To Train Up A Child

[1still_waters]

I'm not suggesting you read the entire book. Just a quick glance at a mentioned page would have sufficed and would have probably taken less time than it took to write your reply.

What do you want, a photograph of the page? And in what context would any of those practices be acceptable?

Why are you defending this book?

No one is defending.
I am asking for people to substantiate their claims.

Can anyone post the excerpt with surrounding context that mentions hosing down children?

What concerns me is people's ability to believe all of these negative assertions when no contextual clear evidence has been provided.

It's concerning that people believe assertions like this simply because someone appears to post a statement of outrage, then others agree with said outrage, then others validate outrage due to said people agreeing with said outrage.

Yet no one has really provided much contextual evidence to support all of this outrage.

Lead with contextual evidence first, then tag on the outrage if it's proven.

 

[Ugly]

No problem with views. It's just good to have some facts to back up said views.

As far as your excepts.
He's against using the hand on, because it can cause perma damage to the spine.

He also instructs not to break the skin.

When applying the rod, he says to do it patiently and calmly.

So he's against spine damage, breaking skin, and doing it in a fit of emotion.
I'd say if he were for those, we'd have a valid charge of him encouraging abuse.

I'm not against spanking. I was spanked as a child and it didn't have any negative lasting effect on me. Granted my parents did it right.
But.. he is instructing on how to spank a one year old. One year olds aren't even doing anything wrong. At that point they aren't capable of defiance. So while he may have a valid point in approach, but applying this approach to a child too young to even disobey? Hopefully you just missed that detail.

 

[maxwel]

I don't know anything about the book.. and have no reason to attack it or defend it.

But if the real issue for discussion is corporal punishment,
then corporal punishment IS asserted in the bible as ONE type of disciplinary measure.

What most people don't realize is that the bible is a very large book,
and there are many, many verses which give balance to this concept,
and which render corporal punishment unnecessary except on rare occasions.

 

[1still_waters]

I'm not suggesting you read the entire book. Just a quick glance at a mentioned page would have sufficed and would have probably taken less time than it took to write your reply.

What do you want, a photograph of the page? And in what context would any of those practices be acceptable?

Why are you defending this book?

Imagine if I made a thread titled..

"IntoTheVoid is a meanie pants"

Then imagine five people jumping in agreeing that meanie pants are not nice.

Then picture someone else jumping in and saying..ummm does anyone have proof this fella is a meanie pants?

Then someone posts a henpecked "report" that contains non-contextualized statements you've made.

Then imagine someone stepping in asking of the person asking for evidence...."Why are you defending the meanie pants?"

 

[1still_waters]

I'm not against spanking. I was spanked as a child and it didn't have any negative lasting effect on me. Granted my parents did it right.
But.. he is instructing on how to spank a one year old. One year olds aren't even doing anything wrong. At that point they aren't capable of defiance. So while he may have a valid point in approach, but applying this approach to a child too young to even disobey? Hopefully you just missed that detail.

Lol you haven't been around many one-year-olds.

 

[1still_waters]

What do you want, a photograph of the page? And in what context would any of those practices be acceptable?

Yes an actual page of text would be great. That way we can measure it against surrounding context.
Why is asking for even a page somehow the foreign idea here?

And in what context would any of those practices be acceptable?

It hasn't even been proven he said to hose down a child with ice cold water or to starve a kid for 24 hours.
All we have are people asserting that was said.
Show us the actual paragraphs it was said.

Where is the beef?

It's not a foreign idea to want contextual proof to back up assertions.
It is a foreign idea to assert stuff and just expect people to believe you because they agree the assertions you made are indeed outrageous.

 

[Nautilus]

yeah but its not like into would have a reason to lie about this either. if someone is going through the toruble of calling out one simple source which is probably easily referenced by any of us online, then why bother lying about it? its not like google wouldnt prove them wrong in a second.

 

[Donkeyfish07]

yeah but its not like into would have a reason to lie about this either. if someone is going through the toruble of calling out one simple source which is probably easily referenced by any of us online, then why bother lying about it? its not like google wouldnt prove them wrong in a second.

Still has a point though, I've seen it all the time. Someone decides to claim that someone said such and such, or promotes such and such.......and word spreads, but in reality it wasn't at all what the person originally said.

