Anderson Cooper Rocks/Pearls=Another Death (MERGED)

[Renting with Raggles]

I couldn't help but notice this:

The idea that the only people that can be experts in child training are those that have been given a degree from some university is an idea that has only been around for a couple hundred years at best. To say that no person has been worthy of child training until a degree program was formed for it is simply silly. If you are a Christian, then you would agree that it is God who gives wisdom. A man who has devoted his life to helping others, who loves the Lord, has raised 5 healthy children, is more qualified than some secular humanist with a degree and an atheistic worldview.

Again, choleric's reading comprehension is off. No one on this thread has claimed that specialised study of child development makes one 'worthy' of parenthood. The discussion has been centred around contrasting the efficacy of the Pearl's methods with the dangers associated with them. Other commenters have noted that the techniques that have been developed with reference to modern understanding of developmental psychology are more effective than traditional negative-reinforcement championed by the Pearls. Choleric is dismissive of modernity/ science; wonder how he accounts for the difference in child mortality rates two hundred years ago? Did all these parents somehow become godlier? Would he be willing to look at survival rates between children raised by secular humanists and Christians? Could he retract the statement above when presented with evidence to the contrary?

I bring this up because it seems to me that the Pearl's contempt for science does influence parents that buy into this folksy nonsense: indeed, this was something that directly led to Hana William's death. Her adopted mother misconstrued her behaviour on the day of her death ( clumsiness, incoherence and finally the act of stripping off her clothes) as signs of wilful disobedience - when in fact they are indicators of the hypothermia which killed her.

[Witsec1]

Oh, I didn't realize that you knew Michael Pearl. You must know him if you can claim with such authority that he is a narcissit.

All kidding aside, I am sure that many people that know Mike Pearl, feel the same way about him as you do about your mother. As a matter of fact, the book came about when a lady that knew the family asked Mike in a letter how he raised such wonderful children. The book got its' start as a response to that ladies request and the rest...as they say...is history.

His writings portray a narcissist. He may just be a bad writer. Yeah, we know the origin story of the book. The point is, there are lots of situations that you never encounter raising a handful of children. He's not aware of the gamut of situations parents face, especially parents of adopted children. He actively discourages parents from seeking help outside his materials.

My mother has more experience with children than Michael Pearl, as well as aptitude at that task, and it's not just my opinion, but that of hundreds of parents and the supervisors of the school where she worked. The point is, his incompetence is not caused by lack of academic training, though some training would probably help. Systematic observation is the key. That doesn't have to happen in an academic setting.

[Witsec1]

Choleric, do you know Michael Pearl personally?

[Brainsample]

I'm not sure why you think everyone here thinks anyone who uses Pearl methods should be investigated and prosecuted. I wish they would stop, but I don't want them all prosecuted. I think those who manage to parent well do so in spite of, rather than because of, his advice. I think there are many, many red flags in his writings that have the power to cause a fatal, toxic reaction in certain situations. Pearl has been made aware of the problems with these deaths, yet he does nothing to correct or tone down the problematic instructions.

This has reminded me of Kim in a Shoe and her claims that the deaths of women who do not get surgery for tubal pregnancy are negligible, as though the 9% of tubal pregnancies, the percentage of all pregnancy related deaths, is insignificant. The 25,000 women that die ever year world wide (despite our ability to detect and surgically treat ectopic pregnancy to rescue women from the life-threatening consequences of these 100% non-viable pregnancies) are not important. It doesn't seem to matter that before we were able to help women with tubal pregnancies that one out of every three women died from them. So we just shouldn't really treat them at all, because the adherents of the VF ideology venerates those women who die and these tubal pregnancies from which no baby has ever survived while women still die.

There was a bad intersection just down the road from where I once attended school, and it was nearly impossible to have a clear view of the oncoming traffic. Pedestrians were killed there, and there were car wrecks with many fatalities. The family of a dead girl went to the local government to petition to put a light there at the intersection where many pedestrians walked regularly. They were told that until there were X number of deaths, it didn't warrant their attention and didn't qualify for consideration. I'm not surprised about this kind of thing from a bureaucracy, but not from a minister of the Gospel.

