The Eighth and Final Square

with courage face the thing you fear so the pawn becomes the queen

Chapter 1 turned out longer than I expected, so I’m splitting it into two parts.

“To Train Up a Child” — Promote this series
Chapter 1 Part 1
Chapter 1 part 2
Chapter 2
Chapter 3


Switch Your Kids

The book starts out fundamentally flawed, highlighting Michael Pearl’s love for the extremes by two stories featuring a family whose children are obviously out of control (I cringe saying that), contrasted with a woman who tells her children “Go out in the sun-room to play and don’t bother Mama unless you need something.” Of course, they obey perfectly, supposedly through using the “Biblical principles found in these pages”. In Pearlala land, I have yet to see where they even mention nonviolent parenting methods in which the children are taught to love and respect their fellow humans without having it beaten into them.

I remember being the child of the second mother. I remember being told to go play and not bother the adults. (I wasn’t always told this; my parents also loved having us kids sitting in on their adult discussions, even when we couldn’t understand them, because we were always so well-behaved, they liked to show us off.) Even as a very small child, I hated that. I felt demeaned, like a lesser person. And these things I felt before age 10! I remember having to try to figure out how to handle things without bothering the adults. I remember being really scared of trying to get mom’s or dad’s attention, even when I thought it was necessary. Sometimes I got scolded because mom or dad thought it wasn’t necessary; sometimes it really was. How was a five-year-old supposed to know what was “necessary”?

Obedience Training

The paragraphs under this heading make me shudder.

Training does not necessarily require that the trainee be capable of reason; even mice and rats can be trained to respond to stimuli. Careful training can make a dog perfectly obedient. If a seeing-eye dog can be trained to reliably lead a blind man through the obstacles of a city street, shouldn’t a parent expect more out of an intelligent child? A dog can be trained not to touch a tasty morsel laid in front of him. Can’t a child be trained not to touch? A dog can be trained to come, stay, sit, be quiet or fetch upon command. You may not have trained your dog that well, yet every day someone accomplishes it on the dumbest mutts. Even a clumsy teenager can be trained to be an effective trainer in a dog obedience school.

Michael Pearl fails to see (as I wrote in the Introduction) that GOOD dog obedience methods do not use violence. Plus, if parents are expecting more out of an intelligent child (I’m surprised he even refers to a child’s intelligence!), then wouldn’t it follow that children are more teachable than dogs? And just if you used violence to train a dog, then shouldn’t you be able to use better methods on a child? Wouldn’t a child be able to understand without using violence?

Teaching a child not to touch things isn’t a bad thing; in fact it can be a very good thing. But a child should be taught not to touch for a reason, not simply “because I said so”. Because it could break. Because it’s not yours. Because it will hurt you. Those are all real reasons that would make much more sense to a child than if you touch this, I will spank you. Why? Because I said not to touch it. One could argue this creates a trust between the child and parent, but it doesn’t. It actually makes the parent seem all the more arbitrary. What’s OK to touch and what’s not OK? Who knows! (Except the parent, of course!)

I’m also certain when a teenager brings his/her dog to dog obedience school, there is no violence used on the teenager to make him/her an effective trainer. That would just be really, really, really bad for business.

If you wait until your dog is displaying unacceptable behavior before you rebuke (or kick) him, you will have a foot-shy mutt who is always sulking around seeing what he can get away with before being screamed at. Where there is an absence of training, you can no more rebuke and whip a child into acceptable behavior than you can the family dog. No amount of discipline can make up for lack of training.

Proper training always works on every child. To neglect training is to create miserable circumstances for yourself and your child. Out of innocent ignorance many of you have bypassed the training and expected the discipline alone to effect proper behavior.

Basically, Pearl’s methods (which will be expounded upon later) isn’t based so much on consistent discipline (though they talk about that as well) so much as “training” beforehand: set your child up (or dog) for a fall, then spank them when they go for the obvious. So instead of having to deal with the child on a situation-by-situation basis (taking advantage of teachable moments), you have training sessions. Instead of having “a foot-shy mutt who is always sulking around seeing what he can get away with before being screamed at”, you’ll get foot-shy children who never know what is a set-up and what is the real thing.

Been there, done that. Those situations are partly why I hated answering any type of question my dad asked: I didn’t know if it was a set-up or if he genuinely wanted to know. I never knew when he was just testing me, or when it was the real deal. Consequently, I grew to second-guess my every thought and action. And second-guess his.

There are things that should still be taught beforehand: no putting fingers in the electric outlets (or DUH just buy those things that prevent it until you can teach him/her why s/he shouldn’t do that!), no running out in the street, even to chase a ball, etc. The difference is, these are things you don’t need to create a scenario for them to fall in. Are you walking down the street? Reinforce why you don’t run out into the street, even after a pet or ball. Sometimes children are forgetful, which is why you should be patient and repeat things often enough for them to grasp it fully.

Did you also see the sleight-of-hand he did there? “Where there is an absence of training, you can no more rebuke and whip a child into acceptable behavior than you can the family dog”. In fact, he means you can. He gives plenty of examples on his website ( of how he suggests turning families around by telling them to spank. And not just in training sessions!

When headstrong young men join the military, they are first taught to stand still. The many hours of close-order-drill are simply to teach and reinforce submission of the will. “Attention!” pronounced, “TENNN–HUTT!!” is the beginning of all maneuvers. Just think of the relief it would be if by one command you could gain the absolute, silent, concentrated attention of all your children. A sergeant can call his men to attention and then, without explanation, ignore them, and they will continue to stand frozen in that position until they fall out unconscious. The maneuvers “Right flank, Left flank, Companeeey–Halt” have no value in war except as they condition the men to instant, unquestioning obedience.

