Re: Has Anyone Had This Experience?
hmbpie
=What about kids who aren't still eating other foods though? That's what
we're struggling with here. After several months of hot chips (fries)
several times a day, DD is cutting back on just about everything that she used to eat, and only eating chips! Finding it harder and harder to just keep letting go.=
Last week for three days straight my son ate nothing but cheddar cheese pringles and kool aide jammers. Nothing else. It really freaked me out. I kept making monkey platters and he kept asking for pringles and kool aide jammers (I added these to the platters but when he ate what was there he just went and got the tube of chips for more.) I locked myself in the closet at one point and called a friend because my anxiety about it lasting much longer was getting really high. I don't know what I would do if it lasted for months. I don't have any advice but I feel for you and wanted to let you know. Sometimes it's nice if I know I'm not alone in a struggle.
we're struggling with here. After several months of hot chips (fries)
several times a day, DD is cutting back on just about everything that she used to eat, and only eating chips! Finding it harder and harder to just keep letting go.=
Last week for three days straight my son ate nothing but cheddar cheese pringles and kool aide jammers. Nothing else. It really freaked me out. I kept making monkey platters and he kept asking for pringles and kool aide jammers (I added these to the platters but when he ate what was there he just went and got the tube of chips for more.) I locked myself in the closet at one point and called a friend because my anxiety about it lasting much longer was getting really high. I don't know what I would do if it lasted for months. I don't have any advice but I feel for you and wanted to let you know. Sometimes it's nice if I know I'm not alone in a struggle.
Diane Targovnik
See this is where anxiety meets my checkbook and general thoughts of
food. I just don't have pringles and kook aid in the house. They are
processed foods and with no redeeming qualities (I assume pringles has
MSG and food dye. Kool aid also with food dye). When we go out I let
my daughter choose her food and we talk about her choices. But she can
get what she wants.
But at home I buy only stuff that is good for our bodies (and yes it
is my definition of "good"). And stuff I feel comfortable with her
eating... I also do this because if there is non-healthy food in the
house I will eat it. And I don't want to. My two cents
Sent from my iPhone
food. I just don't have pringles and kook aid in the house. They are
processed foods and with no redeeming qualities (I assume pringles has
MSG and food dye. Kool aid also with food dye). When we go out I let
my daughter choose her food and we talk about her choices. But she can
get what she wants.
But at home I buy only stuff that is good for our bodies (and yes it
is my definition of "good"). And stuff I feel comfortable with her
eating... I also do this because if there is non-healthy food in the
house I will eat it. And I don't want to. My two cents
Sent from my iPhone
plaidpanties666
Diane Targovnik <dianetargovnik@...> wrote:
If moving away from control and toward partnership is important to you, one option is to offer your dd a "no strings" food budget of her own, supplemental to the main family budget. Her food is hers - no snitching!
---Meredith
>Its more where your anxiety turns to controlling - those aren't costly foods, you listed. Try to step back from the money arguement and see it as being about you, not about your child or money - or even health, really. Health and money and "for the good of the child" are pretty common ways to rationalize old baggage.
> See this is where anxiety meets my checkbook and general thoughts of
> food. I just don't have pringles and kook aid in the house.
>>I also do this because if there is non-healthy food in theHave you told your dd that? That's really the big issue - you're controlling what you eat and extending that control to the people around you.
> house I will eat it. And I don't want to.
If moving away from control and toward partnership is important to you, one option is to offer your dd a "no strings" food budget of her own, supplemental to the main family budget. Her food is hers - no snitching!
---Meredith
Joyce Fetteroll
On Dec 6, 2010, at 9:17 AM, Diane Targovnik wrote:
to see if she's learning the right answers. And if she chooses "wrong"
she gets quizzed.
Unschooling is about exploring freely so kids can find what is good
and bad *to them*. Discrimination and thought isn't learned by
memorizing someone else's list of good. It is learned by exploring the
good and bad parts of choices.
purely for nutrition. If it were, then feasts and parties should not
have the food they do!
Parents assume that if they train their kids the right way to do
things, then they've done their job. If the kids choose differently
after they leave, then it's the kids fault, not the parents. The
parents did the best they could.
But training -- which involves control -- has some potentially
negative consequences:
1) Kids can learn to sneak. If there's something they really want and
you're a roadblock between them and it, their put in a position to
find a way around you.
2) Kids can be so irritated by the control, they choose to go the
opposite way "just because". The goal becomes choosing the opposite of
what the parent wants, regardless of the negative effects.
3) Control focuses attention on what can't be had, elevating its
importance. Freely accessible Pringles are not nearly as desirable as
forbidden Pringles. I can have as many Pringles as I want. I had a
fair number of them as a child. As an adult, I don't want them.
4) Kids can tune out their own inner voices in favor of experts who
know what's best for them.
But just because the above are very real possibilities -- and adults
here have told stories of all of those they did as kids because of
control -- doesn't mean the answer is to throw up your hands and turn
it into a free for all. KIds want a sense of a safe nest to explore
from. But they don't want bars around it.
There's loads written about food and radical unschooling at:
http://sandradodd.com/food
http://joyfullyrejoycing.com (scroll down the right side)
that comes into the house, yes, based on their definition of good
because the details of daily meal planning is usually not the top
priority for most kids. What they want is being able to have what they
enjoy available. Kids have little power. Any power they have comes
through their parents. Would you want your husband dictating what you
can and can't have available at home? If he requests that a few items
not be brought in, like he's got a weakness for BBQ chips but a body
that disapproves of them ;-), it's a kindness to not have them.
But if he dictates that you can't have access to any food that's not
on his approved list, how does that affect your relationship with him?
Does it make you feel less a part of the home and more like a visitor
that's tolerated but only to a certain extent?
exploration then radical unschooling won't be a great fit for your
family. They'll take priority over exploration. They'll take priority
over building relationships.
If exploration becomes the priority, that doesn't mean other
priorities drop off the radar. It can take some creativity sometimes
to find ways for kids to explore while still be conscious of money.
Often the first step is asking yourself if "costs too much" is a knee
jerk reaction and whether it really will cost "too much".
I balked for a while at using the space heater to heat the bathroom
for my daughter because space heaters cost "a lot" to run.Yes, if
you're trying to heat a room, running a space heater all day, it's
very inefficiet. But even running it for an hour is only about 10
cents. Isn't it worth paying a dime to get a more pleasant shower?
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> When we go out I letWhy talk about them, though? From her point of view it's like a test
> my daughter choose her food and we talk about her choices.
to see if she's learning the right answers. And if she chooses "wrong"
she gets quizzed.
Unschooling is about exploring freely so kids can find what is good
and bad *to them*. Discrimination and thought isn't learned by
memorizing someone else's list of good. It is learned by exploring the
good and bad parts of choices.
> They areWhat about fun? Interesting textures? Unusual tastes? Food needn't be
> processed foods and with no redeeming qualities
purely for nutrition. If it were, then feasts and parties should not
have the food they do!
Parents assume that if they train their kids the right way to do
things, then they've done their job. If the kids choose differently
after they leave, then it's the kids fault, not the parents. The
parents did the best they could.
But training -- which involves control -- has some potentially
negative consequences:
1) Kids can learn to sneak. If there's something they really want and
you're a roadblock between them and it, their put in a position to
find a way around you.
2) Kids can be so irritated by the control, they choose to go the
opposite way "just because". The goal becomes choosing the opposite of
what the parent wants, regardless of the negative effects.
3) Control focuses attention on what can't be had, elevating its
importance. Freely accessible Pringles are not nearly as desirable as
forbidden Pringles. I can have as many Pringles as I want. I had a
fair number of them as a child. As an adult, I don't want them.
4) Kids can tune out their own inner voices in favor of experts who
know what's best for them.
But just because the above are very real possibilities -- and adults
here have told stories of all of those they did as kids because of
control -- doesn't mean the answer is to throw up your hands and turn
it into a free for all. KIds want a sense of a safe nest to explore
from. But they don't want bars around it.
There's loads written about food and radical unschooling at:
http://sandradodd.com/food
http://joyfullyrejoycing.com (scroll down the right side)
> But at home I buy only stuff that is good for our bodies (and yes itEven radical unschooling parents will be choosing the bulk of the food
> is my definition of "good").
that comes into the house, yes, based on their definition of good
because the details of daily meal planning is usually not the top
priority for most kids. What they want is being able to have what they
enjoy available. Kids have little power. Any power they have comes
through their parents. Would you want your husband dictating what you
can and can't have available at home? If he requests that a few items
not be brought in, like he's got a weakness for BBQ chips but a body
that disapproves of them ;-), it's a kindness to not have them.
But if he dictates that you can't have access to any food that's not
on his approved list, how does that affect your relationship with him?
Does it make you feel less a part of the home and more like a visitor
that's tolerated but only to a certain extent?
> See this is where anxiety meets my checkbook and general thoughts ofIf your checkbook and anxiety become priorities over the child's free
> food.
exploration then radical unschooling won't be a great fit for your
family. They'll take priority over exploration. They'll take priority
over building relationships.
If exploration becomes the priority, that doesn't mean other
priorities drop off the radar. It can take some creativity sometimes
to find ways for kids to explore while still be conscious of money.
Often the first step is asking yourself if "costs too much" is a knee
jerk reaction and whether it really will cost "too much".
I balked for a while at using the space heater to heat the bathroom
for my daughter because space heaters cost "a lot" to run.Yes, if
you're trying to heat a room, running a space heater all day, it's
very inefficiet. But even running it for an hour is only about 10
cents. Isn't it worth paying a dime to get a more pleasant shower?
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Diane
I do think there can be a happy balance that doesn't include buying pringles (which are expensive! $3 for a can on sale is a lot more then ten cents an hour). We talk about why we don't have some foods in the house. We talk. We talk. We talk.
My daughter and I eat treats together and talk about how food affects us. Both the good and bad food. When we are out she decides the food and shares with me if she is eating "crappy" food. We talk about it. We joke about it. She doesn't hide her choices from me and I am weak too and show her that I too eat crappy food. I think there is more than one ru path here to walk down... If this was 20,000 years ago I would let her eat what she wanted. But it's not. And I am here to help guide
My daughter and I eat treats together and talk about how food affects us. Both the good and bad food. When we are out she decides the food and shares with me if she is eating "crappy" food. We talk about it. We joke about it. She doesn't hide her choices from me and I am weak too and show her that I too eat crappy food. I think there is more than one ru path here to walk down... If this was 20,000 years ago I would let her eat what she wanted. But it's not. And I am here to help guide
plaidpanties666
"Diane" <dianetargovnik@...> wrote:
If your child wants something and you're saying "not in my house" that's not a happy balance, though, its a parent imposing her will on a child. If all that talk you're doing is framed in terms of weak-vs-strong and pure-vs-crapola that's not a happy balance, either, its a parent pushing her value system as a kind of educational agenda.
If you're thinking in terms of "not in the house" or "all junk all the time" then a happy balance might include easing in to having some of the Other foods you like - the processed foods - in the house now and then. Easing in is good!
Another way to get to a happy balance, though is to jump in and binge for awhile, treat yourself to all your guilty pleasures, one by one, until they no longer have that extra desirability and you can make clear decisions. Which strategy will work better for you is going to depend a lot on personality and past issues. Do you (and your kids) do better diving in or taking things slowly?
So its not that radical unschoolers are saying "don't teach, its bad" its that teaching does not guarantee that your child is learning what you want her to learn. You *can* create an environment where your beliefs and principles are attractive to your child, but because your child isn't you, but a unique human being in her own right, she may not adopt all your principles and those she does may play out very differently in her life than in yours.
---Meredith (Mo 9, Ray 17)
>> I do think there can be a happy balance that doesn't include buying pringles (which are expensive! $3 for a can on sale is a lot more then ten cents an hour). We talk about why we don't have some foods in the house. We talk. We talk. We talk.**************
If your child wants something and you're saying "not in my house" that's not a happy balance, though, its a parent imposing her will on a child. If all that talk you're doing is framed in terms of weak-vs-strong and pure-vs-crapola that's not a happy balance, either, its a parent pushing her value system as a kind of educational agenda.
