PoAC: The Pearls' Child subdual training
Jul. 26th, 2006 07:26 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
velvetpageI was linked to the Pearls' site through ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
dark_christian. I'm not going to link to it here. Those of you with enough interest to look them up can do so by googling; I'm not including a link to that in my journal for any reason.
The page that was linked to in the community was about how their detractors are demonically possessed. Okay; nutcase alert! Everyone who disagrees with you must automatically be possessed, right? I went on to read the pages about babies and "How soon should I start training my children?"
This was where I briefly started to get conflicted. You see, much of the advice - indeed, the vast majority of it in this section - is very good advice. They suggest teaching a child to "work" - I would call it "help" - as early as possible. If they're big enough to take a block out, they're big enough to put it back. When you sweep the floor, provide them with a broom so they can do it, too, and praise their efforts no matter how ineffectual. Get them to help in whatever way they can, and praise them for it, so as to raise children who see work around the house as a regular part of their day. When discussing schooling (they advocate homeschooling) the suggestion is to turn every interaction into school - counting the raisins in their snacks, showing them how eating one of the five raisins leaves them with four, pointing out words in books and letters in words from their earliest language experiences - all excellent educational advice.
This morning I went back to the site and read the bit about tantrums and children who try to escape discipline.
And that was where I found out exactly why the Pearls, and people who follow their books, are in trouble for child abuse.
Once again, their psychology is spot-on. Kids do things in order to get less discomfort or more pleasure, and if the things they do result in that, they will be reinforced in those behaviours. So far, so good. But the way they advise dealing with the behaviours is totally over the top, and confuses deliberate misbehaviour with reactions to pain. For example: if a child runs away from a spanking, the parent is to follow them, physically subdue them by sitting on them if necessary, and give them, first the five "licks" for hitting, then two more for running away, THEN ONE MORE FOR CONTINUING TO SCREAM WHILE BEING SPANKED. Um, hello?? You've been swatting a kid in order to cause pain so that the pain will be connected to the misbehaviour. If you're planning to cause pain, OF COURSE the child is going to cry! That's not misbehaviour, it's what people do when they're in pain!
Aside from the fact that a spanking is not necessary to get the vast majority of kids to behave, it's child abuse to react to their legitimate pain by inflicting more pain.
Here's where they go wrong: a baby uses crying to express needs. A tiny baby needs to understand that when she expresses a need in the only way she can, that need is going to be met with loving attention from her caregivers. Gradually, she will cry less, knowing that her parents are paying attention and will correctly interpret the coos and cries she makes. At two months, Claire no longer wakes up crying. She wakes up and makes little hunger noises. It those are met with an offer to nurse within a minute or two, she won't cry at all. She expressed a need; mommy met it; all is well in her world. Yes, she has trained her parents. That's what she's supposed to do, and it's good parenting to respond to that. The child is not maliciously trying to get the better of adults at the age of a few months, and anyone who thinks they are has some serious control-freak issues to deal with, hopefully before they become parents.
Gradually, babies become capable of more communication - signing, pointing, speaking, moving towards what they want. It's still the parents' job to respond to needs, but it's reasonable at this point to encourage the child to use their more grown-up methods of communication and to gently discourage crying. It's okay to slow down a response to crying-to-obtain-something, and speed up a response to asking in some other way. It's good parenting to link "please" and "thank you" to every early attempt to communicate, so they become standard practice for the growing child. It's okay to start giving time-outs for behaviours that are not allowed, like hitting, biting, throwing in anger, etc. If you do it at ten months, you're less likely to need to do it at age three, four, or fourteen. It's not okay to train a child with pain when other methods will work. It's not okay to assume that all crying is an attempt to manipulate. And it's never okay to punish your child for fearing punishment.
It would appear I've made progress on the hormonal-triggers front; at no point was I unable to handle this. That's good.
I have a baby calling politely for my attention. I'm going to answer her.
dark_christian. I'm not going to link to it here. Those of you with enough interest to look them up can do so by googling; I'm not including a link to that in my journal for any reason.The page that was linked to in the community was about how their detractors are demonically possessed. Okay; nutcase alert! Everyone who disagrees with you must automatically be possessed, right? I went on to read the pages about babies and "How soon should I start training my children?"
