|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Feb 19, 2010 16:29:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Feb 19, 2010 17:22:39 GMT -5
Thank you, WanderingOne. Stuff like this needs to be out there.
|
|
|
Post by susan on Feb 19, 2010 19:03:59 GMT -5
Thank you, WanderingOne. Stuff like this needs to be out there. I agree. The more we get it out there, the more people will realize that it's not just aberrant people -- it's actually harmful, deadly teaching. Great article, WanderingOne!
|
|
|
Post by journey on Feb 19, 2010 20:13:36 GMT -5
I was given the Pearls parenting book at my baby shower, when I was pregnant with my first child. I am so sorrowful now when I remember how many *I* later handed out myself. The Pearls are such a perfect example of the FEAR that this entire system plants and feeds in the minds of its adherants. "If you do it OUR way, you will have happy God-loving children. If you don't, you will be consigning your child to HELL." I have heard so many horror stories about the Pearl's methods being used on young babies and children that it's hard to even think about them. One, read on the Pearl's oldest daughter's and her husband's discussion forum (about 3 or 4 years ago now), was of a baby being switched over and over again for the crime of "fussing to be picked up" while in the highchair or walker...switched for hours, sometimes, until the baby finally fell asleep in exhaustion, all so that the baby would learn NOT to try and "manipulate" her parents by fussing to get something. This parent, a young missionary mother, was writing in, confused and not sure if she was doing something wrong, since her training didn't seem to be teaching her child not to fuss, and she was getting worried that the training sessions were lasting so long. Want to know what Gabrial Anast did? Wrote a little note about how some people might see these things as abusive, moved the woman's comment to a private discussion area, but NEVER ONCE said that such behavior was NOT what the Pearls were teaching, never ONCE said that such behavior was wrong, cruel, or inappropriate, never once said anything OTHER than how sad it was that they couldn't talk about such things openly because ungodly people might use such information to report parents for abuse!!! And then there are some other sad stories, not quite as bad but close. Some of those horror stories have been things I've had to see, as a direct result of my handing the book to someone "back in the day." To say I have strong feelings about the Pearls is putting it lightly. *feels sick*
|
|
|
Post by musicmom on Feb 19, 2010 20:56:58 GMT -5
As tragic and harmful as the physical punishment and pain that the kids endure is, I think there is one element even more insidious.
The fact that those kids are being raised in the schizophrenic mindset of thinking that their parent, by disciplining them in this way, are LOVING them is far worse. I mean, it's one thing to know that you are being abused and that's bad enough. But to be abused, and think that you're being shown love - that's what really screws with your mind and lasts a lifetime.
At least now the other kids might have an inkling that being treated that way is, in no way imaginable, related to love.
|
|
|
Post by journey on Feb 19, 2010 23:43:06 GMT -5
I mean, it's one thing to know that you are being abused and that's bad enough. But to be abused, and think that you're being shown love - that's what really screws with your mind and lasts a lifetime. musicmom, YES. You nailed it. In fact, that's also what was so confusing about being an abused wife in "biblical patriarchy," because I was being TOLD one thing (that this was godly, good, and pure) but experiencing a totally opposite thing (that this was destructive, painful and soul-killing). Same with the child who is switched every time he fails to be perfect, to be cheerful, to instantly drop everything upon command and obey. He is TOLD that God and goodness and all-things-holy are in support of the switching, but what he experiences is something altogether different. The whole thing removes your ability to process. You can't process through your feelings, because if your feelings are not telling you how GOOD it is, then your feelings are sinful. You can't process through your thoughts on the matter, because if your thoughts are telling you how GOOD it is, then your thoughts are sinful. It's such a mess.
