The following content is from an unpublished book titled: "The Brass Tacks of an Over Polished Trophy". I'm unaware why it wasn't published, but it contains some good contents, and is useful to those researching Jackson's behaviour with young boys and the allegations against him. It has 12 chapters in total. Full credit goes to the original author.
The Mighty MJ Machine barreled forward, leaving a clutter of broken bodies in its path. Defending “The King” always required a steady supply of scapegoats. It was only a matter of time before he bit the hand that fed him. Perhaps most disturbing is the way Michael turned on his father.
Michael Jackson was never one to suffer in silence. Whenever things got sticky, he played the victim. It worked every time. Why did he think we should ignore how he got away with things that would’ve gotten ordinary adults jail time? According to him, it’s because he had such a tragic childhood. When other children his age were playing games and having fun, he claimed his father was beating his dance steps into him. I think most of us can agree that Joe was tough on his kids but other than Michael tugging at our heartstrings, there is no solid evidence to prove that he was severely beaten.
To look at this jubilant child bouncing around on stage with his brothers in the Jackson 5, it’s hard to believe he was. He spent so much of his life under a spotlight, how can it be that no one noticed signs of abuse back then? I know you can bury many physical flaws under layers of cosmetic make up but not a swollen black eye. Are we to believe that people in the make up department at Motown wrapped Michael’s gaping wounds but never reported it? Are we also to assume that Joe savagely beat Michael but his family never took him to the hospital? Healthcare professionals are bound by law to report child abuse to the authorities. (More so now than then but you’d think someone would’ve reported it.) How did this little black and blue boy slip through the cracks? How about others that knew the Jackson family personally? People like neighbors, next of kin, business associates and other eyewitnesses? The Jackson family was devout Jehovah Witness. Should we assume that they didn’t congregate with members of their faith? How is it that none of those God fearing folk recall a poor, bloody little boy limping into church?
Like all things Michael, it boils down to whom you choose to believe. If he batted his false eyelashes and blamed his father for his problems, his fans naturally did too. This is odd considering Michael’s siblings haven’t blamed Joe for the mistakes they’ve made as adults. None of them figure that their unfulfilled childhoods make it perfectly natural to bed down other people’s children, so why are so many anxious to blame Joe for everything? Go ahead, ask them.
They will tell you that it’s because Joe damaged Michael so severely as a child. As usual, this has a lot to do with the way Michael looked when he said it. He looked completely crushed as he recalled how he was forced to rehearse by his bully of a father. He looked like he was still cowering from his father’s savage blows when he spoke of how terrified he was of him as a child. This definitely had a strong impact on the public at large. If you could place your finger on the pulse of the world, you would find that millions; perhaps billions of people took every word Michael Jackson said deeply to heart. Joe Jackson became the man to hate.
By no means does it tell the whole story however. No parent is completely responsible for the kind of person their children will become as an adult. Certainly they instill their values into the minds of their offspring but there comes a time in every mature adult’s life when they should own their choices and stop blaming others for their mistakes. How did Michael Jackson’s lawless behavior become so easy to dismiss?
Who else (Other than his overly-protective fans) is responsible for giving Jackson permission to self-destruct? I believe the answer is more obvious than we care to admit. It’s because he made his mark in the midst of the sexual revolution. He had feminine mannerisms, spoke in a tiny feminine voice and claimed an overbearing brute of a man abused him. In short, he became a poster child for the feminine movement. Joe Jackson was boisterous, demanding and didn’t hesitate to blow his horn louder than everyone else. Had he been a woman, those traits might have been admired but he was a man and this made him a perfect target for radical feminists.
I’m not referring to the pioneering women that sought to improve living and working conditions for women in the mid 1900s. These intelligent, progressively minded women awoke us all to the injustices placed upon their sex throughout history. I know we can’t go backwards in time and I wouldn’t want to. Women have as much of a right to realize their true potential as any man. It had been a long time coming.
During the 1800s, traditional family values were fundamental. Women kept the home fires burning while the gatherers of the family (The men.) put food on the table and a roof over their heads. At the dawn of the industrial age, each sex still knew their place; men became white-collar wage earners, women stayed home and the children went to school. These virtues were held in high regard, making the United States the most prosperous, stable republic on earth.
The first jolt to the picturesque American dream occurred during the First World War. Women had to join the industrial work force when their husbands were shipped overseas. Amidst these hardships, women discovered how strong and independent they could be. Just when things were getting back to normal, the stock market crashed, leading to the Great Depression. Men were home again but couldn’t find work. This spun traditional family values in directions the unsuspecting public hadn’t encountered before. In many cases, the men stayed home to raise the children while the women went to work. Families pulled together out of necessity, feeding and providing childcare for each other.
