zenmomma *

>>My son (I'll call him "Ben") would just LOVE if I just *advised* him that
>>he ought not scream and yell just because I won't let him eat ice cream
>>for breakfast. (Well, at least, not every day.)>>

What would happen if he *did* choose to eat ice cream for breakfast
everyday? If he was allowed that option? Do you think that would be all he'd
eat for the rest of the day? For the rest of his life? Would he not look for
some variety at some point? Would you not be able to offer some pretty
attractive alternatives later in the day, say fruit or yogurt or toast and
jam?

Life is good.
~Mary








_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

zenmomma *

>>I don't always say no. And, when I don't, he eats ice cream for
>>breakfast. When I DO say "no" he eats something other than ice cream.>>

Maybe he always chooses the ice cream on the "yes" days because he knows
that the answer next time will be "no". That's kind of the psycholgical
theory used in Vegas. People are willing to take 50 losses because there's
the chance of that one win. Random reinforcement produces more of the
behavior in question.

So, maybe if a child gets to *really* choose for himself, his choice will be
based on whether or not he wants ice cream, not whether or not he can get
mom to say yes to something that seemingly bugs her.

When I stopped considering those disgustingly sweet cereals as desert food,
and allowed my kids free choice of when and where and if to have them, their
consumption went waaaay down. They seem to eat them once in a great while
now.

>>It is simply hysterically funny to me to think that "Olivia" would have me
>>do otherwise.>>

Well, I'm not Olivia or a TCSer (too rigid, and at times absurd for me), but
that doesn't mean I haven't found some value in thinking outside the box on
some of my formerlly held parenting beliefs. :o)

Life is good.
~Mary










_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

zenmomma *

>>However, if Ben wanted to go out and kill the neighbor's puppies every day
>><egads> then yes, I would really want to have to tell him NO each and
>>every time he wanted to do that.>>

Jumping from ice cream for breakfast to killing puppies is a pretty extreme
move, don't you think? You can give kids control over their choices without
assuming they're going to be on a straight path to homicidal tendencies.

Life is good.
~Mary

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

zenmomma *

>>I just happen to find the subject itself a most absurd little bird.>>

So let's not call it TCS. Let's not call it anything at all. Let's just view
it as another eye-opener in the unschooling of possibilities. No one is
saying you have to try it or even agree. But some of us are giving you some
real life, true even at 3 years old, examples of food choices in freely
choosing kids. You might want to consider what we're saying before you
reject it outright. :o)

Life is good.
~Mary



_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

[email protected]

In a message dated 4/29/2002 2:24:04 PM Eastern Standard Time,
zenmomma@... writes:

> >>I don't always say no. And, when I don't, he eats ice cream for
> >>breakfast. When I DO say "no" he eats something other than ice cream.>>
>
> Maybe he always chooses the ice cream on the "yes" days because he knows
> that the answer next time will be "no". That's kind of the psycholgical
> theory used in Vegas. People are willing to take 50 losses because there's
> the chance of that one win. Random reinforcement produces more of the
> behavior in question.
>
> So, maybe if a child gets to *really* choose for himself, his choice will
> be
> based on whether or not he wants ice cream, not whether or not he can get
> mom to say yes to something that seemingly bugs her.

I believe that he asks for ice cream because he really wants it, and not
because he thinks the question bugs me. In fact, the question doesn't bug me.

> >>It is simply hysterically funny to me to think that "Olivia" would have me
> >>do otherwise.>>
>
> Well, I'm not Olivia or a TCSer (too rigid, and at times absurd for me),
> but
> that doesn't mean I haven't found some value in thinking outside the box on
> some of my formerlly held parenting beliefs. :o)
>

Yeah, me too.

Kate Davis




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

In a message dated 4/29/2002 4:16:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
zenmomma@... writes:


> >>I just happen to find the subject itself a most absurd little bird.>>
>
> So let's not call it TCS. Let's not call it anything at all. Let's just
> view
> it as another eye-opener in the unschooling of possibilities. No one is
> saying you have to try it or even agree. But some of us are giving you some
>
> real life, true even at 3 years old, examples of food choices in freely
> choosing kids. You might want to consider what we're saying before you
> reject it outright. :o)
>

But, of course. Who said I was rejecting anything outright? I don't recall
a time when I did that. I read, I researched, I though, I sifted, I analyzed
. . . and THEN I rejected the concept. No offense. I am as open-minded as
the most open-minded "next person" . . . given a new thought or idea, I will
test it, to see if it is right for me. And, if it is not right for me, I
reject it. For me. Inasmuch as TCS has to do with a parent's choice of
parenting styles, this decision is one that I, as a parent must make. I
choose against TCS. And, if I were 3, I am sure that the TCS people would
applaud me for that decision. However, carrying the baggage of 31 years,
plus 3, I understand that I may be criticized roundly and soundly for my
decision to reject the TCS induction (for lack of a better word), and to
choose my own unique and, so far as I know, unlabelled parenting style of
"Roll with the punches, and learn as ya' go."

That works for me.

Perhaps you might be open-minded enough to consider it for yourself? And,
then, maybe later on down the road, we can all coin a new parenting induction
(for lack of a better word) called RWTPALAYG.

