Natural Child Article
DaBreeze21
Hi everyone -
I read this article:
http://inquisitivekid.ca/newsletters/Natural%20Child%20May_June%202008.pdf
online (The Natural Child Magazine) and wanted to hear what you all
think about it.
I definitely think that most kids need more time for free play than
they're getting (and that is a really good reason to not send them to
experiencing generosity and abundance and saying yes as much as
possible. Also, should we say "no" to electronic, plastic toys because
they are not as "good" for the children and definitely not good for
the environment? (I think I know the answer already!)
Or maybe it is similar to food -- we should be offering them a whole
array of toy and play experiences so they can choose. I have to admit
I really LIKE some of the "educational" toys and so does my daughter.
(Like Leap Frog -- the alphabet magnet refrigerator toy is awesome!)
What do you think?
I read this article:
http://inquisitivekid.ca/newsletters/Natural%20Child%20May_June%202008.pdf
online (The Natural Child Magazine) and wanted to hear what you all
think about it.
I definitely think that most kids need more time for free play than
they're getting (and that is a really good reason to not send them to
experiencing generosity and abundance and saying yes as much as
possible. Also, should we say "no" to electronic, plastic toys because
they are not as "good" for the children and definitely not good for
the environment? (I think I know the answer already!)
Or maybe it is similar to food -- we should be offering them a whole
array of toy and play experiences so they can choose. I have to admit
I really LIKE some of the "educational" toys and so does my daughter.
(Like Leap Frog -- the alphabet magnet refrigerator toy is awesome!)
What do you think?
Sandra Dodd
-=-Also, should we say "no" to electronic, plastic toys because
they are not as "good" for the children and definitely not good for
the environment? (I think I know the answer already!)-=-
You do?
I'd say the answer is there is no "we."
You can't ask "should we say no?" without defining "we".
One of the saddest stories I have heard since I started reading
homeschooling and parenting stories online was of a mom who
discovered Steinerism/Waldorf one day, and that night she replaced
all her child's plastic toys with wooden stuff--she got it out of the
house like it was satanic debris. And her son had had a My Little
Pony that he loved, it was his special huggy toy, and she had thrown
it away.
Way to improve faith and health, mom. She hurt the environment more
by throwing away a plastic toy, and she crushed her son's soul.
So what was your question? <g>
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
they are not as "good" for the children and definitely not good for
the environment? (I think I know the answer already!)-=-
You do?
I'd say the answer is there is no "we."
You can't ask "should we say no?" without defining "we".
One of the saddest stories I have heard since I started reading
homeschooling and parenting stories online was of a mom who
discovered Steinerism/Waldorf one day, and that night she replaced
all her child's plastic toys with wooden stuff--she got it out of the
house like it was satanic debris. And her son had had a My Little
Pony that he loved, it was his special huggy toy, and she had thrown
it away.
Way to improve faith and health, mom. She hurt the environment more
by throwing away a plastic toy, and she crushed her son's soul.
So what was your question? <g>
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
DaBreeze21
> So what was your question? <g>Oh no, your making me think and clarify early in the morning (well
>
>
>
> Sandra
>
early for me!) I guess that's my own fault <g>
Let me see... The more I think about it the less sure I am what my
"question" is. The way I read the article there seemed to be parts
that "jive" with unschooling and parts that definitely did NOT. Since
I am still trying to figure out how all of this fits together in my
life I wanted to bounce it off of more experienced people and see if
my interpretation matches.
I can see the benefit of children having more free time (less
"Structured time") and having more exposure to toys and/or materials
that encourage creativity. But how does that fit in with really
supporting children in their own interests and desires? I love the
idea of being truly generous with my children and not saying "no" just
so they learn that they "can't always get what they want". Or saying
"no" because what they want is "bad" for the environment. I love the
stories of older unschooled children who are truly generous and
mature... I love the analogy of something becoming "spoiled" because
it doesn't get ENOUGH attention (eg food). Of course I said that
recently and was met with the response that my daughter is
"overindulged" then (instead of spoiled - She is 2 and I bought her a
pair of sandals that she wanted and didn't really "need")
ok, not sure that I am really clarifying here... more rambling. I need
some help I guess!
Sandra Dodd
First off, it's in Natural Child Magazine, so the readers WANT to
read that stuff.
I'm going to be picky here, and pounce on something in the intro blurb:
In a world full of battery-operated, loud,
media-branded, one-dimensional,
plastic toys with no imagination, toys
that are well-made, simple, natural
and conducive to independent,
unstructured play are critical to
stimulating children, accelerating
their development and
enhancing their well-being.
Wooden toys don't have any more imagination than plastic toys do, and
there are NO one-dimensional toys. It doesn't make physical sense.
One dimension is a theoretical line, and nobody can mold that in
plastic. So without even getting to the real article, I'm already
irritated.
That intro isn't a quote from the article, so maybe it was written by
an editor.
-=-“Play, from toddler toys
to adult gaming, has
become such a serious
activity that the idea of
free play – play for the
pure fun of it – has gone
the way of stickball and
paper dolls.-=-
Paper dolls were crap.
And where I lived, we never played "stickball," ever. We had real
vacant lots and real bats.
Nostalgia is a way for parents to justify limiting their children,
and a way of them reliving their own youths, but children who will
mature in 2020 don't need stickball or paper dolls.
How can we overcome this dilemma?
For one, stand firm and try not to give in.
David Elkind, author and professor of
child development, tells the following
story: “I recall pestering my mother to
buy a certain cereal so I could collect the
box tops. But my mother did not buy us
that cereal. I kept pestering her and complaining
about not having what my
friends had. Finally, exasperated with
my nagging and having housework and
other children to deal with, my mother
said firmly and conclusively, ‘Who cares
what you want?’ My mother cared about
what we needed but didn’t worry about
what we wanted.”
That story is included to encourage parents to ignore their
children's desires. And there's the implied promise that it could
lead to them becoming professors and authors! And of course it
didn't hurt David Elkind (athough it might be interesting to
magically know why he grew up to study child development <bwg>, and I
say "magically" because asking him might not work, if he hasn't
thought about it much).
-=-How can we stop our children from
becoming targets of consumerism at an
early age? Select toys according to their
play merit – natural, imaginative, openended,
etc. – instead of their brand
names.-=-
Which brand names is he talking about? Discovery Toys? Fisher
Price? Playskool? Duplo? I really don't know. But I don't know
anyone who has chosen toys just by brand name. I do know a mom who
chose toys that matched her decor: Primary colors, no pastels. And
I'm sure there have been a few moms who had pastel nurseries and
avoided primary colors, but I haven't met them.
-=-If children are
first exposed to toys made of natural materials,
they will have a healthy standard
by which to judge synthetics.
Why not let our children experience
wooden animals or blocks and cotton and
wool dolls or puppets?-=-
What about rubber? That's natural. I have three toys saved from my
childhood, two from my infancy. I have a rubber Indian with a
tomahawk (VERY non-PC, and it stopped squeaking just a few years
ago. I was already 50. It did last a while), a teddy bear (not
rubber--all cloth but the eyes), and a Tiny Tears doll--rubber body,
probably a kind of hard papier-mache head. Not plastic.
This guy totally skipped the main toy materials of the mid-20th
century: steel and rubber. I cut the corner of one of my fingers
off--not the bone, just flesh and nail--with a toy ironing board. It
was steel pipe that folded up and didn't have a cap on it. So it was
a lever with a sharp end. Hooray! But it was metal, and so "natural."
-=-Why not let our children experience
wooden animals or blocks and cotton and
wool dolls or puppets? When machine
made toys are in such abundance, handcrafted
toys take on a new value and significance.
They reunite us with the real
world.-=-
Unless the family doesn't feel separate from the real world to begin
with.
They also teach us environmental responsibility.
Unfortunately, most hightech
or plastic toys are not fixable. We
used to be able to prop the toy open, replace
a spring or elastic or glue it back together.
Voila, the toy was as good as
new. Today, we endure toys that have a
short lifespan and cannot be fixed;
buying a new toy is cheaper than fixing
the old one, so we simply toss it away. If
we are to help children learn the meaning
of sustainability, this must change.