The risk of rhabdomyolosis (the muscle cells in the blood stream which produce renal failure as seen in Zariah Schatz and the cause of death for Lydia) is not significant to Michael Pearl, and he absolves himself of culpability for being even a remote factor. The asphyxiation of Sean Paddock is not significant. Hana Williams is not significant. How many dead children whose parents were trying to diligently follow Pearl's teachings will it take before Pearl acknowledges at least a small degree of shared culpability? How many dead children will it take? How many families have to sacrifice themselves on the sword of devotion to this man, blackmailed by the Christian homeschooling community to do so?

I suppose that the only thing he will attend to will be a civil court case that he loses that demands a sufficient amount of money from him in reparations. The rod of man will likely be the only thing that will get his attention.

[Austin]

The risk of rhabdomyolosis (the muscle cells in the blood stream which produce renal failure as seen in Zariah Schatz and the cause of death for Lydia) is not significant to Michael Pearl, and he absolves himself of culpability for being even a remote factor. The asphyxiation of Sean Paddock is not significant. Hana Williams is not significant. How many dead children whose parents were trying to diligently follow Pearl's teachings will it take before Pearl acknowledges at least a small degree of shared culpability? How many dead children will it take? How many families have to sacrifice themselves on the sword of devotion to this man, blackmailed by the Christian homeschooling community to do so?

I suppose that the only thing he will attend to will be a civil court case that he loses that demands a sufficient amount of money from him in reparations. The rod of man will likely be the only thing that will get his attention.

How many more, indeed? How many more?

I believe one reason why his defenders may be coming out of the woodwork a bit is that the media has a hold of this now. They are now looking at these cases and recognizing the clear connections, the obvious common denominators. Prosecutors are learning about TTUAC and the "parenting" philosophies that these people were using. Normal people do not think that others kill their children in slow, systematic ways and the more the public hears about it, the more horrified they will become. They can understand "losing control" to a degree, but even then, as a society, we do not excuse it. Pearl's book lays the framework for systematic, intentional abuse and there's only so long that he's going to be able to distance himself from his own words.

And a lot more people like many of us here at FJ are banging the drum harder. We're contacting the media, we're putting pressure on Amazon, we're speaking out in our many various spheres of influence.

I have no doubt that his chickens will come home to roost, one way or another.

[oscar]

When yellow bile is sufficiently charred or oxidized, it gives rise to an ash-like residue and a morbid form of black bile known as choleric atrabile. In general, the more toxic and injurious the morbid choler, the more harmful the resulting atrabile will be. Adust Choler is the most oxidized form of yellow bile, and is therefore the most toxic. It is extremely dark in color, like charcoal.

Atrabile derived from this morbid choler penetrates the tissues less easily, and is more slowly destructive. It's very difficult to disperse, mature or treat with remedial measures.

[formergothardite]

I'm still waiting to hear exactly how hitting a child with a willow branch isn't spanking. The age and the intention doesn't matter, so don't bring that up, just explain exactly how it isn't spanking since you said they never spanked children who wouldn't understand. If it is spanking when a child is older then it is spanking when they are young.

[treemom]

I have not ignored, I just don't like repeating myself. Child training is an important aspect of protecting our children from danger. A child will learn not to touch a hot stove only after they are burned. As parents, we protect them from that danger by swatting their hand to learn not to try to touch the hot stove because we say so. A child who is too little to climb the stairs doesn't understand that falling down them could result in their death. As a good parent, we have to teach them to stay off of the stairs to protect them from danger that they are not aware of.

Swatting the leg of the baby was not a punishment for disobeying them, it was an attempt to gain the child's compliance by training them that when mom and dad say "no" they mean business. It is a great danger for the child to climb the stairs. Just like swatting the hand reaching for the hot stove, it is not out of anger or punishment, but training and protection.

The child learned that no, meant no. A slight swat on the leg is no worse than a swat on the hand. Neither done for punishment, none out of anger, and it is simply training the child to stay away from danger not out of experiencing the burn or fall down the stairs, but because mom and dad say no. Simple parenting 101, practiced by every parent in the world for thousands of years. Only yuppies and people with too much time on their hands take issue with it.

