Kids playing with and wasting food + Meal and snack scheduling discussion - Page 13 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#361 of 432 Old 08-23-2005, 09:28 PM
 
heartmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: In the bat cave with Irishmommy
Posts: 6,299
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Anyway, nothing that Maya has said has led me to believe that she's a mean mommy who is too controlling of her kids. We all have different ways of relating to our kids, and every family's dynamics are different, and I'm not sure why so many people seem to have a hard time believing that Maya's methods work for her family. Just because you wouldn't do it with your own kids doesn't make it evil.
In all fairness, this is beside the point.

AP/GD doesn't encompass all choices. I think good parenting happens outside the ap/gd circle. I also think ap/gd is what we are talking about *here*. I think repeatedly promoting an author that so many object too is counter productive to these threads.


Quote:
never said I would ask a four-year-old to wait an hour. I think that's too long, too, at least for my kids. What did I say that led you to believe I thought differently?
You'll have to go back in thread. I know you did not agree with a one hour wait. You seemed to imply a question over what was being objected too~so I answered specifically, with the quotes I gave.

Mother is the word for God on the hearts and lips of all little children--William Makepeace Thackeray
heartmama is offline  
#362 of 432 Old 08-23-2005, 09:47 PM
 
dharmamama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Bywater, West Farthing
Posts: 4,548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by heartmama
I think repeatedly promoting an author that so many object too is counter productive to these threads.
Perhaps, but who decides what is ap/gd?

I think I am a pretty attached momma yet many here don't agree with certain ways I relate to my kids. Should I consider myself non-ap just because some MDCers, who don't know me and haven't observed me interacting with my family, disagree with something I describe?

Namaste!
dharmamama is offline  
#363 of 432 Old 08-23-2005, 10:02 PM
 
heartmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: In the bat cave with Irishmommy
Posts: 6,299
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Perhaps, but who decides what is ap/gd?
It's usually an evolution, which happens through many conversations and threads. It's happened here many times.

Quote:
Should I consider myself non-ap just because some MDCers, who don't know me and haven't observed me interacting with my family, disagree with something I describe?

If you describe something that a majority actively, repeatedly tell you is outside the scope of gd/ap~I think it would be a good idea to listen.

Dharmamama~not everything I believe fits inside the GD/AP box. I think very few people could say that every moment of their lives is about GD/AP.

Mother is the word for God on the hearts and lips of all little children--William Makepeace Thackeray
heartmama is offline  
#364 of 432 Old 08-23-2005, 10:02 PM
 
dharmamama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Bywater, West Farthing
Posts: 4,548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Ps. I think the line between AP and discipline gets pretty blurred once kids are no longer infants. Dr. Sears is a good example. Some people love the discipline style he espouses in The Discipline Book. Others say it's not very gentle because he does employ consequences and hold kids accountable. I don't think that AP and GD are one and the same. And, personally, I often feel that some people here at MDC push things to the extreme in terms of their interpretation of AP or GD and that those of us who are not as extreme or radical are then labeled non-AP or non-GD (although I have never claimed to be GD anyway). I'm not saying that in an accusatory way, either, because as I have said before in this thread, I'm well aware that I am not a radical momma. But I think that sometimes parents here are called out and picked on for minor infactions of the radical-parenting model. And I don't think that MDC should be a place only for those most radical-minded.

Namaste!
dharmamama is offline  
#365 of 432 Old 08-23-2005, 10:11 PM
 
lilyka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Sioux Falls, SD
Posts: 18,340
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
jumpingi n late to say I think there is definitely a difference between AP and GD and you can certainly be one without the other (going either way)

The truest answer to violence is love. The truest answer to death is life. The only prevention for violence is for the heart to have no violence within it.  We cannot prevent evil through any system devised by mankind. But we can grapple with evil and defeat it, but only with love—real love.

lilyka is offline  
#366 of 432 Old 08-23-2005, 10:20 PM
 
dharmamama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Bywater, West Farthing
Posts: 4,548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I wanted to explain a bit more what I meant by "extreme" and "radical." By that I mean "narrowly interpreted." I guess I don't put a lot of stock into letting some "other" define whether what I do is AP or not because, from my vantage point, I see a lot of instances in which a thread starts off rather innocuously and, as the thread progresses and people get more entrenched in defending their positions, interpretations of "correct" parenting tend to get narrower and narrower as people bring up increasingly obscure possible scenarios and demand answers as to how those scenarios should be handled.

