or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Not an issue for a while, but.. (meat related)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Not an issue for a while, but.. (meat related) - Page 5

post #81 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by no5no5 View Post
I see this issue as equivalent to the decision to breastfeed rather than formula feed. I can't imagine anyone on the MDC boards responding with an "Oh, well, when in Rome" to a situation in which a mother who had chosen to exclusively breastfeed was dealing with a MIL who was joking about sneaking her baby a bottle of formula. Sure, the MIL may feel that formula is healthier. Sure, she may feel that the mother is judging her for using formula with her kids. Sure, she may honestly believe that it would be better if the mother just stopped breastfeeding and used formula instead. But none of that can possibly excuse the kind of behavior the OP has posted about.
Smithie (and others) -- I'm curious about your feelings on that?
post #82 of 99
Sorry OP, that this has become such a delicate discussion, but after reading all the posts I'm coming to terms with the fact that there is not going to be a meeting of the minds here because there are wildly opposing levels of value being placed on your particular choice. For some, your choice is about lifestyle, one that is easily bendable. It can be confusing for some meat eaters because vegetarianism is often lumped with lifestyle choices like not eating sugar, or choosing between organic and non-organic. For others, your choice is a moral one. I happen to be in the camp that my dietary choices are moral choices, and I'm not going to do "as they do in Rome" because it is in direct conflict with what I believe is right and wrong. For me, there is no grey area. Does that mean I'm going to be rude and judgmental and a loser to be around? Of course not, in fact I try to avoid conflict. At the same time, however, I don't think that the only way to show "respect" is to compromise your own belief systems in order to avoid conflict or hurting another's feelings. There is no shame in setting your own boundaries. I agree with others that respect runs both ways. Granted, I could present a laundry list of all the things that other people consider moral choices which don't cross my radar. But I need to remind myself that those choices are important to those individuals, and even though I don't particularly agree with the premise of those choices, I should respect them and not purposefully put those individuals in an uncomfortable position.
post #83 of 99
you know, the thing is.. whether you agree or not with the dietary choices of the OP, regardless of whether she thinks something that may seem as different to you as her kids need to only eat yellow foods on wednesday while standing on their heads, her mother in law needs to respect her choices. SHE is the parent of the child. Parents of children have the absolute right to make decisions for their own children, and have the right to a reasonable expectation that everyone abide by those choices. period.
post #84 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by hildare View Post
you know, the thing is.. whether you agree or not with the dietary choices of the OP, regardless of whether she thinks something that may seem as different to you as her kids need to only eat yellow foods on wednesday while standing on their heads, her mother in law needs to respect her choices. SHE is the parent of the child. Parents of children have the absolute right to make decisions for their own children, and have the right to a reasonable expectation that everyone abide by those choices. period.
I disagree strongly with the bolded portion. Yes, you have the right to make whatever choices you want for your child, but when those choices are outside of societal norms, you have no reasonable expectation for others to make the same choices. For better or worse, if you think that every other person your child comes into contact with must adhere to your personal codes and ethics 100%, you're going to make yourself infinitely stressed and frustrated at best.

Parents with kids who have life-threatening allergies are often great examples of this. To keep their kids *alive* they assume that people will NOT adhere to their kids' needs, and plan accordingly. Parents of kids who have life-threatening immune issues don't demand the world sanitize itself; they figure out how to co-exist in a filthy, dangerous world while preserving their kids' freedoms and relationships as much as they can.

If parents of kids who literally will *die* if they eat peanuts can figure out how to get through the day with familial relationships intact, surely parents with ethical food issues can, too.
post #85 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErinYay View Post
If parents of kids who literally will *die* if they eat peanuts can figure out how to get through the day with familial relationships intact, surely parents with ethical food issues can, too.
If my MIL informed me that she would feed my child peanuts, despite a potentially fatal allergy, my interest in keeping that familial relationship intact would be pretty much nil. I realize I have the luxury of having a mom and in-laws who don't make a hobby of disrespecting our parental decisions, but I wouldn't put up with this kind of crap, either.

