Some Victorian Advice on Feeding our Children
Mel
Sparked by a love for the BBC documentary Victorian Farm, I have been
doing some reading on Project Gutenburg from books that were popular at
the time. I found a book called Advice to Mother by Pye Henry Chavasse.
(Chavasse was an Obstetrician in the late 1800s. ) I was so shocked to
read that it was common advice in the Victorian period to acknowledge
that even then, it was perfectly reasonable for children to only prefer
certain foods and that forcing children to eat is "a sin and a shame".
This is very timely for me as I am anticipating a holiday gathering
where certain older eyes in our family go to the plates of our sons
watching for empty dishes. Our sons have yet to please their
grandparents in this department and I don't choose a holiday gathering
as a time to really get into an argument. At least now I have a little
inner peace knowing that even in eras gone past, not eating everything
and not cleaning your plate was not a big deal. It can be easy to think
that the opinions and beliefs of older family members represent "How it
has Always Been". Not so, at least, not always.
Here is a bit from this old book....
163. My child has an antipathy to certain articles of diet: what would
you advise to be done?
A child's antipathy to certain articles of diet should be respected: it
is a sin and a shame to force him to eat what he has a great dislike to:
a child, for instance, sometimes dislikes the fat of meat, underdone
meat, the skin off boiled milk and off rice-pudding. Why should he not
have his likes and dislikes as well as "children of a larger growth?"
Besides, there is an idiosyncrasya peculiarity of the constitution
in some childrenand Nature oftentimes especially points out what is
good and what is bad for them individually, and we are not to fly in the
face of Nature. "What is one man's meat is another man's poison." If a
child be forced to eat what he dislikes, it will most likely not only
make him sick, but will disorder his stomach and bowels; food, if it is
really to do him good, must be eaten by him with a relish, and not with
disgust and aversion. Some mothers, who are strict disciplinarians,
pride themselves on compelling their children to eat whatever they
choose to give them! Such children are to be pitied!
Mel
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
doing some reading on Project Gutenburg from books that were popular at
the time. I found a book called Advice to Mother by Pye Henry Chavasse.
(Chavasse was an Obstetrician in the late 1800s. ) I was so shocked to
read that it was common advice in the Victorian period to acknowledge
that even then, it was perfectly reasonable for children to only prefer
certain foods and that forcing children to eat is "a sin and a shame".
This is very timely for me as I am anticipating a holiday gathering
where certain older eyes in our family go to the plates of our sons
watching for empty dishes. Our sons have yet to please their
grandparents in this department and I don't choose a holiday gathering
as a time to really get into an argument. At least now I have a little
inner peace knowing that even in eras gone past, not eating everything
and not cleaning your plate was not a big deal. It can be easy to think
that the opinions and beliefs of older family members represent "How it
has Always Been". Not so, at least, not always.
Here is a bit from this old book....
163. My child has an antipathy to certain articles of diet: what would
you advise to be done?
A child's antipathy to certain articles of diet should be respected: it
is a sin and a shame to force him to eat what he has a great dislike to:
a child, for instance, sometimes dislikes the fat of meat, underdone
meat, the skin off boiled milk and off rice-pudding. Why should he not
have his likes and dislikes as well as "children of a larger growth?"
Besides, there is an idiosyncrasya peculiarity of the constitution
in some childrenand Nature oftentimes especially points out what is
good and what is bad for them individually, and we are not to fly in the
face of Nature. "What is one man's meat is another man's poison." If a
child be forced to eat what he dislikes, it will most likely not only
make him sick, but will disorder his stomach and bowels; food, if it is
really to do him good, must be eaten by him with a relish, and not with
disgust and aversion. Some mothers, who are strict disciplinarians,
pride themselves on compelling their children to eat whatever they
choose to give them! Such children are to be pitied!
Mel
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=- I found a book called Advice to Mother by Pye Henry Chavasse.
(Chavasse was an Obstetrician in the late 1800s. ) I was so shocked to
read that it was common advice in the Victorian period to acknowledge
that even then, it was perfectly reasonable for children to only prefer
certain foods and that forcing children to eat is "a sin and a shame".=-
I really liked the quote, and I'm glad you brought it, but I'm not sure one man's writing equals "common advice." He might have been a solitary weirdo (like John Holt) who was commonly ignored. :-)
It's possible.
I think (and I could be wrong) that Americans are the worst of all about trying to force children to do things they don't like or want, with the whole "If it tastes bad, it must be good for you" stuff. Maybe it's more universal. I sure hope not.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
(Chavasse was an Obstetrician in the late 1800s. ) I was so shocked to
read that it was common advice in the Victorian period to acknowledge
that even then, it was perfectly reasonable for children to only prefer
certain foods and that forcing children to eat is "a sin and a shame".=-
I really liked the quote, and I'm glad you brought it, but I'm not sure one man's writing equals "common advice." He might have been a solitary weirdo (like John Holt) who was commonly ignored. :-)
It's possible.
I think (and I could be wrong) that Americans are the worst of all about trying to force children to do things they don't like or want, with the whole "If it tastes bad, it must be good for you" stuff. Maybe it's more universal. I sure hope not.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]