|
|
|
Post by madame on Feb 20, 2010 3:44:58 GMT -5
Thanks for writing about this sad topic on this board. When I first read the news article (linked to from here, on another thread) I couldn't stop thinking how did they ever manage to adopt those three children from a war-torn country? And above all, why did they adopt them if they weren't ready to love them and offer them a loving home? But I guess they believe that they were saving three children from being raised to be idol-worshippers or humanists. To those parents, as Musicmom and Journey have said already, beating their children is love. They are saving those children from hell. I'm wondering whether they were trying to beat every trace of African out of those children. Maybe Lydia wasn't picking up American English to their liking? This kind of discipline really messes people up, big time. The Pearls, at least, teach that parents should discipline with the children's clothes on. Others teach to beat children with sticks, on the underwear or even the bare bottom. And well into their teens. Reb Bradley's "child training tips" www.stoptherod.net/child-training-tips.html is full of sickening statements like - p.28-29 “The parent who indulges self-will does the devil’s work…and damns his child, soul and body forever.” A child’s will should be “subdued in the first few years of life”. p.35 “Children must learn while they are still toddlers to obey their parents quickly and without resistance, and to endure hard situations humbly.” “They can learn as early as possible to die to themselves.”
- p.42-43 “To gain respect, parents must cause their children to obey their word. A parent in charge of the home speaks a command one time, calmly and clearly, and is obeyed.” “Do not allow your child to argue with you.” “Aim primarily for (the children’s) respect—not their affection.” p.44-45 “We are not answerable or accountable to our children.” “Require quick obedience. Teach your children to obey without being told ‘why’”. “Our children must learn as toddlers that we will not attempt to talk them into obedience.” p.48 Older children “must learn to humbly accept parental directions without always knowing the reasons why. Give them a time period for demonstrating quiet, humble obedience (perhaps 6-8 weeks), during which all parental commands will be given without reasons, and no appeals will be considered.” p.52-55 “A good motto to teach them is, ‘Obey first. Ask questions later.’” “Never give instructions more than once.” “Repeating instructions is a form of coddling.” p.58 Children “should not be permitted to offer an excuse.”I think it's Richard Fugate's book "What the Bible says about child training" www.stoptherod.net/biblical-child-training-excerpt.html where detailed instructions are given on what kind of instrument to use, how thick, and on how much clothing. Sick. Go to page 181-82. I can't copy and paste from them. Telling children that this is a parent's highest expression of love, that God (the father) expects it from parents and they are only obeying the God of love, is setting children up to have a major crisis of faith at some point in their life. Parents keep turning to such manuals out of fear that their children will be destined to eternal damnation if they don't beat them the right way. Note how much emphasis is placed on doing it "the right way", "consistency", and "until the child surrenders-submits". Parents will be told that they hate their children if they don't beat them. It's taken me a long time to stop feeling guilty for no "biblically chastising" my children. Thank goodness I never really got into it.
|
|
|
Post by abagailmae on Feb 20, 2010 9:03:23 GMT -5
All to often we see the end of a story without a middle or beginning. An abusive person (towards animals and others) becomes an abusive parent, plain and simple.
An abusive person will ALWAYS justify themselves. The kids were bad, he wouldn't stop crying, I never wanted children, the book made me do it, the Bible made me do it, and evil voice made me do it, I was overwhelmed and so on...
The fact is these people in all their "Christian" beliefs probably will not own up to the fact none of these things "made" them murder their child. The chose to murder her, and now they don't want to deal with the consequense of their decision. So they are going to blame it onto someone or something else. Now if the Pearls were standing in the house holding a gun to their head maybe they would have more of an excuse.
But I think all to often we don't want to own up to our own mistakes. We as humans need to be discerning in what we read and what we watch and what we take to heart. Does this stuff influence us yes, but why does it "make" some of us killers while the others can use it for entertainment purposes..(thinking more along the lines of a game.) Or somepeople can use the information for good while others use it as a way to control and manipulate, basically so our own means can be justified.
In the case of the book, who is at fault? Well who implemented the book was it the father or mother? And lets be honest mothers are just as likely to abuse their children as fathers. Just ask my hubby whose mom was and still is the manipulator and abuser in their family the kids are respectively 30, 28, 25. And yes they continue to put up with it why because they are scared of her! (My hubby is the only one who moved out of the house) So yes they are still living at home. She actually sounds like a lot of your husbands. And my mom was also the emotional abuser in our home.
I find it amazing that people, with feelings, emotions and brains will always justify the abuse they inflicted to their own babies when even "thinking" animals won't abuse their young... with at least the same intelligence that humans use....