This was where I briefly started to get conflicted. You see, much of the advice - indeed, the vast majority of it in this section - is very good advice. They suggest teaching a child to "work" - I would call it "help" - as early as possible. If they're big enough to take a block out, they're big enough to put it back. When you sweep the floor, provide them with a broom so they can do it, too, and praise their efforts no matter how ineffectual. Get them to help in whatever way they can, and praise them for it, so as to raise children who see work around the house as a regular part of their day. When discussing schooling (they advocate homeschooling) the suggestion is to turn every interaction into school - counting the raisins in their snacks, showing them how eating one of the five raisins leaves them with four, pointing out words in books and letters in words from their earliest language experiences - all excellent educational advice.
This morning I went back to the site and read the bit about tantrums and children who try to escape discipline.
And that was where I found out exactly why the Pearls, and people who follow their books, are in trouble for child abuse.
Once again, their psychology is spot-on. Kids do things in order to get less discomfort or more pleasure, and if the things they do result in that, they will be reinforced in those behaviours. So far, so good. But the way they advise dealing with the behaviours is totally over the top, and confuses deliberate misbehaviour with reactions to pain. For example: if a child runs away from a spanking, the parent is to follow them, physically subdue them by sitting on them if necessary, and give them, first the five "licks" for hitting, then two more for running away, THEN ONE MORE FOR CONTINUING TO SCREAM WHILE BEING SPANKED. Um, hello?? You've been swatting a kid in order to cause pain so that the pain will be connected to the misbehaviour. If you're planning to cause pain, OF COURSE the child is going to cry! That's not misbehaviour, it's what people do when they're in pain!
Aside from the fact that a spanking is not necessary to get the vast majority of kids to behave, it's child abuse to react to their legitimate pain by inflicting more pain.
Here's where they go wrong: a baby uses crying to express needs. A tiny baby needs to understand that when she expresses a need in the only way she can, that need is going to be met with loving attention from her caregivers. Gradually, she will cry less, knowing that her parents are paying attention and will correctly interpret the coos and cries she makes. At two months, Claire no longer wakes up crying. She wakes up and makes little hunger noises. It those are met with an offer to nurse within a minute or two, she won't cry at all. She expressed a need; mommy met it; all is well in her world. Yes, she has trained her parents. That's what she's supposed to do, and it's good parenting to respond to that. The child is not maliciously trying to get the better of adults at the age of a few months, and anyone who thinks they are has some serious control-freak issues to deal with, hopefully before they become parents.
Gradually, babies become capable of more communication - signing, pointing, speaking, moving towards what they want. It's still the parents' job to respond to needs, but it's reasonable at this point to encourage the child to use their more grown-up methods of communication and to gently discourage crying. It's okay to slow down a response to crying-to-obtain-something, and speed up a response to asking in some other way. It's good parenting to link "please" and "thank you" to every early attempt to communicate, so they become standard practice for the growing child. It's okay to start giving time-outs for behaviours that are not allowed, like hitting, biting, throwing in anger, etc. If you do it at ten months, you're less likely to need to do it at age three, four, or fourteen. It's not okay to train a child with pain when other methods will work. It's not okay to assume that all crying is an attempt to manipulate. And it's never okay to punish your child for fearing punishment.
It would appear I've made progress on the hormonal-triggers front; at no point was I unable to handle this. That's good.
I have a baby calling politely for my attention. I'm going to answer her.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-26 12:44 pm (UTC)Been meaning to ask
Date: 2006-07-26 02:07 pm (UTC)As for the Pearls, they are the scum of the earth. Yes, I was raised in an abusive household, as was my SO.
Re: Been meaning to ask
Date: 2006-07-26 02:20 pm (UTC)Re: Been meaning to ask
Date: 2006-07-26 02:24 pm (UTC)Re: Been meaning to ask
Date: 2006-07-26 02:28 pm (UTC)Re: Been meaning to ask
Date: 2006-07-26 02:39 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-26 02:09 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-26 02:25 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-26 02:50 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-26 03:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-26 03:50 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-26 11:04 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-27 04:42 am (UTC)