Book about corporal punsihement has caused death of 3 children

[ExRetailDrone]

This...makes me see red People like this are nothing but sick fucks hiding behind the label of Christianity (which they have nothing in common with in the slightest) in order to get other sheeple to follow their sick fuck ways.

The Pearls, along with many conservative Christians, say the Bible calls for corporal punishment. "To give up the use of the rod is to give up our views of human nature, God, eternity," they write in the book.

What. The. FUCK?! Giving up torturing your children means that you no longer believe in human nature, God, or eternity? Am I interpreting that correctly? What kind of crazy dust are these idiots snorting? I am not Christian, and I have never read the Bible, but from what I understand, I'm pretty sure that Jesus in all his love-everyone glory would be pretty pissed off and disgusted by what these jerkoffs are doing in his name. Christians get a bad rap because of people like this >.<

And Michael Pearl rejects the notion that his teachings bear any responsibility for the childrens' deaths. "If you find a 12-step book in an alcoholic's house, you wouldn't blame the book," he told the Times.

That makes no fucking sense whatsoever. What kinds of 12-step books is Michael Pearl familiar with? The ones that tell you to go brain the bartender at your favorite pub or beat the shit out of the cashier at your local liquor store? 12-step books are for self-help. This fuckwit's book is instructions on how to torture your child. They have abso-fucking-lutely nothing in common!!

Gah, I need to stop...I could rant about this for pages.

[Rageaholic]

Our kids are: friendly, happy, caring, polite, sweet, creative, artistic, well-behaved, independent, stubborn, honest, brave, beautiful, wonderful and strong. They take the adjectives in that list for granted, and it makes me smile when Jazzy rolls her eyes and says "I know that, Mummy! You tell me that all the time!"

Stories like this always make me happy. It shows that parents don't have to rely on fear based punishment to raise good kids. Good for you for not going down the route you were raised with.

Every time I read a comment about how society is going downhill because parents won't "discipline" (as in beat) their children, I just facepalm. As if that's the only way to raise kids. It's always "in my day we had it much worse". Yeah well, it's OUR DAY now and we are far more enlightened than before. Get with the times or get out is what I say. Then again, it shouldn't surprise me considering these are the same people who believe that everyone is "fallen" and deserves an eternity of torture for being born.

ExRetailDrone: It doesn't surprise me that this douchebag uses THE LORD!! to not only justify corporal punishment, but to discourage alternate methods. It reminds me of some of the more disturbing quotes on FSTDT (some ending up in the "High Octane Nightmare Fuel" section in TVtropes). For instance Jack Hyles (who is thankfully dead now) encouraged parents to beat their children until they cry "tears of a broken will". As if that wasn't enough to make you want to throw up, he then claims that our natural disgust toward doing this is our "rebellion and failure to understand gods ways" or some equally disgusting justification.

It's people like this that make me wish Dexter wasn't a fictional character.

[Gravekeeper]

My mom would give you an open hand swat on the arse or the arm if you were persistently misbehaving, but it was shock value to get your attention, not for trying to inflict damage or pain. I hath seen this applied on my nieces and nephews, and it would focus their attention on her so she could tell them not to do something if they weren't listening to begin with. Her opinion on the matter is when the mind of a 2-3 three year old is wound up in crazy town and not listening, a quick little swat makes them focus on her so she can tell them to stop doing whatever it is they're doing. -.-

[Iseeyouthere]

You know, I can't recall a time growing up that I was rewarded for good behaviour or punished for bad. Things like television were restricted regardless of how we behaved.

My reward was "Good job, honey!" and my punishment was "We're disappointed in you". Verbal encouragement is almost always enough for children who love their parents. Most children really, really want to love their parents and make them happy.

Until those parents start treating them like "stubborn mules" and beating them mercilessly with rods.

Rewards I'm talking about about is like getting ice-cream for being good while your parents get fuel for the car, or if you stay quiet during long car rides.

And punishment of no Internet in this day and age is... powerful.

It depends on the child, parent, what they did that determines the course of action. Verbal can only go so far sometimes, but the little gift as reward for doing good helps as well.

[Mishi]

Verbal can only go so far sometimes, but the little gift as reward for doing good helps as well.

Most kids seem to respond well to positive reinforcement and fair rules. It sounds mean, but teaching small children is almost on the same level as training a dog. They seem to pay more attention to treats than to punishment.

Also, thanks for the kind words Rageaholic! Rugz and I try our best and as far as we can tell, it's working. If it wasn't, we'd change our approach.

The idea of beating a child until 'they cry the tears of a broken will' makes me sick and angry. It's wrong, it's disgusting and it should never be allowed to happen. Even now, my mother doesn't class an argument as over until the other person is crying and asking for forgiveness, and I swear that she gets a smug little smile on her face when that happens.

[siead_lietrathua]

My mom would give you an open hand swat on the arse or the arm if you were persistently misbehaving, but it was shock value to get your attention, not for trying to inflict damage or pain.

ditto. there is a wide distance between spanking/disipline and beatings/punishments. but the problem is that people use the words interchangebly to fit whatever agenda they are going for
i've been spanked as a kid. and i've been beaten as well (by peers, not my parents). they are nowhere near the same thing.

[Evandril]

ditto. there is a wide distance between spanking/disipline and beatings/punishments. but the problem is that people use the words interchangebly to fit whatever agenda they are going for
i've been spanked as a kid. and i've been beaten as well (by peers, not my parents). they are nowhere near the same thing.