My personal opinion is that AP and GD are relationships, not methods.

Namaste!
dharmamama is offline  
#367 of 432 Old 08-23-2005, 10:25 PM
 
heartmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: In the bat cave with Irishmommy
Posts: 6,299
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
dharmamama~if you don't even identify with GD, surely you can see how it might influence your perception of this forum?

Oh and don't worry about the radicals~I doubt any radical ap'ers would tell you they thought MDC was a very radical ap place.

Mother is the word for God on the hearts and lips of all little children--William Makepeace Thackeray
heartmama is offline  
#368 of 432 Old 08-23-2005, 10:27 PM
 
ShadowMom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,416
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by heartmama
I think repeatedly promoting an author that so many object too is counter productive to these threads.
Hmmm. Well, I agree that Satter doesn't seem very GD/AP. However, I don't feel that many parents here feed their children in a way that is GD/AP. Trying to "get" your child to eat certain things is not very GD/AP. Not allowing them to eat what their body tells them to, because it's not as healthy as you want it to be, is not very GD/AP (I don't mean YOU, I mean posters of some threads I've read before). That's just my opinion, I guess, but it's how I see things.

Yet, I see many many threads and posts on MDC about those things.

I guess from what maya says, I consider her overall style to be more GD/AP regarding food than many other people here. She at least doesn't try to get her children to eat certain foods. She lets them eat what they want, and what their bodies tell them they need. She doesn't try to control everything that goes into their mouths.

She does put them on a schedule, which I personally disagree with, but she tries to feed them often enough that they don't get hungry very often at least.

Anyway, popular or not, those are my thoughts.
ShadowMom is offline  
#369 of 432 Old 08-23-2005, 10:28 PM
 
lilyka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Sioux Falls, SD
Posts: 18,340
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
19 pages ago there was an original post. i read the first two and last 2. just wanted to chime in with what I did in the original posters question.

1. supervision supervision supervision (anyone surprised that is my answer). If they take something out with no intention of eating it take it back and put it away and help them clean it up.
2. I put a child lock on the fridge. the only one who couldn't easily get past it was the baby. This wasn't to prevent them from eating but to slow them down enough so i could be aware. and to keep the baby out of the fridge. refridgerators are no place for babies to be playing anyway. it is dangerous. : It didn't kill them or ruini thier fragile sense of self to ask for help wioth the fridge latch.
3. my kids always have to ask me for a snack. it is not about denying them food but just being aware and making sure they aren't eating the whatever we need for supper, chowing on crap food constantly or whatever. My oldest has sensory isues that have caused her to overeat since birth. She does need to be closely monitored.
4. I also really liked the idea of "no more of . . . . until grocery day" And to be completely honest I would probably not buy things they had a habit of wasting. If ice cream is a target is it really that important to buy ice cream? why stress it when you can just skip it. if they kept wasting it I would just leave it at the store from now on. I just wouldn't be motivated to buy stuff likely to become garbage or cause a conflict. And I don't mind rewards so a reward for following the food rules would be to reintroduce some of that fun food again as tehy showed they could be responsible with it.

The truest answer to violence is love. The truest answer to death is life. The only prevention for violence is for the heart to have no violence within it.  We cannot prevent evil through any system devised by mankind. But we can grapple with evil and defeat it, but only with love—real love.

lilyka is offline  
#370 of 432 Old 08-23-2005, 10:29 PM
 
heartmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: In the bat cave with Irishmommy
Posts: 6,299
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Lilyka~Ap without gd would be the Pearls. Breastfeeding, homebirth, co sleeping, no vax, sling wearing, lots of bonding. And the occasional spanking starting at about 4 months.

Obviously ap/gd together create something wholly different.

