|
Post by doggie on Feb 15, 2010 2:48:33 GMT -5
a little more info. OREGON CITY — Until the faith-healing death of an Oregon City girl this month, members of the Followers of Christ Church appear to have lost just one child to sickness since 1999, when Oregon banned parents from treating gravely ill children solely with prayer.
Tyler Duane Shaw of Oregon City died in 2003, three days short of his second birthday, of sudden complications from a throat infection. “His death was not considered to be anything but a natural death that had no indications of abuse or neglect,” said Dr. Clifford Nelson, deputy state medical examiner.
Church members declined to discuss religious beliefs and practices with The Oregonian. But child abuse detectives, medical examiners and many other Clackamas County officials said they have seen signs of positive change in the church since the late 1990s, when several Followers of Christ children died from medically treatable conditions. Faith Healing The term ‘faith healing’ refers to healing that occurs supernaturally — as the result of prayer rather than the use of medicines or the involvement of physicians or other medical care. But while faith healings do take place today just as they did in the early Christian church, the teachings of some churches, movements and individuals on this subject amount to spiritual abuse. Legitimate churches and movements do not equal using drugs or receiving proper medical attention with unbelief, insufficient faith, or otherwise sinning against God.
Research resources on faith healing Commentary/resources by ReligionNewsBlog.com
Since the new laws took effect in 1999, said child abuse Detective Jeff Green of the Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office, “We haven’t seen any cases of significant medical neglect . . . until now.”
Fifteen-month-old Ava Worthington died at home March 2 of bronchial pneumonia and a blood infection that could have been treated with antibiotics, according to the state medical examiner’s office.
On Friday, a Clackamas County grand jury indicted her parents, Carl Brent and Raylene Worthington, on charges of second-degree manslaughter and criminal mistreatment.
Ava Worthington’s death brought back memories of Followers of Christ children who suffered and died before Oregon removed religious exemptions from state child abuse and homicide laws.
Tyler Shaw’s sister, 51/2-month-old Valarie Lynn Shaw, was one of three Followers of Christ children who died in 1997 and 1998 after parents tried to heal them with prayer. The deaths, all from medically treatable conditions, sparked a firestorm among state legislators, who promptly struck down legal shields for faith-healing parents.
Before the law changed, church members who got in traffic accidents would take injured children home, rather than to the hospital, leaving police frustrated but powerless to intervene, Green said.
In the two years after the law passed, detectives responded to two cases of sick or injured Followers of Christ children, Green said. One child had Crohn’s disease and the other had a broken arm, which church members had tried to set themselves. In both cases, parents complied without protest when police insisted that they take their children to licensed physicians.
Green said that until this month’s death of Ava Worthington, he hadn’t heard of any cases over the past nine years in which a Followers of Christ child might have died because of medical neglect.
Ava Worthington’s parents also lost a baby boy in August 2001, but the death investigation was closed after family members told police the child was stillborn. Several other Followers of Christ children have also been stillborn or died during home births in recent years, but none of the investigated deaths resulted in criminal charges.
“They either had gotten the point, or there hadn’t been anything serious enough to rise to this level of involvement,” Green said.
The Clackamas County district attorney’s office formally reached out to Followers of Christ leaders at least twice in the past decade to make sure they understood legal requirements for pediatric medical care.
In August 1999, then-District Attorney Terry Gustafson sent a letter to the church about the new laws.
In June 2004, four or five Followers of Christ leaders met with prosecutors, police and medical examiner officials. Sitting in the district attorney’s law library, the leaders listened as officials explained parental responsibilities and the investigative procedures that follow the death of a child, said Greg Horner, chief deputy district attorney, who attended the meeting.
The leaders pledged to post a memo in their church, explaining to the Followers of Christ what the law required.
“They were polite,” Horner said. “They were receptive. They understood.”
There hasn’t been a similar meeting since 2004, and Horner said his office hasn’t considered one. “I’ve been focusing on what’s right ahead of us,” he said, referring to the Worthington case.