Susan and Musicmom Sorry I didn't post on the other topic I got very busy with work (Pampered Chef!) and now they changed topics! Have a good weekend!
|
|
|
Post by mommybunny1 on Feb 20, 2010 9:58:56 GMT -5
Good morning. Thank you all so much for opening my eyes to the undercurrent in this country. I had always felt that this sort of extremism was not a threat to the general public. I see now that it is a threat to all of us. It is always shocking to me to read these horrible stories. But to find that this discipline method is marketed in the mainstream on Amazon.com and at Walmart is unconscionable.
These sorts of excesses are obvious. The state is obligated to intervene, hopefully before children die or are badly maimed. But more insidious is the damage done to children who are raised this way without visible scars. When they grow up, what kind of conscience will they have developed? They have had the emotions beaten out of them and they believe that this is the work of God. What kind of robotic spouses and parents will these children become?
Perhaps this explains how people become suicide bombers. The emotions and humanness have been stripped from them. They have been beaten into answering the call the first time, without question and in the name of God.
Scary, scary stuff.
|
|
|
Post by madame on Feb 20, 2010 10:44:58 GMT -5
Abigailmae,
I agree with you that blame shifting will get us nowhere. The parents did the deed(s), and must pay. But I think it's just as important to find out whether they were following someone's philosophy, and let the public know what some people are reading and following in the name of good and godly parenting.
The Pearls didn't make them kill their daughter or beat their other children, but they did write a manual which essentially tells parents they must beat their children into submission. If you go to NGJ, you'll find Michael and Debi Pearl recommending 10 licks, and more if the child doesn't submit, essentially, keep administering discipline till the child does what you want them to do, cheerfully. 10 licks.... WAAAAY too many!
I read an article where Michael even advises a mother to sit on her 4 yo. child until she surrenders, and to spank more and more until she takes it without crying more than you want her to. It's chilling. They even make jokes about it!
In this case, it's very possible that the children were suffering from some post-traumatic syndrome that causes them to act in ways that seem like rebellion to a parent who takes any opposition or resistance to mean rebellion. It's possible that they were following the Pearl's instructions to the letter.
No. Michael and Debi Pearl weren't standing over them with a gun to their heads, commanding "spank!", but the teaching that if you don't "beat the crap(evil) out of them" you hate them and are abandoning them on the highway to hell, is suggestive enough.
I was raised by QF, rod-believing parents who were constantly in stressful situations, mainly because of father's beliefs and his radical obedience to them. I got a lot of rod (but much less than my elder brother). My father and mother both have issues with anger (and so do I), both were overwhelmed most of the time, but didn't usually spank in anger. But they did spank over some of the silliest things (like eating candy at school!), and, of course, if you lied about it, or looked defiant after the spanking, you got more The goal was to make us radically obedient, even to laws we didn't understand, but very often they overdid it.
I don't think of my parents as abusers because I know what motivated them. I know the spanking messed some of us up. I don't want to do the same with my children so I avoid "rod-based" discipline.
My husband was raised by an abusing father, and a qf-style submissive mother. His father beat him and his siblings with various instruments, sometimes not even watching where he hit, sometimes till they bled. He is (or was, he claims) an alcoholic, did drugs off and on, abused (and still abuses ) his wife, believes himself a prophet, etc...
I see a difference. Even if both parents hurt their children.
|
|
|
Post by charis on Feb 20, 2010 10:51:20 GMT -5
Reminds me of an old book which I only recently read and found remarkably insightful! From "People of the Lie" by M Scott Peck Strangely enough, evil people are often destructive because they are attempting to destroy evil. The problem is that they misplace the locus of the evil. Instead of destroying others they should be destroying the sickness within themselves. As life often threatens their self-image of perfection, they are often busily engaged in hating and destroying that life-usually in the name of righteousness. The fault, however, may not be so much that they hate life as that they do not hate the sinful part of themselves. I doubt that Bobby's parents deliberately wanted to kill Stuart or him. I suspect if I had gotten to know them well enough, I would have found their murderous behavior totally dictated by an extreme form of self-protectiveness which invariably sacrificed others rather than themselves.
