<\/p>
It is worth noting that Michael Pearl\u2019s chapter on bullies only covers how to handle bullies inside the family. Perhaps this is because his children were\u00a0homeschooled and, one can only assume, limited in their contact with other children. It is in some sense refreshing that Michael acknowledges the existence of inter-sibling bullying. I know homeschooling parents who do not, who insist that because their children are homeschooled they do not have to deal with bullies. Not so.<\/p>\n
IS EVERYONE HAVING FUN?<\/b><\/p>\n
One of the rules\u2013more of a principle\u2013in our home is: \u201cIf it is not fun for all, it is not fun at all.\u201d Where there is more than one child, good honest sparring sometimes degenerates into bullying. We kept hands off as much as possible. If the kids were having a social conflict, we tried to let them work through it. A pecking order is inevitable, but if it got out of hand or they came to us, then we would step in to arbitrate.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This rule Michael states does not fit well with what either he or Debi have written about marriage. Remember the crabbing expedition Michael dragged Debi on during their honeymoon? What happened to \u201cif it is not fun for all, it is not fun at all\u201d in that case?<\/p>\n
I have to wonder, what does Michael mean when he states that \u201ca pecking order is inevitable\u201d? How much bullying is he okay with before he considers things to be \u201cout of hand\u201d? A pecking order is a hierarchy of status. If such a thing has developed among your children, you have a problem. Perhaps this is a symptom of family size. I have only two children.\u00a0I\u2019m not entirely sure what a pecking order would look like with just two children\u2014one of them constantly picking on the other, perhaps? But in that case, again, that would be a problem<\/em>.<\/p>\n
BLOWING UP<\/b><\/p>\n
Let\u2019s create a likely scenario: One of the girls is trying to blow up a balloon while the brother, several years older (who is normally very congenial with his sisters), is preventing her from accomplishing her task and laughing at her helpless protests. It starts out with her involved in the game, but she soon tires and starts to earnestly resist. He is having such fun that he continues with increased vigor to thwart her efforts. She is getting aggravated and complaining. He laughs louder. She starts physically resisting, jerking away, swinging her elbows and yelling, \u201cStop it!\u201d He doggedly pursues his goal of proving his prowess as chief-balloon-deflator. \u201cOK, What\u2019s the problem?\u201d Father asks. \u201cOh nothing, we\u2019re just playing,\u201d he says. She protests, \u201cHe won\u2019t let me blow up my balloon.\u201d So, it is time for a little training and reproof.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
My two children have just gotten old enough for a scenario like this to occur. Usually, in their case, it goes both ways, and when one of them is getting in the other\u2019s way, and the problem\u00a0is\u00a0one-way, it\u2019s usually the younger one who is the aggressor.<\/p>\n
Michael first outlines what he calls the wrong approach:<\/p>\n
THE WRONG APPROACH<\/b><\/p>\n
The wrong way to handle this would be to impatiently yell, \u201cGive her the balloon so she will shut up and get out of here; I can\u2019t hear myself think!\u201d He would toss it over with an \u201cI beat you\u201d sneer; and she would try to blow it up in his presence to prove her victory. They would continue to silently compete until another opportunity for mischief arose. This would happen between them about thirty times a day. You might switch them two or three times, to no effect. She would become a whining tattletale, and he would become a sulking bully. You are functioning like a referee who came expecting a fight and is there to keep it fair, instead of functioning as a teacher of righteousness.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
I\u2019m going to have to agree with Michael here. That is definitely the wrong approach. That said, I\u2019ve often been bothered by Michael\u2019s absolutism about results. I don\u2019t think that response, while definitely not a good response, necessarily guarantees that the younger sister\u00a0will become\u00a0a \u201cwhining tattletale\u201d and the older brother\u00a0a \u201csulking bully.\u201d<\/p>\n
I\u2019m also concerned about the use of the word \u201ctattletale.\u201d If a\u00a0girl is being tormented by her older brother, it would not be wrong for her to go to her parents to resolve the problem. Certainly, if she could resolve it herself that would be ideal\u2014she\u2019d be honing her conflict resolution skills. But (and remember that this chapter is about bullying) that is not always possible, and we should want our children to learn to go to the authorities if someone is harming\u00a0them. As a parent, I get that kids sometimes come and \u201ctell\u201d on their siblings for no good reason. But I think that can be handled without teaching children that \u201ctelling\u201d automatically make them a meany \u201ctattletale.\u201d<\/p>\n
So, what is the right\u00a0approach, according to Michael?<\/p>\n
THE RIGHT APPROACH<\/b><\/p>\n