I just prevented my child from touching a stove until he was old enough to understand the danger.

It seems as if I am the smarter of the two of us. Way less work to prevent it than to hit my kid when it happens.

And I am not a yuppie nor and I just drowning in time.

[treemom]

I have no desire to train my child to obey. Seriously...obeying isn't exactly the greatest thing on earth...ever heard of Stanley Milgram. Instead I taught him to communicate with us.

That doesn't mean I don't expect a level of obedience, I do. But not just 'because I said so' or 'because I will hit you if you don't' but because he doesn't always understand the long term impacts like we do.

[formergothardite]

My mom raised nine children and managed to never have to pop our hands to keep us from being burned on the stove. It involved being a parent and supervising children when they are too young to understand that they can't grab a hot stove. So far none of us are living in poverty because we married (or didn't marry) a man who won't work so she must have not done too bad of a job.

[2xx1xy1JD]

When you put a product out there for the general public, you need to take some responsibility for it. You know those warnings on every product we buy? They exist for a reason.

I don't know the Pearls, but it is theoretically possible that THEY knew that they would never strike the children beyond a certain point, and that they also loved their children and had some other parenting techniques which were decent. The problem, though, is that they weren't just using a technique themselves or even teaching a few people in person. They were selling books to large numbers of strangers, without having any idea who the parents or children were. At some point, the book exists separately from Michael and Debi Pearl, since it is only the book which is there to advocate striking the child, and not Michael or Debi who are there in person to swoop in and say, "Hold on! That's enough, are you crazy? This child is in danger!"

**********************************************************************************************************************

Re "spanking":

I've got some real issues with language here. I don't think we are speaking the same one.

Let's do away with ambiguous words like "spanking", and just plainly say what we mean. Are we talking about a light open-hand slap to the bottom? Striking a child on the leg with a plumbing line? Using a wooden spoon with some force? Be specific.

Where I live, "spanking" simply means open-hand light to moderate slap on a part of the body other than the head, to a child between 2 and 12, by a parent, not done in anger. Anything else is called "assault".

[FJSharkJump]

I'm going to quote myself. I don't want choleric to overlook my previous post.

Michael Pearl, in the interview with Anderson Cooper:

Michael Pearl, in To Train Up a Child:

Does. Not. Compute.

[treemom]

This "person" brings to mind Emerson's well-known words, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. . ." He definitely qualifies. He is so intent on defending something he clearly knows is wrong because he's invested so much into it he can't possibly backpeddle now. So he thinks.

Listen, jerk, don't tell us, "Good luck with that" when referring to our children. Many of us, including me, have raised children to adulthood with success without hitting them. So thanks for the "good luck", but we didn't need luck, or even perfection, just decency and humanity.

It's regrettable that you are so lazy that you can't figure out a more constructive way to deal with your children, and I feel sorry for your kids, but that's really what it boils down to. I realize it's much easier to pull out a switch or a piece of plumbing line and whack your kid than to actually communicate with and teach your child.

My husband and sister in law were never spanked and made it to adulthood. My brother in law was killed in a traffic accident but also made it to adulthood. All three were/are relatively successful, kind people who are happy.

[treemom]

Breaking a child's will is nothing more that getting the child to lay down their will in favor of yours. It is getting them to stop throwing a temper tantrum in the store because they aren't going to get the candy and then seeing them walk joyfully through the store while you shop. Whatever method you use to get the child from the tantrum to the joy is breaking their will. Breaking the child's will is gaining compliance, hopefully (but not in every instance) with joy. You don't have to spank to break their will, and every parent on earth has done it.

No, that is not what the common meaning of that phrase means.

[Austin]

I have no desire to train my child to obey. Seriously...obeying isn't exactly the greatest thing on earth...ever heard of Stanley Milgram. Instead I taught him to communicate with us.

That doesn't mean I don't expect a level of obedience, I do. But not just 'because I said so' or 'because I will hit you if you don't' but because he doesn't always understand the long term impacts like we do.

