Pearls on Anderson Cooper

[thoughtful]

For anyone who hasn't read TTUAC:

www.achristianhome.org/to_train_up_a_child.htm

Don't be afraid of reading it, unless you have reason to feel it would be personally triggering.

Most of the cheeful how-to-trick-a-child-into-being switched crap has been quoted here and elsewhere, so many of us have read the worst of that.

What I found just as dismaying is the stuff that sounds more innocent on the surface. His writing is not good, and he eventually contradicts himself several times, but I can see how it pulls people in to thinking he has the answer.

I want to be armed to dismiss the people who claim that those of us who are against it have only read the hitting instructions, and out-of-context at that. Positive reviewers at Amazon beg people to read the "tying strings" chapter and his statements on mutual respect.

Sorry -- read 'em -- just made it all more of a mess. How awful is it to have a calm, loving parent who seems to be interested in you suddenly swat you or thump you, gloating calmly over their "victory."

All of his stories are about out-of-control parents who flail and fumble and let things escalate until they are angry and either (he says) more violent than he is, or helpless in the face of a tyrant child. That can make his simple, cheery "just do this" instructions sound effective to those who don't know better.

He never seems to have met calm, involved, limit-setting parents, with well-behaved kids, who don't use physical pain. Funny, I've met hundreds.

A lot of the "pay attention to your kids, be involved with them, don't wait until after things have escalated" advice sounds like common sense. Except that he doesn't seem to recognize any way to decrease (or, wonder of wonders, prevent!) unwanted behavior, other than physical pain.

So a lot of that advice about paying attention, instead of being followed by "catch the kid doing something great and reward," or "take away what the child wants, then give him another chance," is followed by "smack him with an object at the first teeny infraction, rather than letting things escalate."

Not to mention the whole "If you don't do this, you are not Godly" crap.

And the thing that may rank as the most bizarre, to me -- how switching a child relieves their guilt and tension, since they know they are wrong and deserve it (yep, really -- that's why they are supposed to thank you for it).

And, every now and then, he comes so bizarrely close to getting it, then veers weirdly and wildly away:

THE THREE-YEAR-OLD TRUCKER

As my wife sat talking, an altercation developed between the young mother's two sons, one and three years old. They both began to scream while tugging at opposite ends of the same toy truck. The mother hollered, "What is wrong with you two?" "He is trying to take my truck," cried the older of the two. "Billy, give Johnny back his truck," she yelled. After further peace-shattering threats and screams of protest, he reluctantly handed over the truck.

The younger child then defeatedly left the yard and stumbled into the house to stand beside his mother--thus punishing the other brother by the loss of his company. (It is an adult form of retribution, but children must learn it sometime.)

After the chastisement of loneliness had done its work, the older brother became repentant. Picking up his truck from the sand pile, he made his way into the house where he found the offended younger brother now sitting in his mother's lap being consoled for his losses on the battlefield. With a smile of reconciliation, he held his truck out to the younger brother. As the younger brother was about to accept the sacrificial peace offering, the mother turned to see the grinning child dribbling sand from his truck onto the floor. "Get that thing out of here!" she commanded.

Being engrossed in her company, she was not thinking of her children as human beings with complex feelings. She just saw another cleaning job to further add to her burden.

At this point a psychological transformation occurred in the child. He had just experienced a "repentance" that had cleansed him of anger and selfishness. Weighing his right to possess the truck against his brother's company, he had found that he valued his brother more. He was learning important social lessons about give-and-take. He was learning to share and how to control his possessiveness. His heart was surrendered and vulnerable. He had gone the second mile; and when he got to the end of it, he was shocked to find that no one cared. It really didn't matter. He had laid down his guns, and now he was being fired upon. If he was not going to be allowed to surrender, if they didn't care enough to accept his offering, he was not going to stand there exposed, grinning like a fool, while being unjustly blasted.

He didn't understand what all the row was about. Who could be upset about a little sand on the floor? After all, he had been playing in sand all morning--he loved it. As he studied the threatening face before him, you could see the little mental wheels turning.

OK, makes sense. The kids were learning to get along, the clueless Mom (no doubt, a modern working Jezebel) didn't see the goodness there. I might have pointed out that the sand aside, he was doing something kind. But MP saw something much more sinister:

Immediately the smile left and was replaced by wonder, then puzzlement, finally defiance. Suddenly, an idea came to him. It now being clear she was mad about the sand being dribbled on the floor, he raised his truck to examine it, then defiantly dumped the full contents onto the floor. To his satisfaction it worked. She came apart. She had hurt him and he had successfully retaliated. "Just look at her red face. That will teach her to attack me. Boy, I won this round."

