News Petition: Amazon, Don't Carry Books Advocating Child Abuse

[BloomInWinter]

This issue really needs adults to step up. Maybe we can prevent a child from having PTSD....

"Addressed to: Amazon.

----------------
Refuse to carry books which advocate the physical abuse of children.

Currently there are several books available to buy on Amazon that advocate, endorse and advise on parenting methods that involve the physical abuse of children. Examples of titles include To Train Up A Child, by Michael and Debi Pearl; Shepherding a Child's Heart by Tedd Tripp; and Don't Make Me Count to Three by Ginger Plowman.
Such books, and other like them, promote behaviour which is abusive of children. All of the above books advocate the use of a rod and other implements on children under one.
Such behaviour is abusive to children, and it is also 'offensive', which is contrary to your Content Guidelines.
It may well also be illegal, as it seems to go far beyond the 'reasonable chastisement' currently sanctioned by law in the UK. Not only is beating on a regular basis with a rod likely to leave a mark, which is illegal, it is also likely to amount to inhuman or degrading treatment, which is a breach of human rights.
We wish Amazon to urgently review their decision to stock any book or other product which advises the physical abuse of children.

----------------

Sincerely,

[Your name]"


Source: [DLMURL]http://www.change.org/petitions/jeff-bezos-amazon-ceo-refuse-to-carry-books-which-advocate-the-physical-abuse-of-children#[/DLMURL]

 

[anthony]

I think this is actually quite silly IMHO... a book doesn't make anyone abuse someone. Where does that argument cease? Video games? TV? Radio? Newspapers? Every book store in the world? The Internet has more about this than any book ever could... who is going to be petitioned for that?

A person has a right to write a book if they want, and the publisher their right whether they publish it or not. The buyer then chooses to buy it or not to buy it, to implement actions or not.

Sorry, but I disagree with this... this is another example of political correctness gone stupid.

 

[Srain]

Of course a person has a right to write a book but to boycott it is also a right. Just as if this book were written about the ins and outs of sexual abuse doesn't make it okay to be out in the public as fine to teach parents the "how to's". I would no more advocate using items to hit children than I would selling off children. I would say that's where it stops for me.

Silly? No. Reactionary, I would say for me, yes. I should react to this, I would think anyone with children might.

 

[BloomInWinter]

Exerpt:

"We never used the rod to punish a child younger than 12 months. You should read No Greater Joy Volume One and Volume Two. We discussed this subject several times in those two books. For young children, especially during the first year, the rod is used very lightly as a training tool. You use something small and light to get the child’s attention and to reinforce your command. One or two light licks on the bare legs or arms will cause a child to stop in his tracks and regard your commands. A 12-inch piece of weed eater chord works well as a beginner rod. It will fit in your purse or pocket.
Later, a plumber's supply line is a good spanking tool. You can get it at Wal-Mart or any hardware store. Ask for a plastic, ¼ inch, supply line. They come in different lengths and several colors; so you can have a designer rod to your own taste. They sell for less than $1.00. A baby needs to be trained all day, everyday. It should be a cheerful, directing training, not a correction training. If a 10-month-old plays in the dirt in the flowerpot, a simple swat to the hand accompanied with the command “No,” said in a cheerful but authoritative voice, should be sufficient.
When your 6-month-old baby grabs sister’s hair, while he still has a hand full of hair, swat his hand or arm and say “No, that hurts sister.” If he has already let go of her hair, then put his hand back on her hair, so as to engage his mind in the former action, and then carry on with the hand swatting and the command. If you found your baby trying to stick something in the electrical receptacle, keep his hand on the object and near the receptacle while giving him a few swats on the back of the offending hand, and this to the sound of your rebuke—“No, don't touch, No, don't touch.” This time he needs to cry and be upset.
If your 10-month-old is pitching a fit because he wants to be picked up, then you must reinforce your command with a few stinging swats. You are not punishing him; you are causing him to associate his negative behavior with negative consequences. Never reward bad behavior with indifference. Tell the baby “No” and give him a swat. If your response is new, he may be offended and scream louder. But continue your normal activities as if you are unaffected. Wait one minute, and then tell the baby to stop crying. If he doesn’t, again swat him on his bare legs. You don’t need to undress him, turn him over, or make a big deal out of it. Just swat him where any skin is exposed. Continue to act as if you don’t notice the fit. Wait two minutes and repeat. Continue until the baby realizes that this is getting worse not better. Most babies will keep it going for 3 or 4 times and then slide to a sitting position and sob it out. When this happens, it signals a surrender, so give him two minutes to get control and then swoop him up as if the fit never happen and give him a big hug, BUT don't hold him in the manner he was demanding. Now remove yourself from the area so as to remove him from association with the past event. "

