Too Young To Spank.

[debrand]

We discussed this article on the old board, but I like to inform newcomers of how crazy the Pearls are.

When is a child too young to spank? The answer is obviously dependent on your definition of the word “spank.â€

Spank means to hit. That is my definition. For those who aren't aware of Pearl lingo, they often disguise the word, spanking, by calling it training.

First, let’s get our terminology about spanking correct. Terminology is particularly important, because our subconscious is highly influenced by the definitions we assign to the terms we commonly use in the training or our children. For that reason, no matter the age of the child, we do not speak of “corporal punishment,†as do some, but rather of “corporal chastisementâ€â€”a biblical term found in the New Testament in the twelfth chapter of Hebrews

Notice the dance around words? This is how they can get by in interviews as claiming that they believe differently then they do. Rebekah, their oldest daughter, wrote that she only remember one spanking as a child despite the fact that her parents include details about 'training' sessions in their book.

However, just as the small child is not mature enough to remember to associate disobedience with the pain of spanking, neither can he receive the words of reproof, for he does not yet possess a command of the language, nor can he effectively think in terms of philosophy or principles. In short, the small child under three years old is not fully capable of profiting from either punishment or reproof. Are we parents then left without recourse? Of course not! God has provided us with the instrument of training, with very occasional use of corporal chastisement, provided it is not related to punishment.[/

I've gotten in online discussions with people who swear the Pearls' do not advocate spanking children. In their book To Train Up A Child, they are open about hitting a four month old Rebekah. Yet, even followers who admit to reading the book will try to claim that the Pearls don't advise parents to hit infants.

They admit that an infant is too young to punish and yet they are telling people that god wants them to train their babies.

We have made the point here that children under three (give or take six months or so) cannot profit from corporal punishment, but we have made the point elsewhere that small children do profit from the application of the training rod. How are they different? In both cases, the child is being swatted with an instrument. There is a great deal of difference in both the severity and the number of “licks,†and also in the parents’ expectations and perspective.

Again with the double speak.

The Pearls are talking about a six month old infant in the next example.

When he seizes his bowl with intentions of dumping it, swat the offending hand with a little instrument (light wooden spoon, rubber spatula, flexible tubing less than a quarter inch in diameter, or any instrument that will cause an unpleasant sting without leaving any marks). As you swat the offending hand, say “No†in a normal commanding voice. The tone is more important than the word―not angry―but decisive. Children understand the temperament in your tone before they are born, and will recognize it. This swat is not punishment. Probably, it will not even cause the little guy to cry. He will be shocked and stop any action in which he is engaged. Explain to him that he is not to throw his food onto the floor. If he again makes an attempt, swat his hand again and say, no. The third time is the charm. He now knows that “No†uttered in a commanding tone, is something serious. He will not try that stunt again—at least not for this meal.

[Cerysbell]

Why are they not in prison? Why?

It makes me nauseous to think about spanking children, but spanking/chastising/whatever stupid term they want to use babies is just despicable.

[Kitchen Princess]

There is absolutely no other definition of the word "licks" in this context OTHER than hitting, swatting, spanking. "Licks" used by someone who has used the word all their life (like me, my father, many other southerners) has a quantifiable meaning. "Licks" can be counted. "Licks" can also be measured in terms of velocity and severity.

For example, a home run can be, and often is, described as "a good lick". Time to beat the rugs? "Take a lick at it."

In my experience, the word "lick" is never used to describe a tap or a pat or a touch. "You call that a lick?"

If Michael Pearl were not describing full on swings of an instrument to strike an object with velocity, he would not be using the word "licks".

[2xx1xy1JD]

Why are they not in prison? Why?

It makes me nauseous to think about spanking children, but spanking/chastising/whatever stupid term they want to use babies is just despicable.

Because they don't live in Canada, where a parent using these methods would be charged criminally with assault with a weapon, and immediately reported to child protection officials who would remove all the children from the home.

And yes, they do use Orwellian double-speak. They are saying that parents should deliberately inflict pain on babies.

[thetabmeister]

1. A six month old is not fed food out of a bowl.

2. If a baby/child is doing something a parent feels he/she should not be doing, pick up the child, move him/her, and give him/her something else to do, or help him/her with what you want him/her to do. It's called parenting.

[Conuly]

A six month old is not fed food out of a bowl.

