Anderson Cooper Rocks/Pearls=Another Death (MERGED)

[thoughtful]

Hmmmm, managing the environment to protect a child, teaching a preferred behavior, persuading a child to voluntarily make a better choice, and the myriad other ways a child can be guided, are the same as "breaking the will?"

OK, and this color is green.

I mean, really? The many ways that someone might be influenced to change their behavior, change their minds, and learn to make better choices rarely have much to do with one's "will" being broken.

Rigid either-or situations (sin or righteousness, obedience or defiance, my will versus yours) are often false constructs, made up by the person in power at the moment. The Pearls seem to relish them.

I think the fact that Pearl and his followers are caught up in this stuff says something about them, not how life works and how children learn. What it says, I'm not sure -- lack of imagination? A very win-lose way of looking at life? A very rigid view of God?

Whatever it is, it doesn't seem to have much to do with the way children learn and grow.

[Buzzard]

My parents NEVER struck,swatted, switched, beat, spanked or whatever you call it. In fact, I did not know a single child that was hit in any way until I went to college. Of the close group of 14 kids I grew up with since diapers all but one has doctorates and that slacker has a masters. We are all still very close, and none of us hit children.

My parents had and still have a very balanced relationship and their example is what I strive for. If my siblings or I did something wrong, we were told what it was and why we shouldnt do it. Every conversation ended with "do you understand?" and then I was asked to repeat my transgression and why it was wrong. There were quite a few times when I was able to convince my parents that my actions were founded in logic and were therefore not wrong. I wonder why I'm a lawyer, right???

Toddlers are simply removed from dangerous objects. If a munchkin wants to climb stairs, just move them away. If they try and pull hair, move them away and tell them "no." Theres no need to use pain to teach a child, they're quite intelligent.

I dont hit dogs and I certainly would never strike a baby. You can achieve the same result through compassion and a bit of effort.

[Witsec1]

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.

Bingo! Great insight.

[Patsy]

This thread is exhausting. Thanks to those who are sticking it out.

[Austin]

It is definitely depressing to know that so many people believe this crap. But I'm also heartened to know that many people are raising raising their children effectively without violence.

[Funky Chicken]

/delurk/

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".

At last!!! The term "spanking" as it is used by these psychopaths has been doing my head in. The term evokes something a hell of a lot less malignant than the cold-blooded whipping of defenceless kids (often to death) with plumbing equipment. In this country it's definitely assault, and you would get your kids taken away, and possibly go to prison yourself. It is against the law here to hit your child, and that includes only with your hand. And it seems to me that it's only in the "violent" localities/SES situations where people still hit their children, that the violent criminals seem to emerge. Coincidence?!

And even if this nutbag is saying he's training his kids like animals, I've seen hugely better outcomes training dogs and horses without violence/hitting/"breaking their will" than with those techniques. I thought the aim of "training", be it child or animal, was to "teach" or "communicate" to the creature how to understand you and their environment, and behave as you would like them to, because they understand you. Negative reinforcement is of the "it shall profit you not" variety, eg no positive outcome, time-out, etc. I think mother animals do this too but I guess evil evolutionary parallels aren't worth making here!

(Edited because I do know which to use of "to, too and two"!)

[thoughtful]

It is definitely depressing to know that so many people believe this crap. But I'm also heartened to know that many people are raising raising their children effectively without violence.

They are, Austin -- they are!

One of the false either-or dichotomies that Pearl sets up, and that those who praise him often parrot, is that people who don't follow his way are overly-permissive, lazy parents, who ignore a child, then nag, then fly into a rage. He doesn't seem to see any middle ground.

I have been teaching for decades -- I've worked with thousands of children, met their parents, saw how their teaching at home was shaping them, and, in some cases, saw a lot of their home life.

The vast majority of these parents were teaching morals, setting limits, raising lovely children, without resorting to Pearl-esque nonsense.

I genuinely believe that the real Pearlized schmucks are rare, as are the spoil-'em-rotten/too-busy-with-their-own-life crowd.

I'd just like them to be even rarer!

[thoughtful]

/delurk/

The term "spanking" as it is used by these psychopaths has been doing my head in. The term evokes something a hell of a lot less malignant than the cold-blooded whipping of defenceless kids (often to death) with plumbing equipment. In this country it's definitely assault, and you would get your kids taken away, and possibly go to prison yourself. It is against the law here to hit your child, and that includes only with your hand. And it seems to me that it's only in the "violent" localities/SES situations where people still hit their children, that the violent criminals seem to emerge. Coincidence?!