Mother is the word for God on the hearts and lips of all little children--William Makepeace Thackeray
heartmama is offline  
#371 of 432 Old 08-23-2005, 10:34 PM
 
dharmamama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Bywater, West Farthing
Posts: 4,548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by heartmama
dharmamama~if you don't even identify with GD, surely you can see how it might influence your perception of this forum?
Of course I can. But 1) This is the Parenting Issues, not the GD, forum; 2) MDC is a NFL website, and there are many ways to be NFL without necessarily being GD; and 3) Just because I am "not" GD doesn't mean that I am "anti" GD. I don't think I really am much of anything because I don't parent by any sort of book but my own, and my bag of parenting tricks is not limited by adherence to one philosophy. So I can often appreciate both sides of the coin, which maybe those who are staunchly in one camp or the other can't.

Namaste!

Ps. Read on to see how I explained "radical."
dharmamama is offline  
#372 of 432 Old 08-23-2005, 10:37 PM
 
dharmamama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Bywater, West Farthing
Posts: 4,548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by heartmama
Lilyka~Ap without gd would be the Pearls.
Yes, because you either GD or you beat your kids.
dharmamama is offline  
#373 of 432 Old 08-23-2005, 10:40 PM
 
heartmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: In the bat cave with Irishmommy
Posts: 6,299
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Dharmama~well, Satter is discussed in the GD forum too And I think the spirit of MDC is consistent across all the parent topic forums.

NFL can definitely be practiced without ap or gd. It is very common for religious sects to practice homebirth, no vax, organic living, breastfeeding, etc.

I am sure MDC would look very different if it was only NFL or only a positive discipline forum.

edited to add we cross posted~

Quote:
Yes, because you either GD or you beat your kids.
Statistically, something like 92% of parents in the US use spanking as part of their parenting. Outside of GD or positive discipline, it is *not* a very far jump to using spanking. I agree not all spankers "beat" kids in the Pearl sense. However I think outside of GD, you are going to find parents spanking a short way down any imagined "discipline spectrum".

Mother is the word for God on the hearts and lips of all little children--William Makepeace Thackeray
heartmama is offline  
#374 of 432 Old 08-23-2005, 11:13 PM
 
UUMom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,777
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Satter isn't GD by any stretch of my imagination. Not for us.

I accept that some readers of MDC are not GD, but are fine parents.

However. This family is GD.

I cannot support behaviors that are not.

I don't think other folks are actually 'abusive', but they *are* doing things that would *never* feel right for our family.

Dh and I have been together for over two decades, and we decided from the get-go that our lives would look like something *much* different from what the 'regular' world sees as OK.

We are all equals here and the children know it, show it, and are lovely.

We could not be more blessed. We do accept others have a diferent view.

We don't nec agree with that view, but there is nothing we can do about that.

But we know we won't go down this control road.

Edited to fix pathetic spelling typos.
UUMom is offline  
#375 of 432 Old 08-23-2005, 11:34 PM
 
maya44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,600
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Somewhere here someone asked why I advocate Satter on a GD site.

Its' because I believe that for many faimlies, if they try it, especailly if its what they start with, they will be feeding their children in a very gently way without power struggles and have healthier and less "afraid of new food" eaters.

I think that having children always snacking at will and never sitting down to a meal l creates less healthy eaters. The underying reserach by Satter shows this. And I never said that I would tell a child who it truly hungry to wait an hour. A child asking for a snack is not necessarily hungry. If they ask for a snack and you say "well wait til dinner, its in an hour" and they say "Ok" and are not at all upset, I don't think that you have a child who is really horribly hungry. As i have said, if they were really hungry I would move up dinner a little, maybe 30 minutes or so. If they were truly upset, (which just never happened, I'd have to do something different, but I would not make this a habit. Instead I'd try to do better snack planning so it did not happen.

What I found was that by saying to my kids when they were young, "oh, we are not going to have a snack now, we will have lunch/dinner in a little while" instead of handing them a snack every single time they asked, we met my goals of us all eating family meals.

By having a set meal on the table and not jumping up to make them a special meal because they did not eat the protein at that one meal, they felt that I believed them to be competent to choose what to eat from what was on the table and to try them when they were ready. I think that this made them more likely to decide on their own to try new foods and less likely to feel worried in any situation where they were served a meal. Satter's reserach definintely shows that it makes kids more likely to try new things faster.

