Cruel Parenting

[frugalmom]

Yesterday while visiting another forum, the topic of discipline came up. Someone posted this link (http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/index.php?id=11) and recommended the book it describes titled "To Train Up a Child" by Michael and Debi Pearl. I had heard of this book before, and this link allows you to read chapter one.

All I can say is, one chapter of this nonsense was enough!

These people advocated having training sessions by putting desirable objects in the child's reach for the purpose of using a switch on the baby's hand (if they don't respond to no) to try and teach it not to touch desirable objects.

They also talked about having training sessions in order to train a baby to come when called, which would end up in swatting the baby with a switch if the baby didn't listen. This would be done by putting a child alone in a room with a desirable toy - again - another cruel method for the sole purpose of setting the child up to fail to administer training. The first few times, if the baby didn't come on demand, the father would go over and give the 10 or 12 month old an "explanation" of what is expected of him. HA - I can just imagine someone being dumb enough to try this and then have the baby look at you as if it's thinking "What are you talking about?" Many babies aren't even walking yet at that age. The book called this "booty camp" - although the example they gave was for 10 - 12 month olds. ("Toddlers" the book called them)

I'm not saying I'm against discipline, but a baby who doesn't understand, and an older toddler or child who is trying to manipulate their parents and misbehave are very different situations. A young baby just wants it's needs met and is not capable of trying to manipulate anyone.

Newborn training

OK this is the year 2004 for crying out loud. Surely by the time the 90's came around, the "spoil that baby" myth was debunked. I thought almost everyone knew by now that you can't spoil a baby by meeting it's needs and loving it! A newborn's wants are it's needs, yet this book warns against the mother picking up the crying child from the crib and encourages letting the newborn cry.

Children are precious gifts from the Lord and should not be treated like animals, or worse. A mother has to go against her motherly instinct to and harden her heart to ignore a crying baby.

I visit alot of forums that have to do with parenting. A while back, a new mother was bragging how she was "sleep training" her new baby boy. She apparently thought that parenting is a day job, and would confine her baby all alone to the crib from 6 PM to 6 AM. The poor child must have been scared to death. She did mention that she goes in there once during the 12 hour period to change his diaper. :rolleyes:

That is one example of many cruel parenting blunders I have read about by visiting forums. The way some people treat their children makes me sick.

Studies have debunked the "spoiling" myth and proven that babies whose needs are met and who are held alot and loved, grow to be independant, happy and secure. (I just love when it takes a study to prove what should be common sense)

Another thing is, a newborn's stomach is the size of a cherry. They need to be fed every 2 or 3 hours. Some people don't want to have to deal with their children and don't feed them on demand. That is so cruel. And the sad thing is, there are books out there encouraging people to treat their children this way. Some of the authors claim to be Christians - yet I know God doesn't want us to neglect our children. It's so sad to read the stories of babies getting dehydrated, and failing to thrive and gain weight, because the parent's read some bogus book by someone claiming to be an expert and a Christian. Do a search for Ezzo's babywise if you aren't familiar and you will see what I mean.

[ShadowMaid]

You're right Frugalmom. That's nonsense.

You're child should be fed every 2 to 3 hours... even during the night. Yeah, that means you have to get up... and you don't get as much sleep. That's okay. Because you'll live. :)

Yeah, kids should get spanked. But it's true that you can't expect a baby (i.e. a 10-12 months old... we still call our 2 year old a baby) to understand what's expected of him.... or to understand what you're talking about when you're talking about what's expected of him. That probably won't work. The baby is just starting to understand words, and what they do. They'll have NO idea what you're talking about.

I don't believe that you can just leave something out for the child to grab. And he/she is totally free to do so... just so that you can swat at them.

You do that, and it's like saying, "Here you can play with this... but you can't play with this." The baby isn't going to understand. As a matter of fact, it might even have an opposite effect. As I've seen with many kids. It confuses them. That doesn't help matters any.

There's my 2 cents. Not much. More of common sense... I should hope. And if it isn't, it's just some things I've learned over 5 years.

[Poly]

Great thread, frugalmom. I agree with what you said. That is some very cruel punishment. When you set up the desirable object for the child it sends a confusing message. The child starts out with full trust in the parent. If he sees his parent put the object in front of him and then swats him for reaching for it (hmm, kind of reminds me of the Calvinist view of God....sorry, couldn't resist) it will send out a terrible confusing message and destroy his trust in that parent at an early age. And concerning picking up the crying infant, I regret that I listened to people tell me not to do this. I went against my instinct with my oldest 2 kids because other people told me it wasn't good to do. Fortunately with the rest of my kids I stopped listening to others on how to raise my kids. Now when they reached toddler age there were a few times when nothing seemed to satisfy them and I knew that they were just overly cranky, tired and simply in a bad mood. Even picking them up didn't subside their crying when they were like this so I would just put them in bed to take a nap. But little ones simply have no other way to tell us that they need something. It is very cruel to not tend to them the way we were meant to when they are expressing their need for us.

[erinmarie]

I know alot about Ezzo and his crapola!
Someone OUGHT to do something about that lying scumbag and his crazy wife...and breathe, erinmarie!!!!!!!

Actually I've nursed both of my daughters on demand and through the night and it never really seemed to be of any consequence. I don't know why there's all of these mother's out there who insist on putting their newborns on schedules....is it just so they'll sleep through the night??? Are these mothers so lazy they don't want to take care of the babies they just carried in their womb for 9 months!
Poo on them! Nurse your babies, ladies!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DO IT!!!!!!
hahahaha :ha:

Anyways, about newborns and discipline, there's a section in the Pre-Babywise pamphlet "Preperation for Parenting" that warns never to let the baby linger at the breast, and a small smack on the leg should remind him/her so they won't continue to suckle after they're done eating!!!!!
IT'S PURE INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[frugalmom]

Originally posted by ShadowMaid

You're right Frugalmom. That's nonsense.

You're child should be fed every 2 to 3 hours... even during the night. Yeah, that means you have to get up... and you don't get as much sleep. That's okay. Because you'll live. :)

Yeah, kids should get spanked. But it's true that you can't expect a baby (i.e. a 10-12 months old... we still call our 2 year old a baby) to understand what's expected of him.... or to understand what you're talking about when you're talking about what's expected of him. That probably won't work. The baby is just starting to understand words, and what they do. They'll have NO idea what you're talking about.

I don't believe that you can just leave something out for the child to grab. And he/she is totally free to do so... just so that you can swat at them.

You do that, and it's like saying, "Here you can play with this... but you can't play with this." The baby isn't going to understand. As a matter of fact, it might even have an opposite effect. As I've seen with many kids. It confuses them. That doesn't help matters any.

There's my 2 cents. Not much. More of common sense... I should hope. And if it isn't, it's just some things I've learned over 5 years.

Great post. :thumb: It's scary that people go against common sense and believe the myths out there that are nothing less than bogus junk. The children are the ones who suffer. :(

[frugalmom]

Originally posted by Poly

Great thread, frugalmom. I agree with what you said. That is some very cruel punishment. When you set up the desirable object for the child it sends a confusing message. The child starts out with full trust in the parent. If he sees his parent put the object in front of him and then swats him for reaching for it (hmm, kind of reminds me of the Calvinist view of God....sorry, couldn't resist) it will send out a terrible confusing message and destroy his trust in that parent at an early age. And concerning picking up the crying infant, I regret that I listened to people tell me not to do this. I went against my instinct with my oldest 2 kids because other people told me it wasn't good to do. Fortunately with the rest of my kids I stopped listening to others on how to raise my kids. Now when they reached toddler age there were a few times when nothing seemed to satisfy them and I knew that they were just overly cranky, tired and simply in a bad mood. Even picking them up didn't subside their crying when they were like this so I would just put them in bed to take a nap. But little ones simply have no other way to tell us that they need something. It is very cruel to not tend to them the way we were meant to when they are expressing their need for us.

:thumb: I have to :shut: in public sometimes because I'll see things like a young mother and baby in a store with what appears to be the grandmother (I saw this a while back), and the newborn will be in one of those carrier things in the shopping cart crying. When the mother went to try and pick up and console her child, like she was supposed to, the grandmother proceeded to tell the mother that the child was fine and to let it cry. :down:

[frugalmom]

Originally posted by erinmarie

Actually I've nursed both of my daughters on demand and through the night and it never really seemed to be of any consequence. I don't know why there's all of these mother's out there who insist on putting their newborns on schedules....is it just so they'll sleep through the night??? Are these mothers so lazy they don't want to take care of the babies they just carried in their womb for 9 months!
Poo on them! Nurse your babies, ladies!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DO IT!!!!!!
hahahaha :ha:

They are so selfish. Most of them think that if they don't get 8 or 9 hours of straight sleep that they are being inconvenienced and controlled by the child. :kookoo: At least, that is what I have gathered from reading other forums.

Originally posted by erinmarie
Anyways, about newborns and discipline, there's a section in the Pre-Babywise pamphlet "Preperation for Parenting" that warns never to let the baby linger at the breast, and a small smack on the leg should remind him/her so they won't continue to suckle after they're done eating!!!!!
IT'S PURE INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[frugalmom]

Originally posted by frugalmom

Yesterday while visiting another forum, the topic of discipline came up. Someone posted this link (http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/index.php?id=11) and recommended the book it describes titled "To Train Up a Child" by Michael and Debi Pearl. I had heard of this book before, and this link allows you to read chapter one.

Something else to add - if you read the first chapter through this link, you will see that on pg 8 they start talking about newborns not wanting to go into the crib and encourages the mother not to give in to the "self-centered" newborn, but to let it cry to learn that crying is counterproductive.

What some horrible advice. It's crucial to meet the newborn's needs. What if the poor little baby has something wrong with it? If a mother has hardened her heart and trained herself to ignore it's crying, how is she going to know if something serious is ever wrong with her baby?

And another thing.....

A child who doesn't go to mom after it gets a knot on it's head from an accident with the rocking horse is not something to brag about. That child has learned that it can't count on mom to comfort it if it get's a bump, bruise, or in this case a knot. :doh: How sad.

[ShadowMaid]

Originally posted by frugalmom

Something else to add - if you read the first chapter through this link, you will see that on pg 8 they start talking about newborns not wanting to go into the crib and encourages the mother not to give in to the "self-centered" newborn, but to let it cry to learn that crying is counterproductive.