This is a good point. I wonder if that family owns any of the other
not-worth-fixing things that are around these days? Microwave, DVD
player, computers are just about at that point.
Keith and I have repaired many plastic toys, by heating a wire and
putting it through the plastic to pin a leg or whatever had come
off. We've glued them, too. I understand the author's point, but
it's again assuming all natural-material toys are repairable. Marty
loved a hippo he had, but the cloth was cheap and it was stuffed with
sawdust-like stuff, and when it started to leak I couldn't fix it.
Every stitch tore the cloth. So when you go with natural materials,
get GOOD ones. <g>
-=-Why not supply boys with boy dolls, dollhouses that can also
be converted to farmhouses or fire stations? Can young girls not
enjoy boats and trains rather than pink castles and princesses? Can
we not find a healthy balance?-=-
Just earlier this month Holly and Sophie played with our Fisher Price
people, and the boys always did too when they were little. We got
most of it used, and there's a filling station, airport, parking
garage, farm, playground, houses, all kinds of cars--lots of non-
gender-specific play. But although the really old dolls have wooden
bodies, most of it's plastic.
-=-Pre-programmed electronic toys monopolize the brain and
negatively impact children’s creativity when they demand response
to a scenario constructed by someone else.-=-
This is true of electronic toys that only have one outcome and no
creativity allowed, like quiz games. But it's not true of all
electronic toys. Holly's on another Harvest Moon jag. Now she's on
Game Boy because she can take it with her (she took me to the dentist
the other morning, and was playing there while she waited). One of
the most fun things with that is to figure out what happens when you
"play wrong," because the programmers have taken it all into
consideration so that there aren't dead ends or program-stopping
moves, and some of it's cute and funny.
-=-So let’s encourage our children to go out and play, rather than
sitting glued to the TV or computer game. Their health, social and
intellectual development will benefit.-=-
A few things: "Let's encourage our children" reminds me of a nurse
asking "How are we feeling?" "We" don't need to do anything as a group.
And "glued to the TV" is not something anyone wants. But he's not
saying --Bring your kids in and don't leave them outside glued to a
bike, or glued to a tree, or glued to the sandbox.-- The loaded
phrasing is saved for "the bad guys."
And do children need to "go out" to play? And why can't parents go
out too?
As a reminder to young parents that it's good to have all kinds of
toys, and that imagination is good, it's a good article.
Oh! The author has something to sell:
-=-Peter Emmenegger “Nurturing the Playful Mind” Page 24
is the father of two young children. He owns an e-store
www.inquisitivekid.ca, which carries natural
toys and furniture. He believes that toys that are pure in form and
color foster imagination
and instill independence and a desire to accomplish, and that we can
make the world a better
place, one child at a time, by giving kids what they really need.-=-
That's okay. My kids had lots of wooden toys. We had a big basket
of "medieval toys"--things that kids in the Middle Ages might have
had--that we took to SCA events. Everything in there was wood or
metal or cloth, and appropriate to the period. It's not that I'm not
aware of the differences, and we did have very many wooden toys, and
cloth to play with for costumes. Marty just lately went to a party
and part of his costume was a big rectangle of dark blue silky cloth
(though not real silk) that was in the dress-up box.
I agree with the idea of having a range and letting children
choose. If anyone here thinks the Waldorf philosophy of colors and
textures is what their child really needs (because that author is
strong into parents knowing what kids need), then there's a world of
support (and sales) to help you live a Waldorf life. (Hey, isn't
that pretty much becoming a brand name now?)
Oh...
There's that intro paragraph, from the toy-sales site:
"In a world full of plastic toys, battery operated, loud toys, media
branded toys, one-dimensional toys with no imagination; why not
choose beautiful, well-made objects that are critical to stimulating
children, accelerating their development, and enhancing their well-
being? "
http://www.inquisitivekid.ca/our_story.aspx
I don't begrudge them doing what they're doing at all, and the
article is fine for the audience to which it was aimed.
I also think some kids will be wildly creative and imaginative no
matter what, and others will be not so much of either, no matter what.
Sandra
read that stuff.
I'm going to be picky here, and pounce on something in the intro blurb:
In a world full of battery-operated, loud,
media-branded, one-dimensional,
plastic toys with no imagination, toys
that are well-made, simple, natural
and conducive to independent,
unstructured play are critical to
stimulating children, accelerating
their development and
enhancing their well-being.
Wooden toys don't have any more imagination than plastic toys do, and
there are NO one-dimensional toys. It doesn't make physical sense.
One dimension is a theoretical line, and nobody can mold that in
plastic. So without even getting to the real article, I'm already
irritated.
That intro isn't a quote from the article, so maybe it was written by
an editor.
-=-“Play, from toddler toys
to adult gaming, has
become such a serious
activity that the idea of
free play – play for the
pure fun of it – has gone
the way of stickball and
paper dolls.-=-
Paper dolls were crap.
And where I lived, we never played "stickball," ever. We had real
vacant lots and real bats.
Nostalgia is a way for parents to justify limiting their children,
and a way of them reliving their own youths, but children who will
mature in 2020 don't need stickball or paper dolls.
How can we overcome this dilemma?
For one, stand firm and try not to give in.
David Elkind, author and professor of
child development, tells the following
story: “I recall pestering my mother to
buy a certain cereal so I could collect the
box tops. But my mother did not buy us
that cereal. I kept pestering her and complaining
about not having what my
friends had. Finally, exasperated with
my nagging and having housework and
other children to deal with, my mother
said firmly and conclusively, ‘Who cares
what you want?’ My mother cared about
what we needed but didn’t worry about
what we wanted.”
That story is included to encourage parents to ignore their
children's desires. And there's the implied promise that it could
lead to them becoming professors and authors! And of course it
didn't hurt David Elkind (athough it might be interesting to
magically know why he grew up to study child development <bwg>, and I
say "magically" because asking him might not work, if he hasn't
thought about it much).
-=-How can we stop our children from
becoming targets of consumerism at an
early age? Select toys according to their
play merit – natural, imaginative, openended,
etc. – instead of their brand
names.-=-
Which brand names is he talking about? Discovery Toys? Fisher
Price? Playskool? Duplo? I really don't know. But I don't know
anyone who has chosen toys just by brand name. I do know a mom who
chose toys that matched her decor: Primary colors, no pastels. And
I'm sure there have been a few moms who had pastel nurseries and
avoided primary colors, but I haven't met them.
-=-If children are
first exposed to toys made of natural materials,
they will have a healthy standard
by which to judge synthetics.
Why not let our children experience
wooden animals or blocks and cotton and
wool dolls or puppets?-=-
What about rubber? That's natural. I have three toys saved from my
childhood, two from my infancy. I have a rubber Indian with a
tomahawk (VERY non-PC, and it stopped squeaking just a few years
ago. I was already 50. It did last a while), a teddy bear (not
rubber--all cloth but the eyes), and a Tiny Tears doll--rubber body,
probably a kind of hard papier-mache head. Not plastic.
This guy totally skipped the main toy materials of the mid-20th
century: steel and rubber. I cut the corner of one of my fingers
off--not the bone, just flesh and nail--with a toy ironing board. It
was steel pipe that folded up and didn't have a cap on it. So it was
a lever with a sharp end. Hooray! But it was metal, and so "natural."
-=-Why not let our children experience
wooden animals or blocks and cotton and
wool dolls or puppets? When machine
made toys are in such abundance, handcrafted
toys take on a new value and significance.
They reunite us with the real
world.-=-
Unless the family doesn't feel separate from the real world to begin
with.
They also teach us environmental responsibility.
Unfortunately, most hightech
or plastic toys are not fixable. We
used to be able to prop the toy open, replace
a spring or elastic or glue it back together.
Voila, the toy was as good as
new. Today, we endure toys that have a
short lifespan and cannot be fixed;
buying a new toy is cheaper than fixing
the old one, so we simply toss it away. If
we are to help children learn the meaning
of sustainability, this must change.
This is a good point. I wonder if that family owns any of the other
not-worth-fixing things that are around these days? Microwave, DVD
player, computers are just about at that point.
