# How is this book allowed on 'zon?



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

In Australia, we are not allowed to hit children by law. This book advocates using sticks to 'train' children from babyhood up. The author gives an example of their own baby, aged just 4 months old who was trying to climb the stairs, where he 'swatted' her with this to train her: "_The switch was a twelve-inch long, one-eighth-inch diameter sprig from a willow tree_".
The book uses the words training, programming and 'using the rod' all the way through.

http://www.amazon.com/To-Train-Up-Child-children-ebook/dp/B0038KA6GC/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
(Full book here: http://web.archive.org/web/20101104141241/http://www.achristianhome.com/to_train_up_a_child.htm)

Is the hitting of children legal in the US?


----------



## Wansit (Sep 27, 2012)

Child abuse is illegal; discipline is not. (Just stating facts). There was an uproar about this same book in the U.S. a few years back. The couple has thousands of followers and one of the families (maybe more than one) that purchased the book ended up killing their child. The original couple said they never advocated 'abuse' and never told the couple(s) to go that far so they weren't culpable and the book is still for sale.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

Whoa. I just read some of the sample. Whoa.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

If I remember right, this fell under religious freedoms.    Betsy, I promise to be good and not rant.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

I'm off to train my mules put my children to bed now.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

While I'm not advocating anything in that particular book, I will offer a couple brief comments.

1) There is a difference between discipline and abuse. My parents used a flyswatter for brief spankings on me when I misbehaved during my youth. From about the ages of 5 to 10 or so. They stung, but that was all. I believe I benefited from that.

If such a spanking leaves lasting red marks, bruises, or breaks the skin, that's definitely crossing the line into abuse, because it's become about the adult parent's anger, not about setting limits on a child's rebellious behavior. (Which is what those light flyswatter spankings were about.)

I realize some parents would blanch at the thought of even that much. That's their free choice. All I'm saying is, it's possible to enforce discipline without crossing that abuse line.

(P.S. Let me also insert a side-note. The whole "dialogue with your children and have them make their own choices with consequences" thing can be taken too far, implemented too early before kids really are even capable of understanding it, and in some cases, often breeds some of the worst-behaving-in-public kids I've ever met. I'm not saying a flyswatter session would be the opposite effect, only that there's such a thing as no discipline at all, and that does children no good, either.)

That being said, I'm not sure I'd do the same (flyswatter spankings) with my own kids, just because that line is easy to cross if you're an emotional person prone to frustration rather than getting a kid back in line. There are other alternatives, as we all know.

But it can be done without abuse. That's my only point, and it's one from personal experience. I never had bruises, or even red marks that lasted more than a minute or two. My folks were very controlled in that way.

2) I realize the OP is posting from Down Under, but we DO having something in the US (where Amazon is based) called freedom of speech. That means allowing not just speech you agree with, but speech you disagree with as well. There are limits on it, sure, with the whole "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example. But generally, most speech is protected. So, the simple fact that there's a book that talks about physical discipline as part of parenting, even in degrees I personally would disapprove of, does not mean it's time to get all up-in-arms over the fact it exists.

But it's always amusing, to me, how often the value people place on freedom of speech disappears as soon as someone uses that freedom to express an idea they don't like. But that's the actual test of the freedom! Anyone would allow speech they agree with! It's tolerating speech you don't agree with that indicates the value placed on that freedom is genuine and true.

People left of center hate Fox News... but the fact that Fox News exists proves the freedom exists. People right of center hate most of the other US broadcast news sources... but the fact that they exist also proves that the freedom exists.

The genuineness of a freedom is proven only when people you wish didn't have access to it can actually have their say.

It may be a stupid "say." It may be idiotic. It might be something you wish didn't exist as a mentality.

But if all there was was speech you agreed with? That's when you have to wonder how "free" your society actually is. Freedom is a dual-edged sword; it has to cut both ways to be effective.


----------



## Lo/Roxie (May 11, 2011)

Ah, yes, the Pearls. Such sweet folks, huh? Wait until you get to the part where he advocates going to your local hardware store to buy a length of quarter-inch plumbing pipe to break the will--I mean, discipline--your child.


----------



## Austin_Briggs (Aug 21, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> While I'm not advocating anything in that particular book, I will offer a couple brief comments.
> 
> 1) There is a difference between discipline and abuse. My parents used a flyswatter for brief spankings on me when I misbehaved during my youth. From about the ages of 5 to 10 or so. They stung, but that was all. I believe I benefited from that.
> 
> ...


Not only the US has freedom of speech. So no need to talk down at us furriners. Peace.