What is the cause of this failure of self-hatred, this failure to be displeasing to oneself, which seems to be the central sin at the root of the scapegoating behavior of those I call evil? The cause is not, I believe, an absent conscience. ... Conscienceless, psychopaths appear to be bothered or worried by very little-including their own criminality. They seem to be about as happy inside a jail as out. They do attempt to hide their crimes, but their efforts to do so are often feeble and careless and poorly planned. They have sometimes been referred to as "moral imbeciles," and there is almost a quality of innocence to their lack of worry and concern.
This is hardly the case with those I call evil. Utterly dedicated to preserving their self-image of perfection, they are unceasingly engaged in the effort to maintain the appearance of moral purity. They worry about this a great deal. They are acutely sensitive to social norms and what others might think of them. Like Bobby's parents, they dress well, go to work on time, pay their taxes, and outwardly seem to live lives that are above reproach.
The words "image, appearance, and "outwardly" are crucial to understanding the morality of the evil. While they seem to lack any motivation to be good, they intensely desire to appear good. Their "goodness" is all on a level of pretense. It is, in effect, a lie. This is why they are the "people of the lie."
Actually, the lie is designed not so much to deceive others as to deceive themselves. They cannot or will not tolerate the pain of self-reproach.
|
|
|
Post by WanderingOne on Feb 20, 2010 10:58:21 GMT -5
I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make between rod chastisement and child abuse. Yes, I know and understand why my parents adhered to NGJ/Pearls. Yes, I know that they were afraid for my soul and that they wanted me to go to heaven. Even now, some part of me says, "my parents did that out of love." Their love manifested itself in a pretty screwed up way--but, because they loved me, they wanted me to be a good, obedient, Christ-like, little girl. And they thought the way help me become such was through rod chastisement.
I understand what motivated my parents. I don't think that makes hitting children less abusive.
And, I speak--not only as a daughter of fundamentalist parents--but as a daughter of an alcoholic. Is there a difference between the rod and my daddy when he was drunk? yes. Is the difference that one situation was abusive and the other wasn't? no.
The difference is that the first, imo, is not just physical abuse, but mental and emotional abuse, because it screws with understandings of love.
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Feb 20, 2010 11:34:04 GMT -5
"And lets be honest mothers are just as likely to abuse their children as fathers." Abagail Mae - Are they really? I mean, I do know that women have and do abuse children - I've known a couple of them myself - but it seems to me here, on this thread, we're talking about abuse that is sanctioned, nay, encouraged by 'religious leaders' and how that ties pain, objectification and humiliation to love/salvation. Which IS evil. I'm sorry that your husband's mother is abusive, but, as a woman, you may want to look a little deeper and try to think about why she is the way she is; is it organic? is it that she was abused herself? is it that her 'leaders' are encouraging her to be abusive? is she taking 'control' wherever she can find it because she feels she has no power elsewhere? is it All Of The Above? and way more? I think that any time you want to jump in feet first with a statement about women being "just as likely" to do anything that men do the majority of in reality is kind of silly and definitely not helpful to the goal of understanding how these horrible, horrible situations arise and how to STOP them.
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on Feb 20, 2010 13:34:45 GMT -5
This is not simply a situation of abuse as such. It most certainly is abuse, but to simplify it to "abusers will always abuse" is to seriously miss the point. The abuse (as we see it) is necessary to overcome evil (as they see it). It isn't restricted to childrearing or christian systems. I'm sure that there are some partiarchal leaders who wish they could get away with this: Three women caned under syariah law tinyurl.com/ydf29k9If a belief system sanctions - even insists on what is otherwise seen as abuse, then there are those who become abusers although they would never otherwise have done so.
|
|
|
Post by susan on Feb 20, 2010 13:45:07 GMT -5
Abagailmae, trying to understand the factors that led up to someone committing a horrid act, is not the same thing as saying that individuals have no responsibility for their actions.
It doesn't have to be either/or, although I realize that the Religious Right often tries to present it that way. They do this because they benefit from the current social structure, so they want to keep people from scrutinzing, too closely, the social factors that influence how individuals perceive themselves, their situations, and their options.