As in the military, all maneuvers in the home begin with a call to attention. Three-fourths of all home discipline problems would be instantly solved if you could at any time gain your child’s silent, unmoving attention. “TO THE REAR–MARCH” translated into family language would be: “Leave the room,” or, “Go to bed.” Without question they turn and go. This is normal in the well trained family.

First of all, not all who go into the military are “headstrong”, nor “young men”. Secondly, there is a glaring fault in this: those who go into the military (unless there is a draft) choose to be there. Perhaps they don’t know exactly what they are getting into, but they are still there voluntarily.

Children, on the other hand, have no such luxury: they are stuck with the parents they were born to.

This all sounds really nice to parents who have never attempted any sort of teaching of their children, who of course are wild. The whole reason parents get sucked into the Pearl trap is because they offer easy-to-use formulas that promise picture-perfect results. Parents who follow Pearl methods aren’t usually abusive, or trying to be, they are simply desperate. In later chapters I will show you the phrases that, taken literally, can lead to death.

I remember being in one of those “well trained families”. Do you have any clue how humiliating it is for a person (child, teen, adult…happened in all those stages of my life, but it bothered me more in my teen/adult years) to have to obey right away when mom or dad gives a command, especially if it happens in front of other people? (Which seemed to be often; I referred to those types of instances as the dog-and-pony shows.) Again, it made me feel like less than a person. It didn’t matter what I felt, or what I wanted, as long as I obeyed mommy and daddy. Plus, whatever it was had to be done with a smile, or it was off to the other room for a spanking. Yes, even as a teen/adult.

Not to mention there is the military command “at ease”, which means “do whatever you want until I call you again.” There’s not always that option in the “well trained family”. (For instance, when dad was around, we had to be hyper vigilant because he expected us to listen to anything he said, even if it was a conversation with someone else.)

I would just like to put his last paragraph into simple words: Three-fourths of all home discipline problems would be instantly solved if you turned your children into robots.

Think Stepford Wives. (I think about the newer version; I didn’t see the one from the 70’s.) Do you really want perfect robots, or do you want children?!?

Control of people is a fallacy; you may think you have it, but deep down it breeds rebellion.1

“Whoa, Horse”

Pearlala land is evidently somewhere out in the boonies where horses and buggies are used, because in the next few paragraphs, Michael talks about how you must train the horses before you get them hitched to the buggies. Instead of explaining all of it, I’ll include some of it. (No way I can quote the entire book! — but I’ll try to get relevant passages in.)

A horse is first trained to stand still and submit to being caught. He must not fear the bridle or harness. He must stand still while the thirteen children step in front of the iron wheels to climb into the buggy. When stopped at the end of a driveway, waiting for the traffic to clear, he must not exercise his own will to step out in front of eighty-thousand pounds of speeding truck.

You must anticipate and train the horse for all potential occurrences. This is done in a controlled environment where situations are created to test and condition the horse’s responses. The horse is first conditioned by being taken through paces. As you hold the bridle and lead the horse, you say, “Whoa,” and then stop. Since you have a tight hold on the bridle, he must stop. After just a few times, the horse will stop to just the command.

This is giving an example of why you would train your children “for all potential occurrences….in a controlled environment”. Flaw: Children are not horses. What is right for a horse is not right for a child. Notice, though, that the horse is still being trained using nonviolent methods. I guess children really are dumber than animals to him.

Speak To Me Only

He goes on to talk about how when you’re training your horse, you use your normal voice so the horse learns to respond to not only the sound, but the tone of your voice instead of a wild bellow.

If you raise your voice when giving a command to your child, he will learn to associate your tone and decibel level with your intention. If you have so trained him, don’t blame him if he ignores your first thirteen “suggestions” waiting for the fevered pitch to reach the point where he must interpret it to be a real command.

If you’re teaching your child to do what’s right, of course it’s going to take longer than a command, but in the end the child learns to do or not do something of his own will, and for the right reasons, rather than “because I said”.

There’s always the classic “you have to train your children to obey or they won’t stop when you tell them to and they’re running out in the street!”. Straight-up fear tactic. Teach your child why s/he shouldn’t run out into the street. Then you won’t have to keep such an eagle eye on them. Win-win!

Training, Not Disciplining

“Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it (Prov. 22:6).” Train up, not beat up. Train up, not discipline up. Train up, not educate up. Train up, not “positive affirmation” up. Training is the most obvious missing element in child rearing. Training is not discipline. A child will need more than “obedience training,” but without it everything else will be insufficient.

Wow, I wonder if it says “train up” in every version. I sure hope it does, because it seems they are pretty stuck on the word “train”. Oops, it doesn’t. That also makes me wonder what definition of “train” are they using.

Parents should not wait until the child’s behavior becomes unacceptable before they commence training–that would be discipline. Discipline is a part of training but is insufficient in itself to effect proper behavior. Training is the conditioning of the child’s mind before the crisis arises; it is preparation for future, instant, unquestioning obedience. An athlete trains before he competes. Animals, including wild ones, are conditioned to respond to the trainer’s voice command.

Oh, I see…by “train” he means “brainwash“. There’s a difference between teaching and brainwashing. Evidently, to him, there is no difference between training and brainwashing.

Having been brainwashed/conditioned by my parents (evidently not well enough, since I didn’t obey cheerfully!) about certain things, I can tell you it is a mess. Especially when you realize you did things just because mommy and daddy said, and for no other reason. Why do I believe in God? Mom and dad said so. Why do I believe in these certain standards of modesty? Mom and dad said so. Basically, you destroy rational thought and free thinking. And let me tell you, it is hard to undo. You have to step back from everything and look at it objectively to decide WHY you have these behaviors, reactions, and beliefs. And then there’s a whole other ballgame…dealing with people who don’t understand why you are struggling, why you need to take those steps back!