The Oregon City church, which is not associated with a mainstream denomination, traces its origins to the faith-healing Pentecostal movement of the late 1800s and early 1900s. After several splits over religious doctrine, Walter T. White, the charismatic nephew of one of the early founders, brought a splinter group to Oregon in the 1930s.
White died in 1969, and the last of his ordained elders died in 1986, but church members continue to meet Thursdays and Sundays in a beige one-story building marked only by a hand-lettered sign. Followers of Christ decline to speak publicly about their church, and a reporter who visited the church Thursday was turned away.
For decades, the close-knit and private Followers of Christ have shunned members who strayed from the flock. According to Valarie Shaw’s 60-year-old great uncle, Darrell Shaw of Milwaukie, that’s what they did after he left the church some 25 years ago, which makes it hard for him to know how they’re handling sick kids these days.
“They didn’t even call me when my parents passed away,” he said.
Darrell Shaw left the church long before his niece died of a massive infection. He said a police officer gave him the grim news that emergency medical care could have saved her life.
When legislators sent a strong message to faith-healing parents in 1999, he said it was a relief.
“I thought they would probably take their kids to the doctor. They don’t believe in breaking the law,” he said.
“I figured, at least the kids will be safe now.”
Sidebar: Followers of Christ
Child and infant burials at the Followers of Christ Church cemetery since 1999, when Oregon cracked down on faith-healing deaths of children. Names with one date indicate infants who were stillborn or died shortly after birth. Under Oregon law, stillbirths do not require a death investigation.
* Baby girl Pedracini, Oct. 18, 2000: Investigated by Oregon City police; family members told police she was stillborn. * Michael Jewell Conley, June 1, 2001: No recorded police investigation. * Baby boy Worthington, Aug. 29, 2001: Investigated by Oregon City police; family members told police he was stillborn and three months premature. (The boy’s parents, Raylene and Carl Brent Worthington, were indicted in the March 2 death of 15-month-old daughter Ava, who died of what the medical examiner called treatable conditions.) * Tyler Duane Shaw, Feb. 3, 2001-Jan. 31, 2003: Clackamas County sheriff suspended investigation after medical examiner ruled Tyler’s death natural, with no evidence of neglect. (Tyler’s sister Valarie died Jan. 1, 1998, from what a medical examiner called treatable conditions.) * Baby girl Hansen, Aug. 28, 2003: No recorded police investigation. * Julia Lynn Hickman, Feb. 16, 2006: Clackamas County sheriff’s investigation determined she died of natural causes shortly after
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Feb 15, 2010 5:18:26 GMT -5
Honestly, I feel differently about Andrea Yates--because she suffered from Post-Partum Depression and because a long history of systemic abuse and torture of children was never reported. So, yes, I feel differently. Not a free pass, but what she did fundamentally different from long time torture. As far as demonization goes, though, I'm all for demonizing these parents. There's a place for philosophical speculation about the Milgram experiments and the banality of evil, but honestly? Sometimes I just think we need to be able to have our emotional responses to tragedies like this. And we need to be able to call them "evil" if that's what we're feeling. Sometimes, maybe that's what some of us need to keep making the world go on, or something. All I know is that my retributive senses get all up in arms over stories like this. I know the thread has moved beyond this (I'm on a different time zone), but I wanted to clarify my position (if possible). KM, I've been abused. My abuser is my flesh and blood father and I have no compassion for him despite this, because what he's done to me outweighs whatever suffering he's felt along the way. I've been subject to many lectures about how I ought to forgive and try to understand him (rather than cutting off communication, which I've done). These are the people who want to give him a free pass out of some equalizing impulse: their thinking seems to be that we all suffer, and therefore none of us are to blame. This is not my position. My problem with demonizing child abusers is that it makes them into some kind of anomaly that we can stop thinking about, whereas the sheer number and frequency of cases points to a social problem. I don't excuse my father for all he has done, but the most important thing to me is to figure out what factors allowed him to develop this way. (I think I do know quite a few of them.) This information could help me, for example, prevent my hypothetical son from developing the same characteristics. I think fundamentalism (not to touch the side debate on its definition for now, as I'm pressed for time) does encourage a rigid hierarchical thought process in which men are at the top of the totem pole and feel entitled to control their wives and children in ways that are abusive. Likewise women, lacking any influence in their marriages, are told that they have absolute power over their children (assuming their husband doesn't disagree with their actions, of course). This kind of power dynamic fosters a self-centred, entitled mindset that leads to exploitation of others. This is an environment where abuse can take root and flourish easily. I knew I could never marry a boy from my church when a six-year-old told me in no uncertain terms that his wife would never get a job but would stay home and take care of his kids. Six years old. Srsly.
