reactions to food, and reactions to reactions
[email protected]
Given that a minute number of people might die from eating peanut butter or a
bee or wheat, discussing kids who are unlikely to face death in the
neighbor's fridge, I want to say that discussions which go to the total edges
of extremism don't do much good for those people still in the middle.
There are moms (I could name some and give you their addresses but that would
be SO tacky, and anyway you can probably name as many yourself) who kind of
make up food allergies, or maybe have evil foods marked as magic sacrificial
foods. It makes them feel like better parents to say no, and so they say no
in odd and arbitrary ways, sighing and rolling their eyes. It happens not
just with foods. Sometimes TV. Sometimes not playing with kids from a
certain other town, or neighborhood, or religion.
We have moms say loudly and with feeling in homeschooling group meetings
things like "OH, if Bubba has soda he'll get hyper" or "No more sugar,
Trixie, you'll never calm down." But we KNOW these kids, and sugar and soda
aren't their problem. Maybe they have to say "MOM" five times with
increasing volume to get their mom's attention. Maybe other people have to
come in TWICE and say "Bubba fell down," or whatever. But if the mom can
find something to blame the situation on and say the noise is escalating
because that new other new family brought donuts, instead of thinking maybe
the kids are getting more attention from donuts than their moms, that's
easier. And they calm right down from having found their scapegoat. Someone
else; a substance.
I had a friend who was not the most honest of people. She admitted to it and
said she was trying to get better. She told me that her son wasn't allergic
to milk at all, but she had told some people he was, just because she didn't
want them giving him ice cream or cereal. It seemed more dramatic and
scientific and fair to say (dishonestly) "lactose intolerant" than "I eat
sugar all the time but I don't want him to have much." Then a few months
later I was babysitting him and she told me when she left, "He's allergic to
milk." I ignored it; he was fine. People who are liars need to learn to
keep their stories straight.
Twin friends of mine moved to Los Alamos from Espanola when we were 13. My
cousin and I had hung out with them weekly or better. It's 18 miles,
physically, but a thousand socially. The mom said they couldn't come to our
house anymore, but we could go to theirs. We lived in the poor "Mexican
town" (only in Los Alamos did anyone use that term in northern New Mexico)
and it just wasn't safe.
Huh. We went once, for an overnighter, and no more. We lived in an old
adobe farmhouse, with a big yard to play in, and a parent always home. At
their house, they lived in an old two-story quad barracks thing and the kids
nearly set it on fire while we were there putting a skirt over the lamp to
keep the light low. They didn't have any that night, but they talked about
having smoked dope (something we had never seen yet in the poor town down the
hill, but these kids had bought freely from other moneyed anglo kids in their
neighborhood). So I quit visiting that safe "better" town and the girls
never ever came to visit us. But golly their mom felt like a really great
mom.
Too much of what passes as responsible parenting in some families is
arbitrary superstitious prejudice. Parents want to feel better about their
parenting, and they care more about that than they care about really, truly
looking at the world through their child's eyes, and about being open to
really examining their own prejudices and beliefs. Saying NO is way easier
in some families than saying yes, and often "NO" is wrapped in justifications
and excuses which are so flimsy that even little kids see them as falsehood.
And that erodes trust between child and parent, and it erodes the child's
faith in the parents' judgement and veracity.
So in a family in which there is a true food allergy, it's worth those
parents remembering that they are in the company of others who say "food
allergy" when it's not really that at all. Or others' kids are kept from a
food just in case that's the cause of their hives or excema or snotty nose or
whatever, and they suffer more stress from the deprivation than they would
from the actual symptoms.
We share the reputation with other homeschoolers, whether we punish our
children with a rod for looking out the kitchen window instead of studying
creation science or not. It's not fair to deny truths around us.
The suggestion seemed to being made here that those of us who allow our
children freedom to choose whatever foods they want would risk their lives
about it. I don't think it was rhetorically valid as an argument.
Unschooling might be a HORRIBLE choice for some families, totally unworkable,
some kids (for whatever mental or social reasons) might NEVER hang out at
home reading and playing and learning. And in those families, unschooling
would not work. But this is an unschooling list. And so it's totally
reasonable for us to assume that readers are unschoolers or would like to be.
And I don't think it's unreasonable to assume along with that that if we
talk about foods we're talking about average homeschooled kids without big
allergies.
I don't think an entire school should be stripped of peanuts for two kids.
I don't think this list should be stripped of discussions about allowing kids
freedom, because a kid's mom might be exposed to something that would be
dangerous to her child if she tried it.
Nobody's going to scrape peanut butter, or an idea, off their keyboard and
die. (Or if they do, the peanut butter will not have arrived by e-mail.)
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
bee or wheat, discussing kids who are unlikely to face death in the
neighbor's fridge, I want to say that discussions which go to the total edges
of extremism don't do much good for those people still in the middle.
There are moms (I could name some and give you their addresses but that would
be SO tacky, and anyway you can probably name as many yourself) who kind of
make up food allergies, or maybe have evil foods marked as magic sacrificial
foods. It makes them feel like better parents to say no, and so they say no
in odd and arbitrary ways, sighing and rolling their eyes. It happens not
just with foods. Sometimes TV. Sometimes not playing with kids from a
certain other town, or neighborhood, or religion.
We have moms say loudly and with feeling in homeschooling group meetings
things like "OH, if Bubba has soda he'll get hyper" or "No more sugar,
Trixie, you'll never calm down." But we KNOW these kids, and sugar and soda
aren't their problem. Maybe they have to say "MOM" five times with
increasing volume to get their mom's attention. Maybe other people have to
come in TWICE and say "Bubba fell down," or whatever. But if the mom can
find something to blame the situation on and say the noise is escalating
because that new other new family brought donuts, instead of thinking maybe
the kids are getting more attention from donuts than their moms, that's
easier. And they calm right down from having found their scapegoat. Someone
else; a substance.
I had a friend who was not the most honest of people. She admitted to it and
said she was trying to get better. She told me that her son wasn't allergic
to milk at all, but she had told some people he was, just because she didn't
want them giving him ice cream or cereal. It seemed more dramatic and
scientific and fair to say (dishonestly) "lactose intolerant" than "I eat
sugar all the time but I don't want him to have much." Then a few months
later I was babysitting him and she told me when she left, "He's allergic to
milk." I ignored it; he was fine. People who are liars need to learn to
keep their stories straight.
Twin friends of mine moved to Los Alamos from Espanola when we were 13. My
cousin and I had hung out with them weekly or better. It's 18 miles,
physically, but a thousand socially. The mom said they couldn't come to our
house anymore, but we could go to theirs. We lived in the poor "Mexican
town" (only in Los Alamos did anyone use that term in northern New Mexico)
and it just wasn't safe.
Huh. We went once, for an overnighter, and no more. We lived in an old
adobe farmhouse, with a big yard to play in, and a parent always home. At
their house, they lived in an old two-story quad barracks thing and the kids
nearly set it on fire while we were there putting a skirt over the lamp to
keep the light low. They didn't have any that night, but they talked about
having smoked dope (something we had never seen yet in the poor town down the
hill, but these kids had bought freely from other moneyed anglo kids in their
neighborhood). So I quit visiting that safe "better" town and the girls
never ever came to visit us. But golly their mom felt like a really great
mom.
Too much of what passes as responsible parenting in some families is
arbitrary superstitious prejudice. Parents want to feel better about their
parenting, and they care more about that than they care about really, truly
looking at the world through their child's eyes, and about being open to
really examining their own prejudices and beliefs. Saying NO is way easier
in some families than saying yes, and often "NO" is wrapped in justifications
and excuses which are so flimsy that even little kids see them as falsehood.
And that erodes trust between child and parent, and it erodes the child's
faith in the parents' judgement and veracity.
So in a family in which there is a true food allergy, it's worth those
parents remembering that they are in the company of others who say "food
allergy" when it's not really that at all. Or others' kids are kept from a
food just in case that's the cause of their hives or excema or snotty nose or
whatever, and they suffer more stress from the deprivation than they would
from the actual symptoms.
We share the reputation with other homeschoolers, whether we punish our
children with a rod for looking out the kitchen window instead of studying
creation science or not. It's not fair to deny truths around us.
The suggestion seemed to being made here that those of us who allow our
children freedom to choose whatever foods they want would risk their lives
about it. I don't think it was rhetorically valid as an argument.
Unschooling might be a HORRIBLE choice for some families, totally unworkable,
some kids (for whatever mental or social reasons) might NEVER hang out at
home reading and playing and learning. And in those families, unschooling
would not work. But this is an unschooling list. And so it's totally
reasonable for us to assume that readers are unschoolers or would like to be.
And I don't think it's unreasonable to assume along with that that if we
talk about foods we're talking about average homeschooled kids without big
allergies.
I don't think an entire school should be stripped of peanuts for two kids.
I don't think this list should be stripped of discussions about allowing kids
freedom, because a kid's mom might be exposed to something that would be
dangerous to her child if she tried it.
Nobody's going to scrape peanut butter, or an idea, off their keyboard and
die. (Or if they do, the peanut butter will not have arrived by e-mail.)
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Kathy
How is this so personal for someone with no personal experience?
I think this topic is being seen as an attack on personal freedom.
I
want to preverve personal freedom in the freedom of
choice.
If we don't know our choices, we have none. If we don't hear that
food
reactions are a possible cause of some peoples' real illness, then we
cannot explore the possibility for ourselves.
I want to add a few ideas to Sandra's post. I am the K, and Sandra is
the S.
I think this topic is being seen as an attack on personal freedom.
I
want to preverve personal freedom in the freedom of
choice.
If we don't know our choices, we have none. If we don't hear that
food
reactions are a possible cause of some peoples' real illness, then we
cannot explore the possibility for ourselves.
I want to add a few ideas to Sandra's post. I am the K, and Sandra is
the S.
--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., SandraDodd@a... wrote:
S- "> Given that a minute number of people might die from eating
peanut
butter or a
> bee or wheat, discussing kids who are unlikely to face death in the
> neighbor's fridge, I want to say that discussions which go to the
total edges
> of extremism don't do much good for those people still in the
middle."
K- I agree. The complete dismissal of any real problems based on the
percieved inconsistancies of a few aquaintances is a bit extreme. Not
helpful at all for people in the middle, and a little damaging to the
few that are really experiencing troubles with foods and not believed.
S: "> There are moms (I could name some and give you their addresses
but that would
> be SO tacky, and anyway you can probably name as many yourself) who
kind of
> make up food allergies, or maybe have evil foods marked as magic
sacrificial
> foods. It makes them feel like better parents to say no, and so
they say no
> in odd and arbitrary ways, sighing and rolling their eyes. It
happens not
> just with foods. Sometimes TV. Sometimes not playing with kids
from a
> certain other town, or neighborhood, or religion."
K- Do you know any of these people well enough to ask their reasons
behind their choices? Are you upset by their human inconsistancy, the
fact that you disagree with their choices, or by their method of
expresing disaproval?
S-"> We have moms say loudly and with feeling in homeschooling group
meetings
> things like "OH, if Bubba has soda he'll get hyper" or "No more
sugar,
> Trixie, you'll never calm down." But we KNOW these kids, and sugar
and soda
> aren't their problem."
K- Are any of them close friends enough to you for you to see the
real
reactions of their kids on or off the foods? Do you only see them on
the days that there is a large gathering of people with lots of
excited
kids, and the mom wants to visit and hopes her kids will just play. I
agree that that's not an ideal approach to parenting. Many times I
supervise all the kids while other moms play, because it helps the
moms
relax for once. Saying something "loudly and with feeling" might be
asking for help, information or support, but I don't think ridicule
is
a helpful path.
S-"Maybe they have to say "MOM" five times with
> increasing volume to get their mom's attention. Maybe other people
have to
> come in TWICE and say "Bubba fell down," or whatever. But if the
mom can
> find something to blame the situation on and say the noise is
escalating
> because that new other new family brought donuts, instead of
thinking maybe
> the kids are getting more attention from donuts than their moms,
that's
> easier. And they calm right down from having found their
scapegoat. Someone
> else; a substance."
K- I agree that there are moms who habitually ignore their kids, and
that the kids get desparate for attention. Even times when otherwise
attentive moms are engrossed and ignore their kids. This doesn't
prove
or disprove the idea that the donuts could be part of the problem for
some families.
Here is my own anecdotal evidence on the topic of food at meetings
affecting the kids' behavior. I was at a La Leche League meeting a
few
years back, and all the kids were playing pretty well until it was
snack time. I saw someone's sweet tempered 2yo daughter and 4yo son
fade into tears, agitation, red cheeks, and fighting a few minutes
after they ate some cookies. That is not scientific, purely
empirical.
Just an observation.