The frustration experienced by parents is of their own ignorant making. Our problem is not “bad” children, just bad training. There are no exceptions, the “strong willed,” the hyper active, the highly intelligent and the easily bored all need training, and training is effective on all.

I actually agree here (other than the whole hangup on what he says train means…I would substitute “training” for “teaching”). But I agree for completely different reasons: without any sort of teaching, YES, you will experience frustration with your children!

I hate to use words and phrases referring to children as “out of control”, “untamed”, etc. Though perhaps “untamed” is a good word: you can tame an animal and make friends with it, without controlling it or forcing it to obey you. Children are miniature people with a lot less life experience. I don’t believe (as Michael Pearl does2) that children are born with the intent to rule the world. They are born not knowing, but with the intelligence and capacity to learn through careful, loving teaching. Children don’t manipulate on purpose (unless taught to do so by their parents’ actions and reactions), they are trying to communicate in the only ways they know how!

Understand, at this point we are not talking about producing godly children, just happy and obedient children. The principles for training children to instantly obey can be equally applied by Christians and non-Christians.

Training Not To Touch

There is much satisfaction in training up a child. It is easy and challenging. When my children were able to crawl (in the case of one, roll) around the room, I set up training sessions.

Try it yourself. Place an appealing object where they can reach it, maybe in a “No-no” corner or on an apple juice table (That’s where the coffee table once sat). When they spy it and make a dive for it, in a calm voice say, “No, don’t touch it.” They will already be familiar with the “No,” so they will pause, look at you in wonder and then turn around and grab it. Switch their hand once and simultaneously say, “No.” Remember, you are not disciplining, you are training. One spat with a little switch is enough. They will again pull back their hand and consider the relationship between the object, their desire, the command and the little reinforcing pain. It may take several times, but if you are consistent, they will learn to consistently obey, even in your absence.

I can see how there would be “much satisfaction” and a sense of real accomplishment in teaching your child, but not in training, in the way Michael Pearl defines. Honestly, this sounds sadistic. There is “much satisfaction” in creating a situation in which you know the child will mess up, so you can switch their hand? What if the child continues, more than “several times”? Is it more important to break your child, to keep switching their hand (or backside, whichever you choose), to bruise your child, than it is to create a loving, trusting relationship in which such scenarios are completely unnecessary??

Plant Your Tree In The Midst Of The Garden

When God wanted to “train” his first two children not to touch, He did not place the forbidden object out of their reach. Instead, He placed the “tree of knowledge of good and evil” in the “midst of the garden (Gen. 3:3).” Being in the middle of the garden, they would pass it continually. God’s purpose was not to save the tree–rather, to train the couple.

First of all, I don’t believe the histories of the Old Testament (of the Christian bible) should ever be used as examples of child training. What did God do? Well let’s see…for one, he punished his children by making them walk around the desert for 40 years, eating the same two things. (Wait…could that be where someone would derive the child training technique of feeding their children bread and water, then leaving them outside??) I’m not even going to try to attempt to list all the other ways God punished the Israelites. The point being, those are histories, NOT how-to’s.

It just takes a few minutes to train a child not to touch a given object. Most children can be brought into complete and joyous subjection in just three days. Thereafter, if you continue to be faithful, the children will remain happy and obedient. By obedient, I mean you will never need to tell them twice. If you expect to receive instant obedience, and you train them to that end, you will be successful. It will take extra time to train, but once the children are in general subjection the time saved is extraordinary. Some people say, “Child-proof your home.” I say, “Home-proof your child.”

Ah, yes…I remember my parents talking about how they refused to child-proof the house. I also love (heavy sarcasm) how he says “most children can be brought into complete and joyous subjection in just three days”. Self-help hype, anyone? Not to mention the “complete….subjection” bit. The whole reason the children appear “joyous” or happy is because they are afraid! That was the whole reason I learned to repress my emotions (really bad idea, incidentally): fear of the consequences (a sound spanking).

In those three days, yes, perhaps it will “take extra time”. However, the reason I call spanking lazy parenting is because of this: it requires little to no thinking or actual teaching. You don’t really have to teach your child right from wrong; all you have to do is train him/her to obey you and YOU, as the parent, decide what’s right or wrong and notify the child.

Every time the book mentions the word “train”, think of a literal locomotive that runs on rails. No room for free thought. It switches from track to track without thinking, because the decisions are already pre-made.

My dad likes to tell the story of when I was just crawling, and I touched his stereo or something. He said he would spank me every time I did, and it took like 20 times before I stopped. He would say that he had to break me then, or I would rule over him the rest of his life. He would also talk about how another of his babies would get into one of Grandma’s houseplants that was down on our level. Instead of moving it out of reach (something any sane parent would do), he would spank whichever child until s/he stopped tearing it up. Meanwhile, Grandma watched in horror as her plant kept getting abused until the child stopped!

Not child-proofing a house was something I thought was right for a while…until I started letting go of my belief in spanking, actually. It’s dangerous for a house to be un-child-proofed. You have to really keep an eye on your babies to make sure they aren’t putting their fingers in the electrical sockets! Well, until you “train” them not to. But again, it’s all about controlling the actions of your children.

Touchy Situations

Have you ever been the victim of tiny inquisitive hands? The very young child, not yet walking, is keen on wanting to grab any object of interest. There is no fault in this, but sometimes it can be annoying. When you are holding a baby and he keeps pulling off your glasses, you cannot explain to him the impropriety of such socially crude behavior. The little tot is not yet moved by fear of rejection. So, do you try to hold him in a pinned-down fashion where he can’t get to your face? No, you train him not to touch. Once you train an infant to respond to the command of ‘No,” then you will have control in every area where a prohibition is in order.