|
|
|
Post by princessjo1988 on Feb 15, 2010 7:14:16 GMT -5
Well said, Sierra. Pretty much my thoughts on the topic. I think often, our past experiences cloud our judgement on this topic. I know for me, my abuser had a full face beard and for ages I saw any man with a beard as the type to abuse. It is probably why I never let my hubby grow one. In saying that, over time I have met people whom possess beards and aren't abusive, so I am not so judgemental anymore. I will probably never go out of my way to meet someone with a beard, but I am getting to the stage where I no longer avoid them completely . Jo
|
|
|
Post by km on Feb 15, 2010 8:26:29 GMT -5
So, what is a "fundamentalist" to you? Is it more about doctrine/belief (as in the book "The Fundamentals" published many years ago), or is it about extreme living? Because most self-described biblical fundamentalists don't even recognize what you are talking about. Exorcism? I've never met a person who said they exorcised and I've been part of the Independent Baptist Fundamentalist movement all my life. If you aren't careful, you can go just as overboard in your dealing with these people as those you decry. There are abused people "in the system" of Child protective services even. IOW, you hear about people killing/abusing a foster child--that is killing--not "just" locking them up (as bad as that is!). I'm not sure what group these people come from...I'd call them some sort of a "cult/extreme group" but stay away from the term "fundamentalist" which should be more attached to doctrine and practice and not only really strange, extreme people who don't live like normal people. IOW, I think you call anyone a "fundamentalist" who is strict/high standards of dress, behavior and home school and believe in no b/c. This does not do the word justice. This is also one reason that it no longer means anything to be called a "fundamentalist". The word has been hijacked away from what it meant when it started.. sharperiron.org/article/fundamentalist-challenge-for-21st-century-do-we-have-future-part-2about half way down the front page is a bit about historic fundamentalism...if anyone wants to learn about it. (Just because you are a Gothardite, or a QF or a follow the Pearls doesn't make you a "fundamentalist"). I'm sure Dobson would in no way appreciate being linked with child abuse. He is definitely not FOR abuse. If you try to be the "Star" of the web with sensational stories (this article is based on speculation.) Why don't you do research about their home church before you write a whole article about them and their possibly fundamentalism. ? I just wanted to say that I would really never ever like to be a "star of the internets." If I did, I'd use my real name and promote my very best writing, among other things. Vyckie requested to publish the post here only after I contacted her (via the NLQ chat) to find out if she knew anything more about this family. I just wrote that post because I was trying to find out more information. And I allowed Vyckie to publish it because (1) I do want people to be talking about the dangers of religiously-motivated abuse and (2) I know that this is a community where people *do* know more about these issues than I do. I thought that someone might even say something like, "Yes, I did know this family, and yes they are in ATIA" or something like that. My blog is a new and mostly pretty quiet affair. I've turned down guest blogging stints at big blogs like feministe (solicited due to of an active commenting history) because, as I say, I find the big blogging thing stressful and a little tiresome and am not out to make my blog huge. Anyway... I think Christian fundamentalists are people who read the Bible as the true and inerrant word of God, as a document that is fundamentally true irrespective of cultural context and historical specificity. I do think that Gothardites and Dobson-followers are fundamentalists. Further, I interpret the Dobson quotes from the Daily Kos as suggesting that Dobson does, in fact, advocate child abuse. It is fair for us to disagree about the definition of Christian fundamentalism. I assure you that I've had personal experience with virtually every manifestation of Christian fundamentalism in the United States through my family (and later personal spiritual seeking and friendships). Your conservative church experience may not include exorcisms or speaking in tongues, as Christian fundamentalists are by no means a monolith. Let me know if you would prefer not to be called a "fundamentalist." I do it because I think I remember you self-identifying that way in previous posts, but I'll change my language if I'm wrong. But many other Christian fundamentalists are more influenced by the Pentacostal and/or Charismatic movements and do include these practices in their spiritual practice (See, for instance, the documentary "Jesus Camp"). I would rather not get bogged down in a lengthy discussion about definitions, but I understand that you have a different definition. You are of course welcome to your opinion, and we will have to agree to disagree. I am operating using a definition that I think is not too far "out there" for most readers of this blog. I also understand that not all Gothardites are Quiverfull (Though I'd have a major disagreement with your contention that not all are fundamentalists.).