1. I don't see why not. I mean, so long as you're not laying it on the floor like for a dog. Child led solids FTW! I suppose you could put the food on a plate, same difference.

2. However, babies don't dump food because they're malicious monsters. They do it because they're learning about gravity and about cause and effect. WE know that turning your bowl over means the food will hit the floor, but all THEY know is that this happened once. For all they know, the next time they turn the bowl over the food will fly in the air and circle above their heads! Plus, turning over the bowl gets the grown-ups to do funny things. Wise people feed their child only a little bit at a time to minimize the mess.

[debrand]

You can give your child their own bowl with a tiny dab of food in it to help them get used to the spoon, however most parents don't put the main bowl of food on the tray. If a bowl of a little bit of food gets thrown on the ground, it isn't a big deal. Messiness is part of that age.

There is no need to train the child not to throw the bowl on the ground because you wait until they are old enough to feed themselves before you place an entire bowl of food on their tray.

By the way, if you have a dog, hanging out under the high chair becomes a dog's ultimate idea of heaven.

[Trynn]

You should've seen the look of utter fury on my cousin's face when I told her, jokingly, that "Doesn't he know he's supposed to use plumbing line[to spank 1 year old grandchild], not his hands?" And then, after a pause, "But don't worry. For kids as young as your niece, they recommend a dowel rod." She glared so hard I got scared and was like, "don't look at ME, *I* don't believe this crap."

[donks]

There is absolutely no other definition of the word "licks" in this context OTHER than hitting, swatting, spanking. "Licks" used by someone who has used the word all their life (like me, my father, many other southerners) has a quantifiable meaning. "Licks" can be counted. "Licks" can also be measured in terms of velocity and severity.

For example, a home run can be, and often is, described as "a good lick". Time to beat the rugs? "Take a lick at it."

In my experience, the word "lick" is never used to describe a tap or a pat or a touch. "You call that a lick?"

If Michael Pearl were not describing full on swings of an instrument to strike an object with velocity, he would not be using the word "licks".

This.

[thoughtful]

Thanks, Debrand -- I think there's no such thing as "too much" when it comes to alerting people to the filth that is the Pearls' child-training philosophy.

I don't know if Pearl is discussing a bowl set in front of the child with his own food in this article. As it happens, in the original TTUAC, the crap about bowls was in reference to the mother's food:

The mother clumsily holds her cereal bowl at arm’s length as

she wrestles her infant for supremacy. When she places the bowl out of

the baby’s reach, he is taught that it is off limits only if it is out of reach.

To train him, place the bowl within easy reach. When he reaches for it,

say, “No,†and thump his hand. He will pull his hand back, momentarily

look alarmed, and then reach again. Repeat the action of saying, “Noâ€

in a calm voice, and thump his hand.

I'm not sure the double-speak is necessarily about pretending they aren't using pain. They don't try to hide the idea that they are applying pain with an object.

But, just as they object to the words "hitting" and "beating," but are OK with "whipping," "spanking," "thumping" and "licks," they imagine some distinction between using that pain to "train" and to "punish."

There doesn't seem to be any logic to their language choices, in my mind. Of course, I think that application of pain to children is vile and stupid, so I think either is wrong.

But his imagining a distinction between pain used in "training" and pain used in "punishing" or "discipline" also shows how little Pearl understand the behaviorism he thinks he is embracing.

In behavioral science, applying something unpleasant, as he describes it, is always an attempt at punishment, applied after an unwanted behavior has happened.

This is referred to as "positive punishment" or +P (there is another way to use unpleasantness -- applying it, then giving relief when the learner does what you want -- negative reinforcement, or -R. I'm trying to remember if he ever advocates that, but can't think of any examples right now).

I guess he is imagining a distinction between "the child is doing something natural, and I will cause pain to change his habit" and "the child should know better, so I will use pain to force him back into submission."

But, regardless of when he does it -- as part of the process of trying to teach something new or respond to something "learned," it is, technically, an attempt at punishment.

Good animal trainers try to avoid +P, for lots of reasons. Even for creatures who will never develop past the level of a human toddler, it is fraught with pitfalls, ugly and nasty. How much more cruel and stupid is it to do this crap to children?

[Hane]

Ah, the Pearls and their ongoing war against children's developmental norms. Honestly, how hard is it to keep dangerous or messy things out of a baby's reach?

