A new article about the Pearls
Parenting guru is revered, reviled (Hat Tip: Laurie)
Y'all know I'm not a Pearl fan, but this article is most definitely biased. It's informative and interesting, but biased. (And i found some blatantly inaccurate information as well.) So look out.
However,
That's how Lynn Paddock, a Johnston County mother accused of beating her children with plastic plumbing supply line and suffocating the youngest, learned of Pearl's child-training methods, according to her attorney Michael Reece.
When this story first broke, I was under the impression that she beat her children with PVC pipe, which the Pearl supporters railed about, saying that that is NOT what Pearl advised. I remember when I read To Train Up a Child, I couldn't figure out just what "plumbing line" was. I kept thinking it was PVC pipe. I asked my husband recently what "plumbling line" was. He said PVC pipe as well. As it turns out, it's something like the supply line to an ice maker for a refrigerator. Apparently that is what Lynn Paddock was using after all (or so it seems). Who knows? All I know is that I could totally understand PVC pipe because that's what I thought he was talking about. As Ann shared, clarification is sorely needed.
Laurie wrote,
Wow Keer,
I had never read that post by Ann. Really powerful. I could identify with a lot of what she said.
Have you ever read anything in the media without bias
Considering some of the biased support I’ve read of Michael Pearl I was glad to read this article.
I didn’t catch the blatant inaccuracies to which you referred, but it has been SO long since I’ve read TTUAC — and at least 4.5 years since I heard him do a conference at a church in Indiana (I was pregnant with D then). Maybe I have generalized enough of what he says to have felt that overall, the article fairly credited his advice.
BTW–Your blog colors are AWESOME! I don’t know how often I’ll even write on mine and I’m sure it will NEVER look as good as yours!
Link | May 1st, 2006 at 7:17 am
razorbackmama wrote,
Oh yeah, the media is always biased. This article is just particularly so.
One of the inaccuracies I noticed was the statement about the “solution” for a liar. The article-writer GREATLY oversimplified what Debi Pearl did and left out how she said that she doesn’t necessarily “recommend” that approach. (However, if Mrs. Pearl doesn’t recommend that approach then why did she put it in the newsletter? :-S )
I’ve already e-mailed the author the correct name of Mrs. Pearl’s book as well. LOL
Link | May 1st, 2006 at 9:00 am
TulipGirl wrote,
As far as bias. . . well. . . I think the author did a pretty good job of gathering information and trying to present it evenhandedly. She travelled to TN to the Pearls’ neck of the woods–and an interview with Michael and Debi Pearl was declined. She didn’t describe him with horns and a pitchfork, but rather as “a towering, rugged man with a fuzzy white beard that mesmerizes children.”
What I find disturbing is the apparent unconcern by Michael and Debi Pearl of how their words are impacting families. (Of course they know there is an impact–that’s why they keep writing and speaking.) Like Ann pointed out and you’ve restated, clarification is needed. And I’ll go a step further–I believe they need to own responsibility for their words, ideas, and the impact they’ve had. (Note, I’m not saying responsibility for another’s actions. . .)
Instead, I’m hearing Don’t look at us. We don’t understand all the fuss. “The chances of one of them committing a crime is pretty good. . .”
*shrug*
I know I’m more critical of certain teachers than you are, Keer. *grin* And that’s okay. I accept that, and I like you, and I value your views. Really.
I just think that in this case “media bias” isn’t the best call. Working with a lot of nuanced information in a limited format, Mandy Locke did an exceptional job in conveying the setting and main issues involved with the Pearls.
Link | May 1st, 2006 at 4:36 pm
razorbackmama wrote,
LOL I didn’t really think that her description (rugged, etc.) was all that flattering.
I AGREE with you TG – I agree that they need to own their responsibility and impact. I was just telling Laurie that I am SO TIRED of hearing about how they are being persecuted for this stuff rather than answering legitimate questions or (heaven forbid) retracting statements. We see none of that. All we hear is, “Pray for us; we’re being persecuted for teaching what God says about this; worldly people are attacking us; blah blah blah.”