My kids never got hysterical or even mildly upset by these things. They never asked "Can't I have X instead?"

I think its like many of you who don't bring into your house foods you consider to be unhealthy. Your kids are not (I assume) screaming and crying for some product like Cheezzee Doodles (or some such product whose bag states in small print "does not contain actual cheese") at home. They are not saying "But I want CHEEzzE DOODLES now!" They just accpet that this is how their family eats. They are probably even proud of it. Mine are. They love their family meals. They feel sorry for people who have to eat veggies to get a cookie. They roll their eyes (privately) when we are with friends who keep handing their kids cups of goldfish and juice during the day and then wonder why they never eat anything at meals.

Many of the people I know who have tried it have found the same. Like I said my SIL who is very AP tried it. If her kids had complained AT ALL, she would have dropped it. But they didn't. They loved the fact that they no longer had to eat "at least something healthy' to get dessert. When they asked for a snack an hour before dinner and she said "you know what we are having homemade pizza for dinner, its in the oven and will be ready in twenty minutes" they said "OK". They were used to reaching for a snack when they were bored. They were not upset about being reminded that a real meal was comming. I know if they had said "But I am sooooo hungry, I need to eat now" SIL would have given them a snack immediatly. But because she had scheduled snacks during the day they never said it because they were not in fact terribly hungry.


I think that for people who are in a power struggle over food and/or are struggling with a really poor eater, Satter's methods solve these problems. That is why i bring them up. For those who have none of these struggles, I understand that this is not the right way for you. But my idea is, if you do have these problems why not try them and see if your children feel deprived or unhappy.

This is not like advocating spanking. Obviously no child is going to like that. Do you really believe that no child is going to be happy with a method of feeding like this?????
maya44 is offline  
#376 of 432 Old 08-23-2005, 11:57 PM
 
UUMom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,777
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by maya44

his is not like advocating spanking. Obviously no child is going to like that. Do you really believe that no child is going to be happy with a method of feeding like this?????

Happy is good. happy is not the least bit bad.

But we are going for freedom, absolute respect and---dare i say it???--- equality.

At this point, we are looking at a larger picture of what we want for our kids.
UUMom is offline  
#377 of 432 Old 08-24-2005, 02:28 AM
 
Dechen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by maya44

I think that for people who are in a power struggle over food and/or are struggling with a really poor eater, Satter's methods solve these problems. That is why i bring them up. For those who have none of these struggles, I understand that this is not the right way for you. But my idea is, if you do have these problems why not try them and see if your children feel deprived or unhappy.
I have to agree with Maya here, and my family operates more like UUMom's and Heartmama's. I don't schedule food, and I don't restrict food. I am very much an advocate of eating when you are hungry, stopping when you are full, and appreciating the food you eat.

On the other hand, so many people have issues with food. I see it in my friends - both Apish and non Apish - the impulse to control, cajole, and force a child to eat what the parent considers appropriate.

I find Satter a much better alternative to force. Even if that force is manipulation or pressure.

I would much rather a parent follow Satter than bribe a child to eat, or harrass a kid about trying "Just one bite." The idea behind Satter (and I have one of her books) is that kids eat frequently enough that they will never go truly hungry.

I myself have low blood sugar issues, and there are times I need to eat NOW. Not in 15 minutes, and not in an hour. A child with similar issues would not do well to wait an hour until dinner. I have to trust that a reasonable parent following Satter's philosophy would take their children's needs into account.