Since I am reading the older version of the book (apparently it was updated), I wonder if he has changed his mind on a young child bearing no fault for wanting to grab things, as he believes 7-month-olds are “already learning the dark art of self-will, and must be wisely, gently, and firmly constrained to yield to authority”2.

He goes on to explain how to train the baby to stop grabbing for the glasses, by thumping his/her hand with your finger. He says:

Through this process of association the child will involuntarily recall the pain every time he hears the word “No.” There comes a time when your word alone is sufficient to gain obedience.

Fear. The child doesn’t learn what’s right or wrong, merely to fear your word, and the pain associated.

You name it, the infant can be trained to obey. Do you want to wrestle with him through his entire youth, nagging him to compliance, threatening, placing things out of reach, fearing what he might get into next? Or would it be better to take a little time to train? If nothing else, training will result in saving you time.

I know a mother who must call a baby-sitter every time she takes a shower. You should be able to take a nap and expect to find the house in order when you wake.

Again, the notion of baby-proofing and later teaching right from wrong is completely overlooked. Either you train your child to obey 100% and fear the pain of consequence, OR s/he turns out to be spoiled, selfish, willful. This is a straw man. He goes on to knock down the straw man by pointing out it would be better to “take a little time to train”. He is right, though, when he says “training will result in saving you time”. It will. Because all you are doing is programming the robot. A little extra work in the beginning saves a lot of time later. It does! And then you end up with children who either continue in the way you have established because they are so conditioned and brainwashed, or you’ll end up with children who resent you for your control and eventually hugely disappoint you.

Another solution for that mother may be to wait to shower until hubby is home and can keep an eye on the kids? There’s no such thing as a perfect child. Children make messes. That’s not a sin, it’s a fact of life!

Obedience Training — Biting Babies

One particularly painful experience of nursing mothers is the biting baby. My wife did not waste time finding a cure. When the baby bit, she pulled hair (an alternative has to be sought for baldheaded babies). Understand, the baby is not being punished, just conditioned. A baby learns not to stick his finger in his eyes or bite his tongue through the negative associations accompanying it. It requires no understanding or reasoning. Somewhere in the brain that information is unconsciously stored. After two or three times of biting, with the accompanying head hurting, the child programs that information away for his own comfort. The biting habit is cured before it starts. This is not discipline. It is obedience training.

I haven’t had the “pleasure” of this experience yet, but I anticipate it. I also anticipate handling it without the need for violence. What if, for instance, she bites and instead of pulling her hair (how childish!!) or smacking her, I remove her from the breast for a minute and say “no biting, that hurts”? Hmm, now there’s an idea. Instead of learning pain-for-pain, she learns through a mild consequence. Biting = no food for a second. Just because you don’t spank (or in this instance, pull hair…??) doesn’t mean there should never be consequences!

Also, I can try to figure out WHY she is biting, if it continues3. As with most (if not all) behavior in a child, there is a reason. Even if it’s discovery of a new “thing”.

It’s also curious how he says “This is not discipline. It is obedience training”, when he already pointed out “obedience training” is setting up a situation, not dealing with an immediate problem. Nice little sleight-of-hand there! Don’t be fooled. I’ll quote again what he says about obedience training vs. discipline:

Parents should not wait until the child’s behavior becomes unacceptable before they commence training–that would be discipline. Discipline is a part of training but is insufficient in itself to effect proper behavior. Training is the conditioning of the child’s mind before the crisis arises; it is preparation for future, instant, unquestioning obedience.

Obedience Training — Bowls and Babies

The mother clumsily holds her cereal bowl at arms length as she wrestles her infant for supremacy. When she places the bowl out of the baby’s reach, he is taught it is off limits only if it is out of reach. To train him, place the bowl within easy reach. When he reaches out, say “No” and thump his hand. He will pull his hand back, momentarily look alarmed and again reach out. Repeat the process of saying “No” in a calm voice and thumping the hand. After several times, you can eat in peace.

When “No” and a thump occur simultaneously, several times, on different occasions, the voice command alone soon becomes sufficient to mold behavior. Again, keep in mind, the baby is not being punished, just conditioned. The thump is not a substitute rod. It is reinforcement to the obedience training.

Again, with the thumping. What about putting the baby down, in a highchair, or having someone else hold him/her? Seriously! Use your head!

Wait, don’t take that literally; I’d hate to have a bunch of followers who used their heads to punish their children. Oops, did I say punish? Yes. Again, he’s telling you (after repeating over and over before what he means by obedience training) that responding directly to a situation isn’t discipline/punishment, it’s “reinforcement to the obedience training”. The baby is supposed to know the difference…how? Pain as a consequence is not discipline/punishment…how? The thump is not a “substitute rod”…how? It’s still pain!

Come When I Call You

One father tells of his training sessions with each new toddler. He sets aside an evening for “booty” camp, which is a boot camp for toddlers. The child of ten to twelve months is left alone to become deeply interested in a toy or some delightful object. From across the room or just inside the other room, the father calls the child. If he ignores the call, the father goes to him and explains the necessity of immediately coming when called, and then leads him to the father’s chair. The child thus led through these paces is being programmed.

Programmed. He said it.