S-"> I had a friend who was not the most honest of people. She
admitted
to it and
> said she was trying to get better. She told me that her son wasn't
allergic
> to milk at all, but she had told some people he was, just because
she didn't
> want them giving him ice cream or cereal. It seemed more dramatic
and
> scientific and fair to say (dishonestly) "lactose intolerant" than
"I eat
> sugar all the time but I don't want him to have much." Then a few
months
> later I was babysitting him and she told me when she left, "He's
allergic to
> milk." I ignored it; he was fine. People who are liars need to
learn to
> keep their stories straight."
K- Did you lie to her and say you would follow, or had followed, her
instructions? Why is your idea about his health more important than
keeping your word to her? Your brief observation that he was fine is
not the final word. Reactions can take hours or days to develop.
Maybe
he has no sensitivity to it at all, but maybe she was trying an
elimination diet. OK too many maybes for this instance, but I say the
decision was not yours to make.
I would like people to be as clear as they can without lying.
Sometimes
people might feel forced to lie and use more recognizable terms like
"lactose intolerant" to sound official if they feel that others will
not take their request for "no sugar" seriously. I don't think that's
a
useful approach and can actually damage your cause. I think it's hard
for parents who want better for their kids than what they do for
themselves. Wanting him to give up sugar but unwilling or able to do
it
herself. I think that comes back to addiction. Yeah everythings all
about addiction with me. Really though, if she's adddicted to sugar,
but doesn't want him to be also. It can be hard to live the life you
want to teach.
S-"> Twin friends of mine moved to Los Alamos from Espanola when we
were 13. My
> cousin and I had hung out with them weekly or better. It's 18
miles,
> physically, but a thousand socially. The mom said they couldn't
come to our
> house anymore, but we could go to theirs. We lived in the poor
"Mexican
> town" (only in Los Alamos did anyone use that term in northern New
Mexico)
> and it just wasn't safe.
>
> Huh. We went once, for an overnighter, and no more. We lived in
an old
> adobe farmhouse, with a big yard to play in, and a parent always
home. At
> their house, they lived in an old two-story quad barracks thing and
the kids
> nearly set it on fire while we were there putting a skirt over the
lamp to
> keep the light low. They didn't have any that night, but they
talked about
> having smoked dope (something we had never seen yet in the poor
town down the
> hill, but these kids had bought freely from other moneyed anglo
kids in their
> neighborhood). So I quit visiting that safe "better" town and the
girls
> never ever came to visit us. But golly their mom felt like a
really great
> mom."
K- I'm not sure how this relates to food allergies. Was that about
control? That the mom was controlling of social apperances yet not of
drugs. Or about poor parenting? Or your own regretted misjudgement of
the friends because of their drug use? Or what?
S-"> Too much of what passes as responsible parenting in some
families
is
> arbitrary superstitious prejudice. Parents want to feel better
about their
> parenting, and they care more about that than they care about
really, truly
> looking at the world through their child's eyes, and about being
open to
> really examining their own prejudices and beliefs. Saying NO is
way easier
> in some families than saying yes, and often "NO" is wrapped in
justifications
> and excuses which are so flimsy that even little kids see them as
falsehood.
> And that erodes trust between child and parent, and it erodes the
child's
> faith in the parents' judgement and veracity.
>
> So in a family in which there is a true food allergy, it's worth
those
> parents remembering that they are in the company of others who say
"food
> allergy" when it's not really that at all.
K- We are reminded of that constantly by the dismissal and doubt. By
the many who question our parenting as being arbitrary and
controlling
instead of just accepting that we are just trying to work out what
really is a problem for us or not. I would be helpful for others to
keep an open mind that it could be real.
S-"Or others' kids are kept from a
> food just in case that's the cause of their hives or excema or
snotty nose or
> whatever, and they suffer more stress from the deprivation than
they would
> from the actual symptoms."
K- Many parents have said that their allergic kids feel deprived and
binge, others say their kids understand and feel good about taking
care
of themselves. The binging may have more to do with addiction than
with
social deprivation. I still question why certain foods are so
socially
important and sacred anyway. Why are the things that are the worst
for
us considered treats? Maybe because they might be reserved for
special
occasions like birthdays and thanksgiving, not for everyday. If
sugary
high fat stuff was reserved for feast days instead of breakfast,
lunch,
and dinner, then there might not be an obesity epidemic in this
country.
But that of course comes back to control. I agree that the best way
to
teach self control and moderation is by example. I don't buy junk
foods
because I don't want to eat them, not to punish or control my kids.
The
foods that affect us like drugs, I will not buy, frankly for the same
reason I don't buy any other drugs that make us ill. On special
occasions my kids seem ok to enjoy cake and ice cream for birthdays,
pumpkin pie at Thanksgiving. They complain afterwards of tummyaches
and
runny nose and cough, but maybe that will help them learn for
themselves.
I have tried to have any foods available all the time, but that
wasn't
working for us right now. Maybe things will change, or maybe like an
alcoholic who can never drink again, we'd be better off avoiding
certain foods completely.
S-"> We share the reputation with other homeschoolers, whether we
punish our
> children with a rod for looking out the kitchen window instead of
studying
> creation science or not. It's not fair to deny truths around us.
>
> The suggestion seemed to being made here that those of us who allow
our
> children freedom to choose whatever foods they want would risk
their lives
> about it. I don't think it was rhetorically valid as an argument."
K- The suggestion that was made is that some children have a life
threatening allergy, and if a parent who is aware of the problem
allows
them the freedom to choose whatever they want, that could be a risk
to
their life if they are not old enough to ask every question of every
food, or to have the self control to avoid it. I am all for kids
having
plenty of healthy choices of what and when and how much to eat.
Learning to develop your own choices is very important.
It's back to control and freedom again.
With freedom comes responsibility. There are different opinions about
when children are old enough for different degrees of freedom and
responsibility. All kids, families, and people are different and
things
change. I think that the best person to determine what freedoms the
child is ready for is the observant responsive guardian at first,
then
gradually as the kid gets more real experience it shifts to the kid.
That might bristle those who want to kids to have absolute freedom. I
say that as parents we make choices for the newborn and gradually do
less as they do more. Conventional parenting seems to say that the
parent dictates every choice and the child must obey. I say the lucky
parent who follows the child's true needs will raise a more
responsible
happier person. I mean needs like mutual respect, self regulation,
accomplishment, and responsibility.
You allow you kids the freedom to choose because that's what works
for
you. Anyone who experiences real problems with certain foods is free
to
choose to avoid them, and to ask that any caregiver follow that
choice
also. If you are not comfortable with that, then the honest thing to
do
is to decline to watch the kid.
S-"> Unschooling might be a HORRIBLE choice for some families,
totally
unworkable,
> some kids (for whatever mental or social reasons) might NEVER hang
out at
> home reading and playing and learning. And in those families,
unschooling
> would not work. But this is an unschooling list. And so it's
totally
> reasonable for us to assume that readers are unschoolers or would
like to be.
> And I don't think it's unreasonable to assume along with that that
if we
> talk about foods we're talking about average homeschooled kids
without big
> allergies."
K- What is your point? That we cannot discuss the possibility of any
food allergies because you feel that average kids don't have big
ones?
There are a few homeschooled kids with big allergies. There also are
homeschooled kids with allergies that are not life threatening, but
are
also real. There are homeschooled kids that may have hidden allergies
that parents could look into if they choose. There are many
homescholed
kids who have no allergies at all. I think that as curious
homeschoolers all topics can be up for discussion as they relate to
life, science, health, and personal empowerment through healthy
discussion.
S-"> I don't think an entire school should be stripped of peanuts for
two kids."
K- They are not your two kids. Peanuts are not sacred.
S-"> I don't think this list should be stripped of discussions about
allowing kids
> freedom, because a kid's mom might be exposed to something that
would be
> dangerous to her child if she tried it."
K- Whenever was that a real concern? Nowhere was it even suggested.
It
seems though that you are suggesting stripping the list of discussion
of food allergies because the average homeschooler doesn't have big
ones.
I think you mean that you feel that some posts have suggested
discussions of freedom of kids are not safe for the list, because
people with kids who have life threatening allergies might be tempted
by a discussion of allowing kids freedom, to let their kids eat
anything. I haven't seen that, nor do I think it's a real danger.
I do not want to restrict discussion. I would like it to be open and
honest. You are free to say that you feel allergies are just an
excuse
for poor parenting and restricting freedom, and I am free to suggest
that they could be real for some, and for everyone to do their own
research.
We all know that people dealing with life threatening allergies are
not
fools. They research and deal with it the best they can. They put up
with derision, dismissal, and criticism from those who have no clue.
They will not be harmed by real discussions of freedom. They actually
have a good deal more at stake than some when the issues of their
freedoms are concerned.
I understand you don't want your absolute freedom to be remotely
interferred with by anyone elses' needs, but that's not life in a
society. We are together because we look out for each other,
otherwise
I guess you could live in a remote hut completely free of any social
ties, or restrictions on your freedom.
I would miss you if you lived in a hut.
S-"> Nobody's going to scrape peanut butter, or an idea, off their
keyboard and
> die. (Or if they do, the peanut butter will not have arrived by
e-mail.)
>
> Sandra"
K- Now that's just thoughtless. In an earlier post someone said that
they admired that you "wrote from the soul". I would like to see some
of that.
Kathy B.
[email protected]
In a message dated 11/19/01 5:54:42 AM, laurawilder82@... writes:
<< Are you upset by their human inconsistancy, the
fact that you disagree with their choices, or by their method of
expresing disaproval? >>
By their dishonesty and willingness to grasp at the first reasonable
explanation and cling to it instead of REALLY looking, and thinking, and
trying things that would make their children's lives easier instead of just
making their own easier.
I didn't know this was aimed at me until I saw the rest of the post.
-=-How is this so personal for someone with no personal experience? -=-
How is "no personal experience" true? Because I don't have a child with
allergies?
-=-But we KNOW these kids, and sugar
and soda aren't their problem."
K- Are any of them close friends enough to you for you to see the
real reactions of their kids on or off the foods? -=-
Kids I've known for years, who stay at my house sometimes. Whom I've seen
with and without the alleged "cause." Yes, people I know and then others I
don't know whose moms are acting the same way. Copycat behavior. Going
with the predominant prejudiced flow.
-=-Saying something "loudly and with feeling" might be
asking for help, information or support, but I don't think ridicule
is a helpful path.-=-
I don't ridicule them, I either ignore them or get their kids in a better
social situation (outside, or in another room) so they CAN be hyper (WHY
shouldn't kids be active and loud at a playgroup?). If Holly's having fun
we stay; if not we go.
When Kirby and Marty were young we had hours-long unschooling get-togethers
at our house or the nearby park weekly, for years (until two years ago).
There are several families I've known lem peacefully and directly. They were
always looking for things to blame for normal kid behavior. Some are still
unschooling. Some are over here (the kids lots, sometimes parents) a time or
two a week.
-=-Did you lie to her and say you would follow, or had followed, her
instructions? -=-
No. (That could only be asked by someone who doesn't know me very well!)
I didn't say a word. I let him eat what he wanted to, which was very little
anyway.
-=-OK too many maybes for this instance, but I say the
decision was not yours to make.-=-
What decision? To take the mom's word that she was a liar?
To keep her son for free?
-=-I would like people to be as clear as they can without lying.-=-
It is my life's habit to be as clear as I can be and not lie.
-=-K- I'm not sure how this relates to food allergies. Was that about
control? That the mom was controlling of social apperances yet not of
drugs. Or about poor parenting? Or your own regretted misjudgement of
the friends because of their drug use? Or what?-=-
Parental short-cuts. Parental arbitrary decision designed to make them feel
like good parents. Deciding in advance what is good for your children, and
sticking to it regardless of evidence (or failing to look for evidence once
the "good" decision has been made).
About putting rules (parental decision) above kids, and putting bad logic
above living with your children in the moment.
-=- I would be helpful for others to
keep an open mind that it could be real. -=-
It's all real.
Some allergies are more real than others.
-=-Many parents have said that their allergic kids feel deprived and
binge, others say their kids understand and feel good about taking
care
of themselves. The binging may have more to do with addiction than
with
social deprivation. -=-
By this logic, any teen or adult who rejects the parental restrictions when
freedom hits and goes ahead and eats wheat or sugar has proven the parent
right! The child WAS an addict, proving that by not continuing the food ban
for life?
-=- still question why certain foods are so
socially important and sacred anyway.-=-
Look at the history of foods for this. Try to find a culture with nothing
breadlike or porridge-like (or both). See what special ingredients might be
too expensive for daily use and what is saved for celebrations. It's in
history, in the real world, in every culture.
-=-Why are the things that are the worst
for us considered treats?-=-
I don't know that that's true. There are traditional seasonal or holiday
foods that are not the worst-for-us foods. It's rarity that makes a treat,
not bodily damage.
-=-Learning to develop your own choices is very important.
It's back to control and freedom again.-=-
I don't think the unschooling list can ever get off the ideas of control and
freedom, since it's the basis of letting go of the controls of "teaching" and
schedules and deadlines and required writing and forced reading.