Keith and I have repaired many plastic toys, by heating a wire and
putting it through the plastic to pin a leg or whatever had come
off. We've glued them, too. I understand the author's point, but
it's again assuming all natural-material toys are repairable. Marty
loved a hippo he had, but the cloth was cheap and it was stuffed with
sawdust-like stuff, and when it started to leak I couldn't fix it.
Every stitch tore the cloth. So when you go with natural materials,
get GOOD ones. <g>
-=-Why not supply boys with boy dolls, dollhouses that can also
be converted to farmhouses or fire stations? Can young girls not
enjoy boats and trains rather than pink castles and princesses? Can
we not find a healthy balance?-=-
Just earlier this month Holly and Sophie played with our Fisher Price
people, and the boys always did too when they were little. We got
most of it used, and there's a filling station, airport, parking
garage, farm, playground, houses, all kinds of cars--lots of non-
gender-specific play. But although the really old dolls have wooden
bodies, most of it's plastic.
-=-Pre-programmed electronic toys monopolize the brain and
negatively impact children’s creativity when they demand response
to a scenario constructed by someone else.-=-
This is true of electronic toys that only have one outcome and no
creativity allowed, like quiz games. But it's not true of all
electronic toys. Holly's on another Harvest Moon jag. Now she's on
Game Boy because she can take it with her (she took me to the dentist
the other morning, and was playing there while she waited). One of
the most fun things with that is to figure out what happens when you
"play wrong," because the programmers have taken it all into
consideration so that there aren't dead ends or program-stopping
moves, and some of it's cute and funny.
-=-So let’s encourage our children to go out and play, rather than
sitting glued to the TV or computer game. Their health, social and
intellectual development will benefit.-=-
A few things: "Let's encourage our children" reminds me of a nurse
asking "How are we feeling?" "We" don't need to do anything as a group.
And "glued to the TV" is not something anyone wants. But he's not
saying --Bring your kids in and don't leave them outside glued to a
bike, or glued to a tree, or glued to the sandbox.-- The loaded
phrasing is saved for "the bad guys."
And do children need to "go out" to play? And why can't parents go
out too?
As a reminder to young parents that it's good to have all kinds of
toys, and that imagination is good, it's a good article.
Oh! The author has something to sell:
-=-Peter Emmenegger “Nurturing the Playful Mind” Page 24
is the father of two young children. He owns an e-store
www.inquisitivekid.ca, which carries natural
toys and furniture. He believes that toys that are pure in form and
color foster imagination
and instill independence and a desire to accomplish, and that we can
make the world a better
place, one child at a time, by giving kids what they really need.-=-
That's okay. My kids had lots of wooden toys. We had a big basket
of "medieval toys"--things that kids in the Middle Ages might have
had--that we took to SCA events. Everything in there was wood or
metal or cloth, and appropriate to the period. It's not that I'm not
aware of the differences, and we did have very many wooden toys, and
cloth to play with for costumes. Marty just lately went to a party
and part of his costume was a big rectangle of dark blue silky cloth
(though not real silk) that was in the dress-up box.
I agree with the idea of having a range and letting children
choose. If anyone here thinks the Waldorf philosophy of colors and
textures is what their child really needs (because that author is
strong into parents knowing what kids need), then there's a world of
support (and sales) to help you live a Waldorf life. (Hey, isn't
that pretty much becoming a brand name now?)
Oh...
There's that intro paragraph, from the toy-sales site:
"In a world full of plastic toys, battery operated, loud toys, media
branded toys, one-dimensional toys with no imagination; why not
choose beautiful, well-made objects that are critical to stimulating
children, accelerating their development, and enhancing their well-
being? "
http://www.inquisitivekid.ca/our_story.aspx
I don't begrudge them doing what they're doing at all, and the
article is fine for the audience to which it was aimed.
I also think some kids will be wildly creative and imaginative no
matter what, and others will be not so much of either, no matter what.
Sandra
Sandra Dodd
-=-I can see the benefit of children having more free time (less
"Structured time") and having more exposure to toys and/or materials
that encourage creativity. -=-
How much more free time can kids have than unschooled kids have?
Even if an unschooled kid is in dance lessons and a theatre troupe
and sports and martial arts, there are kids who do that AND go to
school.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
"Structured time") and having more exposure to toys and/or materials
that encourage creativity. -=-
How much more free time can kids have than unschooled kids have?
Even if an unschooled kid is in dance lessons and a theatre troupe
and sports and martial arts, there are kids who do that AND go to
school.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-Let me see... The more I think about it the less sure I am what my
"question" is. The way I read the article there seemed to be parts
that "jive" with unschooling and parts that definitely did NOT. Since
I am still trying to figure out how all of this fits together in my
life I wanted to bounce it off of more experienced people and see if
my interpretation matches. -=-
The whole idea of living by principles is important to remember.
People aren't "more principled" the more principles they try to
follow. They're more principled in the degree to which they know
what their principles are and live by them.
So if someone's principles include a boycott of plastic and
electronics (and they're hypocrites if we know about it by computer
<g>), then that will be a guiding principle for them.
I have a friend boycotting Chinese-made goods. I've been buying
stuff straight from Hong Kong, from people whose English is
atrocious. So I like to think I'm keeping Europeans/NorthAmericans/
whoever from exploiting Chinese goods. But is import "exploitation"
when they set a price and get what they asked for? How can a
capitalist country like the U.S. begrudge other countries a
capitalist economy? (Oh... easily. We want to keep the capitalism
for ourselves.)
So just about ever principle leads to a political end if you follow
the trail.
At my house, choice is big. Learning is big. So if they can learn
from something and they're interested in it, that's a "yes" for me,
barring illegality or total unavailability or impossibility. And
even if we can't get a thing or be in a place, we can read about it
and focus on it a while by websearch and discussion.
At some houses, all-natural foods are in the top three, or religious
observance. And so they decide what their lives will revolve around,
and the fit other things in around that.
Some families' lives revolve around Rudolf Steiner. He was kind of a
mystic and kind of a racist goof from what I've read. But those are
two aspects of him. There were others. Many religions are built on
people who were one or both of mystics or racist goofs.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
"question" is. The way I read the article there seemed to be parts
that "jive" with unschooling and parts that definitely did NOT. Since
I am still trying to figure out how all of this fits together in my
life I wanted to bounce it off of more experienced people and see if
my interpretation matches. -=-
The whole idea of living by principles is important to remember.
People aren't "more principled" the more principles they try to
follow. They're more principled in the degree to which they know
what their principles are and live by them.
So if someone's principles include a boycott of plastic and
electronics (and they're hypocrites if we know about it by computer
<g>), then that will be a guiding principle for them.
I have a friend boycotting Chinese-made goods. I've been buying
stuff straight from Hong Kong, from people whose English is
atrocious. So I like to think I'm keeping Europeans/NorthAmericans/
whoever from exploiting Chinese goods. But is import "exploitation"
when they set a price and get what they asked for? How can a
capitalist country like the U.S. begrudge other countries a
capitalist economy? (Oh... easily. We want to keep the capitalism
for ourselves.)
So just about ever principle leads to a political end if you follow
the trail.
At my house, choice is big. Learning is big. So if they can learn
from something and they're interested in it, that's a "yes" for me,
barring illegality or total unavailability or impossibility. And
even if we can't get a thing or be in a place, we can read about it
and focus on it a while by websearch and discussion.
At some houses, all-natural foods are in the top three, or religious
observance. And so they decide what their lives will revolve around,
and the fit other things in around that.
Some families' lives revolve around Rudolf Steiner. He was kind of a
mystic and kind of a racist goof from what I've read. But those are
two aspects of him. There were others. Many religions are built on
people who were one or both of mystics or racist goofs.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Schuyler
Natural materials, bah. My father-in-law had lead soldiers that he loved, that's a natural material. Two of the children who've died of bird flu were playing with dead chicken heads (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/07/turkey.birdflu). Very natural. I'd rather playskool.
Schuyler
www.waynforth.blogspot.com
-=-If children are
first exposed to toys made of natural materials,
they will have a healthy standard
by which to judge synthetics.