Deal?

Kate Davis


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

In a message dated 4/29/2002 4:23:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
zenmomma@... writes:


> >>However, if Ben wanted to go out and kill the neighbor's puppies every day
>
> >><egads> then yes, I would really want to have to tell him NO each and
> >>every time he wanted to do that.>>
>
> Jumping from ice cream for breakfast to killing puppies is a pretty extreme
>
> move, don't you think? You can give kids control over their choices without
>
> assuming they're going to be on a straight path to homicidal tendencies.
>
> Life is good.
> ~Mary
>

Yes, jumping from ice cream for breakfast to killing puppies was a "pretty
extreme move."

That was my point. We were not talking about ice cream. We were talking
about Ben and Sue, and Ben was hitting Sue with a baseball bat. And, we
were, if were "the TCS people," supposed to think that that was "okay" (so
long as we had not agreed to be 'responsible' for Sue), and that we could
properly address the matter by calmly "explaining" to Ben that Sue might
rightly have deserved to be beaten with a baseball bat, but that . . . . .

Oh, hmmn. I guess I don't think we were, if we are "the TCS people,"
supposed to suggest alternative behaviour.

And no, I don't think it a jump from beating Sue with a baseball bat to
killing puppies.

And THAT -- not ice cream -- was what we were talking about.

Thank you sincerely.

Kate Davis


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

zenmomma *

>>Who said I was rejecting anything outright? I don't recall a time when I
>>did that.>>

I may have misread something, if so I apologize. I'm truly not trying to
start a fight here. But I thought I read you say that you would NOT give
your 3 year old the choice to have ice cream for breakfast as a permanent
option. You seemed to be laughing at the idea that he would be given the
power of choice over his food at the age of 3. Did I read that wrong?

I am NOT a TCS proponent. Not at all. But I did think that particular
statement you made was a good one for examining. Lots of us non-TCS parents
here have found ways to give kids choices over things we used to think they
couldn't ever understand or handle. That includes ice cream for breakfast,
self-chosen bedtimes and TV viewing, among others. We've been pleasantly
surprised at how lifting the rules actually brought the kids closer to
self-regulation and gave them practice at making good choices. I've not yet
read of one of those kids eating ice cream at every meal, never sleeping or
watching TV 24/7. THAT'S the discussion I keep trying to have. You'll notice
I changed the subject line immediately away from TCS. Even put a :-P after
the TCS part.

>>Perhaps you might be open-minded enough to consider it for yourself? And,
>>then, maybe later on down the road, we can all coin a new parenting
>>induction (for lack of a better word) called RWTPALAYG.>>

There's a misunderstanding here on your part. I'm NOT defending TCS. Perhaps
you lumped my posts in with the one poster who was defending TCS. I
specifically retitled my posts. Go back and look. The ones I left as TCS, I
believe I used to criticize TCS. I'm just trying to discuss kids and their
ability to choose their own foods, even at age 3. We don't have to if nobody
chooses to participate.

Life is good.
~Mary



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

[email protected]

In a message dated 4/29/2002 9:08:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
zenmomma@... writes:


> >>Who said I was rejecting anything outright? I don't recall a time when I
> >>did that.>>
>
> I may have misread something, if so I apologize. I'm truly not trying to
> start a fight here. But I thought I read you say that you would NOT give
> your 3 year old the choice to have ice cream for breakfast as a permanent
> option. You seemed to be laughing at the idea that he would be given the
> power of choice over his food at the age of 3. Did I read that wrong?


I do not know, really, if you read it wrongly. I *was*, in fact, laughing at
the idea of giving my son (you know, the one who called me a booger-nosed
something-or-other) the so-called "power of choice" to choose ice cream for
breakfast every day.

I was NOT, however, rejecting the idea outright. I gave the idea due
consideration. And then, and only then, did I reject the idea.

> I am NOT a TCS proponent. Not at all. But I did think that particular
> statement you made was a good one for examining. Lots of us non-TCS parents
>
> here have found ways to give kids choices over things we used to think they
>
> couldn't ever understand or handle. That includes ice cream for breakfast,
> self-chosen bedtimes and TV viewing, among others. We've been pleasantly
> surprised at how lifting the rules actually brought the kids closer to
> self-regulation and gave them practice at making good choices. I've not yet
>
> read of one of those kids eating ice cream at every meal, never sleeping or
>
> watching TV 24/7. THAT'S the discussion I keep trying to have. You'll
> notice
> I changed the subject line immediately away from TCS. Even put a :-P after
> the TCS part.

I agree that there are some decisions that some parents ought to allow some
children to make. Bedtimes, for example, are self-directed in my household.
You're tired, you sleep. You're not tired, you do something else. Works for
me.

Some things just don't work for me. (Maybe I had a TCS parent. Maybe that's
my problem!)

> >>Perhaps you might be open-minded enough to consider it for yourself? And,
> >>then, maybe later on down the road, we can all coin a new parenting
> >>induction (for lack of a better word) called RWTPALAYG.>>
>
> There's a misunderstanding here on your part. I'm NOT defending TCS.
> Perhaps
> you lumped my posts in with the one poster who was defending TCS. I
> specifically retitled my posts. Go back and look. The ones I left as TCS, I
>
> believe I used to criticize TCS. I'm just trying to discuss kids and their
> ability to choose their own foods, even at age 3. We don't have to if
> nobody
> chooses to participate.