...and the book also gives the advice:

Thumping, smacking and hair pulling are promoted as a way of training a child to obey instructions.
Children are compared children to dogs.
The use of a rod is promoted, which the authors describe as a "divine enforcer."
A meter long branch or a belt is recommended for use on an older child and a smaller object on a younger child.
"Any spanking to reinforce instruction, must cause pain."
"If you have to sit on him to spank him, do not hesitate... hold the resisting child in a helpless position for several minutes, or until he is totally surrendered."
Michael Pearl says his wife trained their daughter to stop biting during breastfeeding by pulling on her baby's hair. "Understand, the baby is not being punished. Just conditioned."

Source: http://www.drmomma.org/2011/09/amazon-we-find-child-abuse-offensive.html

I find this material beyond conscience.

 

[Marie E.]

That is nuts Bloom!! I don't like it either!

 

[BloomInWinter]

Also, there have been several deaths and many hospitalized because of people using repeated beatings due to 'rebellion.'

This site makes a case that many of these children are mistakenly perceived as 'rebellious' because they have PTSD and are reacting to the triggers...as we do...and continue to be beaten because of their PTSD.

"...children adopted from places like the Sudan and from Liberia. RAD describes the behavior, but Post Traumatic Stress Disorder describes the pathology underlying the behavior (a response that is more of an automatic physiologic response of survival that fails to turn itself off when the person is no longer under threat). People fail to realize that these children have lived in very threatening situations and either lack emotional maturity or regress back into trauma states when they feel threatened due to trauma triggers. Their behaviors are often contradictory and seem like rebellion because they lack age-appropriate emotional maturity, or may lack any experience at or ability to express themselves appropriately in terms of our culture. Children in Liberian orphanages were traumatized. After being relocated to a new culture, spanking only throws that child back into a trauma response."

Source: Link Removed

How can I NOT speak up for these children?

 

[anthony]

So what Bloom? Why aren't you also petitioning then to have the web closed and removed from access?

I can get on here and find out how to kill myself, build a bomb, commit crimes, lure children to be raped and abused... the list goes on and on.

Isn't the web far more detrimental than one book about someones experiences or ideology?

Do you really want me to start quoting pieces around the web that will blow your above quotes from the water in relation to child rights, abuse, etc? I can... and trust me, they will be far more disturbing than that books content which someone decided to petition, yet in complete and utter ignorance, didn't think about petitioning that the web be shut down as well.

 

[BloomInWinter]

I find meaning where I can, doing the best I can.

I pick the issues that speak to my heart...and try to do something about them. Even if they are small things.

This is one of those issues for me.

I don't think asking a private business to not carry a book is analagous to asking for the web to be shut down.

Shutting down the web, which has many good things, is not one of my my goals, nor even realistic.

But it is possible to get Amazon to stop selling this book with enough signatures. Whether or not they do is irrelevant to my actions. I saw something I felt was not just, and I tried to do something about it.

I'm sorry I have bothered you. I respect that this is your space and I'll not post on this thread again.

 

[Jet]

This is not the first time I have heard complaints (such as these) about amazon.com. Last year I received a petition regarding an e-book titled A Pedophiles Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child Lover's Code of Conduct. Eventually they pulled the book due to global outrage and threats of boycott.

In our house we no longer support the NFL, eat at Subway or buy Nike products because they support Michael Vick. We don't frequent the local pet store because they sell puppy mill puppies and we don't shop amazon.com because they sell garbage like this.

