Michelle Duggar

[Puddy73]

Did anyone else notice that Michelle Duggar (18 Kids and Counting) gave a big plug for nursing on demand? She was nursing her newborn with a My Brest Friend pillow at a film festival on last night's episode. I'm starting to relate to the Duggars more than John & Kate Gosselin.

[kimberley-k]

I'm surprised to hear that she nurses - she doesn't seem to have reaped the benefit of having children spaced apart!

-Kim

[Hawkeyewife]

I don't know if this is true, but a neighbor of mine said that she nurses for the first 6 months so she can have babies close together.

[hellokitty]

I don't know if this is true, but a neighbor of mine said that she nurses for the first 6 months so she can have babies close together.

Yes, that is true. She only nurses for six months and then cuts the baby off.

[AngelaS]

Six months is still better than nothing.

[srhs]

Ok, I don't know her so don't want to be gossipy, but I read she always gets her period back 2mos pp even though EBF...not that she weans TO get period back but rather naturally does. So, she's usually already preg when she weans. And that she really struggles with plugged ducts and mastitis so sets the 6 mo goal.

[AnnieW625]

I got my period back early while EBF for four months. I could see that she has issues with her breasts because they've fed...what 18 children almost continuously for what 20 years or so (I forget all of the specifics).

[JBaxter]

I heard she trys to bf for about 6 months but has issues. :) 6 months is better than nothing and all her kids look pretty healthy.

[deborah_r]

I think 6 months is great in her situation. I will probably have 6 years of BFing for just two kids, but would have to reconsider if we were going to be multiplying exponentially like that!

[jgenie]

OT - did anyone else see Jim Bob yank Johanna by one arm when they were waiting for Kirk Cameron? I replayed it several times. Just wondering if anyone else noticed it.

[MamaMolly]

FWIW I got my period back in 2 months and EBF'd. DD weaned at 16 months. Just mentioning it because it is very possible to EBF and get your period early.

[JenaW]

I'm surprised to hear that she nurses - she doesn't seem to have reaped the benefit of having children spaced apart!

-Kim

Unfortunately, this doesn't always work. I am a prime example of this. I have had 5 kids in 5 years!!! My oldest is 5 1/2 and my youngest is 6 mos. I have breastfed every single one of them AROUND THE CLOCK (no sleeping through the nights here until at least 9 mos) almost up until the next one was born. The only one I stopped nursing earlier was my 25-week preemie, as it was that or insert a g-tube in her to get her to gain weight. Despite EBF, I get my periods back as early as 6-8 weeks postpartum!

[JTsMom]

I was pretty psyched about her NIP comments too. If someone who values modesty as much as she does endorses NIP, that says a lot imo. :thumbsup:

I've never been a fan of the Duggars, but I do like them a lot more since they've started this new show. I didn't see the Johanna arm thing- was it something intentional, or did she suddenly jerk in one direction? Johanna is so spunky, she reminds me of DS. I know that on more than one occasion, I've been in a store with him, and he's suddenly dropped to the ground or something, and it looked like I was dragging him by the arm, which I would never do. I hope it's the latter, but the Duggars views on discipline are my biggest issue with them, so I'm probably wrong.

[JenaW]

I hope it's the latter, but the Duggars views on discipline are my biggest issue with them, so I'm probably wrong.

Could you clarify that? Admittedly, I have not seen a ton of their shows, so I am not an expert on them by any means. But she definitely has my admiration and respect from the amount of patience she has. I saw one show where Joshua was talking about her style of discipline and stated that she rarely (if ever) yells and she really takes the time to respect each child as an individual and tries to teach them what they are doing and why it is wrong, instead of just yelling, spanking, etc. Just curious if I missed something.

j

[JTsMom]

Apparently, they used to have lots of links to the Pearls, and similar "child training" type sites on their web page. From what I've heard, when they started getting a lot of complaints, they pulled them down. After she said what she did about feeding on demand last night, I hope they've changed their thinking on that stuff- or maybe never fully understood what they were linking too. She's also a big fan of blanket training, although she hasn't detailed how she does it exactly- at least not that I've seen.

She does come across as very kind and gentle, so I was shocked to find that stuff out too. There are some things she definitely does right though- I wish I had her composure!

[hellokitty]

Yes, yes, 6 mo is better than nothing. I EBF and always end up with my period back by 3 mo. I wish AF would just stay away, but I am not one of the lucky ones.

[lizajane]

Apparently, they used to have lots of links to the Pearls, and similar "child training" type sites on their web page. From what I've heard, when they started getting a lot of complaints, they pulled them down. After she said what she did about feeding on demand last night, I hope they've changed their thinking on that stuff- or maybe never fully understood what they were linking too. She's also a big fan of blanket training, although she hasn't detailed how she does it exactly- at least not that I've seen.

She does come across as very kind and gentle, so I was shocked to find that stuff out too. There are some things she definitely does right though- I wish I had her composure!

i don't know what ANY of that means, but i am very nosy and now i am dying t know.

[egoldber]

The Pearls have a book called "To Train Up a Child".

http://www.gospeltruth.net/children/pearl_tuac.htm

Blanket training:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blanket_training

[jgenie]

I didn't see the Johanna arm thing- was it something intentional, or did she suddenly jerk in one direction? Johanna is so spunky, she reminds me of DS. I know that on more than one occasion, I've been in a store with him, and he's suddenly dropped to the ground or something, and it looked like I was dragging him by the arm, which I would never do. I hope it's the latter, but the Duggars views on discipline are my biggest issue with them, so I'm probably wrong.

It "looked" like he was picking her up off a chair by holding her by one armpit. The camera pans away and then Johanna is sitting on the lap of the new DIL.

[bubbaray]

I didn't realize the Duggars practiced what the Pearls teach. That makes me sick. I've never heard of blanket training. That also makes me sick.

[niccig]

The Pearls have a book called "To Train Up a Child".

http://www.gospeltruth.net/children/pearl_tuac.htm

Blanket training:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blanket_training

I looked at these, and they talk about using a switch. Do they mean a cane that you hit with? That's my understanding of a switch - a thin, flexible, long piece of wood like a cane that used to be used in schools as punishment...

[bubbaray]

Yes, that is what they mean. Its illegal to use one, in a school or as a parent or any other place, in Canada. Spanking is only legal here when done by a hand, not to the head, and only between ages 2 to 12.

[egoldber]

Yes, that is exactly what they mean by a switch.

I have no idea if the Duggars continue to espouse these things. They used to. I find them weird and disturbing, but not because they have a lot of children.