|
|
|
Post by km on Feb 15, 2010 8:29:46 GMT -5
I know the thread has moved beyond this (I'm on a different time zone), but I wanted to clarify my position (if possible). KM, I've been abused. My abuser is my flesh and blood father and I have no compassion for him despite this, because what he's done to me outweighs whatever suffering he's felt along the way. I've been subject to many lectures about how I ought to forgive and try to understand him (rather than cutting off communication, which I've done). These are the people who want to give him a free pass out of some equalizing impulse: their thinking seems to be that we all suffer, and therefore none of us are to blame. This is not my position. My problem with demonizing child abusers is that it makes them into some kind of anomaly that we can stop thinking about, whereas the sheer number and frequency of cases points to a social problem. I don't excuse my father for all he has done, but the most important thing to me is to figure out what factors allowed him to develop this way. (I think I do know quite a few of them.) This information could help me, for example, prevent my hypothetical son from developing the same characteristics. I think fundamentalism (not to touch the side debate on its definition for now, as I'm pressed for time) does encourage a rigid hierarchical thought process in which men are at the top of the totem pole and feel entitled to control their wives and children in ways that are abusive. Likewise women, lacking any influence in their marriages, are told that they have absolute power over their children (assuming their husband doesn't disagree with their actions, of course). This kind of power dynamic fosters a self-centred, entitled mindset that leads to exploitation of others. This is an environment where abuse can take root and flourish easily. I knew I could never marry a boy from my church when a six-year-old told me in no uncertain terms that his wife would never get a job but would stay home and take care of his kids. Six years old. Srsly. Sierra: I agree with this, and I also think the most important task is to illuminate a social problem (rather than an aberrant individual).
|
|
|
Post by dangermom on Feb 15, 2010 11:26:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by km on Feb 15, 2010 11:48:59 GMT -5
Thanks. I didn't know about that blog. Seems like a very good resource.
|
|
|
Post by musicmom on Feb 15, 2010 11:56:48 GMT -5
KM, I honestly don't see any good options, either. I think these cases are increasing people's awareness that seemingly-normal families can be abusive. In a way it's bad (to me) -- because it means that in some people's minds, a "red flag" will pop up anytime they learn that their new neighbors are homeschoolers. But, of course, it also means that some people will be more likely to call the child abuse hotline if they suspect anything amiss in any home. But, of course, that kind of depends on neighbors being interested enough to notice stuff. I actually see this as similar to the "war on terror"-mentality, in that I disagree with us all having to give up our privacy "just in case" one of us might be part of a terrorist group. But ... child abuse is a lot more prevalent than terrorism. Still, I think giving up our privacy would mean severely lowering our quality of life. I'm not sure where to draw the line. When I was in social work school in college, one of my fellow students strongly felt that, to protect children, there really needed to be video surveilance of every home -- and I mean INSIDE every home. She felt that you can't really know what's going on unless you can SEE in the homes, because abusive parents can persuade everyone that they're nice people. But I just can't imagine living like that. Sigh. Remember when Vyckie feared how Marxist she was sounding? When faced with the impossibility of preventing child abuse in private homes, I find myself wondering if perhaps Marx (and Plato before him) were right after all - that all child-rearing should be public and professional. Like I said in an earlier post, I think most parents abuse their kids in some way or another - emotionally or psychologically or otherwise - only because they were raised that way and didn't realize how harmful it is. I know that I endured a humiliating amount of emotional abuse growing up and no one at school knew and no one could help - because there were no scars, and even if they had known what was going on, in those days, it wouldn't have sounded like a big deal. My mom was doing the best she could with what she knew - which, admittedly, was not much at all. It was only as I was recovering from the QF lifestyle that I even became aware of fear-based parenting and how harmful it is for kids. Do you all wonder what that would be like? Marx used to describe community kitchens (no more dishes!!), laundries (oh, so sad!) and professional round-the-clock childcare. (people actually trained in child development!!!). Well, I know this country is not even close to abandoning its dearly held private-home model, if ever, but I have to admit, Marx and Plato make a lot more sense to me now than they did 20 years ago. My only major difference with them might be that I would never, in a million years, make their ideas compulsory. Society would have to evolve naturally in that direction somehow - which would probably take the next 1000 years or so.