What some horrible advice. It's crucial to meet the newborn's needs. What if the poor little baby has something wrong with it? If a mother has hardened her heart and trained herself to ignore it's crying, how is she going to know if something serious is ever wrong with her baby?

And another thing.....

A child who doesn't go to mom after it gets a knot on it's head from an accident with the rocking horse is not something to brag about. That child has learned that it can't count on mom to comfort it if it get's a bump, bruise, or in this case a knot. :doh: How sad.

:cry: That is very sad. :cry:

[Crow]

Cruelty aside, "training" kids to quit nursing through the night seems like a lot of work when they will sleep through the night on their own by the time they are "trained." My nephew did at about 10 months. The times between wanting to be fed got gradually longer as the little hog began to eat cereals and stuff and drink more at a time.

[frugalmom]

I put this in the back alley, so I might as well list a few more parenting blunders I have seen or read about.

Here's one: I really don't understand the baby carrier thing. I don't mean a sling, but I'm talking about the car seat type carriers that are sort of heavy. I have watched people on TV and in real life lug those things around with a baby in it. Why double the weight just to lug that bulky thing around by the handle?? It would be far lighter and more comfortable just to carry the baby and the baby will feel better in it's parent's arms too. You won't have a free hand either way you do it, so the carrier idea must be from the debunked "spoil that baby" school of thought. :kookoo: :kookoo:

Another parenting blunder - I heard this woman's story through another forum.....She and her husband had tried for years to get pregnant, and she finally did through IVF and had twins. Well then, she brags about how she's not going to spoil them. She keeps them in a swing most of the day and feeds them (formula no doubt) through one of those - oh heck what do they call them - one of those self feeding bottle things that has the hose thing on it so the parent doesn't have to hold the baby or the bottle. :madmad: Then when it gets evening she puts them in the crib so that her holding them is kept at a minimal. :madmad: :madmad: :kookoo:

This is what I'm talking about that makes me so angry I have to vent!!!! Those poor babies!!!! And most of it can be traced back to the terrible spoiling myth. If you confront them with the facts, alot of times they will tell you you are right, but when it comes down to it, their own selfishness and needs are put ahead of their children, and the children are once again the ones who suffer. :cry:

I hope people who write books giving this cruel, terrible advice don't make a single red cent on them.

[erinmarie]

Originally posted by frugalmom

I put this in the back alley, so I might as well list a few more parenting blunders I have seen or read about.

Here's one: I really don't understand the baby carrier thing. I don't mean a sling, but I'm talking about the car seat type carriers that are sort of heavy. I have watched people on TV and in real life lug those things around with a baby in it. Why double the weight just to lug that bulky thing around by the handle?? It would be far lighter and more comfortable just to carry the baby and the baby will feel better in it's parent's arms too. You won't have a free hand either way you do it, so the carrier idea must be from the debunked "spoil that baby" school of thought. :kookoo: :kookoo:

Another parenting blunder - I heard this woman's story through another forum.....She and her husband had tried for years to get pregnant, and she finally did through IVF and had twins. Well then, she brags about how she's not going to spoil them. She keeps them in a swing most of the day and feeds them (formula no doubt) through one of those - oh heck what do they call them - one of those self feeding bottle things that has the hose thing on it so the parent doesn't have to hold the baby or the bottle. :madmad: Then when it gets evening she puts them in the crib so that her holding them is kept at a minimal. :madmad: :madmad: :kookoo:

This is what I'm talking about that makes me so angry I have to vent!!!! Those poor babies!!!! And most of it can be traced back to the terrible spoiling myth. If you confront them with the facts, alot of times they will tell you you are right, but when it comes down to it, their own selfishness and needs are put ahead of their children, and the children are once again the ones who suffer. :cry:

I hope people who write books giving this cruel, terrible advice don't make a single red cent on them.

Regarding the baby carrier thing, I did use one, and although they are unwieldly, they are helpful in some situations. My first daughter I held most of the time, and she was sometimes happy to sit in the carrier when we were visiting at a family members house, so she could watch people pass and play with her from a different angle. She mostly slept in my arms, but I do have a wooden cradle that is a rocker beside my bed and I would put her in it if I had something to do when she was asleep, or if I was watching a movie with my husband in the downstairs.

My second daughter was very calm and sleepy, so sometimes when she would fall asleep in the car, we would just use the carrier so as not to jar her by moving her, and she would take most of her naps in it. For some reason she is uncomfortable being held for too long, so when she's done nursing she fusses and stretches and kicks!! Funny little turkey:D

I know people who try for years to get pregnant, then when they finally do they're so wrapped up in themselves they don't breastfeed, they don't sleep-share and they complain all the time about crying, lack of sleep and the price of formula!:doh:

[ShadowMaid]

Originally posted by frugalmom

Another parenting blunder - I heard this woman's story through another forum.....She and her husband had tried for years to get pregnant, and she finally did through IVF and had twins. Well then, she brags about how she's not going to spoil them. She keeps them in a swing most of the day and feeds them (formula no doubt) through one of those - oh heck what do they call them - one of those self feeding bottle things that has the hose thing on it so the parent doesn't have to hold the baby or the bottle. :madmad: Then when it gets evening she puts them in the crib so that her holding them is kept at a minimal. :madmad: :madmad: :kookoo:

I hope people who write books giving this cruel, terrible advice don't make a single red cent on them.

Yeah, that makes me mad too. I have a feeling that the whole "mother children" relationship is going to... not be there quite fully. Maybe I'm just over-reacting, because that sort of thing makes me mad.

And the authors, yeah, they probably do make money out of them. :nono:

[frugalmom]

Originally posted by erinmarie

Regarding the baby carrier thing, I did use one, and although they are unwieldly, they are helpful in some situations. My first daughter I held most of the time, and she was sometimes happy to sit in the carrier when we were visiting at a family members house, so she could watch people pass and play with her from a different angle. She mostly slept in my arms, but I do have a wooden cradle that is a rocker beside my bed and I would put her in it if I had something to do when she was asleep, or if I was watching a movie with my husband in the downstairs.

My second daughter was very calm and sleepy, so sometimes when she would fall asleep in the car, we would just use the carrier so as not to jar her by moving her, and she would take most of her naps in it. For some reason she is uncomfortable being held for too long, so when she's done nursing she fusses and stretches and kicks!! Funny little turkey:D


Erinmarie - I agree that they can be useful. I was talking about people who use them when they don't need to, because they took Aunt BobbyJo's advice that the baby would get spoiled if it is held. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. Maybe I shouldn't post when I'm sleepy. :D

I heard one woman complaining how heavy it was to lug the carrier around with her infant in it, and she didn't even need the carrier.

[frugalmom]

Originally posted by ShadowMaid

Yeah, that makes me mad too. I have a feeling that the whole "mother children" relationship is going to... not be there quite fully. Maybe I'm just over-reacting, because that sort of thing makes me mad.

And the authors, yeah, they probably do make money out of them. :nono:

:shadowmd: - I don't think you are overreacting. Babies are blessings from the Lord and should not be treated like they are animals, or worse. They are helpless and deserve to be loved and taken care of. Detachment parenting is cruel and unnatural.

It's nice to see people who have some common sense. I occasionally visit other forums and it is sad to read how some people parent. :help:

[ShadowMaid]

Originally posted by frugalmom

:shadowmd: - I don't think you are overreacting. Babies are blessings from the Lord and should not be treated like they are animals, or worse. They are helpless and deserve to be loved and taken care of. Detachment parenting is cruel and unnatural.

It's nice to see people who have some common sense. I occasionally visit other forums and it is sad to read how some people parent. :help:

It is really sad to see other parents, and their method of parenting. I was always get upset to see parents either get super mad, or not really mad at all when their child/ren act up in a way their not supposed to.

One thing that also doesn't make sense, is that some parents don't want to hurt thier child, so they don't want to spank them. I've been over this been over this a few times with our neighbor, that if you want to help them, bring them up right. Don't reward them for their bad beheviour. Or bargain with them. That's generally not a good idea. If you want to keep them from getting hurt, spank them. And I don't mean, put something their not supposed to touch in front of them, so that you can spank them. That's bad. I mean, when they disobey, spank them.

And the newborn, our family normally picks up the crying baby. We check him. See if he needs changed. Or if he's hurt in some way. And we feed, or try to feed, him. Picking him up to check him, every 15 or less minutes, is okay! Checking a baby, is actually a good idea. So it is extreamly sad, when mothers harden their hearts to their own children. It's depressing.

[frugalmom]

Originally posted by ShadowMaid

It is really sad to see other parents, and their method of parenting. I was always get upset to see parents either get super mad, or not really mad at all when their child/ren act up in a way their not supposed to.

One thing that also doesn't make sense, is that some parents don't want to hurt thier child, so they don't want to spank them. I've been over this been over this a few times with our neighbor, that if you want to help them, bring them up right. Don't reward them for their bad beheviour. Or bargain with them. That's generally not a good idea. If you want to keep them from getting hurt, spank them. And I don't mean, put something their not supposed to touch in front of them, so that you can spank them. That's bad. I mean, when they disobey, spank them.

And the newborn, our family normally picks up the crying baby. We check him. See if he needs changed. Or if he's hurt in some way. And we feed, or try to feed, him. Picking him up to check him, every 15 or less minutes, is okay! Checking a baby, is actually a good idea. So it is extreamly sad, when mothers harden their hearts to their own children. It's depressing.

So true! It is extremely sad, Shadowmaid. Motherly instinct tells you to tend to the baby, to love and take care of the tiny being. I hate when I see women in public ignoring their screaming, desperate child. They have trained themselves to be that way, and they think being cruel is training the baby. :doh: :down:

[ShadowMaid]

Originally posted by frugalmom

So true! It is extremely sad, Shadowmaid. Motherly instinct tells you to tend to the baby, to love and take care of the tiny being. I hate when I see women in public ignoring their screaming, desperate child. They have trained themselves to be that way, and they think being cruel is training the baby. :doh: :down:

Dad tells me that women now adays, are "insane". You ask, 1+1=? And they'll tell you 1, or 3, or some other bizzare number that doesn't fit the logic. (Not literally, but that's kind of what their response is like to a question... certain questions.) They were taught that's the right way to deal with the situation, even if it's not right. That's the way they were taught. And because they were taught like so, they don't bother to go with logic, but to just go the "right" way.

I did my best to explain this. If it doesn't make any sense, that's okay. I tried to explain it like Dad did.