[AngelaS]

I know several people who train their children to stay on a blanket without a switch. They just reinforce the 'stay on the blanket' by putting them back on again and again.

[g-mama]

Why would you want to keep your baby on a blanket? It's easier than letting them roam/roll/crawl..? Huh? For how long a period of time??

[maestramommy]

I remember reading about this blanket training thing on another forum. I *think* the object is to teach the kid to stay put without using a playpen. You start with a few minutes and work up to an hour? It's supposed to keep them safe while you are busy, but want them to be in your line of sight. Like if you're cooking or something.

[Jenny_A]

I didn't realize the Duggars practiced what the Pearls teach. That makes me sick. I've never heard of blanket training. That also makes me sick.

I think Blanket Training is where you lay a blanket out on the floor and you teach a small child (I'm thinking 2 to 4) to stay on the blanket for a small period of time to begin with (example 3 minutes) and then you slowly increase the time as the child becomes trained to stay on the blanket. It's to help in situations like going to church where the child may need to stay in a chair for 30 or so minutes. You give the child some toys or something quiet to play with. She explained this in a really old show.

Just curious, why would this make you sick?

Jenny

[BelleoftheBallFlagstaff]

I think Blanket Training is where you lay a blanket out on the floor and you teach a small child (I'm thinking 2 to 4) to stay on the blanket for a small period of time to begin with (example 3 minutes) and then you slowly increase the time as the child becomes trained to stay on the blanket. It's to help in situations like going to church where the child may need to stay in a chair for 30 or so minutes. You give the child some toys or something quiet to play with. She explained this in a really old show.

Just curious, why would this make you sick?

Jenny


I can only guess, but MY issue is with using a "switch" on an infant, or any child for that matter.

[bubbaray]

Just curious, why would this make you sick?


Because it (in the initial wiki link) implies the use of a switch to "train" the child.

ETA: Text of Wiki link:
Blanket training is an approach to child discipline that involves training small children to remain on a blanket. The familiar blanket becomes an accepted marker of where they may roam. Training is accomplished by light switching [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blanket_training#cite_note-0)

link from footnote: http://www.ffministry.org/blanket_training.htm
Text from footnote: "Blanket training" has been one of the most helpful tools for me! I only wish that I had heard about it before my 7th child came along!! The sweet lady who explained blanket training to me called it her "playpen in a purse"! This concept involves placing your baby or toddler on his/her favorite blanket, explaining to the best of their understanding that they must stay on their blanket, and then demonstrating the consequences of getting off the blanket with a small rod or switch.

More from footnote on "church training": Every day, we sat them on the couch, within touching distance, (After all, that's how close they must sit in church!), put in a Bible story tape, explained what behavior was expected of them, (sit still, don't touch your brothers and sisters, be quiet, etc) and then I sat across from them in a chair with my little switch. Beginning with just 10 - 15 minutes at a time, we sat together, enjoying the Bible story, and practicing for church! If the rules were ignored, the little switch was a gentle reminder of the importance of obedience.

[Jenny_A]

[QUOTE=bubbaray;2318647]Because it (in the initial wiki link) implies the use of a switch to "train" the child.

Gotcha! I didn't read the link. My explanation of blanket training was what I got off the television show that Michelle Duggar explained. Switches were never mentioned, and I don't think she used them herself when she blanket trained. I don't know that as fact, but I just don't think the Duggars are using switches on their children from what I can tell. I'm pretty sure she just places the child back on the blanket when he/she wanders off.

I understand how the use of switches would make you or anybody sick. BUT, I know my own Mom tells stories of being disciplined with them. She said her Mom would make her go pick out her own switch in the yard. Mom wasn't tramatized or anything... it was just the way things were back then. Mom had 6 brothers and sisters. This would have been back in the 40's, so a long time ago.

Anyway, yes, the link is disturbing to read!

Jenny

[mamahill]

the little switch was a gentle reminder

?? wow - that seems like an oxymoron. If someone cuts them off in traffic, do they rear-end the offender? as a gentle reminder that they were there first? It all seems a little Mommy Dearest to me.

[gatorsmom]

The Pearls have a book called "To Train Up a Child".

http://www.gospeltruth.net/children/pearl_tuac.htm



Holy cow! I just read part of this site. They advocate using "pain" on babies who aren't even walking yet to "train" them. Who are these people?

[hillaryb]

on the Duggars! I watched just a few episodes and that was too much for me.

I don't see them living out the values they claim to have, and how can you truly know all those children well on a personal level? Jim Bob was joking with a friend about knowing all the kids' names...what about their hope, dream, struggles, favorite colors?

Their web site says that they meet one-on-one with the older kids, but not the younger ones, which says to me that the older kids are raising the younger ones. That's not parenting IMHO.

Also, I don't appreciate the implcation on their web site that Michelle miscarried because she was on the pill. Having miscarried myself, it's insulting claim that horrible situation was "punishment from God" for trying to be reproductively responsible.

[JTsMom]

Ooops, sorry to post that and not check back, but it looks like you guys had it pretty well covered. Yeah, the Pearls are sick, sick people. If you check out the reviews on Amazon, this one is on the first page.

BIG OLD WARNING-This is going to be sick stuff, so if you're sensitive, you may want to just skip the rest of my post. (Do we have spoiler tags here? I'd love to cover it.)

Examples:
1) The Pearls recommend whipping infants only a few months old on their bare skin. They whip their own 4 month old (p.9). They recommend whipping the bare skin of "every child" (p.2) for "Christians and non-Christians" (p.5) and for "every transgression" (p.1). Parents who don't whip their babies into complete submission are portrayed as indifferemt, lazy, careless and neglectful (p.19) and are "creating a Nazi" (p.45).

2) On p.60 they recommend whipping babies who cannot sleep and are crying, and to never allow them "to get up." On p.61 they recommend whipping a 12 month old girl for crying. On p.79 they recommend whipping a 7 month old for screaming.

3) On p.65 co-author Debi Pearl whips the bare leg of a 15 month old she is babysitting, 10 separate times, for not playing with something she tells him to play with. On p.56 Debi Pearl hits a 2 your old so hard "a karate chop like wheeze came from somewhere deep inside" him.

4) On p.59 they recommend whipping a 3 year old until he is "totally broken."

5) On p.44 they say not to let the child's crying while being hit to "cause you to lighten up on the intensity or duration of the spanking."

6) On p.55 the Pearls say a mother should hit her child if he cries for her.

7) On p.80 they recommend giving a child having a tantrum "a swift *forceful* spanking." On the same page they say to whip small children on their bare skin until they stop screaming. "Don't be bullied. Give him more of the same." They say to continue whipping until their crying turns into a "wounded, submissive whimper."