This is why there's so much pointing to people like Justice Clarence Thomas: If they can demonstrate that one black man is capable of succeeding within the current system, without needing welfare or affirmative action, then they see this as proof that any individual in any circumstance is able to "pull himself up by his bootstraps" and succeed socially and financially.
They then insist that all attempts to promote fair treatment of everyone, are truly wasted: What is really needed is a totally free market -- this will supposedly give everyone the best opportunity to succeed in life.
And, let's face it, speaking out against corporal punishment in some faith communities, is tantamount to promoting affirmative action at a Klan meeting. Corporal punishment promotes a hierarchical family structure which many Patriarchal/complementarian fathers would be loathe to give up. Plus, child-trainers like the Pearls slap their seal of approval on parents being selfish and expecting their new babies to "fit into" their adult lives.
I do realize that the majority of Pearl followers are not ever going to cause serious physical injuries or murder their children. But the teaching still exhorts parents to disrespect their children's bodily integrity, and also their children's mental space and their freedom to express themselves --
Incidentally, have you ever thought about how contradictory it is, that the religious-right people who follow "experts" like the Pearls, usually self-identify as true red-white-and-blue Americans and lovers of freedom -- yet these same people don't honor their children's right to protest what they perceive as unfair treatment (of course, these are often the same "true lovers of freedom" who oppose labor unions and other forms of organized protest) --
Anyhow, what I'm trying to say is that disrespecting children is harmful to children, whether it kills them or not. The Pearls (and other fundamentalilst childtraining "experts" such as Dobson) are exhorting parents to treat their children in ways that they themselves would likely prosecute for, if another adult (such as their boss) were to treat them (the parents) in a similar way.
It's just wrong. I'm glad that the majority of children getting raised in this way, will survive into adulthood and won't suffer kidney disorders, etcetera, due to severe beatings -- but their survival doesn't mean it was "okay" for them to be disrespected.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Feb 20, 2010 14:54:55 GMT -5
I intentionally avoid discussion of most of this topic, save only to refer to other people. The Tulipgirl blog stays on top of these matters, and I look at the topic more from the position of the abused. So I tend to stay out of the discussion from this angle.
But....
I am very upset by the idea that they beat this girl so badly that she has gone into renal failure. It's the kind of thing that I don't want to think about as a nurse (I worked on a combined urology and oncology area in the hospital when I was new graduate from nursing school). Kidney failure is an awful thing to manage, and you can't exactly grow new kidneys. They don't heal and can't be rebuilt.
If anyone finds out any specific information about whether there was a pre-existing condition (maybe from fluids that were withheld from the child) or whether this was the direct result of blunt force trauma to the flanks which damaged the kidneys --- could someone please let me know? Please send me a PM or email me via my website.
I just finished reviewing the stats and new research studies related to child abuse and neglect and the health problems that adult children suffer. That alone was terribly painful for me to review and write about, so I am already raw on a personal level. This is a more direct and immediate thing, obviously.
I am also concerned on another level. How ironic that as much whining and carrying on that groups like HSLDA inspire over that Child Rights stuff, they seem to always turn a blind eye to this kind of thing.
Don't they see that, rightly or wrongly, there is some need for these kinds of measures because the church doesn't want to be about the messy business of holding their own accountable. If the church doesn't keep itself honest, it will suffer the shame of having the world judging the church. In this type of thing, rightfully so. I'm of the naive idea that we would not need such measures (legislation regarding parenting and childrens' rights) if Christians were setting the best standard for true love and care of children.
I know that I don't see it from a parent's perspective (not being one myself), but I do connect with this as a child from a difficult environment. (Kind of like saying that a neurosurgeon cannot perform surgery properly on a guy with a brain tumor, having never had a brain tumor themselves.)