Without options, a child cannot learn to "develop their own choices." If the
foods are highly restricted, some children will choose to be sneaky or eat
elsewhere. They can't choose fruit over cake if there was no cake available.
A child can't clean his room by his own choice (as Marty did a few weeks
back--big reorganization) if room cleaning is mandated. If it is mandated on
a schedule, the child can ONLY "choose" by choosing not to cooperate.
My husband's family of origin set up that kind of "choice"--the "my way or
the highway" scenario. We have in full knowledge of our intent set out
never to do that to our kids.
-=-I think that the best person to determine what freedoms the
child is ready for is the observant responsive guardian at first,
then gradually as the kid gets more real experience it shifts to the kid. -=-
My mother in law still tells adults just what to do and how, and chortles
derisively at anything except "Okay! right now! Thanks!." A notable
quote--Kirby was five days or so old when she came to see him, and I asked if
she wanted to change his diaper (I thought it was a generous, friendly thing
to offer; she had been a nurse and the mother of three boys). She came back
and said bruskly with no eye contact "You have to get him circumcised."
(And don't bother to ask if I lied and said I would.)
-=-I say the lucky parent who follows the child's true needs will raise a more
responsible happier person.-=-
She was sure that her children truly needed to do what she said without
hestitation or question until they were out of her house. Guess how quickly
they were all out of her house? Navy, run-away, college in another city.
-=-You allow you kids the freedom to choose because that's what works
for you. -=-
Many families do NOT allow children choice because they don't believe it
would work, they are unwillint to try it, because they don't WANT it to work.
They like control. (TV, "schoolwork," bedtime, clothing choices, book
choices, friends, hobbies...)
-=-Anyone who experiences real problems with certain foods is free
to choose to avoid them, and to ask that any caregiver follow that
choice also. If you are not comfortable with that, then the honest thing to
do is to decline to watch the kid.-=-
I've had kids come to visit who, AFTER the parent has left says "I'm not allow
ed to watch TV," or "I'm not allowed to play with weapons" or whatever.
Fine! They can, themselves, avoid such things. But other than telling my
kids it would be nice if they did something else, I have never said "OKAY
THEN! TV ban for everyone!"
If parents want to leave their children at my house but they don't like my
rules (and I'm not talking about peanuts) they shouldn't leave them there.
If I took money to watch other people's kids then I'd negotiate. But there's
not enough money in the world to get me to lie to kids and say "You can't
have this because it's bad for you" if I don't believe it. There's not
enough money to get me to control other people's kids arbitrarily just
because the parents would like to do it but they want to go and do something
else for a while.
This culture is filled with people who DO like to boss younger people around.
Let them take the money and do it.
-=-K- What is your point? That we cannot discuss the possibility of any
food allergies because you feel that average kids don't have big
ones?
There are a few homeschooled kids with big allergies. There also are
homeschooled kids with allergies that are not life threatening, but
are
also real. There are homeschooled kids that may have hidden allergies
that parents could look into if they choose. There are many
homescholed
kids who have no allergies at all. I think that as curious
homeschoolers all topics can be up for discussion as they relate to
life, science, health, and personal empowerment through healthy
discussion.-=-
I'm thinking some people might be suffering a bad reaction to the discussion.
Who decides if it's healthy?
It seemed to me that the tone of the suggestion was more that those who allow
their children freedom (not just of food) are neglectful, but those who are
being controlling are being responsible.
Maybe there should be an unschooling with allergies list.
-=-You are free to say that you feel allergies are just an
excuse
for poor parenting and restricting freedom, and I am free to suggest
that they could be real for some, and for everyone to do their own
research.-=-
YES but I didn't say that. So you've paraphrased me wrongly and addressed
that. It's called attacking a straw man.
There are real food allergies. And there are parents who make some up, or
hope for a food allergy instead of looking for behavioral changes.
Unschooling is about changing the way we live. No two ways about that. If
some people come to it without a willingness to consider change, it's
probably not going to work for them.
-=-I guess you could live in a remote hut completely free of any social
ties, or restrictions on your freedom.
-=-I would miss you if you lived in a hut.-=-
How can you tell who lives in remote huts and who doesn't by e-mail?
I'm not free of social ties, and I arrange for my kids to have a lot of
freedom. Free to come or go, they stay here and their friends do, too. Free
to go to school or not, they don't. Free to eat what they want, they eat an
amazingly balanced diet. Free to stay up or sleep, they sleep every single
night.
-=-S-"> Nobody's going to scrape peanut butter, or an idea, off their
keyboard and die. (Or if they do, the peanut butter will not have arrived by
e-mail.)
they admired that you "wrote from the soul". I would like to see some
of that.-=-
It wasn't thoughtless in any way. If you haven't "seen some of that," you
don't know my writing well enough to decide whether it's "from the soul" or
not. And you will never know my voice well enough to be the judge of
whether I was sincere or thoughtful.
Assume I'm sincere and thoughtful, and if you're too bothered by the writing,
don't read it. I don't want to stop writing because it's disturbing two or
three of several hundred people.
Sandra
Sandra
"Everything counts."
http://expage.com/SandraDoddArticles
http://expage.com/SandraDodd
<< Are you upset by their human inconsistancy, the
fact that you disagree with their choices, or by their method of
expresing disaproval? >>
By their dishonesty and willingness to grasp at the first reasonable
explanation and cling to it instead of REALLY looking, and thinking, and
trying things that would make their children's lives easier instead of just
making their own easier.
I didn't know this was aimed at me until I saw the rest of the post.
-=-How is this so personal for someone with no personal experience? -=-
How is "no personal experience" true? Because I don't have a child with
allergies?
-=-But we KNOW these kids, and sugar
and soda aren't their problem."
K- Are any of them close friends enough to you for you to see the
real reactions of their kids on or off the foods? -=-
Kids I've known for years, who stay at my house sometimes. Whom I've seen
with and without the alleged "cause." Yes, people I know and then others I
don't know whose moms are acting the same way. Copycat behavior. Going
with the predominant prejudiced flow.
-=-Saying something "loudly and with feeling" might be
asking for help, information or support, but I don't think ridicule
is a helpful path.-=-
I don't ridicule them, I either ignore them or get their kids in a better
social situation (outside, or in another room) so they CAN be hyper (WHY
shouldn't kids be active and loud at a playgroup?). If Holly's having fun
we stay; if not we go.
When Kirby and Marty were young we had hours-long unschooling get-togethers
at our house or the nearby park weekly, for years (until two years ago).
There are several families I've known lem peacefully and directly. They were
always looking for things to blame for normal kid behavior. Some are still
unschooling. Some are over here (the kids lots, sometimes parents) a time or
two a week.
-=-Did you lie to her and say you would follow, or had followed, her
instructions? -=-
No. (That could only be asked by someone who doesn't know me very well!)
I didn't say a word. I let him eat what he wanted to, which was very little
anyway.
-=-OK too many maybes for this instance, but I say the
decision was not yours to make.-=-
What decision? To take the mom's word that she was a liar?
To keep her son for free?
-=-I would like people to be as clear as they can without lying.-=-
It is my life's habit to be as clear as I can be and not lie.
-=-K- I'm not sure how this relates to food allergies. Was that about
control? That the mom was controlling of social apperances yet not of
drugs. Or about poor parenting? Or your own regretted misjudgement of
the friends because of their drug use? Or what?-=-
Parental short-cuts. Parental arbitrary decision designed to make them feel
like good parents. Deciding in advance what is good for your children, and
sticking to it regardless of evidence (or failing to look for evidence once
the "good" decision has been made).
About putting rules (parental decision) above kids, and putting bad logic
above living with your children in the moment.
-=- I would be helpful for others to
keep an open mind that it could be real. -=-
It's all real.
Some allergies are more real than others.
-=-Many parents have said that their allergic kids feel deprived and
binge, others say their kids understand and feel good about taking
care
of themselves. The binging may have more to do with addiction than
with
social deprivation. -=-
By this logic, any teen or adult who rejects the parental restrictions when
freedom hits and goes ahead and eats wheat or sugar has proven the parent
right! The child WAS an addict, proving that by not continuing the food ban
for life?
-=- still question why certain foods are so
socially important and sacred anyway.-=-
Look at the history of foods for this. Try to find a culture with nothing
breadlike or porridge-like (or both). See what special ingredients might be
too expensive for daily use and what is saved for celebrations. It's in
history, in the real world, in every culture.
-=-Why are the things that are the worst
for us considered treats?-=-
I don't know that that's true. There are traditional seasonal or holiday
foods that are not the worst-for-us foods. It's rarity that makes a treat,
not bodily damage.
-=-Learning to develop your own choices is very important.
It's back to control and freedom again.-=-
I don't think the unschooling list can ever get off the ideas of control and
freedom, since it's the basis of letting go of the controls of "teaching" and
schedules and deadlines and required writing and forced reading.
Without options, a child cannot learn to "develop their own choices." If the
foods are highly restricted, some children will choose to be sneaky or eat
elsewhere. They can't choose fruit over cake if there was no cake available.
A child can't clean his room by his own choice (as Marty did a few weeks
back--big reorganization) if room cleaning is mandated. If it is mandated on
a schedule, the child can ONLY "choose" by choosing not to cooperate.
My husband's family of origin set up that kind of "choice"--the "my way or
the highway" scenario. We have in full knowledge of our intent set out
never to do that to our kids.
-=-I think that the best person to determine what freedoms the
child is ready for is the observant responsive guardian at first,
then gradually as the kid gets more real experience it shifts to the kid. -=-
My mother in law still tells adults just what to do and how, and chortles
derisively at anything except "Okay! right now! Thanks!." A notable
quote--Kirby was five days or so old when she came to see him, and I asked if
she wanted to change his diaper (I thought it was a generous, friendly thing
to offer; she had been a nurse and the mother of three boys). She came back
and said bruskly with no eye contact "You have to get him circumcised."
(And don't bother to ask if I lied and said I would.)
-=-I say the lucky parent who follows the child's true needs will raise a more
responsible happier person.-=-
She was sure that her children truly needed to do what she said without
hestitation or question until they were out of her house. Guess how quickly
they were all out of her house? Navy, run-away, college in another city.
-=-You allow you kids the freedom to choose because that's what works
for you. -=-
Many families do NOT allow children choice because they don't believe it
would work, they are unwillint to try it, because they don't WANT it to work.
They like control. (TV, "schoolwork," bedtime, clothing choices, book
choices, friends, hobbies...)
-=-Anyone who experiences real problems with certain foods is free
to choose to avoid them, and to ask that any caregiver follow that
choice also. If you are not comfortable with that, then the honest thing to
do is to decline to watch the kid.-=-
I've had kids come to visit who, AFTER the parent has left says "I'm not allow
ed to watch TV," or "I'm not allowed to play with weapons" or whatever.
Fine! They can, themselves, avoid such things. But other than telling my
kids it would be nice if they did something else, I have never said "OKAY
THEN! TV ban for everyone!"
If parents want to leave their children at my house but they don't like my
rules (and I'm not talking about peanuts) they shouldn't leave them there.
If I took money to watch other people's kids then I'd negotiate. But there's
not enough money in the world to get me to lie to kids and say "You can't
have this because it's bad for you" if I don't believe it. There's not
enough money to get me to control other people's kids arbitrarily just
because the parents would like to do it but they want to go and do something
else for a while.
This culture is filled with people who DO like to boss younger people around.
Let them take the money and do it.
-=-K- What is your point? That we cannot discuss the possibility of any
food allergies because you feel that average kids don't have big
ones?
There are a few homeschooled kids with big allergies. There also are
homeschooled kids with allergies that are not life threatening, but
are
also real. There are homeschooled kids that may have hidden allergies
that parents could look into if they choose. There are many
homescholed
kids who have no allergies at all. I think that as curious
homeschoolers all topics can be up for discussion as they relate to
life, science, health, and personal empowerment through healthy
discussion.-=-
I'm thinking some people might be suffering a bad reaction to the discussion.
Who decides if it's healthy?
It seemed to me that the tone of the suggestion was more that those who allow
their children freedom (not just of food) are neglectful, but those who are
being controlling are being responsible.
Maybe there should be an unschooling with allergies list.
-=-You are free to say that you feel allergies are just an
excuse
for poor parenting and restricting freedom, and I am free to suggest
that they could be real for some, and for everyone to do their own
research.-=-
YES but I didn't say that. So you've paraphrased me wrongly and addressed
that. It's called attacking a straw man.
There are real food allergies. And there are parents who make some up, or
hope for a food allergy instead of looking for behavioral changes.
Unschooling is about changing the way we live. No two ways about that. If
some people come to it without a willingness to consider change, it's
probably not going to work for them.
-=-I guess you could live in a remote hut completely free of any social
ties, or restrictions on your freedom.
-=-I would miss you if you lived in a hut.-=-
How can you tell who lives in remote huts and who doesn't by e-mail?
