Example Of Defending Pearls

[debrand]

Some of you are curious about those who defend the Pearls. I found a forum in which some of the members-not all- try to defend the family's teachings. Perhaps you all would like to look over it to see how supporters rationalize their methods.

forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/303293-are-michael-and-debi-pearl-%E2%80%9Cguilty-as-charged%E2%80%9D-by-rebekah-anast/

The poster's name is Scrappy Happy Mommy

'll give one example of the misconstruing that often happens when the Pearls are brought up. Folks claim that they advocate "beating" or "spanking" infants. That's not the picture I get from the Pearls at all. What they advocate is training the little one that the word "No" means something they'd rather not do. So for example, if my baby grabs my hair and tugs, I thump them on the hand while saying "no." At most, they look startled, but after a time or two, they move on to something else (usually a toy I've offered instead) and don't tug my hair anymore. In addition, I spend a lot more time teaching them "gentle" by rubbing their palms against my hair or my arm. You may think I am evil for thumping my baby (and you are within your rights to feel this way), but I submit that this is not at all the same thing as "beating an infant."

The benefit my babies and I enjoy of early training of the word "No" or "No Touch" is that it gives them boundaries that they can build upon as they get older and explore more and more. I'd much rather calmly tell my 18 month old a "No" that he understands than to feel frustrated with a curious toddler and perhaps even resort to hollering. I'd much rather give occasional spats than to yell constantly at my children.

The Pearls also advocate "Tying Strings of Fellowship" with our children. In fact, this is the primary focus of their teaching, and often overlooked or unknown by those who only know the Pearls by rumor. They go so far as to say that any spanking a parent may choose to do is completely ineffective outside a close and loving family relationship. That if parents aren't willing to put in the time to build strings of affection between themselves and their children, then they would be better off not spanking at all.

[debrand]

It is also wonderful that so many people on that forum-including conservative Christians-speak against the Pearls. I am not making fun of the people on the thread some of whom seem to have been really hurt by the pressure to use Pearls' methods

The same OP who stared the thread responds to another woman

Heather, I do not abuse my babies. If I thump my baby's hand when he pulls my hair, it is NOT to punish him. It much less painful than a baby bumping his head on the floor when he is learning to roll over. It hurts me everytime I see it (and yes, I do try to prevent it when I can!), but babies learn from little winces of pain, it's a biological fact. It's the same reason babies learn not to poke their finger in their own eye, because it's uncomfortable when they do it. As a mom, I choose to help my wee ones learn that pulling hair or biting or whipping my glasses off my face is not ok. A thump on that hand accomplishes it nicely. I would never, never, never, NEVER physically harm them to do so

.

and

Really? Rebekah sounds like a lovely person. If we didn't know who her parents were, I think most of us would read her essay and be proud to have a daughter like her.

I don't begrudge you your opinion, but I think it does a disservice to people who are truly abused and hurting to lump them in with well-adjusted, happy adults who fully denounce they were abused. Unless you have actual evidence that her parents abused her, why would we jump to this conclusion?

and

Just to clarify, because this is another common misconception, but they do not advocate using PVC pipe, as in the big white tubes used in plumbing. They mention PVC piping, as in thin, flexible, clear tubing. It may make no difference in your opinion of them, especially if one does not believe in spanking period, but surely there is a distinction here! Among people who do spank, a wooden spoon is not an unusual choice of paddle. But if I were against there form of discipline and told others they beat their child with a 2x4, then I am not being intellectually honest but going for the sensational.

I am not trying to diminish what they espouse. I am simply trying to demonstrate that they may not espouse exactly what they are being accused of.

I know Michael Pearl is rough around the edges. He has a manner of speaking that comes off abrasive, especially in print, and especially from folks from a different background. When he says "sit on the kid if you have to" I honestly and completely do not believe that he means a parent should forcefully and angrily hold a child down and beat them. He means it in the same way my old grandfather would say "I'ma gonna beat that boy within an inch of his life!" That is to say, not literally. At all. In fact, I never ever saw my grandfather lift his hand against anyone. In the context of the Pearl's books, where he reiterates over and over that parents should never spank in anger and that parents must develop close bonds of love and affection with their children. His point is that parents need to stand their ground when it is time to discipline and not give in to begging or cajoling or bad attitudes from their children and decide not to discipline them at all. And all of this needs to be taken with a healthy dose of common sense. They are not talking here about children with special needs or who were abused or who have other issues going on. Maybe they should clarify this point and make it clear. But honestly, if you have read through their materials, there is no way one would come away thinking they would advocate beating a child to death, or abusing a child like this.

[laura oz]

I don't understand why someone would rationalize the abuse the Pearls advocate. I simply can't. Unless it's to make yourself feel less a monster for beating your child. Michael speaks himself about hosing off a toddler outside to inflict shame and discomfort due to the child wetting the bed or having an accident. There is no defense for the Pearl's methods. Period.

[thoughtful]

I don't understand why someone would rationalize the abuse the Pearls advocate. I simply can't. Unless it's to make yourself feel less a monster for beating your child. Michael speaks himself about hosing off a toddler outside to inflict shame and discomfort due to the child wetting the bed or having an accident. There is no defense for the Pearl's methods. Period.