I don't know anything about the book, but that type of false quotation is extremely commonplace.....it's acceptable to ask for contextual proof if someone makes a claim like that.....even if only because the person may be misinformed.

 

[1still_waters]

yeah but its not like into would have a reason to lie about this either. if someone is going through the toruble of calling out one simple source which is probably easily referenced by any of us online, then why bother lying about it? its not like google wouldnt prove them wrong in a second.

All I see are people making all these claims, without giving easily verifiable proof.

If all these sources are easy and simple, then they should be easy to post here to provide context and proof to said assertions.

 

[1still_waters]

Still has a point though, I've seen it all the time. Someone decides to claim that someone said such and such, or promotes such and such.......and word spreads, but in reality it wasn't at all what the person originally said.

I don't know anything about the book, but that type of false quotation is extremely commonplace.....it's acceptable to ask for contextual proof if someone makes a claim like that.....even if only because the person may be misinformed.

I did this a week or so ago when folks were ripping an Arnold Murray and Shepherd's Chapel.
I nudged them to provide easy to source info to substantiate their claims.

After pulling teeth, they eventually did, and I ended up agreeing with them.

One of the major ten commandments has to do with NOT giving false witness.

So if you're gonna assert something, be able to back it up.

This shouldn't be such a foreign concept.

This is being said to anyone in general reading.

 

[mystdancer50]

No one is defending.
I am asking for people to substantiate their claims.

Can anyone post the excerpt with surrounding context that mentions hosing down children?

What concerns me is people's ability to believe all of these negative assertions when no contextual clear evidence has been provided.

It's concerning that people believe assertions like this simply because someone appears to post a statement of outrage, then others agree with said outrage, then others validate outrage due to said people agreeing with said outrage.

Yet no one has really provided much contextual evidence to support all of this outrage.

Lead with contextual evidence first, then tag on the outrage if it's proven.

The author himself supports these things in open interviews. Others have said the same thing after reading the book. Add to this that the author himself says that he likens his form of raising a child to the way the Amish train a mule. Out of the mouth of the man himself is where we see his mindset. Spanking an infant is NEVER okay. Ever. An infant has no idea what is going on at that age. Way to give them fear. Depriving children of meals to teach them a lesson. Really?

 

[presidente]

Telling someone to strike a child with any object, regardless of the emotion of the striker is still child abuse.

Do you have any kids?

Proverbs 13:24
Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.
(ESV)

Not discipling your children is abuse.

 

[Nautilus]

First, a selection of quotes and recommendations from To Train Up a Child.

The Pearls recommend whipping infants only a few months old on their bare skin. They describe whipping their own 4 month old daughter (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 indifferent, lazy, careless and neglectful (p.19) and are “creating a Nazi” (p.45).
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.
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 year old so hard “a karate chop like wheeze came from somewhere deep inside.”
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.” On p.59 they recommend whipping a 3 year old until he is “totally broken.”
On p.55 the Pearls say a mother should hit her child if he cries for her.
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.” 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.”
On p.47 they recommend their various whips, including “a belt or larger tree branch” to hit children.
The Pearls recommend pulling a nursing infant’s hair (p.7), and describe tripping their non-swimming toddler so she falls into deep water (p.67). They 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) And on p.103 the Pearls say if children lose their shoes, “let them go without until they (the children) can make the money to buy more.”
​

Next, a list of quotes from the Pearls’ book, No Greater Joy, which is a compilation of articles from their bimonthly publication.