This mother had missed the opportunity to accept the surrender of this rebel leader. Instead she had driven him back into the countryside to practice his civil dissent in defiance of the established authority. Like many rebels, he had no alternate plans for the future. He lived to be a rebel because of his hatred for the authority that he hoped to punish for perceived injustices.

Now, you may think that I am over-dramatizing the child's feelings. It is true that he could not tell you what he was thinking. Nor will he be able to understand these same feelings when at fourteen it becomes apparent he has serious problems. But, at three years old, the child's actions all demonstrate the root bitterness of a rebel.

If the parents don't change, when the boy becomes a teenager they will throw up their hands and say, "I don't understand that boy. We have raised him right, taught him right from wrong, taken him to church; and he acts like we are the enemy. We have done our best. It is up to the Good Lord now."

Surrender? Rebel leader? Civil dissent? WTF?

I'm picturing a living room with a lady and some kids, and suddenly it's a Rambo movie? Did I fall asleep in the movie theater?

How about: this mother, and Pearl, missed the chance to recognize that "negative punishment" had taken place - losing his brother's company changed his behavior from fighting over the truck to sharing it -- no switching needed.

Or: the mother, and Pearl, missed the chance to realize that everything isn't about rebelling against authority, that relationships between siblings are important, and that a good thing had happened in this child's feelings about how to treat his brother.

Or: the mother was unfair or not paying attention, but, once the child went on to spill sand, didn't realize that asking "why are you mad?" might have led to the kid saying "I was trying to be nice and give him the truck, and you got mad."

[xReems]

I'm gonna watch it tonight online. These people need to be stopped and it disgusts me that they're still able to continue with this type of punishment on children.

I do wonder if Michelle has taught the older girls to blanket train or spank their younger ones if they misbehave. Wouldn't surprise me if they do.

[Austin]

If you pulled your breastfeeding baby's hair in response to a clamp down, wouldn't that just make the baby cry? If the baby cries and gets very upset, then they don't nurse well. So how does that help (beyond just being cruel and unnecessary)?

I know these are probably dumb questions because I'm trying to understand their logic through the lens of my own experiences, and their logic is never going to make sense.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

thoughtful says : "And the thing that may rank as the most bizarre, to me -- how switching a child relieves their guilt and tension, since they know they are wrong and deserve it (yep, really -- that's why they are supposed to thank you for it)."

Weird thing is though - I can almost kinda see how the relief part might make some sense, in a TTUAC or Dobson following household.

The actual physical punishments are bad enough. Absolutely no arguments from me. However, almost worse than that maybe is the emotional component that goes along with it. Dobson's writings make it just as clear as the Pearls do. Every child is born a rebellious sinner, and only looking to thwart the parents' authority, so EVERY interaction with a child is by its very nature a power struggle, and your task as a parent is to break their will, utterly. And then of course, Dobson spends time gloating over having accomplished that. Rebellion (defined as showing any independent will at all in some cases) is the ultimate sin.

The child is belittled in these interactions, mocked, and laughed at, made to lose every time and forced to bow down to the parent. "You are powerless before me, and I will remind you of that fact at every opportunity." Surely some of them start realizing that hey, once the beating is over, at least we're back to square one, nothing is pending and we're out of the passive-aggressive phase.

...which is itself extremely effed up, of course. But yeah, talked to abused kids (secular ones even) and that "once the hitting was done, it was done" sentiment comes up. But yeah, "thank them for it?" WTF indeed.

I just can't understand how they end up with anything other than playacting robot children who run away at the first opportunity, never to write. But perhaps that's what they do get, after all. Surely there's a reason the kids of any decent age are never let out alone.

[LeatherCouch]

Did you actually see this with your own eyes? I've heard this story many times (it used to come up on TWoP a lot), but have chalked it up to urban legend of the interwebz.

Not that I'm denying it happened. I don't doubt for one second that the older Duggars were blanket trained. But I've never seen anyone actually claim to have been there when she described it like that.

I was in the chat room when Michelle typed it, yes, and then I had the chat transcript emailed to me. I kick myself often for not having the foresight to save it. I actually saw the flexible ruler threads too. I think I posted about it on TWOP too.

[Rosa]

thoughtful says : "And the thing that may rank as the most bizarre, to me -- how switching a child relieves their guilt and tension, since they know they are wrong and deserve it (yep, really -- that's why they are supposed to thank you for it)."

Weird thing is though - I can almost kinda see how the relief part might make some sense, in a TTUAC or Dobson following household.