I *really* hate defending Fundie Christians, as he appears to be...but this statement above would fit *IN* his book. The article is highly biased against him, and does not include quite a few main points...as in, never punish in anger, and never hit hard enough to bruise. When I was growing up, the types of punishment he's talking about were fairly standard...and yet I hear of more deaths by child abuse NOW than when I was a child. I do think he's taking it a bit far, but to blame the deaths of people who took his examples to an extreme is as silly as blaming D&D for the deaths it 'caused' or heavy metal for all the people it lead into satanism.

He talks about a little fasting is good...ie, "Go to your room without dinner!", not "You don't get to eat for days!". One missed meal here and there won't do serious damage in most cases...and being excluded from the family meal makes one HELL of a point, doubly so, since he also talks about horrible things like making sure to spend more time with your kids, and praising what they do right.

Do I like this book? No, not really...Do I feel it's as dangerous to kids as books that tell parents their kids can do nothing wrong? Nope, not in the least. the over-punishment his book calls for is at least punishment of some sort...and that is far tooo lacking in today's society, IMO

Less biased link to the same story http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/us...D%22_hplink%22

[siead_lietrathua]

well ya, i guess it depends on the persons disposition who reads it. after all, taxidermy books are harmless, but stick one in Ed Gein's hands....

the only reason i take to task with the book is it's ideas of attitude adjusting. trying to force people to be happy all the time can make people robotic and withdrawn, which is not a healthy way to bring up kids. heck remember how many people on CS get pissed at customers ordering us to smile. imagine if the order came with condoned physical violence for non-compliance!

[Andara Bledin]

He talks about a little fasting is good...ie, "Go to your room without dinner!", not "You don't get to eat for days!". One missed meal here and there won't do serious damage in most cases...

Actually, using food as either punishment or reward leads to unhealthy eating later in life. One should almost never use food for discipline purposes, positive or negative.

Although the idea of having the child eat away from the rest of the family, such as having a time out table or similar, would get the same point across without building a foundation for future eating disorders.

^-.-^

[AdminAssistant]

That is, if families actually ate together at a table anymore. The type of punishment that is effective depends on the family and the child. I would have loved to eat dinner by myself. I liked being in my room. One of the only was to effectively punish me was through emotional manipulation, which my parents are both exceedingly good at.

[Evandril]

Actually, using food as either punishment or reward leads to unhealthy eating later in life. One should almost never use food for discipline purposes, positive or negative.

Although the idea of having the child eat away from the rest of the family, such as having a time out table or similar, would get the same point across without building a foundation for future eating disorders.

^-.-^

I'd say 'can lead', rather than 'leads', but agreed. I'm not saying the book is a good one... I *AM* saying it's not so bad as to call for this guy's head on a platter, or that he's responsible for the deaths of the kids who's parents happened to own his book.

As far as how 'evil' this book is, using the diet part, I'd say he's on the scale of the guy who made the 'adkins' diet, which sold FAR more than 670k copies.

No, it's not a good book, and no, he's not someone I'd want teaching my kids...but the reaction is WAY out of scale!

[Rageaholic]

While I agree that those type of books shouldn't be directly blamed for the deaths of the children, I think the psychological damage caused by these methods should be enough of a reason to villianize these people.

[Andara Bledin]

If the man is advocating corporal punishments with weapons on children who aren't even a year old, then I'm not certain he shouldn't be reviled for writing his book.

The Pearls advocate the beating of a baby of only 7 months for being "angry" and to continue beating the child until it is broken. That's not discipline; it's torture. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or deluded.

They advocate beating children with rubber hoses. What makes it ok to be inhumane against children in the name of discipline? The word didn't even refer to punishment until the 17th century, and now it's a religious euphemism for torture.

Another article at Huffington Post

^-.-^

[Evandril]

The Pearls advocate the beating of a baby of only 7 months for being "angry" and to continue beating the child until it is broken. That's not discipline; it's torture. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or deluded.

Where did you find this info? I've looked through your link, and a few others (http://www.salon.com/2006/05/25/the_pearls/ is a decent one), and I can't find anything of the sort. They do mention that if your child looks at you with fear, to seek counseling immediately...

They advocate beating children with rubber hoses. What makes it ok to be inhumane against children in the name of discipline? The word didn't even refer to punishment until the 17th century, and now it's a religious euphemism for torture.

^-.-^

When did this fall under 'inhumane'? I can promise you, a rubber hose like they are talking about hurts less, and does less damage, than a belt does...and most people from my generation can tell you what that feels like Again, this seems to be trying to make this worse than it is.

Edited to add: When you have a link that says "X claims this!" and does not link to X claiming that in any way...or even linking to X in the least...Personally, I double check it. If someone is making a damning statement online, linking to it only proves your point, so why not do so?

[Andara Bledin]

Where did you find this info? I've looked through your link, and a few others (http://www.salon.com/2006/05/25/the_pearls/ is a decent one), and I can't find anything of the sort.

I don't own the book, so must rely on quotes provided by others. Such as an Amazon.com review from someone who was given the book and wrote a review back in June and says, in part, "So when I get to page 74 is when I really thought these people are CRAZY!! They recommend to a mom, who has a 7 month old, to 'switch' him on the bare bottom or leg 7 to 8 times for getting angry. Then if he is still angry to do it again until he gives in to the pain. Oh and the switch for an under 1 year old they recommend is from a willow tree or a 12 inch RULER(pg44)!!" From another review from 2000: "For example, the Pearls recommend switching a 4month old baby on the legs."

Seriously? The advice in this book is demented. The fact that they recommend that people use weapons on their infants is sick.

^-.-^