If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Halloween candy
In article .com, Dawn says...
Banty wrote: In article , dragonlady says... Heck, when I was a kid I can remember a couple of family gatherings where the grownups got steak off the grill -- and the kids got hot dogs. I don't mind eating hot dogs, but not while others are eating steak! My parents would never do that -- they might offer us a choice -- but these were events where someone else was providing the food, and we had better manners than to challenge the situation. Are you sure it wasn't simply because the kids by and large preferred the hot dogs? I've done it when kids were very little (probably under 6) because the kids tend to waste a very good piece of expensive meat. Kids don't eat much in those types of situations IME. So you give them even a portion of a good steak (which most kids don't like anyway) and it goes to waste. Better to waste a cheap hot dog. My parents did something like this. I think a big part of the reason also is that little kids tend to run around more, and not be so neat, so hot dogs is a 'friendlier' meal. Besides, who'd be on cut-up-the-steak-into-little-pieces duty? And there is cost. Just to look fair, everyone is to have a round steak when the adults could have enjoyed a sirloin strip steak or better? I don't think it's something that should be done with an older kid who would genuinely prefer steak. I certainly wouldn't, say, offer lobster to the adults but expect my 13 yo son to eat fish sticks (he doesn't eat meat). Sure. That's the age also, in my memory, there'd be this tension between my wanting to sit with the adults and them wanting me to attend to the little kids in the kiddie table. There is also - is this a family where, if *one* kid got the steak, and there really wasn't enough for a lot of kids to have steak, it wouldn't be a sore point? If they're in general big on sharing all around, it'd be a sore point. I wonder - do folks feel bad about non-food priveldges? For example, is it unfair for the adults to get a master suit to sleep and bathe in? Banty |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Halloween candy
Dawn wrote:
Banty wrote: In article , dragonlady says... Heck, when I was a kid I can remember a couple of family gatherings where the grownups got steak off the grill -- and the kids got hot dogs. I don't mind eating hot dogs, but not while others are eating steak! My parents would never do that -- they might offer us a choice -- but these were events where someone else was providing the food, and we had better manners than to challenge the situation. Are you sure it wasn't simply because the kids by and large preferred the hot dogs? I've done it when kids were very little (probably under 6) because the kids tend to waste a very good piece of expensive meat. Kids don't eat much in those types of situations IME. So you give them even a portion of a good steak (which most kids don't like anyway) and it goes to waste. Better to waste a cheap hot dog. We recently went to a very upscale restaurant when my parents were in town, and DD ordered the Petit Filet Mignon. She didn't finish it -- so *I* _*HAD*_ to! So there are benefits to having kids order the expensive stuff. Of course, in this instance, the DD is a true carnivore and really prefers steak to processed meat. DS, OTOH, ordered nothing, but tried some of the BH's lamb, which he decided that he liked. So maybe he can order that next time and I can finish *that* order too. Mind you, maybe someone at a different table was getting grossed out by my eating off another person's plate, but they only had to look out the window at the lake view. Scott the extra food eater with DD 12 and DS 9 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Halloween candy
In article ,
Banty wrote: In article .com, Dawn says... Banty wrote: In article , dragonlady says... Heck, when I was a kid I can remember a couple of family gatherings where the grownups got steak off the grill -- and the kids got hot dogs. I don't mind eating hot dogs, but not while others are eating steak! My parents would never do that -- they might offer us a choice -- but these were events where someone else was providing the food, and we had better manners than to challenge the situation. Are you sure it wasn't simply because the kids by and large preferred the hot dogs? I've done it when kids were very little (probably under 6) because the kids tend to waste a very good piece of expensive meat. Kids don't eat much in those types of situations IME. So you give them even a portion of a good steak (which most kids don't like anyway) and it goes to waste. Better to waste a cheap hot dog. My parents did something like this. I think a big part of the reason also is that little kids tend to run around more, and not be so neat, so hot dogs is a 'friendlier' meal. Besides, who'd be on cut-up-the-steak-into-little-pieces duty? And there is cost. Just to look fair, everyone is to have a round steak when the adults could have enjoyed a sirloin strip steak or better? Yes. I feel pretty strongly about this: if you can't afford the Good Stuff for everyone