I'm not free of social ties, and I arrange for my kids to have a lot of
freedom. Free to come or go, they stay here and their friends do, too. Free
to go to school or not, they don't. Free to eat what they want, they eat an
amazingly balanced diet. Free to stay up or sleep, they sleep every single
night.
-=-S-"> Nobody's going to scrape peanut butter, or an idea, off their
keyboard and die. (Or if they do, the peanut butter will not have arrived by
e-mail.)
>-=-K- Now that's just thoughtless. In an earlier post someone said that
> Sandra"
they admired that you "wrote from the soul". I would like to see some
of that.-=-
It wasn't thoughtless in any way. If you haven't "seen some of that," you
don't know my writing well enough to decide whether it's "from the soul" or
not. And you will never know my voice well enough to be the judge of
whether I was sincere or thoughtful.
Assume I'm sincere and thoughtful, and if you're too bothered by the writing,
don't read it. I don't want to stop writing because it's disturbing two or
three of several hundred people.
Sandra
Sandra
"Everything counts."
http://expage.com/SandraDoddArticles
http://expage.com/SandraDodd
Diane
I actually thought it was pretty funny, and lightened the tone somewhat.
:-) Diane
:-) Diane
> S-"> Nobody's going to scrape peanut butter, or an idea, off their
> keyboard and
> > die. (Or if they do, the peanut butter will not have arrived by
> e-mail.)
> >
> > Sandra"
>
> K- Now that's just thoughtless. In an earlier post someone said that
> they admired that you "wrote from the soul". I would like to see some
> of that.
>
> Kathy B.
Fetteroll
on 11/19/01 7:53 AM, Kathy at laurawilder82@... wrote:
pressure to remember that most people won't. We can't control what others
do. We can only control ourselves. Someone can tell people here how to
behave, but they can choose to ignore the advice. And there will always be
new people coming in who haven't heard the advice. There will be people out
in the real world who haven't heard it.
And sometimes people are offering general advice as a beginning point and
others are taking it as specific rules to be applied all across the board.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> I would be helpful for others toAnd I think it's even more helpful in general and easier on the blood
> keep an open mind that it could be real.
pressure to remember that most people won't. We can't control what others
do. We can only control ourselves. Someone can tell people here how to
behave, but they can choose to ignore the advice. And there will always be
new people coming in who haven't heard the advice. There will be people out
in the real world who haven't heard it.
And sometimes people are offering general advice as a beginning point and
others are taking it as specific rules to be applied all across the board.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
<< sometimes people are offering general advice as a beginning point and
others are taking it as specific rules to be applied all across the board.
I don't think of "rules" at all in my life, but of principles.
And that is probably why unschooling isn't just about books to me (how COULD
it be, when learning is everywhere?), and why the same principle that says
it's okay if a kid of mine rejects Harry Potter and I need to not shame him
about that reactionary, stubborn stance (I'm joking in the presentation; I
don't shame them, and it IS reactionary and stubborn, which I haven't said to
them, but they know it and would say it themselves). It's okay if a child
would rather play alone than watch a movie with the rest of us.
It would be okay if one of my kids wanted to have Thanksgiving with another
family.
That has to do with my faith in them, my lack of possessive jealousy about
where they learn things or how, my confidence in their trust and awareness,
and many other factors which have come about because of my beliefs, which are
strengthened and reinforced by my children's responses to my practices.
So. When people come to talk about unschooling and they're having ANY
problems, it's worth looking at their beliefs and helping them clarify the
principles on which they want to base their unschooling.
If they want unschooling to fit in the same space and time that structured
homeschooling was fitting in, it's not going to work.
If they want unschooling to guarantee that their child is "ahead" in all
"subject areas" and gets into college "early," it's not going to work. There
are no guarantees. It's a day by day living, not a teach-to-the-test program.
If they want their children to loosen up and make "good decisions," the
first focus needs to be what the parents consider "good" and why!! The
difference between a good kid and a bad kid is often parental expectation.
So discussing the success or improvement or consideration of unschooling is
not going to be about science and math and writing at its base. It's going
to be about control and belief and thought and trust (both ways).
Sandra
others are taking it as specific rules to be applied all across the board.
>>Joyce wrote that.
I don't think of "rules" at all in my life, but of principles.
And that is probably why unschooling isn't just about books to me (how COULD
it be, when learning is everywhere?), and why the same principle that says
it's okay if a kid of mine rejects Harry Potter and I need to not shame him
about that reactionary, stubborn stance (I'm joking in the presentation; I
don't shame them, and it IS reactionary and stubborn, which I haven't said to
them, but they know it and would say it themselves). It's okay if a child
would rather play alone than watch a movie with the rest of us.
It would be okay if one of my kids wanted to have Thanksgiving with another
family.
That has to do with my faith in them, my lack of possessive jealousy about
where they learn things or how, my confidence in their trust and awareness,
and many other factors which have come about because of my beliefs, which are
strengthened and reinforced by my children's responses to my practices.
So. When people come to talk about unschooling and they're having ANY
problems, it's worth looking at their beliefs and helping them clarify the
principles on which they want to base their unschooling.
If they want unschooling to fit in the same space and time that structured
homeschooling was fitting in, it's not going to work.
If they want unschooling to guarantee that their child is "ahead" in all
"subject areas" and gets into college "early," it's not going to work. There
are no guarantees. It's a day by day living, not a teach-to-the-test program.
If they want their children to loosen up and make "good decisions," the
first focus needs to be what the parents consider "good" and why!! The
difference between a good kid and a bad kid is often parental expectation.
So discussing the success or improvement or consideration of unschooling is
not going to be about science and math and writing at its base. It's going
to be about control and belief and thought and trust (both ways).
Sandra
Kathy
Final episode on this topic for me, Sandra is of course wanted to share
her thoughts as well.
I would like to be respectful, but I am not always that bright. I do
want her to be herself, and I hope she can see that sometimes
what seems like an argument, can really be two people who agree on the
basics, but not always the terminology. We both want
thoughtful caring adults to raise independent healthy children. We
don't like hypocrites, control freaks, or labeling people (yes
joke). We want our kids to learn to make their own decisions, and for
them to decide what's best for themselves.
here goes. I am again the K, and Sandra will be played by the letter S.
S-"> How is "no personal experience" true? Because I don't have a
child with
not mentioned any personal (as in you personally) experience with food
reactions of your own. I am happy that you don't have to put up with
any of it and are free.
Your 2 cents worth of experiences with liars and control freaks then
falls ito the category of heresay, which seemed to merely echo
society's claim that it is all hogwash. You granted the some are real
and some are not. That is true of anything, yet it makes the people in
the middle even more suspicious that we just make it all up. Perhaps
research on the subject would give you more insight into the problem. I
enjoyed the book "Is This Your Child" by Doris Rapp. There are others,
but this is a good start.
Not to their face then, just on a list of 600 strangers. Of course that
was gratuitous and rude of me. Sorry. Not sorry enough to
delete it though. My bad.
well!)
except just then. My bad, again. (pretending it's humor is no
excuse for my rudeness)
wrong.
real, the searching for answers. It's hard to remember that most
people are just trying their best with what they've learned so far.
Helping is more useful than judgment. I know that people don't
always want help, but saying what works for us has given other people
freedom to consider new possibilities.
restrictions when
were right the child may bee in good physical health and really notice
that the binge made them ill. If they were wrong the child could learn
that it was not a problem after all. I guess you're upset that the
child lost all those years of making their own decisions. I agree with
that, yet I feel conflict about health and freedom. I don't think they
have to be mutually exclusive, yet I am sure the balance is possible.
Are you disagreeing with the idea of addiction? I don't really know
what I think of addiction. I am still asking lots of
questions. There are so many other issues that come up when anyone
talks about binge foods- self control, will power, stress,
social pressure. They are related but how can people stop binges?
Someone here said that they kept some of the foods in the
house and that stopped the bingeing at friends' houses. So far for us,
we just binge here instead if I do buy the foods. I am not
trying to fight with anyone. I am really asking 600 people if they have
any other thoughts on the subject besides that it doesn't
happen to sensible people. This is not a food disorders list, I know
that. It is a list of curious people though, who don't always
follow society's line, and do find their own answers.
holiday
"Treat yourself to dessert (daily), have a treat at the store (candy),
buy a treat at the movies", all over the place every day, as if you're
not normal if you avoid that stuff. If treat only meant rarity that
wouldn't be a problem. It's the on going bombardment of junk foods at
every house,
halloween/easter/christmas/valentine's candy that is passed out all
over the place, the high fat/sugar/salt diet that is most people's
idea if regular food. The idea that to avoid this kind of food is
unnatural and bad. I'm trying to keep the kids healthy enough to
learn the difference. If you're constantly in a drugged state, you
won't notice it, but if you are fine until you have the cake and ice
cream, you'll learn the connection.
choices." If the
are junk because they're just not food. They are treats that can
be had once in awhile, but not every day, every week.
My kids turn down junk sometimes, or just have a little. Not because
I'm hovering over them with a whip, but because they eat
whatever they want most of the time. I haven't made any food evil or
forbidden, just I try not to buy stuff that makes us sick. Is
that nuts? I really am still learning about all this food stuff.
If you or your own children have never binged, how do you know what's
the right thing to do about it? I don't know myself.
S-"> A child can't clean his room by his own choice (as Marty did a few
weeks
chortles
arguments that you are doing the right thing by your best
available knowledge. Sometimes I just say that (whatever) is working
well for us and we're happy thanks.
without
child's true needs are. Self control, mutual respect,
accomplishment.
Actually the Navy sounds like another place for someone to be expected
to do what they're told without hesitation or question.
Ironic. A very challenging career is the military. Many people excel
and serve with honors, and learn very useful skills.
"I'm not allow
meant no violent power rangers stuff, or that they wanted
them to play instead of veg.
I guess that you don't want to deprive anybody, or to make your kids
dread his visit. It's hard to know when to respect another
parent's wishes or not.
S-"> If parents want to leave their children at my house but they don't
like my
that there's any difference.
S-"> If I took money to watch other people's kids then I'd negotiate.
But there's
don't owe you anything if you agreed to watch the kids
for free. It doesn't make you better than them. If you don't like their
restrictions on their kids, maybe you can help nurture the
kids in other ways.
discussion.
discussion they are free to say so. That's the healthy part.
S-"> It seemed to me that the tone of the suggestion was more that
those who allow
all parents. I think that all parents, with or without allergies,
allow as much freedom as they think is safe. I hope like you do that
they will base their judgments on their own children's' needs
and abilities, not on the fears or failings of the adult.
S-"> Maybe there should be an unschooling with allergies list."
I think we are free to make one. I also think it is not necessary to
push a topic off to a separate list right away. Many things are
discussed here, even the weather. I will not keep beating this though.
The question is out there, any replies would be interesting,
but I will not ask it again.
addressed
to both of your posts. Sorry that I chucked all my feelings
together into the straw man.
mail?"
K- I can tell by the content that you are not alone in a hut with a
satellite connection. No one who writes to as many posts as you do has
any desire to be alone.
S- "> I'm not free of social ties, and I arrange for my kids to have a
lot of
old are they. What have you told them about school
that could influence their decision. I have told my kids when they
asked how I felt about my time at school. That may have
influenced them some, for better or worse.
S- "Free to eat what they want, they eat an
important to have freedom of choice. Do you cook or do they?
Do you all sit down for one meal a day? We do sometimes. Do you take
turns planning the meals, or do you just graze. We graze
alot.
S- "Free to stay up or sleep, they sleep every single
little to be up without me. We all sleep together though, so
bedtime is a nice cozy thing.
that," you
thought that you could tell by my detailed posts that I thought
you were already.
Of course you will not stop writing, I'm sure that has not been
requested.
I did expect that making a joke about people dying from peanut butter
on the keyboard would be thought of as unfeeling before
you sent it. That is what I meant about thoughtless. I am being too
literal for most, but it isn't a joke really. I suppose I have no
sense of humor for that kind of humor. It wasn't a joke about really
dying of course, but it was an "I don't care about any whiny
problems because they exaggerate everything" type of feeling. If that
was not your intent, then my apologies.
For all my verbosity it may be hard to imagine that I am quite new to
this list. I have only been on for a couple of weeks I think. I
admit that I haven't followed enough of your posts on other topics to
know your writing well at all. All I know is what I've seen
in your replies to my post.
Every list has its personalities, occasional posters, and lurkers.
I am interested in responses from others as well, but I fear they are
not interested in this continuing saga, and I have put them
off.
And so ends the Kathy show. We now return you to your regularly
scheduled programs, with the occasional weather report.
Kathy B.
her thoughts as well.
I would like to be respectful, but I am not always that bright. I do
want her to be herself, and I hope she can see that sometimes
what seems like an argument, can really be two people who agree on the
basics, but not always the terminology. We both want
thoughtful caring adults to raise independent healthy children. We
don't like hypocrites, control freaks, or labeling people (yes
joke). We want our kids to learn to make their own decisions, and for
them to decide what's best for themselves.
here goes. I am again the K, and Sandra will be played by the letter S.