No, there was no misunderstanding. I did not assume that you were or were
not defending TCS. Honestly, it didn't matter to me. I was just caught up
in the humour of the moment. (Sorry, but I still find the whole subject
somewhat entertaining, if not exhausting.)

Kate Davis


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

In a message dated 4/29/02 7:19:02 PM, Katedavislawfirm@... writes:

<< I *was*, in fact, laughing at
the idea of giving my son (you know, the one who called me a booger-nosed
something-or-other) the so-called "power of choice" to choose ice cream for
breakfast every day. >>

I give my children an actual choice, not a "so-called 'power of choice'" to
choose anything in the house to eat at any time. At very young ages, they
made decisions BETTER than most adults I know. They eat ice cream very
rarely, although it's always there. They eat cookies and cake hardly at all.
Donuts dry up. I realize that's hard for some people to believe, but being
sarcastic and assuring us it wouldn't work for YOUR kids is to reject the
idea outright, and to question the veracity of families whose lives have been
shared for years.

I'm not talking about hypotheticals.

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 4/29/2002 10:21:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:


> I give my children an actual choice, not a "so-called 'power of choice'" to
> choose anything in the house to eat at any time. At very young ages, they
> made decisions BETTER than most adults I know. They eat ice cream very
> rarely, although it's always there. They eat cookies and cake hardly at
> all.
> Donuts dry up. I realize that's hard for some people to believe, but being
>
> sarcastic and assuring us it wouldn't work for YOUR kids is to reject the
> idea outright, and to question the veracity of families whose lives have
> been
> shared for years.
>
> I'm not talking about hypotheticals.
>
> Sandra
>

Okay:

1. The term "power of choice" was lifted from someone else's post. Hence,
my use of quotes. I wanted to point out the term, "power of choice" as
somewhat "fluffy." Your calling "me" on that choice of words was, although
misplaced, quite appropriate.

2. I have no doubt whatsoever that your children make wonderful choices.

3. I am not being sarcastic. Nor do I appreciate sarcasm. Usually.

4. I did not reject any ideas outright. Nor did I question the "veracity"
of any families. At least, not that I am aware of, and not intentionally.
If, in fact, I do so without my knowledge or intention, then, I must ask:
how? What did I say? What did I do?

5. I am not talking about hypotheticals either (at least, not about the ice
cream scenarios). (DISCLAIMER: To the extent that the entire ice cream
"discussion" was based upon the grossly gross hypothetical of Ben beating Sue
with a baseball bat and being not-chastised for same, then I am, in fact,
speaking of hypotheticals, for which I, again, apologize (hypothetically
speaking)(of course)).

Kate Davis


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

Um. Well. I know *I* would be disinclined to serve ice cream or brocolli or
anything else to someone who was calling me names, be they 3 or 13 or 33.
Goodness. What do they teach in preschools these days? :)

Deborah in IL

rumpleteasermom

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., "zenmomma *" <zenmomma@h...> wrote:
I'm just trying to discuss kids and
their
> ability to choose their own foods, even at age 3. We don't have to
if nobody
> chooses to participate.
>
> Life is good.
> ~Mary


In general, I think kids SHOULD choose their own foods, within the
boundaries of the family. If you are a family where mom cooks
everynight and everyone sits down to dinner, I think the kids should
at least try the foods offered. Now that mine are older, if I serve
something they don't like, they make something else and it's no big
deal. I've never restricted ice cream, candy, pastry, etc. All three
of mine have pretty good eating habits now. They all eat salad.
Rachel is the only one who does not like vegetables but even she eats
a few of them. None of them gorge on bad foods with one exception.

That exception has to do with allergies/sensitivities. Our old
allergist, when I first went to him before we had any idea the kids
had allergies (actually before two of them even existed) - - he told
me that often one will crave that which one is allergic to in the way
an alcoholic craves alcohol. He was absolutely right in my case. I
was craving corn in a BIG way. Once I got it out of my diet, and it
was very difficult to do so, I stopped craving it.

So when Jenni at three was drinking a gallon of milk a day by herself,
and having lots of allergy symptoms, milk was the first elimination
and challenge we tried and that was her problem. And I recently
explained what we had to dfo with Rachel regarding her allergies.
While I think kids should have control over their diets, I'm not sure
I can say it is an absolute. I think there are times when a parent
needs to step in to help with a problem. BUT - the parent should do
so withthe this thought in mind - the goal is not to control the
allergy for the child. The goal is to help the child learn to control
it by himself. There are as many ways to get to that point as there
are children. In Jenni's case, just eliminating milk for a week and
then doing the challenge and explaining the problem to her was enough
at 3 and she has not needed my help since. With Rachel, it rocked
back and forth several times and it looks like Wyndham will be more
like Rachel than Jenni.

I suspect there are others who have different examples of when a
parent should maybe do a little more about diet than most.

Bridget