|
|
|
Post by susan on Feb 15, 2010 15:14:27 GMT -5
Musicmom -- I actually love the idea of community kitchens and community laundries. I think it would be awesome if every block had one huge house/building, with a huge laundry room where all the families could go to wash their clothing, and a huge kitchen and dining area, where everyone on the block could get together for evening meals.
Each family could take their turn doing cooking and cleanup. Oh, I so powerfully miss the days back before dh and I got our washer and dryer, and we used to all go hang out at the laundromat on Saturday mornings (we did it then so he could help me with dd, since our oldest was then a very busy toddler). We saw some of the same people every week, and I miss them.
Of course, laundry became a lot cheaper and more convenient after we got our own washer and dryer. But if we had a laundry right on the block and didn't have to drive to one, and all the other mamas were coming there too -- just think what a sense of community we'd have ...
With our children all playing as we visited and did our laundry, and as we all ate together every evening. I'd still want the option of cooking hot breakfast and lunch at home when we wanted to -- but, honestly, going in together for evening meals sounds like a lot of fun. So long as families could opt out when they felt like a quiet evening at home.
I think this would alleviate much of the stress that mothers now experience, since I think the stress is partly related to feeling isolated.
But what you suggest about childrearing being taken from parents and given to professionals -- that sounds really yucky to me! I know some professionals who think I need to be a lot more strict with my children ... and I kind of consider myself somewhat professional since I have an Associates in Child Care education, and lots of experience in the Early Childhood field, in addition to these past 10 years that I've spent being a stay-at-home-mom.
There are some professionals who I wouldn't trust to care for my children without me being there. Not because of their "worldliness" -- but because they come across to me as not respecting children as human beings in their own right.
|
|
|
Post by musicmom on Feb 15, 2010 18:23:53 GMT -5
Yes, Susan - I hear you on that for sure.
I think what would be the coolest is for that kind of child care to be available and free, not compulsory for everyone. I honestly think some of us are cut out to be mothers and do it really well, and some of us aren't. Personally, at times in my life, I think I've been excellent, and at other times, I feel more focused elsewhere and then I either have to give up where I feel led to explore, or in some way neglect being the best parent I could be.
In a sense, it would give women the same chance as men to develop themselves and still get to be a parent - albeit with a lot of support staff!
There's also a lot of people out there who haven't studied child development and have no interest in it. They are bringing up their kids the best they can, but probably with the same mistakes their own parents made. If these people had another option, they'd probably take it, and how much better off for the kids too???