I just read the first few paragraphs and threw up in my mouth. "Train up" a child to "be obedient"? How about coach your child to think, be compassionate, and participate in life? To think and say "no" when necessary? Not to have fear of being himself? The whole focus on obedience seems misplaced; and I can see how it would encourage people with limited intelligence to abuse their kids because it's "biblical" to do so.

I've never heard about this book before. So please do forgive my outrage 

It's fascinating that Amazon keeps selling it ... this book's methods have already been linked to three deaths by the media. While I respect the freedom of speech like the next person, I do claim that we as authors have accountability for what we write and what we publish.


----------



## Rufus Beerman (May 11, 2013)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> 2) I realize the OP is posting from Down Under, but we DO having something in the US (where Amazon is based) called freedom of speech. That means allowing not just speech you agree with, but speech you disagree with as well. There are limits on it, sure, with the whole "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example. But generally, most speech is protected. So, the simple fact that there's a book that talks about physical discipline as part of parenting, even in degrees I personally would disapprove of, does not mean it's time to get all up-in-arms over the fact it exists.
> 
> But it's always amusing, to me, how often the value people place on freedom of speech disappears as soon as someone uses that freedom to express an idea they don't like. But that's the actual test of the freedom! Anyone would allow speech they agree with! It's tolerating speech you don't agree with that indicates the value placed on that freedom is genuine and true.
> 
> ...


That's not what freedom of speech is for. Sure, they can say it. That doesn't mean Amazon needs to sell the book.

Freedom of speech protects you from the government. You can get fired from your job even though you have a "freedom" to say what you wish.

EDIT: And the existence of Fox News doesn't prove freedom of speech; the fact that anyone can say anything they want about Obama proves it.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

On every book page at Amazon there's a feedback link at the bottom.  Feel free to provide feedback.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Austin_Briggs said:


> Not only the US has freedom of speech. So no need to talk down at us furriners. Peace.


Well, if this thread indicated a value being placed on freedom of speech, maybe I wouldn't have thought it needed to be explained.

Personally, I doubt this is a book I'd ever buy. I doubt I'd agree with anything in it.

But I'm satisfied with expressing my disagreement with it by not buying it. If other people want to buy it, that's their free choice.

What's being advocated here is basically trying to stir up a bunch of people to try to get Amazon to stop carrying it.

That's not respecting freedom of speech or freedom of the press. (Since technically we're talking about publishing an eBook, not an oral speech.)

Disagree with the book all you want; but I'd advise against efforts to make a book like this into some sort of "banned book hero." That's more attention than it deserves.

Little-known fact: Banned books sell TONS. People buy them because they're banned. A book like this doesn't deserve "shelf space" next to Huck Finn, does it?


----------



## 41413 (Apr 4, 2011)

As hideous as I find the subject material, I'm always very hesitant when folks want a book removed because they don't like what's in it.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> What's being advocated here is basically trying to stir up a bunch of people to try to get Amazon to stop carrying it.





smreine said:


> As hideous as I find the subject material, I'm always very hesitant when folks want a book removed because they don't like what's in it.


Pointing out that the OP did not advocate that but only asked a question about the book in question. Let's not put words in people's mouths.

Thank you.

Your friendly neighborhood moderator...

Betsy


----------



## 41413 (Apr 4, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Pointing out that the OP did not advocate that but only asked a question about the book in question. Let's not put words in people's mouths.





> How is this book allowed on 'zon?


I suppose I was confused by the title of the OP, which seems to imply that the book should not be available for sale because of its content. My mistake.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I took it as a question based on the OP's perspective as someone  living in a country where "corporal punishment," as it was known when I was a kid, is illegal.  Reasonable to wonder about books advocating an illegal act....

There was no call to action, however.

Betsy


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

So naked breasts on covers (involving either adult models consensually baring their breasts and historical paintings), adult stepchildren having consensual fictional sex with their stepparents and adult babysitters having consensual fictional sex with their employers is banned, but advocating the abuse (and that's what it is) of real children to the real parents of real children is acceptable. Methinks the retailers need to rethink their priorities here.

This is also part of the reason why the attacks on erotica infuriate me. Because retailers have no problem selling all sorts of vile non-fiction books (not just this child abuse manual, but also pick-up artist manuals, racist and homophobic hate speech, _Mein Kampf_, _The Protocols of the Elders of Zion_, etc...), but fictional erotica is apparently a problem.