The actual physical punishments are bad enough. Absolutely no arguments from me. However, almost worse than that maybe is the emotional component that goes along with it. Dobson's writings make it just as clear as the Pearls do. Every child is born a rebellious sinner, and only looking to thwart the parents' authority, so EVERY interaction with a child is by its very nature a power struggle, and your task as a parent is to break their will, utterly. And then of course, Dobson spends time gloating over having accomplished that. Rebellion (defined as showing any independent will at all in some cases) is the ultimate sin.

The child is belittled in these interactions, mocked, and laughed at, made to lose every time and forced to bow down to the parent. "You are powerless before me, and I will remind you of that fact at every opportunity." Surely some of them start realizing that hey, once the beating is over, at least we're back to square one, nothing is pending and we're out of the passive-aggressive phase.

...which is itself extremely effed up, of course. But yeah, talked to abused kids (secular ones even) and that "once the hitting was done, it was done" sentiment comes up. But yeah, "thank them for it?" WTF indeed.

I just can't understand how they end up with anything other than playacting robot children who run away at the first opportunity, never to write. But perhaps that's what they do get, after all. Surely there's a reason the kids of any decent age are never let out alone.

That's been the hard part for us - we were both raised this way, me because my parents loved Dobson and my partner just because his family is like that. And it means that, on top of thinking "how can we correct this bad behavior" we have to get past OUR feelings that backing down or changing tactics is a failure, and if he's behaving badly it's because we haven't been harsh enough with him.

Just like when our son was spanked by his grandma, who had previously agreed not to spank him - my partner heard what happened and his very first thought was 'we need to punish that child more' and then he jumped to 'my parents are going to think I'm a failure because our child misbehaves' and 'well maybe spanking is the answer'.

[Austin]

I think it's notable that Michael Pearl did not bring out the plumbing line to hit the reporter with. He used a switch off of a tree. I believe the reason he did this is so that the viewing (American) audience, many of whom have been switched as children, or may use a switch on their own children, wouldn't think too much of that. Unfortunately, it's a fairly common practice and even if a kid is not spanked or switched, he/she knows of other kids who are.

So I can see the average American looking at this program and watching Pearl "demonstrate spanking" on the reporter's leg and think, "So what?" Hopefully, they stayed tuned in for the whole program and saw also the kinds of wounds inflicted by plumbing line, which is the Pearls' preferred instrument of torture.

[Aeryn406]

thoughtful says : "And the thing that may rank as the most bizarre, to me -- how switching a child relieves their guilt and tension, since they know they are wrong and deserve it (yep, really -- that's why they are supposed to thank you for it)."

Warning: potential adult concepts ahead - proceed with caution ...

To take this in a completely strange direction, this sounds like they're training children, from a baby up, to find comfort in a sort of "sub-space," like someone who chooses to have D/s relations. I've read a lot about the emotional aspects of being a "sub" and the things I researched said that there is definitely a release to be totally taken out of control of a situation and not have any choice in things, therefore not have to worry about anything. (To clarify - participants would, of course, be adults who want to free themselves of the everyday stresses & responsibilities of their lives.)

To do this to someone that is not able to have a say in the original process, however, is completely inappropriate and horrifying.

[slickcat79]

Warning: potential adult concepts ahead - proceed with caution ...

To take this in a completely strange direction, this sounds like they're training children, from a baby up, to find comfort in a sort of "sub-space," like someone who chooses to have D/s relations. I've read a lot about the emotional aspects of being a "sub" and the things I researched said that there is definitely a release to be totally taken out of control of a situation and not have any choice in things, therefore not have to worry about anything. (To clarify - participants would, of course, be adults who want to free themselves of the everyday stresses & responsibilities of their lives.)

To do this to someone that is not able to have a say in the original process, however, is completely inappropriate and horrifying.

You're not the only one to think in that direction. I remember seeing a post on the old board linking a youtube video of someone describing one of Michael Pearl's newsletters as a "rape fantasy":

[thoughtful]

thoughtful says : "And the thing that may rank as the most bizarre, to me -- how switching a child relieves their guilt and tension, since they know they are wrong and deserve it (yep, really -- that's why they are supposed to thank you for it)."

Weird thing is though - I can almost kinda see how the relief part might make some sense, in a TTUAC or Dobson following household.