He is returned to the toy and left alone long enough to again become engrossed. Another call, and, if no response, the father gives a patient explanation and demonstration of the desired response. The parent, having assured himself of the child’s understanding, once again sets up the situation and calls the child. This time, if there is not an immediate response the child is lightly spanked and lectured. The father continues this throughout the evening until the child readily and immediately responds to a summons. Thereafter, until the child leaves home, he is expected to drop everything and come upon the first call. As long as the parents remain consistent, the child will consistently obey. This “obedience training” is carried out in the utmost patience and concentration. The spanking should not be viewed as punishment, but as reinforcement to commands.

The spanking will be viewed as punishment. It will be viewed as the consequence. No matter what you try to make it look like! Action = pain. I’ll re-quote:

“One spat with a little switch is enough. They will again pull back their hand and consider the relationship between the object, their desire, the command and the little reinforcing pain.”

“When the baby bit, she pulled hair (an alternative has to be sought for baldheaded babies). Understand, the baby is not being punished, just conditioned. … After two or three times of biting, with the accompanying head hurting, the child programs that information away for his own comfort.”

This line makes me feel sick: “until the child leaves home, he is expected to drop everything and come upon the first call”. I don’t think I need to repeat again how humiliating it is to be an “adult child” (that’s the term my mom used) and still be expected to drop everything (including important things…of course dad would say nothing was as important as coming when he called) to come when the parents call. My dad also had a certain whistle he would use to call us all at once (or even if he didn’t know where one particular kid was, which was even more annoying…all of us would come running and he’d select the one he wanted and tell everyone else to go back to whatever they were doing).

So far, not only is he promoting using unnecessary pain as a consequence, he is talking out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to discipline/punishment and obedience training!


“To Train Up a Child” — Promote this series
Chapter 1 Part 1
Chapter 1 part 2
Chapter 2
Chapter 3



  1. Control of people is a fallacy; you may think you have it, but deep down it breeds rebellion.
  2. Michael Pearl believes a “7-month-old is already learning the dark art of self-will, and must be wisely, gently, and firmly constrained to yield to authority”:
  3. How to Stop a Breast-feeding Baby From Biting, When Baby Bites, Breastfeeding and biting- mistakes, surviving, and what I’ve learned
Phoenix On October - 6 - 2011

36 Responses so far.

  1. Libby Anne says:

    “There’s always the classic “you have to train your children to obey or they won’t stop when you tell them to and they’re running out in the street!”. Straight-up fear tactic. ”

    This. It’s like a mantra.

  2. Darcy says:

    Another good way to stop a baby from biting: scream in surprise and pain and scare them out of their wits. 😛 OK, I don’t recommend doing that on purpose but it worked for two of mine unintentionally. 😉 Also, if a baby is biting, it means they aren’t actually eating. To latch on right, a baby’s tongue is covering his bottom teeth, so if he’s latched on and eating, he won’t be biting. A mother just needs to pay attention to her baby’s signals.

    Great review, Anne. I look forward to the rest of it. 🙂

    • QuicksilverQueen says:

      LOL…I definitely remember my mom’s reactions! (Though she did smack the baby as well as scare it.) Good point about the biting/not eating too!


    • TealRose says:

      I have two adult children. My daughter was around 11 months – 1 yr when she decided that her teeth were interesting. And that biting mummies nipple hard …. and then leaning back suddenly and as far as possible, stretching mummie’s nipple several inches and getting a loud scream from her was hysterical! I had to use my finger in her mouth at the side to ‘detach’ myself before she, giggling like a drain, ‘detached’ ME! I tried for an age with this .. with keeping my finger just inside her mouth to try to stop her biting in the first place – to no joy!! Unfortunately she went straight onto cow’s milk in a sippy cup – she nor her younger brother would take a bottle or dummy!

      Four years later her brother was born – and he didn’t bite – and I nursed him for two years !

      The reason babies bite – well, they have NEW things in their mouth … and they are testing them out on everything – from mummy’s soft nipple – to the hard toys and dog biscuits!!

    • Elise says:

      Darcy, the same thing happened to me. I screamed in pain when my daughter bit me the first time. I pulled her away and told her “That hurts Mommy. You may not do that!”. She tried to start crying, but one look in my face and she knew. I told her that if she still needed to nurse, it was okay to do so. She finished her nosh in peace. And never bit again. About six years later, the scenario repeated itself with my son.

      I learned that sometimes your children need to see you as a person. Yes, I am the mommy, but, sometimes what my children do to me affects me as a person. Subtle distinction, but a powerful one for our children to learn.

  3. Sandra says:

    My dad had a particular whistle that called my mom in from another room–when he needed some tool on a handyman task or had forgotten a towel in the shower. My mom would drop whatever she was doing and scurry (yes, literally, a quick little jog) to tend his urgent need. When I got old enough to do some of the little tasks–they were always minor, like, “get me the screwdriver over there” or “bring me a glass of water”–she’d send me so she didn’t have to fret that I’d pull the ironing board or soup pot over on myself because she hadn’t time to secure the environment. Of course, I thought that was pretty cool cuz I got to be just like Mom, made me feel grown up… until I met a family who owned a dog who came on a whistle command. From that moment, come hell or high water, I was not going to be whistled for like some dog. That didn’t really go over well and we struggled for a few years until my brother took it into his head that HE could whistle for dry towels in the shower (instead of walking the four feet to the cabinet where they were kept!) and I was also expected to answer to that. My mom finally realized how stupid it was that these chauvinists could just whistle lazily instead of making sure they had what they needed before they started their task–or maybe she just got tired! At any rate, my brother’s whistling was denounced and my dad’s didn’t get answered any too quickly, and I didn’t have to answer them at all.

    • QuicksilverQueen says:

      Wow! Lucky you got to get out of it. The way my dad whistled was with his fingers in his mouth…VERY loud. When my brother learned to whistle like that, it sounded just like dad’s, so dad told him to stop.