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

Absolutely no call to action here. My confusion is over an advocacy of punishments concerning children - those actions being illegal in my country. 'How is this allowed on Amazon' is a genuine question.
I didn't know that children had died at the hands of parents following this advice, though I'm guessing that people have harmed themselves and others after reading all kinds of books.


----------



## 41413 (Apr 4, 2011)

Okay, let me phrase my response with less snark, hang on.

Hitting children is as legal in Australia as it is in the United States. It's known as "corporal punishment" and legally different from abuse.

The book seems to essentially advocate corporal punishment as a method of training, which is not illegal.

Books about illegal subject matter are not inherently illegal, as far as I know, but that's not relevant to this particular title.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Is the hitting of children legal in the US?


Yes.


----------



## M T McGuire (Dec 6, 2010)

I have to say the ideas behind this book do make me want to hurl. Kids get frustrated because we treat them as if they're stupid. Babies and little children aren't stupid, they are just not fully, physically, developed. There's a massive difference. The fully formed intellect is in there, it just doesn't know how to get out yet. I find that talking to them, with the assumption that they are every bit as intelligent as I am is rather more effective than beating them to a pulp.

Seriously though, it's a tricky one. If the book is advocating beating children where it's illegal, presumably that's not a good scene. So, here in Britain, for one, it probably shouldn't be on sale. Or if it is, only under the counter in a brown paper bag. 

I do sympathise with erotica writers over things like this. Double standards are at play.

Edited to add: Smacking children is very definitely illegal here. I suppose you could argue that belting them with a length of plastic piping is not smacking but I think the spirit of the law here is that hitting, in any shape or form, is verboten.


----------



## WyattM et al. (Jul 11, 2012)

Well, my reply disappeared.

Yes, I agree. This author should be contemned. A fifteen-hundred pound mule is huge--maybe stretching the truth there. And we absolutely cannot allow fibs about mules.

Also: have you been to Wal-Mart lately? 

And why did SMReine's confessional post disappear?


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

It actually varies with municipality how viciously you can lay into a kid and whose kid you can beat. I know of some places where as long as the parents don't press charges, you can totally smack a kid you don't know for being loud in a restaurant.

Somewhere along the way, we conflated 'freedom' with  'license for socipathy'.

Edit: I always wondered why, if beating someone up was such a great way to discipline someone, it wasn't a penalty in out legal system to just have a bunch of dudes wale on the guilty.


----------



## Carol (was Dara) (Feb 19, 2011)

Anya said:


> Is the hitting of children legal in the US?


If the hitting is across the child's bottom and isn't hard enough to break skin or leave bruising then yes, it's often legal. Various states have different requirements (for example, some allow spanking with your bare hand but not with a paddle or switch). But spanking in general is legal in the US. It's sometimes associated with religious or political views, which is why it's never been outlawed. To give you an idea of the cultural difference, I live in the Southwest and I'd venture to say I've only ever known a small handful of people who _weren't_ spanked at least occasionally as children.


----------



## 41413 (Apr 4, 2011)

WyattM et al. said:


> And why did SMReine's confessional post disappear?


I removed it because I thought I was being unfairly snarky, which is super unusual for me, I know.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Anya said:


> Absolutely no call to action here. My confusion is over an advocacy of punishments concerning children - those actions being illegal in my country. 'How is this allowed on Amazon' is a genuine question.
> I didn't know that children had died at the hands of parents following this advice, though I'm guessing that people have harmed themselves and others after reading all kinds of books.


The reason it is allowed depends on who is allowing it.

In the US, there is no legal prohibition against advocating illegal activity unless it is an imminent instigation to violence. So the government has no power to disallow it.

If one is asking why Amazon allows it, I don't know. That is their business.

If one is asking why the public has not risen up in protest, it's probably because nobody knows about it, and the public accepts all kinds of expression without taking concerted action.

If one is asking why a seller is allowed to do something prohibited in Australia, it probably stems from the founding of each country.


----------



## 41413 (Apr 4, 2011)

M T McGuire said:


> If the book is advocating beating children where it's illegal, presumably that's not a good scene. So, here in Britain, for one, it probably shouldn't be on sale. Or if it is, only under the counter in a brown paper bag.
> 
> I do sympathise with erotica writers over things like this. Double standards are at play.
> 
> Edited to add: Smacking children is very definitely illegal here. I suppose you could argue that belting them with a length of plastic piping is not smacking but I think the spirit of the law here is that hitting, in any shape or form, is verboten.