S-"> How is "no personal experience" true? Because I don't have a
child with
> allergies?"K- I think that is the definition I was thinking of. Also that you have
not mentioned any personal (as in you personally) experience with food
reactions of your own. I am happy that you don't have to put up with
any of it and are free.
Your 2 cents worth of experiences with liars and control freaks then
falls ito the category of heresay, which seemed to merely echo
society's claim that it is all hogwash. You granted the some are real
and some are not. That is true of anything, yet it makes the people in
the middle even more suspicious that we just make it all up. Perhaps
research on the subject would give you more insight into the problem. I
enjoyed the book "Is This Your Child" by Doris Rapp. There are others,
but this is a good start.
> -=-Saying something "loudly and with feeling" might beS-"> I don't ridicule them,"
> asking for help, information or support, but I don't think ridicule
> is a helpful path.-=-
>
Not to their face then, just on a list of 600 strangers. Of course that
was gratuitous and rude of me. Sorry. Not sorry enough to
delete it though. My bad.
>S-"> No. (That could only be asked by someone who doesn't know me very
>k -=-Did you lie to her and say you would follow, or had followed, her
> instructions? -=-
>
well!)
> I didn't say a word."K- That is called lying by omission. Of course I have never lied,
except just then. My bad, again. (pretending it's humor is no
excuse for my rudeness)
> -=-OK too many maybes for this instance, but I say theS-"> What decision? To take the mom's word that she was a liar?
> decision was not yours to make.-=-
>
> To keep her son for free?"K- Your decision to ignore her wishes because you thought she was
wrong.
> k-=- I would be helpful for others toS-"> It's all real.
> keep an open mind that it could be real. -=-
>
>Then how is it all real if some of it is not? The confusion may be
> Some allergies are more real than others."
real, the searching for answers. It's hard to remember that most
people are just trying their best with what they've learned so far.
Helping is more useful than judgment. I know that people don't
always want help, but saying what works for us has given other people
freedom to consider new possibilities.
>S-"> By this logic, any teen or adult who rejects the parental
> k"-=-Many parents have said that their allergic kids feel deprived and
> binge, others say their kids understand and feel good about taking
> care
> of themselves. The bingeing may have more to do with addiction than
> with
> social deprivation. -=-"
>
restrictions when
> freedom hits and goes ahead and eats wheat or sugar has proven the parentK- What if the parent was right? What if the parent was wrong? If they
> right! The child WAS an addict, proving that by not continuing the food ban
> for life?"
were right the child may bee in good physical health and really notice
that the binge made them ill. If they were wrong the child could learn
that it was not a problem after all. I guess you're upset that the
child lost all those years of making their own decisions. I agree with
that, yet I feel conflict about health and freedom. I don't think they
have to be mutually exclusive, yet I am sure the balance is possible.
Are you disagreeing with the idea of addiction? I don't really know
what I think of addiction. I am still asking lots of
questions. There are so many other issues that come up when anyone
talks about binge foods- self control, will power, stress,
social pressure. They are related but how can people stop binges?
Someone here said that they kept some of the foods in the
house and that stopped the bingeing at friends' houses. So far for us,
we just binge here instead if I do buy the foods. I am not
trying to fight with anyone. I am really asking 600 people if they have
any other thoughts on the subject besides that it doesn't
happen to sensible people. This is not a food disorders list, I know
that. It is a list of curious people though, who don't always
follow society's line, and do find their own answers.
> -=-Why are the things that are the worstS-"> I don't know that that's true. There are traditional seasonal or
> for us considered treats?-=-
>
holiday
> foods that are not the worst-for-us foods. It's rarity that makes a treat,I guess I am using the word treat the way I hear it used most often.
> not bodily damage."
"Treat yourself to dessert (daily), have a treat at the store (candy),
buy a treat at the movies", all over the place every day, as if you're
not normal if you avoid that stuff. If treat only meant rarity that
wouldn't be a problem. It's the on going bombardment of junk foods at
every house,
halloween/easter/christmas/valentine's candy that is passed out all
over the place, the high fat/sugar/salt diet that is most people's
idea if regular food. The idea that to avoid this kind of food is
unnatural and bad. I'm trying to keep the kids healthy enough to
learn the difference. If you're constantly in a drugged state, you
won't notice it, but if you are fine until you have the cake and ice
cream, you'll learn the connection.
>S-"> Without options, a child cannot learn to "develop their own
choices." If the
> foods are highly restricted, some children will choose to be sneaky or eatK- I guess that I don't highly restrict foods. I don't buy things that
> elsewhere. They can't choose fruit over cake if there was no cake available."
>
are junk because they're just not food. They are treats that can
be had once in awhile, but not every day, every week.
My kids turn down junk sometimes, or just have a little. Not because
I'm hovering over them with a whip, but because they eat
whatever they want most of the time. I haven't made any food evil or
forbidden, just I try not to buy stuff that makes us sick. Is
that nuts? I really am still learning about all this food stuff.
If you or your own children have never binged, how do you know what's
the right thing to do about it? I don't know myself.
S-"> A child can't clean his room by his own choice (as Marty did a few
weeks
> back--big reorganization) if room cleaning is mandated. If it is mandated onS-"> My mother in law still tells adults just what to do and how, and
> a schedule, the child can ONLY "choose" by choosing not to cooperate.
>
> My husband's family of origin set up that kind of "choice"--the "my way or
> the highway" scenario. We have in full knowledge of our intent set out
> never to do that to our kids."
>
>K-" -=-I think that the best person to determine what freedoms the
> child is ready for is the observant responsive guardian at first,
> then gradually as the kid gets more real experience it shifts to the kid. -=-"
>
chortles
> derisively at anything except "Okay! right now! Thanks!." A notableK- I agree that some people (nosey relatives) are not moved by
> quote--Kirby was five days or so old when she came to see him, and I asked if
> she wanted to change his diaper (I thought it was a generous, friendly thing
> to offer; she had been a nurse and the mother of three boys). She came back
> and said bruskly with no eye contact "You have to get him circumcised."
>
> (And don't bother to ask if I lied and said I would.)"
arguments that you are doing the right thing by your best
available knowledge. Sometimes I just say that (whatever) is working
well for us and we're happy thanks.
>S-"> She was sure that her children truly needed to do what she said
>k-" -=-I say the lucky parent who follows the child's true needs will raise a more
> responsible happier person.-=-"
>
without
> hestitation or question until they were out of her house. Guess how quicklyK- You snipped away the part where I said what I thought a few of a
> they were all out of her house? Navy, run-away, college in another city."
child's true needs are. Self control, mutual respect,
accomplishment.
Actually the Navy sounds like another place for someone to be expected
to do what they're told without hesitation or question.
Ironic. A very challenging career is the military. Many people excel
and serve with honors, and learn very useful skills.
>S-"> I've had kids come to visit who, AFTER the parent has left says
>k" -=-Anyone who experiences real problems with certain foods is free
> to choose to avoid them, and to ask that any caregiver follow that
> choice also. If you are not comfortable with that, then the honest thing to
> do is to decline to watch the kid.-=-"
>
"I'm not allow
> ed to watch TV," or "I'm not allowed to play with weapons" or whatever.K- Why not? Is TV sacred? I don't think TV is evil. Maybe the parent
> Fine! They can, themselves, avoid such things. But other than telling my
> kids it would be nice if they did something else, I have never said "OKAY
> THEN! TV ban for everyone!"
meant no violent power rangers stuff, or that they wanted
them to play instead of veg.
I guess that you don't want to deprive anybody, or to make your kids
dread his visit. It's hard to know when to respect another
parent's wishes or not.
S-"> If parents want to leave their children at my house but they don't
like my
> rules (and I'm not talking about peanuts) they shouldn't leave them there."K- Maybe they aren't aware of that your rules come before theirs, or
that there's any difference.
S-"> If I took money to watch other people's kids then I'd negotiate.
But there's
> not enough money in the world to get me to lie to kids and say "You can'tK- Then you would not negotiate. Money has nothing to do with it. They
> have this because it's bad for you" if I don't believe it. There's not
> enough money to get me to control other people's kids arbitrarily just
> because the parents would like to do it but they want to go and do something
> else for a while."
don't owe you anything if you agreed to watch the kids
for free. It doesn't make you better than them. If you don't like their
restrictions on their kids, maybe you can help nurture the
kids in other ways.
>k-" I think that as curiousS-"> I'm thinking some people might be suffering a bad reaction to the
> homeschoolers all topics can be up for discussion as they relate to
> life, science, health, and personal empowerment through healthy
> discussion.-=-"
>
discussion.
> Who decides if it's healthy?""K- I would imagine that if anyone is suffering a bad reaction to this
discussion they are free to say so. That's the healthy part.
S-"> It seemed to me that the tone of the suggestion was more that
those who allow
> their children freedom (not just of food) are neglectful, but those who areK- My original post was about parents of children with allergies, not
> being controlling are being responsible."
all parents. I think that all parents, with or without allergies,
allow as much freedom as they think is safe. I hope like you do that
they will base their judgments on their own children's' needs
and abilities, not on the fears or failings of the adult.
S-"> Maybe there should be an unschooling with allergies list."
I think we are free to make one. I also think it is not necessary to
push a topic off to a separate list right away. Many things are
discussed here, even the weather. I will not keep beating this though.
The question is out there, any replies would be interesting,
but I will not ask it again.
>S- "> YES but I didn't say that. So you've paraphrased me wrongly and
> k "-=-You are free to say that you feel allergies are just an
> excuse
> for poor parenting and restricting freedom, and I am free to suggest
> that they could be real for some, and for everyone to do their own
> research.-=-"
>
addressed
> that. It's called attacking a straw man."K- I've addressed everything else point by point, in exhausting detail
to both of your posts. Sorry that I chucked all my feelings
together into the straw man.
>S- "> How can you tell who lives in remote huts and who doesn't by e-
> K- "-=-I guess you could live in a remote hut completely free of any social
> ties, or restrictions on your freedom.
> -=-I would miss you if you lived in a hut.-=-"
>
mail?"
K- I can tell by the content that you are not alone in a hut with a
satellite connection. No one who writes to as many posts as you do has
any desire to be alone.
S- "> I'm not free of social ties, and I arrange for my kids to have a
lot of
> freedom. Free to come or go, they stay here and their friends do, too.FreeK- I am curious, would you send your kids to school if they begged? How
> to go to school or not, they don't."
old are they. What have you told them about school
that could influence their decision. I have told my kids when they
asked how I felt about my time at school. That may have
influenced them some, for better or worse.
S- "Free to eat what they want, they eat an
> amazingly balanced diet."K- Do they shop with you and help plan the meals? I think that is
important to have freedom of choice. Do you cook or do they?
Do you all sit down for one meal a day? We do sometimes. Do you take
turns planning the meals, or do you just graze. We graze
alot.
S- "Free to stay up or sleep, they sleep every single
> night."K- Again I think that could depend on the age. Mine are still too
little to be up without me. We all sleep together though, so
bedtime is a nice cozy thing.
>S- "> It wasn't thoughtless in any way. If you haven't "seen some of
> -=-S-"> Nobody's going to scrape peanut butter, or an idea, off their
> keyboard and die. (Or if they do, the peanut butter will not have arrived by
> e-mail.)
> >
> > Sandra"
>
> -=-K- Now that's just thoughtless. In an earlier post someone said that
> they admired that you "wrote from the soul". I would like to see some
> of that.-=-
>
that," you
> don't know my writing well enough to decide whether it's "from the soul" orK- Agreed. We will both assume that we're sincere and thoughtful. I
> not. And you will never know my voice well enough to be the judge of
> whether I was sincere or thoughtful.
>
> Assume I'm sincere and thoughtful, and if you're too bothered by the writing,
> don't read it. I don't want to stop writing because it's disturbing two or
> three of several hundred people.
>
> Sandra"
thought that you could tell by my detailed posts that I thought
you were already.
Of course you will not stop writing, I'm sure that has not been
requested.
I did expect that making a joke about people dying from peanut butter
on the keyboard would be thought of as unfeeling before
you sent it. That is what I meant about thoughtless. I am being too
literal for most, but it isn't a joke really. I suppose I have no
sense of humor for that kind of humor. It wasn't a joke about really
dying of course, but it was an "I don't care about any whiny
problems because they exaggerate everything" type of feeling. If that
was not your intent, then my apologies.
For all my verbosity it may be hard to imagine that I am quite new to
this list. I have only been on for a couple of weeks I think. I
admit that I haven't followed enough of your posts on other topics to
know your writing well at all. All I know is what I've seen
in your replies to my post.
Every list has its personalities, occasional posters, and lurkers.
I am interested in responses from others as well, but I fear they are
not interested in this continuing saga, and I have put them
off.