If you're thinking in terms of "not in the house" or "all junk all the time" then a happy balance might include easing in to having some of the Other foods you like - the processed foods - in the house now and then. Easing in is good!
Another way to get to a happy balance, though is to jump in and binge for awhile, treat yourself to all your guilty pleasures, one by one, until they no longer have that extra desirability and you can make clear decisions. Which strategy will work better for you is going to depend a lot on personality and past issues. Do you (and your kids) do better diving in or taking things slowly?
>I think there is more than one ru path here to walk down...Radical unschooling isn't some kind of set of parenting rules, the whole philosophy derives from an understanding that learning is the purview of the learner - that while people can and do choose to be taught, teaching is not the same as learning.
So its not that radical unschoolers are saying "don't teach, its bad" its that teaching does not guarantee that your child is learning what you want her to learn. You *can* create an environment where your beliefs and principles are attractive to your child, but because your child isn't you, but a unique human being in her own right, she may not adopt all your principles and those she does may play out very differently in her life than in yours.
>>I am weak too and show her that I too eat crappy food.I'm sorry you've learned to see yourself as less powerful than a can of pringles (dollar store $1, btw). One of the wonderful aspects of unschooling, of creating an environment which supports learning and discovery, is that our kids get to be More powerful. More powerful than junk food, more powerful than advertising, more powerful than technology. That's not a guess or a theory! Its the experience of families that have teen and adult unschoolers. My kids aren't "weak" in the face of sweets or processed snacks, they're active decision makers, and its wonderful to behold!
---Meredith (Mo 9, Ray 17)
maharaashlie
This is crazy stuff. Really, if you lived in the wild and gave your child free range choice for her diet, wouldn't you stop her if she reached for a poisonous berry or mushroom? It is one thing to offer free choice and it is another to avoid important information around what is healthy for the human body. Allowing your child to feast on nutrient void junk filled with toxic chemicals is to me the same as letting her eat poison. It just will take a bit longer to kill her. Our children need to learn about the dangers of eating toxic chemical laden foods, foods sprayed with pesticides, animal products pumped with hormones,etc. and foods genetically modified. Until they can read it for themselves labels should be a part of this free choice plan and education on what the ingredients are and where they come from, etc. I find my daughter makes very healthy choices for herself based on the facts that she understands about the ingredients in the foods. She does make exceptions and eats items that are not the healthiest choice sometimes, but with the knowledge of exactly what she is eating, she tends to keep unhealthy choices to a minimum. She generally opts for very healthy foods. Our home is stocked with mostly healthy foods and when we shop, if she picks up an item that she wants to try I have her read the ingredients. Mostly she makes very wise choices to keep her body healthy.
--- In [email protected], "plaidpanties666" <plaidpanties666@...> wrote:
>
> "Diane" <dianetargovnik@> wrote:
> >> I do think there can be a happy balance that doesn't include buying pringles (which are expensive! $3 for a can on sale is a lot more then ten cents an hour). We talk about why we don't have some foods in the house. We talk. We talk. We talk.
> **************
>
> If your child wants something and you're saying "not in my house" that's not a happy balance, though, its a parent imposing her will on a child. If all that talk you're doing is framed in terms of weak-vs-strong and pure-vs-crapola that's not a happy balance, either, its a parent pushing her value system as a kind of educational agenda.
>
> If you're thinking in terms of "not in the house" or "all junk all the time" then a happy balance might include easing in to having some of the Other foods you like - the processed foods - in the house now and then. Easing in is good!
>
> Another way to get to a happy balance, though is to jump in and binge for awhile, treat yourself to all your guilty pleasures, one by one, until they no longer have that extra desirability and you can make clear decisions. Which strategy will work better for you is going to depend a lot on personality and past issues. Do you (and your kids) do better diving in or taking things slowly?
>
> >I think there is more than one ru path here to walk down...
>
> Radical unschooling isn't some kind of set of parenting rules, the whole philosophy derives from an understanding that learning is the purview of the learner - that while people can and do choose to be taught, teaching is not the same as learning.
>
> So its not that radical unschoolers are saying "don't teach, its bad" its that teaching does not guarantee that your child is learning what you want her to learn. You *can* create an environment where your beliefs and principles are attractive to your child, but because your child isn't you, but a unique human being in her own right, she may not adopt all your principles and those she does may play out very differently in her life than in yours.
>
> >>I am weak too and show her that I too eat crappy food.
>
> I'm sorry you've learned to see yourself as less powerful than a can of pringles (dollar store $1, btw). One of the wonderful aspects of unschooling, of creating an environment which supports learning and discovery, is that our kids get to be More powerful. More powerful than junk food, more powerful than advertising, more powerful than technology. That's not a guess or a theory! Its the experience of families that have teen and adult unschoolers. My kids aren't "weak" in the face of sweets or processed snacks, they're active decision makers, and its wonderful to behold!
>
> ---Meredith (Mo 9, Ray 17)
>
Joyce Fetteroll
On Dec 6, 2010, at 12:53 PM, Diane wrote:
unschooling if we're discussing one clear definition of radical
unschooling.
People can then, in the comfort of their own homes, add to it,
subtract from it, alter it however they please.
As an analogy, people can think of this list as directions on how to
get from wherever they are in the world to Times Square in New York
City. Just Times Square. Not Central Park. Not Brooklyn. Not Albany.
The only requirement for the list is the *discussion* be about getting
to and exploring Times Square.
What people do outside the list is up to them. They can take off for
Broadway. Or New Jersey. If people want to discuss topics beyond Times
Square they need a different list.
The analogy isn't great since radical unschooling is about opening the
world to kids and the analogy implies a limited scope. But the kids
and their explorations aren't limited. What's limited are how parents
interact with their kids. Which sounds limiting ;-) But it is. THe
list isn't about spanking. Or humiliating kids. Or tricking them into
giving up their binkies. Or manipulating them. Or imposing the
parents' agenda on them. (Or 99% of what conventional parenting and
schooling is about.) Radical unschooling is about supporting their
explorations. It's limited in a way that helps people move towards
that goal in the same way that if someone wants to get to Times Square
in New York City then heading south from Miami is not going to be a
very effective route.
So, no, as far as this list is concerned, there isn't more than one
radical unschooling path. For clarity's sake, the definitions is
pretty well defined as helping kids explore their interests, joyful
living, and what builds relationships.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> I think there is more than one ru path here to walk down..It's much easier to help people understand and figure out radical
unschooling if we're discussing one clear definition of radical
unschooling.
People can then, in the comfort of their own homes, add to it,
subtract from it, alter it however they please.
As an analogy, people can think of this list as directions on how to
get from wherever they are in the world to Times Square in New York
City. Just Times Square. Not Central Park. Not Brooklyn. Not Albany.
The only requirement for the list is the *discussion* be about getting
to and exploring Times Square.
What people do outside the list is up to them. They can take off for
Broadway. Or New Jersey. If people want to discuss topics beyond Times
Square they need a different list.
The analogy isn't great since radical unschooling is about opening the
world to kids and the analogy implies a limited scope. But the kids
and their explorations aren't limited. What's limited are how parents
interact with their kids. Which sounds limiting ;-) But it is. THe
list isn't about spanking. Or humiliating kids. Or tricking them into
giving up their binkies. Or manipulating them. Or imposing the
parents' agenda on them. (Or 99% of what conventional parenting and
schooling is about.) Radical unschooling is about supporting their
explorations. It's limited in a way that helps people move towards
that goal in the same way that if someone wants to get to Times Square
in New York City then heading south from Miami is not going to be a
very effective route.
So, no, as far as this list is concerned, there isn't more than one
radical unschooling path. For clarity's sake, the definitions is
pretty well defined as helping kids explore their interests, joyful
living, and what builds relationships.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Diane
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You said this much clearer than I did.
"maharaashlie" <mahara@...> wrote:
"maharaashlie" <mahara@...> wrote:
>
> This is crazy stuff. Really, if you lived in the wild and gave your child free range choice for her diet, wouldn't you stop her if she reached for a poisonous berry or mushroom? It is one thing to offer free choice and it is another to avoid important information
Joyce Fetteroll
On Dec 6, 2010, at 12:53 PM, Diane wrote:
Pringles is not a balance. It's someone else deciding they can't have
Pringles.
If you want to control Pringles and other foods you feel are
unhealthy, you're mixing other ingredients into radical unschooling
and won't get the same effect.
Maybe you'll feel better about what you're doing, but your better
feelings won't give you the same effect as radical unschooling. Just
because you feel better about that practice, doesn't make it radical
unschooling. Just because control soothes your fears about food, just
because you believe your ideas about food are the right ones to have,
won't change the effects that control can have on people. Whether I
make my daughter eat my idea of healthy, or make her cover up from
neck to wrist to ankle, or pray to Allah, whether my ideas are
ultimately right or wrong, it doesn't erase the potential damage that
control can do.
And it isn't fair to the others who are working hard to let go of
their fears in order to get the great benefits of unschooling for you
to insist the definition of radical unschooling can be expanded to
deciding and talking until your daughter makes the decisions you want
to, it's not really "we" talking. It's you talking and her listening
and parroting back what you've told her. She's not learning from her
own experience. She's learning from lectures. That's what they do in
school. You have an agenda and you want to make sure your daughter
fully understands it.
If you had a particular genre of books you liked, like English murder
mysteries, and every time you chose one it initiated discussion from
your husband about how books that were spiritually uplifting were so
much better for people and so on and so on, it would suck a lot of the
joy out of it.
Personally I'd start hiding what I was doing so I could avoid the
discussion and just enjoy the book in peace.
Same can happen with food.
daughter. We don't "talk about" how food effects us. And yet she has a
great deal of awareness of when she's hungry and when she isn't. She's
been known to leave a single bite on her plate because she knows when
she's had enough.
That's not an intellectual process. It's an awareness that comes from
listening to the body, not the head, and not the thoughts from someone
else's head.
Bike riding doesn't come from talking and talking about bike riding.
It comes 99.9% from doing.
There's something very off in terms of natural learning about all this
talking and I hope someone else can pick up on it and explain it better.
the only way putting crap into your body can be thought of) is way
worse than eating something joyfully that is less nutritionally dense.
It would help the discussion a great deal if you would read the
information at the links:
http://sandradodd.com/food
http://joyfullyrejoycing.com (scroll down the right side)
Radical unschooling encourages kids to listen to their bodies. Counter
to what conventional wisdom would say, by the time they're ready to
leave home they aren't subsisting on nothing but junk food.
Joyce
> I do think there can be a happy balance that doesn't include buyingIf a child really wants Pringles, from the child's point of view no
> pringles
Pringles is not a balance. It's someone else deciding they can't have
Pringles.
If you want to control Pringles and other foods you feel are
unhealthy, you're mixing other ingredients into radical unschooling
and won't get the same effect.
Maybe you'll feel better about what you're doing, but your better
feelings won't give you the same effect as radical unschooling. Just
because you feel better about that practice, doesn't make it radical
unschooling. Just because control soothes your fears about food, just
because you believe your ideas about food are the right ones to have,
won't change the effects that control can have on people. Whether I
make my daughter eat my idea of healthy, or make her cover up from
neck to wrist to ankle, or pray to Allah, whether my ideas are
ultimately right or wrong, it doesn't erase the potential damage that
control can do.
And it isn't fair to the others who are working hard to let go of
their fears in order to get the great benefits of unschooling for you
to insist the definition of radical unschooling can be expanded to
> We talk about why we don't have some foods in the house. We talk. WeToo much discussion. And the "we" is problematic. Since it's you
> talk. We talk.
deciding and talking until your daughter makes the decisions you want
to, it's not really "we" talking. It's you talking and her listening
and parroting back what you've told her. She's not learning from her
own experience. She's learning from lectures. That's what they do in
school. You have an agenda and you want to make sure your daughter
fully understands it.
If you had a particular genre of books you liked, like English murder
mysteries, and every time you chose one it initiated discussion from
your husband about how books that were spiritually uplifting were so
much better for people and so on and so on, it would suck a lot of the
joy out of it.