The actual physical punishments are bad enough. Absolutely no arguments from me. However, almost worse than that maybe is the emotional component that goes along with it. Dobson's writings make it just as clear as the Pearls do. Every child is born a rebellious sinner, and only looking to thwart the parents' authority, so EVERY interaction with a child is by its very nature a power struggle, and your task as a parent is to break their will, utterly. And then of course, Dobson spends time gloating over having accomplished that. Rebellion (defined as showing any independent will at all in some cases) is the ultimate sin.

The child is belittled in these interactions, mocked, and laughed at, made to lose every time and forced to bow down to the parent. "You are powerless before me, and I will remind you of that fact at every opportunity." Surely some of them start realizing that hey, once the beating is over, at least we're back to square one, nothing is pending and we're out of the passive-aggressive phase.

...which is itself extremely effed up, of course. But yeah, talked to abused kids (secular ones even) and that "once the hitting was done, it was done" sentiment comes up.

Oh, I can see how the emotional manipulation in that sort of household can make the guilt something to be "relieved" by being whipped and having it done with.

My impression, from TTUAC, though, was that the guilt came naturally. I could be wrong -- don't have time to look it up right now.

Either way, we agree that it's disgusting!

[Witsec6]

The very fact that Michael Pearl felt comfortable reaching out and hitting the reporter without any warning (even if lightly) shows that he's got some underlying mental stuff.

[Austin]

The reporter had pulled his own pants leg up, so I don't think it was without warning. But Michael Pearl is a sick fuck anyway.

[Witsec6]

The reporter had pulled his own pants leg up, so I don't think it was without warning. But Michael Pearl is a sick fuck anyway.

In the first clip he said "let me show you something" and reached out with his hand and smacked the reporter's leg a few times.

[Austin]

In the first clip he said "let me show you something" and reached out with his hand and smacked the reporter's leg a few times.

Sorry, I thought you were referring to where he used a switch on the reporter's leg in the second clip.

[wtfrenchtoast]

I just stumbled upon the Pearls and their 'training' methods last night. I can't believe they advocate whipping infants. That is absolutely beyond me. My best friend's niece (practically mine too), was a very fussy baby for her first year (she's about 1 and a half now). We also think she has some separation anxiety, because whenever her mom would leave for class, the poor thing would cry her heart out. She's such a sweet girl and just loves to be cuddled and held. Whenever I hold her she likes to pull my glasses off. I can't imagine hitting her to make her stop. It honestly breaks my heart to think of it. I just take her hand and move it until she stops. It's that simple. From what I've seen her parents use a stern "No" to deter her from touching things she shouldn't touch. I actually have this on video. It's almost funny because her hand is hovering right above the computer mouse when her mom says "No!" and she looks up, then immediately takes her hand away. No hitting, no threats. Just a parent asserting authority. You don't need to hit a child for this to work.

I've always been strongly against burning books, I think it's horrible. But I would gladly light the match to burn all existing copies of TTUaC if it meant children never had experience the Pearls' methods.

[bionicmlle]

Just catching up on this thread. I emailed AC and will post on blog as well - I am glad he has taken this on. I watch NG but honestly I wonder if this story was covered on her show it would be covered just as sensational journalism rather than a more investigative approach. I hope AC keeps up his look into the Pearls.

I also just want to comment about their appearance -- If I was going on TV - ESPECIALLY if I thought it might be controversial or somehow questioning my work/research/etc - I would at least put on some CLEAN CLOTHES. He looked like a boogey-man to me - like the guy you would cross the street to avoid coming close to because he might frotteurize you.... Ick.

[wtfrenchtoast]

Just catching up on this thread. I emailed AC and will post on blog as well - I am glad he has taken this on. I watch NG but honestly I wonder if this story was covered on her show it would be covered just as sensational journalism rather than a more investigative approach. I hope AC keeps up his look into the Pearls.

I also just want to comment about their appearance -- If I was going on TV - ESPECIALLY if I thought it might be controversial or somehow questioning my work/research/etc - I would at least put on some CLEAN CLOTHES. He looked like a boogey-man to me - like the guy you would cross the street to avoid coming close to because he might frotteurize you.... Ick.

This. I just watched the videos. My dad told me about how he and his friends used to sneak around the cabin of a scary old hermit who lived in the woods behind his house when he was younger. I imagine the man to look like Michael Pearl.

[LynnKaboom]

If you pulled your breastfeeding baby's hair in response to a clamp down, wouldn't that just make the baby cry? If the baby cries and gets very upset, then they don't nurse well. So how does that help (beyond just being cruel and unnecessary)?

I know these are probably dumb questions because I'm trying to understand their logic through the lens of my own experiences, and their logic is never going to make sense.