And so ends the Kathy show. We now return you to your regularly
scheduled programs, with the occasional weather report.
Kathy B.
Helen Hegener
At 6:20 PM +0000 11/19/01, Kathy wrote:
And also FWIW, I don't recall ever seeing a post of Sandra's that
wasn't sincere and thoughtful, at least to some degree(some are
definitely more thoughtful than others <g>), and I've been reading
her posts since our old AOL days...
What's that been, 8, 10 years now? Sheesh. Where does the time go?
Helen
>I am interested in responses from others as well, but I fear they areWell, for what it's worth, I'm still here. Still reading. Still interested.
>not interested in this continuing saga, and I have put them
>off.
And also FWIW, I don't recall ever seeing a post of Sandra's that
wasn't sincere and thoughtful, at least to some degree(some are
definitely more thoughtful than others <g>), and I've been reading
her posts since our old AOL days...
What's that been, 8, 10 years now? Sheesh. Where does the time go?
Helen
[email protected]
In a message dated 11/19/01 11:23:33 AM, laurawilder82@... writes:
<< Your 2 cents worth of experiences with liars and control freaks then
falls ito the category of heresay, which seemed to merely echo
society's claim that it is all hogwash. You granted the some are real
and some are not. >>
Some ALLERGIES are real and some are not.
The friend who had the lying problem discussed it with me, SAID she was a
liar, SAID her son did not have a milk allergy, and then told me "he's
allergic to milk" once when she left him for me to keep for free. How's that
hogwash?
-=-
well!)
No that's not. That's called letting a known and admitted liar rattle on
before she drives away and I keep her kid (not the first or third time) for
free.
-=-K- Your decision to ignore her wishes because you thought she was
wrong. -=-
She can do what she wants at her house.
She can lie if she wants at my house.
-=-> k-=- I would be helpful for others to
There is a reality to some families who don't have actual allergies
villifying cake or soda or something and living their lives around it.
-=-If they were wrong the child could learn
that it was not a problem after all. I guess you're upset that the
child lost all those years of making their own decisions.-=-
Bigtime. And lost faith in the parents in the process.
-=-If you or your own children have never binged, how do you know what's
the right thing to do about it? I don't know myself. -=-
I have. I can finish a pack of orange Milanos all by myself. A box of
chocolate covered cherries, just me, just a few hours. But my kids have
never had that behavior about any food. Holly and I got boxes of candy one
day. Mine was gone in three days; hers was mostly there in three weeks.
I think it's because when I was a kid candy was rare, and counted (four
kids--things were divided by four all the time). I looked forward to being
old enough to have it when I wanted it, or looked forward to having enough
money to buy my own. My kids don't spend money on candy; it's free at the
house to them. With six people in the family, if we had donuts, that was two
apiece. You never, ever, under any circumstances ever got three. I think
that will lead to bingeing WAY more than putting two dozen donuts out and
throwing away any that get stale.
-=-K- Why not? Is TV sacred? I don't think TV is evil. Maybe the parent
meant no violent power rangers stuff, or that they wanted
them to play instead of veg. -=-
The parents were unsatisfied with controlling just their own kid, and wanted
to control me and my kids too! But didn't tell me directly (because it
would have gone over like a lead balloon), and hoped I would "respect their
wishes" as conveyed by a kid reciting rules.
Their house's rules stop around the edge of their yard.
I don't expect any other family to give my kids the freedoms and regard and
privileges they have at my house. If they go to another house with rules
about where and what and how and how much, fine! It's not my house.
-=-K- Maybe they aren't aware of that your rules come before theirs, or
that there's any difference. -=-
I'm not running a drop in daycare center. We've never had kids over before
that we didn't know already.
-=- I am curious, would you send your kids to school if they begged? How
old are they. What have you told them about school
that could influence their decision.-=-
Yes. They're 15, 13, and 9. They wouldn't even have to beg.
-=- I have told my kids when they
asked how I felt about my time at school. That may have
influenced them some, for better or worse. -=-
I told them I really loved it, but that most people don't. They all have
friends in school. Holly's visited schools.
-=-Do they shop with you and help plan the meals? I think that is
important to have freedom of choice. Do you cook or do they?
Do you all sit down for one meal a day? We do sometimes. Do you take
turns planning the meals, or do you just graze. We graze
alot.-=-
We take requests. They can go shopping if they want. Every time my husband
or I go to the store we ask each other and kids if there's anything they
need. Kirby usually requests shampoo or toiletries. Holly asks for
vegetables and fruit. Marty often says nothing, or pizza, or avocados or
chips. Mostly they say nothing, but there's usually food. If Holly runs out
of Ramen she wants more.
There's a lot of grazing, frequent casserole or crock pot stuff that's there
for whenever people come by, homemade bread that's for whoever wants it
whenever. Breakfast is the most likely formal deal (especially with company).
Holly likes to help cook, but never lasts the whole course. Very often one
person will cook for the one or two others around at the moment. No "meal
planning" on a longterm basis.
Sandra
<< Your 2 cents worth of experiences with liars and control freaks then
falls ito the category of heresay, which seemed to merely echo
society's claim that it is all hogwash. You granted the some are real
and some are not. >>
Some ALLERGIES are real and some are not.
The friend who had the lying problem discussed it with me, SAID she was a
liar, SAID her son did not have a milk allergy, and then told me "he's
allergic to milk" once when she left him for me to keep for free. How's that
hogwash?
-=-
>k -=-Did you lie to her and say you would follow, or had followed, herS-"> No. (That could only be asked by someone who doesn't know me very
> instructions? -=-
>
well!)
> I didn't say a word."K- That is called lying by omission.-=-
No that's not. That's called letting a known and admitted liar rattle on
before she drives away and I keep her kid (not the first or third time) for
free.
-=-K- Your decision to ignore her wishes because you thought she was
wrong. -=-
She can do what she wants at her house.
She can lie if she wants at my house.
-=-> k-=- I would be helpful for others to
> keep an open mind that it could be real. -=-S-"> It's all real.
>
>-=-Then how is it all real if some of it is not?-=-
> Some allergies are more real than others."
There is a reality to some families who don't have actual allergies
villifying cake or soda or something and living their lives around it.
-=-If they were wrong the child could learn
that it was not a problem after all. I guess you're upset that the
child lost all those years of making their own decisions.-=-
Bigtime. And lost faith in the parents in the process.
-=-If you or your own children have never binged, how do you know what's
the right thing to do about it? I don't know myself. -=-
I have. I can finish a pack of orange Milanos all by myself. A box of
chocolate covered cherries, just me, just a few hours. But my kids have
never had that behavior about any food. Holly and I got boxes of candy one
day. Mine was gone in three days; hers was mostly there in three weeks.
I think it's because when I was a kid candy was rare, and counted (four
kids--things were divided by four all the time). I looked forward to being
old enough to have it when I wanted it, or looked forward to having enough
money to buy my own. My kids don't spend money on candy; it's free at the
house to them. With six people in the family, if we had donuts, that was two
apiece. You never, ever, under any circumstances ever got three. I think
that will lead to bingeing WAY more than putting two dozen donuts out and
throwing away any that get stale.
-=-K- Why not? Is TV sacred? I don't think TV is evil. Maybe the parent
meant no violent power rangers stuff, or that they wanted
them to play instead of veg. -=-
The parents were unsatisfied with controlling just their own kid, and wanted
to control me and my kids too! But didn't tell me directly (because it
would have gone over like a lead balloon), and hoped I would "respect their
wishes" as conveyed by a kid reciting rules.
Their house's rules stop around the edge of their yard.
I don't expect any other family to give my kids the freedoms and regard and
privileges they have at my house. If they go to another house with rules
about where and what and how and how much, fine! It's not my house.
-=-K- Maybe they aren't aware of that your rules come before theirs, or
that there's any difference. -=-
I'm not running a drop in daycare center. We've never had kids over before
that we didn't know already.
-=- I am curious, would you send your kids to school if they begged? How
old are they. What have you told them about school
that could influence their decision.-=-
Yes. They're 15, 13, and 9. They wouldn't even have to beg.
-=- I have told my kids when they
asked how I felt about my time at school. That may have
influenced them some, for better or worse. -=-
I told them I really loved it, but that most people don't. They all have
friends in school. Holly's visited schools.
-=-Do they shop with you and help plan the meals? I think that is
important to have freedom of choice. Do you cook or do they?
Do you all sit down for one meal a day? We do sometimes. Do you take
turns planning the meals, or do you just graze. We graze
alot.-=-
We take requests. They can go shopping if they want. Every time my husband
or I go to the store we ask each other and kids if there's anything they
need. Kirby usually requests shampoo or toiletries. Holly asks for
vegetables and fruit. Marty often says nothing, or pizza, or avocados or
chips. Mostly they say nothing, but there's usually food. If Holly runs out
of Ramen she wants more.
There's a lot of grazing, frequent casserole or crock pot stuff that's there
for whenever people come by, homemade bread that's for whoever wants it
whenever. Breakfast is the most likely formal deal (especially with company).
Holly likes to help cook, but never lasts the whole course. Very often one
person will cook for the one or two others around at the moment. No "meal
planning" on a longterm basis.
Sandra
Helen Hegener
At 3:10 PM -0500 11/19/01, SandraDodd@... wrote:
Helen
>I can finish a pack of orange Milanos all by myself.Good grief. I thought I was the only person who could do that. <g>
Helen
[email protected]
I think you have a good point. However, if you only have a certain
amount of money, you might only be able to afford to buy a certain
amount of food. And if you had twelve donuts and six kids, is it
fair to let some of the kids hog down four donuts a piece so that the
younger ones barely get any?
Sheila
My kids don't spend money on candy; it's free at the
amount of money, you might only be able to afford to buy a certain
amount of food. And if you had twelve donuts and six kids, is it
fair to let some of the kids hog down four donuts a piece so that the
younger ones barely get any?
Sheila
My kids don't spend money on candy; it's free at the
> house to them. With six people in the family, if we had donuts,that was two
> apiece. You never, ever, under any circumstances ever got three.I think
> that will lead to bingeing WAY more than putting two dozen donutsout and
> throwing away any that get stale.
Lynda
O.K., this post comes with a disclaimer. This is not ABOUT anyone in
particular. It is curiosity and wondering why some folks feel the way they
do.
We grew up poor, in the projects that were provided for the returning
military after WWII and the Korean War. My dad was a health nut before the
term existed. We didn't have Wonderbread, we didn't have packaged meals, tv
dinners or Coke and Pepsi. Our snacks were homemade. We had tons of fruits
and veggies around and never had any candy in the house. When my mother
made cookies, they had to last because we didn't have the money to make them
everyday.
My mother was an alcoholic. I took care of her until she died from COPD.
She was a control freak and believed in corporal punishment.
I never felt like I was deprived. I didn't run out and buy whitebread when
I got married. I didn't binge on candy or soda then or now.
Were there other things going on that have caused folks to react this way?
Or could it be that if it wasn't the sodas or the candy, it would have been
something else. Or could it be that even if there weren't controlling
parents, some other sort of issues would have occured in their life anyway.
Maybe it isn't about how a child's life was controlled but how they
subconsciously choose to view themselves? Maybe because as children they
couldn't see that it wasn't all about them but really about their parents
and their parents issues?
Am I clear as mud as usual?
Lynda
particular. It is curiosity and wondering why some folks feel the way they
do.
We grew up poor, in the projects that were provided for the returning
military after WWII and the Korean War. My dad was a health nut before the
term existed. We didn't have Wonderbread, we didn't have packaged meals, tv
dinners or Coke and Pepsi. Our snacks were homemade. We had tons of fruits
and veggies around and never had any candy in the house. When my mother
made cookies, they had to last because we didn't have the money to make them
everyday.
My mother was an alcoholic. I took care of her until she died from COPD.
She was a control freak and believed in corporal punishment.
I never felt like I was deprived. I didn't run out and buy whitebread when
I got married. I didn't binge on candy or soda then or now.
Were there other things going on that have caused folks to react this way?
Or could it be that if it wasn't the sodas or the candy, it would have been
something else. Or could it be that even if there weren't controlling
parents, some other sort of issues would have occured in their life anyway.
Maybe it isn't about how a child's life was controlled but how they
subconsciously choose to view themselves? Maybe because as children they
couldn't see that it wasn't all about them but really about their parents
and their parents issues?
Am I clear as mud as usual?
Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: <sheran@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 12:29 PM
Subject: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re: the Kathy and Sandra Show, episode 3
"Mutual Respect" (hopefully)
> I think you have a good point. However, if you only have a certain
> amount of money, you might only be able to afford to buy a certain
> amount of food. And if you had twelve donuts and six kids, is it
> fair to let some of the kids hog down four donuts a piece so that the
> younger ones barely get any?
> Sheila
>
> My kids don't spend money on candy; it's free at the
> > house to them. With six people in the family, if we had donuts,
> that was two
> > apiece. You never, ever, under any circumstances ever got three.