Personally I'd start hiding what I was doing so I could avoid the
discussion and just enjoy the book in peace.
Same can happen with food.
> My daughter and I eat treats together and talk about how foodI've mentioned feelings after eating over the years. So has my
> affects us.
daughter. We don't "talk about" how food effects us. And yet she has a
great deal of awareness of when she's hungry and when she isn't. She's
been known to leave a single bite on her plate because she knows when
she's had enough.
That's not an intellectual process. It's an awareness that comes from
listening to the body, not the head, and not the thoughts from someone
else's head.
Bike riding doesn't come from talking and talking about bike riding.
It comes 99.9% from doing.
There's something very off in terms of natural learning about all this
talking and I hope someone else can pick up on it and explain it better.
> When we are out she decides the food and shares with me if she isCrappy food eaten with guilt and a disrespect for your body (which is
> eating "crappy" food.
the only way putting crap into your body can be thought of) is way
worse than eating something joyfully that is less nutritionally dense.
It would help the discussion a great deal if you would read the
information at the links:
http://sandradodd.com/food
http://joyfullyrejoycing.com (scroll down the right side)
Radical unschooling encourages kids to listen to their bodies. Counter
to what conventional wisdom would say, by the time they're ready to
leave home they aren't subsisting on nothing but junk food.
Joyce
Joyce Fetteroll
On Dec 6, 2010, at 3:41 PM, Diane wrote:
Food is not poison though many people make it out to be like that. And
there are ways to help kids explore and find what's a healthy balance
for their own bodies without treating some foods as poison.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You said this much clearer than IThen this list isn't going to be much help to you.
> did.
Food is not poison though many people make it out to be like that. And
there are ways to help kids explore and find what's a healthy balance
for their own bodies without treating some foods as poison.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
plaidpanties666
"maharaashlie" <mahara@...> wrote:
Its not a case of either-or: either tell your child all the evils of processed foods or poison them. Given access to lots of home-made foods *and* processed foods, kids don't automatically only pick processed foods - but they won't automatically only pick home-made, either. They'll listen to their bodies and make decisions.
It Sounds nuts, I know! We're given sooooooo much misinformation about the way children learn that it sounds unreasonable to say that kids can learn the difference between nutritionally dense foods and foods that are mostly fluff and preservatives with very little parental input. And yet unschooling kids who have been given lots of choices and *some* information (mostly on request) eat when they're hungry and make thoughful decisions about what to eat.
Its a mindbending assertion - I've been there. I thought it sounded totally crazy when I first started learning about radical unschooling - you mean you let your kids eat Whatever they Want? Because I'd been sold that same old bill of goods that kids only learn what's right via teaching.
It helped me a whole lot to read lots of stories of unschooling kids making choices about food. Those stories gave me confidence to approach food and eating from the same philosophical perspective I pretty easily brought to math and science and art, so I'll toss out a page with a lot of links so that other people can read too:
http://sandradodd.com/food
---Meredith
>Giving information can be helpful... but only if other people take it in, accept it. Expressing an opinion strongly, even to a child, doesn't guarantee your child will come to agree with your opinion, however, even if they can parrot it back to your face.
> It is one thing to offer free choice and it is another to avoid important information around what is healthy for the human body. *****************
Its not a case of either-or: either tell your child all the evils of processed foods or poison them. Given access to lots of home-made foods *and* processed foods, kids don't automatically only pick processed foods - but they won't automatically only pick home-made, either. They'll listen to their bodies and make decisions.
It Sounds nuts, I know! We're given sooooooo much misinformation about the way children learn that it sounds unreasonable to say that kids can learn the difference between nutritionally dense foods and foods that are mostly fluff and preservatives with very little parental input. And yet unschooling kids who have been given lots of choices and *some* information (mostly on request) eat when they're hungry and make thoughful decisions about what to eat.
Its a mindbending assertion - I've been there. I thought it sounded totally crazy when I first started learning about radical unschooling - you mean you let your kids eat Whatever they Want? Because I'd been sold that same old bill of goods that kids only learn what's right via teaching.
It helped me a whole lot to read lots of stories of unschooling kids making choices about food. Those stories gave me confidence to approach food and eating from the same philosophical perspective I pretty easily brought to math and science and art, so I'll toss out a page with a lot of links so that other people can read too:
http://sandradodd.com/food
---Meredith
Joyce Fetteroll
On Dec 6, 2010, at 2:10 PM, maharaashlie wrote:
As someone recently said, Food is food.
Kids can learn to listen to their bodies if voices aren't getting in
the way telling them what they're feeling and what's the best way to
feel. They won't always make the choices mom would make for them.
This list is about helping kids explore and figure out what's right
for their unique selves. It's about being their helpmate, offering
information and assistance but in a way that's without guilty strings.
It's information for them to turn over, to use, to set aside until
they want to use it.
For those that aren't comfortable with that, this list can't be much
help. No, this list will choose to not be much help!
The list is about joyful living, putting the relationship first and
then figuring out how to fit everything else around that. There are
ways to help kids be healthy eaters without control and without
bombarding them with the latest information about how bad such and
such is.
For those who want to know, the answers are only a question away :-)
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> This is crazy stuff. Really, if you lived in the wild and gave yourFood is not Drano.
> child free range choice for her diet, wouldn't you stop her if she
> reached for a poisonous berry or mushroom?
As someone recently said, Food is food.
Kids can learn to listen to their bodies if voices aren't getting in
the way telling them what they're feeling and what's the best way to
feel. They won't always make the choices mom would make for them.
This list is about helping kids explore and figure out what's right
for their unique selves. It's about being their helpmate, offering
information and assistance but in a way that's without guilty strings.
It's information for them to turn over, to use, to set aside until
they want to use it.
For those that aren't comfortable with that, this list can't be much
help. No, this list will choose to not be much help!
The list is about joyful living, putting the relationship first and
then figuring out how to fit everything else around that. There are
ways to help kids be healthy eaters without control and without
bombarding them with the latest information about how bad such and
such is.
For those who want to know, the answers are only a question away :-)
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
BRIAN POLIKOWSKY
<<<"She doesn't hide her choices from me and I am weak too and show her that I
too eat crappy food. ">>>>
Where you live must be really expensive because prigles are a buck fifty around
here. I buy them all the time for my husband.
You daughter may not hide her food choices from you but she may feel guilty
about eating "crappy" food.
Feeling guilty about eating something you enjoy IS NOT healthy.
I am going to go bake some browines with my 4 year old. I bvought two different
kid of boxed brownies to try out ( one is Ghirardelli). That is something she
ahs been wating to do for a while. We just got the perfect brownie pan ( the
ones that sell on TV) that she so wanted.
I don;t want her to feel guilty about eating them. I want her to have joy and
enjoy them. I really don't care for brownies, maybe if they are made from
scratch with lots of nuts ( she does not like nuts).
I would take away from her joy to call her it eating "crappy" food.
I think it is a lot healthier and creates a much healthier relationship with
food if we just call it food. No baggage attached!
Alex Polikowsky
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
too eat crappy food. ">>>>
Where you live must be really expensive because prigles are a buck fifty around
here. I buy them all the time for my husband.
You daughter may not hide her food choices from you but she may feel guilty
about eating "crappy" food.
Feeling guilty about eating something you enjoy IS NOT healthy.
I am going to go bake some browines with my 4 year old. I bvought two different
kid of boxed brownies to try out ( one is Ghirardelli). That is something she
ahs been wating to do for a while. We just got the perfect brownie pan ( the
ones that sell on TV) that she so wanted.
I don;t want her to feel guilty about eating them. I want her to have joy and
enjoy them. I really don't care for brownies, maybe if they are made from
scratch with lots of nuts ( she does not like nuts).
I would take away from her joy to call her it eating "crappy" food.
I think it is a lot healthier and creates a much healthier relationship with
food if we just call it food. No baggage attached!
Alex Polikowsky
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Kelly Lovejoy
-----Original Message-----
From: Diane Targovnik <dianetargovnik@...>
See this is where anxiety meets my checkbook and general thoughts of
food. I just don't have pringles and kook aid in the house. They are
processed foods and with no redeeming qualities (I assume pringles has
MSG and food dye. Kool aid also with food dye).
-=-=-=-=-
Joy has no redeeming value in your home? Bummer.
-=-=-=-=-=-
When we go out I let
my daughter choose her food and we talk about her choices. But she can
get what she wants.
-=-=-=-=-=-
But her choices are questioned? Must she justify her decisions?
-=-=-=-
But at home I buy only stuff that is good for our bodies (and yes it
is my definition of "good"). And stuff I feel comfortable with her
eating... I also do this because if there is non-healthy food in the
house I will eat it. And I don't want to. My two cents
-=-=-=-
I'm sorry that you aren't as strong or powerful as a can of Pringles. Is that what you want for your daughter?
My unschooled kid can beat up your can of Pringles AND your pitcher of Kool-aid.
~Kelly
Kelly Lovejoy
"There is no single effort more radical in its potential for saving the world than a transformation of the way we raise our children." Marianne Williamson
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
From: Diane Targovnik <dianetargovnik@...>
See this is where anxiety meets my checkbook and general thoughts of
food. I just don't have pringles and kook aid in the house. They are
processed foods and with no redeeming qualities (I assume pringles has
MSG and food dye. Kool aid also with food dye).
-=-=-=-=-
Joy has no redeeming value in your home? Bummer.
-=-=-=-=-=-
When we go out I let
my daughter choose her food and we talk about her choices. But she can
get what she wants.
-=-=-=-=-=-
But her choices are questioned? Must she justify her decisions?
-=-=-=-
But at home I buy only stuff that is good for our bodies (and yes it
is my definition of "good"). And stuff I feel comfortable with her
eating... I also do this because if there is non-healthy food in the
house I will eat it. And I don't want to. My two cents
-=-=-=-
I'm sorry that you aren't as strong or powerful as a can of Pringles. Is that what you want for your daughter?
My unschooled kid can beat up your can of Pringles AND your pitcher of Kool-aid.
~Kelly
Kelly Lovejoy
"There is no single effort more radical in its potential for saving the world than a transformation of the way we raise our children." Marianne Williamson
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Kelly Lovejoy
It's obviously December. A lot of anxiety about food and Santa.
It's not "weak" to eat something you enjoy, no matter what the nutritional value.
~Kelly
Kelly Lovejoy
"There is no single effort more radical in its potential for saving the world than a transformation of the way we raise our children." Marianne Williamson
-----Original Message-----
From: Diane <dianetargovnik@...>
I do think there can be a happy balance that doesn't include buying pringles
(which are expensive! $3 for a can on sale is a lot more then ten cents an
hour). We talk about why we don't have some foods in the house. We talk. We
talk. We talk.
My daughter and I eat treats together and talk about how food affects us. Both
the good and bad food. When we are out she decides the food and shares with me
if she is eating "crappy" food. We talk about it. We joke about it. She doesn't
hide her choices from me and I am weak too and show her that I too eat crappy
food. I think there is more than one ru path here to walk down... If this was
20,000 years ago I would let her eat what she wanted. But it's not. And I am
here to help guide
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
It's not "weak" to eat something you enjoy, no matter what the nutritional value.
~Kelly
Kelly Lovejoy
"There is no single effort more radical in its potential for saving the world than a transformation of the way we raise our children." Marianne Williamson
-----Original Message-----
From: Diane <dianetargovnik@...>
I do think there can be a happy balance that doesn't include buying pringles
(which are expensive! $3 for a can on sale is a lot more then ten cents an
hour). We talk about why we don't have some foods in the house. We talk. We
talk. We talk.
My daughter and I eat treats together and talk about how food affects us. Both
the good and bad food. When we are out she decides the food and shares with me
if she is eating "crappy" food. We talk about it. We joke about it. She doesn't
hide her choices from me and I am weak too and show her that I too eat crappy
food. I think there is more than one ru path here to walk down... If this was
20,000 years ago I would let her eat what she wanted. But it's not. And I am
here to help guide
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
The Coffee Goddess
>>It's obviously December. A lot of anxiety about food and Santa.It's not "weak" to eat something you enjoy, no matter what the nutritional value.>>
I wish this were facebook and I could just click the "like" button!