      • Retha says:

        Your writing on this topic is very good, QuicksilverQueen.

        The story about whistles reminds me of this from the sound of music:

        [The captain explains to Maria, with a whistle, which whistle signal he use for each child.]
        Captain: Now, when I want you, this is what you will hear. [blows whistle]
        Maria: Oh, no, sir, I’m sorry, sir. I could never answer to a whistle. Whistles are for dogs and cats and other animals, but not for children, and definitely not for me. It would be too… humiliating.
        Captain: Fräulein, were you this much trouble at the Abbey?
        Maria: Oh, much more, sir!
        Captain: Hmm. [starts to leave the room when Maria blows the whistle. He looks back at her.]
        Maria: Excuse me, sir, I don’t know your signal.
        Captain: You may call me “Captain.”

        • QuicksilverQueen says:

          I hated that scene!! It was kind of triggering, and then all the kids lining up perfectly. Not only did it remind me of my dad’s whistling, but it reminded me of how we were supposed to sort of present ourselves to the company. We didn’t have to line up, per se, nor really do anything other than wave when my dad said our name (and usually something embarrassing about a few of us), but it still felt like we were on show and being paraded in front of the company. Which we were! My dad is very proud of how his kids behave in public, and all the compliments they’ve gotten over the years really strokes his ego.

          • Retha says:

            I’m sorry, if running my mouth made you think of something bad.

          • QuicksilverQueen says:

            No, it’s ok! I’m glad you pointed it out. I had forgotten about it, otherwise I probably would have mentioned it in my post! 🙂

          • Retha says:

            It was about the hypocrisy – the men know they would not want to be summonned by whistling…

          • QuicksilverQueen says:

            Yeah, no kidding. I loathe hypocrisy!!! It’s like one of the things I try the hardest not to be.

  4. ilovemeflora says:

    Excellent breakdown!!!

    This posts brings back so many memories. It describes exactly the way I was raised, down to immediate obedience, tone of voice, and pony-show feeling of being used to show off my parent’s parenting skills.

    Even in my mid 20’s my parents still expect me to drop what I’m doing and go to them. And when I tell them no they demand to know what I’m doing so THEY can judge whether it’s more important. It’s ridiculous.

    And when I tell them no, they get vindictive and try to bully me.

    The really scary part is my sister is far worse and thinks even lower of children than they do. It’s scary how children raised this way can become even worse sociopaths. 🙁

    • Samantha R says:

      Can I ask you a question? Just curious, do you still live at home and does your sister?
      I am in my mid-twenties and still do live at home. My parents aren’t really anything like the Pearl’s nor did they use their methods but sometimes I feel like I don’t have enough “room” or independence to truly be “me” while still at home.

      • ilovemeflora says:

        I live with my parents. My sister is off at anonymous-cult-university.

        i understand that sometimes it’s stifling for people our age to still live with our parents (even in the best of circumstances) but my parents still have much of the habits as they did while I was growing up.

        Just today my mother bitched at me because I did not give my father an automatic “yes” when he asked if I could do a favor for him. I told him it depended on the favor and she was livid. It’s totally ridiculous what they expect me to acquiesce to.

  5. Dcm says:

    “Those are histories, not how-tos.” Love this! May have to steal it!

    This is really weird, but your review is making me feel much better about my own parenting. I was raised with Pearl extra-light… some spanking when I was younger, expectations of obedience, but just in the course of everyday life, not a laid-out training plan.

    The thing is, I could never get it to work well with my first two kids. I tried spanking, but I saw pretty early I was going to have to resort to beating for it have any effect, and I wimped out — wasn’t willing to do that. I tried to teach them not to touch things, but they were persistent, and curious… so we babyproofed the house until it was hard to tell adults lived there. First time obedience? Ha! I did non-violently follow through until they obeyed, but the tantrums and the time it took… miserable. Hard. And there was certainly no dog and pony show at our house!

    Eventually things began to work, and I learned both had disabilities and other conditions that contributed to my difficulties in parenting (I also had child #3, who was so easy to raise he could have done it himself!), but at times, the guilt comes back that I should have been harder on them, focused more on obedience.

    Now, reading this, I’m reminded my “difficulties” were the result of a less lazy, more intentional kind of parenting. I wanted to raise independent, confident, critical thinking adults, not fearful, obedient, conditioned robots, and we really can’t do both. I’d much rather have the former.

    Really great insights!

  6. MM Johann says:

    You are right that fear is not the way to train children. 1 Joh 4:18 opposes fear with Christian love.

    And if Ted Hildebrandt is right, there is even more reason to train up children very, very differently from how they do: “The verb “to train” really refers to a bestowal of status and responsibility. The noun translated “child” denotes the status of a late adolescent rather than a child. “In the way he should go” is best understood as “according to what is expected.” The original intent then of this verse addresses a late adolescent’s entrance into his place in adult society. This should be done with celebration and encouragement-giving him respect, status and responsibilities commensurate with his position as a young adult. “

    Hildebrandt’s take will be the opposite of making teens obey like show ponies.

    • QuicksilverQueen says:

      I don’t know if I’ve heard of Ted Hildebrandt, but I’ve heard that verse explained that way…I think it makes MUCH more sense!!

  7. Okay, this makes total sense to me. If you want your family to be picture-perfect, emotionless, and rigid, like an army, then use the Pearl method. If you want a family full of love, vibrancy, and life, run as far away as you can.

    I’ll take a real family, thank you!


  8. Hillary says:

    This is outstanding.

    “Again, keep in mind, the baby is not being punished, just conditioned.”

    The reader is being continually conditioned through these repetitive, mind-altering statements. I find that ironic.

