *all* for civility--but, I don't feel the same need to protect other adults the way I feel the need to protect children.

I hope that you feel better soon! I think these strong feelings are actually growth. And I DEFINITELY hope that you will stick around and continue to ask questions and learn more about GD.

And just pray about it....He'll give you the answers. He brought you here to MDC. And He brought you all these responses, too. Probably for a reason, right?







Hang in there!


----------



## DebraBaker (Jan 9, 2002)

Oh, it's worse than that they threw a *timid* child into the pond because he (or was it she?) didn't provide them an opportunity to just let them fall in and nearly drown.

I personally don't care if I offend someone who thinks throwing a timid child into the pond and let them nearly drown is a good idea.

Debra Baker


----------



## DebraBaker (Jan 9, 2002)

Kateana writes,

"Thank you for making your position clear. I won't waste either of our time anymore by responding to you. There are plenty of people here who can talk to adults, like adults."

Isn't that sweet and gentle??

I believe I have been kind enough to everyone here (I haven't been asked to edit my post so I suppose I have been following the guidelines)

Sometimes people obnoxious enough to acutally articulate teachings such as allowing a CHILD MOLESTER into the home and bed and throwing timid children into a pond get away with their vile teaching because everyone else in this world are following the rules of civility!!!!!

There is no excuse for teaching this bile. Michael and Debbi Pearl should have some civil authority carefully monitioring their activities and they should be thrown in jail when they commit the atrocities they claim to have committed (unless their own testimony can put them away sooner)

Anyone who practices these things should be arrested and jailed.

And I, in a civil manner, plainly say I have no tolerence for child abuse.

Of course Kateana has her fingers in her ears saying, nananaanananaa I can't hear you.

Debra Baker


----------



## RubyV (Feb 4, 2004)

Thank you Debra.

Really, no one is being mean here. What people are is very opposed to hitting defensless children, and the defense of said act.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
OT--

I find it ironic how frequently people who are pro-spanking/on-the-fence-spanking/non-GD get all riled up about how the mean old mommies in GD aren't gentle with them.

:LOL

I'm out- sorry mamas.

Since "being nice" only applies to us and not Kati, I'm not beating my head against a brick wall anymore.


----------



## DebraBaker (Jan 9, 2002)

I don't think it's an issue of not being nice to Kati.

No one has been unnice to Kati.

I am a fierce opponant of child abuse (especially child abuse in G-d's Name) and I have fiercely opposed any justification of such abuse without personally attacking anyone (including Kati) I have personally attacked the Pearls....with their own words!!!!

That Kati *feels* attacked is because she's playing Devil's Advocate to those who espouse such beliefs.

Since no one is attacking Kati perhaps she should wonder just how horrible is the position she is defending.

Debra Baker


----------



## bamamom (Dec 9, 2004)

I'm back guys and I appreciate all your sympathy and understanding for my situation a couple of days ago.


----------



## kchoffmann (Aug 16, 2004)

Kateana, I hope you are still here.

Just want to emphasize, before this thread goes quiet, it is a behavioral fact (coming from a behaviorally trained therapist) that when you hit a child for doing something wrong, the child will avoid YOU, not the thing they did wrong. This has been borne out in research again and again. So, even if you can't agree on the issue of whether spanking can ever be a loving act, you might agree that it is simply not effective.

Oh, and RubyV, thank you for your comments about the SAHM. Few people understand that the SAHM icon is a culturally created creature that bolsters our patriarchial economy. Don't get me wrong, I am quite supportive of SAHMs. But people are people, and some are most fulfilled when home full-time with their kids, while others are most fulfilled when able to exercise various interests beyond their children. Why is it OK for a father to have interests beyond his children, but for a woman this makes her a bad parent or someone who should never have had children? I want my child to see me doing what I need to do to feel whole, so he will both do this for himself someday and seek out others who do too.