Oh, but they say that using an implement is kinder than using the hand.

And, if you watched the Anderson Cooper interview, Pearl is now euphemizing to (may I have a drum roll, please) . . .

Corporal chastisement!

Wasn't he a character on M*A*S*H?

I'm pretty easy to please -- I don't care if one calls it hitting, beating, switching, spanking, corporal chastisement, corporal punishment, swatting, paddling, smacking, or (what am I missing?).

I just want people to stop doing it.

Pain is not needed to teach children.

And even if this nutbag is saying he's training his kids like animals, I've seen hugely better outcomes training dogs and horses without violence/hitting/"breaking their will" than with those techniques. I thought the aim of "training", be it child or animal, was to "teach" or "communicate" to the creature how to understand you and their environment, and behave as you would like them to, because they understand you. Negative reinforcement is of the "it shall profit you not" variety, eg no positive outcome, time-out, etc. I think mother animals do this to but I guess evil evolutionary parallels aren't worth making here!

"Negative punishment" is "if you don't do what I want, you don't get what you want/I take away what you have" -- that is, if it works (the behavioral-science definitions of the terms are descriptions of results, not prescriptions).

Again and again, I have watched savvy teacher-dogs stare off into space when a rude young dog is obnoxious, then re-engage in play and give attention when the pup behaves appropriately. Works like a charm.

"That behavior will not get what you want -- this behavior will" is a phenomenal use of simple behaviorism.

"I will set up a situation in which your doing what comes naturally will give me an excuse to give you stinging pain" -- not so much.

Besides being cruel and unfair, it's clumsy and inefficient, and runs the risk of a child or animal getting a totally different message than you want to send.

[StarrieEyedKat]

I'm still confused about the whole "Well, that's like blaming AA when an alcoholic gets drunk and kills someone when driving" argument. That doesn't make any sense - Pearl is saying you SHOULD hit your kids, AA is saying you should NOT drink excessively. That argument should either be presented like this:

"Michael Pearl's book advocates hitting children with various objects. Some people have taken this advice to the extreme and it ended up killing a child. People shouldn't blame Michael Pearl - if an alcoholic read a book advocating drinking and driving and then drank and drove, killing someone, then would you place blame on the person that wrote that book?" (In which case, yes, I would to an extent, as the book is telling you to do something that.)

or (this one is untrue, but in order for the AA argument to work, this is what would have to happen.)

"Michael Pearl's book speaks against hitting children with various objects. Some people have gone against this advice and it ended up killing a child. People shouldn't blame Michael Pearl - if an alcoholic read an AA book that spoke against drinking and then drank and drove, killing someone, then would you place blame on the book?" (In which case, no, as the book was telling you not to do the action that caused harm.)

Maybe that made no sense, but the general jist of it is: Parents trying to follow Pearl's advice have ended up killing their children. People trying to follow AA's advice are not drinking and driving. You can't say blaming Pearl is like blaming AA when AA is telling you NOT to do something that may cause death.

[SquirrelySquirrel]

I'll be more than happy to say that I think most Pearl followers should be investigated. If you agree with "chastising" a child of any age with plumbing line, belts, switches, rulers, etc, you're a fucking abuser. I'm not a fan of any kind of spanking, be it with hand or implement, and wish it were all illegal everywhere.

Choleric, you know why I can't just agree that you should raise your children with the Pearls' teachings? Because it is ABUSE. Call me whatever name you want, ask me if I can speak fluent English, whatever. Get off your lazy ass and learn how to teach your children. It's completely possible without laying a hand on them in violence if you actually put some effort into it.

For me, "punishment" isn't even an option (for which I can happily agree to disagree; this is just my preference.) Positive parenting and logical consequences are how we roll, and by some effing miracle of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, my child has been praised by strangers galore since she was itty bitty for her behavior. It's a helluva lot more work than shouting NO and smacking her all the time, but the end result is worth it since she has learned what is acceptable and doesn't need the fear of me and my switch to know how to behave. Her will is most definitely not broken, nor will it ever be. You know darn well what we mean by that phrase too, so stop playing dumb.