As the economy finally began to improve and Americans were in the process of getting back on their feet again, Germany thrust us into the Second World War. More sacrifices were in store, leading toward another significant shift in the family dynamic. Thousands of fathers and sons never made it home. Food and other necessities were rationed. Americans learned to be very frugal with their finances. Working long hours in factories and spending less time at home led to recognizing the need for women’s rights. With more individual freedom, women moved forward and didn’t look back. They attended universities, took seats on school boards and fought for their right to vote.
To escape the drudgery of the Great Depression and the struggles of two world wars, Americans went to the movies. John Wayne was one of Hollywood’s leading men in those days. He was a “man’s man,” pampering no one. Every man, woman or boy within swinging distance felt the sting of his authority. In one of his movies, his wife, “Katherine” (Played by Maureen O’Hara) wasn’t giving George Washington Mclintock the proper respect a man of his stature requires. He arrives at her door and bellows “Let me in!” When she refuses, he kicks the door down. The brawl spills into the streets. This is where we spot Mclintock’s daughter, “Becky” watching the spectacle unfold from the sidelines. Someone remarks, “What kind of family is that?” To this, Becky backhands him a good one and asserts, “The best!”
Mclintock forces Katherine across his knee and paddles her behind with a small coal shovel. (Handed to him by the man that might marry his daughter.) The men in the crowd cheer him on and the women squeal with delight. One of the observers shouts with great joy, “My father would be proud of you!” This paddling seems to do the trick. Katherine completely surrenders to Mclintock’s iron will in the closing scene and they apparently live happily ever after.
It’s similar to how Rhett Butler had enough to drink one night and he wasn’t about to take no for an answer in “Gone With The Wind.” He throws Scarlett over his shoulder and hauls her off to the bedroom upstairs. The next morning, Scarlett is positively radiant, singing a happy tune and looking as if all her cares had been whisked away!
Then there was Frank Sinatra. Old Blue Eyes was the epitome of the hard-drinking, womanizing, gambling swinger and sexy as hell to millions of rosy-cheeked Bobbysoxers. Manly men were the norm in the 50s and yet, in the midst of all this machismo, feminism was beginning to take hold. These women didn’t want to be broads, chicks or dames, they wanted equal rights.
Oddly enough, as traditional values were being challenged, another social phenomenon was taking place: “The Baby Boom.” Young men were taught (By both his father and his mother.) that one day he would “honor” a woman by marrying her and giving her babies. As the economy improved again, women were giving birth to children at an alarming rate while millions of men were still appointed “Kings of their Castle” in many homes.
When radical feminists hijacked the progressive feminine movement, this all became “sexist” and “macho.” Many outspoken feminists claimed children were better off being raised without a patriarch in the home. If a woman made the mistake of sleeping with the enemy and got pregnant, she was encouraged to dump that worthless man and raise her child without him. Never mind that a single parent is far more likely to end up on welfare and living in poverty. We’re talking about “sexual freedom,” baby!
As you might expect, feminism has gained a nasty reputation over the years. Ask anyone what he or she thinks of when they hear the word “feminism,” and they’ll almost always think of “man-haters.” There’s a good reason for this, many women that claim to be the “superior sex” do hate men. A large part of this man-hating movement involves domestic violence and rape. In reality, only a tiny percentage of men rape women and beat children but that doesn’t discourage belligerent feminists from blaming all men for it. As far as they’re concerned, even men that don’t participate in these deplorable acts are somehow responsible for it.
As a result, many see a thin line between spanking and brutal child abuse today. Being a receiver of spankings myself, I don’t consider myself “abused,” but many do. From my perspective, spanking sent me a powerful message that I was out of line and if I did it again, I would get another. Because I wouldn’t get the spanking until my father arrived home at the end of the day, I had all day long to think about what I had done. I hated how this made me feel but I understand why he did it now. If I don’t call what my father did “abuse,” why are so many people anxious to say it was? One reason is the belief that children need adults to speak for them. It might be beneficial to examine the guidelines set by childcare professionals.
CPS, (Child Protective Service) determine, “In medical and secular literature, there is great diversity of opinion about the short-term and long-term effects of various disciplinary methods, especially the use of disciplinary spanking. This statement reviews the issues concerning childhood discipline and offers practical guidelines for physicians to use in counseling parents about effective discipline.”
According to CPS, to be effective, discipline needs to be:
Given by an adult with an affective bond to the child;
Consistent, close to the behavior needing change;
Perceived as ‘fair’ by the child;
Developmentally and temperamentally appropriate.
Self-enhancing, ie, ultimately leading to self-discipline.
The physician can promote effective discipline through evaluation, anticipatory guidance and counseling.
Discipline is described as the structure that helps the child fit into the real world happily and effectively. It is the foundation for the development of the child’s own self-discipline. Disciplining children is one of the most important yet difficult responsibilities of parenting and there are no shortcuts.