8) On p.46 the Pearls say that if a child does obey before being whipped, whip them anyway. And "if you have to sit on him to spank him,then do not hesitate. And hold him there until he is surrendered. Prove that you are bigger, tougher." "Defeat him totally."

9) On p.47 they recommend their various whips, including "a belt or larger tree branch" to hit children.

10) The Pearls also recommend ignoring an infant's bumped head when he falls to the floor, and ignoring skinned knees (p.86). They also say "if your child is roughed-up by peers, rejoice." (p.81)

11) They recommend pulling a nursing infant's hair (p.7), tripping a non-swimming toddler so she falls into deep water (p.67) and to make children go hungry if they don't "like what is on the table" (p.103). Also on p.103 they say that if children lose their shoes, "let them go without until they (the children) can make the money to buy more."

[Snow mom]

That is so terrible. I regret reading it. It's hard for me to believe anyone would treat a child like that (I know it happens-- I just don't get it.) It's even harder for me to believe that someone would promote it like it is the right thing to do.

[Puddy73]

Ooops, sorry to post that and not check back, but it looks like you guys had it pretty well covered. Yeah, the Pearls are sick, sick people. If you check out the reviews on Amazon, this one is on the first page.

BIG OLD WARNING-This is going to be sick stuff, so if you're sensitive, you may want to just skip the rest of my post. (Do we have spoiler tags here? I'd love to cover it.)



Sick is an understatement. I'm really sorry that I opened this can of worms. I know nothing about the Duggars other than what I've seen on a few episodes of their TLC show, and I certainly didn't mean to endorse anything like this.

[AngelaS]

I'm guessing that most of the people who read the Pearls do not follow it to the letter. I'd guess that most people KNOW that is not how you treat children. Like any parenting book, you don't follow it to the letter--you take what you can glean and use that and toss the rest.

I do NOT endorse the Pearls, nor have I read them. I know people who have read their stuff and gotten some ideas but NONE of them beat their kids the way the PP mentioned. I don't know ANYONE who does and I run in some pretty conservative circles. :)

And just because the Duggars mentioned a book of theirs on their site does not mean that they follow it to the letter and constantly whip their kids. They're far too loving of parents for that. I'm guessing they gleaned something from it that they thought could be useful to others.

[infomama]

WHY aren't these people in jail? Ignoring bumped heads? WHIPPING a baby? I am disgusted and in TOTAL shock.

[JamiMac]

Are those people for real? That is awful. I can't imagine treating any baby or child that way. :mad: That should be criminal.

[shawnandangel]

WARNING: disturbing content from the website

"For the next weary forty-five minutes, fifteen times the child would make his legs move, and the daddy would turn him around and spank his legs. The father was as calm as a lazy porch swing on a Sunday afternoon. There was no hastiness or anger. He did not take the disobedience personally. He had trained many a horse or mule and knew the value of patient perseverance. In the end, the twelve-month-old submitted his will to his father, sat as he was placed, and became content--even cheerful."

Good to know a child and a mule can be "trained" as one and the same

[infomama]

Those people are absolute Psychos.

[Raidra]

Good to know a child and a mule can be "trained" as one and the same

That's what does it for me. Even if someone claims that they do blanket training without hitting, just repeatedly repositioning the child, how is that any different from how you would train an animal? I mean.. that's something you teach dogs to do.. why would you want to do that to your child? I don't understand how people can think of children as animals, not as real people with valid needs and feelings.

[tnrnchick74]

That's what does it for me. Even if someone claims that they do blanket training without hitting, just repeatedly repositioning the child, how is that any different from how you would train an animal? I mean.. that's something you teach dogs to do.. why would you want to do that to your child? I don't understand how people can think of children as animals, not as real people with valid needs and feelings.

I can almost see a possible philosophy behind "blanket training" - not including the physical violence of course. There are times that you need a child to remain in 1 area (cooking is a good example) and if they can learn to entertain themselves in a safe manner, then that's great! I don't see this as invalidating a child's needs, etc.

HOWEVER, the excerpts of the Pearl's that have been posted show abuse and a systematically breaking down of a child's will.

I think that there has to be a balance between allowing the child to exert their needs/desires and the parent's exerting their dominance. As a parent, I want my child to know that I mean business when I talk; that I am the boss. I do believe in age appropriate spanking, if that's what is necessary to get the child's attention under certain circumstances. But I also believe in time-outs, redirection, encouraging appropriate outlets, understanding and dealing with your feelings, etc. Also, I believe that ANY disciple measure needs to be coupled with positive attention, positive reinforcement, discussion, and age appropriateness.

You can't expect a 6 month old to sit still for 30 minutes! Their attention span is developmentally at about 6 seconds!

[mamahill]

I think I just threw up inside my mouth. I'm not sure how this is not child abuse.

A mother should whip a child who is crying for her? Honestly, I think that strips you of the title "mother."

Wow - I know I have days I'm not totally thrilled with how I've parented, but reading that crap makes me realize I should be up for mother of the year.

[StantonHyde]

Their whole point is to bring their children to submission and to break them. And then they say the child will appreciate it--even cheerfully! The describe episodes as battles and describe successful parents as ones who can send their children away for 2 hours!! (and the children won't come for mom even when they get hurt)

I want my children to come to me when they are hurt! No I don't want them terrorizing people or houses and I was very happy to have a playpen so I could take a shower, cook dinner etc. But pull a baby's hair?? I did "plunk" my children under the chin when they bit me nursing--it only happened once.

Frankly, if they want to compare training horses and dogs--you don't beat horses or dogs when you are training them!!! Even when you put a tasty treat in front of them and teach them leave it. And what they want kids to do--small children to sit still for 2 hours (hell, I can't do that!) is totally developmentally inappropriate. I am not surprised these people reference the Amish and I wonder if they are not Mennonite. Having lived near Lancaster County for quite some time, I was amazed that people who religion teaches them peace could treat animals and children so violently.

[Gena]

There are some Christian groups who believe that human nature is inherently evil and the willfullness of infants and toddlers is due to the power and influence of the devil. These groups often advocate parenting practices that break the will and "beat the devil out" of the child. When that is accomplished the child will be submissive to the parents and supposedly to God as well. Unfortunately, studies show that people raised in this manner also tend to be submissive to corrupt authority figures in their adult years.

Thankfully, not all Christians think that way. Many believe that the human will is a gift from God. Therefore, the child's will is to be trained and disciplined, but never broken. The willfull toddler who says "No" to his parents at bedtime can, with proper training, become the teenager who says "No" to peer pressure and the adult who says "No" to immoral government and business practices.