Please, get some help. Read some positive parenting books and realize that your children are humans who deserve basic human dignity and respect. Treat them as the precious beings they are, who are deserving of someone to gently guide them through their formative years before it's too late.

ETA - And can someone please tell me what asking your child to come in after dark has to do with anything? Am I mistaken in trying to understand anything this rug-shitter is saying? Is this person so thick they can't comprehend that most of us can let our child know it's time to come inside without a big to-do and a ritual beating?

[emmiedahl]

[thoughtful]

I'm still confused about the whole "Well, that's like blaming AA when an alcoholic gets drunk and kills someone when driving" argument. That doesn't make any sense - Pearl is saying you SHOULD hit your kids, AA is saying you should NOT drink excessively. That argument should either be presented like this:

"Michael Pearl's book advocates hitting children with various objects. Some people have taken this advice to the extreme and it ended up killing a child. People shouldn't blame Michael Pearl - if an alcoholic read a book advocating drinking and driving and then drank and drove, killing someone, then would you place blame on the person that wrote that book?" (In which case, yes, I would to an extent, as the book is telling you to do something that.)

or (this one is untrue, but in order for the AA argument to work, this is what would have to happen.)

"Michael Pearl's book speaks against hitting children with various objects. Some people have gone against this advice and it ended up killing a child. People shouldn't blame Michael Pearl - if an alcoholic read an AA book that spoke against drinking and then drank and drove, killing someone, then would you place blame on the book?" (In which case, no, as the book was telling you not to do the action that caused harm.)

Maybe that made no sense, but the general jist of it is: Parents trying to follow Pearl's advice have ended up killing their children. People trying to follow AA's advice are not drinking and driving. You can't say blaming Pearl is like blaming AA when AA is telling you NOT to do something that may cause death.

A. It's bullshit.

B. Pearl claims that his way actually leads to less physical abuse of children -- remember, he's picturing most other parents as ignoring/nagging/flipping out and smacking. But it's still bullshit.

ETA Pearl's description of a non-Pearl parent:

COMMON SCENARIO

"Johnny, stop climbing on the stool. You could break something. Did you hear what I said? I am not going to tell you again. What do you mean, 'No?' Now you do what I tell you to--right now. DO YOU HEAR ME?!! GEEETT DOWNNN!!! I have had about all I am going to take from you. Why are you always so hard headed? You are driving me crazy! This is absolutely the last time I am going to tell you...

"GET DOWN!!!" Then she tell him several more times.

At this point it is a competition between the emotionally disturbed mother and the little boy. A cauldron of anger and resentment has built up in this mother that is momentarily at a near killing rage. It is the exact feelings that, in greater proportions, and in the less restrained, lead to murder dozens of times every day. Her hostility gushes forth. Like a striking snake her arm becomes a bungle cord yanking the child from the stool, swinging him screaming through the air. With the other bare hand she strikes out at his bottom in a wild spray of flat handed karate chops. The gyrating child, his little shoulder nearly dislocated, screams his protest of defiance. The mother has vented her anger and is ready to resume her routine. The child goes off to plot his next escapade. This has no more resemblance to discipline than a playground fight.

Once the parent's feelings of personal injury are expelled through this act of violence (that's what it is in the case described) and the kid flees from sight, or appears sufficiently subdued not to cause the parent more trouble, the parent is satisfied. "Forget the kid. He will not cause ME any more trouble for awhile." A truly concerned parent is going to patiently instruct the child for his own good. The rod must be accompanied by reproof in order to give wisdom. By reproof, we don't mean ranting and raving.

It is this very knowledge of their own lack of self-control that constrains some parents from ever using the rod. Their own life is so out of control and filled with guilt that they recognize their inability to be objective and fair in discipline. Their unwillingness to repent and bring their own life into balance will cause the children to suffer from a lack of the proper administration of the rod.

One of the marks of the unbalanced use of the rod is the lack of accompanying instruction. "The rod and reproof give wisdom (Prov. 29:15)." Where there is just a venting of the parent's anger, there will be no careful, patient, concerned reproof. The rod should be viewed as an aid to instruction, in that it reinforces reproof, not as the last resort of a frustrated superior force. Reproof without the rod is equally unbalanced.

[Rosa]

He's saying that if nobody had ever broken his will he'd be living in a cave like a Wild Thing, refusing to eat his supper or come in out of the cold. Because the only way anyone ever learns to do anything civilized is to be beaten by their will is broken.

In his Bizarroworld where "breaking the will" means "getting a person to do anything anyone else suggests or wants".

If he's not a troll he's not safe for human company. Also, not as good a parent as a barn cat, or a chimpanzee.

[2xx1xy1JD]

A. It's bullshit.

B. Pearl claims that his way actually leads to less physical abuse of children -- remember, he's picturing most other parents as ignoring/nagging/flipping out and smacking. But it's still bullshit.

ETA Pearl's description of a non-Pearl parent:

So, here's what that scenario looks like in my home. Keep in mind that I have both stools and children, including one named Johnny.

Scenario 1 - tot approaches stool. I swoop in, say "NO, dangerous" and deposit tot somewhere safe. No arguing, no defiance, no anger from me.

Scenario 2 - preschooler tries to climb on stool. I come around, say, "No, let's get off, it's too easy to fall off", and help them down. Again - it's fast, and nobody is angry.

Scenario 3 - child has figured out how to climb onto stool totally on their own, and they wobble or fall. I run in, yell "careful! Are you okay?", grab some ice, calm them down, and then say "that's why the stool is dangerous". No anger, and child has learned not to do it again.

[Brainsample]

So, here's what that scenario looks like in my home. Keep in mind that I have both stools and children, including one named Johnny.

Scenario 1 - tot approaches stool. I swoop in, say "NO, dangerous" and deposit tot somewhere safe. No arguing, no defiance, no anger from me.

Scenario 2 - preschooler tries to climb on stool. I come around, say, "No, let's get off, it's too easy to fall off", and help them down. Again - it's fast, and nobody is angry.

Scenario 3 - child has figured out how to climb onto stool totally on their own, and they wobble or fall. I run in, yell "careful! Are you okay?", grab some ice, calm them down, and then say "that's why the stool is dangerous". No anger, and child has learned not to do it again.

But you had not "helicopter parent" agenda. You want your child to learn the ability to problem-solve. Some of that involves the willingness to let them use their own trial and error, within safe limits. You want your child to develop good discernment. Experience which often involves failure and frustration can be the best teacher.

You also don't believe that your child willfully sets out to conquer you due to any sort of diabolical will. You likely understand that as Allan Schore states in "Affect Regulation and the Origin of the Self" and other science based child development researchers have determined with objective science, all primary thought for a child under 24-32 months is all Right Brained and does not involve any type of diabolical or even analytical plotting (which takes place on the Left Side of the brain). Thought is experiential only. And you likely don't believe that your child is predominantly evil as a result of his sin nature, a trait that must be subdued at all cost to save his soul, though he is not yet old enough to comprehend even the most basic conception of salvation and atonement.

You haven't spiritualized every single human action as a microcosm of the child's relationship with God via their relationship with you. (You don't believe that you are conditioning your child to accept Christ at a later time. You are willing to tolerate a child who makes mistakes and sometimes makes judgement calls that are commensurate with his age -- giving him a desire to learn through exploration which often leads to judgement that is not sound for an adult. You do not demand an exceptionally high level of self-control for your child. You are not inclined to interpret imperfection (or expressions of joy, fear, fatigue) as willful rebellion.

None of this is true for Michael Pearl.

[Brainsample]

I made this for my blog some months ago. Maybe the Pearl folks will read it and see some of the contrasts?

http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2011 ... _8699.html

[FJSharkJump]

Those three scenarios take place in this household also. I will add a couple more:

4) "I don't think you are quite ready for that tall stool yet. How about you practice climbing on this low stool/chair/the bed/whatever instead?" And set child up with other object to climb.

4a) Ask child what s/he can do/reach by being so much taller? Guide child through brainstorming (reach the light switch, reach the sink to wash hands, reach a higher shelf that houses special books and toys, etc.) and help child to choose one to try.

4b) Give child a chore/task s/he can work on from new vantage point (put away flatware in the utensil drawer, wipe down bathroom sink/vanity, dust shelves, etc.).

5) Choose a free half hour when you are not busy and the household is relaxed and help your child to master getting on and off the tall stool. Repeat until you both feel comfortable and confident in child's newfound skill.

5a) Repeat steps 4a and 4b.

[treemom]

You know I was going to make a joke about what the scenario of the stools would look like with an 11 yr old boy scout in the house, but then I realized choleric is an idiot and would jump to all sorts of convulsions.

[Vex]

Okay.