The issue for this particular relationship isn't meat. The issue is the that MIL is being deliberately and unreasonably disrespectful. There's a big difference between "I'm sorry - I didn't realize you were vegetarian and I gave your dd/ds [fill in meat here] for lunch" and "I think your vegetarianism is ridiculous, so I'm taunting you with my intent to disregard it and feed your ds/dd [fill in meat here]"...huge difference. People with children with food allergies are very watchful, because there's always the possibility of the first...but the second is something else again, and nobody should have to be on guard against close family members choosing to deliberately feed their children against their ethical beliefs or health.

FWIW, my grandmother did the "feed the kids things their mother doesn't agree with". She didn't tell my mom, and actually bribed us not to tell (and painted mom as the bad guy, with "your mother wouldn't let you stay here if she knew", which wasn't even 100% accurate). In the long run, it cost her all semblance of a relationship with me, to the point that my dominant emotion when she died was relief. Messing around with children's relationships with their parents isn't benign, no matter how often people pull out the "it's a grandparent's job to spoil their grandchildren" or "family is more important" or any other mantras.
post #86 of 99
Quote:
I disagree strongly with the bolded portion. Yes, you have the right to make whatever choices you want for your child, but when those choices are outside of societal norms, you have no reasonable expectation for others to make the same choices. For better or worse, if you think that every other person your child comes into contact with must adhere to your personal codes and ethics 100%, you're going to make yourself infinitely stressed and frustrated at best.

Parents with kids who have life-threatening allergies are often great examples of this. To keep their kids *alive* they assume that people will NOT adhere to their kids' needs, and plan accordingly. Parents of kids who have life-threatening immune issues don't demand the world sanitize itself; they figure out how to co-exist in a filthy, dangerous world while preserving their kids' freedoms and relationships as much as they can.

If parents of kids who literally will *die* if they eat peanuts can figure out how to get through the day with familial relationships intact, surely parents with ethical food issues can, too.
Hildare can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think she was referring to the idea that the world should automatically adhere to one's personal ethics/codes. I think she was referring to the most recent discussion of respecting others choices/limitations once one has been put on notice of those choices/limitations. I think it is reasonable to expect people to respect your limitations once you put them on notice. For example, I shouldn't be expected to know about a child's allergies unless I'm put on notice, but once put on notice, it would be unreasonable, and even wrong, for me to continue to offer said child nuts or the like. Strange thing is, threatening food allergies are so prevelant now that I will always tell someone that a food item that I prepared has nuts, soy, etc. Or, I refrain from sending any items to school or parties that contain nuts, simply because there is always the risk.

Quote:
...they figure out how to co-exist in a filthy, dangerous world while preserving their kids' freedoms and relationships as much as they can.
That is what many people are suggesting above...learning to co-exist in a world while maintaining freedoms and relationships. Again, co-existence takes effort on both sides, especially when all parties are aware of the issues. It is always prudent to be on the defensive, but it is not unreasonable to expect others to honor your requests to refrain from giving your child something once your limitation is known.
post #87 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by no5no5 View Post
I see this issue as equivalent to the decision to breastfeed rather than formula feed. I can't imagine anyone on the MDC boards responding with an "Oh, well, when in Rome" to a situation in which a mother who had chosen to exclusively breastfeed was dealing with a MIL who was joking about sneaking her baby a bottle of formula. Sure, the MIL may feel that formula is healthier. Sure, she may feel that the mother is judging her for using formula with her kids. Sure, she may honestly believe that it would be better if the mother just stopped breastfeeding and used formula instead. But none of that can possibly excuse the kind of behavior the OP has posted about.
The difference is that when a child is being exclusively breastfed, the importance lies in the exclusivity of it. I for one would not have cared if my toddler who ate a variety of foods, including breastmilk was given a bottle or more likely a sippy cup of formula by a grandparent. It wouldn't endanger her health and it wouldn't likely hamper our nursing relationship at that point. Yes during the time that my baby was exclusively breastfeeding, I would explain that my concerns are about maintaining a virgin gut and my milk supply as well as preventing nipple confusion. I guess also my own child's desires and relationship with my MIL would factor into this greatly. I know my babies have never been into bottles and certainly never wanted any form of breastmilk substitute (formula, cow's milk, soy milk), but frankly if my kids are hanging out with my MIL or my own mom for the day and they're old enough that they are eating a variety of foods, then the grandparents can feed them whatever they want (assuming they wouldn't feed the kid poison or hard alcohol or something that was truly dangerous) I see it as an issue between my child and the caregiver. If my child were being watched by a grandparent on a much more regular basis (like several times a week, every week) then I would likely set some more specific guidelines, but I really believe that what your child learns from you the parent and sees you do every day has much more influence on their behavior and health in the long run. I guess that even if I believe strongly against something, if I'm prepared to let my child make their own choice about long before they're an adult, than it probably doesn't matter if I give them the freedom to make that choice a bit earlier. I just don't see any one food as so inherently dangerous that a little nibble given by grandma is the end of the world.