This is not meant to start a religious debate. It's just an explanation for why some individuals and groups teach the parenting techniques they do.

[deannanb]

does anyone know any teens or young adults raised this way?
it would be very interesting to get their take on this!

[elaineandmichaelsmommy]

:barf: and :eek:

How do these people live with themselves? Honestly-I've seen women taken from the mall in handcuffs for lessen transgressions than what these adults are committing.

[Neatfreak]

I'm going to tell myself that the Pearl's book is all make-believe and go back into my happy place ...

[AngelaS]

I used to train dogs and honestly, some of the training does carry over to children. :D

First, you say their name and give them one word of what you want---for a dog it's "Piper sit". For my girls, when it's time to go, I say, "shoes!" :D Neither dogs, nor small children need long explanations. If they know we're going to leave the house, I simply tell them "shoes". I don't need to say, "I really need you to go pick out your shoes. Find some good walking ones for our day at the zoo. Oh, you want mommy's red high heels? No...not today......" See?? Simple is better.

When you're teaching them a new skill, you walk them slowly through it. If they don't get it, you do it again. And again and again.

When they do what you want, you praise them--lavishly. Praise goes a long way with both children AND dogs.

When you want them to stop doing something, you correct the behavior immediately. You don't have to be harsh, you have to be consistent. EVERY time your child hits his sister he sits on the rug. EVERY time the dog eats the rug you put him in his crate.

See? I've been saying for years that my dog training days influenced my childrearing ones. My girls do tease me tho, when we're out somewhere (like the playground) and I yell, "Girls, come!" :D I'm working to change that to "Let's go" :D

[lizajane]

I think I just threw up inside my mouth. I'm not sure how this is not child abuse.

A mother should whip a child who is crying for her? Honestly, I think that strips you of the title "mother."

Wow - I know I have days I'm not totally thrilled with how I've parented, but reading that crap makes me realize I should be up for mother of the year.

i actually threw up for real when i read it. but of course, you all know how my week has been...

seriously- dylan was up at 5:39am today after DH's alarm woke me up even earlier. i caught dylan trying to wake up schuyler and i pulled him off schuyler's bed and put him in my closet. (he shares a room, i can't put him in time out in his room where schuyler is sleeping.) i was thinking i was going to hell for sure for making him have time out in the (UNlocked) closet.

it is often about perspective, isn't it.

[fivi2]

I used to train dogs and honestly, some of the training does carry over to children. :D

First, you say their name and give them one word of what you want---for a dog it's "Piper sit". For my girls, when it's time to go, I say, "shoes!" :D Neither dogs, nor small children need long explanations. If they know we're going to leave the house, I simply tell them "shoes". I don't need to say, "I really need you to go pick out your shoes. Find some good walking ones for our day at the zoo. Oh, you want mommy's red high heels? No...not today......" See?? Simple is better.

When you're teaching them a new skill, you walk them slowly through it. If they don't get it, you do it again. And again and again.

When they do what you want, you praise them--lavishly. Praise goes a long way with both children AND dogs.

When you want them to stop doing something, you correct the behavior immediately. You don't have to be harsh, you have to be consistent. EVERY time your child hits his sister he sits on the rug. EVERY time the dog eats the rug you put him in his crate.

See? I've been saying for years that my dog training days influenced my childrearing ones. My girls do tease me tho, when we're out somewhere (like the playground) and I yell, "Girls, come!" :D I'm working to change that to "Let's go" :D

I have to laugh, because we are so very different. Even with my (then 2, now 3 yos) I will say "we are going to the park. you can wear these sandals or these sneakers, which do you want to wear?" or when it is time to go, I will explain what we have to go do next... It isn't a debate, but I do explain my reasons for things and give them choices and talk through inappropriate choices. Not saying either way is better, I just find it funny how different we are!

[bubbaray]

I used to train dogs and honestly, some of the training does carry over to children. :D




I agree that some of the same principles apply to training dogs and children. Consistency is the main one. Our trainer was adamant that you never, EVER hit your dog. Ever.


As for the Pearls, I find it sad that people treat their children worse than prisoners or adults in general. If you hit another adult with a stick, that is assault with a weapon. I've heard of fathers in fundamentalist/polygamist Mormon sects using a form of waterboarding with infants to "break" them -- but there is an uproar about using that form of torture on prisoners. Why is there no uproar about how these parents are treating their children? Why aren't their children seized? Why are the Pearls allowed to publish books that encourage hatred and degredation against a marginalized group (ie., children)??????

I just do NOT understand it.

[brittone2]

I agree that some of the same principles apply to training dogs and children. Consistency is the main one. Our trainer was adamant that you never, EVER hit your dog. Ever.


As for the Pearls, I find it sad that people treat their children worse than prisoners or adults in general. If you hit another adult with a stick, that is assault with a weapon. I've heard of fathers in fundamentalist/polygamist Mormon sects using a form of waterboarding with infants to "break" them -- but there is an uproar about using that form of torture on prisoners. Why is there no uproar about how these parents are treating their children? Why aren't their children seized? Why are the Pearls allowed to publish books that encourage hatred and degredation against a marginalized group (ie., children)??????

I just do NOT understand it.

FWIW, there is an entire portion of a message board devoted to people recovering from their experiences with the Pearls, etc. on the GCM site (again, I'm not a conservative Christian but I read their gentle discipline board).

[daniele_ut]

I have to laugh, because we are so very different. Even with my (then 2, now 3 yos) I will say "we are going to the park. you can wear these sandals or these sneakers, which do you want to wear?" or when it is time to go, I will explain what we have to go do next... It isn't a debate, but I do explain my reasons for things and give them choices and talk through inappropriate choices. Not saying either way is better, I just find it funny how different we are!

I think the key is that it's our KIDS who are different. Not all techniques work with all kids. I often give my ds choices (Do you want to read books or go straight to bed, for example), but when it comes time to leave the park, his favorite place, what you described often does no good for him, He's at a stage where transitions are really hard for him and no matter how many times I warn him we will be leaving (10 min before, 5 min before, 3 min before) a tantrum usually ensues.



I've heard of fathers in fundamentalist/polygamist Mormon sects using a form of waterboarding with infants to "break" them -- but there is an uproar about using that form of torture on prisoners. Why is there no uproar about how these parents are treating their children? Why aren't their children seized?