ITA. We did not put a high premium on "obedience", either. Critical thinking skills were far more important to us. Most things that kids do "wrong" are just a bad idea, anyway. If you teach kids how to think through their actions and those correlating consequences (age appropriately, of course), and challenge them to develop, by demonstrating and expressly teaching, these skills, it's in their own best interests to do things that are a good idea. At the same time, you help them build a moral framework which informs their critical thinking and decision-making.

Did our kids they screw up? Sure, but so do my husband and I, so then there's the important teaching of what do you do when you screw things up? How do you make amends or reparations or if it's something that just hurt you, then what did you learn and how will that inform future decision-making? Kids need to fail, especially while they still have the benefit of the parental safety net, because I would argue that learning how to fail and then how to regroup after failure is as crucial to anything else we ever learn.

So we obviously come from a whole different vantage point than many fundies who consider any failure or lapse in the child's decision making something that needs "correction" or demands "training".

[emmiedahl]

So is it your claim that you never one time spanked, put in time out, sent to their room, didn't let them have dessert, made them come in when it was dark? Do you expect me to believe that?

I do take away dessert and I do ask them to come inside from the dark. Every parent does that. It has nothing to do with Michael Pearl.

I purposely avoid breaking their will. Quite to the contrary, I teach them to apply their will toward positive pursuits. While Michael Pearl's children are all basically societal rejects without education or a career, I have successful children from adult through infant. No legal problems, no crimes, just nice people who care about others and contribute to society in a meaningful way. The prisons are full of people who were raised with corporal punishment. I read somewhere that the number approaches 100%.

If you take my methods too far, the kid might get a little spoiled. If you take Michael Pearl's methods too far, a child dies. You don't even need to take them "too far"--just follow his advice to keep hitting them with plumbing line until they give up.

[Kitty]

I'm still waiting to hear exactly how hitting a child with a willow branch isn't spanking. The age and the intention doesn't matter, so don't bring that up, just explain exactly how it isn't spanking since you said they never spanked children who wouldn't understand. If it is spanking when a child is older then it is spanking when they are young.

It's switching. Duh. :roll:

[Witsec1]

No, that is not what the common meaning of that phrase means.

Exactly. Breaking someone's will does not equal gaining their compliance. You can gain my compliance with most reasonable requests, simply by asking politely. You do not need to break my will.

Redirection is not breaking the will, explaining the reasoning behind a rule is not breaking the will, removing the child from the situation is not breaking the will, refusing to give in to tantrums and whining is not breaking the will. Giving the child a technique or tool to help with self-control, like showing her how to keep her hands clasped behind her back when looking at things that mustn't be touched, etc., helps with self-control but does not break the will. A child with a broken will has no self-control, only obedience out of fear.

[Witsec1]

Also, does this re-definition of terms like "spanking" and "breaking the will" smack of gas-lighting( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting ) to anyone else?

[Rosa]

That is a sad commentary on your parents, and I am sorry you experienced that as well as the lack of a healthy relationship with your parents. It sounds like an out of balance "patriarchal" type family structure. I am sure you understand that neither James Dobson nor Michael Pearl teaches such a family structure. Incidentally, Mike has some articles disputing this false family structure called the "Balanced Patriarch which you can read here: http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/articles/general-view/archive/2009/february/06/the-balanced-patriarch/. There was a series devoted to disputing that movement as well. You can find them on the site.

My main issue is not in telling you or anyone else how to raise their kids. My goal is in defending a man who teaches a widely accepted parenting tool who is being attacked for no reason. If you don't want to/need to spank, then by all means don't. I would agree that it is not for everyone, just like homeschooling (which we do). It works for some, not for others. But homeschooling is not bad because if fails in some families, and spanking is not bad because of a few bad parents.

Nope. My parents had a fairly balanced marriage (codependent, but not patriarchal.) And they tried to follow Dobson's parenting advice TO THE LETTER.

You're just lying about what either of them teaches if you think Dobson doesn't teach that parents must always dominate in any disagreement, or that Pearl is being attacked for no reason.

[Rosa]

I do take away dessert and I do ask them to come inside from the dark. Every parent does that. It has nothing to do with Michael Pearl.