So - while I do not follow Satter, I don't hesitate to suggest her books to people I know. I think Satter offers a decent alternative to the common approach to food.
Dechen is offline  
#378 of 432 Old 08-24-2005, 07:35 AM
 
cmb123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 1,468
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by UUMom
But we are going for freedom, absolute respect and---dare i say it???--- equality.
other than the fact that we eat our main 3 meals at the table together, my kids have the ability to snack whenever they want to. I don't think it makes them any more "free" than if there was a scheduled snack coming at regular intervals. I doubt that they respect me or the food anymore. I don't really get the equality thing. I buy it, I prepare it, I serve it a lot of the time. How is that equal, or "more equal"..I doublt Maya's sitting there eating a delectable snack and smacking her lips telling the kids they have to wait until dinner. From what has been said, her whole family eats this way. Sounds equal to me.
Different strokes for different folks.
Take what you can and leave the rest behind. Simple.
cmb123 is offline  
#379 of 432 Old 08-24-2005, 08:44 AM
 
dharmamama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Bywater, West Farthing
Posts: 4,548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by heartmama
Statistically, something like 92% of parents in the US use spanking as part of their parenting. Outside of GD or positive discipline, it is *not* a very far jump to using spanking.
I wonder where this statistic came from, because a lot of my friends are not AP but I only know one person who spanks her kids.

Namaste!
dharmamama is offline  
#380 of 432 Old 08-24-2005, 09:29 AM
 
maya44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,600
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dechen
I myself have low blood sugar issues, and there are times I need to eat NOW. Not in 15 minutes, and not in an hour. A child with similar issues would not do well to wait an hour until dinner. I have to trust that a reasonable parent following Satter's philosophy would take their children's needs into account.

So - while I do not follow Satter, I don't hesitate to suggest her books to people I know. I think Satter offers a decent alternative to the common approach to food.

Yes, you can rest asssured that Satter discusses how a child with diabetes or other medical conditions that affect feeding may need some modifications to a "no snacking constantly throughout the day rule"

But she still STRONGLY recomends the most important part, not forcing a child to eat. With a child that MUST eat for health reasons, she urges parents to place expectations on a child that they will eat something when it is necessary but to try to be as low key about it as possible.


My friend Amy told me that Satter's philosophy was very helpful with her diabetic dd, and made Amy less anxious about feeding her.
maya44 is offline  
#381 of 432 Old 08-24-2005, 10:48 AM
 
UUMom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,777
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by maya44
Yes, you can rest asssured that Satter discusses how a child with diabetes or other medical conditions that affect feeding may need some modifications to a "no snacking constantly throughout the day rule"

But she still STRONGLY recomends the most important part, not forcing a child to eat. With a child that MUST eat for health reasons, she urges parents to place expectations on a child that they will eat something when it is necessary but to try to be as low key about it as possible.


My friend Amy told me that Satter's philosophy was very helpful with her diabetic dd, and made Amy less anxious about feeding her.
I don't disagree with any of this at all. In fact, i am not disagreeing with anyone at this point. Just sharing my world.

It's hard to ignore a discussion that is 19 screens long.

ETA--Oops, now it's 20.
UUMom is offline  
#382 of 432 Old 08-24-2005, 11:24 AM
 
Britishmum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 4,345
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
This is a fascinating discussion. Nothing like a discussion about food to get the opinions going.

Maya, your input always interests me and challenges me to think. We don't do things the same way as you, but I respect that you consider the wider issues in your family (I find it hard to deal with people who just do things because 'that's how it's done' or 'that's the way I was raised')

Maybe this is a little off topic, but I'm wondering about the notion that a family has a way of life, and everyone is happy about it, which we know because nobody complains.

That seems logical.

However, if the decision to have this family way of life comes from the top and is controlled by the top, surely the lack of complaints proves nothing. Because you can't alter the structure anyway, so complaining would be pointless. Plus, you don't know any different, so you accept.

Does this prove that something is right?

I understand that in a particular situation you would not deny your child food, and that all your children have input etc etc. But the basic structure is the parents', not the children's. So they know that there would be no point in complaining. What would that achieve, if the family is structured this way and they know it's not going to change, not without a major revolution, anyway. Or quite probably, they feel no need to complain because they are happy about the arrangement. I'm not insinuating that they are unhappy but accept their lot, but I do wonder if complaince can be taken as an indicator that something is working.

Does complaince mean that this is best for their emotional development? Or their attitudes towards food? If children are managed so carefully, are they developing the best skills in independence and self-direction?