    Quick note about the military examples: even in the military, there are occasions of time off (other than “at ease”). There is leave. There are some weekends. Children within an authoritarian environment never have “time off.” It is a constant influx of stress and fear. I wish there was a documented study on adults who grew up in this milieu, but from research, an unending inflow of stress exhausts the adrenal glands which affects many aspects of life and creates a host of physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual obstacles to overcome.

    About FTO: many defenders say that it should be enough that they are the authority, and the child should instantly obey without question (citing many fear-based examples). There are so many things off about this, but an underlying factor is a lack of respect for the integrity and the heart of a child. Speaking for Christian parents, it would be an amazing shift to realize that you are raising a human made in the image of God, who is or who might become a brother or sister in Christ (and even if they don’t, love still honors their life and treats them with respect). Fully grasping this concept, as well as the teachings of Jesus on the correct behavior of authorities (humility and laying down your life) would default to a style of parenting much gentler and intentional and humble. I don’t say this as a parent (I’m not) nor without the capacity for grace for both parents and children who “want to get it right” but who make mistakes. We all do. However, maturity assures us that when one recognizes the error of their ways, it is only right to humbly acknowledge this and turns away from the offense…not pridefully (or fearfully) continuing forth. I daresay that this example (especially of parents, for I maintain that the “burden” is on them, for they are, after all, the parents) will go further in “training” one’s child than the examples set forth in this book.

    I read TTUAC a long time ago and in reading your quotes, I am shocked yet again at the glaring dissonance between the message of a full-quiver mindset and the message of Pearl, who repeatedly uses phrases like: “it would be a relief if”, “annoying” “clumsy”, “socially crude behavior”…

    Are we speaking of “blessings” here?

    Finally, I know that formulaic methods appeal to many truly loving parents who desperately want to do it right, please God, raise healthy children. We can even justify their fears: of course they don’t want their children to be hurt, injured, or to ‘go to hell’. I suggest this, very gently: following a formula conforms you to the world of that formula. Do you get what I’m saying? Following Pearl’s “training” manual conforms you to his world. Following me (please don’t!) conforms you to my world. It’s one thing to seek advice, read other points of view, and wisely (and humbly) consider other options, but (speaking to those who want to follow Christ), we are to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. This is internal, not external. And it isn’t something *we* do, it is done through the Holy Spirit, who is LIVING, who isn’t confined to black-and-white formulas but knows your children better than anyone, and what *your* children need. And He can reveal to you Himself how to “train” your children!

    There is LIFE in a home led by the Spirit. There is no life in a robot who jumps when you say jump, but is merely a lifeless shell. And also? There is no love in fear-based obedience. You might be training your children to obey in the “flesh” so they don’t experience painful repercussions, but you are filling their heart with pain and fear instead of love.

  9. Sandra says:

    ya know, all these Christian teachings that use military hierarchy and obedience as a metaphor–I wonder if any of those who use them were ever actually IN the military. I married a nuclear missile technician (the guy with his finger on The Button) and became a Navy wife. I was surprised, really totally shocked(!) at how much room for disagreement and independent thinking is built into the military system. I, too, was raised believing that instant obedience, “I say jump, you say, ‘how high'”, exemplified the military but what I saw was that there is a lot more room for say, “with all due respect, sir, I think you have your head up your a$$”, in so many words, because my husband has said that to commanders and admirals. It is built into the protocol that everyone has a voice and everyone’s voice is heard. (The higher-ups may decide the complaint has no merit but they have to at least consider it). If I’d said half of the stuff to my bosses in the business world that I heard said to Navy officers, I’d have been out on the street in a heartbeat.

    Yes, the military is very hierarchical but it is also voluntary, given more leave (time off) than any civilian job I know, and expects its members not only to think for themselves but to express their opinions. Not at all the same scenario presented by Pearl or any of the other Christians I’ve ever heard use a military metaphor for obedience.

    • QuicksilverQueen says:

      Thanks for that input! I’ve never been in the military, so I wouldn’t know either. I just know that for some reason, military analogies are really popular! I think it’s cool the guys and gals can voice their opinions like that. My dad liked to talk about the hierarchy of the military in which if a group of guys under another guy (I have no clue how the ranks go) disobey orders, the guy who was in charge of them is responsible. I don’t know how true that is or not, but it’s part of the logic he used to refute why all of us kids should obey him…because HE’s responsible to God for all of our actions. Which is partly why he had to write that “termination” letter, to show everyone he absolved himself of me and my “sins” so he was no longer responsible to God or something for me.

  10. Samantha R says:

    Wow, their methods remind of the the military. Only worse!!

    And how dumb to not “childproof” your house… it only makes sense and it’s for your child’s best interest too.
    When I see a parent not remove a possible harmful item out of reach, it really gets to me. Esp when a parent will continually tell the child “no” and pull them back and yet do nothing to prevent it time and time again.

  11. Sisterlisa says:

    ok here are some things that stood out to me…

    “Proper training always works on every child.” ya right! I have 4 kids and not one of them ever responded exactly the same way to a specific method.

    he keeps using the words ‘conditioning’ and ‘stimuli’, ugh! this is how spies are ‘trained’. The governments don’t want soldiers to think for themselves, they want them to ‘obey’ their commands.

    “The little tot is not yet moved by fear of rejection.” So in his mind, teaching the children to be moved by fear of rejection is his goal. YIKES! That is part of the problem with Christianity today. I teach my children to respect others ..not out of fear of rejection, but out of love and respect for the person.

    the “conditioning” of the children will result in them holding onto their parents teachings well after they die. This is another problem with Christianity today. and these things are all taught through fear. Look at the Amish testimonies. The ones who left said they had been passing down TRADITIONS..they don’t even have English bibles, they have GERMAN bibles and none of them know how to read, speak , or even teach German. More conditioned people.