“My two-year-old will not stay in bed when I put him down. It seems like I am whipping him too much. No matter how many times I whip him he still gets up.” This is their recommendation: “If your spankings are too light to gain his respect, an increase in the intensity might be more persuasive.” p.6 ”If he gets up, when his feet hit the floor, spring into the room with your little switch and pop him on the bare leg one or two times.” ”Never allow him to get his way.” p.7 If a child screams or cries “Just ignore him. Don’t be moved by it. Don’t pick him up.” If the child says he is hurt give him “a terrible tasting herbal potion.” p.9
On p.19 Michael Pearl jokes about a “tot” getting “half a dozen little spankings a day.”
Michael Pearl praises parents who for a year kept their young son from medical treatment and who “was so sick that when he finally got to a doctor, the doctor expressed amazement that he was still alive.” p.20
To the question “Should a mature ten-year-old be allowed to switch a two-year-old if the mother is unavailable?” Michael Pearl says sure!: “Ten-year-olds ought to be mature enough to discipline a smaller child. In our house, there was no difference between the parents and the older children in enforcing the rule of law over the younger children.” p.24-25
When a 3 year old screams the Pearls recommend: “without saying a word go straight to the switch. Spank her where she stands.” ”Never threaten, and never show mercy. One squeak of a scream gets a switching.” p.26 The Pearls apparently have never read the Sermon on the Mount, in which Jesus says “Blessed are the merciful!”
Here is some crazy teaching about violence from Michael Pearl: If a child hits, bites, kicks or shoves he should get “a thorough spanking. Children must be taught that violence is never an acceptable alternative in personal conflicts.” ??? p.27
When a 4 year old screams “Turn and walk away. If she were to scream again, turn back and give her a spanking.” p.30
On p. 33 “A mother describes her dilemma: `I get so frustrated with the children. No matter how many times I tell them or spank them, they just do the same thing again. We just go around and around.’” Michael Pearl recommends “meeting every transgression with a swift penalty.” ”They will obey.”
On p. 34 Michael Pearl relates the story of a mother hitting her 11 month old who doesn’t want to eat any more “spinach-squash-mush” and pushes it away. The mother “picked up her little enforcer (whip), which was lying on the table, and swatted the child’s hand.” When the baby tries again to push the unwanted food away she “received another spat.” Michael Pearl says about this scenario: “I loved it. It was beautiful.” (p. 35) And then on p. 36 he says “I must encourage those of you with small children, train up your children now. Don’t want until they are one year old to start training. Rebellion and self-will should be broken in the six-month-old when it first appears. Take this young mother’s example and think of ways you can train your child. (smiley face)”
On p. 46 a mother is described as ignoring her crying 3 month old, until the baby “became cheerful.” The story ends with Michael Pearl’s comment about a teenage girl visiting this mother and baby: “Maybe when this young girl becomes a mother she will have the wisdom to begin training her newborns and not wait until they are three months old.”
On p. 47 a 9 month old is left crying, sitting alone and ignored. Pearl recommends coming by to pat her on the head every 10 minutes. This is cruel and neglectful, and dangerous.
On p. 72 Michael Pearl says “switches and rods make many things mighty inconvenient (for the child). (smiley face)”
On p. 85 Michael Pearl recommends giving a little girl who won’t get into her car seat “five licks with a stinging switch.” If the girl still doesn’t get in the seat “repeat the switching.” If the little girl continues to refuse to get in the seat he says to take the seat into the house and strap the girl in it for “two or three hours.”
On p. 96: when one of the Pearls’ children tattled on another child Debi Pearl “spanked both of them regardless of who did the tattling.”

COOPER: Last night, we reported on the death of a 13-year-old named Hana Williams. Prosecutors say that her adoptive parents repeatedly starved and abused her and then last May left her outside in the cold to punish her. Hana died of hypothermia. Larry and Carri Williams are charged with homicide.

The case bears a striking resemblance to a story we first called "Ungodly Discipline." Seven-year-old Lydia Schatz was beaten to death by her adoptive parents, Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz. Both were convicted in the case and went to prison. Like Hana Williams, Lydia was adopted from Africa by a Christian fundamentalist couple.

The girls also had something else in common. Their parents owned copies of a Christian parenting guide called "To Train Up a Child." Authors Michael Pearl and his wife, Debi, say their writings are based on the Bible. Michael Pearl told Gary Tuchman the book doesn't advocate abuse, but it does tell parents it is their religious duty to spank their children.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL PEARL, AUTHOR, "TO TRAIN UP A CHILD": I don't use the term "hitting."

GARY TUCHMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: What's the word?

M. PEARL: Spanking.

TUCHMAN: And is there a difference? M. PEARL: Absolutely. A hand is hitting. A little switch is spanking. A wooden spoon or a spatula, rubber spatula, that's spanking.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: In the book, the Pearls describe exactly how to spank a child. They also talked about that with Gary.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TUCHMAN: Let's say a 7-year-old slugs his sister.