A little off topic, but if anyone sees anything that specifically states that this renal failure in this poor girl was due to the blunt force trauma from the plumbing line she was beat with, please send me a PM.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Feb 20, 2010 15:09:57 GMT -5
I mean, it's one thing to know that you are being abused and that's bad enough. But to be abused, and think that you're being shown love - that's what really screws with your mind and lasts a lifetime. musicmom, YES. You nailed it. I n fact, that's also what was so confusing about being an abused wife in "biblical patriarchy," because I was being TOLD one thing (that this was godly, good, and pure) but experiencing a totally opposite thing (that this was destructive, painful and soul-killing). Same with the child who is switched every time he fails to be perfect, to be cheerful, to instantly drop everything upon command and obey. He is TOLD that God and goodness and all-things-holy are in support of the switching, but what he experiences is something altogether different. The whole thing removes your ability to process. You can't process through your feelings, because if your feelings are not telling you how GOOD it is, then your feelings are sinful. You can't process through your thoughts on the matter, because if your thoughts are telling you how GOOD it is, then your thoughts are sinful. It's such a mess. Journey, You and musicmom both "nailed it." Did you know that Doug Phillips has a saying that friends of mine who went on his "Faith and Freedom" tours heard him say over and over again? "He who defines wins." They use propaganda techniques and things like logical informal fallacy in conjunction with their larger system of spiritual abuse/thought reform, and most people don't have the ability to transcend this in order to do the right thing. Phillip Zimbardo talks about how to make it easier for people to exit bad situations like this when you're stuck in the thick of it. Most people go along with them because the situations make it too difficult to be a dissident. What young mom dares to stand up to her church or at a conference to say what her heart tells her is true? Though studies show that when other people do voice dissent, fewer people in the group go along with these things that they would normally protest under normal conditions. But we teach people that it is sinful to hold people accountable on anything other than doctrine. What a crock. I recently listened to the opening minutes of Bill Gothard's IBLP conference that they now post online (they now post video of a section of the first session, anyway). The first thing he says, in essense, is that you can't trust any knowledge or reason -- that you have to trust God's wisdom. It is a foregone conclusion that he is offering a perfect reflection of God's wisdom. And his argument is bogus, but under the conditions, most people do not question what he says. It is a carefully woven and effective trap to shut down people's own self-trust and critical thinking (which could well be informed by Scripture and Christian wisdom, a point Gothard ignores for his own benefit in that video). This is a link to a couple of different presentations by Zimbardo that I think everyone interested in this should watch: undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2009/01/bad-apples-or-bad-barrels-short-and.htmlBetter late than never to realize that this stuff is trash. Trash that hurts and kills people, that is. It takes most people time and experience to learn how to throw off these kinds of things. Shout it from the rooftops when you do! That's all I'm doing.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Feb 20, 2010 15:18:57 GMT -5
About mothers being just as likely to be abusive as fathers.
There is some evidence to support this.
First, I think of Corrie Marnett's posting of what she copied from the ATIA email list (Bill Gothard's homeschooling group). A particular mother went on about how she got "no greater pleasure" than she derived from spanking infants.
Zimbardo also talks about this in the talk he presents at MIT (in the above link I posted). The Milgram Study showed that people will inflict pain if a situation and an authority figure directs them to do so. There is also a followup study that would never be allowed today wherein college students were directed to shock puppies to train them with negative reinforcement. Now, consider that it was a group of college students and not mothers.... But the findings showed that only 50% of the male students complied, but 100% of that group of female students complied with the directives of the study.
There is no ethical way to test these things without risking harm, but I think that there is some basis to suggesting that women can be even more cold than men when it comes to discipline.
There is some history pertaining to medieval knights suggesting this also. There were a few women who were knighted, but the practice stopped because the women were more violent and ruthless in terms of torture. They were brutal, so no more women were knighted. (I take this at the word of an historian that is intensely well read in this area.)
In reading I've done years ago on this subject, some experts relate this back to the natural higher tolerance that women have for pain.
|
|
|
Post by abagailmae on Feb 20, 2010 15:20:10 GMT -5
Oh well can't go into all the details of hubby's mom for if she were to see it we would be disowned like her grandchild she won't acknowledge. Yes to say she is controlling is an understatment. She does it because she probably believes it is Biblical and right. Well It in't. She leads the family and the father never stuck up for the children. Was she abused when she was younger? Who knows she doesn't talk about her childhood she likes to keep things very superficial so that no one really knows who she really is.
Which is a defense mechanism so that she won't get hurt all the while she hurts everyone around her. Because that makes her feel powerful. It helps me to think of this because then I am less likely to judge her because I have no right to judge others that isn't my job everyone has to be held accountable for their own actions, myself included.