I purposely avoid breaking their will. Quite to the contrary, I teach them to apply their will toward positive pursuits. While Michael Pearl's children are all basically societal rejects without education or a career, I have successful children from adult through infant. No legal problems, no crimes, just nice people who care about others and contribute to society in a meaningful way. The prisons are full of people who were raised with corporal punishment. I read somewhere that the number approaches 100%.

If you take my methods too far, the kid might get a little spoiled. If you take Michael Pearl's methods too far, a child dies. You don't even need to take them "too far"--just follow his advice to keep hitting them with plumbing line until they give up.

I just wish this place had a "like" button. Go Emmie!

[emmiedahl]

It does sound like gaslighting to me. I have never heard the phrase, so thanks for the link.

Psychologist Martha Stout states that sociopaths frequently use gaslighting tactics. Sociopaths consistently transgress social mores, break laws, and exploit others, but are also typically charming and convincing liars who consistently deny wrongdoing. Thus, some who have been victimized by sociopaths may doubt their perceptions.

And that sounds like Michael Pearl.

If you follow the link at the bottom of the article to the Psychological Manipulation page, there is a long list of ways that people can be manipulated. It is basically the parenting techniques used in TTUAC.

[Witsec1]

"No, we don't recommend hitting or spanking infants, we just teach parents to strike them with a willow switch hard enough to cause pain, but it is not spanking or hitting, it is "training". That's gaslighting.

[Rosa]

Flora, that is such a useful phrase for this shit. Half the time with followers, I don't know if they are deliberately redefinining the language so they can pretend we all live in their world, or if they have just been brainwashed til they can't even communicate.

Also, I've been thinking lately: these people who want to "train" their babies and toddlers so they never do things they shouldn't are the same damn people who want to keep their teenagers home completely sheltered so they never see anything tempting.

I mean, people who have straight up told me "oh we never baby proofed, we just taught him not to touch things" like it was a point of pride - what was I doing, passively protecting my baby instead of spanking him until he was afraid to touch the side table? - are the ones who now don't let their 8 year olds Trick or Treat because having fun with "the occult" will lead them off the path of righteousness.

That seems like an implicit assumption their training didn't work. (This is not about the Pearls; they clearly beat their kids down so bad they don't go against Daddy even when they're completely on their own in another country with total freedom. I mean regular spare-the-rod types.)

[Brainsample]

The collaboration and cooperation element here is striking.

In Complementarianism, a woman is called to sacrifice her will and her being on the altar of submission to her husband, and it is said to be her duty before God and to her husband. She is to deny herself, and we have Dr. Dorothy Patterson who instructs us that we will be absolved of sin if we do this act of virtue through obedience.

It is not a system of respect. The woman is given only limited respect, sometimes only as much as a child would deserve. There are groups within patriarchy that actually understand that women are to be essentially parented, as a parent governs a child. A husband must rule and reign over his wife like the Father is said to rule and reign over creation. Complementarianism says that the concept of mutual submission is not Biblical and is not required of men. Only women submit to men.

But what is submission? Is it not collaboration and cooperation? Is it not the free choice and willingness to meet a person where they are, if only out of respect for who they are -- for being a fellow human being? Aren't children worthy of some of that respect as well? Their wills should not be broken but conformed. The process of conforming can take place within a relationship and place of trust where that child knows that they have value as a human being. They are important, and how they are treated conveys that they are important and is modeled in how they are disciplined. Save for a rare use of corporal punishment that is geared at preserving a child's safety from immediate harm (and I know others here disagree with me on this point, too), the child whose will is broken learns that they are not worthy of respect, certainly not when they are a child. They learn that might makes right, not human worth or value. And sorry, but when you are being hit with something, talk is cheap, cheap, cheap. Actions speak.

I reject not only the breaking of the will but the whole system upon which the process of the breaking of children developed -- within the milieu of social and gender hierarchy which is all about power and control. I think that this religious right that people are willing to practically die to defend is a mere logical outcome to a belief in gender hierarchy. All people are equal, but some are more equal than others. Ideologically, that is what I believe is at the base of it, not the loving kindness of God, no matter how well intended the end is said to be.