M. PEARL: He would get -- a 7-year-old would get 10 or 15 licks, and it would be a formal thing. In other words, you maintain your patient air. You explain to him that what he's done is violent and that that's not acceptable in society, and it's not acceptable at home. And then I would take him somewhere, like into his bedroom, and I would tell him I'm going to give him 15 licks.

TUCHMAN: With what?

M. PEARL: Probably a belt on a kid that big, a boy. I'd probably use a belt. It would be handy. I might use a wooden spoon or a piece of, like, plumbing supply line a quarter-inch in diameter, flexible enough to roll up.

TUCHMAN: See, what I'm saying here is why not just use your hand instead of all these materials?

M. PEARL: Hey, look here. Right here. Let me show you something. Does that hurt?

TUCHMAN: It doesn't feel good.

M. PEARL: But look what it's doing. Look what it's doing to your whole body. See? You don't use your hand on somebody. That's a karate chop.

TUCHMAN: You're telling me that when you use this material, that it can't cause permanent pain?

DEBI PEARL: (INAUDIBLE)

M. PEARL: My children -- my children never had marks left on them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: The point the Pearls make in their book is that a spanking should hurt. Anything short of that, they say, is a failure in God's eyes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

M. PEARL: Rubbing the spaghetti all over your head, you shouldn't have done that at seven years of age.

TUCHMAN: OK. And that hurts. And I'm 50.

M. PEARL: OK. But are there any marks on you?

TUCHMAN: No. But you would hit -- you would hit a five-year-old like that?

M. PEARL: Yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: After Lydia Schatz died, the Pearls denied their book played any role in her death. They say what happened to her is not what their book teaches. They've released a similar statement about Hana Williams.

Tonight, Michael Pearl agreed to come on the program to answer some of our questions. I spoke to him just a short time ago.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Mr. Pearl, you're explicit that you're not in any way advocating child abuse or the extremes that cause these girls' deaths in the two cases, but if people who think they're following your book end up killing kids, does that concern you? Does that worry you?

M. PEARL: Yes. What that does is causes us to renew our efforts to reach these people before they do do something terrible. There's a -- there's an awful lot of people out there, probably in the millions, that are abusive to their children. There are men abusive to their wives. There's wives abusive to their husbands and their children, and these things have been going on, and they will go on. And it's -- where we can, we need to do something about it.

COOPER: But you don't feel it has anything to do with what you're -- what you're advocating?

M. PEARL: Of course not, no more than Alcoholics Anonymous would feel like they were responsible for an alcoholic that they failed to reform who went out and had a drunk-driving accident and killed someone.

COOPER: But your analogy doesn't really hold up with the Alcoholics Anonymous, because Alcoholics Anonymous is telling people not -- alcoholics not to drink. You are advocating people hitting kids, or what -- you call it spanking -- beating, what have you. You are advocating a severe form of corporal punishment for -- for parents.

M. PEARL: That's absolutely incorrect. We do not advocate hitting children, and we do not advocate any severe corporal punishment.



​

 

[Nautilus]

In fact, in my literature, if you read it, I speak against corporal punishment. What we teach is -- our book is called "To Train Up a Child." And we talk to parents about how they can train their children up to be happy, creative, cheerful, emotional -- emotionally stable. And so we teach that, in the process of training small children, we use corporal chastisement.

Corporal chastisement is not retributive justice designed to punish the child for the misdeeds. Corporal chastisement is getting the child's attention so that you can admonish him, teach him, instruct him, and guide him in the way he should go.

COOPER: I want to read something that you write about -- about what parents should use to spank their child. You said, "Any spanking, to effectively reinforce instruction, must cause pain. Select your instrument according to the child's size. For the under 1-year-old child, a small, 10- to 12-inch-long willowy branch stripped of any knots that might break the skin, about one-eighth inch in diameter is sufficient. Sometimes alternatives have to be sought. A one-foot ruler, or its equivalent in a paddle, is a suitable substitute. For the larger child, a belt or a three-foot cutting off a shrub is effective."