who wants it, then you can't afford to serve the Good Stuff. I just think it's rude to eat steak in front of kids while you serve them hot dogs. If you're sure the kids will mostly prefer hot dogs, cook hot dogs and offer them the choice. I WAS one of the older kids at these affairs, and maybe the OTHER kids (at least the younger ones) liked getting hot dogs instead, but I resented it at the time, and now that I'm one of the grown ups, I haven't changed my mind: I STILL think its rude to eat something in front of others if there isn't enough to share. I don't think it's something that should be done with an older kid who would genuinely prefer steak. I certainly wouldn't, say, offer lobster to the adults but expect my 13 yo son to eat fish sticks (he doesn't eat meat). Sure. That's the age also, in my memory, there'd be this tension between my wanting to sit with the adults and them wanting me to attend to the little kids in the kiddie table. There is also - is this a family where, if *one* kid got the steak, and there really wasn't enough for a lot of kids to have steak, it wouldn't be a sore point? If they're in general big on sharing all around, it'd be a sore point. Yes -- and so serve something you can afford to serve everyone. Figure out how many people are coming, figure out what your budget is, and plan accordingly. I wonder - do folks feel bad about non-food priveldges? For example, is it unfair for the adults to get a master suit to sleep and bathe in? I was never part of a family that could afford vacations that HAD that sort of thing. Whatever accomodations were there, we all pretty much had the same thing. Yes, being a grownup comes with some privileges kids don't get. I just don't think one of them is food. I'm pretty radical about this in many way: if someone is in the house at meal time, I feed them. Period. And they eat whatever we're eating (assuming they want it) -- and if it turns out there isn't enough to go around, we just cut it thinner, and have smaller portions ourselves, too. I don't think most of you would invite company over and serve yourselves one thing while you served your guests something less desirable. Why do you think it's OK to treat your kids worse than you'd treat your guests? There are times when this is inconvenient. Tough. Heck, I get mad at my kids (now 19) if they bring fast food home to eat when they know other people are in the house: if they aren't going to bring home enough to share, they can jolly well eat in their car, or at the Golden Arches. If it happens by accident -- they thought they were coming home to an empty house -- that's one thing. But if they KNOW there are going to be other people in the house, I believe they have an obligation to offer to buy some for them, too, or eat it before they get home. They are both very good about this, by the way: DS will even call from his car to see if anyone is home, and makes his decisions accordingly. If it's just one person, he may offer to get them something. If it's more, he may choose to eat before he gets home. But he doesn't deliberately eat in front of family members when he can't share. -- Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Halloween candy
dragonlady wrote:
[snip] I'm pretty radical about this in many way:**if*someone*is*in*the*house at meal time, I feed them.**Period.**And*they*eat*whatever*we're*eating (assuming they want it) -- and if it turns out there isn't enough to go around, we just cut it thinner, and have smaller portions ourselves, too. I don't think most of you would invite company over and serve yourselves one thing while you served your guests something less desirable.**Why*do you think it's OK to treat your kids worse than you'd treat your guests? [snip] But there is the other side of this: in our house, dh gets to go to lots of posh events, and first-class restaurents. I don't, because spouses don't get invited to this sort of business event. Does this mean I have to miss out on the really nice stuff, because I have to share it with the kids who won't appreciate it? I mean, if I get a nice box of chocolates, I am happy to share it with the rest of the family. OTOH I don't want to effectively put $10 worth of chocolate in the bin, because I let a kid take a chocolate which I *knew* they wouldn't like. Especially if I won't get another box like that for probably another year. I know I'm coming at this from a completely different perspective. Growing up, we used to be given boxes of chocolates to share with my siblings, and I'd be expected to have the nut ones, rather then the nicer ones, because one of my siblings disliked nuts. I don't see that having to share the nice stuff in the house with every one in it is fair, when I know some of those people are having really nice stuff outside the house. -- Penny Gaines UK mum to three |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Halloween candy
In article ,