    ‎”Training is the conditioning of the child’s mind before the crisis arises; it is preparation for future, instant, unquestioning obedience.” and what happens when the child is molested? unquestioning obedience?

    Think about this… by God’s example of how he treated the hardened their hearts. Moses gave the law because of the hardness of their hearts. So is this a good way to raise kids? no way!

    and here is more ‘loaded language’ … “she wrestles her infant for supremacy.” why does a grown adult need to feel supremacy over an infant?

    here’s a good logical thing to point out… “It just takes a few minutes to train a child not to touch a given object. Most children can be brought into complete and joyous subjection in just three days. ” <<<so, if in THREE days it doesn't work, throw the book out or ask for a refund! or he may just back himself up with how he used the word "most children"

    about "come upon the first call" ..because if you don't, THE PARENT is embarrassed and they are out to protect THEIR image through the child's 'obedience'. As parents we should be nurturing GOD's image in the hearts of the children. Not the parents image.

  12. Eric says:

    Excellent. Thanks so much for taking the time to do this series. I wouldn’t have the patience for it, myself. The Pearls’ constant doublespeak is really remarkable.

    The consistent theme through *all* these kinds of teachings is Authority –> Authoritarianism. Which of course is completely opposite to the teachings of Jesus, “who humbled himself.”

    By the way, speaking of training dogs, this is another good article. Apparently, even wolf packs don’t have rigid “top dog” authoritarian hierarchy.

  13. Pat says:

    As a horsewoman and an educator, I , for one, would love to teach Mr. Pearl a thing or two about TRAINING horses and TEACHING children.

    Did you see that, Mr. and Mrs. Pearl et al? One trains an animal. As much as I enjoy horses, and find their company superior to a great many people, they are nonetheless animals and are TRAINED.

    One teaches a child. A human being TEACHES a child to RESPECT a horse before he or she rides it, lest he or she ABUSES the lessons, trust, and confidence that a trainer took many months to instill, and the instinct that has been instilled in them by nature. (An example set forth in nature would be a child’s inherent trust in their parents, which should never be breached.)

    Mr. and Mrs. Pearl are invited to take lessons at the farm at which I work—and I don’t look kindly upon ANY abuse. Instead of giving a buggy-horse metaphor, why don’t you come over and we’ll teach you to do it correctly. Many children wish you had in the first place.

    And well, well done to the author–it takes a lot of strength to search and admit the truth, as well as learn and growing from it. May writing continue to give you the strength to do all of these.

  14. sheila says:

    Regarding the “Spanking prevents them from running onto the street and getting hit by a car!” idea. I have 6 children and never had one run towards traffic. I agree it’s about TEACHING from the time they are babies that this is what we do when we come to a street and this is why.

  15. Retha says:

    “Place an appealing object where they can reach it, maybe in a “No-no” corner or on an apple juice table (That’s where the coffee table once sat). When they spy it and make a dive for it, in a calm voice say, “No, don’t touch it.” … “

    – The Pearls

    This training method is literally telling the parents to tempt the child. To tempt is not of God:

    Jas 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man

    Elsewhere, Michael Pearl wants parents to take the role of the Holy Spirit, and here he want parents to be Satan?

    Good and bad water cannot come from the same fountain.

    (QSQ, you are right if you don’t believe his explanation of the Tree of Good and Evil. For in his explanation, God temps them with the tree. James 1:13 testifies that God does not tempt.)

  16. Elise says:

    Dear QuicksilverQueen:

    Thank you so much for your mention early in this post to give children the reason you have told them to do/not do a certain thing. You are encouraging a powerful tool by informing our children as to the WHYs of life. A child learns we are their ally in the growing up job they have to do. A very important part of instilling confidence in our children…telling them why.

  17. Joy F says:

    Whistles? It’s like the Von Trapp family in the Sound of Music – until Maria corrects them for treating children like dogs. All of this is awful – children aren’t animals. This makes it sound like he thinks they are just smart animals! Isn’t that the accusation Christians use against atheists that belief in evolution will cause people to treat others as animals? And here this guy is basically agreeing with the very ideology that he would despise. How about brutality causes people to treat people like animals rather than ideology?

    I don’t have children. I don’t know the first thing about child-raising. But this is just – I don’t even understand how someone could think that would be okay!

    • QuicksilverQueen says:

      You’ve totally got it! I was thinking of writing a post along those lines sometime, but I couldn’t figure out how to write it without sounding like I was insulting evolutionists 🙂 Lol

  18. sentra says:

    thank you for summing the book up the way you are. I’m pretty sure if i tried it myself it would end up in the fireplace.

    most of this terrifies and angers me – my mother did believe in spanking, but those where reserved for times when our [my siblings and my own] actions could have resulted in physical danger, and where actually fairly rare.

    and what haunts me in… what if one of these parents have a child who ends up being developmentally challenged (oh.. what ever the PC term is for it now). Never mind it being at the very least emotionally abusive to being with, but what happens if their child actually is unable to conform the way the book promises?!

Leave a Reply

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.

  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter


Welcome! This is my space on the internet to explore myself and my life and find my courage to turn into a queen. My Quilt No content on this blog may be used or reproduced elsewhere without a link back.

Recent Thoughts

It'll have been 7 years this July that I moved ...

New Year's Resolutio

I have not made a New Year's resolution in many ...

Six Years!! (Basical

I haven't written a post here in a LONG time, ...


I sit with my back against the wall in his ...

Freedom Isn't Free

Five years ago today, I declared my independence. I'd had ...