In the back seat of the car this morning, my 12 yo was helping my 2 yo with a package of m n m's. She ate what she wanted, and then the next handfull he offered her, she said "No, Thanks!"
"Junk" will not kill her. It might just make her aware of her own body, and able to politely state it to her brother ;)
Dana Ellis
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Kelly Lovejoy
Pringles and Kool-aid aren't poisonous. They are whirred & dried potatoes and colored sugar water.
Don't lie to children or to us.
I'm willing to bet hard, cold cash that a year-long diet of only Pringles and Kool-aid would not end in death.
No one's child is "feasting on nutrient void junk." Parents here have children who make their own dietary choices, and what we've found is that they are very thoughtful about what they eat. If they *do* happen to chose a can of Pringles or a HoHo, they enJOY them. No guilt. No worry.
Your fear-mongering will result in more damage than the occasional bag of Lay's and a Dr Pepper.
~Kelly
Kelly Lovejoy
"There is no single effort more radical in its potential for saving the world than a transformation of the way we raise our children." Marianne Williamson
-----Original Message-----
From: maharaashlie <mahara@...>
This is crazy stuff. Really, if you lived in the wild and gave your child free
range choice for her diet, wouldn't you stop her if she reached for a poisonous
berry or mushroom? It is one thing to offer free choice and it is another to
avoid important information around what is healthy for the human body. Allowing
your child to feast on nutrient void junk filled with toxic chemicals is to me
the same as letting her eat poison. It just will take a bit longer to kill her.
Our children need to learn about the dangers of eating toxic chemical laden
foods, foods sprayed with pesticides, animal products pumped with hormones,etc.
and foods genetically modified. Until they can read it for themselves labels
should be a part of this free choice plan and education on what the ingredients
are and where they come from, etc. I find my daughter makes very healthy choices
for herself based on the facts that she understands about the ingredients in the
foods. She does make exceptions and eats
items that are not the healthiest choice sometimes, but with the knowledge of
exactly what she is eating, she tends to keep unhealthy choices to a minimum.
She generally opts for very healthy foods. Our home is stocked with mostly
healthy foods and when we shop, if she picks up an item that she wants to try I
have her read the ingredients. Mostly she makes very wise choices to keep her
body healthy.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Don't lie to children or to us.
I'm willing to bet hard, cold cash that a year-long diet of only Pringles and Kool-aid would not end in death.
No one's child is "feasting on nutrient void junk." Parents here have children who make their own dietary choices, and what we've found is that they are very thoughtful about what they eat. If they *do* happen to chose a can of Pringles or a HoHo, they enJOY them. No guilt. No worry.
Your fear-mongering will result in more damage than the occasional bag of Lay's and a Dr Pepper.
~Kelly
Kelly Lovejoy
"There is no single effort more radical in its potential for saving the world than a transformation of the way we raise our children." Marianne Williamson
-----Original Message-----
From: maharaashlie <mahara@...>
This is crazy stuff. Really, if you lived in the wild and gave your child free
range choice for her diet, wouldn't you stop her if she reached for a poisonous
berry or mushroom? It is one thing to offer free choice and it is another to
avoid important information around what is healthy for the human body. Allowing
your child to feast on nutrient void junk filled with toxic chemicals is to me
the same as letting her eat poison. It just will take a bit longer to kill her.
Our children need to learn about the dangers of eating toxic chemical laden
foods, foods sprayed with pesticides, animal products pumped with hormones,etc.
and foods genetically modified. Until they can read it for themselves labels
should be a part of this free choice plan and education on what the ingredients
are and where they come from, etc. I find my daughter makes very healthy choices
for herself based on the facts that she understands about the ingredients in the
foods. She does make exceptions and eats
items that are not the healthiest choice sometimes, but with the knowledge of
exactly what she is eating, she tends to keep unhealthy choices to a minimum.
She generally opts for very healthy foods. Our home is stocked with mostly
healthy foods and when we shop, if she picks up an item that she wants to try I
have her read the ingredients. Mostly she makes very wise choices to keep her
body healthy.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Tina Tarbutton
My son was a very picky eater as a toddler. He lived on chicken nuggets and
french fries for at least 2 years. I didn't know about radical unschooling
back then, and my mother insisted that I make him eat what we were eating
for dinner (I lived with her at the time). He didn't eat dinner for almost
a month before I decided that wasn't going to work. Even during that time
I'd give him chicken nuggets and french fries for breakfast and lunch, and
add veggies and other stuff to his plate which he would occasionally eat,
but not always.
Afterwards he refused to try new foods for almost 3 years.
Now he's 10 y/o. He still loves chicken nuggets and french fries, but
prefers homemade over mcdonalds or frozen ones. He loves going into the
grocery store and picking out new foods to try. He willingly tries almost
everything I cook. One of his favorite cooked veggies is brussel sprouts,
another is spinach. I'm allergic to spinach (will break out in a rash if I
come in contact with anything that has contacted spinach) and therefore he
only gets to have it when he cooks it himself or someone else is around to
cook it, so it's a special treat for him.
The other day we were going to a movie, which was financially a stretch for
us. We discussed beforehand that we wouldn't be able to buy much at the
concession stand. He asked if we could buy him dibs (the chocolate covered
ice cream bits). They're around $7 at the theatre for a tiny box of them,
so I said we couldn't buy them there, but would get some after the movie at
the grocery store. He instead asked if he could take a bag of banana chips
and some baby carrots into the movie with him, because he didn't want
popcorn or candy.
The other day he made a banana and Hershey kisses sandwich for lunch.
He also went through a pringles phase, and I found them on sale at CVS for
under a dollar a can. I think I bought 20 cans. He went through 10 of them
in a week, but it's been a few months now and we still have some unopened
cans in the pantry.
He's a tall skinny kid who eats almost non stop throughout the day. His
choices are wide and varied over the course of each week, however he tends
to obsess on certian foods on any given day.
He's learned to listen to his body. When he had some urinary problems after
drinking nothing but soda for weeks, we discussed that too much soda could
be part of the problem. I didn't tell him he had to stop drinking soda, or
tell him how much water he had to drink, but the next day he made a line in
the fridge of 2 bottles of water, followed by a can of soda, two more
bottles of water, followed by a can of soda, etc. etc. He asked everyone to
leave those drinks alone because it was his way of making sure he drank
enough water between sodas. He no longer has to line them up in the fridge,
but when I offer to get him a drink he sometimes asks for water, sometimes
for soda, sometimes juice, sometimes tea.
There are no struggles over food here anymore. Tonight we all decided on
taco's for dinner, then I realized we didn't have any ground beef. I let
him know I was making them with chicken instead and he was hesitant, but
tried them without an argument and said they were great. If he wouldn't
have liked them I would have cooked him something else, or let him have a
"buffet" dinner of various snacks.
Tina
french fries for at least 2 years. I didn't know about radical unschooling
back then, and my mother insisted that I make him eat what we were eating
for dinner (I lived with her at the time). He didn't eat dinner for almost
a month before I decided that wasn't going to work. Even during that time
I'd give him chicken nuggets and french fries for breakfast and lunch, and
add veggies and other stuff to his plate which he would occasionally eat,
but not always.
Afterwards he refused to try new foods for almost 3 years.
Now he's 10 y/o. He still loves chicken nuggets and french fries, but
prefers homemade over mcdonalds or frozen ones. He loves going into the
grocery store and picking out new foods to try. He willingly tries almost
everything I cook. One of his favorite cooked veggies is brussel sprouts,
another is spinach. I'm allergic to spinach (will break out in a rash if I
come in contact with anything that has contacted spinach) and therefore he
only gets to have it when he cooks it himself or someone else is around to
cook it, so it's a special treat for him.
The other day we were going to a movie, which was financially a stretch for
us. We discussed beforehand that we wouldn't be able to buy much at the
concession stand. He asked if we could buy him dibs (the chocolate covered
ice cream bits). They're around $7 at the theatre for a tiny box of them,
so I said we couldn't buy them there, but would get some after the movie at
the grocery store. He instead asked if he could take a bag of banana chips
and some baby carrots into the movie with him, because he didn't want
popcorn or candy.
The other day he made a banana and Hershey kisses sandwich for lunch.
He also went through a pringles phase, and I found them on sale at CVS for
under a dollar a can. I think I bought 20 cans. He went through 10 of them
in a week, but it's been a few months now and we still have some unopened
cans in the pantry.
He's a tall skinny kid who eats almost non stop throughout the day. His
choices are wide and varied over the course of each week, however he tends
to obsess on certian foods on any given day.
He's learned to listen to his body. When he had some urinary problems after
drinking nothing but soda for weeks, we discussed that too much soda could
be part of the problem. I didn't tell him he had to stop drinking soda, or
tell him how much water he had to drink, but the next day he made a line in
the fridge of 2 bottles of water, followed by a can of soda, two more
bottles of water, followed by a can of soda, etc. etc. He asked everyone to
leave those drinks alone because it was his way of making sure he drank
enough water between sodas. He no longer has to line them up in the fridge,
but when I offer to get him a drink he sometimes asks for water, sometimes
for soda, sometimes juice, sometimes tea.
There are no struggles over food here anymore. Tonight we all decided on
taco's for dinner, then I realized we didn't have any ground beef. I let
him know I was making them with chicken instead and he was hesitant, but
tried them without an argument and said they were great. If he wouldn't
have liked them I would have cooked him something else, or let him have a
"buffet" dinner of various snacks.
Tina
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 6:00 PM, Kelly Lovejoy <kbcdlovejo@...> wrote:
>
>
> Pringles and Kool-aid aren't poisonous. They are whirred & dried potatoes
> and colored sugar water.
>
> Don't lie to children or to us.
>
> I'm willing to bet hard, cold cash that a year-long diet of only Pringles
> and Kool-aid would not end in death.
>
> No one's child is "feasting on nutrient void junk." Parents here have
> children who make their own dietary choices, and what we've found is that
> they are very thoughtful about what they eat. If they *do* happen to chose a
> can of Pringles or a HoHo, they enJOY them. No guilt. No worry.
>
> Your fear-mongering will result in more damage than the occasional bag of
> Lay's and a Dr Pepper.
>
>
> ~Kelly
>
> Kelly Lovejoy
> "There is no single effort more radical in its potential for saving the
> world than a transformation of the way we raise our children." Marianne
> Williamson
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: maharaashlie <mahara@... <mahara%40comcast.net>>
>
> This is crazy stuff. Really, if you lived in the wild and gave your child
> free
> range choice for her diet, wouldn't you stop her if she reached for a
> poisonous
> berry or mushroom? It is one thing to offer free choice and it is another
> to
> avoid important information around what is healthy for the human body.
> Allowing
> your child to feast on nutrient void junk filled with toxic chemicals is to
> me
> the same as letting her eat poison. It just will take a bit longer to kill
> her.
> Our children need to learn about the dangers of eating toxic chemical laden
>
> foods, foods sprayed with pesticides, animal products pumped with
> hormones,etc.
> and foods genetically modified. Until they can read it for themselves
> labels
> should be a part of this free choice plan and education on what the
> ingredients
> are and where they come from, etc. I find my daughter makes very healthy
> choices
> for herself based on the facts that she understands about the ingredients
> in the
> foods. She does make exceptions and eats
> items that are not the healthiest choice sometimes, but with the knowledge
> of
> exactly what she is eating, she tends to keep unhealthy choices to a
> minimum.
> She generally opts for very healthy foods. Our home is stocked with mostly
> healthy foods and when we shop, if she picks up an item that she wants to
> try I
> have her read the ingredients. Mostly she makes very wise choices to keep
> her
> body healthy.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Alix deBohun
What I'm seeing here is that some parents have chosen to give their children
free choice over their nutritional intake with little to no exceptions.
When someone points out that it's unhealthy, those parents become defensive and
accuse them of lying, fear mongering,judging, and the like.
I tell my son that it is better to be wrong than to make up a story.
Why not say yes, I know it's not the healthiest but I feel it's important to
allow them these choices. And expound on why!