I really truly hope that no one identifies this kind of behavior with mainstream Mormon culture, because it couldn't be farther from the truth. I'm LDS and we are taught to treasure our children. It's always so hard for me to read the word "Mormon" associated with those groups because they are completely, totally NOT a part of our church at ALL. I believe that the anwer to why those children aren't taken away is that there is simply very little hard evidence. Those groups live with a code of silence and breaking away is very difficult for anyone. They don't generally allow any outsiders in, and none of the insiders would whistle blow because they would be expelled from the community with nothing. All of their property is "consecrated" to the leadership.

[fivi2]

I think the key is that it's our KIDS who are different. Not all techniques work with all kids. I often give my ds choices (Do you want to read books or go straight to bed, for example), but when it comes time to leave the park, his favorite place, what you described often does no good for him, He's at a stage where transitions are really hard for him and no matter how many times I warn him we will be leaving (10 min before, 5 min before, 3 min before) a tantrum usually ensues.



....

Sure - I was typing as I ran out the door. Of course the child' temperment plays a part - all children, parents, families have different dynamics. I was just laughing when I read that post, because it is not at all how *I* parent the children I currently have. Even as infants, I would narrate everything - maybe I just get bored :) I was not saying that I have a problem with that poster's techniques, just that none of her examples apply to my current situation. Sorry if it came across wrong. We are firm, we are consistent, we do have rules... We just, at this time, with these kids, implement them differently.

[StantonHyde]

I am curious as to what the people recovering from the Pearls have said--how did they come under their influence? (I assume not just from reading a book)

[brittone2]

I am curious as to what the people recovering from the Pearls have said--how did they come under their influence? (I assume not just from reading a book)

Some churches encourage reading/following the Pearls, Ezzo, etc. I know some churches hold workshops on that type of discipline...although I don't remember if the Pearls run workshops, etc. kwim?

I don't really read that part of GCM, but I've seen people say that they felt their relationship with their child was damaged through their experiences w/ advice from those so-called experts. No idea how they got to it...you could likely read that forum and find out more. I stick with the Gentle Discipline board there pretty exclusively when I'm reading.

[JTsMom]

From what I've read, some churches kind of adopt those methods, and it's taught to all of the parents, preached about, etc. In those same types of churches, there tends to be a tighter social group, so everyone you know pretty much is doing the same thing, so it just seems normal- everyone does it, kwim? Plus, building on Gena's post above, you are being told that you MUST do this, otherwise your child is going to hell, so it's hard to consider any other method.

[bubbaray]

Can someone enlighten me as to what type of church does this, other than radical sects like the FLDS, etc.?? Are these mainstream churches?

I'm feeling a little sick right now. Ugh.

[Ceepa]

Yes, who are these churches? Are the workshops formally arranged? Which organized churches are setting this as the standard?

[crayonblue]

I've attended many, many churches and I have NEVER EVER heard such crap. My guess is cultish groups are the ones teaching/using these horrid methods.

[gatorsmom]

I've attended many, many churches and I have NEVER EVER heard such crap. My guess is cultish groups are the ones teaching/using these horrid methods.

You know, I have to agree with this. I had family members on my mothers' side who attended some small, far right, Protestant churches and I've never heard of this. And we are a close family of big talkers- the rest of us would have heard about this.

I could see this type of coercive behavior being practiced in some sort of secretive cult-type church.

[AngelaS]

I attended a popular denomination church and there was a class taught w/the Ezzo materials. They're not as harsh as the Pearls but they do have some questionable things as well. They also had a few good things that we gleaned from the class and promptly forgot the rest.

It's not just little cults. I know several 1000+ member churches that have had classes teaching Ezzo stuff.

[brittone2]

Local newspaper articles from our area (sensitive material involving the death of a child...be forewarned)
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/418676.html
http://www.newsobserver.com/1167/story/436198.html
More general background on the Pearls included below:
http://www.newsobserver.com/100/story/434403.html
Quote from the above News and Observer story:

Pearl's books warn parents to never whip in anger, always in joy. Paddock must not have followed instructions, Pearl's son and daughter insist.
By Pearl's math, one-sixth of the nation's estimated 3 million home-schooling families use his training methods.
"The chances of one of them committing a crime is pretty good," Pearl said, shrugging at the question in his churchyard after Sunday services and refusing to say much more.

Now, obviously not all conservative Christians want to be associated w/ these people, and shouldn't be. Just as a (non-Christian conservative) homeschooler, I don't want to be associated with them either :(

Is the case above an instance where the parents being inspired by the Pearls, or just using them as an excuse? Obviously it would be difficult to say.

However, note in that one article that the Pearls have sold 400,000 books and 60,000 parents subscribe to their newsletter. Someone is obviously reading and possibly following their advice.

[AngelaS]

As a conservation Christian homeschooler, I am NOT associated with the Pearls, nor do I want to be. :P

[brittone2]

As a conservation Christian homeschooler, I am NOT associated with the Pearls, nor do I want to be. :P

:hug: I understand.

As you said though, I don't think it is just a fringe thing, kwim?

[gatorsmom]

:hug: I understand.

As you said though, I don't think it is just a fringe thing, kwim?

Wow -to the numbers of people subscribing to this stuff. so much for my naive wishful thinking that it was just the lunatic fringe. :(

[hollybloom24]

The Pearl's teachings sound beyond horrible. I have not read their books, but from what I am reading here, I'd burn them if I even saw one!

However I do defend the Babywise series through Preschoolwise which I have read. These were suggested by a nurse to my husband and I, and they have helped us in a multitude of ways including sleeping, scheduling, eating, preparing for preschool, social interaction, etc. The basic message is to teach kids respect and proper and appropriate boundaries. There is no violence or suggestion of anything abusive in these books. We don't buy into some of the religious aspects of it, but no book is perfect for every situation. If you can take something and apply it to your own family and the result is positive, then I believe it is worth the time investment.

However I am not going to give the Pearls the benefit of the doubt on that one!

[infomama]

I almost want to boycott Amazon for selling that "book" (aka child abuse manual). Sick sick sick.

[bubbaray]

I've been to numerous churches and never been to one that had parenting classes AT ALL, let alone ones that push/condone the Pearls' methods (or Ezzos or anyone else's).

If the Pearls' method is being followed by parents in Canada, I sure hope that someone gets charged criminally. Like I said earlier, spanking or any form of corporal punishment on children younger than 2 (or older than 12) and using anything other than a hand is in violation of our Criminal Code. I don't understand why the US hasn't dealt with this criminally. If adults use weapons to beat each other, its assault with a weapon (or similar term). Why is the same behavior legal if one person is a child and the other is a parent?

And, FWIW, I may want my child to behave, but I do NOT want them to be submissive -- to me or anyone else for that matter.