----------



## LizD (Feb 22, 2002)

kchoffmann, thanks for expressing my thoughts on respect for mothers who work "outside the home" so much better and more patiently than I could have.

Also, to be clear, there have been studies the findings of which have "shown" that children of 2-parent families "do better" in various ways. I don't believe that's the case, but there have indeed been studies showing support for children who do not attend institutionalized day care and for children being raised in two-parent homes. Again, I don't think the SAHM situation is ideal, myself; our culture should support women being able to be more than mothers and housewives while still doing both those things, just as men should be able to have careers, families and homes to care for and enjoy.

Again, the forum guidelines very clearly state that corporal punishment is not viewed as acceptable, ever, on MDC. Just as discussion about the religious aspects of circumcision are directed to the religious studies forum, because the circumcision forum is *against* circumcision. Just as CIO as a sleep-training method will not get support on Family Bed!

Someone lent me a book called Whole Child/Whole Parent. Not my kind of thing, but full of biblical quotes and all about respecting the child and so on. For those who need support for not hitting their children in a religious context it might be helpful, perhaps.


----------



## Cutie Patootie (Feb 29, 2004)

So I actually had not ever read the pearls book, nor did I ever intend to, but last night I downloaded the first chapter and read it together with my husband. I was so sickened and upset that I could not go to sleep. I stayed up until 5:30am cleaning and trying to keep myself occupied. I feel like my conscience and my heart have been seered reading such hateful and cruel acts toward our most precious possessions. I am crying now as I write this. Among the horrid things that I cannot get out of my mind is the story of their 5 month old dd who had learned to crawl and climb stairs very early. They allowed her to continually try to climb the stairs so that they could "switch her bair legs" over and over...even they stated that she was too young to understand the what was happening. For goodness sake, why not put up a gate.







I shutter to think what our God thinks about these things. You cannot support part of this teaching and these people. You simply cannot...even supporting a small part is supporting the whole.
We just got a new puppy...and I found that it is no longer acceptable to house train your dog by striking them with a newspaper and rubbing their nose in their mess. Ask any veterinarian and they will tell you that this is not only abusive, but demeaning and damaging to the dog. Why then is it okay for children? I just can't understand. My only consolation and comfort is that they will be judged for their actions.
If you are truly interested in what God says about spanking and beating then you will study out the exact text and find the real meaning that was written in the original language and text. Find a good Bible that translates back to the original text and wording. Search online for everything you can. Your objective being to parent your child in a way that is pleasing and right to God, not to the mothers here on MDC, what your parents did with you,or anywhere else. Do not take others word for it, but study it out yourself and come to your own convictions. Try http://www.gentlemothering.com/ for advice and help from others Christian mamas who believe in GD. Also, here is a Biblical study on the "rod" scriptures to get you started if you have not found it yet.









Quote:

I understand what you are saying about developing, etc... but if they are learning by doing all of this, how is it that they are unable to learn *not* to do them (ex: throwing stuff, etc)? (And not necessarily by flicking, but maybe something else, IDK.) Most babies, at a young age, make throwing things a game, and I can see that, b/c they obviously think it's funny... YK?
I redirect, redirect, redirect. I have been doing it since ds was tiny. When he started to throw his toys. I would simply say very lovingly, "your cars are not for throwing, they are for driving around...brooom broooom, balls are for throwing"(hand him a ball)..."chalk is not for eating, it's for making pretty pictures on the chalkboard"..."gentle to mama(and I take his hand and rub it gently on me". In the absolute rarest situation where he is throwing something and not stopping...







I take it away and say again, "cars are not for throwing...balls are for throwing" and I hand him a ball. I keep the car for a couple of minutes and then give it right back. He is too little to understand taking something any longer than that, and by giving it back within a few minutes he remembers why it was taken away.
For the record, I was raised in a Christian household...spanked a lot bare-bottom with a belt, and also sexually molested by my father from the age of 6 to 13(I know I never told anyone because we were taught that our opinion didn't count for anything and that you never disagreed with your parents or other adults...they are always right, and you are a lesser person in their eyes). By todays mainstream standards we were not physically abused by the spankings we received







). Even still, I know how hard it is to feel those feelings that what your parents did was wrong and destructive...and I'm not even talking about the sexual stuff.
Again if you are truly interested in what God has to say about all this, try your very best to figure it out...put your emotions, anxieties, and hurts aside and you will find the truth. "When you know better, you do better."