Well, I am just dreaming here. Sometimes I just try to imagine what our society would have to look like in order to be truly fair and just to women and children - and no matter how you slice it, it's a lot different than now.
|
|
|
Post by km on Feb 15, 2010 20:46:12 GMT -5
Yes, Susan - I hear you on that for sure. I think what would be the coolest is for that kind of child care to be available and free , not compulsory for everyone. I honestly think some of us are cut out to be mothers and do it really well, and some of us aren't. Personally, at times in my life, I think I've been excellent, and at other times, I feel more focused elsewhere and then I either have to give up where I feel led to explore, or in some way neglect being the best parent I could be. Canada has free child care so that working class parents are able to, you know, work or go to school. When I was a graduate student in Canada, students could access this free daycare (There's no requirement to have paid a certain amount of taxes "into the system."). As I'm sure you know, most industrialized social democracies provide many services and benefits to their citizens that we've become accustomed to dismissing as "socialist." When I came back to the United States as a graduate student, I found myself in an environment that was not nearly as "pro-family," so to speak. Women graduate students were still being encouraged not to have children (Just like we'd never left the 1950's, except it was 2007!). And all staff lost their access to family leave (Meanwhile, tenured faculty held on to their cushy semester-long leave benefits.). For me, being "for families" has nothing to do with the Christian Right perversion of the phrase, but with having goods and services in place so that families can be the best possible versions of themselves (day care services, abuse prevention training, healthcare, maternity leave, time with the family, etc.).
|
|
|
Post by dangermom on Feb 15, 2010 21:13:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Feb 15, 2010 21:41:54 GMT -5
Wow, thank you for following up on that, Dangermom. Musicmom, the places where people have made childcare really public, it hasnt' worked very well - the Israeli kibbutzim have mostly (maybe all by now) given up communal childrearing as the kids raised that way grow up, and the various communes in the US that do it (Twin Oaks in Virginia, for sure) gave it up after brief stints. There was an anabaptist group that also broke up nuclear families - maybe one of the Hutterite groups? Anyway, the groups that do this are so small it's like being raised in extended family, and they don't do baby creches - they keep babies in the bedroom w/mom and dad for up to 2 years, and with mom all day.
I'm trying to think of other groups that did it - the Osho people didn't give it up, but their movement fell apart before the kids they were raising grew up. The Amana Colonies took in lots of unattached kids right before they fell apart, but before that families mostly stayed together.
Kids really need a specific person to bond with, no matter how good all the other aspects of their lives are. That's not surprising -adults need it too. On the other hand, day child care - which, no matter what the anti-working-mom types say, isn't "letting strangers raise your child" works great, especially with well-funded daycares with good training and low staff turnover. And that's fairly achievable.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Feb 15, 2010 21:46:19 GMT -5
And, WOW, dangermom, that other article at the gaither blog - WOW. I wonder how many states have that joint decisionmaking language in their divorce laws? Having patriarchal beliefs so strong you can't coparent equally disqualified Mr. Gertner from custody. Full stop. How much more antifamily can a belief system be?
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Feb 15, 2010 22:33:39 GMT -5
If you try to be the "Star" of the web with sensational stories (this article is based on speculation.) Why don't you do research about their home church before you write a whole article about them and their possibly fundamentalism. ? Becky ~ this really did come across as mean-spirited ~ I believe KM asked a valid question with regard to this couple ~ and she did say in her article that it is speculation ~ though all these various clues are adding up to the point the we can reasonably draw a few conclusions ~ and if nothing else, it's been a starting point for some interesting discussions. I'm curious to know why you are so dedicated to preserving the correct meaning of the word "fundamentalist"? The "F-word" ~ oh my! LOL It's kind of ironic, but when I was a fundamental Baptist, I remember the pastor would often make the point of proudly claiming the title "fundamentalist" ~ because, he said, the word "fundamentalist" implies that the teachings and doctrines are based on the FUNDAMENTAL truths of scripture ~ in other words ~ we had the most faithful interpretation scripture and our practices which were based those fundamental principles represented the most faithful adherence to the true meaning and intent of the Christian faith. After the 9/11 attacks on the WTC, I heard many right-wing talk show hosts, radio preachers, etc. state that the liberals were being "disingenuous" when they attributed the terrorist activities to "fundamentalists" ~ implying that mainstream Muslims would never condone such tactics. WELL ~ these preachers said ~ since "fundamentalists" by definition are the practitioners of the FUNDAMENTALS of the Muslim religion ~ whatever they were believing and doing was necessarily the most authentic, dedicated and truthful interpretation and practice of their religion. So, by claiming that the terrorists were Muslim "fundamentalists" ~ the liberals were basically conceding that terrorism is a FUNDAMENTAL element of Islamic religion. How's that for cold, hard, indisputable logic?
|
|
|
Post by kindaconfused on Feb 15, 2010 22:56:49 GMT -5
Further, I interpret the Dobson quotes from the Daily Kos as suggesting that Dobson does, in fact, advocate child abuse.