I DO understand that many feel that you can damage a child by pumping them full
of nutritional "judgements", the same way you can harm them by doing the same
with religion, morality, sexuality, social norms, etc
dyes and chemicals in our food is NOT healthy, many think they are toxic even.
Many don't believe it to be so, or don't care. But don't call someone's opinion
- based on thier research a lie just becauise it goes against your practice.
To tell someone that they are lying is the opposite of what we are trying to do
with our children.
Why the accusations? Why are people being so hateful to each other while
preaching to be kind to the children?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
free choice over their nutritional intake with little to no exceptions.
When someone points out that it's unhealthy, those parents become defensive and
accuse them of lying, fear mongering,judging, and the like.
I tell my son that it is better to be wrong than to make up a story.
Why not say yes, I know it's not the healthiest but I feel it's important to
allow them these choices. And expound on why!
I DO understand that many feel that you can damage a child by pumping them full
of nutritional "judgements", the same way you can harm them by doing the same
with religion, morality, sexuality, social norms, etc
dyes and chemicals in our food is NOT healthy, many think they are toxic even.
Many don't believe it to be so, or don't care. But don't call someone's opinion
- based on thier research a lie just becauise it goes against your practice.
To tell someone that they are lying is the opposite of what we are trying to do
with our children.
Why the accusations? Why are people being so hateful to each other while
preaching to be kind to the children?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
maharaashlie
I was not simply discussing Pringles and Kool aid, however anyone eating only those two items for a year would not be a healthy person. That would never be the goal I am sure of anyone in this group. I understand fostering individualism and inner knowing. I am not arguing with those concepts. I bring to the table something that seems to be going ignored here. The truth of what IS in some of our foods that so many people do not want to notice as hazardous to human health. And yes, How do we care for our children and allow them the freedom to eat what we know is simply toxic? This is not "fear-mongering"! As I said, If you do not agree with this Look it up. Aren't we all about natural here when it comes to growth of the human mind, etc? I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT DOESN'T GO HAND IN HAND.
--- In [email protected], Kelly Lovejoy <kbcdlovejo@...> wrote:
>
> Pringles and Kool-aid aren't poisonous. They are whirred & dried potatoes and colored sugar water.
>
>
> Don't lie to children or to us.
>
>
> I'm willing to bet hard, cold cash that a year-long diet of only Pringles and Kool-aid would not end in death.
>
>
> No one's child is "feasting on nutrient void junk." Parents here have children who make their own dietary choices, and what we've found is that they are very thoughtful about what they eat. If they *do* happen to chose a can of Pringles or a HoHo, they enJOY them. No guilt. No worry.
>
>
> Your fear-mongering will result in more damage than the occasional bag of Lay's and a Dr Pepper.
>
>
> ~Kelly
>
> Kelly Lovejoy
> "There is no single effort more radical in its potential for saving the world than a transformation of the way we raise our children." Marianne Williamson
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: maharaashlie <mahara@...>
>
>
> This is crazy stuff. Really, if you lived in the wild and gave your child free
> range choice for her diet, wouldn't you stop her if she reached for a poisonous
> berry or mushroom? It is one thing to offer free choice and it is another to
> avoid important information around what is healthy for the human body. Allowing
> your child to feast on nutrient void junk filled with toxic chemicals is to me
> the same as letting her eat poison. It just will take a bit longer to kill her.
> Our children need to learn about the dangers of eating toxic chemical laden
> foods, foods sprayed with pesticides, animal products pumped with hormones,etc.
> and foods genetically modified. Until they can read it for themselves labels
> should be a part of this free choice plan and education on what the ingredients
> are and where they come from, etc. I find my daughter makes very healthy choices
> for herself based on the facts that she understands about the ingredients in the
> foods. She does make exceptions and eats
> items that are not the healthiest choice sometimes, but with the knowledge of
> exactly what she is eating, she tends to keep unhealthy choices to a minimum.
> She generally opts for very healthy foods. Our home is stocked with mostly
> healthy foods and when we shop, if she picks up an item that she wants to try I
> have her read the ingredients. Mostly she makes very wise choices to keep her
> body healthy.
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
hmbpie
=I'm willing to bet hard, cold cash that a year-long diet of only Pringles and Kool-aid would not end in death.=
I can at least attest to death NOT occurring after three days of Pringles and kool-aide. ;) I can also attest that since my son was given freedom to chose what he wanted to eat he has moved on. He is still eating pringles just not exclusively. As we speak he is eating tuna and crackers with a kool aide jammer watching Animaniacs. He is quite content and so am I. It took a lot of hard work on my part, a lot of letting go to get to this place of peace with food choices (and I am still working hard). I will say we are all happier because of it. Even when I am in the closet sitting on my hands so I don't unleash my negative food opinions on him I am happier because I know when he is my age he will eat because he is hungry and won't feel guilty about what he eats like I do. If I do it right. I want him to be mightier than a can of pringles.
I wonder if leading by example is a better way to go instead of reading labels and analyzing food. I don't eat meat and rarely eat dairy or eggs so, it's lots of fruit, veggies and grains for me. My son is very curious about this and asks lots of questions. He sees that my food looks different from his food. Right now I get a "What's that?" Maybe one day I'll get a "Can I try that?" If he decides to try a carrot one day does he need to know that is has beta carotene in it and the benefits of eating beta carotene if he only wants to try the carrot? Can't he just eat it and like it or dislike it? Does he need a whole lesson on carrots?
I also read labels and books about food. Maybe one day he'll ask why I do that and I can tell him. Maybe he'll decide when he is older to do the same since he saw me do it his whole life. Maybe he won't. If he can eat a bowl of coco krispies because he wanted something sweet and it doesn't keep him up all night with guilt when he is an adult then I think I will have done a good thing for him.
I can at least attest to death NOT occurring after three days of Pringles and kool-aide. ;) I can also attest that since my son was given freedom to chose what he wanted to eat he has moved on. He is still eating pringles just not exclusively. As we speak he is eating tuna and crackers with a kool aide jammer watching Animaniacs. He is quite content and so am I. It took a lot of hard work on my part, a lot of letting go to get to this place of peace with food choices (and I am still working hard). I will say we are all happier because of it. Even when I am in the closet sitting on my hands so I don't unleash my negative food opinions on him I am happier because I know when he is my age he will eat because he is hungry and won't feel guilty about what he eats like I do. If I do it right. I want him to be mightier than a can of pringles.
I wonder if leading by example is a better way to go instead of reading labels and analyzing food. I don't eat meat and rarely eat dairy or eggs so, it's lots of fruit, veggies and grains for me. My son is very curious about this and asks lots of questions. He sees that my food looks different from his food. Right now I get a "What's that?" Maybe one day I'll get a "Can I try that?" If he decides to try a carrot one day does he need to know that is has beta carotene in it and the benefits of eating beta carotene if he only wants to try the carrot? Can't he just eat it and like it or dislike it? Does he need a whole lesson on carrots?
I also read labels and books about food. Maybe one day he'll ask why I do that and I can tell him. Maybe he'll decide when he is older to do the same since he saw me do it his whole life. Maybe he won't. If he can eat a bowl of coco krispies because he wanted something sweet and it doesn't keep him up all night with guilt when he is an adult then I think I will have done a good thing for him.
--- In [email protected], Kelly Lovejoy <kbcdlovejo@...> wrote:
>
> Pringles and Kool-aid aren't poisonous. They are whirred & dried potatoes and colored sugar water.
>
>
> Don't lie to children or to us.
>
>
> I'm willing to bet hard, cold cash that a year-long diet of only Pringles and Kool-aid would not end in death.
>
>
> No one's child is "feasting on nutrient void junk." Parents here have children who make their own dietary choices, and what we've found is that they are very thoughtful about what they eat. If they *do* happen to chose a can of Pringles or a HoHo, they enJOY them. No guilt. No worry.
>
>
> Your fear-mongering will result in more damage than the occasional bag of Lay's and a Dr Pepper.
>
>
> ~Kelly
>
> Kelly Lovejoy
> "There is no single effort more radical in its potential for saving the world than a transformation of the way we raise our children." Marianne Williamson
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: maharaashlie <mahara@...>
>
>
> This is crazy stuff. Really, if you lived in the wild and gave your child free
> range choice for her diet, wouldn't you stop her if she reached for a poisonous
> berry or mushroom? It is one thing to offer free choice and it is another to
> avoid important information around what is healthy for the human body. Allowing
> your child to feast on nutrient void junk filled with toxic chemicals is to me
> the same as letting her eat poison. It just will take a bit longer to kill her.
> Our children need to learn about the dangers of eating toxic chemical laden
> foods, foods sprayed with pesticides, animal products pumped with hormones,etc.
> and foods genetically modified. Until they can read it for themselves labels
> should be a part of this free choice plan and education on what the ingredients
> are and where they come from, etc. I find my daughter makes very healthy choices
> for herself based on the facts that she understands about the ingredients in the
> foods. She does make exceptions and eats
> items that are not the healthiest choice sometimes, but with the knowledge of
> exactly what she is eating, she tends to keep unhealthy choices to a minimum.
> She generally opts for very healthy foods. Our home is stocked with mostly
> healthy foods and when we shop, if she picks up an item that she wants to try I
> have her read the ingredients. Mostly she makes very wise choices to keep her
> body healthy.
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Schuyler
There is a question of relative health benefits. Is stress more or less
detrimental to one's health then pringles and koolaid? Stress has been linked to
a lot of poor decision making and quite directly to early death. I'm pretty sure
the jury is out on pringles and koolaid. Red dye number whatever may be a fear,
but it isn't nearly as awful on your immune system as stress is.
make and that I afford my children, and that's a big lot of choices, are ones
that make me feel in the least bit defensive. I can tell you that I have two
healthy children who have a very wide range of food choices. They drink soda and
water and juice and milk and lassis and koolaid and they eat chips, pringles
among them, and melba toast and olives and pears and chocolate and broccoli and
bread and beef jerky and chicken and pound cake ala Duncan Lovejoy and cabbage
and apples and plums and clementines and bananas and, well, and and and.
The truth of what you don't seem to be reading, which I see written clearly in
the responses, is that limiting a food choice, saying that this is crap food and
this is good food is a great way to create a special and exciting class of
foods. I tend to eat what I'm hungry for. I wanted fish and chips the other day
and David and I went to a fish monger and bought lovely haddock and fried it up
with homemade chips (french fries) and had mushy peas as a side. It was
wonderful. I thanked David and he said he likes to satisfy my cravings (eyebrows
awaggling). Because we do the same with Simon and Linnaea there are often things
that come into our menu suddenly. Risotto is an oft requested food, or samosas
or Simon was craving fry ups the last few days, so we got bacon and sausages
from the local butcher and scrambled eggs and he had lovely homemade bread
toasted with lashings of butter. I asked him yesterday if he wanted us to get
him more of that, but he's moved on to other desires. Last night they had phad
thai, we all had phad thai, but Simon and Linnaea supersized their bowlfuls
while David and I had more modest portions to accommodate their desires.
If one food is crap and another food is good and you really want the crap what
does that make you? If one food is crap and another food is good and the crap
food makes you feel better what does that mean? I love potatoes at the moment.
It's dark and cold here and potatoes make me feel lighter and better. A friend
just sent me an NPR thing on chip butties which just spiked my craving for a
lovely french fry sandwich. It will be good for lunch today. It isn't crap, it
isn't nutritionally devoid, it isn't empty calories, it's a lovely food that
increases my beta-endorphins. I get happier with potatoes. It's so cool.
Pringles are made from potatoes, maybe they do a similar thing? More than that
though, sharing a can of pringles with someone happily and talking about
hyperbolic paraboloids will be better for them than denying and degrading their
desire. It will be better for your relationship with them, it will be better for
their whole self health, it will let the pringles be secondary to the
relationship instead of more powerful than the love and care and nurturing.
You write that "dyes and chemicals in our food is NOT healthy, many think they
are toxic even." And while there is some evidence for detrimental effects of
chemicals on the health of people, much of those chemicals come from pollutants
as opposed to ones that are directly in the food supply. Mercury in tuna comes
to mind, or hormones from large scale meat production, the waste of hormonally
more than robust cattle washing into the water supply. Soy produces
phytoestrogens which can screw with your hormonal balance in ways that have been
shown to be both positive and negative. I don't know if pringles do that but
tofu can.