"In the UK, spanking or smacking is legal, but it must not leave a mark on the body and in Scotland since October 2003 it has been illegal to use any implements when disciplining a child. In Wales, in October 2011, the National Assembly voted to pass a bill to completely ban corporal punishment in the home, but the law is unlikely to be enacted before the end of this assembly term." from here

I like that everyone in this thread thinks that physical punishment of children is illegal in their country. "Hey, why don't I try NOT hitting my child today?" That's a good attitude to start off with. But corporal punishment at home is only illegal in a few countries worldwide.


----------



## WyattM et al. (Jul 11, 2012)

Let me get thit straight. Folks here are advocating  against spanking children, right?

I reckon it all depends on the metaphysic you  hold. If people are fallen, well, then, they need correction.

Again: have you been to Wal-Mart lately?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

WyattM et al. said:


> Well, my reply disappeared.
> 
> Yes, I agree. This author should be contemned. A fifteen-hundred pound mule is huge--maybe stretching the truth there. And we absolutely cannot allow fibs about mules.
> 
> ...


No posts have been removed in this thread. At least not by me.

Off to read SMR's deleted post because I can. 

Betsy


----------



## WyattM et al. (Jul 11, 2012)

Dara England said:


> It's sometimes associated with religious or political views, which is why it's never been outlawed.


No. It's associated with parents who want their children to become civilized human beings.Grown-up reality is a helluva lot tougher than an *ss whipping or two.


----------



## Austin_Briggs (Aug 21, 2011)

CoraBuhlert said:


> So naked breasts on covers (involving either adult models consensually baring their breasts and historical paintings), adult stepchildren having consensual fictional sex with their stepparents and adult babysitters having consensual fictional sex with their employers is banned, but advocating the abuse (and that's what it is) of real children to the real parents of real children is acceptable. Methinks the retailers need to rethink their priorities here.
> 
> This is also part of the reason why the attacks on erotica infuriate me. Because retailers have no problem selling all sorts of vile non-fiction books (not just this child abuse manual, but also pick-up artist manuals, racist and homophobic hate speech, _Mein Kampf_, _The Protocols of the Elders of Zion_, etc...), but fictional erotica is apparently a problem.


On a related note...

I was watching a news episode the other day, where one of the anchors asked a bunch of random people in the American streets the eternal question: Why is violence okay in the American books and TV, but nudity is shameful.

Some folks gave awesome answers, linking the phenomena to our religious history: violence was always glorified "for a good cause" (like in this book) while nudity is all about unabashed, shameless, and decidedly unreligious pleasure of flesh.

Every single person said they saw nudity as totally harmless and peace-inducing, and were cool seeing more of it. Many said they wanted less violence in their entertainment-well, at least they publicly claimed so, ha! Personally, I subscribe to the old piece of research that I can't find the link to: men who get to see boobs daily live longer (but that's another topic).

I also insist that the "freedom of speech", that some folks seem to interpret as freedom to publish and defend damaging material, doesn't absolve us authors from accountability for what we publish.

The nonfiction books you've listed are harmful. Some types of erotica can be harmful too, because they make some acts look fun and normal... while they are not. Maybe the types you listed are harmless; I don't know, they probably are totally harmless. But I still can't forgive old S. King the scene where a young girl has "consensual" sex with seven boys. He made it look so _normal_. Just a story, right? Fun! The fictional girl wanted it, it's so natural. That is, until someone gets into his sick mind that young girls _want_ it in real life by reading about it over and over.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Moving this thread to Not Quite Kindle as it is clearly not about writing or publishing books....and getting more not about it all the time.

Betsy


----------



## 41413 (Apr 4, 2011)

WyattM et al. said:


> No. It's associated with parents who want their children to become civilized human beings.Grown-up reality is a helluva lot tougher than an @ss whipping or two.


I was spanked with a child, sometimes using implements like a paddle or the shovel that goes with a fireplace. I'm sure my parents thought it was an appropriate way to make me grow into a civilized human being, too. I remember how powerless I felt, how much bigger my parents were than me, and how huge their anger seemed. I remember being so baffled and terrified. Being hit with a shovel didn't make me understand what I had done wrong. It made me scared of them. I didn't respect them as I grew because I knew I couldn't trust them to give proportionate emotional responses to my behavior.

I moved out basically the instant I turned eighteen and I don't have a relationship with my father now.

I do not hit my son for any reason - legal or not.


----------



## WyattM et al. (Jul 11, 2012)

Okay, SMReine, maybe so.

What metaphysic do you hold? What are humans? And so on and on and on . . .


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks, pardon me, while I do some clean up in this thread....

EDIT:  Posts have now been removed from this thread and we are discussing in the smoke-filled admin caves....

Betsy
KB Moderator


----------