Why not let our children experience
wooden animals or blocks and cotton and
wool dolls or puppets?-=-
What about rubber? That's natural. I have three toys saved from my
childhood, two from my infancy. I have a rubber Indian with a
tomahawk (VERY non-PC, and it stopped squeaking just a few years
ago. I was already 50. It did last a while), a teddy bear (not
rubber--all cloth but the eyes), and a Tiny Tears doll--rubber body,
probably a kind of hard papier-mache head. Not plastic.
This guy totally skipped the main toy materials of the mid-20th
century: steel and rubber. I cut the corner of one of my fingers
off--not the bone, just flesh and nail--with a toy ironing board. It
was steel pipe that folded up and didn't have a cap on it. So it was
a lever with a sharp end. Hooray! But it was metal, and so "natural."
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Schuyler
www.waynforth.blogspot.com
-=-If children are
first exposed to toys made of natural materials,
they will have a healthy standard
by which to judge synthetics.
Why not let our children experience
wooden animals or blocks and cotton and
wool dolls or puppets?-=-
What about rubber? That's natural. I have three toys saved from my
childhood, two from my infancy. I have a rubber Indian with a
tomahawk (VERY non-PC, and it stopped squeaking just a few years
ago. I was already 50. It did last a while), a teddy bear (not
rubber--all cloth but the eyes), and a Tiny Tears doll--rubber body,
probably a kind of hard papier-mache head. Not plastic.
This guy totally skipped the main toy materials of the mid-20th
century: steel and rubber. I cut the corner of one of my fingers
off--not the bone, just flesh and nail--with a toy ironing board. It
was steel pipe that folded up and didn't have a cap on it. So it was
a lever with a sharp end. Hooray! But it was metal, and so "natural."
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Schuyler
-=-Why not let our children experience
wooden animals or blocks and cotton and
wool dolls or puppets? When machine
made toys are in such abundance, handcrafted
toys take on a new value and significance.
They reunite us with the real
world.-=-
The real world that I live in is filled with brand names and machine made goods. I've only once ridden in a hand built car and that was a kit car. I don't know that hand made = the real world. It should equal way more expensive. Maybe all this is just a way to get people to buy more expensive stuff so that they can move up in social status within whatever Waldorf based educational hierarchy they want to live in. But that isn't about the toys or the children, that's about the parents.
Schuyler
www.waynforth.blogspot.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
wooden animals or blocks and cotton and
wool dolls or puppets? When machine
made toys are in such abundance, handcrafted
toys take on a new value and significance.
They reunite us with the real
world.-=-
The real world that I live in is filled with brand names and machine made goods. I've only once ridden in a hand built car and that was a kit car. I don't know that hand made = the real world. It should equal way more expensive. Maybe all this is just a way to get people to buy more expensive stuff so that they can move up in social status within whatever Waldorf based educational hierarchy they want to live in. But that isn't about the toys or the children, that's about the parents.
Schuyler
www.waynforth.blogspot.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-Natural materials, bah. My father-in-law had lead soldiers that he
loved, that's a natural material. Two of the children who've died of
bird flu were playing with dead chicken heads (http://
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/07/turkey.birdflu). Very natural.
I'd rather playskool. -=-
There's a point . Before people had microscopes and germs "didn't
exist," wooden and woolen toys were all peachy. But now that we know
about bacteria, maybe washable materials are the way to go,
especially with babies who suck and chew stuff. Especially with
babies who are bottle fed, and glass bottles with rubber nipples are
NOT the way to go with babies anymore. Maybe glass when they're too
young to hold their own.
Here's something gross. We hear all the time about the high death
rate among infants in centuries past. In the 17th-18th centuries
(and maybe before, I don't know) there were a couple of nasty
contraptions used to feed babies. One was a horn, mounted in a crib,
with a pig's teat fastened onto it, and they would put cow's milk in
the horn and the baby could suck while lying down.
I didn't make that up. A cow's horn with a pig's teat stuck on it,
for real.
And there were feeding cans. They were made of lead, and they used
to set them on the raised hearth or somewhere where toddlers could go
over and get some food on their own. The spout led down to the
bottom, like a tin watering can. And they would put milk and oats
and other "pap" or "pablum" in there (mushy baby food). Remember
it's lead. And they didn't wash them out, according to what I read,
they just put more in. They'd wash it out if it started to stink, I
guess, but not after every meal.
I'm surprised anyone lived at all.
It wasn't universal, but there are existing specimens. Maybe it was
really rare. And I wish I'd kept the book. Somewhere I have
photocopies. It was in a book about the history of breastfeeding
(and much of it was, as Schuyler noted earlier, stories of NOT
breastfeeding one's own children).
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
loved, that's a natural material. Two of the children who've died of
bird flu were playing with dead chicken heads (http://
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/07/turkey.birdflu). Very natural.
I'd rather playskool. -=-
There's a point . Before people had microscopes and germs "didn't
exist," wooden and woolen toys were all peachy. But now that we know
about bacteria, maybe washable materials are the way to go,
especially with babies who suck and chew stuff. Especially with
babies who are bottle fed, and glass bottles with rubber nipples are
NOT the way to go with babies anymore. Maybe glass when they're too
young to hold their own.
Here's something gross. We hear all the time about the high death
rate among infants in centuries past. In the 17th-18th centuries
(and maybe before, I don't know) there were a couple of nasty
contraptions used to feed babies. One was a horn, mounted in a crib,
with a pig's teat fastened onto it, and they would put cow's milk in
the horn and the baby could suck while lying down.
I didn't make that up. A cow's horn with a pig's teat stuck on it,
for real.
And there were feeding cans. They were made of lead, and they used
to set them on the raised hearth or somewhere where toddlers could go
over and get some food on their own. The spout led down to the
bottom, like a tin watering can. And they would put milk and oats
and other "pap" or "pablum" in there (mushy baby food). Remember
it's lead. And they didn't wash them out, according to what I read,
they just put more in. They'd wash it out if it started to stink, I
guess, but not after every meal.
I'm surprised anyone lived at all.
It wasn't universal, but there are existing specimens. Maybe it was
really rare. And I wish I'd kept the book. Somewhere I have
photocopies. It was in a book about the history of breastfeeding
(and much of it was, as Schuyler noted earlier, stories of NOT
breastfeeding one's own children).
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Nancy Wooton
On Jul 17, 2008, at 10:06 AM, Sandra Dodd wrote:
weeded out ;-)
Nancy
> -=-Natural materials, bah. My father-in-law had lead soldiers that heMaybe this is why people live past 80 now; all the weak ones were
> loved, that's a natural material. Two of the children who've died of
> bird flu were playing with dead chicken heads (http://
> www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/07/turkey.birdflu). Very natural.
> I'd rather playskool. -=-
>
> There's a point . Before people had microscopes and germs "didn't
> exist," wooden and woolen toys were all peachy. But now that we know
> about bacteria, maybe washable materials are the way to go,
> especially with babies who suck and chew stuff. Especially with
> babies who are bottle fed, and glass bottles with rubber nipples are
> NOT the way to go with babies anymore. Maybe glass when they're too
> young to hold their own.
>
> Here's something gross. We hear all the time about the high death
> rate among infants in centuries past. In the 17th-18th centuries
> (and maybe before, I don't know) there were a couple of nasty
> contraptions used to feed babies. One was a horn, mounted in a crib,
> with a pig's teat fastened onto it, and they would put cow's milk in
> the horn and the baby could suck while lying down.
>
> I didn't make that up. A cow's horn with a pig's teat stuck on it,
> for real.
>
> And there were feeding cans. They were made of lead, and they used
> to set them on the raised hearth or somewhere where toddlers could go
> over and get some food on their own. The spout led down to the
> bottom, like a tin watering can. And they would put milk and oats
> and other "pap" or "pablum" in there (mushy baby food). Remember
> it's lead. And they didn't wash them out, according to what I read,
> they just put more in. They'd wash it out if it started to stink, I
> guess, but not after every meal.