Torture, is the deliberate inflicting of pain (mental, physical or both) upon a subject with the goal of breaking their will so that the subject will comply with their demands, whatever they may be.

Michael Pearl exhorts readers to slowly and deliberately switch children in such a manner that causes pain, in order to break their will, so that the children will obey their demands. Just because he's doing it with the goal of ultimately helping children doesn't change the nature of the act. Often, people are tortured to extract information so that they might be able to help save the lives of their people. They might call it 'coercion' and claim that it's for the greater good, but it's still torture.

If you ask a child politely to put away their toys, and they do, that is not 'breaking their will'. It is making a request. If they don't do it and you verbally tell them that they've done the wrong thing, then ask them again and they comply, that is not breaking their will.

You say that the people here who are calling the Pearl method 'torture' and 'beating' are being alarmist, but how is calling sending a child to bed without dessert 'breaking their will' any different? That's not just alarmist, it's downright incorrect. Can you truly not see a difference between putting a child in their room for 15 minutes or asking them to come in at night (which is an odd example, as it is a request and not a punishment) and inflicting physical harm with a stinging switch for as long as it takes for the child to break down and be 'truly' remorseful? Or are you just trying to make a point?

I don't think smacking is evil. I think sometimes it is very much needed. I believe it should be a last resort, but I understand that children need restrictions and consistent consequences for wrong actions. The most dire problem, to me, with the Pearl method is that he does not say when to stop. He says you MUST keep inflicting punishment until the child surrenders to you, and while that tends to be effective with most normal, undamaged children, the truth is that he offers no caveats. He doesn't say that there are some children for whom his method will not work. It's not a coincidence that the children who were killed by parents following Pearl's methods were older, adopted children. They didn't understand what was required of them, and their parents followed the Pearl's book to the letter - because it didn't tell them when to draw the line, the parents didn't, and the children paid the ultimate price.

It is irresponsible of Michael Pearl to not correct his text, knowing what has happened. As others have said, how many children whose parents have used that book have to die before he takes notice and alters his book?

For the record: Yes, I have read the book.

[FlorenceHamilton]

I don't believe in CHASTISING.

chas·tise (chs-tz, chstz)

tr.v. chas·tised, chas·tis·ing, chas·tis·es

1. To punish, as by beating. See Synonyms at punish.

2. To criticize severely; rebuke.

3. Archaic To purify.

I do not believe that the will of a child is an evil thing. I do not wish to break a child's will. I want my child to keep and nurture his/her will as his/her very own. My job as a parent is to keep my child safe. My job as a parent is to get to know my child and the nature of his/her will. My job as a parent is not to "train" the will out of him/her, but to TEACH him/her that there are consequences of acting impulsively on their immediate desires. My job is to give my child every chance to learn, to experiment and experience these things in a nurturing and structured environment.

I do believe that raising a child is a gift that you give to the world. I would not want to give the world a child that I have "broken". I want to give the world a child who is thoughtful, who understands the consequences of their actions in terms of how these actions affect the people and the earth around him/her. I want the self control that my child learns to come from respect for other people and from respect for the earth we are given to live upon.

My children are grown. We are not Christian. I did not break the will of any of my children. They are still quite willfull, thankyou very much. I made mistakes along the way. Most of those mistakes involved times that I felt that I did chastise my children. It did not occur very often. But I was influenced by older generations at times use that sort of discipline. Every time I tried it, I felt terrible (and so did my child). I did not use this sort of behavior training more than a few times. I also apologized later for trying it.

Michael Pearl describes the outcomes of parenting outside of his teachings. It does not seem to matter to him, or to his followers, how many of us have successfully raised children without breaking their will. At best, some of his followers have defined our methods as also breaking their will. Not true. Their will is intact. My children learned to be a part of society with their wills intact. They all have college degrees, some of them advanced. They are all loving and caring people. They hold jobs. They are close to family.

Children are not created to be broken.

[kayray]

Yeah, I just do not get the apocalyptic scenario that Pearl seems to imagine with the stool. Another sign of his massive emotional immaturity and mental unbalance.