----------



## our veggie baby (Jan 31, 2005)

Quote:

OurVeggieBaby: You are a different breed of Christian than I've encountered before.
Well, I venture to say that was an insult, though I don't see how standing up for defenseless children and confronting someone who defends what I percieve to be brutal, abusive, sadistic acts towards children is being "unChristian".

I am sorry if you feel being a Christian means openly accepting any person or behavior with kindess and love despite knowing in your heart that the person's behaviors and beliefs directly cause another pain both physically and emotionally.
I don't believe I ever called YOU any names directly or insulted your parents personally at all. I did however, say that I feel ANYONE, not specifically you, but ANYONE, even if it were my own Grandmother, advocated the things I percieve you to be defending--- "throwing a child who can't swim in a pond isn't child abuse" etc...has a sadistic, controlling side that kind of scares me.
The truth sometimes hurts, that is how I feel and I won't apologize for it.

If you read any of my other posts, I have no problem being kind and accepting towards someone who previously spanked and is coming here for help, or who desires to stop etc...and while I have said time and again I am glad you are here seeking out information, it is hard to have any sympathy for someone who I feel has defended the actions of the Pearls repeatedly, people who I believe are committing and advocating crimes against children as we speak. If you consider that unChristian type behavior, well, again, that is an issue you need to explore, not me.

I don't know about the God you worship, but the one I worship doesn't advocate or support atrocities commited toward children. The God I worship allows me the benefit of an opinion and even allows me the emotion of anger and hurt when I see someone advocating the abuse of children. Yes, I heard you when you said you wouldn't do many of the things the Pearls advocate and thank God for that, but on the other hand, I have seen you defend their actions repeatedly, denying it is abuse, defending you Father's actions of spanking and claiming he did it out of "love" etc, and I don't find that acceptable. That is my right. You don't have to agree with me, that is completely up to you.

I am truly sorry that the things that have been said on this thread have upset you, it never makes me happy to know that someone may have been hurt by something I said, but on the other hand, I venture to say a lot of your upsetment has nothing to do with this board. I venture to say that while this thread was a catalyst, that there are deeper issues you are coming to terms with, the knowledge deep down that you were hurt as a child as a result of the "spankings" you recieved and it is hard to come to terms with the fact that someone can love you as much as your family and still hurt you. I went through a similar process myself. I am not being condescending, that is what I feel is the root of your upsetment personally, but hey, I could be wrong, goodness knows I am certainly not perfect.

Let me clarify that I don't believe anyone treated you with disrespect or oput of anger because you came here seeking information, or a new perspective, or you wanted to learn about GD...as far as I have EVER seen, almost EVERYONE has treated people who seek out the GD board with kindess and respect, even if the person has admitted to spanking, being spanked as a child, skepticism of GD etc---but I believe the line was crossed and the upsetment aimed towards you began and continued when you continuosly defended the Pearls, your parents, spanking, VERY non-GD-like "discipline"....and seemed to be very willing to debate that your way/your parents way "worked" etc...

So again, I hope for your sake and for your child's, you will continue to come here and read and post on the GD board, as I think it could do you a world of good (it has me)....but to insult my belief system based on my very justified defense towards children and the people who abuse and hurt them and those who defend those people, is coimpletely ludicrious. I am not bound by God to protect your feelings, I am sorry, but that is the truth. Would it have pleased God had I been a bit more gentle towards you? Probably, but I am under no obligation to treat you with kid gloves, as I don't believe my posts broke any MDC rules of conduct.

Take care.


----------

