Cruel Parenting
- Thread starter frugalmom
- Start date
- Status
ShadowMaid
New member
I suppose you read the first chapter.... :chuckle:
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.
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.
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
Night Elf
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 . 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.
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 . 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
Night Elf
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.
Why? Should fathers be using switches on their babies?
Last edited:
frugalmom
Night Elf
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 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.
-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
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.
Wow frugalmom, you've really gone off the deep end. Where did this come from?
---------------------------
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.
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.
ShadowMaid
New member
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.
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.
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.
frugalmom
Night Elf
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. Anyone with a clue would know that the baby obviously didn't understand why it was being spanked. :kookoo:
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.
Anyone with a clue would know that the baby obviously didn't understand why it was being spanked. :kookoo:
Poly
Blessed beyond measure
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
unfair review
unfair review
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.
unfair review
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.
Last edited:
karstkid
New member
Re: .
Re: .
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.
Re: .
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.
- Status