>
> I'm surprised anyone lived at all.
weeded out ;-)
Nancy
Jenny C
> What do you think?"Many of today's children do not value their toys because they have
>
so many of them. They go from toy to toy without spending time on any
one of them. They look to toys for amusement and distraction, not
imaginative inspiration. Many parents do not realize this but, when it
comes to toys, less is more. Having too many toys, children find it
difficult to become attached to them. In many families, toys are given
all year round purchased in supermarkets, pharmacies, zoos,
museums so that toys are no longer as special as they once were. A
child who is given a toy at Christmas and whp knows that another one is
not coming until the next birthday will invest emotionally in that toy."
I have not found this to be true at all! My younger daughter has lots
of toys. Much more than her older sister ever had, partially because we
didn't have a lot of money when my oldest was little, and partly because
what we did have was handed down to little sister along with all the new
stuff.
Margaux remembers EVERY toy she owns. She must have a catalog in her
head. I've heard that argument before about having less is more. I did
try that with the baby dolls for a while. I put most of the dolls away
in a room and brought out essential stuff for one or two babies. I
wanted to see if that idea was actually true. Nope! She likes to play
with them all. She has her favorites for sure, but when I've gone
through and gotten rid of toys to make room for new ones, every time, my
daughter knows exactly what has gone, even if she wasn't part of the
decision making process, more so when she was younger. I wouldn't dare
get rid of stuff now without her permission, she will know and ask point
blank where things are.
Margaux and I were watching a movie together and these people moved into
this huge house. I commented about how cool it would be to have so much
room to explore and play and find places to hide. Her comment? She
thought it would be cool because she could have more room to have more
toys and more room to play with her toys. For me it was simply about
the space to play in, for her it was more room for more toys.
Less is more, may work for some kids, but it wouldn't fly with Margaux.
She lives large! Sometimes I think it's because she has the same name
as a queen who lived pretty large and extravagent. Not really, that's
just a running side joke in our family. She would make a fine queen
though, she has all the qualities that royalty should possess.
I'm not so sure that I like the idea of emotionally investing in toys
either. I think it's natural for kids to really cherish some toys. I
also think if you have very few and are very emotionally invested in
them, if something happens to one of them, it's devasting, like death
for a child. I kind of like the idea of abundance. My sis-in-law
always went through her kids toys as they were growing up and got rid of
just about everything every year, and then they would buy new stuff to
meet the new demands of the kids. There were a few times in those kid's
lives, when they literally had no toys to play with. They certainly got
used to it, but I wonder sometimes how that must affect how they view
permanance in their lives. Those kids didn't dare become emotionally
attatched to any of their toys!
I love very much that my kids still play with stuff that I kept from
when I was a kid. My favorite stuffed animal, was Margaux's favorite
for a long time. She named it Curry because it was that kind of yellow.
Chamille has moved on from toys and now I give her some of my treasured
clothing items from my own teen years, stuff that I will never wear
again, but kept because I couldn't bear to part from them. I love
watching her dress them up in different ways, cut them, reassemble them
and reuse them. None of these things are natural fibers, even the
stuffed animals (some of the clothes are). Yet here they are being used
by another generation. There are even a few things that were my
mother's and my grandmother's. Those things are natural materials, and
some of them are wearing out and have to be handled gentley.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
BRIAN POLIKOWSKY
Way to improve faith and health, mom. She hurt the environment more
by throwing away a plastic toy, and she crushed her son's soul.
So what was your question? <g>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Have I ever said I love you Sandra???
And I love Schuyler, Pam, Joyce, Ren, Kelly, Deb, and forgive me for not writing everyone's names here....many more of you
that can clearly see things and put things in perspective that so many people just cannot.
I love that you all can write those thoughts and ideas so well and that it makes me smile and nod my head in agreement.
I love that you all don't let all the mainstream fear mongering ideas take away from the most important thing that is to look at your child and think for yourselves what is best for her and your relationship with her.
Thank you.
Thank you from the bottom of my heart for helping me be a better mother, friend and partner for MD and Gigi.
I love you,
Alex
Alex Polikowsky
http://polykow.blogspot.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unschoolingmn/
----- Original Message ----
From: Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 8:09:23 AM
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] Natural Child Article
-=-Also, should we say "no" to electronic, plastic toys because
they are not as "good" for the children and definitely not good for
the environment? (I think I know the answer already!)-=-
You do?
I'd say the answer is there is no "we."
You can't ask "should we say no?" without defining "we".
One of the saddest stories I have heard since I started reading
homeschooling and parenting stories online was of a mom who
discovered Steinerism/Waldorf one day, and that night she replaced
all her child's plastic toys with wooden stuff--she got it out of the
house like it was satanic debris. And her son had had a My Little
Pony that he loved, it was his special huggy toy, and she had thrown
it away.
Way to improve faith and health, mom. She hurt the environment more
by throwing away a plastic toy, and she crushed her son's soul.
So what was your question? <g>
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
by throwing away a plastic toy, and she crushed her son's soul.
So what was your question? <g>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Have I ever said I love you Sandra???
And I love Schuyler, Pam, Joyce, Ren, Kelly, Deb, and forgive me for not writing everyone's names here....many more of you
that can clearly see things and put things in perspective that so many people just cannot.
I love that you all can write those thoughts and ideas so well and that it makes me smile and nod my head in agreement.
I love that you all don't let all the mainstream fear mongering ideas take away from the most important thing that is to look at your child and think for yourselves what is best for her and your relationship with her.
Thank you.
Thank you from the bottom of my heart for helping me be a better mother, friend and partner for MD and Gigi.
I love you,
Alex
Alex Polikowsky
http://polykow.blogspot.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unschoolingmn/
----- Original Message ----
From: Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 8:09:23 AM
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] Natural Child Article
-=-Also, should we say "no" to electronic, plastic toys because
they are not as "good" for the children and definitely not good for
the environment? (I think I know the answer already!)-=-
You do?
I'd say the answer is there is no "we."
You can't ask "should we say no?" without defining "we".
One of the saddest stories I have heard since I started reading
homeschooling and parenting stories online was of a mom who
discovered Steinerism/Waldorf one day, and that night she replaced
all her child's plastic toys with wooden stuff--she got it out of the
house like it was satanic debris. And her son had had a My Little
Pony that he loved, it was his special huggy toy, and she had thrown
it away.
Way to improve faith and health, mom. She hurt the environment more
by throwing away a plastic toy, and she crushed her son's soul.
So what was your question? <g>
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
carnationsgalore
> Also, should we say "no" to electronic, plastic toys becauseOh my! I can't imagine my son's life without Lego bricks and they are
> they are not as "good" for the children and definitely not good for
> the environment? (I think I know the answer already!)
made of plastic. Imagination? Creativity? Inspiration? All of that
and more! And he's had Lego bricks since he was a toddler. I can't
even begin to estimate how many Lego bricks are in my son's bedroom.
Beth M.
MLewis
>ok, not sure that I am really clarifying here... more rambling. I >needSo what I'm getting is that you read an article, saw things in it that
>some help I guess!
sounded to you like they fit in with unschooling, and wanted to know if
your thinking was correct? Is that a fair assessment?
And so now the "I need some help I guess" is about recognising what
does and does not fit in with the concept of unschooling? Yes?
If I'm on the right track here then I would suggest reading a LOT at
Sandra's site. Reading a lot here. Read Joyce and AnneO and Ren etc...
And if you post a question have it be about specific things in the life
of you and your children.
Mary
Sandra Dodd
-=-It should equal way more expensive. Maybe all this is just a way
to get people to buy more expensive stuff so that they can move up in
social status within whatever Waldorf based educational hierarchy
they want to live in. But that isn't about the toys or the children,
that's about the parents. -=-
We have handmade furniture but we don't use it every day (some of the
benches we do)--Keith makes it for SCA camping.
But my kitchen table is handmade, probably in the 1940's, and it has
three chairs--all tenon joints and no nails or screws at all. Not
fancy wood, table top all scratched up like it was in a school or a
library ... that I love. But it's not very sanitary. <g> When we
had a 50's dinette table, that sucker could be CLEANED.
We have wooden dishes, too. Very unlikely to be as sanitary as the
plastic that can go through the dishwasher.