CPS offers three accepted forms of discipline:
Reasoning, or away-from-the-moment discussions; and
It bears mentioning that CPS considers disciplinary spanking a last resort and should only be applied when reasoning fails. This is because there are always hotheads that will take things to the extreme. Certainly physical harm to a child inflicted by an out of control parent in the throes of a violent rage is completely inappropriate and dangerous. These horrific cases have provoked millions to believe that any form of spanking should be made a criminal offense. Regardless, corporal punishment is still widely recognized as an acceptable (and legal) method of child rearing.
In my estimation, unless we can agree that scolding a child doesn’t instantly equal verbal abuse, neither does spanking instantly equal physical abuse; we’ve got a meaningless, irresolvable debate on our hands. Look at pictures of severely beaten children and try to tell me that they’re in the same league as a sensibly spanked child.
Joe Jackson was brought up to believe that teaching his children to behave was the father’s responsibility. There was a boss in the house and it was his obligation to lay down the law. Children had the option to obey the rules or face the consequences and they knew those consequences could hurt. A measured swat on the fanny taught them to submit to authority regardless of whether or not they agree. It was believed that children needed those limits to learn restraint because that child was going to venture out into a world full of bosses someday.
Not anymore. We’re told that strict parenting is uncivilized, reverting back to our caveman days. Popular opinion is that we must coddle our children and only speak to them in a soft voice, regardless of what they’ve done. Single mothers seem to think they need to be their children’s best friend. If a child misbehaves, the parent is supposed calmly discuss it with them, no matter how long it takes to reason with an undeveloped mind. Certainly this is the first step but when reasoning fails, sterner measures should be used.
Perhaps a good place to start might be to admit that spanking doesn’t automatically equal brutal child abuse. It’s legal to spank but illegal to spank in a way that causes welts, bruising, bleeding, or fractures. It must been done sensibly, without anger or malice. You’ll never convince me that the parents that label spanking “cruel and inhuman” have never lost their temper with a disobedient child. I can still remember mean things said to me as a kid. I consider myself lucky to have had a father that took the time to explain why I deserved a spanking over what an overstressed parent might shout in anger. I say, tell me what I did wrong, then give me my whacks and get it over with!
Let’s get back to Michael Jackson. Despite the fervor of anti-spanking “experts,” the scientific evidence that it causes behavioral problems later in life is thin. Many of those studies don’t differentiate between parents who spank frequently and forcefully and those who spank occasionally and moderately, so results get lumped together, with varying definitions carrying the same weight. Spanking has been associated with a wide range of negative effects, such as increased aggression and decreased self-control but these studies can’t prove that spanking caused these effects. In Michael Jackson’s case, it must have had a reverse effect. The decreased self-control part fits but instead of becoming aggressive, he ended up self-absorbed and withdrawn. The only time this performer seemed at ease is when he was on stage; blowing kisses to people that believed he could do no wrong.
Contrary to what certain studies suggest, I don’t believe that spanking a child properly permanently damages them for life. Western parents (particularly women) seem to assume frailty rather than strength in their children. Joe Jackson was the opposite of this. He used “tough love” to raise his kids and this made him the perfect target for radical feminists to focus their campaign of hate upon.
What kind of man badmouths his own father in public? Joe Jackson didn’t become a brute in the public’s eye until Michael said too much. Yes, he was a strict disciplinarian; but he’s also responsible for bringing Michael to the world. Joe Jackson created the Jackson 5. Michael didn’t do that. Without Joe’s stern guidance, a child as self conscious and insecure as Michael Jackson wouldn’t have gotten as big as he did. Michael did as he was told in the beginning and because he did, the Jackson 5 went on to become a global sensation. No Jackson 5, no “King of Pop,” kids! Can we give him credit for that much at least?
Despite the much-publicized abuse, Michael honored his father with an annual “Joseph Jackson Day” at Neverland Ranch and ultimately forgave him, noting that Joe’s southern upbringing during the Great Depression and working-class adulthood hardened him emotionally, encouraging him push his children to succeed as entertainers.
Perhaps Katherine will give Joe a second chance even if militant feminists and his hardheaded fans refuse to. On November 10, 2010, Joe accompanied his wife Katherine on the Oprah Winfrey show. (They are no longer living together but they’re still married.) It was only a matter of time before both Oprah and Katherine had Joe cornered. Joe stuck up for his methods of child raising by saying, “Michael was raised properly. He didn’t run the streets like most of those other kids that was in his neighborhood. But harm Michael, for what? I have no reason. That’s my son. I loved him. I never beat Michael like the media tried to say.”
He admitted that he had been too hard on his children. That took a lot of guts for him to say, yet rather than buffer the hate millions of people have in store for him, it only made them hate him more! If Joe beat Michael bloody, he deserves the scorn he’s receiving now but there’s little evidence to support this. We shouldn’t condemn the man solely upon what this momma’s boy accused him of. It makes it too convenient to blame him for “The King of Pop’s” undisciplined lifestyle.