[curlykate]

I don't know if Pearl is discussing a bowl set in front of the child with his own food in this article. As it happens, in the original TTUAC, the crap about bowls was in reference to the mother's food:

Or here's a better idea.... If you don't want the child touching it, keep it out of his reach!! Honestly! Isn't that A much easier way? Then wait until he's old enough to deal with his own bowl before teaching him how to use it properly! Positive reinforcers work so much better than negative ones!!

[thoughtful]

Or here's a better idea.... If you don't want the child touching it, keep it out of his reach!! Honestly! Isn't that A much easier way? Then wait until he's old enough to deal with his own bowl before teaching him how to use it properly! Positive reinforcers work so much better than negative ones!!

Makes sense to me.

But the Pearls insist that any sort of protection or prevention is verboten, saying that children will never learn better without pain.

Again, this is proof that they don't understand even the simplistic view of learning in the behaviorism they claim to use.

Successfully repeating a behavior leads to more of that behavior. Prevention of an unwanted behavior, while teaching and practicing a preferred one, can easily lead to that behavior dying out naturally.

[geniebelle6901]

Why are they not in prison? Why?

It makes me nauseous to think about spanking children, but spanking/chastising/whatever stupid term they want to use babies is just despicable.

My guess is free speech. A Google search turned up the following secular stores where the book is sold. So, how about a boycott of those stores:

Amazon.com

Overstock.com

Booksamillion.com

buy.com

Those are some of he bigger retailers, the others seemed like Chistian book stores. Thank goodness Barnes & Noble isn't on that list (It's my fav bookstore). Oh, and while I looking for retailers that sold TTUAC, I ran across another book by Michael Pearl called "Training Children to Be Strong in Spirit". It looks like it's just as bad as TTUAC.

[Hane]

The damn book is also available free online, so it will be impossible to kill.

[thoughtful]

The damn book is also available free online, so it will be impossible to kill.

Actually, I don't think it is at this point, unless someone else has put it up. This person, who I think was the only online free source, has taken it down, and replaced it with this statement:

http://www.achristianhome.org/to_train_up_a_child.htm

[TXDuck]

What gets me is all the pleas that the Pearls are "misconstrued". No they are not. Pearl states that you should beat, I'm sorry "whip" cuz that's better, your disobedient child until they "do not have breath to complain". That cannot be misconstrued. They in their own words advocate spanking a child until he is broken. How in the world do their supporters think they are being misconstrued?

The whole thing reminds me of a conversation I had with my daughter when she was about 6. She insisted on calling the pomegranate tree in our backyard a fig tree. After trying to make her understand it was not a fig tree, I gave up. I said you can call it whatever you want but it's still a pomegranate tree. She got very upset that reality was refusing to bend to her whims. Reminds me of the attitude of Pearl supporters. (Except that my daughter had the excuse of being six and has since grown out of such childish thinking.)

[Conuly]

Or here's a better idea.... If you don't want the child touching it, keep it out of his reach!! Honestly! Isn't that A much easier way?

That's the sane - I mean, lazy method. If you don't tempt your child and then punish them for acting like a child, how will they learn that you are the boss of them? You're God, the bowl is the apple, and putting a fence around that apple tree is letting the humans (I mean, your kid) call the shots.

The whole thing reminds me of a conversation I had with my daughter when she was about 6. She insisted on calling the pomegranate tree in our backyard a fig tree. After trying to make her understand it was not a fig tree, i gave up. I said you can call it whatever you want but it's still a pomegranate tree. She got very upset that reality was refusing to bend to her whims. Reminds me of the attitude of Pearl supporters. (Except that my daughter had the excuse of being six and has since grown out of such childish thinking.)

Wait, she grew out of it even though you didn't beat her and beat her until she ceased disrespectfully contradicting you?!?

[TXDuck]

Wait, she grew out of it even though you didn't beat her and beat her until she ceased disrespectfully contradicting you?!?

I know, it's crazy. ;) And I never tried to break her spirit either. Perhaps my utter lack of beatings will show themselves in some other ways. :twisted:

[tropaka]

... swat the offending hand with a little instrument (light wooden spoon, rubber spatula, flexible tubing less than a quarter inch in diameter, or any instrument that will cause an unpleasant sting without leaving any marks).

Bolding mine - sounds so much like really saying "you don't want other people knowing you hit your infant".