Penny Gaines wrote: dragonlady wrote: [snip] I'm pretty radical about this in many way:**if*someone*is*in*the*house at meal time, I feed them.**Period.**And*they*eat*whatever*we're*eating (assuming they want it) -- and if it turns out there isn't enough to go around, we just cut it thinner, and have smaller portions ourselves, too. I don't think most of you would invite company over and serve yourselves one thing while you served your guests something less desirable.**Why*do you think it's OK to treat your kids worse than you'd treat your guests? [snip] But there is the other side of this: in our house, dh gets to go to lots of posh events, and first-class restaurents. I don't, because spouses don't get invited to this sort of business event. The difference is, he doesn't do it in front of you. The equivalent would be if dh dragged you along to the posh restaraunt, and you had to sit in the lounge with a peanut butter sandwich and watch everyone else eat a gormet meal. I have no problems with parents going out to dinner and leaving the kids at home! Or with having some treats that don't come out while the kids are up. Does this mean I have to miss out on the really nice stuff, because I have to share it with the kids who won't appreciate it? No -- it just means you don't have it in front of them, or keep it where they can see it and tell then they can't have any because it's just for you. I mean, if I get a nice box of chocolates, I am happy to share it with the rest of the family. OTOH I don't want to effectively put $10 worth of chocolate in the bin, because I let a kid take a chocolate which I *knew* they wouldn't like. Especially if I won't get another box like that for probably another year. I know I'm coming at this from a completely different perspective. Growing up, we used to be given boxes of chocolates to share with my siblings, and I'd be expected to have the nut ones, rather then the nicer ones, because one of my siblings disliked nuts. And that wasn't fair to YOU -- basically, you were being asked to watch your sibling eat something nice while you (from your perspective) ate something less desireable. As I look at things, this is exactly the sort of thing I oppose -- if all of you kids preferred the not-nut chocolates, your parents should have bought boxes without any nutty ones, but asking YOU to not eat YOUR favorites while you watched a sibling eat it was not nice. I don't see that having to share the nice stuff in the house with every one in it is fair, when I know some of those people are having really nice stuff outside the house. And if you're talking about an agreement between you and your husband, I'll agree -- if he's OK with you treating yourself to some nice stuff as compensation for him going out fancy when you can't, and he doesn't mind you having it in front of him, or knowing it's there and saving it just for you, I have no problem with that. My problem is with eating the good stuff in front of kids (or anyone else) while they aren't allowed to have it, or keeping stuff in the house that they are only allowed to look at, but never to eat. (Note that some living situations are exempt from this rule -- housemates are not always family! I lived in a 30 person house for a while, and we each had our separate area in a fridge for food that was not held in common -- I saw nothing wrong with anyone fixing themselves something and eating it in the dining room without offering to share! The same goes for other people who share a house without sharing lives -- that is, people who are living together just because they happen to all rent a room in the same house, but who are not "family" in any sense of the word.) -- Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Halloween candy
In article ,
Banty wrote: In article , dragonlady says... In article , Banty wrote: I don't think that's at all the same thing as what we're talking about. There is a long way from being the *only* people to eat the good stuff (and, from your descriptions, enjoying in front of everyone) to want to be able to partake in one's favorite foods hardly *at all*, and not want to see it has dissappeared because our attention had been turned to running a household an earning a living. I know; I was explaining why I think I react so strongly (over react, probably) to this sort of thing. I know. But what you say should happen, below, doesn't leave much outlet. Other than everything being offered in abundance. Or keeping private stashes. Or just being clear that there is a limit to how much one person can take at a time. I've done that sometimes -- we'll get something special, and I'll tell the kids that they can only have, say, one a day, or two total out of the bag (because there are 10 in the bag, and 5 people in the house). Which really is the only solution in a household that expects everyone gets everything anytime. If folks get jealous of private stashes, too, then one is left with what I did when it was my turn to run for supplies after the first pot-sticker incident: sit down and eat them before going back with the supplies I didn't say everyone gets everything any time. I said that I don't think it's reasonable to keep good stuff for "just the parents", and never let the kids have it, or eat special stuff in front of the kids and not let them have any. I react because of frustration with non-family shared living situations where