You say you -- you don't advocate hitting or hurting or beating kids or leaving any marks on them, which under the law is considered child abuse, but in fact, in your book, you are saying spankings have to cause pain, and you're talking about spanking a baby under one- year-old with a ruler. How does a baby not end up bruised and hurting when it's hit with a ruler?

M. PEARL: Well, your changing the word "spank" to "beat" or "hit" is inflammatory rhetoric that obscures what I'm saying.

COOPER: Well, spanking is hitting. You can -- you can argue about semantics, but using a ruler -- to use the specific example of using a ruler on a baby under 1-year-old, how does that not, you know, cause pain and leave a -- leave a mark?

M. PEARL: If it were insignificant -- insignificant semantics, you wouldn't be so bent on changing the word "spank" to "beat" or "hit."

Spanking is well understood, traditionally. I represent 230 million parents who practice corporal chastisement on their children. And they call it "spanking" or "swatting." They do not call it "beating" or "hitting." Because there's a clear distinction.

The distinction is spanking is administered for the child's good, and it's done with an instrument. It's done, not in order to create pain. It's not done in order to create significant pain. It's not done in order to create suffering. It's done to gain the child's attention so you can admonish them.

COOPER: What about talking to them about it? Does that not work?

M. PEARL: Well, did it work for you? Did it work for your family? Does talking make a 1-year-old and 2-year-old... COOPER: It worked for me in my family, but I don't try to put what happened in my family onto other people. But I'm just curious. In your opinion, what's wrong with talking to the child about why you don't grab food off somebody's plate?

M. PEARL: Well, if you read our book, you'd know that talking precedes that. There's a whole lot of conditioning that precedes...

COOPER: Talking alone, you say, is not enough?

M. PEARL: No. No, in many cases, it's not. In most cases, it is. But spanking is not something we do all the time. Sometimes you might not spank a kid over once a month or once a year.

COOPER: But you do advocate carrying around and having, in various rooms of the house and in the car, in some cases, a -- I want to get -- make sure I have the wording right here. You write, "Many people are using a section of quarter-inch plumber's supply line as a spanking instrument. It will fit in your purse or hang around your neck. You can buy them for under $1 at Home Depot or any hardware store. They come cheaper by the dozen and can be widely distributed in every room and vehicle. Just the high profile of their accessibility keeps the kids in line."

So you are advocating parents carry around plumber supply lines with them so they can, if they want to, in your words, spank their child any time throughout the day.

M. PEARL: That springs from a story that took place. I went into an Amish woman's house who had about ten kids all under 12 years old. And that's a pretty big brood. And she had a little piece of supply line about a foot long, maybe, hanging around her neck.

And so every time -- I asked her why it was there. She said, "Well, when the children are disobedient, I have it right at hand. I don't have to go looking for it." And she said, "Just the presence of it hanging around my neck lets them know that they have to walk the line, and so they're obedient."

So I thought that was a humorous thing. So I suggested to people that you make sure you keep your little swatters close at hand, because we don't want to make a big deal out of spanking children. We want to have something ready to right where they sit. If you've got a little boy that reaches over and pulls the hair of his brother, you want to first to him say, "No, don't do that." But if he pulls again...

COOPER: But you do know that in both cases of these girls who died and were killed, the parents did keep these plumbing supply lines around the house.

The American Academy of Pediatrics believes these conditions actually create such a climate of fear and intimidation for a child that it actually affects their development by changing -- changing the way nerve connections in the brain develop. Do you buy any of that? M. PEARL: Well, there's lots of science, lots of research that's been done, lots of psychologists that disagree with that heartily. Research has been shown that spanking creates children that are more higher educationally, that they're less aggressive, that they are more entrepreneurial, that they in every way make better citizens when young children are spanked. That's just statistics, just the facts.

Ninety percent of all Americans practice spanking. So all I'm doing is representing...

COOPER: Sorry. I don't want to interrupt you, sir.

M. PEARL: All I'm doing is representing what traditionally Americans have done.

Now as to your question about the children, no. When you have -- there's been about 1,600 children a year are killed by their parents through either neglect or direct abuse. That's an awful number. And the fact that, in 15 years of writing books and reaching several million people with our literature, only three parents happen to have our book in their home, that's like saying that, again, an Alcoholics Anonymous book in the home what caused them to have a drunk-driving accident. There's no correlation.