I bet you ever single person who has chosen to embrace choice in food for their
children on this list is aware of at least the gist of the findings on sodium
benzoate or similar additives. And for each of those people they've decided that
the fear of those things isn't as great as their desire to help their children
to negotiate the world on their own terms.
You wrote "What I'm seeing here is that some parents have chosen to give their
children free choice over their nutritional intake with little to no
exceptions." I imagine that there are lots of exceptions in my children's
lives. Availability is an exception. Affordability is an exception. Kraft
macaroni and cheese is a treat reserved for arrivals of gift packages or gift
bearing visitors from the U.S. It isn't readily available in the UK. Maybe with
Kraft's owning Cadbury's now it will give them access to this market, but maybe
not. There are conversations about hunger in our house. About food. I talk a lot
and about lots of things. My guess is that they make informed choices about
their hunger and how to satisfy it rather than free choices. A lot of their
information will be from experience. Simon loves carrot cake, but he doesn't
like me to make it very often because it becomes less special, more mundane. He
wants the carrot cake to remain a special occasion food. That's a lot of
understanding, and it was understanding that he had at 6. If I had dictated to
him his relationship with carrot cake rather than letting him dictate his own
terms he would have felt powerless in the face of the all powerful carrot cake.
But there is no rush to carrot cake, there is no carrot cake is the biggest
thing in the room. Carrot cake is a pleasure among many. It's so cool.
unschooling in response to someone writing about fear. Sometimes it can feel
like someone is being attacked, but if you go back and reread it with your mind
tuned to hear kindness in the words of the writers your perspective may change.
It may help if you start with the knowledge that all of these writers are
working to help get the philosophy of unschooling out clearly and precisely. And
they are doing this without recompense, or, at least, without financial
recompense.
"To tell someone that they are lying is the opposite of what we are trying to
do
with our children. "
I don't quite know what that means. I have questioned the veracity of what Simon
or Linnaea have said. The other day it was about the core temperature of the
earth. Simon was sound in his understanding. And it was fun to be proven wrong.
Schuyler
________________________________
From: Alix deBohun <czarena_unrest@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, 7 December, 2010 2:28:56
Subject: Re: [unschoolingbasics] Re: Has Anyone Had This Experience? - the
behavior of parents
What I'm seeing here is that some parents have chosen to give their children
free choice over their nutritional intake with little to no exceptions.
When someone points out that it's unhealthy, those parents become defensive and
accuse them of lying, fear mongering,judging, and the like.
I tell my son that it is better to be wrong than to make up a story.
Why not say yes, I know it's not the healthiest but I feel it's important to
allow them these choices. And expound on why!
I DO understand that many feel that you can damage a child by pumping them full
of nutritional "judgements", the same way you can harm them by doing the same
with religion, morality, sexuality, social norms, etc
dyes and chemicals in our food is NOT healthy, many think they are toxic even.
Many don't believe it to be so, or don't care. But don't call someone's opinion
- based on thier research a lie just becauise it goes against your practice.
To tell someone that they are lying is the opposite of what we are trying to do
with our children.
Why the accusations? Why are people being so hateful to each other while
preaching to be kind to the children?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
detrimental to one's health then pringles and koolaid? Stress has been linked to
a lot of poor decision making and quite directly to early death. I'm pretty sure
the jury is out on pringles and koolaid. Red dye number whatever may be a fear,
but it isn't nearly as awful on your immune system as stress is.
>>"When someone points out that it's unhealthy, those parents become defensiveI don't think my lifestyle is an unhealthy life. I don't think the choices I
>>and accuse them of lying, fear mongering,judging, and the like."<<
make and that I afford my children, and that's a big lot of choices, are ones
that make me feel in the least bit defensive. I can tell you that I have two
healthy children who have a very wide range of food choices. They drink soda and
water and juice and milk and lassis and koolaid and they eat chips, pringles
among them, and melba toast and olives and pears and chocolate and broccoli and
bread and beef jerky and chicken and pound cake ala Duncan Lovejoy and cabbage
and apples and plums and clementines and bananas and, well, and and and.
The truth of what you don't seem to be reading, which I see written clearly in
the responses, is that limiting a food choice, saying that this is crap food and
this is good food is a great way to create a special and exciting class of
foods. I tend to eat what I'm hungry for. I wanted fish and chips the other day
and David and I went to a fish monger and bought lovely haddock and fried it up
with homemade chips (french fries) and had mushy peas as a side. It was
wonderful. I thanked David and he said he likes to satisfy my cravings (eyebrows
awaggling). Because we do the same with Simon and Linnaea there are often things
that come into our menu suddenly. Risotto is an oft requested food, or samosas
or Simon was craving fry ups the last few days, so we got bacon and sausages
from the local butcher and scrambled eggs and he had lovely homemade bread
toasted with lashings of butter. I asked him yesterday if he wanted us to get
him more of that, but he's moved on to other desires. Last night they had phad
thai, we all had phad thai, but Simon and Linnaea supersized their bowlfuls
while David and I had more modest portions to accommodate their desires.
If one food is crap and another food is good and you really want the crap what
does that make you? If one food is crap and another food is good and the crap
food makes you feel better what does that mean? I love potatoes at the moment.
It's dark and cold here and potatoes make me feel lighter and better. A friend
just sent me an NPR thing on chip butties which just spiked my craving for a
lovely french fry sandwich. It will be good for lunch today. It isn't crap, it
isn't nutritionally devoid, it isn't empty calories, it's a lovely food that
increases my beta-endorphins. I get happier with potatoes. It's so cool.
Pringles are made from potatoes, maybe they do a similar thing? More than that
though, sharing a can of pringles with someone happily and talking about
hyperbolic paraboloids will be better for them than denying and degrading their
desire. It will be better for your relationship with them, it will be better for
their whole self health, it will let the pringles be secondary to the
relationship instead of more powerful than the love and care and nurturing.
You write that "dyes and chemicals in our food is NOT healthy, many think they
are toxic even." And while there is some evidence for detrimental effects of
chemicals on the health of people, much of those chemicals come from pollutants
as opposed to ones that are directly in the food supply. Mercury in tuna comes
to mind, or hormones from large scale meat production, the waste of hormonally
more than robust cattle washing into the water supply. Soy produces
phytoestrogens which can screw with your hormonal balance in ways that have been
shown to be both positive and negative. I don't know if pringles do that but
tofu can.
I bet you ever single person who has chosen to embrace choice in food for their
children on this list is aware of at least the gist of the findings on sodium
benzoate or similar additives. And for each of those people they've decided that
the fear of those things isn't as great as their desire to help their children
to negotiate the world on their own terms.
You wrote "What I'm seeing here is that some parents have chosen to give their
children free choice over their nutritional intake with little to no
exceptions." I imagine that there are lots of exceptions in my children's
lives. Availability is an exception. Affordability is an exception. Kraft
macaroni and cheese is a treat reserved for arrivals of gift packages or gift
bearing visitors from the U.S. It isn't readily available in the UK. Maybe with
Kraft's owning Cadbury's now it will give them access to this market, but maybe
not. There are conversations about hunger in our house. About food. I talk a lot
and about lots of things. My guess is that they make informed choices about
their hunger and how to satisfy it rather than free choices. A lot of their
information will be from experience. Simon loves carrot cake, but he doesn't
like me to make it very often because it becomes less special, more mundane. He
wants the carrot cake to remain a special occasion food. That's a lot of
understanding, and it was understanding that he had at 6. If I had dictated to
him his relationship with carrot cake rather than letting him dictate his own
terms he would have felt powerless in the face of the all powerful carrot cake.
But there is no rush to carrot cake, there is no carrot cake is the biggest
thing in the room. Carrot cake is a pleasure among many. It's so cool.
>>"Why the accusations? Why are people being so hateful to each otherWhere is the hate? Where is the horribleness? I see people writing about
>>while preaching to be kind to the children? "<<
unschooling in response to someone writing about fear. Sometimes it can feel
like someone is being attacked, but if you go back and reread it with your mind
tuned to hear kindness in the words of the writers your perspective may change.
It may help if you start with the knowledge that all of these writers are
working to help get the philosophy of unschooling out clearly and precisely. And
they are doing this without recompense, or, at least, without financial
recompense.
"To tell someone that they are lying is the opposite of what we are trying to
do
with our children. "
I don't quite know what that means. I have questioned the veracity of what Simon
or Linnaea have said. The other day it was about the core temperature of the
earth. Simon was sound in his understanding. And it was fun to be proven wrong.
Schuyler
________________________________
From: Alix deBohun <czarena_unrest@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, 7 December, 2010 2:28:56
Subject: Re: [unschoolingbasics] Re: Has Anyone Had This Experience? - the
behavior of parents
What I'm seeing here is that some parents have chosen to give their children
free choice over their nutritional intake with little to no exceptions.
When someone points out that it's unhealthy, those parents become defensive and
accuse them of lying, fear mongering,judging, and the like.
I tell my son that it is better to be wrong than to make up a story.
Why not say yes, I know it's not the healthiest but I feel it's important to
allow them these choices. And expound on why!
I DO understand that many feel that you can damage a child by pumping them full
of nutritional "judgements", the same way you can harm them by doing the same
with religion, morality, sexuality, social norms, etc
dyes and chemicals in our food is NOT healthy, many think they are toxic even.
Many don't believe it to be so, or don't care. But don't call someone's opinion
- based on thier research a lie just becauise it goes against your practice.
To tell someone that they are lying is the opposite of what we are trying to do
with our children.
Why the accusations? Why are people being so hateful to each other while
preaching to be kind to the children?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Alix deBohun
i do appreciate your response. yours was full of your perspective of things. I
was specifically responding to the messages that said
"Do not lie to children or to us"
"Your fear-mongering..."
"My unschooled kid can beat up your can of Pringles AND your pitcher of
Kool-aid."
These kind of comments are (admittedly in my opinion) not helpful, completely
unnecessary and quite rude.
I was not trying to say that all of the posts were like what I described. My
apologies that it came across that way. I was trying to suggest educating rather
than accusing people of lying and being defensive. Which some people ARE doing
(and I appreciate it), but others are not.
Personally, I am trying to navigate the food waters myself. Most of the
responses in this discussion have been wonderful.
My favorite from your response that I think sums it up for me
"And for each of those people they've decided that the fear of those things
isn't as great as their desire to help their children
to negotiate the world on their own terms."
Thank you for that!
Michelle/Czarena
________________________________
From: Schuyler
was specifically responding to the messages that said
"Do not lie to children or to us"
"Your fear-mongering..."
"My unschooled kid can beat up your can of Pringles AND your pitcher of
Kool-aid."
These kind of comments are (admittedly in my opinion) not helpful, completely
unnecessary and quite rude.
I was not trying to say that all of the posts were like what I described. My
apologies that it came across that way. I was trying to suggest educating rather
than accusing people of lying and being defensive. Which some people ARE doing
(and I appreciate it), but others are not.
Personally, I am trying to navigate the food waters myself. Most of the
responses in this discussion have been wonderful.
My favorite from your response that I think sums it up for me
"And for each of those people they've decided that the fear of those things
isn't as great as their desire to help their children
to negotiate the world on their own terms."
Thank you for that!
Michelle/Czarena
________________________________
From: Schuyler
Kimberly Lenora Stansfied
Kids choosing what to eat based on pantries stocked in fear or personal diet failures is not any choice at all. These moms seem to still say, "I know best- I'll stock the pantry and keep you from learning about desire, want, enjoyment, control. Nevermind darling, I'll just adequately describe to you what gas, nausea, acne feel like and I'll tell you based on my personal experience which foods will do what to your body."
On Dec 6, 2010, at 5:50 PM, Kelly Lovejoy <kbcdlovejo@...> wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Diane Targovnik <dianetargovnik@...>
>
> See this is where anxiety meets my checkbook and general thoughts of
> food. I just don't have pringles and kook aid in the house. They are
> processed foods and with no redeeming qualities (I assume pringles has
> MSG and food dye. Kool aid also with food dye).