I hate to get off on a tangent, but please, could you provide me with a specific quote of Dobson's from the Daily Kos, I would like to know what is being interperted as advocating child abuse.
I will admit, I read this not knowing what the Daily Kos was. I googled it and the website came up as the first item on the list.
The truncated description is: Daily weblog with political analysis on US current events from a liberal perspective.
Liberals hate James Dobson, I don't think it is too much of a stretch to think they may spin his words, so again, please specific quotes.
Also, I'm not sure how you would group Dobson with Gothard. I had never even heard of Gothard until the Duggars came on the air with their trips to ATI.
Dobson is certainly more 'mainstream'
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Feb 15, 2010 22:59:45 GMT -5
You know, some of us liberals hate James Dobson because our parents used his parenting books. Just saying. oh, and I'm not going to read any of his drivel to come up with real quotes but Wikipedia quotes his "win decisively" line here (along with his statement that parents should spank but "not harshly", whatever that's supposed to mean) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dobson#Views_on_discipline_within_the_family
|
|
|
Post by journey on Feb 15, 2010 23:10:18 GMT -5
I agree that Dobson and the Pearls are miles apart in some ways.....and yet in a lot of ways, they are very similar. The primary way that they are similar is that both set up parents and children as ADVERSARIES. Both teach that a baby/toddler is trying to compete against his parents for dominance over the home, that toddlers/babies can "manipulate" parents, and that the parent must ever be on guard against such manipulation and all other attempts by the young tyrant to usurp the family hierarchy. So both, though using different methods, promote a "win at all costs" mentality that assumes there is a contest going on between parent and child, from birth. It sets up an adversarial parenting relationship from the get-go, which, in my opinion, is the most dangerous and destructive aspect of those parenting teachers.
|
|
|
Post by WanderingOne on Feb 15, 2010 23:44:23 GMT -5
YES! my parents and aunts and uncles certainly listened to--and used--both Dobson and Pearl. Although it was always clearly noted that Dobson was "too liberal" in many areas, his teachings about dealing with disagreements between parents and children were considered valuable.
I really, really wanted to be a good, obedient, and submissive daughter, but...man, sometimes it was just darn near impossible. I was accused of being manipulative, of not respecting authority, of trying to undermine my parents' wishes...and then all hell would break loose. =( I'm sure there are people who listen to Dobson, without going to the extremes that my family does. I am sure that many people who listen to Dobson would think that what my family does is wrong and unjustifiable...but you've got to admit that his teachings contain the seeds feed that sort of thing--and that they help those seeds grow.
|
|
|
Post by km on Feb 16, 2010 8:17:32 GMT -5
Liberals hate James Dobson, I don't think it is too much of a stretch to think they may spin his words, so again, please specific quotes. Dobson quotes (linked in my post) which, you know, you were welcome to read for yourself all along: Q: How long do you think a child should be allowed to cry after being punished or spanked? Is there a limit? A: Yes, I believe there should be a limit. As long as the tears represent a genuine release of emotion, they should be permitted to fall. But crying can quickly change from inner sobbing to an expression of protest aimed at punishing the enemy. Real crying usually lasts two minutes or less but may continue for five. After that point, the child is merely complaining, and the change can be recognized in the tone and intensity of his voice. I would require him to stop the protest crying, usually by offering him a little more of whatever caused the original tears. g) In a manner almost identical to that of the Pearls, Dobson promotes the dominionist myth of "Tyrant babies": A child's resistant behavior always contains a message to his parents, which they must decode before responding. That message is often phrased in the form of a question: `Are you in charge or am I?' A distinct reply is appropriate to discourage future attempts to overthrow constituted government in the home. (p. 29, The New Dare to Discipline) h) Dobson advocates tough-love from the time Junior exits the womb: If discipline begins on the second day of life, you're one day too late. (p. 28, ibid.) i) Like every other promoter of religiously motivated child abuse, Dobson promotes his abusive tactics as a religious mandate: My primary purpose...has been to record for posterity my understanding of the Judeo-Christian concept of parenting that has guided millions of mothers and fathers for centuries. (p. 18, ibid.) j) Disturbingly, he uses his own history of rather extreme child abuse as an example (in the same manner that he used the Scourging of Siggie in The New Strong-Willed Child). He begins a rather wistful recollection of his own beatings by his own mother: I learned very early that if I was going to launch a flippant attack on her, I had better be standing at least twelve feet away. This distance was necessary to avoid an instantaneous response--usually aimed at my backside. (p. 23, The New Dare to Discpipline) On pages 23-24 Dobson recounts being flogged on a regular basis with a girdle "with a multitude of straps and buckles" by his own mother; at the end, he states "Believe it or not, it made me feel loved."