The parents had the book. These parents had the book because they were already molesting their children. They were already -- one of the parents was making their child eat feces, locking them outdoor in the cold, starving them. Those are not things they could get out of my book. Those are things that -- that they had a predisposition to.

The book there didn't cause those things to take place. I'm just sorry it couldn't -- it didn't reach them soon enough to stop those negative habits.

COOPER: No doubt about that. The American Academy of Pediatrics told us that your teachings go way beyond most people's understanding of corporal punishment and spanking, that they say they're violent, unacceptable and that you can't train a child the same way you train a dog or a horse, because kids' brains develop differently. Human brains develop differently at a young age and are going to respond differently.

M. PEARL: Well, they are a small minority voice in a great number of scientists and researchers who say differently. There's just a lot of evidence...

COOPER: You say you can train a child like an animal? Like you would train a horse? Or...

M. PEARL: You know, I live on a farm. I have horses and cows and chickens and pigs and all that sort thing. And I read a lot. And I noticed that the zoologists and the people who work with animals study animals in terms of how it compares to human behavior.

When I was in college and took a course in psychology, there was quite a few articles in there that dealt with animal behavior and how it compares to human behavior.

So all I have said is that, if you can train a stubborn mule to go up a hill when he doesn't want to go, then you can train a 1- or a 2- or 3-year-old child that gets stubborn. So the training principles are similar.

Let me give you the first principle in training an animal. The first principle in training an animal is you establish a relationship with trust. The first principle in training a child is establish a relationship of trust.

The second principle is the animal must know that you're not going to hurt him, and you must know that he's not going to hurt you. And that's the second principle in training children. There has to be confidence that neither one of us are going to hurt the other one.

And then you have to communicate to the animal your will. That's the third principle in training children. Communicate your will.

So yes, there's a parallel between training dogs, training horses, training cows, training chickens, training a turtle or a lizard. The principles are the same across the board. And any psychologist would tell you that that's the case if they're familiar with animals.

COOPER: Mr. Pearl, I really do appreciate your time. And it's obviously a controversial subject. And you represent a lot of people's beliefs. And I respect that. I appreciate you being on. Thank you.

M. PEARL: Well, thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: We asked Mr. Pearl's representatives after the interview about the study that he was referring to. He mentioned a study by Po Bronson. We called Mr. Brunson, who's been a guest on this program before, and asked him about that study. He told us the study does not at all condone spanking and it's a misuse of the science.

 

[IntoTheVoid]

You said a page of text would be nice... I provided a link to the entire book!

 

[IntoTheVoid]

And yes, I do have a child. I've never once struck him and his behaviour is fine.

 

[Fenner]

To Train Up a Child Parenting Book Leads to Multiple Child Deaths | Babble

This and some others I read were enough to convince me that this book should be pulled. I have two children and I don't hit them either. I'm not going to beat my kids into being the person I think or want them to be.

 

[Fenner]

I can't even believe that this book is up for discussion or debate, it's sick. Ugh!!!!

 

[1still_waters]

The author himself supports these things in open interviews. Others have said the same thing after reading the book. Add to this that the author himself says that he likens his form of raising a child to the way the Amish train a mule. Out of the mouth of the man himself is where we see his mindset. Spanking an infant is NEVER okay. Ever. An infant has no idea what is going on at that age. Way to give them fear. Depriving children of meals to teach them a lesson. Really?

Again, WHERE is the evidence to support what you said?

Is it true just because you asserted he said that stuff?

Where are the interviews you speak of?

Did you hear him say these things?

I'm still stunned why providing evidence to support said claims appears to be a foreign concept to some.

 

[1still_waters]

First, a selection of quotes and recommendations from To Train Up a Child.

The Pearls recommend whipping infants only a few months old on their bare skin. They describe whipping their own 4 month old daughter (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 indifferent, lazy, careless and neglectful (p.19) and are “creating a Nazi” (p.45).
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.
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 year old so hard “a karate chop like wheeze came from somewhere deep inside.”
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.” On p.59 they recommend whipping a 3 year old until he is “totally broken.”
On p.55 the Pearls say a mother should hit her child if he cries for her.
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.” 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.”
On p.47 they recommend their various whips, including “a belt or larger tree branch” to hit children.
The Pearls recommend pulling a nursing infant’s hair (p.7), and describe tripping their non-swimming toddler so she falls into deep water (p.67). They 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) And on p.103 the Pearls say if children lose their shoes, “let them go without until they (the children) can make the money to buy more.”
​

Next, a list of quotes from the Pearls’ book, No Greater Joy, which is a compilation of articles from their bimonthly publication.