[frugalmom]

Originally posted by ShadowMaid

Dad tells me that women now adays, are "insane". You ask, 1+1=? And they'll tell you 1, or 3, or some other bizzare number that doesn't fit the logic. (Not literally, but that's kind of what their response is like to a question... certain questions.) They were taught that's the right way to deal with the situation, even if it's not right. That's the way they were taught. And because they were taught like so, they don't bother to go with logic, but to just go the "right" way.

I did my best to explain this. If it doesn't make any sense, that's okay. I tried to explain it like Dad did.

I understand. Some people would rather keep doing things the wrong way instead of rationally thinking it over and making a better decision.

I was raised by people like that, and had a lousy, chaotic childhood as a result.

To all
Just curious -
Did anyone read the first chapter of that terrible book through the link in post 1?

[ShadowMaid]

Originally posted by frugalmom

I understand. Some people would rather keep doing things the wrong way instead of rationally thinking it over and making a better decision.

I was raised by people like that, and had a lousy, chaotic childhood as a result.

To all
Just curious -
Did anyone read the first chapter of that terrible book through the link in post 1?

No, I can't stand those type of things... well, maybe I could, but you'd have to put up with the creature that emerges afterwards. ;)

[SOTK]

Sheesh....why don't they put a shock collar on the baby and train him/her to fetch! :rolleyes:

Some parents need to be shot! :Grizzly:

[ShadowMaid]

Originally posted by SOTK
Some parents need to be shot! :Grizzly:

I suppose you read the first chapter.... :chuckle:

[ebenz47037]

Originally posted by frugalmom

I understand. Some people would rather keep doing things the wrong way instead of rationally thinking it over and making a better decision.

I was raised by people like that, and had a lousy, chaotic childhood as a result.

To all
Just curious -
Did anyone read the first chapter of that terrible book through the link in post 1?

I read it. I didn't like what I read, but I forced myself to finish it. The first thing that got to me was comparing training a child with training a dog. And, they kept that theme throughout the chapter. I had people like that telling me that I should train my daughter when she was a baby. Good thing I was stubborn enough to try things my own way.

[Yorzhik]

When did I say women these days were insane? I don't recall saying that emphatically. I may have said that within a discussion that men and women display common culture practices that can, in general sense, be considered insane. ShadowMaid will have to remind me...

On to the book. I don't like some of those parenting techniques in chapter 1. The putting something in front of a child didn't set well.

But one doesn't need to get up in arms over the "knot on the head" incident. What someone might call a "knot on the head" is merely when part of the head is bumped. That's how I suspect this author meant it. Now, if it is a protruding lump, a bulge, a serious crack, or something that splits the skin, then that is another thing.

I think this book should have been called, "How fathers should train up a child".

Also, they really didn't separate sections between younger and older children enough.

I've summed up child training in 'the 5 steps of a good spanking' (and these come from other Christian experts, not myself)
1. Clear rules
2. Don't raise your voice
3. Don't use your hand
4. Don't hold back
5. Make sure the child knows what they did wrong, and that they are loved.

[frugalmom]

I just have one question:

Why the heck is Bob Enyart selling this cruel book??? He has it at the KGOV store and it comes with an audio tape by Bob titled "tyrant dad".

I had read enough just reading that first chapter, and then tonight I went to Amazon.com and read some of the reviews. I think I'm gonna be sick!!!!!!!!!! These people are nuts!!! You can read them here (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/1892112000/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/002-9653313-8027257?%5Fencoding=UTF8&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER) . I thought the first chapter was bad - but reading those reviews by people who had read the entire book made me furious!!

Now at first, I wasn't going to mention that Bob sells this book. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. I thought maybe he hadn't read the book, that maybe someone else recommended it to him but he didn't read it. Then I went back to his store and noticed he has an audio tape with it, and I thought he MUST have read it.

The sad thing is, these people are claiming to use the Bible. :madmad: Yes, the Bible says train up a child, but it doesn't mean to abuse a baby!!!!!! BIG difference in a baby who cannot comprehend or understand, and an older child who does. A baby should NEVER be whipped.

[frugalmom]

Originally posted by Yorzhik
But one doesn't need to get up in arms over the "knot on the head" incident. What someone might call a "knot on the head" is merely when part of the head is bumped. That's how I suspect this author meant it. Now, if it is a protruding lump, a bulge, a serious crack, or something that splits the skin, then that is another thing.

The first chapter gave the example of a rocking horse falling over on a toddler and making a knot on it's head, then bragged that the child didn't go to mother with it. One of the reviewers said the book says to ignore an infant who falls to the floor and ignore skinned knees.

The baby/child should not be afraid to go to their parents when they get hurt. That's part of parenting.

I think this book should have been called, "How fathers should train up a child".

Why? Should fathers be using switches on their babies? :rolleyes:

[frugalmom]

Originally posted by SOTK

Sheesh....why don't they put a shock collar on the baby and train him/her to fetch! :rolleyes:

No kidding. It angered me the way they constantly compared children to dogs, horses and rats.

[frugalmom]

From reading many, many reviews by people who have read the entire book, the Perls reportedly describe in their book some very disgusting forms of abuse. Here are just a few examples, that people who read the whole thing said were included:

-Mrs Perl whipping a 15 month old 10 times for not obeying her command to play with a toy

-recommends a swift forceful spanking for a toddler having a tantrum until they stop screaming from the torture and it turns into a wounded, submissive wimper.....also reportedly says not to hesitate to sit on the child if you need to in order to spank

-recommends tripping a non swimming toddler into deep water

-recommends hitting an infant for screaming, for not being able to sleep, and for crying for it's mother

-says ALL babies should be whipped into complete submission for every transgression

Wow :cry: I thought the first chapter was bad. :madmad: This is child abuse. These kind of books shouldn't even be in print. Shame on them for trying to use the Bible as endorsement for abuse.

[frugalmom]

Originally posted by ebenz47037

I read it. I didn't like what I read, but I forced myself to finish it. The first thing that got to me was comparing training a child with training a dog. And, they kept that theme throughout the chapter. I had people like that telling me that I should train my daughter when she was a baby. Good thing I was stubborn enough to try things my own way.

I didn't like those comparisons either. Just from reading that first chapter, they were comparing children and babies to dogs, horses, rats and even terrorists. :mad:

[Yorzhik]

Wow frugalmom, you've really gone off the deep end. Where did this come from?
Why? Should fathers be using switches on their babies?
No, frugalmom, it's because the book seems to be written from a man's perspective. I don't endorse either fathers or mothers spanking infants.

---------------------------

As to the toddler getting hurt thing. You're putting the worst construction on everything, frugalmom!

Here is an example from just the last day. My 2 toddlers were running together. One changed direction and they crashed. Since I was the only parent present at the time. They both looked at me, and I looked at them to see if they were really hurt. But they weren't hurt and both got up and started playing again. One child ended up with a pink chin.

Contrast this with this morning. a child was in their tiny chair eating breakfast. Then he decided to lean forward on the chair and it went out from under him. He fell squarely on his grumpa-dumpa. But mom was there so he cried out as if he'd just broken his leg and ran to mom.

I'm sure what the authors were talking about was similar to the first example. The child wasn't hurt at all. "Knot on the head" does not necessarily mean a protruding bump! Got it? They were not addressing a child going to their parents for comfort, the author was addressing the child's character! Sheesh.

[Yorzhik]

After reading the reviews on Amazon, is there ANYTHING besides infant wipping that is wrong with this book?

[ShadowMaid]

Originally posted by Yorzhik

When did I say women these days were insane? I don't recall saying that emphatically. I may have said that within a discussion that men and women display common culture practices that can, in general sense, be considered insane. ShadowMaid will have to remind me...

I didn't mean literally insane. And no, it wasn't brought up because you were talking about women and men. You were just telling us how women are in our world today because you talked with a woman once, and her reasoning was completely off. So you said "insane". You didn't mean it literally. :)

[Yorzhik]

But I wouldn't make a blanket statement that women are insane from talking with "1 woman"

[Yorzhik]

Okay, I read more reviews at Amazon. First, it is interesting that there were only 2 reviews from well over 100 that gave the book 2 or 3 stars. Everyone either LOVED it or HATED it. That usually indicates something, but I won't get into that at this time.

Second, after reading more reviews, I have to say that I don't agree with throwing a child in water that doesn't know how to swim. I've only read it from the reviews, and I'd like to read it in context before passing my personal final judgement.

[Yorzhik]

Wow ShadowMaid, you have over 3000 posts. That is amazing.

[frugalmom]

A couple more things I noticed from reading the first chapter:

1. The Perls described how they used a 12 inch long, 1/8 inch diameter switch on their 5 month old daughter's bare legs to try to stop her from climbing stairs. They even admitted that her young brain didn't seem to understand the association.

2. The story about the Amish guy with the 12 month old. The baby wanted to get down from his lap and he spanked it 15 times in 45 minutes for trying to get down or for turning toward it's mother. The Perls said he had realized the importance of this from training horses and mules. :rolleyes: Anyone with a clue would know that the baby obviously didn't understand why it was being spanked. :kookoo:

[Poly]

I just read the first chapter. I have to say that I have a different take on it than when I read frugalmom's first post and am a little disappointed that it now seems to have been taken a little to the extreme. In my mind I had the impression that the author was suggesting setting the child down, putting a wonderful object in front of the child, telling the child to reach for the object (frugalmom did not say this last part but was an assumption of mine) and then swatting the child for doing so. Placing a child in a room where there may be some things that the child is interested in seems very different then the first scenerio I described. Besides that, anybody who has had children knows that all you have to do is pretty much set the child down and everything looks desirable. And once that child starts reaching for them, I don't see how saying no first and then swatting them after that if they do it again, is so extreme.

I also thought that it was being suggested that the authors were saying never pick up a baby when it cries. But after reading it I see where it specifically says "Crying because of genuine physical need is the infant's only voice to the outside world, but crying in order to manipulate others into constant servitude should never be rewarded". And the example given in the book is "As a mother attempts to lower a child into the crib, he stiffens, takes a deep breath, and bellows." This sounds more like a child ticked off because he didn't get his way rather than a child who is crying because he's hungry or his diaper needs changed. I see nothing in there that suggested not feeding the child when it was hungry. In frugalmom's post she has this under "newborn training" which is kind of unfair since the author isn't giving a specific age here. But a child that bows back and screems before the mom can even put him in the crib sounds older than "newborn" to me. And I see nothing of the training of "feeding schedules" or "sleeping schedules" being taught.