Ditto, wooden vs. plastic cutting board.
Ditto wooden spoons.
And for baby toys that get sucked... eep.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
to get people to buy more expensive stuff so that they can move up in
social status within whatever Waldorf based educational hierarchy
they want to live in. But that isn't about the toys or the children,
that's about the parents. -=-
We have handmade furniture but we don't use it every day (some of the
benches we do)--Keith makes it for SCA camping.
But my kitchen table is handmade, probably in the 1940's, and it has
three chairs--all tenon joints and no nails or screws at all. Not
fancy wood, table top all scratched up like it was in a school or a
library ... that I love. But it's not very sanitary. <g> When we
had a 50's dinette table, that sucker could be CLEANED.
We have wooden dishes, too. Very unlikely to be as sanitary as the
plastic that can go through the dishwasher.
Ditto, wooden vs. plastic cutting board.
Ditto wooden spoons.
And for baby toys that get sucked... eep.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
Thank you for the kind words, Alex!!
-=-I love that you all can write those thoughts and ideas so well and
that it makes me smile and nod my head in agreement.
I love that you all don't let all the mainstream fear mongering ideas
take away from the most important thing that is to look at your child
and think for yourselves what is best for her and your relationship
with her.-=-
There are fads in toys, and then there's the fad of complaining about
fads. It's a kind of cheery parental emo-thing. They don't wear
black, but they do have a LOT of fear and negativity dressed up like
sunshine.
One of the moms when Kirby was little would NOT let her children have
sheets and pillow cases with known characters on them. They could
have cartoons without names--so guys in airplanes were fine, if they
weren't from TV cartoons. Ducks were fine if they weren't Donald Duck.
That kid molested Holly a bit when she was too young to remember, but
by God, it wasn't because his mother let him have Disney sheets!
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
-=-I love that you all can write those thoughts and ideas so well and
that it makes me smile and nod my head in agreement.
I love that you all don't let all the mainstream fear mongering ideas
take away from the most important thing that is to look at your child
and think for yourselves what is best for her and your relationship
with her.-=-
There are fads in toys, and then there's the fad of complaining about
fads. It's a kind of cheery parental emo-thing. They don't wear
black, but they do have a LOT of fear and negativity dressed up like
sunshine.
One of the moms when Kirby was little would NOT let her children have
sheets and pillow cases with known characters on them. They could
have cartoons without names--so guys in airplanes were fine, if they
weren't from TV cartoons. Ducks were fine if they weren't Donald Duck.
That kid molested Holly a bit when she was too young to remember, but
by God, it wasn't because his mother let him have Disney sheets!
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
MLewis
> We have wooden dishes, too. Very unlikely to be as sanitary as theSome folks still think that wood is actually MORE sanitary, stemming
> plastic that can go through the dishwasher.
>
> Ditto, wooden vs. plastic cutting board.
> Ditto wooden spoons.
>
> And for baby toys that get sucked... eep.
mainly from around 1993:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?
res=9F0CE0DA123CF933A25751C0A965958260
But apparently either is good if you clean properly:
http://www.cooksillustrated.com/foodscience.asp?
foodscienceid=110&bdc=1320
Mary
Sylvia Toyama
Why not supply boys with boy dolls, dollhouses that can also
be converted to farmhouses or fire stations? Can young girls not
enjoy boats and trains rather than pink castles and princesses? Can
we not find a healthy balance?-=-
****
I didn't know that honoring my kids' desires and healthy balance were mutually exclusive. Limiting kids' toy choices sounds like enforced balance, which is much more artificial than any plastic electronic toy.
Sure, if a girl wants a boat or train, get her one. But if she wants a pink castle with 15 princesses, get her one of those.
Sylvia
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
be converted to farmhouses or fire stations? Can young girls not
enjoy boats and trains rather than pink castles and princesses? Can
we not find a healthy balance?-=-
****
I didn't know that honoring my kids' desires and healthy balance were mutually exclusive. Limiting kids' toy choices sounds like enforced balance, which is much more artificial than any plastic electronic toy.
Sure, if a girl wants a boat or train, get her one. But if she wants a pink castle with 15 princesses, get her one of those.
Sylvia
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
So maybe the same for wooden baby toys??
That would be fine with me. And it makes me feel WAY, way better
about our wooden dishes out at SCA events, not washed in the most
sanitary of conditions in a camp kitchen. Thank you!
(for those who didn't get to the link, this is great stuff!
-=-Wooden Cutting Boards Found Safer Than Plastic
By JANE E. BRODY
Published: February 10, 1993
EVERY now and then a scientific finding flies in the face of
conventional wisdom. And so it was with an accidental discovery by
microbiologists at the University of Wisconsin's Food Research
Institute that wooden cutting boards kill food-poisoning bacteria
that survive very nicely on the plastic boards that have been widely
promoted for years as safer than wood.
The scientists, Dean O. Cliver and Nese O. Ak, stumbled upon the
finding while seeking ways to decontaminate wooden boards and make
them as "safe" as plastic. Much to their surprise, they found that
when boards were purposely contaminated with organisms like
Salmonella, Listeria and Escherichia coli that are common causes of
food poisoning, 99.9 percent of the bacteria died off within three
minutes on the wooden boards, while none died on the plastic ones.
When contaminated boards were left unwashed overnight at room
temperature, bacterial counts increased on the plastic, but none of
the organisms could be recovered from the wooden boards the next
morning.
It had long been believed that disease-causing bacteria from raw
foods like chicken would soak into a wooden board and be difficult to
remove, even when washed; then when other foods, like salad
ingredients, that are eaten raw are cut on the same board, the
dangerous bacteria could be picked up by them and transferred alive
to the consumer. Plastic was assumed to be safer because it is
nonporous and contaminating organisms could be readily washed off. A
Word for Safety
Based on the new studies, Dr. Cliver said, "Wood may be preferable in
that small lapses in sanitary practices are not as dangerous on wood
as on plastic." But he cautioned against being "sloppy about safety"
and warned cooks to be sure to wash off cutting surfaces after
cutting meat, chicken or fish, whether the surface used is wood or
plastic.
The researchers tested boards made from seven different species of
trees and four types of plastic and found similar results: wood was
safer than plastic, regardless of the materials used. Thus far,
however, the researchers have been unable to isolate the agents in
wood that make it so inhospitable to bacteria.--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
That would be fine with me. And it makes me feel WAY, way better
about our wooden dishes out at SCA events, not washed in the most
sanitary of conditions in a camp kitchen. Thank you!
(for those who didn't get to the link, this is great stuff!
-=-Wooden Cutting Boards Found Safer Than Plastic
By JANE E. BRODY
Published: February 10, 1993
EVERY now and then a scientific finding flies in the face of
conventional wisdom. And so it was with an accidental discovery by
microbiologists at the University of Wisconsin's Food Research
Institute that wooden cutting boards kill food-poisoning bacteria
that survive very nicely on the plastic boards that have been widely
promoted for years as safer than wood.
The scientists, Dean O. Cliver and Nese O. Ak, stumbled upon the
finding while seeking ways to decontaminate wooden boards and make
them as "safe" as plastic. Much to their surprise, they found that
when boards were purposely contaminated with organisms like
Salmonella, Listeria and Escherichia coli that are common causes of
food poisoning, 99.9 percent of the bacteria died off within three
minutes on the wooden boards, while none died on the plastic ones.
When contaminated boards were left unwashed overnight at room
temperature, bacterial counts increased on the plastic, but none of
the organisms could be recovered from the wooden boards the next
morning.
It had long been believed that disease-causing bacteria from raw
foods like chicken would soak into a wooden board and be difficult to
remove, even when washed; then when other foods, like salad
ingredients, that are eaten raw are cut on the same board, the
dangerous bacteria could be picked up by them and transferred alive
to the consumer. Plastic was assumed to be safer because it is
nonporous and contaminating organisms could be readily washed off. A
Word for Safety
Based on the new studies, Dr. Cliver said, "Wood may be preferable in
that small lapses in sanitary practices are not as dangerous on wood
as on plastic." But he cautioned against being "sloppy about safety"
and warned cooks to be sure to wash off cutting surfaces after
cutting meat, chicken or fish, whether the surface used is wood or
plastic.