Try this approach. Calmly say, \u201cWhat\u2019s going on here?\u201d He responds, \u201cOh nothing we\u2019re just playing.\u201d Daddy says, \u201cSister, are you having fun?\u201d She says, \u201cNo, he won\u2019t let me blow up my balloon.\u201d Daddy says to the boy, \u201cAre you having fun?\u201d He looks abashed and says, \u201cWell, we were just playing.\u201d Daddy asks, \u201cBrother, was sister having fun?\u201d \u201cNo, I guess not.\u201d \u201cCould you tell that she wasn\u2019t having fun?\u201d \u201cWell, I guess so.\u201d \u201cWhat do you mean, you guess so? Did you or did you not think she was having fun?\u201d \u201cWell, I knew she wasn\u2019t having fun.\u201d \u201cWere you having fun when your sister was suffering?\u201d Silence. \u201cCan you have fun by making someone else unhappy?\u201d Silence. He looks at the floor. \u201cLook at me. How would you like it if someone bigger than you treated you like that?\u201d \u201cI wouldn\u2019t,\u201d he answers. Then I would say my famous lines, \u201cIf everyone is not having fun then it is not fun.\u201d \u201cSon, you know Hitler and his men had fun when others were suffering. They laughed while boys and girls cried in pain. Do you want to grow up to be like Hitler?\u201d In complete brokenness, he says, \u201cNo Daddy, I don\u2019t want to be like Hitler. I didn\u2019t mean to make her sad. Sister, I am sorry.\u201d What great training! The brother and sister will go away bonded and sympathetic. The sister forgives because she has seen his repentance and feels sorry for his grief. She is drawn to him. He will be more protective of her. They both have been restored.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Hmm. While I appreciate that Michael\u2019s solution isn\u2019t simply to whip the boy, I have a problem with this approach.\u00a0Namely, it seems very focused on shame. Note the number of times the boy is silent or looks at the floor. Telling his son that he\u00a0is being like Hitler is a bit much. Further,\u00a0I\u2019m skeptical of the claim that this shame-based response will make the siblings closer. For example, if this is something that has happened before, the girl\u00a0might be skeptical of her brother\u2019s apology\u2014and her\u00a0brother could still feel resentful at getting in trouble.<\/p>\n
Again, I don\u2019t want to be too hard on Michael here. He\u2019s written enough horrible things in the other chapters of his book, it\u2019s not like every chapter has to be terrible through and through for the book to be a bad book. Indeed, if every chapter were unreasonably sadistic, the book wouldn\u2019t have the audience it does; it is in part because Michael\u00a0occasionally says things that appear reasonable that so many are willing to listen to him, and give the rest of what he says the benefit of the doubt.<\/p>\n
Perhaps the underlying problem here, though, is that Michael is acting as though all children are the same, and react in the same way. They\u2019re not, and they don\u2019t.<\/p>\n
If I were to take the exact approach he outlines in that paragraph with my oldest child, she would burst in to tears and run to her room. Anything that seems awkward or embarrassing, any hint of feeling shamed, sends her into a spiral; when that happens I have to wait until later, when she is more composed, and bring the issue up again in a more careful\u00a0way. It\u2019s not that she isn\u2019t listening\u2014she is. It\u2019s just\u00a0that it doesn\u2019t take much to get through to her, and any more than that quickly becomes painful for\u00a0her.<\/p>\n
If I were to take Michael\u2019s\u00a0approach with my younger child, my son would give the \u201ccorrect\u201d\u00a0responses, but would be sullen and angry. This sort of inquisitional, shame-based approach simply does not work with him. The best approach to take with him is to sit next to him on the couch\u00a0and simply talk to him about what happened. That\u00a0quality time helps him listen, and makes him feel more connected with you, the parent. Being oppositional simply makes him close up.<\/p>\n
This leads to another issue\u2014oftentimes when children are acting out with each other, there is a reason for that. My children usually act out either when they\u2019re bored and on top of each other or when they feel neglected by their parent and are looking for attention. A long drawn-out punitive or shame-based response is rarely helpful. Indeed, when their fighting is mutual rather than one-way (as it usually is) I don\u2019t always even reprimand them. Instead, I separate them, or start them on a craft or project, or turn on a movie or music for them to dance to (again, they\u2019re usually bored<\/em>). If I think one of them needs more attention, I\u2019ll resolve the immediate issue and then take that one by my side.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s good that Michael addresses inter-sibling bullying, in other words, but he does so so briefly and in a one-dimensional fashion, offering a single approach for use\u00a0as a universal model when children are far from universal in their responses. He also doesn\u2019t acknowledge that inter-sibling squabbling or bullying might have other causes that need addressing, and not just training in righteousness.<\/p>\n
Michael finishes the chapter with this:<\/p>\n
Your reproof will only produce repentance if the boy sees a genuineness in you. If he detects in you any lack of the benevolence you advocate, he will not repent\u2013only become harder, more bitter.<\/p>\n
If he has taken offense at the way you have talked to Mother, he will not experience repentance until you express the same. If the boy does not show repentance after it is clear he understands the issues, a spanking would be in order, then further reproof and reasoning. If there is still no repentance issuing in forgiveness and love to his sister, then it becomes clear he has a deeper, more long term problem.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Michael writes\u00a0that if the boy in his example\u00a0does not listen to the approach he outlined, he\u00a0should be spanked. My son is one who would not respond well to the antagonistic,\u00a0interrogation-like\u00a0approach Michael outlined, but a spanking would not help. In fact, it would make things worse. Michael appears to want to\u00a0change not simply the unwanted behavior but the child\u2019s internal processes (namely, to make the child more empathetic); his suggestion that parents should turn to physical violence if reason does not work serves\u00a0at cross purposes to this goal.<\/p>\n