"To Train Up a Child"... - Page 5

[Kateana]

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]

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]

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

[Kateana]

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]

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]

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.

[annettemarie]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

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.

[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?

[Kateana]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.