[MelissaTC]

Horrible!!!

[katydid1971]

I've been to numerous churches and never been to one that had parenting classes AT ALL, let alone ones that push/condone the Pearls' methods (or Ezzos or anyone else's).

If the Pearls' method is being followed by parents in Canada, I sure hope that someone gets charged criminally. Like I said earlier, spanking or any form of corporal punishment on children younger than 2 (or older than 12) and using anything other than a hand is in violation of our Criminal Code. I don't understand why the US hasn't dealt with this criminally. If adults use weapons to beat each other, its assault with a weapon (or similar term). Why is the same behavior legal if one person is a child and the other is a parent?

And, FWIW, I may want my child to behave, but I do NOT want them to be submissive -- to me or anyone else for that matter.

I'm in the US and I agree with everything she just said. Making your child be submissive is putting them at higher risk of abuse, IMO. I would be afraid that an "authority figure" (think coach, teacher, etc) would take advantage of my child if s/he was taught to be submissive. From what I've read for the GCM website the "spare the rod, spoil the child" rule is what these people use to justify this type of parenting.

[StantonHyde]

The US is big on parent rights. Here in Utah, where there are some really, beyond far right conservatives--they are doing everything to gut Child Protective Services. Despite being successfully sued by a national group years ago and having to enact changes. People will say that spanking etc is just fine and that only a parent can determine what is abuse. It absolutely sickens me. Sure, maybe those people "just spank" but don't abuse their children. But the laws are such that children in dire circumstances cannot be taken from the home. Case in point: A mom came into the ER after an accident and she was totally high on meth. The cops didn't arrest her. The staff called CPS so that they could turn the kid over to someone vs. putting in the child in the care of mom to be driven home. Nope. She was not currently endangering the child!!!!

[MamaKath]

Can someone enlighten me as to what type of church does this, other than radical sects like the FLDS, etc.?? Are these mainstream churches?

I'm feeling a little sick right now. Ugh.

DH and I attended a church near our last house. It was a maninstream denomination, though not affiliated with a larger group (not the denomination we currently belong to). We were attending the adult Bible class on Sundays, along with church and many other events for about a year at the time. The family that led the Bible class decided the Pearls would be appropriate curriculum, this was okayed by the pastor but not the elders. When dh and I read the book, we (and many others) left the church. DH went to the pastor and the elders stating that he could not continue there because of the child abuse being taught, that if he heard of people practicing this he would have to report them to cps. The pastor seemed rather glad to see us go! So yes it is taught, though you may not even know initially the families that follow it or will introduce you to it.

It is pretty scary stuff when you read about "training" an infant by setting out to put them in a situation to fail so they can learn a lesson.

[Raidra]

And, FWIW, I may want my child to behave, but I do NOT want them to be submissive -- to me or anyone else for that matter.


Exactly. Thak you so much for saying that. :)

I don't think people often get the difference. I've explained it to family like this: say a friend comes to visit you, someone who lives in another country, with a totally different culture than yours. You would gently and politely teach them what's acceptable in our society. You wouldn't expect them to submit to you.

That's how I look at my job as a parent.

[shawnandangel]

Read this on the amazon forum "amazon should stop selling this book" (Which I do not agree with, free speech is free speech no matter how disgusting some of it can be)

"There's a friend of mine who is the daughter of a pastor in our church. When she was little, she got in trouble for something (who knows what it was) and her father was going to spank her. Her mother (the sweetest woman I know, so I can totally see her doing this) had mercy on her (I don't know what she did, but it must have been bad) and asked her husband if she could take her daughters punishment for her and he agreed. It had a huge impact on my friend and helped lead her to the Lord. She understood that that punishment belonged to her and what it meant for someone else to pay it for her.."


This makes my heart ache. I can only imagine a poor little child watching her mother get beat for something futile she probably did. A child should never have to watch her father hit her mother. Wow. I can't believe she wrote this as a positive.



http://www.amazon.com/Amazon-should-stop-selling-this/forum/Fx2ZVFCBO3BUJ3F/Tx29MGZA990FGSC/1/ref=cm_cd_dp_tft_tp?%5Fencoding=UTF8&s=books&asin=1892112000&store=books

[strollerqueen]

I've been to numerous churches and never been to one that had parenting classes AT ALL, let alone ones that push/condone the Pearls' methods (or Ezzos or anyone else's).

If the Pearls' method is being followed by parents in Canada, I sure hope that someone gets charged criminally. Like I said earlier, spanking or any form of corporal punishment on children younger than 2 (or older than 12) and using anything other than a hand is in violation of our Criminal Code. I don't understand why the US hasn't dealt with this criminally. If adults use weapons to beat each other, its assault with a weapon (or similar term). Why is the same behavior legal if one person is a child and the other is a parent?

And, FWIW, I may want my child to behave, but I do NOT want them to be submissive -- to me or anyone else for that matter.

ITA! I never heard of these dogs until this thread, and I don't get it. They are sadists, pure and simple, and can not hide behind religion as an excuse. Just like those cult pedophiles can't claim it's their religion to take 12 year olds as wives against their will. It is child abuse, it is illegal, and CPS should be taking their children away from them.

[strollerqueen]

Exactly. Thak you so much for saying that. :)

I don't think people often get the difference. I've explained it to family like this: say a friend comes to visit you, someone who lives in another country, with a totally different culture than yours. You would gently and politely teach them what's acceptable in our society. You wouldn't expect them to submit to you.

That's how I look at my job as a parent.

I don't find this any different than what Chris Brown allegedly did to Rihanna. He was trying to force her to submit to him, in a violent, abusive, painful, degrading manner. Worse, she apparently has.

[strollerqueen]

[I]Pearl's books warn parents to [B]never whip in anger, always in joy



That makes me sick. A sadist is someone who gets joy out of inflicting pain. And of course, they have to do it to someone littler than them who can't fight back. Horrible people.

[brittone2]

Along the lines of the legality of such actions, I wanted to point out that here in NC in many counties it is still legal for teachers or administrators to paddle students. No, it isn't the same as what the Pearls advocate, but violence against a child, particularly at the level of using an object to hit, whip, paddle, etc. just makes me ill. Our county and a few other counties in more progressive areas of the state (for lack of a better description) have formally banned paddling of students, but in many counties here it is still perfectly legal and in use. I'm part of an mailing list that works on petitioning lawmakers etc, here in NC to get it repealed.