> I think
> > that will lead to bingeing WAY more than putting two dozen donuts
> out and
> > throwing away any that get stale.
>
>
>
>
> Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> To unsubscribe, set preferences, or read archives:
> http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
>
> Another great list sponsored by Home Education Magazine!
> http://www.home-ed-magazine.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
[email protected]
<< And if you had twelve donuts and six kids, is it
fair to let some of the kids hog down four donuts a piece so that the
younger ones barely get any? >>
That's not the point I was trying to make. Food was counted when I was
growing up. My mom would count out M&Ms. She would count out grapes. If
one kid didn't even WANT grapes, they ate them anyway, or not, but they did
not belong to the rest of us and they weren't easily transferable.
My kids would look at the donuts, one would say "no thanks," and if one
wanted three it would not be a capital crime. There would be NO scarfing or
hogging down. They just don't have that behavior in their repertoire. If
one of us in my own childhood had said "I really would love to have three,"
or asked one of the other people "Can I have one of yours, please?" we would
have been shamed and told not to ask, that two was enough, that it wasn't
ours, and stop begging. The donuts were more than just crummy stupid
donuts. They had to do with reward, limitation and morality.
Sandra
Sandra
"Everything counts."
http://expage.com/SandraDoddArticles
http://expage.com/SandraDodd
fair to let some of the kids hog down four donuts a piece so that the
younger ones barely get any? >>
That's not the point I was trying to make. Food was counted when I was
growing up. My mom would count out M&Ms. She would count out grapes. If
one kid didn't even WANT grapes, they ate them anyway, or not, but they did
not belong to the rest of us and they weren't easily transferable.
My kids would look at the donuts, one would say "no thanks," and if one
wanted three it would not be a capital crime. There would be NO scarfing or
hogging down. They just don't have that behavior in their repertoire. If
one of us in my own childhood had said "I really would love to have three,"
or asked one of the other people "Can I have one of yours, please?" we would
have been shamed and told not to ask, that two was enough, that it wasn't
ours, and stop begging. The donuts were more than just crummy stupid
donuts. They had to do with reward, limitation and morality.
Sandra
Sandra
"Everything counts."
http://expage.com/SandraDoddArticles
http://expage.com/SandraDodd
Bridget
--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., SandraDodd@a... wrote:
in reply to: -=-If you or your own children have never binged, how do
you know what's the right thing to do about it? I don't know myself. -
=-
>
> I have. I can finish a pack of orange Milanos all by myself. A
box of
> chocolate covered cherries, just me, just a few hours.
Sandra,
What is the consequence for you when you binge? Gain a pound or
two? Have an upset tummy for a while? When a person with an allergy
(non-lifethreatening allergy) binges, the consequences are
different. And they can vary amongst alergic people too. When I
binge, I wheeze and have to up my asthma meds. When Rachel binges,
it doesn't kill her, she just wishes it would. She gets killer
headaches from her allergies, along with skin problems.
Had I never forced her to stop eating certain foods she never would
have made the connection between the foods and the headaches because
the headaches were constant. That's the problem with allergies to
common foods. If you are eating it everyday, you don't see the
changes because there aren't any, you are just miserable. And the
fact that you crave what you are addicted to (thanks Doc P for that
lesson) doesn't help matters at all.
But the flipside of the control issue and the part I think YOU of all
people should understand is that once the person has been given the
chance to learn the reactions and learn the reasons, they should be
given back the choices about their own foods intake at some point
before they are a teen. We can't control what they eat forever so we
need to help them learn to do then let them do it for themselves. At
least that's how we handled it here. At this point I have three
allergic kids two of whom can eat what they want and the youngest of
whom still has to be monitored very closely and stopped from eating
things he shouldn't. He has only just barely started to make the
connection between the foods and his problems.
Bridget
[email protected]
<< What is the consequence for you when you binge? Gain a pound or
two? Have an upset tummy for a while? >>
None of that. I feel better.
Life's just not fair, I know.
But my own special candy or cookies aren't kept here all the time.
Right now there's a big fruit cake we decided to go ahead and cut. Nobody
much likes fruit cake but me, so I'm planning who to give parts to, and will
wrap some up in cheesecloth and rum it down good. (I made it for a party
that had to be postponed, and Holly couldn't stand anymore not seeing the
inside to see if the cherry layer had worked out.
Sandra
two? Have an upset tummy for a while? >>
None of that. I feel better.
Life's just not fair, I know.
But my own special candy or cookies aren't kept here all the time.
Right now there's a big fruit cake we decided to go ahead and cut. Nobody
much likes fruit cake but me, so I'm planning who to give parts to, and will
wrap some up in cheesecloth and rum it down good. (I made it for a party
that had to be postponed, and Holly couldn't stand anymore not seeing the
inside to see if the cherry layer had worked out.
Sandra
Bridget
--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., SandraDodd@a... wrote:
related issues is colored by the fact that you can binge and nothing
happens. If someone told you that her 9 year old child had "this"
specific reaction to "this" specific food and that he was still not
able to control it himself, would you still give it to him when he is
at your house? Because that is what your previous post implied.
And yes, the advice I give is always colored by the fact that I live
with food and chemical allergies everyday. That's why my advice is
usually qualified with a statement like, "This is what we have found
with our allergies, but you have to look closely at your own
situation to see if any of it really fits you."
Bridget
>But that was kind of my point. The advice you give about food
> << What is the consequence for you when you binge? Gain a pound or
> two? Have an upset tummy for a while? >>
>
> None of that. I feel better.
>
> Life's just not fair, I know.
related issues is colored by the fact that you can binge and nothing
happens. If someone told you that her 9 year old child had "this"
specific reaction to "this" specific food and that he was still not
able to control it himself, would you still give it to him when he is
at your house? Because that is what your previous post implied.
And yes, the advice I give is always colored by the fact that I live
with food and chemical allergies everyday. That's why my advice is
usually qualified with a statement like, "This is what we have found
with our allergies, but you have to look closely at your own
situation to see if any of it really fits you."
Bridget
[email protected]
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 15:07:16 -0000 "Bridget" <rumpleteasermom@...>
writes:
while. I tried to figure out what might help her (now I think it was
probably the stress of her dad getting out of prison and re-entering her
life more than anything, but at the time we weren't sure). One thing that
was suggested was to cut out dairy, and after her physician and I talked
about it with her, she was willing to give it a a shot. At the time she
drank milk at least 3 times a day and ate lots of cheese, and she was
going to an on-campus childcare program part-time. She told them at every
meal that she was having water because milk might be why her stomach was
hurting, she never tried to drink it at home, and when I served broccoli
with cheese sauce she noticed and pointed out that she couldn't eat the
cheese. No one ever had to force her not to eat anything. After a couple
of weeks we didn't notice any change, so she went back to dairy.
Dar
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
writes:
> Had I never forced her to stop eating certain foods she never wouldWhen my daughter was 4 she had pretty severe stomachaches for quite a
> have made the connection between the foods and the headaches because
> the headaches were constant. That's the problem with allergies to
> common foods. If you are eating it everyday, you don't see the
> changes because there aren't any, you are just miserable.
while. I tried to figure out what might help her (now I think it was
probably the stress of her dad getting out of prison and re-entering her
life more than anything, but at the time we weren't sure). One thing that
was suggested was to cut out dairy, and after her physician and I talked
about it with her, she was willing to give it a a shot. At the time she
drank milk at least 3 times a day and ate lots of cheese, and she was
going to an on-campus childcare program part-time. She told them at every
meal that she was having water because milk might be why her stomach was
hurting, she never tried to drink it at home, and when I served broccoli
with cheese sauce she noticed and pointed out that she couldn't eat the
cheese. No one ever had to force her not to eat anything. After a couple
of weeks we didn't notice any change, so she went back to dairy.
Dar
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
[email protected]
In a message dated 11/20/01 9:31:29 AM, rumpleteasermom@... writes:
<< If someone told you that her 9 year old child had "this"
specific reaction to "this" specific food and that he was still not
able to control it himself, would you still give it to him when he is
at your house? >>
No, I wouldn't.
Unless the mom was an admitted liar and had told me previously that she was
in the habit of lying and telling people that her child had an allergy he
didn't have.
But if those parents ALSO think their children have some sort of
addiction/allergy to TV or video games or action figures, that's too bad. I
won't make my kids put their regular schedules on hold to follow the rules of
someone else's house.
We have a milk-allergy regular kid. We have another kid (coming over today)
who by her own 12-yr-old choice doesn't eat white flour or sugar. So we give
her things she can eat. Today it's probably going to be a baked potato and
maybe tuna in lettuce leaves. Orange juice.
But all of my experiences and all of everyone's on this list doesn't change
the fact that there are many families who cling to a suspected or alleged
food allergy as their single answer to all behavioral issues. It's the magic
bullet thinking that keeps them from having to really look at and be with
their child and see what other factors might also be important.
Sandra
Sandra
"Everything counts."
http://expage.com/SandraDoddArticles
http://expage.com/SandraDodd
<< If someone told you that her 9 year old child had "this"
specific reaction to "this" specific food and that he was still not
able to control it himself, would you still give it to him when he is
at your house? >>
No, I wouldn't.
Unless the mom was an admitted liar and had told me previously that she was
in the habit of lying and telling people that her child had an allergy he
didn't have.
But if those parents ALSO think their children have some sort of
addiction/allergy to TV or video games or action figures, that's too bad. I
won't make my kids put their regular schedules on hold to follow the rules of
someone else's house.
We have a milk-allergy regular kid. We have another kid (coming over today)
who by her own 12-yr-old choice doesn't eat white flour or sugar. So we give
her things she can eat. Today it's probably going to be a baked potato and
maybe tuna in lettuce leaves. Orange juice.
But all of my experiences and all of everyone's on this list doesn't change
the fact that there are many families who cling to a suspected or alleged
food allergy as their single answer to all behavioral issues. It's the magic
bullet thinking that keeps them from having to really look at and be with
their child and see what other factors might also be important.
Sandra
Sandra
"Everything counts."
http://expage.com/SandraDoddArticles
http://expage.com/SandraDodd
Bridget
--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., SandraDodd@a... wrote:
clear and it really did sound as if you would ignore the instructions
of any parent regarding this issue.
me that I should let him watch as much as he wants at home either.
in others kids than I have people who use real or imagined allergies
as a crutch or excuse.
Bridget
>she was
> No, I wouldn't.
> Unless the mom was an admitted liar and had told me previously that
> in the habit of lying and telling people that her child had anallergy he
> didn't have.That's good but your previous post on the issue did not make that
clear and it really did sound as if you would ignore the instructions
of any parent regarding this issue.
> But if those parents ALSO think their children have some sort oftoo bad. I
> addiction/allergy to TV or video games or action figures, that's
> won't make my kids put their regular schedules on hold to followthe rules of
> someone else's house.I would not expect you to. But I also would not expect you to tell
me that I should let him watch as much as he wants at home either.
>doesn't change
> But all of my experiences and all of everyone's on this list
> the fact that there are many families who cling to a suspected oralleged
> food allergy as their single answer to all behavioral issues. It'sthe magic
> bullet thinking that keeps them from having to really look at andbe with
> their child and see what other factors might also be important.I've met way more people who try to deny the existence of allergies
>
> Sandra
>
>
in others kids than I have people who use real or imagined allergies
as a crutch or excuse.
Bridget
Bridget
I guess that's where the craving factor plays a big part. I have
found that the harder it is for me to avoid a food, the more likely
it is that I am allergic.
Bridget
found that the harder it is for me to avoid a food, the more likely
it is that I am allergic.
Bridget
--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., freeform@j... wrote:
>
> When my daughter was 4 she had pretty severe stomachaches for quite
a
> while. I tried to figure out what might help her (now I think it was
> probably the stress of her dad getting out of prison and re-
entering her
> life more than anything, but at the time we weren't sure). One
thing that
> was suggested was to cut out dairy, and after her physician and I
talked
> about it with her, she was willing to give it a a shot. At the time
she
> drank milk at least 3 times a day and ate lots of cheese, and she
was
> going to an on-campus childcare program part-time. She told them at
every
> meal that she was having water because milk might be why her
stomach was
> hurting, she never tried to drink it at home, and when I served
broccoli
> with cheese sauce she noticed and pointed out that she couldn't eat
the
> cheese. No one ever had to force her not to eat anything. After a
couple
> of weeks we didn't notice any change, so she went back to dairy.
>
> Dar
> ________________________________________________________________
> GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
> Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
> Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
> http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
Tia Leschke
>This is what it was like in my family, only it wasn't a lack of money. My
>
>We grew up poor, in the projects that were provided for the returning
>military after WWII and the Korean War. My dad was a health nut before the
>term existed. We didn't have Wonderbread, we didn't have packaged meals, tv
>dinners or Coke and Pepsi. Our snacks were homemade. We had tons of fruits
>and veggies around and never had any candy in the house. When my mother
>made cookies, they had to last because we didn't have the money to make them
>everyday.
mother felt that junk food was for once in a while, and that's how often we
got it. I was told that if I wanted white bread or breakfast candy, I
could spend my allowance on them. I did. Once each. (I did buy candy
bars with my allowance, but was more likely to spend it on comics.)