Not even for that (although, of course, that wouldn't be OK) -- just for not being toilet trained when Mike (not the boys' parents!) decided he should be:

A HOSE WHEN HE GOES

A good friend and neighbor had a big three-year-old boy who would sit outside driving nails with a hammer and dumping in his diaper. I suggested it was time to have a man-to-man talk with the kid about the environmental implications of making such large contributions of plastic to the city dump. The father explained that he did not want to cause guilt or stifle the young man's personality. I well understood his concerns, for I have seen distraught, impatient parents doing emotional damage to their children through verbal abuse. So, I suggested a training exercise.

First, I pointed out that the boy's mother, busy with the other children, would, several times a day, pick up this big kid, talk sweet to him, lay him on a bed, take off the dirty diaper, wipe him with a warm rag, rub a little lotion on the chaffed spots and then put a fresh, smooth diaper on him. Dumping in his pants was an opportunity to get his mother's undivided attention. Now, we understand that there is no guilt or blame in this matter, especially on the child's part, but there is something quite inconvenient--except for the kid who loved the experience and must have found it the highlight of his day.

So, my suggestion was that the father explain to the boy that, now that he was a man, he would no longer be washed in the house. He was too big and too stinky to be cleaned by the babywipes. From now on, he would be washed outside with a garden hose. The child was not to be blamed. This was to be understood as just a progressive change in methods. The next dump, the father took him out and merrily, and might I say, carelessly, washed him off. What with the autumn chill and the cold well water, I don't remember if it took a second washing or not, but, a week later, the father told me his son was now taking himself to the pot. The child weighed the alternatives and opted to change his lifestyle. Since then, several others have been the recipients of my meddling, and it usually takes no more than three cheerful washings.

[laura oz]

That makes me sick on my stomach. My three year old isn't completely trained yet, and when I think of somebody doing that to a little one like my son...... :pull-hair: Fuck Michael Pearl with a sick dick.

[ILoveJellybeans]

People will defend all sorts of disgusting things if they claim it is Godly, because their beloved prophets (seriously, people like the Pearls/Gothard/Steve Maxwell are treated as more of the word of God than the actual Bible is) can do no wrong at all.

I think that the plumbing line would probably hurt more to be hit with than the PVC pipe...

The difference between a baby learning not to poke himself in the eye because it hurts and a baby learning not to touch breakable things because if he does mommy will hit him is that one is a perfectly logical natural consequence where there is a clear link between action and consequence, and the other is seeing that someone he trusts will come over and hit him for just exploring and being a baby.

"Sit on the child if you need to" should not be included in a parenting book, even if the author meant it as a joke, because there are people who are evil enough to actually do it. And its clear that he did mean it, from the context.

How can people read things as awful as the stories in To Train up a Child and still think its a great idea? Its horrible. Pushing a toddler into a pond, hitting a four month old with a switch, ignoring a child who is crying because they fell over...how harsh. I think that if he directly killed a child (other than just other people who followed his advice killing theirs) people will still like his methods.

[Daisy]

Just to clarify, because this is another common misconception, but they do not advocate using PVC pipe, as in the big white tubes used in plumbing. They mention PVC piping, as in thin, flexible, clear tubing. It may make no difference in your opinion of them, especially if one does not believe in spanking period, but surely there is a distinction here!

Because PVC piping is so much better then a PVC pipe? I don't see how Anyone can defend he Pearls, though they obviously have their defenders

[quinoa mama]

I thought this part was interesting:

The Pearls also advocate "Tying Strings of Fellowship" with our children. In fact, this is the primary focus of their teaching, and often overlooked or unknown by those who only know the Pearls by rumor. They go so far as to say that any spanking a parent may choose to do is completely ineffective outside a close and loving family relationship. That if parents aren't willing to put in the time to build strings of affection between themselves and their children, then they would be better off not spanking at all.

[FreeJosie]

Oh, they think that THIN tubing is best for smacking babies with! Well, thanks for clearing that up, Scrappy Happy Mommy! :roll: :roll: :roll:

The Pearls should be in prison, and their followers/advocates are sick.

"Now that a THREE YEAR OLD is a man...."?????? Ugh, I loathe the Pearls.

[miffy]

Because PVC piping is so much better then a PVC pipe? I don't see how Anyone can defend he Pearls, though they obviously have their defenders

A thin flexible pipe is much worse. A human could not move a piece of pipe fast enough to make a cracking noise, but it would be easy to do with thin PVC tubing. The 'crack' is a sonic boom, so if you hit a child with a piece of PVC tubing you may well be hitting them at a faster rate than the speed of sound.

F$%^ED UP!!!!

[Rarity65]

A thin flexible pipe is much worse. A human could not move a piece of pipe fast enough to make a cracking noise, but it would be easy to do with thin PVC tubing. The 'crack' is a sonic boom, so if you hit a child with a piece of PVC tubing you may well be hitting them at a faster rate than the speed of sound.

F$%^ED UP!!!!

That is seriously sick. :pink-shock: