Anderson Cooper Rocks/Pearls=Another Death (MERGED)

[formergothardite]

Quoting this since choleric seems to have missed it.

Quoting myself once again since choleric is back and seems to have missed the part where they spanked a four month old with a willow spring.

[Rosa]

Choleric, if you think ever parent breaks their child's will, you had the world's saddest childhood. The world is not really like that. We all learn the limits of our will - not by being dominated, beaten, or threatened with death and hellfire, but by observing the consequences of behavior and the balance that's needed to live with other people.

[Brainsample]

If the child experienced tissue breakdown, then the parents did not follow the teaching to a T. If you want to take issue with whether the book is specific enough for your tastes, then fine. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater and don't attack the man for trying to teach a perfectly normal parenting behavior for thousands of years. If tissue breakdown was experienced, they were not spanking, they were beating, on that we agree

You think that it is better to keep this book than it is to put children at risk? Did you ever consider that maybe the instructions are subjective enough that few parents can develop the precision needed to "follow the teaching to a T"? The cure may be too complicated to wield so that the cure becomes as bad or worse than the disease. But boy, it sure is convenient for the parent who doesn't have self control. They terrorize their children to develop it.

This stuff is no different than the Poisonous Pedagogy, the Schwarze Pädagogik. Pearls book reads exactly like the miserable garbage found in the child rearing writings of the 1700s. There are passages of text reflecting these ideas in Alice Miller's "For Your Own Good," for anyone who is interested. I don't have the book at hand or time to transcribe from it now, but I did find an exemplar quote online:

"These first years have, among other things, the advantage that one can use force and compulsion. With age children forget everything they encountered in their early childhood. Thus if one can take away children's will, they will not remember afterward that they had had a will."

(Sulzer, J. Versuch von der Erziehung und Unterweisung der Kinder, 1748.)

There is nothing new under the sun. Pearl may have even cribbed this material from the Black Pedagogy to be novel and make a name for himself. That seems to be common among these child training experts. It reads so much like these old German texts.. at least the sections that Alice Miller quotes in her book.

As a nurse, if there was a therapy that was as unpredictable and subjective as this, it would never be used. Nurses have to be trained and demonstrate competency, and this is how they teach patients. They have to present a return demonstration of a skill, even reasonably harmless skills. But all you have to do with Pearl is buy a book. There is no personal instruction, training, monitoring... If it's killing children, even just one, it is not worth the risk.

And again, the most offensive and miserable thing that I've seen from Pearl is his total lack of regard for the people he's mislead. Rather than demonstrate true Christian love and compassion, he's chosen to demonize those who did their best to "follow him to a T," and he's distanced themselves from them. He's showed no concern and contrition and has mocked them initially before CNN came along. He seems to have no bit of concern that he might have done something wrong or wrote something unclear that played a role in what has happened to these children. If I were him, I would be tortured, and I would have been there to support the families that fell into harms way. He's done the opposite. He's taking care of number one. That says more to me than the writings themselves.

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. We are called as Christians to have love for one another and are to be known for that love. What love has Pearl shown to the Schatz Family? "Michael Pearl Laughs at Critics." Children are dead, and he laughs. A Christian would go to prison in the stead of those parents, not laugh at them and not try to justify themselves. Pearl needs to learn some Christian humility and abandon some of his spiritual pride to find the heart of Jesus again. He needs to be accountable like a man of virtue.

[choleric]

How many fjers condone the idea of breaking a child's will? Although we have an assortment of fundies, feministis, liberals, conservatives, crunchy hippies, yuppy egalitarians, and others, my bet is that not one of us would advocate the breaking of a child's spirit to get them to obey. Some of us may approve of spanking a child under certain conditions. None of us would condone spanking as a constant threat.

Thank you for admitting to never having actually read the book

The reason why the Pearls are so offensive is that they are advocating this zombie like compliance, this non thinking, non self reflective automaton behavior from children.

Again, you have clearly never read the book. Zombie like compliance is not the goal, and simply having obedient children does not make you a successful parent, and you would know that to be so if you had read the book, which you haven't.

Responsible parenting is not about training a child to blindly obey. It is about teaching a child to knowingly cooperate. It is not about making a child smile to avoid chastisement. It is about knowing that the smiles are genuine and full of hope and trust.

Responsible parenting is more than obedience, which is clearly taught in the book. Sometimes one of my kids will whine when asking for something. I will make them smile really big and then tell them to ask me again. It is a game we play. I am not making them happy by forcing them to smile, but it is impossible for them to ask for anything in a whiny voice while they are smiling. It immediately removes the whiny tone and subsequently the attitude changes as we both usually laugh at their inability to whine. It is like asking a child to whistle while they are being tickled. It is impossible.

Making a child smile when nothing in their body wants to smile as they are angry or whatever, only helps them to learn that they have more control over their attitude than they realize. It is a great parenting tool.

Children sometimes need to be corrected. Sometimes this correction may be a brief period of being alone, or taking away something of value. It may even be a quick swat on the hand for reaching toward a dangerous object, or whack on the butt for running in the street. The correction should be fully explained. Infants who are too young to understand should not be spanked at all. An infant who is too distressed to go to sleep is not "willful". S/he is uncomfortable, frightened, anxious, hungry or bored. You would not want to play with the infant at this time. Certainly, however, give reassurance and comfort. If you can't deal, then walk away and let the child cry it out, even. But to switch an infant for being fussy is cruel.

The point is NOT to break the child.

And everyone who has read the book would agree with you. I hope you get around to reading it one day, you may be surprised how much you agree with it.

[atheistjd]

what we have here is a clear example of the failure of one person to have any idea what they are reading, and you are putting on quite a show. I would be willing to bet that you don't have any children, otherwise you would know better what you are talking about.

I would love to know how you define "break the child's will". It is obvious you view it as something very 'sinister' and 'evil' yet it is something every single parent has done with their children and is a necessary part of effective child training.

When my daughter hits her sister and calls her a name, it is my duty as a parent to bring the offending child to a place of remorse and acceptance that the behavior they have demonstrated is unacceptable. I can spank, remove a privilege, put them in "time-out" or whatever I see is an appropriate response. If my child is still screaming names and is still intent on causing more harm, then the child has not learned any lesson. Allowing them to go on about their day without helping them to gain control of themselves, and see that they have hurt a person who they love, will do more harm than good to that child. "breaking their will" is simply getting them past the anger, past the attitude of "I have been wronged and I deserve to get revenge". It is the "I am the center of the universe" mentality that children all have and we as parents all attempt to teach them to be more considerate of others, caring, loving, etc.

"Breaking the child's will" is not some evil, sinister concept that deprives the child of self-worth and love. Once you have children (God forbid) you will quickly learn that you will be busy doing the same thing.

And if you choose not to, then you will be the parent in the middle of the grocery store, who is trying to calmly speak to a screaming, raging 3 year old, who is flailing on the ground making a giant scene in an attempt to get his way. Which he will surely get, as the child has the parent trained very well, and is still the center of the universe and all his wishes are met with rapid fulfillment. That parent is "above" punishment and thinks that they just need to "talk calmly and reason with the child" who has no empathy or remorse as the child has never been taught those things.

Good luck with that ;)

I have neither the time nor the inclination to respond to you, but I will say I am very sad for you and even more so for your children. I find it hard to believe that you really do not know the difference between discipline and abuse, or between teaching your children how to be good citizens and breaking their will, which IS abuse and IS evil. I believe children learn what see. I find it ironic that you so readily disparage talking calmly and reasoning with your child - I suppose you were raised with violence and thus, became a violent parent? If you want your children to be good citizens, be a good citizen. If you want them to be productive members of society, show them how. If you want them to be reasonable people and to be able to think through the consequences of their actions, that is what you should show them how to do. "Mike's" suggestion that the way to show a child to not be violent is to BEAT HER? Would be laughable if it wasn't so incredibly disgusting.

I am done - this thread just raises my BP. You are obviously an illogical, deluded individual, which makes debate fruitless. I can only ask that stop abusing your children before something terrible happens and hope you see reason before you harm them again.

[treemom]

what we have here is a clear example of the failure of one person to have any idea what they are reading, and you are putting on quite a show. I would be willing to bet that you don't have any children, otherwise you would know better what you are talking about.

I would love to know how you define "break the child's will". It is obvious you view it as something very 'sinister' and 'evil' yet it is something every single parent has done with their children and is a necessary part of effective child training.

When my daughter hits her sister and calls her a name, it is my duty as a parent to bring the offending child to a place of remorse and acceptance that the behavior they have demonstrated is unacceptable. I can spank, remove a privilege, put them in "time-out" or whatever I see is an appropriate response. If my child is still screaming names and is still intent on causing more harm, then the child has not learned any lesson. Allowing them to go on about their day without helping them to gain control of themselves, and see that they have hurt a person who they love, will do more harm than good to that child. "breaking their will" is simply getting them past the anger, past the attitude of "I have been wronged and I deserve to get revenge". It is the "I am the center of the universe" mentality that children all have and we as parents all attempt to teach them to be more considerate of others, caring, loving, etc.

"Breaking the child's will" is not some evil, sinister concept that deprives the child of self-worth and love. Once you have children (God forbid) you will quickly learn that you will be busy doing the same thing.

And if you choose not to, then you will be the parent in the middle of the grocery store, who is trying to calmly speak to a screaming, raging 3 year old, who is flailing on the ground making a giant scene in an attempt to get his way. Which he will surely get, as the child has the parent trained very well, and is still the center of the universe and all his wishes are met with rapid fulfillment. That parent is "above" punishment and thinks that they just need to "talk calmly and reason with the child" who has no empathy or remorse as the child has never been taught those things.

Good luck with that ;)

I have a son who I consider to be a quite successful 11 year old and I have never had to break his will. I have been a good parent and a bad one. But his will and spirit remain intact.

[Rosa]

I do love how the people choleric accuses of "not reading the book" are the ones quoting from it.

[choleric]

Choleric, if you think ever parent breaks their child's will, you had the world's saddest childhood. The world is not really like that. We all learn the limits of our will - not by being dominated, beaten, or threatened with death and hellfire, but by observing the consequences of behavior and the balance that's needed to live with other people.

This is a complete lie. If you are a parent, then you have gained your child's compliance, even if you think God's method is wrong, you chose a different method. Maybe you sent them to time-out, maybe you took a privilege away. Whatever you did, you did to gain compliance from your child in regard to their attitude in an attempt to gain contrition. You have taught them that their negative actions have negative reactions, in one way or another.

As far as your claim that children learn by "observing", that is simply not true. A child left to his own devices coddled while the parents attempt to allow them to learn through observing is going to end in an incredibly narcissistic child. Parents teach socially acceptable behavior, children don't learn it on their own. That is why we are told in the bible to spank, we are told to instruct, we are told to train, we are told to teach, exhort lead, love, etc. And God is our best example (if you are a Christian.)

[formergothardite]

I do love how the people choleric accuses of "not reading the book" are the ones quoting from it.

Yes and how he/she has so nicely ignored my post that proves wrong his/her claim that the pearls never spank children who can't understand it.

[choleric]

I have a son who I consider to be a quite successful 11 year old and I have never had to break his will. I have been a good parent and a bad one. But his will and spirit remain intact.

If you are a parent who has had any success, then you have broken your son's will. The issue is not whether it has happened, but how you define it. You just have a bad definition of "broken will" in you head that your are arguing against and it is wrong. If you have ever attempted to get your child to obey in spite of their desire to do so, then you have broken his will and caused him to obey in spite of his will to do otherwise. You have demonstrated your authority over your child, and taught him a respect for authority that he needs in life. You have also taught him how to do things in life he doesn't like, which he will do for the rest of his life. Breaking a childs will is something every effective parent does. You have also taught him to change his attitude concerning those things and that it is not acceptable to have a sour attitude while performing those duties. All of this is breaking a childs will. It is not whatever you think it is, and is something you have repeatedly done as a parent.

[treemom]

This is a complete lie. If you are a parent, then you have gained your child's compliance, even if you think God's method is wrong, you chose a different method. Maybe you sent them to time-out, maybe you took a privilege away. Whatever you did, you did to gain compliance from your child in regard to their attitude in an attempt to gain contrition. You have taught them that their negative actions have negative reactions, in one way or another.

As far as your claim that children learn by "observing", that is simply not true. A child left to his own devices coddled while the parents attempt to allow them to learn through observing is going to end in an incredibly narcissistic child. Parents teach socially acceptable behavior, children don't learn it on their own. That is why we are told in the bible to spank, we are told to instruct, we are told to train, we are told to teach, exhort lead, love, etc. And God is our best example (if you are a Christian.)

Yeah we totally went with positive reinforcement, not negative.

[gustava]

This is a complete lie. If you are a parent, then you have gained your child's compliance, even if you think God's method is wrong, you chose a different method. Maybe you sent them to time-out, maybe you took a privilege away. Whatever you did, you did to gain compliance from your child in regard to their attitude in an attempt to gain contrition. You have taught them that their negative actions have negative reactions, in one way or another.

As far as your claim that children learn by "observing", that is simply not true. A child left to his own devices coddled while the parents attempt to allow them to learn through observing is going to end in an incredibly narcissistic child. Parents teach socially acceptable behavior, children don't learn it on their own. That is why we are told in the bible to spank, we are told to instruct, we are told to train, we are told to teach, exhort lead, love, etc. And God is our best example (if you are a Christian.)

Since Jesus' punishment by God the Father was crucifixion, then should we pull out the crosses and string up our children?

[choleric]

Yeah we totally went with positive reinforcement, not negative.

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?

[choleric]

Since Jesus' punishment by God the Father was crucifixion, then should we pull out the crosses and string up our children?

Such a stunning display of logic, I am left speechless. I guess since North America is a continent, I am going to have a hamburger for dinner. So logical.

[Rosa]

Compliance can happen without willbreaking.

For instance, when my son was too young to understand, we kept him off the stairs with a baby gate. He still had the desire to climb the stairs alone, we didnt' beat that out of him - we just put an obstacle in his way. Now, he doesn't unsafely climb the stairs alone - he's big enough for normal stair climbing, a few falls on his butt have let gravity teach him he should probably use reasonable speed and hold the handrail, and when he has a large package or other impediment he considers his own limitations and either asks for help or finds another method that won't make him fall.

Ditto the tantrums - at 18 months he lay crying on the floor of the grocery store because I wouldn't buy what he wanted or let him do as he wanted. At 6 years, he might get a little sniffly but he behaves. He "complies" with not owning the item I won't buy because his native honesty doesn't allow for theft and he learned that tantrums don't get him what he wants. His will is not broken - he has learned to make the adult choices we all make, of finding a way to afford something on his own or doing without.

I was raised by people who believe you parent by domination. I know what "breaking the will" means. The belief that children are inherently bad and need to be dominated by adults is a core philosophy of a lot of "Christian" parenting. My parents were fans of James Dobson, who is much more moderate than the Pearls but shares their idea of family hierarchy. You know what happened? We outgrew their ability to dominate us, and because my father can't imagine a parent-child relationship that doesnt' involve "winning" every disagreement, he has no relationship with his grown children at all.

[choleric]

Yes and how he/she has so nicely ignored my post that proves wrong his/her claim that the pearls never spank children who can't understand it.

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.

[Shina]

I'm bored.

I really need to do my nails, the cuticles are horrid. Any suggestions for a product to stop them from drying out all the time?

[2xx1xy1JD]

Choleric:

Have you ever seen "Supersize Me"? The "use as directed, fine in moderation" argument breaks down when you see that some stuff (like eating McDonalds all the time) clearly causes harm, while other stuff (like eating Subway sandwiches without mayo and with veggies) causes you to lose weight like Jared, if you do it a lot.

Same here.

Causing physical pain to children obviously has the ability to cause harm, as we have seen.

I don't think you have any idea what positive parenting is about, because it is certainly not "time-out is the ideal response to everything".

Here's a some key aspects of positive parenting that we use, that CAN'T really be overused to the point of harm:

- striving to be the sort of people that we would want our children to become

- having consistent and logical rules

- always speaking to others with respect

- always showing children that they have unconditional love even if we do not always like everything that they do

- feeding hungry children and getting cranky kids to sleep, instead of getting having them pitch a tantrum

- not giving in to a tantrum

- feeding kids healthy, nutritious foods and ensuring proper sleep and appropriate exercise

- have positive instead of negative expectations for our children (eg. "You can be a really great person, volunteer your time and give money to good causes, have the courage to do the right thing, go well in school and get a great career, take your time to find a great partner with good values who truly loves you and will be committed to your family" vs. "I don't want you to keep being so disrespectful, because you'll be no good, get caught up with a gang and land your ass in jail, flunk out, end up as a bum on welfare, be a slut and get knocked up".)

- make time to genuine listen to our children, with full attention

- walk up to children when something needs to be corrected instead of yelling from a distance

- immediately removing an object that is being misused

[Rosa]

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.

Amazingly, my child learned not to touch the stove by having his hand held NEAR it and being told it was hot. No pain involved. Just learning.

And when he was too young to understand that? He was not in the kitchen unsupervised. AMAZING. And I haven't even written a book to share my absolutely above-average parenting skills with an obviously needy world.

Oh wait, that's because being a better parent than a baby beating mouthbreather isn't exactly above-average.

[Witsec1]

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.

Not a yuppie, but used positive discipline exclusively. Go to positivediscipline.com, find out what it is, then we can have a discussion. You obviously have no idea. "How Talk So Kids Will Listen, How To Listen So Kids Will Talk" is another good one.

I hung out pretty exclusively with parents who used this methodology, my daughter's cohort is now age 16, all hard-working, responsible, creative, delightful young people.

[formergothardite]

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.

Wait a second. You claimed that they didn't spank a child who could not understand. The quote posted showed that they did spank a child who they admitted couldn't understand why they were getting hit with a willow switch. Unless you are now going to attempt to chane the definition of spanking to not inlcude hitting a child with a willow branch. Which I think you are trying to do instead of admit you were wrong.

[Kitty]

Hey choleric, how about you GROW A FUCKING BRAIN and actually respond to our posts?

I have read this vile book. Yes, I have. Many people here have. They have even QUOTED IT FOR YOU. And you insist we haven't read it? You are a fucking moron.

Also, what you also lack is CRITICAL THINKING. Just because Pearl says his methods will produce a result, does not mean they actually do. There are people here who were raised by scumbags who used Pearl's methods. They are living proof that this bullshit did not work. And here you come, blowing smoke up everyone's ass, saying, "well, they CLEARLY did it wrong." No, no they did not. You want to know why all three (known) victims died? They were adopted, they were older, and they knew there was something terribly wrong with what their new parents were doing. The parents followed TTUAC to the letter. The kids died because it was too much.

Hitting a FOUR MONTH OLD CHILD WITH A WILLOW SWTICH does not teach that child authority. It teaches that child that her parents are insane. Why beat a child when you can, oh gee, PUT THEM IN A PLAYPEN?

Even if you don't consider TTUAC a violent child abuse instruction manual, you cannot deny that maybe, MAYBE there are better ways. Like sending a kid to his or her room to calm down after an argument. You are one of those fucking morons who confuses "no spanking" with "no punishment." Every child MUST be spanked. That is not necessary. Not every offense can be corrected by hitting. I can, in fact, think of very few.

You know what does work? Not neglecting your kid to the point she's trying to climb the stairs at FOUR MONTHS OLD without your knowledge. That's lazy, inattentive parenting and I am absolutely fucking shocked that nobody has accused the Pearls of outright neglect. What's the problem with WATCHING YOUR KID? Or, you know, putting them in a playpen when you cant watch them? That's right, I'm being silly. Your vision of parenting is incredibly self-centered, not to mention LAZY. Debi refused to watch her own infant daughter, and decided to beat her instead, to 'train' her. Think that time would have been better spent shopping for and setting up a playpen.