This is a wider issue than food, although I do think that food is one of the most important areas where we should trust children and give them maximum independence (along of course with some guidance). In every area of our children's lives, I believe that we should trust them and allow them to make independent choices. That, I believe, will set them up for a better future than superficial 'achievements' such as being an adventurous eater.

On a personal and anecdotal front, I have been reflecting on my own upbringing and attitudes to food. We certainly didnt have much freedom about when we ate, although we were well nourished and never hungry. We didnt complain, and I guess I was 'happy' about the arrangement. But I certainly ended up with food issues, which I have battled my entire life.

On the other hand, I had a good friend whose mother allowed far greater freedom and independence to her children over food. I absolutely loved being at her house, and I couldnt understand why her kids didnt pig out on all the available food! But they just didnt. When I went for a day, you bet, I made the most of it. The food wasnt very different to what I was given at home - but it was available to me when I wanted it.

However, they later moved home and I then started visiting for weeks at a time. I was amazed that whenever I visited, I lost weight, but without ever intending too. Meanwhile, when I was at home, I struggled daily in this ridiculous circle of dieting and binging. Sneaked food, hid it, etc, because I was ashamed.

The other thing that seems significant to me is that she raised daughters with no food issues at all. They all have a healthy attitude to food. Ironically, she was often criticised (behind her back of course, but in front of us kids) for being 'disorganised' and permissive, because she didnt have any firm meal rules or arrangements. So how come her kids grew up with a far healthier relationship wiht food than the rest of us with such socially acceptable mothers?
Britishmum is offline  
#383 of 432 Old 08-24-2005, 11:43 AM
 
UUMom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,777
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Britishmum

On the other hand, I had a good friend whose mother allowed far greater freedom and independence to her children over food. I absolutely loved being at her house, and I couldnt understand why her kids didnt pig out on all the available food! But they just didnt. When I went for a day, you bet, I made the most of it. The food wasnt very different to what I was given at home - but it was available to me when I wanted it.
The other thing that seems significant to me is that she raised daughters with no food issues at all. They all have a healthy attitude to food. Ironically, she was often criticised (behind her back of course, but in front of us kids) for being 'disorganised' and permissive, because she didnt have any firm meal rules or arrangements. So how come her kids grew up with a far healthier relationship wiht food than the rest of us with such socially acceptable mothers?
Interesting. Not surprising, but interesting.

My brother brought my kids to the beach yesterday at 4:45. I invited him over for supper (we eat late, esp in summer and had a friend driving in fromNYC coming to join us, so we finally ate supper at about 8:30). But i digress. Anyway, my brother brought the children home at about 7:00. He had stopped and bought them ice cream cones at a small delish local (open only in usmmer) indie place near the beach. This is fine, and my brother knows it is fine. My six yr old bounded in with half a a small ice cream cone left. "I am thinking that I want to save room for supper. I am going to put this in the freezer until tomorrow."

To me, that's brilliant and emotioally healthy. And I do think it's because there is no food control at all going on. I hope she can maintain this healthy attitude about food all of her life.

Of course, she had an ice cream cone for breakfast before she even had her oatmeal. :LOL
UUMom is offline  
#384 of 432 Old 08-24-2005, 01:00 PM
 
dharmamama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Bywater, West Farthing
Posts: 4,548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Never mind.
dharmamama is offline  
#385 of 432 Old 08-24-2005, 01:47 PM
 
UUMom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,777
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
If your nephews trully had equal access to food, they would not need to whine for treats. They could just have them. I think personality is an issue, but unless there is a medical issue, children with access might binge occassionaly, but would soon come to a balance as they better understand their body signals. I know others do not agree with that as they fear children are without self control and parents need to control for them.

I don't agree with that, obviously, for 'normally' growing, healthy children.

You need not take offense at my opinions, as whatever you are doing for you family is working, and what our family is doing is working. I am not offended by your comments in any way. Not agreeing and being offended or upset isn't the same.

ETA-- hey-- you deleted your whole message. What i got in my email & replied to, and what's now above is 'never mind' . :LOL Oh well, that's pretty much my life. Talking to myself.
UUMom is offline  
#386 of 432 Old 08-24-2005, 02:06 PM
 
dharmamama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Bywater, West Farthing
Posts: 4,548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by UUMom
If your nephews trully had equal access to food, they would not need to whine for treats. They could just have them.
Unless they are out of them because they ate them all the same day they were bought or they are at my house, where we don't really serve treats.

