Meat/language
Kristi Hayes
I don't think saying "if you decide you want to eat animals" is
manipulative. "Meat" is not a word my kids are much exposed to.
Besides, "meat" is usually used to mean cow/sheep/pig, as opposed to
"poultry" or "seafood." "Animals" encompasses all of these ideas. And
when I explain to people that I am lacto-ovo veg., I usually just say
(in the presence of my kids) that "I don't eat any animals." This has
eliminated the "but you eat chicken and fish, don't you dear?" Or the
awkward mixup when I'm served seafood in deference to my veg-ism. I
want my kids to know what's going in their mouths. Teenie drinks are
not ever called juice, they're "sugar drinks" and Morgaine can't drink
them. Her sugar is fairly limited due to yeast issues. I wouldn't slip
a tomato into her salad (which she doesn't like) by cutting it up and
calling it "fruit."
Furthermore, I didn't suggest she eat seagulls. I told her later in her
room that she was old enough to make her own decision about being
vegetarian. She looked out the window thoughtfully, saw a squirrel, and
went through her list of animals. Quite frankly I found the whole thing
hilarious because my dh and mother were appalled. The "old enough" bit
needed clarification because when I tell my kids "when you're older," as
in "when you're a little bit bigger you can choose to be an omnivore
like Daddy," I usually add an age, "like maybe when you're six." It
gives her more control. Also makes "older" a more acceptable answer.
So, thr clarification comment was necessary; letting her know there was
one more area of her life over which she has autonomy. She likes very
clear boundaries, so I keep them that way when the boundaries are clear
enough for definition.
Also, regarding the blood type diet - it's only one theory of eating.
There are many, many others, each with their own compelling arguments
and ideas, as well as counterarguments and ideas. It's likely that,
since I do a lot of reading in this area, my kids will end up with their
own very strong, well-researched conclusions which I will document under
"science" as "nutritional studies." I include them (mostly Morgaine so
far; Orion's still learning to speak in sentences and Isaac is still a
baby)in my thoughts and processes. I tell them when I think I've made a
mistake, when I've changed my mind because I learned something new, etc.
Morgaine's already heard a bit about blood-type theory when she was
talking to a friend of mine who's following the diet. She didn't yet
seem impressed.
Kristi
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
manipulative. "Meat" is not a word my kids are much exposed to.
Besides, "meat" is usually used to mean cow/sheep/pig, as opposed to
"poultry" or "seafood." "Animals" encompasses all of these ideas. And
when I explain to people that I am lacto-ovo veg., I usually just say
(in the presence of my kids) that "I don't eat any animals." This has
eliminated the "but you eat chicken and fish, don't you dear?" Or the
awkward mixup when I'm served seafood in deference to my veg-ism. I
want my kids to know what's going in their mouths. Teenie drinks are
not ever called juice, they're "sugar drinks" and Morgaine can't drink
them. Her sugar is fairly limited due to yeast issues. I wouldn't slip
a tomato into her salad (which she doesn't like) by cutting it up and
calling it "fruit."
Furthermore, I didn't suggest she eat seagulls. I told her later in her
room that she was old enough to make her own decision about being
vegetarian. She looked out the window thoughtfully, saw a squirrel, and
went through her list of animals. Quite frankly I found the whole thing
hilarious because my dh and mother were appalled. The "old enough" bit
needed clarification because when I tell my kids "when you're older," as
in "when you're a little bit bigger you can choose to be an omnivore
like Daddy," I usually add an age, "like maybe when you're six." It
gives her more control. Also makes "older" a more acceptable answer.
So, thr clarification comment was necessary; letting her know there was
one more area of her life over which she has autonomy. She likes very
clear boundaries, so I keep them that way when the boundaries are clear
enough for definition.
Also, regarding the blood type diet - it's only one theory of eating.
There are many, many others, each with their own compelling arguments
and ideas, as well as counterarguments and ideas. It's likely that,
since I do a lot of reading in this area, my kids will end up with their
own very strong, well-researched conclusions which I will document under
"science" as "nutritional studies." I include them (mostly Morgaine so
far; Orion's still learning to speak in sentences and Isaac is still a
baby)in my thoughts and processes. I tell them when I think I've made a
mistake, when I've changed my mind because I learned something new, etc.
Morgaine's already heard a bit about blood-type theory when she was
talking to a friend of mine who's following the diet. She didn't yet
seem impressed.
Kristi
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/18/04 2:41:17 PM, hayes@... writes:
<< I don't think saying "if you decide you want to eat animals" is
manipulative. "Meat" is not a word my kids are much exposed to.
Besides, "meat" is usually used to mean cow/sheep/pig, as opposed to
"poultry" or "seafood." >>
At one time, in the 17th century and before, "meat" meant things people eat
(not just animal products) as opposed to "drink." "Meat and drink" were all
the things, solid and liquid, that people consumed. So as a vegetarian defense,
it might help you to know that anytime anyone quotes King James Bible at you,
"meat" meant nuts and cherries the same as chicken. What we call meat now,
they called "flesh."
But in 2004, the word for animal flesh when prepared for eating, is "meat."
And I do think if you use an emotional twist when you respond to young
children, that it was done for a purpose.
I care a lot about English, and am always sad and sometimes suspicious when
people twist it and deny they did. (Or they don't realize they did.)
Words have connotations (shades of meanings) and denotations (the objects the
point at). If I call my neighbor's dog a mutt or a mongrel, I'm conveying
meaning by having chosen that word. If people call children brats or kidlets
or young'uns or drape apes (not that those all have the same level of disdain,
but they have some disdain) it is an indication of their thinking.
Worth considering, anyway.
Sandra
<< I don't think saying "if you decide you want to eat animals" is
manipulative. "Meat" is not a word my kids are much exposed to.
Besides, "meat" is usually used to mean cow/sheep/pig, as opposed to
"poultry" or "seafood." >>
At one time, in the 17th century and before, "meat" meant things people eat
(not just animal products) as opposed to "drink." "Meat and drink" were all
the things, solid and liquid, that people consumed. So as a vegetarian defense,
it might help you to know that anytime anyone quotes King James Bible at you,
"meat" meant nuts and cherries the same as chicken. What we call meat now,
they called "flesh."
But in 2004, the word for animal flesh when prepared for eating, is "meat."
And I do think if you use an emotional twist when you respond to young
children, that it was done for a purpose.
I care a lot about English, and am always sad and sometimes suspicious when
people twist it and deny they did. (Or they don't realize they did.)
Words have connotations (shades of meanings) and denotations (the objects the
point at). If I call my neighbor's dog a mutt or a mongrel, I'm conveying
meaning by having chosen that word. If people call children brats or kidlets
or young'uns or drape apes (not that those all have the same level of disdain,
but they have some disdain) it is an indication of their thinking.
Worth considering, anyway.
Sandra