What makes me even more sick is that with an overall shortage of African American and Hispanic teachers, what message does it send when white adults in authority are authorized to paddle students, who may be of a different race? It is already horrible that anyone can paddle students, but when I think about race, it makes me even more sick (if that's possible).

eta:
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/120475/
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/education/30punish.htm
http://www.thetimesnews.com/onset?id=5290&template=article.html
http://www.nospank.net/nc-01.htm

one article mentions that at least 300,000 kids were subjected to corporal punishment (specifies that this was usually via a paddle) in the 2002-2003 school year :(

[bubbaray]

Some light reading for anyone with insomnia: http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2004/2004scc4/2004scc4.html

That is the 2004 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to spanking -- specifically, the constitutionality of section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada, which basically exempts parents and caregivers from the other provisions of the Criminal Code for the purposes of discipline.

FYI, it might surprise some non-lawyers (hopefully not the lawyers in the house) that non-US decisions are routinely considered by the courts in the US, especially where there have not been prior court decisions in whatever particular area of the law the court is ruling. So, just because this is a Canadian decision doesn't mean it won't be considered by a US court (just as decisions from the UK, Australia and New Zealand, and any other Commonwealth country are considered in "uncharted territory" cases).

Anyway, the highlight from ETA Binnie's dissent (the minority) in the headnote is:"By denying children the protection of the criminal law against the infliction of physical force that would be criminal assault if used against an adult, s. 43 of the Criminal Code infringes children’s equality rights guaranteed by s. 15(1) of the Charter. To deny protection against physical force to children at the hands of their parents and teachers is not only disrespectful of a child’s dignity but turns the child, for the purpose of the Criminal Code, into a second class citizen. Such marginalization is destructive of dignity from any perspective, including that of a child. Protection of physical integrity against the use of unlawful force is a fundamental value that is applicable to all."

Personally, I think Binnie nailed it.

The majority said, in part, that: "The force must have been intended to be for educative or corrective purposes, relating to restraining, controlling or expressing disapproval of the actual behaviour of a child capable of benefiting from the correction."

And, "The conduct permitted by s. 43 does not involve “cruel and unusual” treatment or punishment by the state and therefore does not offend s. 12 of the Charter. Section 43 permits only corrective force that is reasonable. Conduct cannot be at once both reasonable and an outrage to standards of decency."

And: "While children need a safe environment, they also depend on parents and teachers for guidance and discipline, to protect them from harm and to promote their healthy development within society. Section 43 is Parliament’s attempt to accommodate both of these needs. It provides parents and teachers with the ability to carry out the reasonable education of the child without the threat of sanction by the criminal law. "

The majority also considered whether s. 43 violated Canada's treaty obligations (the UN conventions wrt the Child, IIRC).

[bubbaray]

And more from majority (which was written by the Chief Justice, a woman/mother):

Based on the evidence currently before the Court, there are significant areas of agreement among the experts on both sides of the issue (trial decision, at para. 17). Corporal punishment of children under two years is harmful to them, and has no corrective value given the cognitive limitations of children under two years of age. Corporal punishment of teenagers is harmful, because it can induce aggressive or antisocial behaviour. Corporal punishment using objects, such as rulers or belts, is physically and emotionally harmful. Corporal punishment which involves slaps or blows to the head is harmful. These types of punishment, we may conclude, will not be reasonable.

Emphasis is mine.

Anyway, even with the majority finding that s. 43 of the Criminal Code is not unlawful, the majority said that corporal punishment (such as that promoted by the Pearls) is unreasonable and therefore not lawful in Canada. No physical punishment of children under 2 or older than 12, no use of "objects" (weapons), no blows to the head. A switch as used by the Pearls would be an "object" and therefore unreasonable/unlawful.

[JTsMom]

I've been reading up on corporal punishment rules for GA schools, and my mouth was literally hanging open when I read some of the policies. In one nearby county, not only do they paddle, and paddle frequently at that, but a parent can NOT exempt their child without a doctor's note!

When Jason had his special ed eval through our old county's school system, I had some time to chat with some of the team there after we had finished, and they had no idea that some counties were allowing this- in fact they told me that I must be mistaken, but I'm afraid I wasn't. It's shocking what goes on in some schools, and I'm surprised these educators didn't even know about it.

On a personal note, in regards to Beth's post, when I was in elementary school, the teachers were allowed to paddle the students. I was the goody goody of the class, so it never happened to me, but I watched it happen to others. I vividly remember being in fourth grade with one of the only African American students in the school, and watching her be paddled frequently- it was rare for anyone else to be a target. The teacher, who was extremely kind to her favorites, including me, was so cruel to this poor little girl. She would beat her for everything- because her desk was too messy, etc. My heart broke for her then, and even more now. I wish I would have had the courage to do something- anything- to try to help protect her. I think about her frequently, and hope has a happy life now. She was always so sad and lonely, and the teachers made her such an outcast, that I think all of us were afraid to befriend her. I wish I could look her in the eye and apologize for not at least trying to do something for her.

Honestly, that experience is one of the many reasons I am so firmly against any type of physical punishment. I'm not saying that it's all the same, but to me, I can't draw a line where it stops being "just" a spanking, and where it becomes abuse. Is it using an object? Is it hitting somewhere besides the bottom? What about age? Is it ok to hit a developmentally delayed child? What type of transgression justifies it?

Reading what bubbaray posted was interesting b/c I just can't wrap my brain around writing something like that. Under 2, it's harmful. At 2 yrs. and 1 day it's not. Seriously, how does that make sense? Over 12, it will cause a child to be aggressive. At 11 1/2, it won't. Huh? If there were no other way to teach and protect a child, it would be different, but I think most of us would agree that other methods ARE effective, some would even say more effective.

I'm not trying to start a debate- just sharing my thoughts on it. I think everyone probably has a different definition, and laws from place to place certainly illustrate that there is no clear cut answer.

[gatorsmom]

That makes me sick. A sadist is someone who gets joy out of inflicting pain. And of course, they have to do it to someone littler than them who can't fight back. Horrible people.

You know, I hesitate to even think further about this thread because this stuff disturbs me so much. But I was going to bed late last night and DH fell asleep with HBO on. "Running Scared" was on the TV and I was just about to turn it off when I got caught up in a suspenseful scene. I should have just turned it off there but it was a seemingly normal couple who were sexual sadists who torture, (gulp) kill and film their acts with children (btw, don't see this movie. Even this small part will haunt me for a long time). It dawned on me, Janet, that you are correct. The Pearls, whether they intend to be or not, are advocating sadism on children. Now, other like-minded sickos have AN EXCUSE.