The researchers tested boards made from seven different species of
trees and four types of plastic and found similar results: wood was
safer than plastic, regardless of the materials used. Thus far,
however, the researchers have been unable to isolate the agents in
wood that make it so inhospitable to bacteria.--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
I couldn't get to the update article without being a member, but
here's the second link Mary sent:
The Truth About Cutting Boards and Bacteria
For an update, see Bacteria on Board.
The Bac Story
In 1994, a research report was published that proved to be the
opening salvo in a long battle over which material was more sanitary
for cutting boards, wood or plastic. The researchers found that fewer
bacteria could be recovered from wooden boards infected with live
cultures than from plastic boards treated the same way. These results
caused the researchers to question the prevailing view that plastic
was more sanitary than wood; some have further interpreted the data
to mean that wood is, in fact, a safer material for cutting boards.
In a report that followed, researchers at a U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) lab concluded that beef bacteria on polyethylene
and wooden cutting boards had statistically similar patterns of
attachment and removal. Even so, the idea that wood is more sanitary
than plastic persists and was recently reaffirmed in the food section
of the New York Times.
So What Is on Your Cutting Board?
We wanted to get our own perspective on the problem, so we asked four
staff members to donate their used boards, two wooden and two
plastic. We found very little bacteria growing on these boards when
we sampled them, so we took the boards to a local lab to have them
artificially inoculated with bacteria. The procedure worked as
follows: A drop of the medium containing millions of bacteria was
placed on the boards, the boards were left to sit for 40 minutes to
allow for absorption of the bacteria, and an attempt was then made to
remove the bacteria. In repeated tests, between 6.0 percent and 8.1
percent of the bacteria were recovered from the plastic and between
1.3 percent and 6.2 percent from the wood. Given that the number of
bacteria recovered from each type of board was well into the hundreds
of thousands, there was little to assure us that one material was
much safer than the other.
Soap and Water to the Rescue
Scrubbing the boards with hot soapy water was a different story. Once
the contaminated boards had been cleaned, we recovered an average of
0.00015 percent from the plastic and 0.00037 percent from the wood,
or fewer than 100 bacteria from each board. In a related test, we
were able to transfer bacteria from contaminated, unwashed boards
made from both wood and plastic to petri dishes using potatoes and
onions. But our most surprising discovery by far was that the
bacteria could persist on unwashed boards of both types for up to 60
hours!
What, then, is the truth about cutting boards? Both plastic and
wooden boards can hold on to bacteria for long periods of time. Both
plastic and wooden boards allow for transference of bacteria to other
foods. Luckily, we found that scrubbing with hot soapy water was an
effective (though not perfect) way of cleaning both kinds of boards;
the USDA also recommends the regular application of a solution of 1
teaspoon bleach per quart of water. Simply put, maintenance, not
material, provides the greatest margin of safety.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
here's the second link Mary sent:
The Truth About Cutting Boards and Bacteria
For an update, see Bacteria on Board.
The Bac Story
In 1994, a research report was published that proved to be the
opening salvo in a long battle over which material was more sanitary
for cutting boards, wood or plastic. The researchers found that fewer
bacteria could be recovered from wooden boards infected with live
cultures than from plastic boards treated the same way. These results
caused the researchers to question the prevailing view that plastic
was more sanitary than wood; some have further interpreted the data
to mean that wood is, in fact, a safer material for cutting boards.
In a report that followed, researchers at a U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) lab concluded that beef bacteria on polyethylene
and wooden cutting boards had statistically similar patterns of
attachment and removal. Even so, the idea that wood is more sanitary
than plastic persists and was recently reaffirmed in the food section
of the New York Times.
So What Is on Your Cutting Board?
We wanted to get our own perspective on the problem, so we asked four
staff members to donate their used boards, two wooden and two
plastic. We found very little bacteria growing on these boards when
we sampled them, so we took the boards to a local lab to have them
artificially inoculated with bacteria. The procedure worked as
follows: A drop of the medium containing millions of bacteria was
placed on the boards, the boards were left to sit for 40 minutes to
allow for absorption of the bacteria, and an attempt was then made to
remove the bacteria. In repeated tests, between 6.0 percent and 8.1
percent of the bacteria were recovered from the plastic and between
1.3 percent and 6.2 percent from the wood. Given that the number of
bacteria recovered from each type of board was well into the hundreds
of thousands, there was little to assure us that one material was
much safer than the other.
Soap and Water to the Rescue
Scrubbing the boards with hot soapy water was a different story. Once
the contaminated boards had been cleaned, we recovered an average of
0.00015 percent from the plastic and 0.00037 percent from the wood,
or fewer than 100 bacteria from each board. In a related test, we
were able to transfer bacteria from contaminated, unwashed boards
made from both wood and plastic to petri dishes using potatoes and
onions. But our most surprising discovery by far was that the
bacteria could persist on unwashed boards of both types for up to 60
hours!
What, then, is the truth about cutting boards? Both plastic and
wooden boards can hold on to bacteria for long periods of time. Both
plastic and wooden boards allow for transference of bacteria to other
foods. Luckily, we found that scrubbing with hot soapy water was an
effective (though not perfect) way of cleaning both kinds of boards;
the USDA also recommends the regular application of a solution of 1
teaspoon bleach per quart of water. Simply put, maintenance, not
material, provides the greatest margin of safety.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
J Geller
This article did make me think, so thank you for posting it. It made me feel really good that I let my kids decide what they want to play with. I have donated more cheap plastic toys to charity over then years than anything else. But I always let them buy cheap plastic toys if they were interested. It never lasted long and they came up with some pretty creative uses for them, sometimes.
Their favorite toys have been the wooden building blocks, Lego and K'nex. The Lego and K'nex are plastic but there is nothing like them.
What bothered me in the article is that I think choices should come from the child and not the parent. I also don't think that you can dictate creativity. The parent can help think of creative ideas or expose their child to creativity but it is the child's creativity that has to be respected, not the parents.
My sons have always loved making forts in our house. I have a pile of old sheets and wooden clothes pins that they can use. The authors would probably love my use of old sheets and wooden clothes pins for creative play but it evolved from their ideas. I didn't buy the sheets and clothes pins and suggest that they make forts but was solving a problem. They had been using hand made quilts and heavy blankets that I didn't want covered with cat hair, and using ceramic treasures and other breakables to hold them down. They would also use the plastic toys they had been given but they hurt when the cats pull them down on your head! First we switched to an old sheet that I used for a drop cloth and then we started saving and collecting old sheets. The wooden clothespins make great clips to attach the sheets to furniture etc. We even put some hooks in the play room ceiling so they could hang sheets from them.
I had looked into Waldorf but always felt that it tried to dictate creativity. My oldest had gone to a freestyle Montessori type school and that was what first introduced me to child led learning. We still use many of the Montessori inspired ideas to help organize the house. (art supplies in bins down low, cups and plates in a low cupboard and stools by the sink etc.)
Although I didn't agree with most of the article, it made me think. I also love Saundra's discussions and points about it.
Jae
Redmond, WA
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Their favorite toys have been the wooden building blocks, Lego and K'nex. The Lego and K'nex are plastic but there is nothing like them.
What bothered me in the article is that I think choices should come from the child and not the parent. I also don't think that you can dictate creativity. The parent can help think of creative ideas or expose their child to creativity but it is the child's creativity that has to be respected, not the parents.
My sons have always loved making forts in our house. I have a pile of old sheets and wooden clothes pins that they can use. The authors would probably love my use of old sheets and wooden clothes pins for creative play but it evolved from their ideas. I didn't buy the sheets and clothes pins and suggest that they make forts but was solving a problem. They had been using hand made quilts and heavy blankets that I didn't want covered with cat hair, and using ceramic treasures and other breakables to hold them down. They would also use the plastic toys they had been given but they hurt when the cats pull them down on your head! First we switched to an old sheet that I used for a drop cloth and then we started saving and collecting old sheets. The wooden clothespins make great clips to attach the sheets to furniture etc. We even put some hooks in the play room ceiling so they could hang sheets from them.