> -=-=-=-=-
> Joy has no redeeming value in your home? Bummer.
> -=-=-=-=-=-
> When we go out I let
> my daughter choose her food and we talk about her choices. But she can
> get what she wants.
> -=-=-=-=-=-
> But her choices are questioned? Must she justify her decisions?
> -=-=-=-
>
> But at home I buy only stuff that is good for our bodies (and yes it
> is my definition of "good"). And stuff I feel comfortable with her
> eating... I also do this because if there is non-healthy food in the
> house I will eat it. And I don't want to. My two cents
>
> -=-=-=-
>
> I'm sorry that you aren't as strong or powerful as a can of Pringles. Is that what you want for your daughter?
>
> My unschooled kid can beat up your can of Pringles AND your pitcher of Kool-aid.
>
> ~Kelly
>
> Kelly Lovejoy
> "There is no single effort more radical in its potential for saving the world than a transformation of the way we raise our children." Marianne Williamson
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Schuyler
If you look at those phrases in context and with a layer of kindness placed on
the tone, you will see they aren't nearly as harsh or as rude as you think they
are.
Kelly is loud and funny and joking. Her comment about her unschooled kid beating
up your can of Pringles and your pitcher of Kool-aid is about how not powerless
they are in the face of those food choices. The OP wrote that she couldn't have
certain food in her house because of her own inability to not eat it. Kelly's
response was about how those foods don't become the center of her unschooled
kid's world when they enter into the house. I honestly don't think rude is at
all what she was intending.
Saying that pringles and kool-aid are poisonous is a lie. Or it's a lie on the
same level as saying that water is poisonous. Water can kill you if you drink to
much, you drown internally. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication says
"Water can be considered a poison when over-consumed just like any other
substance" although I think that's a strange use of the word poison. Probably no
more strange than saying that pringles or kool-aid are poisonous though.
And it is fear-mongering to talk about things as poison that aren't. To share a
fear that isn't based in fact, to try and rally folks round to get them to be
more afraid of something than they already are. It is a kind of Chicken Little
approach to food. The sky isn't falling. I don't even have ceiling in my soup.
Oh, and it is always okay to leave the stuff that doesn't appeal to you. The
discussions on this list are about moving toward a greater understanding of
unschooling. Lots of folks have different ways of approaching how they do that.
Some offer more help to some people than do others and the alternate. What may
not work for you may have caused someone to snort their tea out with laughter
and gotten them to see something they hadn't seen before.
Schuyler
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
the tone, you will see they aren't nearly as harsh or as rude as you think they
are.
Kelly is loud and funny and joking. Her comment about her unschooled kid beating
up your can of Pringles and your pitcher of Kool-aid is about how not powerless
they are in the face of those food choices. The OP wrote that she couldn't have
certain food in her house because of her own inability to not eat it. Kelly's
response was about how those foods don't become the center of her unschooled
kid's world when they enter into the house. I honestly don't think rude is at
all what she was intending.
Saying that pringles and kool-aid are poisonous is a lie. Or it's a lie on the
same level as saying that water is poisonous. Water can kill you if you drink to
much, you drown internally. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication says
"Water can be considered a poison when over-consumed just like any other
substance" although I think that's a strange use of the word poison. Probably no
more strange than saying that pringles or kool-aid are poisonous though.
And it is fear-mongering to talk about things as poison that aren't. To share a
fear that isn't based in fact, to try and rally folks round to get them to be
more afraid of something than they already are. It is a kind of Chicken Little
approach to food. The sky isn't falling. I don't even have ceiling in my soup.
Oh, and it is always okay to leave the stuff that doesn't appeal to you. The
discussions on this list are about moving toward a greater understanding of
unschooling. Lots of folks have different ways of approaching how they do that.
Some offer more help to some people than do others and the alternate. What may
not work for you may have caused someone to snort their tea out with laughter
and gotten them to see something they hadn't seen before.
Schuyler
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Alix deBohun
I guess I can see that, I just wish that people would be more careful with their
words online. Tone is not conveyed as well as we'd like sometimes and for
someone who is obviously not as far along the path as others it can sound ruder
than it was meant.
Kelly may be loud and funny and joking, I tend to be over sensitive about
rudeness and am always more likely to speak up for someone else than myself. And
I felt the need to stick up for someone who may or may not have needed it. Thank
you for frank and kind conversation.
Michelle/Czarena
________________________________
From: Schuyler <s.waynforth@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tue, December 7, 2010 4:12:21 AM
Subject: Re: [unschoolingbasics] Re: Has Anyone Had This Experience? - the
behavior of parents
If you look at those phrases in context and with a layer of kindness placed on
the tone, you will see they aren't nearly as harsh or as rude as you think they
are.
Kelly is loud and funny and joking. Her comment about her unschooled kid beating
up your can of Pringles and your pitcher of Kool-aid is about how not powerless
they are in the face of those food choices. The OP wrote that she couldn't have
certain food in her house because of her own inability to not eat it. Kelly's
response was about how those foods don't become the center of her unschooled
kid's world when they enter into the house. I honestly don't think rude is at
all what she was intending.
Saying that pringles and kool-aid are poisonous is a lie. Or it's a lie on the
same level as saying that water is poisonous. Water can kill you if you drink to
much, you drown internally. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication says
"Water can be considered a poison when over-consumed just like any other
substance" although I think that's a strange use of the word poison. Probably no
more strange than saying that pringles or kool-aid are poisonous though.
And it is fear-mongering to talk about things as poison that aren't. To share a
fear that isn't based in fact, to try and rally folks round to get them to be
more afraid of something than they already are. It is a kind of Chicken Little
approach to food. The sky isn't falling. I don't even have ceiling in my soup.
Oh, and it is always okay to leave the stuff that doesn't appeal to you. The
discussions on this list are about moving toward a greater understanding of
unschooling. Lots of folks have different ways of approaching how they do that.
Some offer more help to some people than do others and the alternate. What may
not work for you may have caused someone to snort their tea out with laughter
and gotten them to see something they hadn't seen before.
Schuyler
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
words online. Tone is not conveyed as well as we'd like sometimes and for
someone who is obviously not as far along the path as others it can sound ruder
than it was meant.
Kelly may be loud and funny and joking, I tend to be over sensitive about
rudeness and am always more likely to speak up for someone else than myself. And
I felt the need to stick up for someone who may or may not have needed it. Thank
you for frank and kind conversation.
Michelle/Czarena
________________________________
From: Schuyler <s.waynforth@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tue, December 7, 2010 4:12:21 AM
Subject: Re: [unschoolingbasics] Re: Has Anyone Had This Experience? - the
behavior of parents
If you look at those phrases in context and with a layer of kindness placed on
the tone, you will see they aren't nearly as harsh or as rude as you think they
are.
Kelly is loud and funny and joking. Her comment about her unschooled kid beating
up your can of Pringles and your pitcher of Kool-aid is about how not powerless
they are in the face of those food choices. The OP wrote that she couldn't have
certain food in her house because of her own inability to not eat it. Kelly's
response was about how those foods don't become the center of her unschooled
kid's world when they enter into the house. I honestly don't think rude is at
all what she was intending.
Saying that pringles and kool-aid are poisonous is a lie. Or it's a lie on the
same level as saying that water is poisonous. Water can kill you if you drink to
much, you drown internally. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication says
"Water can be considered a poison when over-consumed just like any other
substance" although I think that's a strange use of the word poison. Probably no
more strange than saying that pringles or kool-aid are poisonous though.
And it is fear-mongering to talk about things as poison that aren't. To share a
fear that isn't based in fact, to try and rally folks round to get them to be
more afraid of something than they already are. It is a kind of Chicken Little
approach to food. The sky isn't falling. I don't even have ceiling in my soup.
Oh, and it is always okay to leave the stuff that doesn't appeal to you. The
discussions on this list are about moving toward a greater understanding of
unschooling. Lots of folks have different ways of approaching how they do that.
Some offer more help to some people than do others and the alternate. What may
not work for you may have caused someone to snort their tea out with laughter
and gotten them to see something they hadn't seen before.
Schuyler
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Joyce Fetteroll
On Dec 6, 2010, at 10:04 PM, maharaashlie wrote:
relationships and joy. Some parents have decided the risks of having
some chemicals in their food is much less than the risks of
controlling their children's food.
How can some parents do that when there's so much information about
how bad some chemicals are?
First by recognizing that a massive amount of the information is
created by people who are afraid of the chemicals. And fearful people
are really good at proving their fears and not very good at being
objective.
That doesn't mean there isn't some truth buried in there but the level
of fear for some people is seen as out of proportion to the danger.
Drano is toxic. People shouldn't eat it. They'll probably die very
quickly.
If something in a food (whether it's a food chemical like the allergen
in wheat or some processing chemical) has an immediate effect, kids
can learn what makes them feel good and what makes them feel bad if
they're given the freedom to be aware of their bodies by trying
different foods out.
If something in a food takes decades to have an effect, this is not an
imminent danger. And some parents have decided the risks of control,
the risks of living in fear of food are far greater than the risks of
the chemicals. (They will provide information they believe is
important as it comes up in life but won't use it to steer their
children to make particular choices. It's information for the kids to
turn over and decide for themselves.)
Second by recognizing that over the course of a childhood, in a home
where healthy meals and snacks are provided, the amount of processed
food the child will add to that will be small and the amount of fear
and control needed to eliminate that small amount in a world where
it's readily available will be large.
away from your children.
To make keeping toxic food from your kids a priority, when it clashes
with other priorities like freedom to explore or experiencing the
guilt-free joy of a red dyed popsicle on a hot afternoon, then that
priority will need to override the others.
Every choice, even the best choices, has its pros and cons. For you
the pro of what you believe is a healthier body outweighs the
potential con of the effects of control.
For others, they're not as convinced that the potential (if any)
health benefits of avoiding processed foods outweighs the effects of
control.
You've read, I'm assuming, loads about the toxic effects of some
processed food. Don't you also want to know the toxic effects of
control so you can make an informed choice? Don't you want to know
what you're giving up to get what you believe you'll get by keeping
processed foods from your kids?
That's what people are trying to do. There's very very little written
about the effects of control on kids because it's a constant of most
children's lives. Most people don't know! They think kids act
defiantly, are contrary, selfish because they're kids.
Unschoolers, though, know differently. And we see how our kids aren't
acting like supposedly "normal" kids. We see how our teens aren't
doing the antagonistic teen rebellion thing that supposedly comes with
being a teen. Because of that special knowledge, we can help people
make more informed decisions around the idea of control.
Your certainty in the rightness of your beliefs does not negate the
effects of control. Parents want it to! They want to be able to guide
their children to the right choices and have their kids embrace those
choices because they're right choices.
But human nature doesn't work that way. A fundamentalist Christian is
absolutely certain they're right, but that certainty doesn't
automatically make me see their rightness. Their need to make me
believe makes me turn away. The more strongly someone wants me to
believe their version of truth, the more likely I am to back off.
On the other hand, if someone practices their values for themselves
and is careful to not impose them on me, if those values make them
happy, I'm more likely to be intrigued.
Kids are a special breed of person because they are more likely to
accept parents' information. (Not all kids! Some kids very much need
to decide for themselves by exploring, not by being told what's the
right decision.) So they're likely to trust us when we say Santa's
real, or that food has toxic chemicals in it, or that the positive
treatment of witches and magic in that movie will corrupt your soul.
But if our information, our decisions for our kids are a roadblock
between kids and something they find intriguing, they start feeling
the control in our "help" to help them be better people.
Whether you're right about the toxicity of chemicals in processed
food, or where a soul goes if someone hasn't accepted Jesus as their
personal savior, or the ability of TV to zombify brains, it still
feels like control to the one who doesn't have the freedom to choose
and explore according to their own interests.
Control has some potentially negative consequences. I listed some
before (they're below). Here some others. You can dismiss them if you
wish. You can decide they're not as bad as the chemicals in processed
food. But this list is about supporting people who want to put
relationships and joy and freedom to explore first and then want to
figure out how to fit the rest of life around that. Who want to figure
out how to hold strong beliefs without interfering with their
children's free explorations.