I would like to think that the right to free speech in the States is also limited the same way as it is here in Canada; it gets taken away if the speech advocates violence/injury. I would think that hitting a child with an object would be advocating violence.

[Arielkay]

Have they never been investigated by CPS? Granted, I guess all their children are grown now, so they can't stop the abuse. But they should be in some way liable for advocating abuse as child "training", right? People are looking up to them as an authority. And there have been cases (seen here) where children have been beaten to death in homes where people read that book. So what gives? Is it just the strength of the Religious Right backing them up?

I still haven't gotten over how shocked I was to hear the preacher at a church advocating spanking as the only effective (and God endorsed) way to discipline a child. If you didn't, your kids were wild hellions. And he used a Christian parenting book (not the Pearls, but you'll find a lot of Christian parenting stuff advocates spanking, though not to the severity of the Pearls, perhaps). I think my mouth just hung open. It still floors me.

[ladypuglover]

Well I was such a bad parent that I used 4 spoons to feed my babies. One for each hand, one for the mouth and one for the bowl. I didn't care that my baby was always trying to wrestle the spoon from me because he always dropped one to grab the next one. Made eating much more enjoyable for my tykes and that was the whole idea.

When my little ones were learning self feeding I would place a little bowl of cereal on the coffee table. Then they would dump the bowl and sweep it onto the carpet. One day I was just so tired from being pregnant and taking care of a toddler that I just poured my oldest a bit onto the carpet. He gave me a look like its about time woman. :roll: I always tried to give them their finger foods from a bowl but my guys prefered it with a little floor dirt, thank you very much. We were finnaly able to break each one about 2-3. It was very hard to explain why when our toddlers were handed a cookie they would place it on the floor first before eating it. We didn't know why all 5 did it but they did. :doh:

[margiebargie]

Well I was such a bad parent that I used 4 spoons to feed my babies. One for each hand, one for the mouth and one for the bowl. I didn't care that my baby was always trying to wrestle the spoon from me because he always dropped one to grab the next one. Made eating much more enjoyable for my tykes and that was the whole idea.

When my little ones were learning self feeding I would place a little bowl of cereal on the coffee table. Then they would dump the bowl and sweep it onto the carpet. One day I was just so tired from being pregnant and taking care of a toddler that I just poured my oldest a bit onto the carpet. He gave me a look like its about time woman. :roll: I always tried to give them their finger foods from a bowl but my guys prefered it with a little floor dirt, thank you very much. We were finnaly able to break each one about 2-3. It was very hard to explain why when our toddlers were handed a cookie they would place it on the floor first before eating it. We didn't know why all 5 did it but they did. :doh:

Lol. I bet they turned out just fine, too.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

Ah, the Pearls and their ongoing war against children's developmental norms. Honestly, how hard is it to keep dangerous or messy things out of a baby's reach?

My thoughts exactly - why do you need to teach a six month old baby not to throw a bowl of food on the floor to begin with?

The baby doesn't understand much human language yet, so it's just going to be annoying for everyone involved. Far easier to just wait a while until more words are working. Until then, keep the bowl away from the kid!

Meanwhile I can understand grabbing a baby's hand if the baby already grabbed the bowl but hasn't dumped yet, prying his fingers (gently!) off of it while saying "No," but the main lesson there should be for me, oh my, the baby CAN reach that, need to move it...

Plus finger food or single spoonfuls is plenty messy enough. My parents fed me over a plastic tablecloth (and often only in underwear) for easy clean-up!

But the whole "war on developmental norms" pretty much sums it up, I think. They keep doing it as the kids age too, even apart from the baby spankers there's all sorts of blogs where the author goes on and on about how superior they are because they don't child-proof their house, they don't NEED to, because Junior obeys so well, we tell him not to put a fork in the socket so he doesn't, you heathen permissive parents putting locks on the cupboards and putting away the sharp glass art are just ruining your kids, etc etc. It's crazy, because all it takes is ONE accident - why not propagandize the kid AND put locks on the cupboards, at least?

[sillysally314]

Actually, I don't think it is at this point, unless someone else has put it up. This person, who I think was the only online free source, has taken it down, and replaced it with this statement:

http://www.achristianhome.org/to_train_up_a_child.htm

ah, some fellow fj-erians posted a free link here awhile back:

quicksilverqueen.com/ttuacbook.html

read away, and keep a stylish bowl or bucket to periodically vomit into.