Quote:
ETA-- hey-- you deleted your whole message. What i got in my email & replied to, and what's now above is 'never mind' . :LOL Oh well, that's pretty much my life. Talking to myself.
Yeah, I pretty much decided that the conversation is not worth continuing just because it's going round and round and not much progress is being made any more. I'm not offended by your views. I just wish that when people here stated that they do something that is not regarded as AP/GD by the more vocal MDC members that people could just accept that there are different strokes for different folks and not keep trying to punch holes in other people's theories. I feel like the less-gd people here are a lot more accepting of different approaches than the more staunchly gd people are.

But, I don't really take it personally because I don't come to MDC to learn how to parent. I just come for good conversation.



Namaste!
dharmamama is offline  
#387 of 432 Old 08-24-2005, 03:03 PM
 
monkey's mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,359
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dharmamama
I think that has been more than adequately explained: Maya follows the methods of Ellyn Satter.
Right, I know. But, what I'm trying to get to is that parents who are focusing on trust and attachment would be better off following their children's hunger cues.

Lots and lots and lots of people feed babies and children on a set schedule that has little or nothing to do with the child's needs. There is lots of encouragement "out there" to do just that. However, on an AP board, I think it's really important to critique those methods.

Attachment Parenting at it's core is about meeting your child's needs, yes? What is a clearer need than hunger?

And it worries me when people (especially those who self-identify as "not AP") endorse/promote following something (schedules, authors, experts, etc.) that leads people AWAY from listening to and following their children's needs--away from attachment.

I'm all for family meals--we do them here. I'm all for regular snacks throughout the day--we do that here, too. I'm also sure that Maya's family is happy and that she is a gentle and good mom--I've read some wonderful ideas from her.

I'm just not for methods that seem to be more about devotion to the method or ensuring some future outcome for the child, than about meeting the child's needs here and now.
monkey's mom is offline  
#388 of 432 Old 08-24-2005, 04:44 PM
 
choli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,433
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkey's mom
Right, I know. But, what I'm trying to get to is that parents who are focusing on trust and attachment would be better off following their children's hunger cues.
But people, including children, do not always eat because of genuine hunger cues. Sometimes they are just bored, or triggered by an advertisement, want to eat for comfort, or even just seeking attention.

Asking a child to wait for dinner, if it is not that far away, could help the child to learn to recognise when she is really hungry.
choli is offline  
#389 of 432 Old 08-24-2005, 05:09 PM
 
monkey's mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,359
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by choli
But people, including children, do not always eat because of genuine hunger cues. Sometimes they are just bored, or triggered by an advertisement, want to eat for comfort, or even just seeking attention.
I would consider all of those valid needs by my child. When my baby wants to nurse for comfort I don't deny him that. Why would I trust my newborn more than I would my 3 yr. old, you know?

Quote:
Originally Posted by choli
Asking a child to wait for dinner, if it is not that far away, could help the child to learn to recognise when she is really hungry.
Asking isn't problematic--as long as they're allowed to say 'no.'

But, I don't think making people hungry helps them recognize when they're hungry any faster than hunger just occurring on it's own. I think letting them experience eating for a wide range of reasons (if they want) would better help them understand their hunger or desire for food.
monkey's mom is offline  
#390 of 432 Old 08-24-2005, 05:16 PM
 
choli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,433
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkey's mom
I would consider all of those valid needs by my child. When my baby wants to nurse for comfort I don't deny him that. Why would I trust my newborn more than I would my 3 yr. old, you know?


Asking isn't problematic--as long as they're allowed to say 'no.'

But, I don't think making people hungry helps them recognize when they're hungry any faster than hunger just occurring on it's own. I think letting them experience eating for a wide range of reasons (if they want) would better help them understand their hunger or desire for food.
I disagree. I think mindless snacking and eating for comfort are major contributors to the American obesity problem. I prefer for my kids to THINK about whether they are really hungry or not.
choli is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off