The author also speaks of excessive discipline and gives the example of the father who was very strict but his strict ways were always shown in public. The author said he always seemed to wonder "If he's this strict, why doesn't he take care of these problems at home?". If the training were to start at home then this severe discipline wouldn't have to take place in public. I know far too well, too many families that were this way in the church I grew up in. It's as if they saved their severe discipline for the public to see so that they would be known as "good" parents.

As far as the child being switched for climbing the stairs (he also explains that the child had a fascination for stair climbing), if this child continued to climb the stairs only to fall and break her neck, how hard would the parents have been on themselves, looking back and thinking "if we would have only trained her, no matter what it took, to have nothing to do with these stairs." They make a good case for this.


The part of this first chapter that I felt was very interesting is the author making note of our God doing this very thing when He put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in their view. He makes some great points with this example.

I must be honest and say that I should have read this before replying, in an earlier post, to these comments that I feel were somewhat out of context.

[Yorzhik]

Hey, I'm a subscriber... why can I not delete posts?

[Yorzhik]

Poly's post is a jewel on this topic. In fact, I'm making it POTD!

[karstkid]

Originally posted by frugalmom
...These people advocated having training sessions by putting desirable objects in the child's reach for the purpose of using a switch on the baby's hand (if they don't respond to no) to try and teach it not to touch desirable objects.

They also talked about having training sessions in order to train a baby to come when called, which would end up in swatting the baby with a switch if the baby didn't listen. This would be done by putting a child alone in a room with a desirable toy - again - another cruel method for the sole purpose of setting the child up to fail to administer training. The first few times, if the baby didn't come on demand, the father would go over and give the 10 or 12 month old an "explanation" of what is expected of him. HA - I can just imagine someone being dumb enough to try this and then have the baby look at you as if it's thinking "What are you talking about?" Many babies aren't even walking yet at that age. The book called this "booty camp" - although the example they gave was for 10 - 12 month olds. ("Toddlers" the book called them)

I'm not saying I'm against discipline, but a baby who doesn't understand, and an older toddler or child who is trying to manipulate their parents and misbehave are very different situations. A young baby just wants it's needs met and is not capable of trying to manipulate anyone.

OK this is the year 2004 for crying out loud. Surely by the time the 90's came around, the "spoil that baby" myth was debunked. I thought almost everyone knew by now that you can't spoil a baby by meeting it's needs and loving it! A newborn's wants are it's needs, yet this book warns against the mother picking up the crying child from the crib and encourages letting the newborn cry.

Children are precious gifts from the Lord and should not be treated like animals, or worse. A mother has to go against her motherly instinct to and harden her heart to ignore a crying baby.

Another thing is, a newborn's stomach is the size of a cherry. They need to be fed every 2 or 3 hours. Some people don't want to have to deal with their children and don't feed them on demand. That is so cruel. And the sad thing is, there are books out there encouraging people to treat their children this way. Some of the authors claim to be Christians - yet I know God doesn't want us to neglect our children. It's so sad to read the stories of babies getting dehydrated, and failing to thrive and gain weight, because the parent's read some bogus book by someone claiming to be an expert and a Christian. Do a search for Ezzo's babywise if you aren't familiar and you will see what I mean.

Great post and thread Frugalmom! :thumb: Yes, and I do see what you mean.

I'm afraid a lot of this "bate and switch" garbage came from Bill Gothard and his Institute of Basic Life Principals. He teaches a lot of really bad stuff. When I was a young Christian in the early 1970's many of my IVCF and CCC friends encouraged me to spend the $45 bucks and attend the "Seminar". Well in a year's time that big red binder and it contents ended up in the circular file cabinet.

Also, the host for "Family Life Today" Dennis Rainey and his wife Barbara were on a show talking about breast feeding. Barbara angered my wife to no end when she said nursing should occur on schedule and not on demand. How stupid and cruel. She suggested to let tiny babies cry for hours. :down: That's really bad.

Those are some of the same folks who make a rigid dress code for going to church, e.g., all women must wear dresses and all men must wear coat and tie for Sunday church service. (I dress down when I go to church!) A lot of that stems from the culture mores in some of the Southern States and from a misreading of the verse referring to Christians as being "ambassadors for Christ." Churches like Vineyard's and Calvary Chapel's would laugh at such dress codes. In fact Calvary Chapel started out with born again hippie Christians (Jesus Freaks) attending Chuck Smith's church. Obviously these Christians never read from the book of James.

[Sozo]

Originally posted by karstkid

I'm afraid a lot of this "bate and switch" garbage came from Bill Gothard and his Institute of Basic Life Principals. He teaches a lot of really bad stuff. When I was a young Christian in the early 1970's many of my IVCF and CCC friends encouraged me to spend the $45 bucks and attend the "Seminar". Well in a year's time that big red binder and it contents ended up in the circular file cabinet.



Bill Gothard opened my eyes to everything that is wrong with Christianity.

He is an evil, evil, man.

Shame on any church who takes their youth to his seminars!!

[karstkid]

Originally posted by Sozo
Bill Gothard opened my eyes to everything that is wrong with Christianity.
Yea, Gothard opened my eyes to how hard-hearted, cruel, and legalistic some Christians can be. Gothard is a cultist. He is into legalism and extreme authority teaching (shepherding). There is very little, if any, of God's grace in anything he teaches. He knows nothing about marriage and family. He didn't get married until his 60's. He is the one I first heard what Frugalmom is speaking about in post #1. His form of parenting is cruel. I hope you don't follow his lead with your family. A very resonsible and much better form of parenting would contained in the book "Parenting with Love and Logic" by Jim Fay and Foster Cline. The book is published by Navigators.


Shame on any church who takes their youth to his seminars!!
Absolutely! Shame on any church who takes their youth to his seminars. It would be as our Lord said, "leading these little ones astray."

[Lucky]

Though I'm not really suprised, I find it interesting that, in general, first reactions were negative towards this book, but once it was revealed that it is sold in Bob's store, suddenly the book is okay and it's frugalmom that's getting the negativity.

[the Sibbie]

I just read the first chapter of "To Train Up A Child" and this thread. I'd like to add a couple of comments.

First, I thought it was a little odd that the author used examples of training animals, but I understand that training a child would be a little different and probably more complex. For instance, we wouldn't train our kids how to stop and go. We'd train them how to obey our "No's". But with a child that's too young to understand words, finding some way to associate a negative consequence with one of there wrongdoings seems like a good alternative.

About the method of teaching a child not to play with a certain object, I don't understand how that's so wrong. Eventually, you will be spanking them for touching things you don't want them to touch, so what's the harm in teaching them how to respond to your "no". At a certain point they will be able to understand why you said "no" but until then all the can do is trust your judgement. if they are trained to recognize and obey the command, you'll probably have less spanking to do in the future.

Thirdly, the woman mentioned in the third paragraph, told her children, "Go out in the sunroom to play, and don't bother Mama unless you need something." The author mentions that he wasn't aware the children were there- "except for when a little one came in holding herself saying, 'Pee-pee, Mama.' " I wouldn't say the mother was ignoring the child's needs.

And about the knot on a child's head it says, "They [the children]....didn't expect any attention when one of the girls turned a rocking horse over and got a knot on her head."
It doesn't say that mother totally ignored to see if the child was hurt.
I've seen lots of kids get a bump or scrape and not make a big deal of it until someone else makes a big deal about it. The child will at first have a suprised look then, if you don't make a fuss about it, will shrug the pain off (most kids are pretty tough). But if you do run over to them after that surprised look and they notice that you are making a big deal about it, they usually start to cry. (If a child is severely hurt, you'll know.)
I am not saying you should ignore your child's screams if they are severely hurt.


The instance of a baby arching it's back and letting out a scream when putting him to bed and the little Amish boy trying to throw himself from his father's lap, sounds like obvious spoiled behavior.

And nursing babies that bite, seem old enough to train not to bite. Especially since they look up at you when you howl out in pain or smack their leg. (I don't have any kids of my own yet, but I'm the oldest of 10 and have witnessed this many times. I wouldn't say disciplining your child for that is cruelty.)

Poly seemed to clarify the rest and made a good point about training your child not to climb the stairs, especially if one day you'd regret not training them if they fell down the stairs (Like when my dad forgot to put the gate up and I rolled down the stairs...then he punched a hole in the wall he was so mad at himself).


P.S. What I got from the first chapter is that it is better train your child to be submissive rather than beat your child into submission.

[Knight]

Originally posted by Lucky

Though I'm not really suprised, I find it interesting that, in general, first reactions were negative towards this book, but once it was revealed that it is sold in Bob's store, suddenly the book is okay and it's frugalmom that's getting the negativity. Maybe because frugalmom did some mischaracturizing of the book? did you ever think of that?

Have you read the responses? (especially Poly's)

Isn't it possible that frugalmom's demonizing was a bit over the top?

That's just my take as I haven't read the book myself.

Frugalmom has every right to dislike the book and its contents but that doesn't mean she is 100% spot on target either.

I suspect that like with most books there are things in it that I might disagree with and other things that I would agree with.

[Poly]

Originally posted by Lucky

Though I'm not really suprised, I find it interesting that, in general, first reactions were negative towards this book, but once it was revealed that it is sold in Bob's store, suddenly the book is okay and it's frugalmom that's getting the negativity.

Not fair.

I will admit that after hearing that Bob promoted the book I felt the need to check into it further. I thought I at least knew him well enough to know that he wouldn't endorse what I thought was being suggested by this book. But if I found out that he did, I had made up my mind that I was going to call the show and discuss it. I would not have hesitated in the least to let him know that I felt this kind of child rearing was wrong if the book really did advocate some of these extreme things that had been implied. I respect the man but he's not perfect. I do not blindly accept anything he has to say although it's clear that you think this is the case since you didn't bother to see how evident it was that this first chapter was taken out of context.

[Knight]

TruthSmack! :Poly: *slap* :lucky:

[Lucky]

Calm down, don't get your potds in a twist. What I observed was nothing unusual. On something like this, we tend to side with the person we know better and/or consider to be more informed.