All that being said there are some things concerning food that I would put my foot down about because I believe they are emotionally damaging. No using food as punishment or bribe. No tricking my kid into eating something. For example I would be livid if my child was lied to and told she was eating tofu and it was really chicken or something. And no "clean plate club."
post #88 of 99


When my infants were very young, they were exclusively breastfed and on the rare occasions that I left them, they had EBM. I don't know how I would have reacted to a caregiver offering formula without my permission - it never happened that I know of. They were offered formula as older infants, but with my permission.

Now all three of my kids are food-eating people, and I do not seek to have control over the foods (including formula) that they eat outside my house. I feel that it would be alienating to my extended family to insist on that level of control, and I place no value on exercising that level of control. In fact, I think that exercising that level of control has negative emotional and social repercussions, and I'm very very glad that there are no allergies that force me to feed my kid out of a Tupperware at parties and make him skip the birthday cake. Very, very glad.

How does this relate to the OP? While I don't think she needs to share my values around food in order to have a happy family life, I think it would be really great if she is able to clarify her own and her husband's values, and find a way to constructively and effectively get Grandma on board with the long-range nutrition plan. "I am the MOTHER and I have the POWER and IF YOU DISOBEY ME I CAN PUNISH YOU," while true, is maybe not the best starting point. When you want somebody to do things a certain way, you should really be prepared to tell them why.

It's not inherently pathological to be reluctant to order your parents around, and eager to find a way to get what you need that doesn't devolve into threats and power moves over how they do things in their own homes. If the OP's husband is feeling that reluctance, then it's not necessarily a flaw in his parenting. It may, in fact, be an area of strength in his relationship with his mother that he and the OP can leverage. People who are bad at at taking orders can be very gracious about accommodating requests.
post #89 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by rightkindofme View Post
Actually she just said she was very opposed to strictly keeping kosher. So that means that her treating vegetarianism the same way *is* giving it tons of respect. Just not in the way you want her to.
Actually, that's not very respectful at all, assuming that ethical and metaphysical beliefs are somehow not as important as other beliefs, unless, presumably, they are her own!

Quote:
The same scenario with the Thanksgiving turkey? I'd think, "Wow, what a UAV. Who invited that jerk to dinner?" and then I'd eat my turkey.

If that means that I don't respect the beliefs of people who consider animal murder to be the moral equivalent of human murder, OK.
Well, at least you know you don't respect them.

I know a NUMBER of vegetarians--and incidentally, in my teens, I was among them--who believed all sentient beings to be morally equivalent to humans.

Simply put, "Do not kill" applies to animals as well as people, for them.

And having considered it very deeply with several ethicists as well as laypeople, I can say it is not as simple as it sounds to explain just why it is you think people are so darn special that they're the only ones you can't eat!

Quote:
I think comparing ethical vegetarianism to religious dietary restrictions is a bit off base. Making an ethical choice to not eat animals really should be compared to other ethical choices we might make for our children.... I suppose if I really felt that eating animals was on par with eating people or murder in general I might feel different. Of course if I honestly felt it was the moral equivalent of murdering people, than I don't think I would be able to maintain my relationships with non-vegetarians because I know I couldn't be friends with actual murderers.
See, I think vegetarianism is for many a very serious ethical choice and not comparable to ethical choices that require a communal effort to be effective (for example, boycotting sweatshop goods). Because there is an easy way not to kill a chicken: just don't eat a chicken. Now with how food is all mixed together, it's a bit harder, but ultimately, gram for gram, if you don't eat meat you will save animal lives.

Consider the missionary among cannibals (I know there are very, very few truly cannibalistic cultures and that many of those have stopped... bear with me). He can sit among the cannibals and befriend some of them, knowing them to be murderers and cannibals, and eat the other food, but refuse to partake of human flesh (communion notwithstanding sorry even if you take that literally... that's actually eating God-man... whatever). And just calmly explain, "I'm sorry. I believe human life is sacred and that a person should never take another person's life. I believe this because blah blah blah. Please understand I have the deepest respect for you and your family, but we disagree on this."



I've seen it done. Not about cannibalism, but about other things.

I am ALL FOR compromise with in-laws and heaven knows we've done it, but I really don't like the suggestion that vegetarianism, which has a long, honorable tradition among ethical codes and world religions, is somehow "just" a "lifestyle" "choice". I believe it is a lived virtue that is inseparable from the ethical code from which it springs.

Perhaps reading Albert Schweitzer would be interesting... he was an ethical, religious vegetarian. I mean, beyond, of course, Buddhist vegetarianism or Hindu vegetarianism, which in my opinion should be strongly respected.
post #90 of 99
Anybody who thinks of themselves as the tolerant missionary and me as the cannibal-equivalent is not welcome in my home, let alone at my table. If a person really equates animal murder with human murder, then I don't see how they could form or maintain any kind of emotional bond with meat-eaters.

But again, I've eaten with many vegetarians and vegans and never had a negative experience. I know a lot of people who think that eating animals is WRONG, but there's a whole lot of space between that position and equating a human life with the life of a chicken. Having raised both, I truly have zero respect or tolerance for a person who can't see that the life of a baby and the life of a chick are not morally equal commodities.

But seriously. This theoretical aggressive radical vegan - the one who runs shrieking from the dinner table and ruins Thanksgiving - is a red herring. The OP is certainly not mired in that kind of extremism. She knows that people are more important than poultry. So I'm not sure why we're borrowing that level of trouble here.
post #91 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smithie View Post
I truly have zero respect or tolerance for a person who can't see that the life of a baby and the life of a chick are not morally equal commodities.
Zero, eh? Someone who believes that a widespread practice is immoral typically learns to deal with that by refusing to partake in the practice but not condemning those who do. You'll find that, for instance, that people who are pro-life believe that abortion is murder but generally don't believe that people who have had abortions should be punished as murderers. People who are opposed to the death penalty are able to have civil conversations with those who support it. People who believe in nonviolence can still respect and tolerate soldiers. Throughout history, our standards have changed, because first a few, and then many, people began to see things as immoral.

And standards vary widely across cultures. In some cultures, the norm is that animal lives are viewed as being as important as human lives. Can you really not tolerate that? And what does it mean to not tolerate that? If, for example, you met a Hindu who felt that animals, as reincarnated souls, are morally equal to humans, would you run away screaming like you'd just seen Uncle Fred on the table?
post #92 of 99
"Someone who believes that a widespread practice is immoral typically learns to deal with that by refusing to partake in the practice but not condemning those who do."

I have no problem with that tactic. Nobody who has adopted that tactic runs shrieking from the dinner table. The abortion example is a good one - I know many people who are antichoice, some to a very great degree -but I have never had an issue with an antichoice person of my acquaintance delivering a polemic screed in front of my kids, or during a social or event, or at all, actually. That's one big reason why I think the "you people are MURDERERS" dinner-table debacle is a red herring. People do not do that, unless they have some severe emotional and social challenges orthogonal to their vegan ideology.

I think maybe "respect" and "tolerance" aren't completely in alignment here. I can't say that I have any respect the doctrine of male headship, for example - but I tolerate it, in that I don't spend my days protesting outside of Bob Jones University. I won't be picketing PETA, either.

People really do have the right to make their own lifestyle choices, including the adoption of religious and philosophical positions that I find practically untenable and/or morally repugnant. And I don't think that the OP's choices are either! They are fine choices! I hope that her husband agrees and that Grandma can be dealt with in a way that allows for a strong relationship in the long term! I'm sure the OP hopes for that as well!
post #93 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smithie View Post
Anybody who thinks of themselves as the tolerant missionary and me as the cannibal-equivalent is not welcome in my home, let alone at my table. If a person really equates animal murder with human murder, then I don't see how they could form or maintain any kind of emotional bond with meat-eaters.
Perhaps because you are so intolerant of vegetarians' beliefs, you find it difficult to imagine other people with very strong beliefs that nonetheless are able to commune with people who don't share them?

Quote:
Having raised both, I truly have zero respect or tolerance for a person who can't see that the life of a baby and the life of a chick are not morally equal commodities.
You have zero tolerance for the person, or the belief?

I am pretty specific in my beliefs but I can tolerate many people, with the understanding that every single person on this earth is mistaken about a heck of a lot, including myself.

I would MUCH rather sit at a table with a tolerant person who believes I'm wrong about eating chicken than with an intolerant person who thinks I'm right about chicken!

I mean, have you ever looked at it from the chicken's point of view? Sure, you're bigger and you THINK the chicken is stupider, but you don't really know that (it's all based on the unproven assumption that brainwaves = intelligence, which has never been proved because that relies on a further assumption, that expression of intelligence = intelligence).

I mean, you don't even know I'm not a computer.

Quote:
But seriously. This theoretical aggressive radical vegan - the one who runs shrieking from the dinner table and ruins Thanksgiving - is a red herring. The OP is certainly not mired in that kind of extremism. She knows that people are more important than poultry. So I'm not sure why we're borrowing that level of trouble here.
Really? She hasn't said so.

And frankly, running screaming from a table is a different issue entirely from asking someone politely to please not feed her children dead animals until they can fully comprehend what they are doing and choose it.

I didn't bring up someone screaming running from a table.

I brought up specific beliefs about animals and humans. Not screaming from a table.

You seem to want to paint people with different beliefs as rude (though rudeness is not inherently connected to beliefs about the sanctity of life, human or otherwise), and you do not tolerate people with different beliefs about the world. Why would you suggest that vegetarians do otherwise?
post #94 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smithie View Post
If a person really equates animal murder with human murder, then I don't see how they could form or maintain any kind of emotional bond with meat-eaters.
This is what I was thinking. I can't imagine being married/partnered/willingly raising a child with someone who practiced some moral equivalent to human murder. Never would happen. Which is why I suggested it be compared to something more like an ethical choice to only buy fair trade or humanely raised meat (I don't think I buy the whole thing about these choices only being beneficial if practiced by whole communities, I think they can have the same effect as one single vegetarian, if I buy 1 humanely raised chicken then that was one less chicken that lived a sad life on a factory farm). I was trying to imagine some situation where my husband and I might not see eye to eye on the moral implications, but where I could still tolerate maintaining a relationship with him. Since the OP is in a (seemingly) loving relationship with a man who eats meat, I made the assumption (based on my own experience) that while she has made the ethical choice not to eat meat, she doesn't see it as the moral equivalent of murder.

Also I have certainly known other people who felt the need to control the interactions between their children and other family members so much that would seek to control things like what kind of presents they received from family members. As much as I personally value things like buying fair trade and such, I wouldn't personally put that value ahead of me and my child's relationship with our family.

Of course every parent has the right to be the ultimate decision maker on what they're child eats, wears, and plays with. That doesn't change the fact that sometimes everyone is happier when the parent chooses to relinquish some of that control. If the choice comes down to letting the child have the choice of eating meat when they are with grandma (I say choice because I have never in my life been able to force my child to eat something they didn't want to eat) and severely limiting the child's time with Grandma (of course assuming that aside from the meat issue this would be an otherwise positive relationship), which choice would cause the least amount of trouble and heartache?

All this being said, I do have to agree that the OP's MIL is being passive-aggressive. If it was my MIL making jokes about going behind my back against my parental wishes I would feel hurt and distrustful, and I would probably feel like limiting my child's time with her as well. That doesn't mean though that that is the best way of dealing with the situation.
post #95 of 99
"You have zero tolerance for the person, or the belief?"

The belief. As you say, a person can be deeply mistaken (in my view) about a whole heck of a lot of things still be a decent human being and deserving of my respect. But just as I won't sit still and listen to an explanation about how God intends men to be in charge of women, I wouldn't sit still and listen to an explanation of how a farm animal's life is worth just as much as mine. Both ideologies are inherently degrading and dehumanizing to me, and I don't allow other people to degrade me without offering up some kind of protest. I pay them the respect of assuming that they did not mean to offer me a grave insult, and I explain what my boundaries are on the issue.

Again, this has NEVER happened to me when I was interacting with a vegetarian. With ideologically motivated sexists? All the time. PETA has occasionally been incredibly offensive, but no individual vegetarian or vegan that I have ever met has felt the need to dehumanize me and mine in order to prop up their ideology.

junipermoon wrote:

"I can't imagine being married/partnered/willingly raising a child with someone who practiced some moral equivalent to human murder. Never would happen."