I don't want you to think I think the Pearls are right because I don't. But neither are people who let their children run them... Because I have seen that and honestly it is just as bad it leads to the a lot of the same negative behaviors.
Is it true that children feel more love when they are disciplined properly? From my own experience I would have rather had proper discipline than the verbal abuse that spewed from my mother for no other reason than she didn't know what else to do!
So where is the happy medium of Discipline, Love, and Respect...?
|
|
|
Post by susan on Feb 20, 2010 15:26:03 GMT -5
I am also concerned on another level. How ironic that as much whining and carrying on that groups like HSLDA inspire over that Child Rights stuff, they seem to always turn a blind eye to this kind of thing. That's exactly my feeling, Cindy! The Religious Right goes on and on about how "Big Brother" (the government) needs to stay out of our lives - And yet, I kid you not, the express reason that they want less government interference in families is so that parents will have continued "freedom" to violate the rights and freedoms of their children. Well, also, some parents are rightfully-concerned about the possibility of oppressive policies suppressing our children's freedoms. As an example, parents who believe in child-led weaning from the breast have sometimes been wrongfully-suspected of abuse, or dysfunction, by some people in authority. Which is kind of off-topic -- but I'm just sharing this to emphasize that when parents feel anxious about Child Protective Services getting involved in their families, it's not always due to them wanting to be able to hit and bully their children with impunity. Sometimes it clearly IS about exactly that -- but sometimes the parents simply know that their complete respect for their children's wisdom about issues pertaining to their own persons, is likely to get viewed as "dysfunctional" by our dysfunctional society, in which adults are seen as the experts re: when it's time for children to move on from one developmental stage to the next..
|
|
|
Post by abagailmae on Feb 20, 2010 15:27:22 GMT -5
Opps, forgot to add I don't defend the Pearl's view of discipline just so I don't get people who think I believe it is ok to beat children.
|
|
|
Post by mommybunny1 on Feb 20, 2010 15:33:15 GMT -5
Re: Kidney Failure
One possibility is that the child was dehydrated, possibly from fluid restriction. Another factor could be that the beatings caused so much overuse/abuse of the child's muscles that a huge amount of muscular protein was released into the child's bloodstream. This is a condition called Rhabdomyolysis. It occurs after trauma and after things like seizures and after heavy physical activity like distance running and cross country skiing. If the protein load is too great for the kidneys to filter out, kidney failure occurs.
|
|
|
Post by philosophia on Feb 20, 2010 15:45:55 GMT -5
I have very mixed feelings about all of this. In the beginning I did spank in a very nurturing way, if you can understand that. I remember in 1988 I had a newborn and a 2 year old. My 2yo was articulate, and I had told her to stay with mom, holding her hand. I was leaving the grocery store and the toddler ran out ahead of me in front of a car. I swatted her for not listening or staying with me. I wanted to startle her to keep it from happening again. A passerby looked at me hatefully and said, "I SAW THAT!" I swatted hands when they tried to stick things in electrical outlets, etc. To me, those are reasonable usage of the gentle swat.
When we first got into the Fugate thing I had a paint stirring stick on which I had playfully written "Mr. Stick". If they were being defiant, etc, it was "I don't want to have to get "Mr. Stick!" I carefully explained that Mr. Stick was there to help them learn to behave correctly, and I seldom had to use him. The kids accepted this so naturally that once when our neighbor was trimming his crepe myrtle they ran excitedly home with sticks saying, "Hey, these would be great to beat us with!" Yes, I cringed. I never "beat" them, but their father used that temp for disciplining them.
Their father is a very powerful, intimidating man, and very focused. After we were QF he adopted the view that the will of the children needed to be broken at a young age so that they would always obey. When the babies were still in diapers he wanted them to be broken. So before their 2nd birthday there was usually some incident where the child was adamant about not doing something he or I wanted, like eating dinner, or coming when called. Then the horror started. I would want to drop it, but it was will breaking time.