I'd have to stash in my room, and sometimes nice things couldn't happen. (And related things, like the dismal choice one gets between living in squalor or becoming housemaid.) Like, if I couln't bake just before taking the goodies to an event, I couldn't bake, 'cause the goodies would be gone by time I left. I've long thrown up my hands about it and deal with it, but I dont' think it's exactly a virtue to be promoted, that one thing they get what they want or they shoudln't even see it. I should have specified living with family (however you define that). Roommates are a different situation, and can be extremely frustrating! DD1 is dealing with that situation right now. She bought some Baklava -- a HUGE platter of it! -- and left it out in the common area, because she wanted to share it with her housemates. One of them ended up eating more than half of it before she got home again. Frankly, the stuff is so rich I can't imagine how he managed to eat that much! She ended up without very much. So next time she'll only put out as much as she's willing to share, and put the rest in her private-stash area. Housemates ought to respect that. Heck, when I was a kid I can remember a couple of family gatherings where the grownups got steak off the grill -- and the kids got hot dogs. I don't mind eating hot dogs, but not while others are eating steak! My parents would never do that -- they might offer us a choice -- but these were events where someone else was providing the food, and we had better manners than to challenge the situation. Are you sure it wasn't simply because the kids by and large preferred the hot dogs? I'm sure that's what they told themselves; however, I found ways (at other times) to make SURE my aunts and uncles knew how much I liked steak, but still was not offered steak at barbeques; that was only for the adults. But there's the possibility that they hadn't planned for steaks all around when the rest of the kids want some, just because you have it on *your* plate. Possibly, it would have been different if you were the only kid. You don't extend this to beer, do you? Not me! Some of my relatives, on the other hand . . . Except for situations like a lunch room, I won't eat in front of other people without offering them some of whatever I'm eating, and that includes children. My parents taught us that rule -- on the other hand, I didn't know my mother liked lox until I was in my 20's. Apparently she craved them when she was pregnant -- but there was no way she could afford for US to find out we liked them, so she bought them and hid them behind the vegetables . . . Well, this is interesting. Would you say that your mother, in order not to be selfish, should have resolved that dilemma by self-denial? No -- actually, I think it's pretty funny that I'd never tasted lox until after I left home, and just assumed my mother didn't even know what they were, and that I would be able to introduce HER to them. It is pretty funny. I don't think it's necessary to forgo things like that, necessarily -- but I would have thought it unreasonable if she'd put them in plain sight, and told us that they were all for HER. As it was, what we didn't know didn't hurt us. (We were pretty poor -- I know now that there were a number of things she just never fed us, because she figured they couldn't afford for us to find out we liked, say, shrimp or lobster.) Then that leaves the private stash option, but that's often a matter of how successful one is at keeping things secret. (Pot stickers don't stash well...) But, again, you were NOT in a family situation -- you were dealing with insesitive housemates. Similarly, I would think it unreasonable if we'd kept, say, coke in the house (DH used to have a serious addiction to the stuff) and told the kids that it was just for him. You're talking about Coca-cola, right ;-) So, what would you have DH do? In many households, he'd get two cases of coke. He'd enjoy two cans one evening. Then he'd be off at work, out for the evening, come home at 10 pm, reach in the fridge and - - no coke! So, is he to go shopping every day? What? Them's that hang around at home get the riches? Does that seem fair to you? So he's stuck with: 1. Bottomless coke budget and shopping time - not practical 2. Private stash - may work, but folks may get ****ed about that, too 3. No coke Or 4: setting a limit on how much Coke each kid is allowed per day. The kids were good about that. Many times in similar situations, #3 happens. Nobody gets cokes. Everyone loses. If people are reasonable and don't feel entitled, he can label one for himself, and it can stay there for him. I think the situation being discussed, and I've run into it mostly in roomate situations (in my family of origin we *were* expected to keep hands off goodies without asking - truly, it can be done!) it does get to the point that one just gives up on doing or having anything special. I mean, really, does a virgin hand-baked three-teired fancily frosted cake HAVE to have written on it "Grandma and Grandpa's 50th Wedding Anniversary" in order for some impulsive lout not to chop a big square out of it in the middle of the