I had looked into Waldorf but always felt that it tried to dictate creativity. My oldest had gone to a freestyle Montessori type school and that was what first introduced me to child led learning. We still use many of the Montessori inspired ideas to help organize the house. (art supplies in bins down low, cups and plates in a low cupboard and stools by the sink etc.)
Although I didn't agree with most of the article, it made me think. I also love Saundra's discussions and points about it.
Jae
Redmond, WA
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
J Geller
Natural materials, bah. My father-in-law had lead soldiers that he loved, that's a natural material. Two of the children who've died of bird flu were playing with dead chicken heads (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/07/turkey.birdflu). Very natural. I'd rather playskool.
Schuyler
Too funny. I would love to see a cartoon from this. Anyone want to create one?
Jae
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Schuyler
Too funny. I would love to see a cartoon from this. Anyone want to create one?
Jae
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
J Geller
But it's not very sanitary. Ditto, wooden vs. plastic cutting board.
Saundra
---------------
Actually, I read a study that showed that wooden cutting boards are more sanitary because they have natural deterrents to germs. I am all for whatever needs the least washing and cleaning.
I think that anything that increases our choice and freedom is more important than being "natural". But I have found that many natural things increase our freedom. So I value them for increasing our freedom rather than for being natural.
Jae
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Saundra
---------------
Actually, I read a study that showed that wooden cutting boards are more sanitary because they have natural deterrents to germs. I am all for whatever needs the least washing and cleaning.
I think that anything that increases our choice and freedom is more important than being "natural". But I have found that many natural things increase our freedom. So I value them for increasing our freedom rather than for being natural.
Jae
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-Saundra-=-
My friend Ramona calls me that, with a "u" that isn't there.<g>
Being as I am of West Texas parentage, it's more like "Sayandra."
I'm happy to know that wood isn't trying to kill me. That's wonderful.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
My friend Ramona calls me that, with a "u" that isn't there.<g>
Being as I am of West Texas parentage, it's more like "Sayandra."
I'm happy to know that wood isn't trying to kill me. That's wonderful.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Rod Thomas
ive also heard (informed by a professional cook) that wood is more sanitary.
kathy
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf Of MLewis
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 3:50 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [AlwaysLearning] Re: Natural Child Article
mainly from around 1993:
http://query. <http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?>
nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?
res=9F0CE0DA123CF933A25751C0A965958260
But apparently either is good if you clean properly:
http://www.cooksill <http://www.cooksillustrated.com/foodscience.asp?>
ustrated.com/foodscience.asp?
foodscienceid=110&bdc=1320
Mary
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
kathy
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf Of MLewis
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 3:50 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [AlwaysLearning] Re: Natural Child Article
> We have wooden dishes, too. Very unlikely to be as sanitary as theSome folks still think that wood is actually MORE sanitary, stemming
> plastic that can go through the dishwasher.
>
> Ditto, wooden vs. plastic cutting board.
> Ditto wooden spoons.
>
> And for baby toys that get sucked... eep.
mainly from around 1993:
http://query. <http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?>
nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?
res=9F0CE0DA123CF933A25751C0A965958260
But apparently either is good if you clean properly:
http://www.cooksill <http://www.cooksillustrated.com/foodscience.asp?>
ustrated.com/foodscience.asp?
foodscienceid=110&bdc=1320
Mary
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Judy R
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sandra Dodd" <Sandra@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] Natural Child Article
-=-Why not let our children experience
wooden animals or blocks and cotton and
wool dolls or puppets? When machine
made toys are in such abundance, handcrafted
toys take on a new value and significance.
They reunite us with the real
world.-=-
Wooden toys are also manufactured - if you want to connect to the "real
world" wouldn't this mean only allowing things found in nature, like sticks
and rocks? I have heard that some Waldorf schools actually do this -
playgrounds with nothing on them but sticks and rocks and whatever is there
"naturally"...
Sandra Dodd
-=-I have heard that some Waldorf schools actually do this -
playgrounds with nothing on them but sticks and rocks and whatever is
there
"naturally"...-=-
And the parents deliver them to school by Flintstonemobile?
And then they tell the kids that fairies and gnomes are real, I think.
I love the bright colored silk cloth. I love playing recorder. I
like painting with a single color. But it's like a religion, and
pretends not to be.
Sandra
playgrounds with nothing on them but sticks and rocks and whatever is
there
"naturally"...-=-
And the parents deliver them to school by Flintstonemobile?
And then they tell the kids that fairies and gnomes are real, I think.
I love the bright colored silk cloth. I love playing recorder. I
like painting with a single color. But it's like a religion, and
pretends not to be.
Sandra
Nicole Willoughby
Wooden toys are also manufactured - if you want to connect to the "real
world" wouldn't this mean only allowing things found in nature, like
sticks
and rocks? I have heard that some Waldorf schools actually do this -
playgrounds with nothing on them but sticks and rocks and whatever is
there
"naturally"...
If my child wants to do more connecting with the real world, a few of the many things Id suggest would be the latest movie, going by gamestop, or to get a pack of her newest fav Hananna Montana trading cards/stickers.
I probably wouldnt say now outside and go play with a stick or a rock!
Nicole
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
world" wouldn't this mean only allowing things found in nature, like
sticks
and rocks? I have heard that some Waldorf schools actually do this -
playgrounds with nothing on them but sticks and rocks and whatever is
there
"naturally"...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><g> The "real world" ? or the natural world?
If my child wants to do more connecting with the real world, a few of the many things Id suggest would be the latest movie, going by gamestop, or to get a pack of her newest fav Hananna Montana trading cards/stickers.
I probably wouldnt say now outside and go play with a stick or a rock!
Nicole
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-<g> The "real world" ? or the natural world? -=-
In the 60's when "natural" was the way-in thing, I had my hair
natural (luckily, long and straight and non-tangly), and my face
natural (still, old hippie face) and ate natural foods (sometimes-
not-always).
I remember, though, reminding someone that if honey was natural and
birds' nests were natural, then people's houses were natural and
things people made were natural things. We were part of nature.
It used to get them very confused, but then we'd just smoke some more
dope. That was considered natural, in those days, to do.
Those living really natural lives can hardly come and write about it
on a computer, it seems to me. Unless we consider computers to be
natural (made by creatures native to this planet, out of parts and
bits found on the planet... like a bird's nest).
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
In the 60's when "natural" was the way-in thing, I had my hair
natural (luckily, long and straight and non-tangly), and my face
natural (still, old hippie face) and ate natural foods (sometimes-
not-always).
I remember, though, reminding someone that if honey was natural and
birds' nests were natural, then people's houses were natural and
things people made were natural things. We were part of nature.
It used to get them very confused, but then we'd just smoke some more
dope. That was considered natural, in those days, to do.
Those living really natural lives can hardly come and write about it
on a computer, it seems to me. Unless we consider computers to be
natural (made by creatures native to this planet, out of parts and
bits found on the planet... like a bird's nest).
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Jill Parmer
On Jul 17, 2008, at 10:30 PM, Sandra Dodd wrote:
really wanted to ride in Fred's car; and I was expecting to run my
feet as fast as Barney and Fred did to power the car, but it was
motor powered.
We were moving from North Dakota to Colorado and drove by Flintstone
Land in SD. We must've been driving by fairly early in the morning,
because the attractions weren't open yet, but my mom talked the
manager/worker into giving us a ride in one of the flintmobiles. :-)
http://www.flintstonesbedrockcity.com/
~Jill P
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> And the parents deliver them to school by Flintstonemobile?I got to ride in Barney Rubble's car when I was a kid (1972), but I
really wanted to ride in Fred's car; and I was expecting to run my
feet as fast as Barney and Fred did to power the car, but it was
motor powered.
We were moving from North Dakota to Colorado and drove by Flintstone
Land in SD. We must've been driving by fairly early in the morning,
because the attractions weren't open yet, but my mom talked the
manager/worker into giving us a ride in one of the flintmobiles. :-)
http://www.flintstonesbedrockcity.com/
~Jill P
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]