[Knight]

Originally posted by Lucky

....or consider to be more informed. Hence the reason I rarely side with :lucky:






;)

[the Sibbie]

Originally posted by Lucky

Calm down, don't get your potds in a twist. What I observed was nothing unusual. On something like this, we tend to side with the person we know better and/or consider to be more informed. It sounded like an insult to me. :rolleyes: Not much different than calling us "Enyartians and his cultist followers".

[frugalmom]

I'm answering Clete's post to me from the "Who is Bob Enyart" thread:

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
You seem to have some big problem with setting up training sessions with your child as if it is just some excuse that parents like myself use to get to beat on our children or something.

I don't believe that a baby is old enough to understand those things. And I don't like the idea of setting up "training sessions" to punish a child when it fails.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
It's not that at all. Life will train your child if you don't, which do you think will be the more loving and tender?

You keep saying child - the first chapter of the book I referred to talked about babies. How exactly will "life" train a baby who is with it's parents?

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
If you will set up situations in the safety of your own home where the child innately knows that it is loved and protected then not only will the child learn more quickly and completely but then you will not have to be attempting to teach your child a lesson while in the middle of the grocery store, which is embarrassing for you and much less effective for the child because I don't care how young they are, if they detect that they get their way at the grocery store because your too embarrassed to really do anything about it then you are going to LOVE buying groceries from now on!

How old of a child are you talking about? It sounds like you are getting off topic a bit and referring to an older child. I was talking about how the book recommended training babies.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Now, I happen to agree that this book does go a little far in some of the things they recommend, especially with of few of the things they do with toddlers.....

I wouldn't be surprised, considering how repulsive the first chapter was.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
You might find it distasteful but I would wager that it is because you have read one too many parenting magazines and graduated from public school where anything Godly is belittled and shunned to the utmost.

:crackup: You have come to an extremely inaccurate idea of who I am. You must think I am some 17 or 18 yr old who just finished public school and doesn't have a clue. LOL - actually, I am probably as far away from the mainstream as you can get. What I mean is, I support:

-Breastfeeding
-Co-sleeping
-Responding to infant's cries and meeting babie's needs. For example, feeding on demand is crucial.
-Wearing baby in a sling
-Homeschooling
-Not vaccinating
- Homemade baby food making and cloth diapering is fine by me too. :D

How many parenting magazines do you think endorse these things? As far as school, I graduated from Christian school, a long time ago. I'm in my 30s now.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
A hundred years ago, this book would not even have raised an eyebrow.


True. It was around 100 years ago when male doctors tried to change the way mothers had been parenting forever. It was then that they began introducing artificial feeding and feeding schedules. It was then that they began saying that a newborn or a baby could be spoiled. This idea ran prevalent, unfortunately, for decades. Now, however, the spoiling myth has been debunked time and time again. It's sad that they had to do studies for things that are common sense. Studies that showed things like how babies who have their needs met and are held alot and are loved, thrive and are so happy and secure. Studies that proved how detrimental it is to babie's health when it is left to cry. I have links on this info if you would like.

[SOTK]

Originally posted by Lucky

Though I'm not really suprised, I find it interesting that, in general, first reactions were negative towards this book, but once it was revealed that it is sold in Bob's store, suddenly the book is okay and it's frugalmom that's getting the negativity.

:shut:


;)

[SOTK]

For what it's worth, I've read the first chapter and pretty much agree with Frugalmom. I disagree with the authors of this book (at least the first chapter) and don't care for their "theories" on toddler training at all. I'm not perfect, but I think I've been doing a pretty good job of raising my children without having had "trained" them with a switch when they were an infant or toddler.

I do certainly believe in spanking. I do it on occasion when appropriate. It can work pretty well. Like any form of discipline, if overused or abused, it will lose its effectiveness. I tend to mix up my disciplining. Keeps them guessing! :D

I think spanking should be used for discipline only. Not "training". If the authors want to compare animals to children, why do the majority of animal behaviorists say that a master should never spank their dog, for example? It's because the dog is easily confused and begins to associate the hand of its master as the enemy. In keeping with the whole animal comparison, which I find distasteful incidentally, wouldn't it be fair to assume that a child may grow confused at that age with his/her parent "training" by means of pain? Possibly grow resentful even? I don't know really know the answer, and I thank God that I don't.

In Christ,

SOTK

[frugalmom]

My reply to 1WAY from the other thread.

Originally posted by 1Way

Frugalmom

I agree with Clete. Where do we get the idea that children must understand their "training" ,,, that their "parents" gives them?

:doh: Common sense??

Originally posted by 1Way
Understanding the reason for punishment is another thing altogether, but according to scripture, training up a child is nowhere taught that the child must have intellectual understanding of their parents "training" techniques.

Maybe that's why God didn't say "train up a baby."

Originally posted by 1Way
Does a baby know that it does not need to be held and pandered to all the time?

Right. Shame on those babies for wanting to be held. :rolleyes:

A young baby thrives on being held and attended to. This is natural. And if you don't believe in what is natural, studies have proven it. As the baby grows and becomes mobile, it won't want to be held as much. A baby is not "self centered" as the book said. It's wants are it's needs. BTW What gives you the idea that they want to be held "all the time"? They are content sometimes in a swing or carrier, if mom needs to do something. Plus, they sleep alot when they are young. People act like they can't wait to have kids and then when they do, many of them treat their babies as if they are a nuisance. Like they have to try to train it to be detached. It's so unnatural and cruel.

Originally posted by 1Way
It is precisely because of this lack of understanding and appropriateness that parents should instill self discipline in their babies.....

Sadly, 1WAY, you are one who wrongly thinks that babies can be spoiled, and that they are self-centered little brats who are trying to manipulate. A newborn, which the book was talking about, is not capable of trying to manipulate. It's wants are it's needs. Older child, different story. I have many links on this topic if you would like to read them. The "spoil that baby" myth that began around 1900 has been debunked time and time again.


Originally posted by 1Way
Think of the double frustration of twins or the quadruple frustration of quadruplets if every child was the winner in this exact battle! If the children win at the earliest ages that their will dictates what happens simply by screaming loud enough, then the mother and the children will be miserable because it is not possible to pander after the constant whims of each child all the time. Same issue is at stake if there are 1 or 6 babies, love them all the same, one or 6, train self restraint.

Oh come on, 1WAY. That's grasping for straws. Simply put, you do the best you can do, no matter how many God blesses you with. If you do the best you can, there is no guilt involved. That's no excuse to treat a singleton cruelly, just because one in every however million has quadruplets or sextuplets.

Originally posted by 1Way
And here is the clarification and is quite different from what you claimed they were promoting. They realize and promote that a baby's cry is the only voice to the outside world concerning authentic needs. That is NOT what this example of "counterproductive" crying is about. Instead, the child is being trained over the futility of simply acting selfish.

And once again, it was talking about a newborn, who are not capable of being spoiled. Common sense tells you this, and it tells the mother who hardens her heart and goes against her maternal instinct to let her child cry it out. The baby isn't being trained. The only one who is "trained" is the mother who trains herself to ignore her child's cry.

Originally posted by 1Way
Bob Enyart is not a normal/frequent member of this forum, I very much doubt that a PM nor an email will reach him. You really should call him during, or right after, a show, as I hear it's the best way to reach him, unless you go to his church or are a family member. :) He's a very busy man.

Thanks, but I don't feel compelled to track down Bob Enyart.

[frugalmom]

Originally posted by Poly
In my mind I had the impression that the author was suggesting setting the child down, putting a wonderful object in front of the child, telling the child to reach for the object (frugalmom did not say this last part but was an assumption of mine).....

How could you conclude that, when I even said: "HA - I can just imagine someone being dumb enough to try this and then have the baby look at you as if it's thinking "What are you talking about?" "

The whole thing, well half of was, that they had examples of trying to explain things to small babies - who won't understand what they are saying.


Originally posted by Poly
I also thought that it was being suggested that the authors were saying never pick up a baby when it cries. But after reading it I see where it specifically says "Crying because of genuine physical need is the infant's only voice to the outside world, but crying in order to manipulate others into constant servitude should never be rewarded". And the example given in the book is "As a mother attempts to lower a child into the crib, he stiffens, takes a deep breath, and bellows." This sounds more like a child ticked off because he didn't get his way rather than a child who is crying because he's hungry or his diaper needs changed. I see nothing in there that suggested not feeding the child when it was hungry. In frugalmom's post she has this under "newborn training" which is kind of unfair since the author isn't giving a specific age here.

The book called it newborn training. And it specifically said that newborns would need training.


Originally posted by Poly
And I see nothing of the training of "feeding schedules" or "sleeping schedules" being taught.

Where did I say that??

Originally posted by Poly
As far as the child being switched for climbing the stairs (he also explains that the child had a fascination for stair climbing), if this child continued to climb the stairs only to fall and break her neck, how hard would the parents have been on themselves, looking back and thinking "if we would have only trained her, no matter what it took, to have nothing to do with these stairs." They make a good case for this.

The "child" you were referring to was a 5 month old. It is disgusting to use a switch on a 5 month old baby. They even said, that her little brain didn't seem to understand why she was being switched.

They make gates for stairs and that sort of thing. I wonder if they used switches on their 5 month old for going near electrical outlets? What about the stove? And toilets? Coffee table corners?

Originally posted by Poly
The part of this first chapter that I felt was very interesting is the author making note of our God doing this very thing when He put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in their view. He makes some great points with this example.


The book used these examples of setting up babies to fail, in order to "train" them. Did God know we would give in to temptation with the tree? And here I was thinking you were one of the ones against predestination. (sorry if I have you confused with another poster)

[frugalmom]

Originally posted by karstkid

Great post and thread Frugalmom! :thumb: Yes, and I do see what you mean.

Hey karstkid! :wave:

Originally posted by karstkid
I'm afraid a lot of this "bate and switch" garbage came from Bill Gothard and his Institute of Basic Life Principals. He teaches a lot of really bad stuff. When I was a young Christian in the early 1970's many of my IVCF and CCC friends encouraged me to spend the $45 bucks and attend the "Seminar". Well in a year's time that big red binder and it contents ended up in the circular file cabinet.

I don't believe I have heard of this Gothard character - and I'm glad I haven't from what you said.


Originally posted by karstkid
Also, the host for "Family Life Today" Dennis Rainey and his wife Barbara were on a show talking about breast feeding. Barbara angered my wife to no end when she said nursing should occur on schedule and not on demand. How stupid and cruel. She suggested to let tiny babies cry for hours. :down: That's really bad.