I've never given birth and as such have never breast-fed, but I'd think boobs would kind of work like straws, right? If you have a glass of soda and put a straw in it, then you bite the straw, you're not going to get any soda. You'd probably figure out that wouldn't work to well pretty quickly. I'd think the baby would figure out that biting mom != food.

[Kitty]

I reviewed TTUAC on Amazon today, and bitched out Amazon for selling it. It's amazing- 392 people gave it 5 stars, a handful each gave it 4 stars and 2 stars, and 500+ people gave it 1 star. I'd have given it 0 if Amazon would have let me...

Yes, I name-dropped Lydia Schatz.

[desertvixen]

@ Lynn - They're not quite like straws. The kid can still get milk if they're biting you. When babies nurse, it's not so much sucking as them using their lower jaw to push against your breast to get the milky noms.

The MiniVixen never bit me, but she did get into the pinching/twiddling stage - how hard is it to just unlatch the kid (or in her case, remove the hand)?

[emmiedahl]

A baby can get milk if they bite, but not very effectively. It interferes with their latching on, which is essential to getting fed. Also, they are not biting to be jerks and hurt you. When their gums hurt, it feels nice to bite down on something. The pressure makes the soreness feel better, the way it does when you rub on a sore spot. A firm but still soft breast is just perfect if you think about it, and it is already in their mouth which makes it easy.

If you stop nursing immediately, they get the idea that it is just not worth it. Hurting them is overkill. They aren't being disobedient or malicious; they don't even have the capability to have such complex emotional lives.

[Buzzard]

Tiny babies are so instinctual that causing them pain to "train" them is just moronic. They dont have the ability to think in the sense we understand as they dont have language yet. They are doing what they are programmed to do. They are functioning on cause and effect. I suck on this and I get food. I bite on this and it feels good. Ugh... Anyone who can say babies are sinful with a straight face needs to be sterilized.

I'm curious if the Pearls were contacted before the child was killed. I wonder if there is an email out there somewhere asking for guidance. I wonder if there could be a search warrant... and an indictment... I'd do it in a second...

[wtfrenchtoast]

I'm curious if the Pearls were contacted before the child was killed. I wonder if there is an email out there somewhere asking for guidance. I wonder if there could be a search warrant... and an indictment... I'd do it in a second...

I think that would actually be grounds to arrest them. If there were emails or something where the Pearls encouraged the parents to whip the girls, I see it as encouragement to commit the crime. I had jury duty last week, and the prosecutors made sure to point out that "aiding, facilitating, encouraging, etc" (I don't remember the exact words) is legally the same as committing the crime yourself. So if I said "Hey, you should go steal the stereo from that car", then I could be punished for breaking into that car and stealing the stereo even though I didn't do it.

Now I'm not a law expert by any means, so I don't know if it could happen, but I would love to see this same logic applied to the Pearls and their teachings.

[Brainsample]

This was so difficult to watch. I cried and cried.

[Witsec1]

i watched both segments again and while I especially like the DA's uncompromising stance I think the questions could have been more hard hitting. For instance, there is the page on the website where Michael Pearl refuses to give an answer about how many licks is too many and says the beating must continue until the child is totally broken and surrendered.

http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/index.php?i ... &tx_ttnews[tt_news]=89&tx_ttnews[backPid]=12

How many licks?

There is no number that can be given. It would be better to administer more licks that are less forceful than to administer few licks that hurt severely. It is much more effective to administer chastisement or punishment in a slow thoughtful fashion. Our goal is to cause the child to voluntarily surrender his will. We want to impress upon him the severity of his disobedience. It takes time and thoughtfulness for the child to come to repentance. I have told a child I was going to give him 10 licks. I count out loud as I go. After about three licks, leaving him in his position, I would stop and remind him what this is all about. I would continue slowly, still counting, stop again and tell him that I know it hurts and I wish I didn’t have to do it but that it is for his own good. Then I would continue slowly. Pretending to forget the count, I would again stop at about eight and ask him the number. Have him subtract eight from ten, (a little homeschooling) and continue with the final two licks. Then I would have him stand in front of me and ask him why he got the spanking. If his answer showed that he was rebellious and defiant, he would get several more licks. Again he would be questioned as to his offense. If he showed total submission, we put it all behind us, but if he were still rebellious, we would continue until he gave over his will.

I wish the interviewer had read out that quote and asked Pearl if he would have told the Lydia's father it was impossible to say how many licks is too many.

Also there could have been some other expert interviewed about adoption and how raising 5 children of your own* in no way qualifies you to advise adoptive parents of kids from difficult backgrounds.