“My two-year-old will not stay in bed when I put him down. It seems like I am whipping him too much. No matter how many times I whip him he still gets up.” This is their recommendation: “If your spankings are too light to gain his respect, an increase in the intensity might be more persuasive.” p.6 ”If he gets up, when his feet hit the floor, spring into the room with your little switch and pop him on the bare leg one or two times.” ”Never allow him to get his way.” p.7 If a child screams or cries “Just ignore him. Don’t be moved by it. Don’t pick him up.” If the child says he is hurt give him “a terrible tasting herbal potion.” p.9
On p.19 Michael Pearl jokes about a “tot” getting “half a dozen little spankings a day.”
Michael Pearl praises parents who for a year kept their young son from medical treatment and who “was so sick that when he finally got to a doctor, the doctor expressed amazement that he was still alive.” p.20
To the question “Should a mature ten-year-old be allowed to switch a two-year-old if the mother is unavailable?” Michael Pearl says sure!: “Ten-year-olds ought to be mature enough to discipline a smaller child. In our house, there was no difference between the parents and the older children in enforcing the rule of law over the younger children.” p.24-25
When a 3 year old screams the Pearls recommend: “without saying a word go straight to the switch. Spank her where she stands.” ”Never threaten, and never show mercy. One squeak of a scream gets a switching.” p.26 The Pearls apparently have never read the Sermon on the Mount, in which Jesus says “Blessed are the merciful!”
Here is some crazy teaching about violence from Michael Pearl: If a child hits, bites, kicks or shoves he should get “a thorough spanking. Children must be taught that violence is never an acceptable alternative in personal conflicts.” ??? p.27
When a 4 year old screams “Turn and walk away. If she were to scream again, turn back and give her a spanking.” p.30
On p. 33 “A mother describes her dilemma: `I get so frustrated with the children. No matter how many times I tell them or spank them, they just do the same thing again. We just go around and around.’” Michael Pearl recommends “meeting every transgression with a swift penalty.” ”They will obey.”
On p. 34 Michael Pearl relates the story of a mother hitting her 11 month old who doesn’t want to eat any more “spinach-squash-mush” and pushes it away. The mother “picked up her little enforcer (whip), which was lying on the table, and swatted the child’s hand.” When the baby tries again to push the unwanted food away she “received another spat.” Michael Pearl says about this scenario: “I loved it. It was beautiful.” (p. 35) And then on p. 36 he says “I must encourage those of you with small children, train up your children now. Don’t want until they are one year old to start training. Rebellion and self-will should be broken in the six-month-old when it first appears. Take this young mother’s example and think of ways you can train your child. (smiley face)”
On p. 46 a mother is described as ignoring her crying 3 month old, until the baby “became cheerful.” The story ends with Michael Pearl’s comment about a teenage girl visiting this mother and baby: “Maybe when this young girl becomes a mother she will have the wisdom to begin training her newborns and not wait until they are three months old.”
On p. 47 a 9 month old is left crying, sitting alone and ignored. Pearl recommends coming by to pat her on the head every 10 minutes. This is cruel and neglectful, and dangerous.
On p. 72 Michael Pearl says “switches and rods make many things mighty inconvenient (for the child). (smiley face)”
On p. 85 Michael Pearl recommends giving a little girl who won’t get into her car seat “five licks with a stinging switch.” If the girl still doesn’t get in the seat “repeat the switching.” If the little girl continues to refuse to get in the seat he says to take the seat into the house and strap the girl in it for “two or three hours.”
On p. 96: when one of the Pearls’ children tattled on another child Debi Pearl “spanked both of them regardless of who did the tattling.”

COOPER: Last night, we reported on the death of a 13-year-old named Hana Williams. Prosecutors say that her adoptive parents repeatedly starved and abused her and then last May left her outside in the cold to punish her. Hana died of hypothermia. Larry and Carri Williams are charged with homicide.