That really angers me too about the schedule! :mad: That is so wrong!

I remember you saying that you and your wife supported breastfeeding in another thread. I think that is awesome! :cheers: to the karstkids!


Originally posted by karstkid
Those are some of the same folks who make a rigid dress code for going to church, e.g., all women must wear dresses and all men must wear coat and tie for Sunday church service. (I dress down when I go to church!) A lot of that stems from the culture mores in some of the Southern States and from a misreading of the verse referring to Christians as being "ambassadors for Christ."


I was thinking something similar about the churches with the dress codes. When I hear about churches that promote cruelty, schedules and so forth, it reminds me of those rattlesnake churches I have seen on TV :devil: :chuckle:

[frugalmom]

Originally posted by SOTK

For what it's worth, I've read the first chapter and pretty much agree with Frugalmom. I disagree with the authors of this book (at least the first chapter) and don't care for their "theories" on toddler training at all. I'm not perfect, but I think I've been doing a pretty good job of raising my children without having had "trained" them with a switch when they were an infant or toddler.

:thumb: :SOTK:

[Zakath]

Originally posted by the Sibbie

It sounded like an insult to me. :rolleyes: Not much different than calling us "Enyartians and his cultist followers". Isn't that "Enyartians and his neo-con, fascist cult followers"? ;)

[the Sibbie]

Originally posted by Zakath

Isn't that "Enyartians and his neo-con, fascist cult followers"? ;) :ha: Oh yeah...:ha:...thanks for the correction, Zakath. :p



Btw, nice purple star! :thumb: Did you stop by the Purple Star Club?

[Zakath]

Sibbie,

You're welcome. :chuckle:

Thanks, I stopped by long enough to join the conga line... :thumb:

[Nineveh]

So far I'm on page 15. It looks like the "battle lines" for this book are being drawn between those who would, "baby-proof the home" and those that would, "home-proof the baby". (pg 5)

As to page 15 I have read nothing that comes even close to "abuse" but rather better ways to parent to avoid being abusive (like screaming at your kids and disciplining in public). I guess it's going to break down to what one lables abuse. I try to keep in mind some feel saying, "No." is abusive as it harms their "psyche"...

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Nineveh

So far I'm on page 15. It looks like the "battle lines" for this book are being drawn between those who would, "baby-proof the home" and those that would, "home-proof the baby". (pg 5) Don't most parents end up somewhere between those two poles?

I know we did and, with a few mishaps, our kids all survived to adulthood (relatively intact, too). :thumb:

[Poly]

Originally posted by frugalmom

How could you conclude that, when I even said: "HA - I can just imagine someone being dumb enough to try this and then have the baby look at you as if it's thinking "What are you talking about?" " I specified that this was my assumption. I'm not sure why I assumed this. Maybe it was because you used phrases in your post such as "setting up the child for failure".


The book called it newborn training. And it specifically said that newborns would need training.
Yes, it does but if their idea of a "newborn" is one who "bows his back and bellows", before mom can even put him in the crib then it is obvious that this "newborn" is smart enough to try and get his way. If the author hadn't given this example and simply said "newborns need training", it might have bothered me because it kind of leaves things up in the air. But they make it clear when they suggest that a child is "never too young to train" that they are speaking of a child who is trying to maninpulate. In my experience, this might start at around 3 months old give or take. I don't think you can give an across the board age for this kind of training to start since babies start learning at different ages. Bottom line is, this kind of training should start when the baby is smart enough to start manipulating in order to get his way.




Where did I say that??



Originally posted by frugalmom
I visit alot of forums that have to do with parenting. A while back, a new mother was bragging how she was "sleep training" her new baby boy. She apparently thought that parenting is a day job, and would confine her baby all alone to the crib from 6 PM to 6 AM. The poor child must have been scared to death. She did mention that she goes in there once during the 12 hour period to change his diaper. :rolleyes:

This to me, is a little misleading. You do say that you read this on another forum but you kind of stick it in the middle of your critique of this book and it leads one to possibly assume that these authors support this same kind of thing when they make it clear that "crying is newborn's only way of communication in expressing his needs".


The "child" you were referring to was a 5 month old. It is disgusting to use a switch on a 5 month old baby. They even said, that her little brain didn't seem to understand why she was being switched.
Yes, a 5 month old who was smart enough at that age to already have a fascination with stairs. The author states "such was her fascination that she continued to climb, ignoring her spankings. Spankings are supposed to work but it seemed that at her young age, her little brain couldn't maintain the association. So I laid the switch at the bottom step. We later observed her crawl to the stairs and start the ascent, only to hault at the first step and stair at the switch. She backed off and never attempted to climb the stairs even after the switch was removed."

Also, it's clear that this is a personal experience that they had. They're not suggesting starting training at 5 months old. You'll notice that they never give specific ages that training should begin. They only have you note specific examples of a child's actions in certain situations.

They make gates for stairs and that sort of thing.
Yes, they do. I've used them. But I'm not perfect. In fact my "perfection" diminished more and more with each child that came along. What if the mom forgot to put up the gate one day? The only deterance this baby had was the gate so now that the gate is gone, it's almost a sure attraction for the baby. Again, how much would the parents be beating themselves up if she fell and broke her neck from climbing them due to her fancying them so much? They would have wished they would have trained her to not go near them under any circumstances.
I wonder if they used switches on their 5 month old for going near electrical outlets? What about the stove? And toilets? Coffee table corners?
What is wrong with wanting to prevent the baby from being electricuted, burned or drowned? I don't know if I've ever known of a baby who wasn't fascinated with outlets and, given time, will check it out. Are you willing to take the chance that you'll get him the first time he attempts? Are you confident enough that you will always have your eye on him? And, yes, I know they have those little plug ins. Are you also confident enough that they baby will never figure out how to pull them out. Besides, we should want our kids to refrain from things that are bad because they desire to obey us rather than because there is simply an obsticle in the way of them doing that which will harm them.


The book used these examples of setting up babies to fail, in order to "train" them. Did God know we would give in to temptation with the tree? And here I was thinking you were one of the ones against predestination. (sorry if I have you confused with another poster)
I hate to get into this since it is a whole other sticky topic, with plenty of great threads devoted to it but I have to comment.

If God stuck the tree in the garden and predestined (planned their sin, pre-programmed it, etc.) them to eat of the fruit, then that would be a warped God. But he knows man. We know our kids. I didn't have to pre-plan their actions but I knew, the day I brought each one of my precious little ones home from the hospital, that soon enough, they would attempt to get their way. Now we could try everything we possibly can and make a way for them not to give in to those things that will hurt them like putting things out of their reach or putting obsticles in their way, but what does that teach them? Ultimately we should want them to want to obey us and love us enough to do what pleases us. Love is not love unless there is a possibility to "not love". You can't make somebody love you. You want them to choose to do it. My ultimate goal is for my kids to choose to obey me out of their love for me rather than to be made to obey me.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by SOTK
I do certainly believe in spanking. I do it on occasion when appropriate. It can work pretty well. Like any form of discipline, if overused or abused, it will lose its effectiveness. I tend to mix up my disciplining. Keeps them guessing! :D

I think the point of this book is training so one doesn't have to be creative with discipline. They say "no amount of discipline will make up for lack of training" on page 2. If the child knows, No." means, "No." there is no need to go to the lengths I have seen some go to to "reinforce" the understanding of, "No."

It's really sad to see such a valuable tool like "training" be thought of in such a negative light.

[Mr Jack]

Originally posted by frugalmom Why the heck is Bob Enyart selling this cruel book??? He has it at the KGOV store and it comes with an audio tape by Bob titled "tyrant dad".

Given that Bob was jailed for Child Abuse for one of his attacks on his own children, I find it entirely unsurprising that he's lending his voice to this kind of misguided sadism.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Zakath

Don't most parents end up somewhere between those two poles?

I woudn't bet the house on that.

I know we did and, with a few mishaps, our kids all survived to adulthood (relatively intact, too). :thumb:

I'm glad for you :)

I wish I had this understanding 9 years ago. My daughter is well mannered and well behaved now, but we both could have saved a lot of stress. The problems I see today could have been addressed much sooner and most likely wouldn't have persisted so long.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Nineveh

I woudn't bet the house on that.If you're right, that's particularly sad. :(

I'm glad for you :)Thank you. We tried to adjust our disciplinary style to what worked most effectively for each child, despite the frequent cries of "that's not fair..."

We just offered 'em a little cheese to go with their "whine". :cheers:

I wish I had this understanding 9 years ago. My daughter is well mannered and well behaved now, but we both could have saved a lot of stress. The problems I see today could have been addressed much sooner and most likely wouldn't have persisted so long. Parenting is one of the toughest jobs to do right, yet one of the easiest to fall into with little or no training...

Sometimes it doesn't seem fair. :chuckle:

[the Sibbie]

Originally posted by frugalmom

The book called it newborn training. And it specifically said that newborns would need training.I don't know if it makes much of a difference, but it actually says "A newborn soon needs training." I would think a parent should have enough wisdom to figure out when the baby has a genuine need or whether it just wants to be held 24/7. (I don't think that you should try to completely alienate the child. I'm sure they need some amount of attention. I believe it's possible to find a balance, though.)


The "child" you were referring to was a 5 month old. It is disgusting to use a switch on a 5 month old baby. They even said, that her little brain didn't seem to understand why she was being switched. But a 5 month old is completely capable of learning, right? Perhaps the child didn't remember the consequences? Once they laid the switch on the bottom step, she stopped climbing the stairs. It seems she wasn't able to associate the stairs with a negative consequence, but by seeing the switch and the stairs she made the connection.

The book used these examples of setting up babies to fail, in order to "train" them. Did God know we would give in to temptation with the tree? I don't believe that God would be so stupid not to be aware that it was a possibility that Adam and Eve might disobey. But, I'm not sure I totally agree with they way the author uses that scenario. While I wouldn't say that God was using the tree to "train the couple", I think it was used to allow Adam and Eve the option to obey or disobey if they so chose.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Zakath

If you're right, that's particularly sad. :(

Well, you know my perspective is based on my memories of public school and what I see in public today.

I have run into a woman and her 5 children twice while out shopping. What I witnessed both times was as soon as the youngest's foot touched the floor her entire reason for being in that store went to the wayside as she chases and yells at the boy through the aisles. When she finally catches him she says, "Wait till your dad gets home!"

Obviously "dad getting home" isn't doing the trick even well enough for this frazzled woman to merely shop in peace.