I don't think it ever does.
post #96 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smithie View Post
That's one big reason why I think the "you people are MURDERERS" dinner-table debacle is a red herring. People do not do that, unless they have some severe emotional and social challenges orthogonal to their vegan ideology.
Smithie, I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that you are the person who brought up the hypothetical veg*n who screams and flees at Thanksgiving, back in post #77. Why did you even bring it up if you think it's a red herring?
post #97 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelmendi View Post
Smithie, I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that you are the person who brought up the hypothetical veg*n who screams and flees at Thanksgiving, back in post #77. Why did you even bring it up if you think it's a red herring?
That's what I was thinking... I mean... I don't really get it.

Quote:
Since the OP is in a (seemingly) loving relationship with a man who eats meat, I made the assumption (based on my own experience) that while she has made the ethical choice not to eat meat, she doesn't see it as the moral equivalent of murder
Possibly not, but she may still feel it's very important and have philosophical beliefs that she holds dearly about it. For example, that it's only morally permissible to eat meat if it's eaten with reverence.

I just think people's beliefs about animals and people and their rights are do not fall under the category of practical considerations about what will eventually make a child a good person.

For example, a grandparent could never spank. However, she may have the right to ask a child not to touch the china. The former is about the child's human rights. The latter is a practical consideration that will affect the child, but in a minor way.

Vegetarianism is for many people about the rights of animals. I really do not think it's fair of people to suggest it's a minor issue.
post #98 of 99
The screaming-from-the-table-bit started when somebody (forget who) asked me how I'd react if I were served a human head. My point was, if the reaction to being served meat were the same as the reaction to being served a human head, then the person who reacted thusly is out of their everlovin' mind and I don't tolerate that level of crazy at my dinner table.

But, I have never heard of a vegetarian or vegan reacting in that manner and I do not believe it is a common problem. I actually socialize with a lot of vegetarians IRL. If I am surrounded by people who think I am the Hitler of chickens, then they are certainly managing to keep quiet about it.
post #99 of 99
Thread Starter 
Wow, Thanks for all your comments and input! I feel like I have a pretty good idea about how to deal with this. I had to go out of town to deal with some family issues (my side), so I have kind of abandoned the forum for a couple of weeks. It seems like there were just a couple of issues that I wanted to clear up. I cant quote everyone, so I just want to make a few things little more clear:

*MIL is not concerned with respecting my desicions about food, but she eats cheetos and mustard for dinner on a styrofoam plate at least once a week. So Im dont really feel that she has room to disrespect me.

*DH is not vegetarian, but he was for several years and he was when I married him. His mother has dealt with him being an on again off again veg/vegan for over 10 years. He tries to make ethical choices about the meat he does choose to eat, but he has been known to break down and buy a Wendy's burger every now and then. However, I usually pack his lunch and it us usually vegetarian or with local meat.

*MIL is very controlling. She controls what time we go places, where we go, ect. I have had to push and fight to have Christmas at my house this year (b/c its MY babys first Christmas and I .want. her. at. home. I mentioned it all last year while I was preg and she laughed it off. I demand to be listened to every now and then. (She also gave DH a dog once without asking me...she just has no respect)

*I am not morally opposed to killing animals for meat. I dont really think that humans have the right to treat animals poorly while raising. I am morally opposed to the conditions they are kept in and the gross things they eat, and the nasty hormones and anti biotics that are injected into them. I also think that a person should have to know what they are eating and not have it come in plastic from the grocery store (this pretty much goes for all food, not just meat). Id rather someone hunt and kill their own meat than buy it from the store.


So, UPDATE:

I talked to MIL and to my parents about not giving DD meat until we have told them that it was ok. My parents said ok. MIL said she guessed that would be fine. I made a comment about how much it meant to me and that I would have a hard time leaving DD anywhere where I thought that someone would feed her meat. She said she wouldnt feed her any meat, meat products, or very much dairy until we said it was ok. So, I am going to trust her to respect me in this. I feel like if she does it even one time, DH will respect my desicion not to leave DD with her.

Again, THANKS LADIES! You were all so helpful with this issue. I never thought I would have to deal with it so early in her life, but it's great to know that Im not alone! I ♥ MDC!!!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Parenting
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Not an issue for a while, but.. (meat related)