Honestly pointing out bias in this article wasn’t my point, but I can’t ignore the fact that it’s there big time. Her portrayal of Michael Pearl wasn’t positive in the least (she may have tried, but it still wasn’t positive, which isn’t necessarily her fault
), and her examples of people who use the materials were ludicrous (even though I have no doubt that they were real people). If she wanted to have a less obviously biased article, she could have interviewed some “less bizarre” parents, and she DEFINITELY could have focused on some of the positive things that the Pearls write about (tying heart strings and the whole “jumping ship” thing, for example).
You know I’m not a Pearl fan, not in the LEAST. Do I think they had a role in this child’s death? You betcha. And I am so interested to see what comes out at the trial. But can I BLAME THEM for this child’s death? No, but I think that is where a lot of people are trying to place the blame.
Link | May 1st, 2006 at 8:02 pm
TulipGirl wrote,
“her examples of people who use the materials were ludicrous. . .”
I’m aquainted with two of the moms interviewed for that article. My understanding is that there was a lot of reluctance from both Pearl-supporters and post-Pearl parents to speak with a reporter. A lot of fear. . . “What will happen if CPS hears how we treat(ed) our kids?!”
Soooo. . . I don’t think she was looking for “bizarre” parents. The parents who spoke with her were self-selected.
The parents I’ve known who have implemented the Pearls and like ideas have been loving, well-meaning parents. Not bizarre. But with the emphasis on “consistency” and relying upon swats as the primary early-child-training techinque. . . well. . .
Link | May 2nd, 2006 at 4:11 pm
razorbackmama wrote,
I hear what you’re saying, and I can understand the fear. But I think we could go round and round about the parents we know who follow the Pearls’ advice. I’m just saying that either she could have found different parents (“post” Pearl means that they already have a bias against the Pearls’ materials) or she could have described the parents differently, if she were truly aiming for less of a bias in her article.
Just to be clear, I do have major problems with the Pearls’ materials, I do believe the materials are harmful, and I will never recommend them to anyone. But I have to be honest and say that this article isn’t necessarily “fair” to the Pearls either.
Link | May 2nd, 2006 at 7:43 pm
TulipGirl wrote,
“I’m just saying that either she could have found different parents. . . (”post” Pearl means that they already have a bias against the Pearls’ materials)”
Keer. . . I hate to post this almost, because I don’t want to seem like I’m nitpicking. . .
But she has quoted in her article several Pearl-using parents and several post-Pearl parents.
Joel and Lauren Killion, Diana Beck, Berry Byrd all use and praise TTUAC, and are quoted in the article. (Along with Gabriel Pearl, the Pearls’ son and the NGJ manager Mel Cohen. . .)
Chris Jones and Meggan Judge are the “post-Pearl” parents she quoted. (Along with Crystal Lutton and Michael Fortune-Wood, who are not supportive of the Pearls.)
The article portrayed the Pearls as a bit quaint. But obviously well-intentioned. A bit outside the “norm”–but honestly–they are. They’d be the first to say so. *wink*
But it did not broadbrush Christians or homeschoolers or spanking parents in any negative way.
So. . . As I read it, the article does focus on the controversy (otherwise, honestly, it wouldn’t be “newsworthy.”) But it does seem to try to portray the situation as even-handedly as possible, from an “outsiders” perspective.
Those of us within the conservative, Christian, homeschooling subculture are more familiar with the nuances, of course. But for a limited amount of publishing space, for an article by someone written outside of our subculture, I’ve still got to say it was remarkably lacking in bias.
(And Keer. . . I’m only going into this with you because you KNOW that I respect you and I feel like you know that when I disagree with you, I’m not condemning you or thinking less of you. . . Or that you are trying to be a Pearl apologist. Or trying to convert you to my way of thinking. *g*)
Link | May 3rd, 2006 at 6:04 pm