Thank you. We tried to adjust our disciplinary style to what worked most effectively for each child, despite the frequent cries of "that's not fair..."

We just offered 'em a little cheese to go with their "whine". :cheers:

At one point in the book talks about a guy who bribes his kid to be good in the grociery store with icecream after. They equate it with a "mob boss" being "bought off" for "protection". I had to laugh because not only have I made the same blunder in the past but see it almost everytime I'm at the grociery.

Parenting is one of the toughest jobs to do right, yet one of the easiest to fall into with little or no training...

And these folks offer, from what I have read so far, valuable ideas on learning to parent better sooner :)

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by the Sibbie
But, I'm not sure I totally agree with they way the author uses that scenario. While I wouldn't say that God was using the tree to "train the couple", I think it was used to allow Adam and Eve the option to obey or disobey if they so chose.

Sibbie, that's what I was thinking, too. But new ideas sometimes need to settle and be thought out. I'm inclined to dismiss his ideas on this, but I guess I should think more on it before I dismiss it entirely...

[the Sibbie]

Originally posted by Mr Jack

Given that Bob was jailed for Child Abuse for one of his attacks on his own children, I find it entirely unsurprising that he's lending his voice to this kind of misguided sadism. I believe it was a step-son. Have you considered the possibility the step-son was probably being defiant and it wasn't worse than any other spanking anyone else on this board has given?

[Flipper]

Yes, a 5 month old who was smart enough at that age to already have a fascination with stairs. The author states "such was her fascination that she continued to climb, ignoring her spankings. Spankings are supposed to work but it seemed that at her young age, her little brain couldn't maintain the association. So I laid the switch at the bottom step. We later observed her crawl to the stairs and start the ascent, only to hault at the first step and stair at the switch. She backed off and never attempted to climb the stairs even after the switch was removed."


I expect that won't leave psychological scars for life or anything. I wonder how well-adjusted this person's children are?

[the Sibbie]

Originally posted by Nineveh

Sibbie, that's what I was thinking, too. But new ideas sometimes need to settle and be thought out. I'm inclined to dismiss his ideas on this, but I guess I should think more on it before I dismiss it entirely... Right. In general it makes sense, but there are just a few things that I'm not sure about. I'm sure Turbo and I will be discussing this.

[the Sibbie]

Originally posted by Flipper

I expect that won't leave psychological scars for life or anything. I wonder how well-adjusted this person's children are? Perhaps they are better off then me when I tumbled down the stairs because my dad forgot to put the gate up. :eek:

[Mr Jack]

I believe it was a step-son. Have you considered the possibility the step-son was probably being defiant and it wasn't worse than any other spanking anyone else on this board has given?

He was jailed for it. That rather suggests that it was a pretty serious assault. The courts don't tend to throw folks in jail for reasonable chastisement.

[Poly]

Originally posted by Mr Jack

He was jailed for it. That rather suggests that it was a pretty serious assault. The courts don't tend to throw folks in jail for reasonable chastisement.
Really? Please tell me where this fairytale world of yours is so that I can live there.

[drbrumley]

Originally posted by Poly

Really? Please tell me where this fairytale world of yours is so that I can live there. :chuckle:

[drbrumley]

Originally posted by Poly

I specified that this was my assumption. I'm not sure why I assumed this. Maybe it was because you used phrases in your post such as "setting up the child for failure".



Yes, it does but if their idea of a "newborn" is one who "bows his back and bellows", before mom can even put him in the crib then it is obvious that this "newborn" is smart enough to try and get his way. If the author hadn't given this example and simply said "newborns need training", it might have bothered me because it kind of leaves things up in the air. But they make it clear when they suggest that a child is "never too young to train" that they are speaking of a child who is trying to maninpulate. In my experience, this might start at around 3 months old give or take. I don't think you can give an across the board age for this kind of training to start since babies start learning at different ages. Bottom line is, this kind of training should start when the baby is smart enough to start manipulating in order to get his way.









This to me, is a little misleading. You do say that you read this on another forum but you kind of stick it in the middle of your critique of this book and it leads one to possibly assume that these authors support this same kind of thing when they make it clear that "crying is newborn's only way of communication in expressing his needs".



Yes, a 5 month old who was smart enough at that age to already have a fascination with stairs. The author states "such was her fascination that she continued to climb, ignoring her spankings. Spankings are supposed to work but it seemed that at her young age, her little brain couldn't maintain the association. So I laid the switch at the bottom step. We later observed her crawl to the stairs and start the ascent, only to hault at the first step and stair at the switch. She backed off and never attempted to climb the stairs even after the switch was removed."

Also, it's clear that this is a personal experience that they had. They're not suggesting starting training at 5 months old. You'll notice that they never give specific ages that training should begin. They only have you note specific examples of a child's actions in certain situations.


Yes, they do. I've used them. But I'm not perfect. In fact my "perfection" diminished more and more with each child that came along. What if the mom forgot to put up the gate one day? The only deterance this baby had was the gate so now that the gate is gone, it's almost a sure attraction for the baby. Again, how much would the parents be beating themselves up if she fell and broke her neck from climbing them due to her fancying them so much? They would have wished they would have trained her to not go near them under any circumstances.

What is wrong with wanting to prevent the baby from being electricuted, burned or drowned? I don't know if I've ever known of a baby who wasn't fascinated with outlets and, given time, will check it out. Are you willing to take the chance that you'll get him the first time he attempts? Are you confident enough that you will always have your eye on him? And, yes, I know they have those little plug ins. Are you also confident enough that they baby will never figure out how to pull them out. Besides, we should want our kids to refrain from things that are bad because they desire to obey us rather than because there is simply an obsticle in the way of them doing that which will harm them.



I hate to get into this since it is a whole other sticky topic, with plenty of great threads devoted to it but I have to comment.

If God stuck the tree in the garden and predestined (planned their sin, pre-programmed it, etc.) them to eat of the fruit, then that would be a warped God. But he knows man. We know our kids. I didn't have to pre-plan their actions but I knew, the day I brought each one of my precious little ones home from the hospital, that soon enough, they would attempt to get their way. Now we could try everything we possibly can and make a way for them not to give in to those things that will hurt them like putting things out of their reach or putting obsticles in their way, but what does that teach them? Ultimately we should want them to want to obey us and love us enough to do what pleases us. Love is not love unless there is a possibility to "not love". You can't make somebody love you. You want them to choose to do it. My ultimate goal is for my kids to choose to obey me out of their love for me rather than to be made to obey me.

Awesome job! If I had a post of the day, this is it.

:thumb:

[Zakath]

Originally posted by the Sibbie

I believe it was a step-son. Have you considered the possibility the step-son was probably being defiant and it wasn't worse than any other spanking anyone else on this board has given? IIRC, at the time of the incident wasn't it his girfriend's son, not his stepson?

He basically used inappropriate physical force on someone else's kid. I don't think anyone would have said two hoots if he had been married to the boy's mother at the time.

Do you? :think:

[Flipper]

The sibbie:

Perhaps they are better off then me when I tumbled down the stairs because my dad forgot to put the gate up.

Switching a 5 month old because it was, by the author's own admission, unable to understand why it was being spanked?

I doubt very much the 5 month old has the capacity to understand why its parents are hurting it.

[Turbo]

And yet... When the switch was placed on the stair, the baby made the connection. :idea:

[the Sibbie]

Originally posted by Flipper

The sibbie:



Switching a 5 month old because it was, by the author's own admission, unable to understand why it was being spanked?

I doubt very much the 5 month old has the capacity to understand why its parents are hurting it. Well, it worked and appearently the child didn't associate the pain with her parents. The baby associated it with the switch. I highly doubt it caused any "emotional scars". If that is the case I'm sure plenty of us would be trama cases. Are you even for spanking at all?

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Flipper
Switching a 5 month old because it was, by the author's own admission, unable to understand why it was being spanked?

I doubt very much the 5 month old has the capacity to understand why its parents are hurting it. From what I've read here so far, it seems what the book does is use behaviorist techniques (behavior modification) applied to babies.

This particular one is based on the observation that humans tend to try to dissociate pain and painful experiences away from those who also provide comfort and food. That's why the baby focussed on the switch, not his parents.

In adults, a variant of this is seen when military boot camp graduates dissociate the physical traumas of boot camp from their instructors or when sexually abused children will not attribute abuse to clergy or other authority figures. In other circumstances it is similar to "Stockholm Syndrome".

It's a survival mechanism to keep the self-identity from shattering under pressure of cognitive dissonance. And of course, like any other human mechanism it is not 100% effective for 100% of the population.

That's where knowing your child and experience at childrearing (i.e. consulting grandparents, older parents, etc.) come in to play.

[frugalmom]

Originally posted by Poly
This to me, is a little misleading. You do say that you read this on another forum but you kind of stick it in the middle of your critique of this book and it leads one to possibly assume that these authors support this same kind of thing when they make it clear that "crying is newborn's only way of communication in expressing his needs".

I did not stick it in the middle. I covered several topics in post 1 and was already finished talking about ch. 1 of the book. I didn't even mention the book by the time I was describing the topic at another forum. That's why I titled this thread "cruel parenting". I have discussed alot more than just that first chapter.

Originally posted by Poly
What is wrong with wanting to prevent the baby from being electricuted, burned or drowned?

Why don't you ask the Perls, they are the ones who have the problem with babyproofing the home, not me. They commented on that in the first chapter.

Originally posted by Poly
I don't know if I've ever known of a baby who wasn't fascinated with outlets and, given time, will check it out. Are you willing to take the chance that you'll get him the first time he attempts? Are you confident enough that you will always have your eye on him?

I'm not stupid enough to think that using a switch on a small baby is going to make it understand that stairs, stove, toilets and coffee table corners are off limits. Would you go around behind the crawling baby with a switch, so you could swat it everytime it goes near these things? I disagree with the Perls - the home should be babyproofed with gates, plug ins and so on. And that doesn't take the place of constant supervision. A little one at that age shouldn't be left unattended - but it certainly won't hurt to babyproof the home.

Originally posted by Poly
And, yes, I know they have those little plug ins. Are you also confident enough that they baby will never figure out how to pull them out.

Of course not - but they do help. Besides, a baby who is strong enough to claw one of those plug ins out of the electrical outlet, will probably be old enough to understand what the parents mean if they have taught it to stay way.