|
|
|
Post by runawaybride on Feb 16, 2010 8:40:44 GMT -5
Community Kitchens - OK if Participation is not MANDATORY. There are times when that would have come in very handy for me and my girl.. but also, I prefer to be home, I want that choice.
Community Laundry - OK in cities.. but what about the country? I don't want to have to drive to do my laundry.
State sponsored community child rearing? Not just no.. HELL no. my first sexual abuse came from a teacher in school. My daughter is on crutches ( she got out of a wheelchair on Friday Yippie!) because of knee injuries caused or excabberated by seniors knocking down the 8th graders in the hall for fun. Not to sound like the QF/Dress People, but she DID learn a lot of utter crap that no person in their right mind would want a child learning about sex, such as what a Dirty Sanchez is, at School. I think a lot of homeschoolers would agree that the schools leave a LOT to be desired, shelterers or not. Imagine how much worse that would be if it was cradle to age 18 . Then you have the whole bullshit hierarchy of high school... cheereaders, jocks, etc. ... nope,. HELL no.
Yes, some parents suck. Most love their children. You can't say the same about state workers, just as a high a percentage, I am sure, also suck. I'd rather have the majority of kids loved.
|
|
|
Post by runawaybride on Feb 16, 2010 8:45:24 GMT -5
" On pages 23-24 Dobson recounts being flogged on a regular basis with a girdle "with a multitude of straps and buckles" by his own mother; at the end, he states "Believe it or not, it made me feel loved."
I am quite sure there is a woman in a back corset with a whip somewhere in his entourage who is well paid for her service and silence.
|
|
|
Post by runawaybride on Feb 16, 2010 8:49:07 GMT -5
While we are on the subject... communities need more resources for teens. There needs to be something constructive and engaging for them to do, something that makes them feel valued and like they contribute, as well as fun things in the community. In all honesty, I liked Obama's youth corp idea... (as long as its on a volunteer basis and kept local) not that he's done one thing to further it.
We have a town pool that I thank God for every day of the summer. Its great. We have a good Y too. What we don't have is public transport to get the kids there, needed particularly in the winter for the Y as its on the outskirts of town (clear on the other side from my outskirt location)
|
|
|
Post by km on Feb 16, 2010 9:13:16 GMT -5
The "child being raised by the government" thing is never going to happen, and it's becoming a bit of a derail. Could we move on?
Free access to daycare *is* something that is provided in a number of industrialized countries and that works well. It's not a utopian imagining from the nineteenth century. Let's just be realistic and not conflate the two.
|
|
|
Post by km on Feb 16, 2010 9:15:30 GMT -5
" On pages 23-24 Dobson recounts being flogged on a regular basis with a girdle "with a multitude of straps and buckles" by his own mother; at the end, he states "Believe it or not, it made me feel loved." I am quite sure there is a woman in a back corset with a whip somewhere in his entourage who is well paid for her service and silence. Okay, sorry, again, but that was one of the most troubling examples of Dobson's endorsement of child abuse IMO. Does it need to be made into a joke?
|
|