 

[anthony]

I'm sorry I have bothered you. I respect that this is your space and I'll not post on this thread again.

Firstly bloom, don't be sorry... you started a thread that you have passion about, I am just not agreeing with you and I have my own sentiments. That does not make your posts wrong, it just means I don't agree with you. Your opinion, my opinion, nothing more.

Shutting down the web, which has many good things, is not one of my my goals, nor even realistic.

Now, back to the debate.

With that logic quoted above, then isn't it also correct to say that Amazon have lots of good things?

Which brings me back to my original problem with this type of PC gone nuts approach... why isn't the petitioning of websites that advocate child abuse, suicide, making a bomb and so forth, also being petitioned?

This is my problem with websites like this above that start online petitions without any real focus, more just meaningless attacks as they see fit. Why aren't there petitions for every single porn website that contains hatred sex, rape, etc? Websites exploiting kids? How to rape someone? How to punish a child?

All these are far more easy to find, totally free without having to buy a book, and accessible to anyone with web access. Why aren't these being petitioned?

Does it not bring free advertising to such books in the first place by recognising them and petitioning them to begin with? All advertising is good advertising, that statement is true. People will buy it just for the sake or reading it to see what its about in order to obtain their own objective opinion, instead of just repeating some person making a petition, quoting specific points of contention from the book to help their cause! That is what the person did with the petition... they didn't quote any good parts contained in the book, as that would not help their cause.

 

[intothelight]

I have a hard time with the ideas these books advocate and promote. But I have even a harder time with censorship, as where does it end? There are certain freedoms I hold extremely dear and freedom of speech (oral, written, visual, musical, etc.) is the first one.

I truly believe that calling attention to the subject manner of these books is important and providing information that counteracts the destructive beliefs and behaviors they promote. I also believe in the power of the $$$ (sorry my capitalist side breaking through :D) and if no one buys the books, then the authors do not spread their disturbing messages and booksellers will no longer carry them.

Here is the problem, you will always have parents who are ignorant enough to actually believe that an infant is "bad". There are also groups of pedophiles that believe there is nothing wrong with having a sexual relationship with a child. There are men who believe that women are somehow inferior and that wives should be subordinate and do not see anything wrong with physical violence to achieve that means. That is why we have laws to protect and punish. But there can never be a way to control thoughts, because then we start to get into dangerous territory, as who is going to be the "thought police"?

Fight back with education, information, boycotting, and speaking out.

But here is another disturbing thought....the individuals who advocate this type of child rearing are going to cry religious persecution. That is the problem, people see things from their reality. Someone told me one time that one person's terrorist is someone else's freedom fighter. Made me think long and hard.....

 

[BloomInWinter]

I know there are countless websites and electronic materials out there for many other horrible things...free and available to anyone with Internet access.

Those don't pop up in searches on 'Christian parenting', 'Biblical parenting', nor 'discipline'. The search terms to find those sites aren't likely to be the search terms otherwise decent but misguided or uneducated parents are entering in.

Those sites aren't being recommended in mega-church bulletins, websites, book clubs, on tv and Christian radio, and by Pastors all throughout the world. But this book is.

The fact that this book has that kind of support is what greatly concerns me...because when a mega-church displays it as a recommendation on three screens to thousands of attendees, it has a way of 'normalizing' it's subject matter to the 'sheep' in attendance.

...and woe unto the sheep who dares to question the recommendations of their church leadership.

Chruchs are free to keep recommending this book, of course. ...and selling it, as many do.

But Amazon is after all a business and can choose what to carry or not. If people who find their content objectionable just voted with their pocketbook but never said why...how would they know why people stopped patronizing them? A good business wants to know when there's an issue so they can try to remedy it. I do believe Amazon has many good things as well, and I'm a customer. Hence, why I'd lIke the business I patronize to know I have a problem with it.

If I was at a restaurant and I had an issue with something on the menu, I'd also speak with the owner of the restaurant rather than not going back.

I didn't advocate the authors not be allowed to print it. I'm not asking the government to interfere. Just asking a business to please not carry it.

I don't believe it's ever wrong to peacefully object to human rights violations...especially those against children.