The case bears a striking resemblance to a story we first called "Ungodly Discipline." Seven-year-old Lydia Schatz was beaten to death by her adoptive parents, Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz. Both were convicted in the case and went to prison. Like Hana Williams, Lydia was adopted from Africa by a Christian fundamentalist couple.

The girls also had something else in common. Their parents owned copies of a Christian parenting guide called "To Train Up a Child." Authors Michael Pearl and his wife, Debi, say their writings are based on the Bible. Michael Pearl told Gary Tuchman the book doesn't advocate abuse, but it does tell parents it is their religious duty to spank their children.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL PEARL, AUTHOR, "TO TRAIN UP A CHILD": I don't use the term "hitting."

GARY TUCHMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: What's the word?

M. PEARL: Spanking.

TUCHMAN: And is there a difference? M. PEARL: Absolutely. A hand is hitting. A little switch is spanking. A wooden spoon or a spatula, rubber spatula, that's spanking.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: In the book, the Pearls describe exactly how to spank a child. They also talked about that with Gary.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TUCHMAN: Let's say a 7-year-old slugs his sister.

M. PEARL: He would get -- a 7-year-old would get 10 or 15 licks, and it would be a formal thing. In other words, you maintain your patient air. You explain to him that what he's done is violent and that that's not acceptable in society, and it's not acceptable at home. And then I would take him somewhere, like into his bedroom, and I would tell him I'm going to give him 15 licks.

TUCHMAN: With what?

M. PEARL: Probably a belt on a kid that big, a boy. I'd probably use a belt. It would be handy. I might use a wooden spoon or a piece of, like, plumbing supply line a quarter-inch in diameter, flexible enough to roll up.

TUCHMAN: See, what I'm saying here is why not just use your hand instead of all these materials?

M. PEARL: Hey, look here. Right here. Let me show you something. Does that hurt?

TUCHMAN: It doesn't feel good.

M. PEARL: But look what it's doing. Look what it's doing to your whole body. See? You don't use your hand on somebody. That's a karate chop.

TUCHMAN: You're telling me that when you use this material, that it can't cause permanent pain?

DEBI PEARL: (INAUDIBLE)

M. PEARL: My children -- my children never had marks left on them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: The point the Pearls make in their book is that a spanking should hurt. Anything short of that, they say, is a failure in God's eyes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

M. PEARL: Rubbing the spaghetti all over your head, you shouldn't have done that at seven years of age.

TUCHMAN: OK. And that hurts. And I'm 50.

M. PEARL: OK. But are there any marks on you?

TUCHMAN: No. But you would hit -- you would hit a five-year-old like that?

M. PEARL: Yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: After Lydia Schatz died, the Pearls denied their book played any role in her death. They say what happened to her is not what their book teaches. They've released a similar statement about Hana Williams.

Tonight, Michael Pearl agreed to come on the program to answer some of our questions. I spoke to him just a short time ago.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Mr. Pearl, you're explicit that you're not in any way advocating child abuse or the extremes that cause these girls' deaths in the two cases, but if people who think they're following your book end up killing kids, does that concern you? Does that worry you?

M. PEARL: Yes. What that does is causes us to renew our efforts to reach these people before they do do something terrible. There's a -- there's an awful lot of people out there, probably in the millions, that are abusive to their children. There are men abusive to their wives. There's wives abusive to their husbands and their children, and these things have been going on, and they will go on. And it's -- where we can, we need to do something about it.

COOPER: But you don't feel it has anything to do with what you're -- what you're advocating?

M. PEARL: Of course not, no more than Alcoholics Anonymous would feel like they were responsible for an alcoholic that they failed to reform who went out and had a drunk-driving accident and killed someone.

COOPER: But your analogy doesn't really hold up with the Alcoholics Anonymous, because Alcoholics Anonymous is telling people not -- alcoholics not to drink. You are advocating people hitting kids, or what -- you call it spanking -- beating, what have you. You are advocating a severe form of corporal punishment for -- for parents.

M. PEARL: That's absolutely incorrect. We do not advocate hitting children, and we do not advocate any severe corporal punishment.



​

Thanks, Nautilus. I'll look it over.