[Nooknookmom]

I looked at these, and they talk about using a switch. Do they mean a cane that you hit with? That's my understanding of a switch - a thin, flexible, long piece of wood like a cane that used to be used in schools as punishment...

Switch=pain, "if you don't behave, your gonna go get me a switch & I'll tan your hide..." something my Mom endured-grew up in the 30's-40's in NC mountains. Not fun!

I'm waiting for those kids to rebel, it's inevitable. I watched one recent episode where they were in South America & JimBob was telling a story, 2 of the teenage girls were rolling their eyes & just looked like they were thinking "Get me out of here!" Don't know if daddy JimBob caught it or not.

Michelle seems sweet & I'm all for NIP but the way they "train" their children will eventually come to a head. One day someone will see that there IS an outside world and bolt!

[bubbaray]

Reading what bubbaray posted was interesting b/c I just can't wrap my brain around writing something like that. Under 2, it's harmful. At 2 yrs. and 1 day it's not. Seriously, how does that make sense? Over 12, it will cause a child to be aggressive. At 11 1/2, it won't. Huh? If there were no other way to teach and protect a child, it would be different, but I think most of us would agree that other methods ARE effective, some would even say more effective.


I absolutely agree with you. And, yeah, unfortunately, this is not the first time the SCC has rendered a decision that left the public at large, as well as the legal profession, scratching their heads in bewilderment. Our top court is about as out-of-touch with reality as the USSC.


I really do think Binnie's dissent nailed it, both from a common-sense point of view, but also with respect to the constitutional/Charter questions.

[JTsMom]

I really do think Binnie's dissent nailed it, both from a common-sense point of view, but also with respect to the constitutional/Charter questions.

Yep, me too. And I honestly believe that it's just a matter of time before the majority of us feel that way. After all, it wasn't so long ago that husbands could hit their wives, as long as it "didn't go too far".

[dcmom2b3]

After all, it wasn't so long ago that husbands could hit their wives, as long as it "didn't go too far".

IIRC, that's the origin of the phrase "rule of thumb" -- a husband couldn't strike his wife with a stick larger in circumference than his thumb. A "handy" point of reference.

I can't bring myself to write the long post my heart and mind want me to . . . too emotional. In short, violence has no place in our families, communities or schools.

[Nooknookmom]

Ooops, sorry to post that and not check back, but it looks like you guys had it pretty well covered. Yeah, the Pearls are sick, sick people. If you check out the reviews on Amazon, this one is on the first page.

BIG OLD WARNING-This is going to be sick stuff, so if you're sensitive, you may want to just skip the rest of my post. (Do we have spoiler tags here? I'd love to cover it.)

Examples:
1) The Pearls recommend whipping infants only a few months old on their bare skin. They whip their own 4 month old (p.9). They recommend whipping the bare skin of "every child" (p.2) for "Christians and non-Christians" (p.5) and for "every transgression" (p.1). Parents who don't whip their babies into complete submission are portrayed as indifferemt, lazy, careless and neglectful (p.19) and are "creating a Nazi" (p.45).

2) On p.60 they recommend whipping babies who cannot sleep and are crying, and to never allow them "to get up." On p.61 they recommend whipping a 12 month old girl for crying. On p.79 they recommend whipping a 7 month old for screaming.

3) On p.65 co-author Debi Pearl whips the bare leg of a 15 month old she is babysitting, 10 separate times, for not playing with something she tells him to play with. On p.56 Debi Pearl hits a 2 your old so hard "a karate chop like wheeze came from somewhere deep inside" him.

4) On p.59 they recommend whipping a 3 year old until he is "totally broken."

5) On p.44 they say not to let the child's crying while being hit to "cause you to lighten up on the intensity or duration of the spanking."

6) On p.55 the Pearls say a mother should hit her child if he cries for her.

7) On p.80 they recommend giving a child having a tantrum "a swift *forceful* spanking." On the same page they say to whip small children on their bare skin until they stop screaming. "Don't be bullied. Give him more of the same." They say to continue whipping until their crying turns into a "wounded, submissive whimper."

8) On p.46 the Pearls say that if a child does obey before being whipped, whip them anyway. And "if you have to sit on him to spank him,then do not hesitate. And hold him there until he is surrendered. Prove that you are bigger, tougher." "Defeat him totally."

9) On p.47 they recommend their various whips, including "a belt or larger tree branch" to hit children.

10) The Pearls also recommend ignoring an infant's bumped head when he falls to the floor, and ignoring skinned knees (p.86). They also say "if your child is roughed-up by peers, rejoice." (p.81)

11) They recommend pulling a nursing infant's hair (p.7), tripping a non-swimming toddler so she falls into deep water (p.67) and to make children go hungry if they don't "like what is on the table" (p.103). Also on p.103 they say that if children lose their shoes, "let them go without until they (the children) can make the money to buy more."

I'm going to barf. What publishing company would actually print this stuff? Why hasn't some child protective organization investigated these sickos???????

[kijip]

However, note in that one article that the Pearls have sold 400,000 books and 60,000 parents subscribe to their newsletter. Someone is obviously reading and possibly following their advice.


Those are some sad numbers.

[tarabenet]

Read this on the amazon forum "amazon should stop selling this book" (Which I do not agree with, free speech is free speech no matter how disgusting some of it can be)


Whoa! I gotta disagree with you, big-time on one point!
Why should Amazon have to sell every piece of trash any idiot publishes? That is not what free speech is about. And just as a patron can tell a store "I'd like you to sell X" we can say "I do not wish to see Y in your shop and will choose to spend my money elsewhere." THAT is freedom of expression. Personally, I would much prefer that Amazon stop selling that garbage. That doesn't mean I think the government should stop people from writing it if they choose.

Now, as for that lady's story? That is the kind of twisted "understanding" that makes people think the Pearls have good ideas.

[shawnandangel]

Whoa! I gotta disagree with you, big-time on one point!
Why should Amazon have to sell every piece of trash any idiot publishes? That is not what free speech is about. And just as a patron can tell a store "I'd like you to sell X" we can say "I do not wish to see Y in your shop and will choose to spend my money elsewhere." THAT is freedom of expression. Personally, I would much prefer that Amazon stop selling that garbage. That doesn't mean I think the government should stop people from writing it if they choose.

Now, as for that lady's story? That is the kind of twisted "understanding" that makes people think the Pearls have good ideas.

Amazon does not have to sell that book. My point was that they should have the right to choose whether or not to sell the book. Yes we all disagree with the book, but what if one of us wanted the book as a point of reference for a paper on, say, child abuse? I'd probably buy the book from Amazon instead of getting it from the library so I could highlight it and write notes in the margains ect.