[frugalmom]

Originally posted by the Sibbie
But a 5 month old is completely capable of learning, right?

Sibbie - at this point I would just be repeating what I have said over and over in this thread. Are you sure you have read through this thread? ;)

If babies were so easily "trained" as the Enyart supporters are repeatedly suggesting, then why don't you hear of people going ahead and using the switch to potty train them at a young age? Why waste all that money on diapers? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by the Sibbie
I don't believe that God would be so stupid not to be aware that it was a possibility that Adam and Eve might disobey. But, I'm not sure I totally agree with they way the author uses that scenario. While I wouldn't say that God was using the tree to "train the couple", I think it was used to allow Adam and Eve the option to obey or disobey if they so chose.

I agree.

[Clete]

Sorry to have taken so long to respond to this. I hadn't noticed it till tonight!

Originally posted by frugalmom
I don't believe that a baby is old enough to understand those things. And I don't like the idea of setting up "training sessions" to punish a child when it fails.
Again, you are reading things into the book that are not there and misunderstanding the terms being used.

You DO NOT punish a baby, you train it.
It is not necessary for them to understand why you don't want them to grab at things on the coffee table in order to be trained not to do so.
You train a child the same way you train a mule or a puppy. You reward the behavior you want with things the baby finds positive and you reward behavior you don't want with things the baby finds negative.
You do this yourself whether you think you do or not. Your baby will behave precisely the way you expect and are willing to tolerate. You cannot avoid training a creature as intelligent as a newborn baby.

You keep saying child - the first chapter of the book I referred to talked about babies. How exactly will "life" train a baby who is with it's parents?
Yeah babies!
How many times do you think a baby will shut his fingers in a door if left to himself to learn on his own?
How many times do you think he will dump hot coffee on himself when he grabs a mug off the night stand that your visiting company mindlessly left sitting within reach?
I can tell you that I simply do not have to worry about that sort of thing because I have spent time training my baby not to do certain things that could get her hurt or cause something to get damaged. I do not have to childproof my house because I have house proofed my child.

How old of a child are you talking about? It sounds like you are getting off topic a bit and referring to an older child. I was talking about how the book recommended training babies.
How about 1 day old! Is that young enough for you? How many times did you allow your baby to clamp down on your nipple while breast feeding before you made it clear that it wasn't the proper thing to do?
How many times did you allow your baby to dig his claws into your cheek before he came to understand that you didn't like it very much?
Do you see my point? Everyone trains the babies. The Pearl's have simply taken that training further than you think your baby is capable of.

:crackup: You have come to an extremely inaccurate idea of who I am. You must think I am some 17 or 18 yr old who just finished public school and doesn't have a clue. LOL - actually, I am probably as far away from the mainstream as you can get. What I mean is, I support:

-Breastfeeding
-Co-sleeping
-Responding to infant's cries and meeting baby’s needs. For example, feeding on demand is crucial.
-Wearing baby in a sling
-Homeschooling
-Not vaccinating
- Homemade baby food making and cloth diapering is fine by me too. :D

How many parenting magazines do you think endorse these things? As far as school, I graduated from Christian school, a long time ago. I'm in my 30s now.
You misunderstood my point. My commentary wasn't as much about you as it was the culture in which you grew up in. It is the only reason, or at least the chief reason you have reacted the way you have to this book. There simply isn't any real abuse advocated in it.
Further, since you brought it up. Co-sleeping and on demand feeding as well as responding to every cry and whimper a baby makes is training it. You are actively reinforcing the babies natural self-centeredness and you are laying a foundation that will prove nearly impossible to undo when the child gets older.
You know there is no magic day when you child suddenly stops being a baby and turns into a toddler. The habits you forge today will not suddenly disappear because the child turns three. And there will come a day when you realize that the child should no longer get everything he asks for when he asks for it because he asked for it. Do you suppose that when that day comes you will be able to sit the child down as reason with him, explaining how he is no longer a baby and that while he's used to getting what he wants on demand, that just isn't appropriate any more, and so no, he can't have a fourteenth piece of candy before lunch!

True. It was around 100 years ago when male doctors tried to change the way mothers had been parenting forever. It was then that they began introducing artificial feeding and feeding schedules. It was then that they began saying that a newborn or a baby could be spoiled. This idea ran prevalent, unfortunately, for decades. Now, however, the spoiling myth has been debunked time and time again. It's sad that they had to do studies for things that are common sense. Studies that showed things like how babies who have their needs met and are held alot and are loved, thrive and are so happy and secure. Studies that proved how detrimental it is to babie's health when it is left to cry. I have links on this info if you would like.
The parenting principles in the Pearl's book are Biblically based, especially those that apply to babies! That's why this book wouldn't have raised any eye brows a century or even two centuries ago. Back then people actually read the Bible, and the culture was based on its principles (for the most part).
The only reaction that they would have gotten would perhaps have been someone questioning whether a book filled with such obvious common sense need be written in the first place.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[Clete]

Originally posted by frugalmom
If babies were so easily "trained" as the Enyart supporters are repeatedly suggesting, then why don't you hear of people going ahead and using the switch to potty train them at a young age? Why waste all that money on diapers? :rolleyes:

Actually I know of one couple who potty trained their baby at I think it was 6 months old, but maybe it was 9. Either way, it was before the child could walk. They used the same technique that American Indians used to use, only they waited till the child was much older than the Indians did. They uses to potty train their babies very, very early because when they were on the move, they could not afford to stop every time the baby decided it needed to go to the bathroom and they did not have Pampers back then. The baby was trained to go when the parent told it to go (which of course was quite often). That's right! The baby was trained to respond to verbal commands. Imagine that!
The point being, anything you can train a dog to do, you can more easily train a child to do. All that is necessary is the proper technique and sufficient patients and motivation.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[Christine]

Originally posted by Mr Jack
The courts don't tend to throw folks in jail for reasonable chastisement.
This is really a very seious problem. Here in the state of Ohio, there is even a leagal defense league to protect innocent families that are being harrassed by social workers. ( http://www.fdno.org/ ) Some parents have had their children taken away or done jail time because they spanked (not abused) their children. These parents were found guilty due to social workers, lawyers, judges, and police officiers lack of leagal knowledge in this area.

[1Way]

Frugalmom

Here is my post from the other thread that you responded to in this thread in post #54 so that everyone can see what I actually posted including the example at the bottom that you ignored.


QUOTE

Frugalmom

I agree with Clete. Where do we get the idea that children must understand their "training" ,,, that their "parents" gives them? Understanding the reason for punishment is another thing altogether, but according to scripture, training up a child is nowhere taught that the child must have intellectual understanding of their parents "training" techniques. The parents are the governors over the child, it is not an equal rights, equal agreement, mutual understanding, situation.

I would like to point out one thing that you said, and what I read from the book web page to demonstrate that I believe your feelings of anger may have gotten the best of you. Human emotions can sometimes effectively short-circuit our reasoning and objectivity. Consider. QUOTE
He would never convince me that it's OK to let a newborn cry just to try and prove to it that crying (which is their ONLY way of communication) is counterproductive. A newborn or an infant are not capable of understanding these things. They know they are hungry or need a clean diaper, and it's the parent's job to be there to take care of them, not to abandon them.
END QUOTE You present the case saying "it's OK to let a newborn cry just to try and prove to it that crying (which is their ONLY way of communication) is counterproductive." You even argue by appealing to the baby's natural need to communicate by crying about urgent matters that only the parent can take care of. Yet contrary to your portrayal of what they are teaching, this is what the book actually says with numbered callouts added. QUOTE
("To Train Up A Child", first chapter, pp 8-9 said)
(1) As a mother attempts to lower her child into the crib, he stiffens, takes a deep breath, and bellows. The battle for control has begun in earnest. (2) Someone is going to be conditioned. Either the tenderhearted mother will cave in to the child’s self-centered demands (training the child to get his way by crying) or he will be allowed to cry (thus learning that crying is counterproductive). (3) Crying because of genuine physical need is the infant’s only voice to the outside world, but crying in order to manipulate others into constant servitude should never be rewarded. Otherwise, you will reinforce the child’s growing self-centeredness, which will eventually become socially intolerable.
END QUOTE (1) This situation that they have in mind is NOT when the baby needs a diaper changed or any other genuine need. It's when the child simply wants to have it's way no matter what (selfishness). It may constantly want mommy's attention, it does not want to be left alone. So every day, probably every hour, mommy needs to pay attention to other things, go to the bathroom, cook, eat, clean house, etc., so who wins? The will of the baby or the will of the mother?

(2) Does a baby know that it does not need to be held and pandered to all the time? It is precisely because of this lack of understanding and appropriateness that parents should instill self discipline in their babies so that the parents can attend to the things that they must in order to effectively function. Think of the double frustration of twins or the quadruple frustration of quadruplets if every child was the winner in this exact battle! If the children win at the earliest ages that their will dictates what happens simply by screaming loud enough, then the mother and the children will be miserable because it is not possible to pander after the constant whims of each child all the time. Same issue is at stake if there are 1 or 6 babies, love them all the same, one or 6, train self restraint.

(3) And here is the clarification and is quite different from what you claimed they were promoting. They realize and promote that a baby's cry is the only voice to the outside world concerning authentic needs. That is NOT what this example of "counterproductive" crying is about. Instead, the child is being trained over the futility of simply acting selfish.

A vivid example of a baby's
selfish attention getting game
I've seen a baby who could not yet walk or talk, he was in between crawling but not yet at steady-standing stage. Suddenly he would cry out in a loud and high pitched scream as though in great or painful distress! :shocked: And then immediately stop crying! The baby's face was not towards the people in the room (he was working from stealth as he had no one's direct attention), and then he paused and slowly looked around to see if he gained the attention from the entire room that he expected and desired. And of course he did, everyone was completely silent and looking at him wondering what terrible thing just happened.

And then he smiled and laughed in a way that only a little baby could. It was quite the site, I will never forget it. Next the entire room was in laughter.
:darwinsm:
He caught us all off guard and got us laughing upon the pure idea of spontaneous interpersonal interest and contagious joy. He became the complete comedian that evening. But did the baby know when to stop, or how disturbing these unwarranted cries can be? No, so thankfully the parents corrected the child. That was an advanced game that child played, younger babies play more basic attention getting games.

Bob Enyart is not a normal/frequent member of this forum, I very much doubt that a PM nor an email will reach him. You really should call him during, or r