I do not have children, but I have been around plenty of them and I do have a small nephew (about 20 months old) who is definitely in the "climbing tall stools" stage. When I was visiting recently, the little guy was intent on getting up on one of the high bar stools, as he really likes the feeling of being "high up". It was not that hard for me to distract him from climbing up it either by playing with him, or turning his attention to a short chair he could climb up and down easily. And to deal with him wanting to be really "high up" I sat up there on the stool with him (and I had a firm hold on him!) so he could play with his toys on the high counter. It was not so much the climbing he was interested in, it was the just being up there and so he was happy and content to just play with the same toy over and over again. I don't even consider myself a patient person, and found that as long as I was patient with him and "listened" to how he was communicating what he wanted, we were able to figure something out.

There was no yelling, screaming, crying or violence required.

And it was wonderful to watch his creativity thrive and his little mind thinking things through, to see his will flourish rather than break. Why would anyone want to see a child's will break? You know where I see children with broken wills? In the child welfare system a couple of my colleagues work in. It is heartbreaking.

[FundiesInMyFamily]

Children are not created to be broken.

AMEN. 1000 times.

[thoughtful]

Refuting people who teach others to hurt children is a passion of mine.

I buy books at thrift stores and tear them up for the recycling. I find places online to review, comment, and "like" the reviews of others who neatly shoot down the ridiculous, cruel ideas of people like the Pearls.

Having someone come here to FJ to defend the Pearls has a wonderful bonus -- the brilliant posts we've gotten in answer. They have been a pleasure to read!

Keep up the good work, FJers, and go give a kiss (or a reason to giggle) to the children in your lives, from me!

[jenny_islander]

But you had not "helicopter parent" agenda. You want your child to learn the ability to problem-solve. Some of that involves the willingness to let them use their own trial and error, within safe limits. You want your child to develop good discernment. Experience which often involves failure and frustration can be the best teacher.

You also don't believe that your child willfully sets out to conquer you due to any sort of diabolical will. You likely understand that as Allan Schore states in "Affect Regulation and the Origin of the Self" and other science based child development researchers have determined with objective science, all primary thought for a child under 24-32 months is all Right Brained and does not involve any type of diabolical or even analytical plotting (which takes place on the Left Side of the brain). Thought is experiential only. And you likely don't believe that your child is predominantly evil as a result of his sin nature, a trait that must be subdued at all cost to save his soul, though he is not yet old enough to comprehend even the most basic conception of salvation and atonement.

You haven't spiritualized every single human action as a microcosm of the child's relationship with God via their relationship with you. (You don't believe that you are conditioning your child to accept Christ at a later time. You are willing to tolerate a child who makes mistakes and sometimes makes judgement calls that are commensurate with his age -- giving him a desire to learn through exploration which often leads to judgement that is not sound for an adult. You do not demand an exceptionally high level of self-control for your child. You are not inclined to interpret imperfection (or expressions of joy, fear, fatigue) as willful rebellion.

None of this is true for Michael Pearl.

If I had a Facebook or whatever this would be on it. NAIL, HEAD, BANG.

[Paisy]

I'll be more than happy to say that I think most Pearl followers should be investigated. If you agree with "chastising" a child of any age with plumbing line, belts, switches, rulers, etc, you're a fucking abuser. I'm not a fan of any kind of spanking, be it with hand or implement, and wish it were all illegal everywhere.

Choleric, you know why I can't just agree that you should raise your children with the Pearls' teachings? Because it is ABUSE. Call me whatever name you want, ask me if I can speak fluent English, whatever. Get off your lazy ass and learn how to teach your children. It's completely possible without laying a hand on them in violence if you actually put some effort into it.

For me, "punishment" isn't even an option (for which I can happily agree to disagree; this is just my preference.) Positive parenting and logical consequences are how we roll, and by some effing miracle of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, my child has been praised by strangers galore since she was itty bitty for her behavior. It's a helluva lot more work than shouting NO and smacking her all the time, but the end result is worth it since she has learned what is acceptable and doesn't need the fear of me and my switch to know how to behave. Her will is most definitely not broken, nor will it ever be. You know darn well what we mean by that phrase too, so stop playing dumb.

Please, get some help. Read some positive parenting books and realize that your children are humans who deserve basic human dignity and respect. Treat them as the precious beings they are, who are deserving of someone to gently guide them through their formative years before it's too late.

ETA - And can someone please tell me what asking your child to come in after dark has to do with anything? Am I mistaken in trying to understand anything this rug-shitter is saying? Is this person so thick they can't comprehend that most of us can let our child know it's time to come inside without a big to-do and a ritual beating?

I heart this whole thing so much.