Controlling food or anything that most people have ready access to
like books and movies has some special potential negative
consequences. Kids will see other kids and adults eating the
supposedly toxic foods and watching the supposedly toxic movies who
are not showing negative effects and:
1) decide their parents are full of whooey and start taking their
advice with a big load of salt.
2) be afraid for those people and want to tell them how they're
damaging themselves. (Unschooling parents have had fundamentalist
Christian kids say their kids are going to Hell because they read
Harry Potter.)
3) be afraid the world is too complex and they're too ignorant to
figure out what is safe so need experts to tell them. (Which is
similar to 4 below but slightly different.)
Here's the ones I listed before:
1) Kids can learn to sneak. If there's something they really want and
you're a roadblock between them and it, they're put in a position of
needing to find a way around you.
2) Kids can be so irritated by the control, they choose to go the
opposite way "just because". The goal becomes choosing the opposite of
what the parent wants, regardless of the negative effects. (This is
the root cause of teen rebellion. When there is no control. when kids
trust their parents are on their side trying to find safe, respectful
doable ways to get what they want, rebellion doesn't exist.)
3) Control focuses attention on what can't be had, elevating its
importance. Freely accessible Pringles are not nearly as desirable as
forbidden Pringles. I can have as many Pringles as I want. I had a
fair number of them as a child. As an adult, I don't want them.
4) Kids can tune out their own inner voices in favor of experts who
know what's best for them.
kids to foods you believe is natural/healthful can only be done
through control.
You can control "nicely" by explaining why but it's still control. (If
your husband patiently explained why your favorite genre of novels
were bad for you every time you wanted one, it wouldn't feel like
enlightenment. It would feel like control.) Depending on the child's
personality, they may feel the "nice" control more strongly than more
compliant kids. But even "nice" control will have negative effects.
You may decide the negative effects are worth it but that doesn't mean
they won't be there.
You might find a list about natural living suits you better. Some
people confuse unschooling with natural living and get further
confused when unschoolers talk about processed foods, TV and video
games. If someone's priority is natural living, then *natural
learning* can be part of that. But if someone's priority is
unschooling, then freedom to explore will take precedence when a child
wants an Oreo or HoHo or Pringles. (Unschoolers who are into natural
foods will choose natural foods as the foundation of the food in their
home but support their children's explorations into other foods by
adding their children's choices to the home rather than seeing it as
an either/or situation.)
BTW the ingredients of Pringles are:
DRIED POTATOES, VEGETABLE OIL (CONTAINS ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING:
CORN OIL, COTTONSEED OIL, SOYBEAN OIL, AND/OR SUNFLOWER OIL), RICE
FLOUR, WHEAT STARCH, MALTODEXTRIN, SALT AND DEXTROSE.
Joyce
> I bring to the table something that seems to be going ignored here.It's not being ignored. It's being given a lower priority than
> The truth of what IS in some of our foods that so many people do not
> want to notice as hazardous to human health.
relationships and joy. Some parents have decided the risks of having
some chemicals in their food is much less than the risks of
controlling their children's food.
How can some parents do that when there's so much information about
how bad some chemicals are?
First by recognizing that a massive amount of the information is
created by people who are afraid of the chemicals. And fearful people
are really good at proving their fears and not very good at being
objective.
That doesn't mean there isn't some truth buried in there but the level
of fear for some people is seen as out of proportion to the danger.
Drano is toxic. People shouldn't eat it. They'll probably die very
quickly.
If something in a food (whether it's a food chemical like the allergen
in wheat or some processing chemical) has an immediate effect, kids
can learn what makes them feel good and what makes them feel bad if
they're given the freedom to be aware of their bodies by trying
different foods out.
If something in a food takes decades to have an effect, this is not an
imminent danger. And some parents have decided the risks of control,
the risks of living in fear of food are far greater than the risks of
the chemicals. (They will provide information they believe is
important as it comes up in life but won't use it to steer their
children to make particular choices. It's information for the kids to
turn over and decide for themselves.)
Second by recognizing that over the course of a childhood, in a home
where healthy meals and snacks are provided, the amount of processed
food the child will add to that will be small and the amount of fear
and control needed to eliminate that small amount in a world where
it's readily available will be large.
> How do we care for our children and allow them the freedom to eatIf you're absolutely certain some foods are toxic then you keep those
> what we know is simply toxic?
away from your children.
To make keeping toxic food from your kids a priority, when it clashes
with other priorities like freedom to explore or experiencing the
guilt-free joy of a red dyed popsicle on a hot afternoon, then that
priority will need to override the others.
Every choice, even the best choices, has its pros and cons. For you
the pro of what you believe is a healthier body outweighs the
potential con of the effects of control.
For others, they're not as convinced that the potential (if any)
health benefits of avoiding processed foods outweighs the effects of
control.
You've read, I'm assuming, loads about the toxic effects of some
processed food. Don't you also want to know the toxic effects of
control so you can make an informed choice? Don't you want to know
what you're giving up to get what you believe you'll get by keeping
processed foods from your kids?
That's what people are trying to do. There's very very little written
about the effects of control on kids because it's a constant of most
children's lives. Most people don't know! They think kids act
defiantly, are contrary, selfish because they're kids.
Unschoolers, though, know differently. And we see how our kids aren't
acting like supposedly "normal" kids. We see how our teens aren't
doing the antagonistic teen rebellion thing that supposedly comes with
being a teen. Because of that special knowledge, we can help people
make more informed decisions around the idea of control.
Your certainty in the rightness of your beliefs does not negate the
effects of control. Parents want it to! They want to be able to guide
their children to the right choices and have their kids embrace those
choices because they're right choices.
But human nature doesn't work that way. A fundamentalist Christian is
absolutely certain they're right, but that certainty doesn't
automatically make me see their rightness. Their need to make me
believe makes me turn away. The more strongly someone wants me to
believe their version of truth, the more likely I am to back off.
On the other hand, if someone practices their values for themselves
and is careful to not impose them on me, if those values make them
happy, I'm more likely to be intrigued.
Kids are a special breed of person because they are more likely to
accept parents' information. (Not all kids! Some kids very much need
to decide for themselves by exploring, not by being told what's the
right decision.) So they're likely to trust us when we say Santa's
real, or that food has toxic chemicals in it, or that the positive
treatment of witches and magic in that movie will corrupt your soul.
But if our information, our decisions for our kids are a roadblock
between kids and something they find intriguing, they start feeling
the control in our "help" to help them be better people.
Whether you're right about the toxicity of chemicals in processed
food, or where a soul goes if someone hasn't accepted Jesus as their
personal savior, or the ability of TV to zombify brains, it still
feels like control to the one who doesn't have the freedom to choose
and explore according to their own interests.
Control has some potentially negative consequences. I listed some
before (they're below). Here some others. You can dismiss them if you
wish. You can decide they're not as bad as the chemicals in processed
food. But this list is about supporting people who want to put
relationships and joy and freedom to explore first and then want to
figure out how to fit the rest of life around that. Who want to figure
out how to hold strong beliefs without interfering with their
children's free explorations.
Controlling food or anything that most people have ready access to
like books and movies has some special potential negative
consequences. Kids will see other kids and adults eating the
supposedly toxic foods and watching the supposedly toxic movies who
are not showing negative effects and:
1) decide their parents are full of whooey and start taking their
advice with a big load of salt.
2) be afraid for those people and want to tell them how they're
damaging themselves. (Unschooling parents have had fundamentalist
Christian kids say their kids are going to Hell because they read
Harry Potter.)
3) be afraid the world is too complex and they're too ignorant to
figure out what is safe so need experts to tell them. (Which is
similar to 4 below but slightly different.)
Here's the ones I listed before:
1) Kids can learn to sneak. If there's something they really want and
you're a roadblock between them and it, they're put in a position of
needing to find a way around you.
2) Kids can be so irritated by the control, they choose to go the
opposite way "just because". The goal becomes choosing the opposite of
what the parent wants, regardless of the negative effects. (This is
the root cause of teen rebellion. When there is no control. when kids
trust their parents are on their side trying to find safe, respectful
doable ways to get what they want, rebellion doesn't exist.)
3) Control focuses attention on what can't be had, elevating its
importance. Freely accessible Pringles are not nearly as desirable as
forbidden Pringles. I can have as many Pringles as I want. I had a
fair number of them as a child. As an adult, I don't want them.
4) Kids can tune out their own inner voices in favor of experts who
know what's best for them.
> This is not "fear-mongering"! As I said, If you do not agree withBecause natural learning is about discovering for one's self. Limiting
> this Look it up. Aren't we all about natural here when it comes to
> growth of the human mind, etc? I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT DOESN'T GO
> HAND IN HAND.
kids to foods you believe is natural/healthful can only be done
through control.
You can control "nicely" by explaining why but it's still control. (If
your husband patiently explained why your favorite genre of novels
were bad for you every time you wanted one, it wouldn't feel like
enlightenment. It would feel like control.) Depending on the child's
personality, they may feel the "nice" control more strongly than more
compliant kids. But even "nice" control will have negative effects.
You may decide the negative effects are worth it but that doesn't mean
they won't be there.
You might find a list about natural living suits you better. Some
people confuse unschooling with natural living and get further
confused when unschoolers talk about processed foods, TV and video
games. If someone's priority is natural living, then *natural
learning* can be part of that. But if someone's priority is
unschooling, then freedom to explore will take precedence when a child
wants an Oreo or HoHo or Pringles. (Unschoolers who are into natural
foods will choose natural foods as the foundation of the food in their
home but support their children's explorations into other foods by
adding their children's choices to the home rather than seeing it as
an either/or situation.)
BTW the ingredients of Pringles are:
DRIED POTATOES, VEGETABLE OIL (CONTAINS ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING:
CORN OIL, COTTONSEED OIL, SOYBEAN OIL, AND/OR SUNFLOWER OIL), RICE
FLOUR, WHEAT STARCH, MALTODEXTRIN, SALT AND DEXTROSE.
Joyce
Joyce Fetteroll
On Dec 7, 2010, at 6:29 AM, Alix deBohun wrote:
What's useful for the list is recognizing that people have different
styles of learning so different approaches will help different people.
Some people appreciate the blunt, no nonsense answers.
What's helpful for people reading is understanding that replies are
directed at the ideas put onto the list not to people. The responses
should be (potentially, depending on their learning style) useful even
to someone reading in the archives 5 years from now.
The purpose of the list is not to support people where they are but to
support the gathering of clear, honest information about unschooling
that anyone can dip into and use. The purpose is to focus on the
children's free explorations, joy and relationships with them and help
parents do that too.
It does support the efforts of those who are letting go of the old and
trying to make the new work. There's support for people working
through their fears. There isn't support for people who want to hold
onto their fears because that gets in the way of helping the people
the list is targeted at: the people trying to do the hard work of
changing.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> These kind of comments are (admittedly in my opinion) not helpful,And some will find other writings not helpful.
> completely
> unnecessary and quite rude.
What's useful for the list is recognizing that people have different
styles of learning so different approaches will help different people.
Some people appreciate the blunt, no nonsense answers.
What's helpful for people reading is understanding that replies are
directed at the ideas put onto the list not to people. The responses
should be (potentially, depending on their learning style) useful even
to someone reading in the archives 5 years from now.
The purpose of the list is not to support people where they are but to
support the gathering of clear, honest information about unschooling
that anyone can dip into and use. The purpose is to focus on the
children's free explorations, joy and relationships with them and help
parents do that too.
It does support the efforts of those who are letting go of the old and
trying to make the new work. There's support for people working
through their fears. There isn't support for people who want to hold
onto their fears because that gets in the way of helping the people
the list is targeted at: the people trying to do the hard work of
changing.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Momma
If MSG is a concern for you you really need to do some research. MSG is a naturally occurring amino acid, it is not a chemical mixed up in a lab somewhere. It is found naturally in many of the foods we eat, like hard cheeses. Yes, it enhances the flavor of food and that is why it is used. You need to do your own research about things and not believe everything you hear. That is very dangerous because you perpetuate ignorance.
Aubrey
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Aubrey
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]