He would take the child aside and insist they do the thing or else. (If it was food, it was open the mouth voluntarily so that he could put the food in.) If the child did not do this of it's own volition he would begin spanking . Then he would ask again, saying *** must obey Daddy. If the child did not obey, spanking again. Sometimes this was with everyone present. More than once he took the child to another room and the rest of us were tense and frightened. I think the fear was that the child would not give in quickly, because we assumed that it was necessary to keep the peace. It gave me a knot in the stomach, but I didn't know anything else to do. Afterward the test was that he would carry the child out and say "Do this...." and the child did it quickly. Usually after this the children all feared and respected Daddy. They obeyed him instantly.
This happened with some of the children and going to bed. I did mostly attachment parenting and was so bad that I usually nursed mine to sleep then put them in the crib. But if they did not want to go to sleep at a certain age X would take the child and lay him/her down and that was it. (sometimes swatting the thigh if they cried) Usually it was at a time I was exhausted, so I feel guilt about that. It is not as if he ever had to care for the babies. I breastfed them and he never changed diapers.
The real problem lay with the fact I could never do that. So, when the kids were out of line and I could not rein them in, X would complain that I did not spank them hard enough or often enough. I could NEVER get it right. If I didn't spank they hated me because Daddy taught them it meant he loved them, if I did spank them they hated me because it hurt. (I only did it when they were awful, and used a thin rod.) As recently as last week my 15yo told me she had no respect for me because I had no power and no backbone. Ugh.
This same child does not seem to remember when she was about 6, visiting relatives, I asked if she would like to play a song on her violin for us. (I was very proud of her ability, and she had played for audiences before.) She did not want to. Her father told her to obey my wishes and play. I wanted to drop it, but to him it was a principle. She ended up with a terrible spanking from her father that day. I ended up feeling guilty for even asking.
Another child expressed his bad tempers by yelling loudly. X took him out and after they returned when he felt like yelling he opened his mouth wide and not a sound came out. It is horrible and frightening.
When we separated he said repeatedly that he was afraid I would be the next Andrea Yates. (His excuse to get custody) I believe that was very hypocritical of him. If she put up with half the madness I did and believed it was "right" I can see how crazed and hopeless she must have felt. On the contrary, when I filed for divorce I was seeing more clearly than I ever had in my life.
|
|
|
Post by journey on Feb 20, 2010 15:46:35 GMT -5
abigailmae, I agree, and studies have shown that permissive parenting is just as destructive as authoritarian parenting. So not having any element of discipline at all is just as harmful (though perhaps in much different ways).
The BIGGEST thing that I think needs to be understood is that there *are* parenting methods that are neither authoritarian or permissive.
There are some wonderful and proven parenting methods that adovocate for hands-on parenting (ie, NOT permissive), and yet provide that direction in non-punitive ways.
The thing is, when you start coming out of Pearl methods (or one or more of the other similar methods advocated in patriarchy land) you don't know that, because you have been taught over and over again that you will either be permissive and let your children literally run wild without any direction, OR you will be a good parent and adopt the Pearl/Ezzo/Tripp/[fill-in-blank] techniques.
So coming out of that black-and-white (punitive or permissive) mindset is hard to do at first, because you've been so indoctrinated that you HAVE to do it the punitive way, or you'll have these evil rotten tyrants reigning down chaos in your home.
The bottom line is, that's what they TOLD us, sure, but that is NOT the actual truth.
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on Feb 20, 2010 15:48:53 GMT -5
[snip] Zimbardo also talks about this in the talk he presents at MIT (in the above link I posted). The Milgram Study showed that people will inflict pain if a situation and an authority figure directs them to do so. There is also a followup study that would never be allowed today wherein college students were directed to shock puppies to train them with negative reinforcement. Now, consider that it was a group of college students and not mothers.... But the findings showed that only 50% of the male students complied, but 100% of that group of female students complied with the directives of the study. There is no ethical way to test these things without risking harm, but I think that there is some basis to suggesting that women can be even more cold than men when it comes to discipline. [snip] I think you are making an unwarranted assumption. Milgram's study, as you noted above was if an "authority figure directs them to do so". I think it is more likely related to women's condition relative to authority figures, not an inherent "coldness" relative to discipline. Men, particularly thirty-odd years ago may have felt more confident about defying authority figures. (puppies? really?? never heard of that one) citation needed.
|
|