>I never felt like I was deprived. I didn't run out and buy whitebread whenI still don't buy white bread and rarely soda. It's a big yuck for me. I
>I got married. I didn't binge on candy or soda then or now.
do binge on other things. It has nothing to do with deprivation and
everything to do with the low self-esteem I acquired in school. That and a
doctor who told me to lose 20 pounds when I was 12. Years later, I
realized that I was actually at my ideal weight when he told me that. (And
I'd love to get back to that now.)
>Were there other things going on that have caused folks to react this way?See above.
>Or could it be that if it wasn't the sodas or the candy, it would have been
>something else. Or could it be that even if there weren't controlling
>parents, some other sort of issues would have occured in their life anyway.
>Maybe it isn't about how a child's life was controlled but how theyIt wasn't even my parents. It was other people.
>subconsciously choose to view themselves? Maybe because as children they
>couldn't see that it wasn't all about them but really about their parents
>and their parents issues?
>Am I clear as mud as usual?As usual. <g>
Tia
Tia Leschke leschke@...
On Vancouver Island
**************************************************************************
It is the answers which separate us, the questions which unite us. - Janice
Levy
Lucie Caunter
"Maybe it isn't about how a child's life was controlled but how they
subconsciously choose to view themselves? Maybe because as children they
couldn't see that it wasn't all about them but really about their parents
and their parents issues?"
Well put! My first pregnancy was a high risk pregnancy. The doctors limited
me to bed rest. In retrospect it was the best thing that could have happen
to me. I had time to consider and ponder what kind of parents I wanted to
be to my budding babies. I remember my own childhood controlled by my
parents with the kitchen spoon, being told what to do, and ruled by "do as I
say not as I do". I remember my alcoholic father who smoke himself to death.
Then I remember how creative my father was also, an artists who had been
be-little by his own parents at every turn. And I remembered how my mother
encouraged us to pursue knowledge as much as possible. She perceived that
education free the spirit.
I remembered all kind of thing and decided , picked and choused the parent I
wanted to be. I can't change how my parents did it. They live in different
times through different circumstances. I hope my sons will be different
parents. They will face different circumstance. Beside , one can hope, they
would improve on some of our better actions.
Lucie, realizing that with two almost 15 in the house , grand- parenthood
isn't that far away. Boy! can I improve on grand-parenthood?
subconsciously choose to view themselves? Maybe because as children they
couldn't see that it wasn't all about them but really about their parents
and their parents issues?"
Well put! My first pregnancy was a high risk pregnancy. The doctors limited
me to bed rest. In retrospect it was the best thing that could have happen
to me. I had time to consider and ponder what kind of parents I wanted to
be to my budding babies. I remember my own childhood controlled by my
parents with the kitchen spoon, being told what to do, and ruled by "do as I
say not as I do". I remember my alcoholic father who smoke himself to death.
Then I remember how creative my father was also, an artists who had been
be-little by his own parents at every turn. And I remembered how my mother
encouraged us to pursue knowledge as much as possible. She perceived that
education free the spirit.
I remembered all kind of thing and decided , picked and choused the parent I
wanted to be. I can't change how my parents did it. They live in different
times through different circumstances. I hope my sons will be different
parents. They will face different circumstance. Beside , one can hope, they
would improve on some of our better actions.
Lucie, realizing that with two almost 15 in the house , grand- parenthood
isn't that far away. Boy! can I improve on grand-parenthood?
----- Original Message -----
From: Lynda <lurine@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 8:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re: the Kathy and Sandra Show, episode 3
"Mutual Respect" (hopefully)
> O.K., this post comes with a disclaimer. This is not ABOUT anyone in
> particular. It is curiosity and wondering why some folks feel the way
they
> do.
>
> We grew up poor, in the projects that were provided for the returning
> military after WWII and the Korean War. My dad was a health nut before
the
> term existed. We didn't have Wonderbread, we didn't have packaged meals,
tv
> dinners or Coke and Pepsi. Our snacks were homemade. We had tons of
fruits
> and veggies around and never had any candy in the house. When my mother
> made cookies, they had to last because we didn't have the money to make
them
> everyday.
>
> My mother was an alcoholic. I took care of her until she died from COPD.
> She was a control freak and believed in corporal punishment.
>
> I never felt like I was deprived. I didn't run out and buy whitebread
when
> I got married. I didn't binge on candy or soda then or now.
>
> Were there other things going on that have caused folks to react this way?
> Or could it be that if it wasn't the sodas or the candy, it would have
been
> something else. Or could it be that even if there weren't controlling
> parents, some other sort of issues would have occured in their life
anyway.
>
> Maybe it isn't about how a child's life was controlled but how they
> subconsciously choose to view themselves? Maybe because as children they
> couldn't see that it wasn't all about them but really about their parents
> and their parents issues?
>
> Am I clear as mud as usual?
>
> Lynda
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <sheran@...>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 12:29 PM
> Subject: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re: the Kathy and Sandra Show, episode 3
> "Mutual Respect" (hopefully)
>
>
> > I think you have a good point. However, if you only have a certain
> > amount of money, you might only be able to afford to buy a certain
> > amount of food. And if you had twelve donuts and six kids, is it
> > fair to let some of the kids hog down four donuts a piece so that the
> > younger ones barely get any?
> > Sheila
> >
> > My kids don't spend money on candy; it's free at the
> > > house to them. With six people in the family, if we had donuts,
> > that was two
> > > apiece. You never, ever, under any circumstances ever got three.
> > I think
> > > that will lead to bingeing WAY more than putting two dozen donuts
> > out and
> > > throwing away any that get stale.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> > Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
> >
> > To unsubscribe, set preferences, or read archives:
> > http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
> >
> > Another great list sponsored by Home Education Magazine!
> > http://www.home-ed-magazine.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> To unsubscribe, set preferences, or read archives:
> http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
>
> Another great list sponsored by Home Education Magazine!
> http://www.home-ed-magazine.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
Lynda
I don't think we are on the same page here. The occasional "binge" is NOT
binge eating. In fact, they aren't even in the same ballpark. "A binge has
to be accompanied - in order to be determined a 'binge' - with a loss of
control over eating." People who go on the occasional "binge" don't loose
control, they can stop if they so choose. They are eating because they love
the taste of whatever has grabbed there fancy at that moment. In 99.9% of
the cases they do not eat until they become physically ill. They are not
"driven" to eat every last little morsel and then go onto something else and
eat until they are too full and sick.
The DSM-IV requires the following to define binge eating:
*binge eating more food than most people could consume in short periods of
time
*feelings of distress about eating behaviors
*binge episodes associated with eating more rapidly than usual, eating until
uncomfortably full, eating when not hungry, eating alone because of
embarrassment about how much food is consumed, and feelings of disgust,
depression, or guilt
*binge eating that occurs, on average, at least 2 days a week for 6 months
*binge eating that isn't associated with regular purging with laxatives or
by vomiting
Sandra's scenario doesn't not meet the definition.
Lynda
binge eating. In fact, they aren't even in the same ballpark. "A binge has
to be accompanied - in order to be determined a 'binge' - with a loss of
control over eating." People who go on the occasional "binge" don't loose
control, they can stop if they so choose. They are eating because they love
the taste of whatever has grabbed there fancy at that moment. In 99.9% of
the cases they do not eat until they become physically ill. They are not
"driven" to eat every last little morsel and then go onto something else and
eat until they are too full and sick.
The DSM-IV requires the following to define binge eating:
*binge eating more food than most people could consume in short periods of
time
*feelings of distress about eating behaviors
*binge episodes associated with eating more rapidly than usual, eating until
uncomfortably full, eating when not hungry, eating alone because of
embarrassment about how much food is consumed, and feelings of disgust,
depression, or guilt
*binge eating that occurs, on average, at least 2 days a week for 6 months
*binge eating that isn't associated with regular purging with laxatives or
by vomiting
Sandra's scenario doesn't not meet the definition.
Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: Bridget <rumpleteasermom@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 7:07 AM
Subject: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re: Allergies and Bingeing
> --- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., SandraDodd@a... wrote:
>
> in reply to: -=-If you or your own children have never binged, how do
> you know what's the right thing to do about it? I don't know myself. -
> =-
> >
> > I have. I can finish a pack of orange Milanos all by myself. A
> box of
> > chocolate covered cherries, just me, just a few hours.
>
> Sandra,
>
> What is the consequence for you when you binge? Gain a pound or
> two? Have an upset tummy for a while? When a person with an allergy
> (non-lifethreatening allergy) binges, the consequences are
> different. And they can vary amongst alergic people too. When I
> binge, I wheeze and have to up my asthma meds. When Rachel binges,
> it doesn't kill her, she just wishes it would. She gets killer
> headaches from her allergies, along with skin problems.
>
> Had I never forced her to stop eating certain foods she never would
> have made the connection between the foods and the headaches because
> the headaches were constant. That's the problem with allergies to
> common foods. If you are eating it everyday, you don't see the
> changes because there aren't any, you are just miserable. And the
> fact that you crave what you are addicted to (thanks Doc P for that
> lesson) doesn't help matters at all.
>
> But the flipside of the control issue and the part I think YOU of all
> people should understand is that once the person has been given the
> chance to learn the reactions and learn the reasons, they should be
> given back the choices about their own foods intake at some point
> before they are a teen. We can't control what they eat forever so we
> need to help them learn to do then let them do it for themselves. At
> least that's how we handled it here. At this point I have three
> allergic kids two of whom can eat what they want and the youngest of
> whom still has to be monitored very closely and stopped from eating
> things he shouldn't. He has only just barely started to make the
> connection between the foods and his problems.
>
> Bridget
[email protected]
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 11:51:59 -0800 "Lynda" <lurine@...> writes:
you didn't say "someone with binge eating disorder", you said binging, or
binge eating, which everyone does. Same with binge drinking as an
activity vs. as a disorder, or drug use, or checking twice to make sure
you've turned the iron off. Again, if someone has a binge eating
disorder, as with any eating disorder, food isn't really the core issue
at all - the isues are psychological and usually related to, yup,
*control*.
Dar
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
>I don't think anyone said we were talking about a clinical illess here -
> I don't think we are on the same page here. The occasional "binge"
> is NOT
> binge eating.
you didn't say "someone with binge eating disorder", you said binging, or
binge eating, which everyone does. Same with binge drinking as an
activity vs. as a disorder, or drug use, or checking twice to make sure
you've turned the iron off. Again, if someone has a binge eating
disorder, as with any eating disorder, food isn't really the core issue
at all - the isues are psychological and usually related to, yup,
*control*.
Dar
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
Sharon Rudd
> I've been readingtime flies when you are having fun.......
> her posts since our old AOL days...
>
> What's that been, 8, 10 years now? Sheesh. Where
> does the time go?
>
> Helen
Sharon
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
Kathy
The kind if binge eating I am talking about is not bulemia, or
psychological, or about control in that sense. I am talking about
certain foods tasting so good that you don't stop even when they stop
tasting so good, even when you're full. Stopping only when the item is
gone, or when you are in alot of pain. They are brain chemical trigger
foods, not social control, or forbidden foods. I am not worried about
sneaking the food, or having anybody comment on it. It just tastes or
feels so great at first. Like it settles my brain or something. That is
the out of control eating I am talking about. Kind of like drug
addiction or alcoholism, because my brain craves certain foods
(substances) that make me sick.
Kathy B.
psychological, or about control in that sense. I am talking about
certain foods tasting so good that you don't stop even when they stop
tasting so good, even when you're full. Stopping only when the item is
gone, or when you are in alot of pain. They are brain chemical trigger
foods, not social control, or forbidden foods. I am not worried about
sneaking the food, or having anybody comment on it. It just tastes or
feels so great at first. Like it settles my brain or something. That is
the out of control eating I am talking about. Kind of like drug
addiction or alcoholism, because my brain craves certain foods
(substances) that make me sick.
Kathy B.
--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., freeform@j... wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 11:51:59 -0800 "Lynda" <lurine@s...> writes:
> >
> > I don't think we are on the same page here. The occasional "binge"
> > is NOT
> > binge eating.
>
> I don't think anyone said we were talking about a clinical illess here -
> you didn't say "someone with binge eating disorder", you said binging, or
> binge eating, which everyone does. Same with binge drinking as an
> activity vs. as a disorder, or drug use, or checking twice to make sure
> you've turned the iron off. Again, if someone has a binge eating
> disorder, as with any eating disorder, food isn't really the core issue
> at all - the isues are psychological and usually related to, yup,
> *control*.
>
> Dar"