You know what else works? Keeping an eye on your children so that they don't go running off into the pond. Fixing something for EVERYONE at dinner, not forcing everyone to eat whatever's put in front of them. Do you like having to eat foods you don't like, choleric? Is it because of your tastebuds? Well I have news for you, EVEN CHILDREN HAVE TASTEBUDS. And let's not forget handing your child a rag to clean up his or her spilled drink. Because ACCIDENTS HAPPEN. Even adults knock things over.

You're an intellectually lazy asshole, choleric, and I hope you are sterile. Or that you are a disgusting troll. Because there is no excuse for only picking out posts to attack, while OUTRIGHT IGNORING posts that INCLUDE QUOTES FROM THE BOOK. No excuse at all. I sincerely hope that when CPS shows up, they beat you with plumbing line and willow switches as punishment, and starve you if you don't like the prison food.

[choleric]

Compliance can happen without willbreaking.

For instance, when my son was too young to understand, we kept him off the stairs with a baby gate. He still had the desire to climb the stairs alone, we didnt' beat that out of him - we just put an obstacle in his way. Now, he doesn't unsafely climb the stairs alone - he's big enough for normal stair climbing, a few falls on his butt have let gravity teach him he should probably use reasonable speed and hold the handrail, and when he has a large package or other impediment he considers his own limitations and either asks for help or finds another method that won't make him fall.

Ditto the tantrums - at 18 months he lay crying on the floor of the grocery store because I wouldn't buy what he wanted or let him do as he wanted. At 6 years, he might get a little sniffly but he behaves. He "complies" with not owning the item I won't buy because his native honesty doesn't allow for theft and he learned that tantrums don't get him what he wants. His will is not broken - he has learned to make the adult choices we all make, of finding a way to afford something on his own or doing without.

I was raised by people who believe you parent by domination. I know what "breaking the will" means. The belief that children are inherently bad and need to be dominated by adults is a core philosophy of a lot of "Christian" parenting. My parents were fans of James Dobson, who is much more moderate than the Pearls but shares their idea of family hierarchy. You know what happened? We outgrew their ability to dominate us, and because my father can't imagine a parent-child relationship that doesnt' involve "winning" every disagreement, he has no relationship with his grown children at all.

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.

[choleric]

Not a yuppie, but used positive discipline exclusively. Go to positivediscipline.com, find out what it is, then we can have a discussion. You obviously have no idea. "How Talk So Kids Will Listen, How To Listen So Kids Will Talk" is another good one.

I hung out pretty exclusively with parents who used this methodology, my daughter's cohort is now age 16, all hard-working, responsible, creative, delightful young people.

that is great and I am happy for you and your kids. I don't care how you raise your kids. That is your decision. The only reason I am here is to defend my right to parent my way, and Mike Pearls right to teach it without being attacked and falsely accused of being some sort or torturer of my children. We can agree to disagree on the proper parenting techniques, but when you or others start calling those who do it differently wicked people, we will have problems.

[choleric]

Wait a second. You claimed that they didn't spank a child who could not understand. The quote posted showed that they did spank a child who they admitted couldn't understand why they were getting hit with a willow switch. Unless you are now going to attempt to chane the definition of spanking to not inlcude hitting a child with a willow branch. Which I think you are trying to do instead of admit you were wrong.

Oh my, I am not sure how to explain this to you. Do you speak another language as your primary language (I am not being smart, just wondering). The issue is training a child to listen/obey, not spanking them for the wrong behavior. Waiting until a 8 month old hits their sister and spanking them for hitting is not going to work as the child is too young to relate the spanking. You do not wait for the child to touch the stove then spank for disobedience as the child will not associate the spanking with the disobedience. You cannot teach a baby to comply by spanking.

What you can do, is train them that no means no. You cause them to understand that when Mom says no, she is serious. The baby learns to associate the sting on the leg with the command "NO" and from that point forward the child will take the command "NO" seriously.

Do you understand the difference? One is punishment for bad behavior. The other is training to obey a command to prevent harmful behavior.