afternoon 'cause he'd run out of microwave popcorn? That is an oppresive thing to have to live with, too. Because the net effect of that is that nice things don't happen as often. Like with your mother's lox. But would you expect the kids to put up with looking at said cake if they were NEVER going to be allowed to eat it? SURE! Why NOT? What if it's a friend's anniversary, and the kids aren't invited? If that sort of thing happens once in a while, I have no problem with it -- but in some households, it happens a LOT, and I don't think that's fair to the kids. What's the principle behind this? That one should honor all the desires and jelousies around one, and everyone around one should get whatever is yummy that they see? No -- rather that one ought to be fair to kids, and not expect them to be bombarded with the sight of foods that they would like and are not allowed to have. And, growing up, I knew too many places that WERE like that. Since you're a person who is very empathic I think, I can see that you might feel bad holding back. So - turn it around: do you think that *you* have the right to get some of whatever you like that you might see? As I said in another post, if one of my kids brings something into the house to eat in front of me, I expect them to share. So, yes -- in our home, I expect that people will not eat in front of others without shareing. Now that the kids are old enough to be in and out, it is not uncommon for there to be a "doggie bag" left in the fridge. If there's a name on it, I don't even look -- but if not, I'll see if it's something I want for lunch. On the other hand, if they haul it out to eat while I'm home, and it's something I really like, I expect to be offered some. Once in a while, one of us will bake something special to take to work, or for some occassion outside the house. Most of the time, we try to bake extra so that the folks who live here won't have to not even taste it. OK, so nothing gets baked unless there's double portions? Remember your mother's lox. You could have had some, if she could be sure you'd respect that it isn't usually for you! This all-sharing philosophy actually leads to loss. Not double portions -- but at least some for the folks who live here. Lately, DS has been baking goodies to take to work. DH and I are following a low-carb diet, so we don't want any -- but I DO expect him to let his sister shag a couple of cookies before he hauls them away. A cake is a little different; his solution to that has been to bake an occassional cake for here, or to bring home leftovers. If he ALWAYS served ALL of his baked good to his work colleagues, I might have a problem with that. And Mom didn't do without her lox; she just kept them where she knew we wouldn't find them, and never ate them in front of us. It turns out there's a LOT of tasty things I never ate growing up -- we couldn't afford it, so Mom and Dad figured it was just easier if we never knew . . . -- Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Halloween candy
In article , Penny Gaines says...
I know I'm coming at this from a completely different perspective. Growing up, we used to be given boxes of chocolates to share with my siblings, and I'd be expected to have the nut ones, rather then the nicer ones, because one of my siblings disliked nuts. Let me guess - you're the oldest? Banty |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Halloween candy
In article ,
dragonlady says... In article , Banty wrote: In article .com, Dawn says... Banty wrote: In article , dragonlady says... Heck, when I was a kid I can remember a couple of family gatherings where the grownups got steak off the grill -- and the kids got hot dogs. I don't mind eating hot dogs, but not while others are eating steak! My parents would never do that -- they might offer us a choice -- but these were events where someone else was providing the food, and we had better manners than to challenge the situation. Are you sure it wasn't simply because the kids by and large preferred the hot dogs? I've done it when kids were very little (probably under 6) because the kids tend to waste a very good piece of expensive meat. Kids don't eat much in those types of situations IME. So you give them even a portion of a good steak (which most kids don't like anyway) and it goes to waste. Better to waste a cheap hot dog. My parents did something like this. I think a big part of the reason also is that little kids tend to run around more, and not be so neat, so hot dogs is a 'friendlier' meal. Besides, who'd be on cut-up-the-steak-into-little-pieces duty? And there is cost. Just to look fair, everyone is to have a round steak when the adults could have enjoyed a sirloin strip steak or better? Yes. I feel pretty strongly about this: if you can't afford the Good Stuff for everyone who wants it, then you can't afford to serve the Good Stuff. But the inevitable result of this kind of thing would be - smaller gatherings, unless you're rich. But if those not invited are miffed, then you end up with all gatherings being many-people-nothing-too-nice-offered. I never shared a pot sticker again with others in my research group (although I think sometimes a friend from that group and I would go to that place ...). Why? Well, if it's between having to either supply everyone and/or coordinate a gathering, or just enjoying my own dozen of pot stickers, every time I run for imaging supplies, well, it's Banty with pot stickers all to her own Because, otherwise, it would be, 'cause one didn't really like pot stickers, and the others didn't like various other things, it'd be pizza everyone time sos' everyone can share, and, there'd be hassles over when I get back, too, sos' everyone can be there... Even if it'd be just pot-stickers whenever I happen to arrive - hey, I'm a poor starving grad student too! Phooey on all that. End result, though, is Nothing Special for Anybody. I just think it's rude to eat steak in front of kids while you serve them hot dogs. See below.. ::snip:: Yes -- and so serve something you can afford to serve everyone. Figure out how many people are coming, figure out what your budget is, and plan accordingly. How about, figure out what kind of party you want, figure out what the budget is, figure out how many people can come, and plan accordingly. I wonder - do folks feel bad about non-food priveldges? For example, is it unfair for the adults to get a master suit to sleep and bathe in? I was never part of a family that could afford vacations that HAD that sort of thing. Whatever accomodations were there, we all pretty much had the same thing. I'm not talking about vacation accomodations. I'm talking about how many houses are arranged. We dont' have a master suite in my small three-bedroom one-bath 1960 rancher, but there *is* a bedroom clearly larger, meant to be for the adults. Yes, being a grownup comes with some privileges kids don't get. I just don't think one of them is food. WHY?? Why is food such a big deal? Can the parents have the master suite in the house, with a larger room and a bathroom attached, if the kids all don'e have kiddie master suites? If Mom wants a silk blouse, can she only buy it if she can afford one for each of her daughters too (and sons maybe? or some equivalent?) If that's not necessary, can she wear the silk blouse right in front of her deprived daughters? I'm pretty radical about this in many way: if someone is in the house at meal time, I feed them. Period. And they eat whatever we're eating (assuming they want it) -- and if it turns out there isn't enough to go around, we just cut it thinner, and have smaller portions ourselves, too. I don't think most of you would invite company over and serve yourselves one thing while you served your guests something less desirable. Why do you think it's OK to treat your kids worse than you'd treat your guests? But, in these kind of big parties (I dont' think we're talking about dinner parties), it is set up as kind of an event for adults to visit, kids to play, on somewhat different paths. We would have kiddie tables, so that the adults can visit without dealing with the kids minute to minute (lassooing the older kids into this - - well, is *that* unfair?) Does this include drinks? No beer 'cause the kids can't have any?? There are times when this is inconvenient. Tough. Heck, I get mad at my kids (now 19) if they bring fast food home to eat when they know other people are in the house: if they aren't going to bring home enough to share, they can jolly well eat in their car, or at the Golden Arches. That's my pot-sticker story. But then, that adds up to less time at home, hiding away, no possibility for sharing a treat spontaneously. I understand how you would want to prevent everyone in the family getting into a habit of not eating together. But to demand that they *always* share and go to lengths of calling home? I'm still wondering - what is your advice to the poor soul who really likes a food item, but finds it scarfed up by others in the household just 'cause it's there, even if they don't find it so special? Can they hide the lox like your mom? Is there truly no way for me to store that anniversary cake? (Oh, yeah, double portions, everyone gets mucho sweets...but what if someone invites friends and the "everyone else" cake is already consumed..??) Halloween candy *always* has to be bought in the Oct. 30 rush? Banty |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Halloween candy
In article ,
dragonlady says... In article , Banty wrote: In article , dragonlady says... In article , Banty wrote: I don't think that's at all the same thing as what we're talking about. There is a long way from being the *only* people to eat the good stuff (and, from your descriptions, enjoying in front of everyone) to want to be able to partake in one's favorite foods hardly *at all*, and not want to see it has dissappeared because our attention had been turned to running a household an earning a living. I know; I was explaining why I think I react so strongly (over react, probably) to this sort of thing. I know. But what you say should happen, below, doesn't leave much outlet. Other than everything being offered in abundance. Or keeping private stashes. Or just being clear that there is a limit to how much one person can take at a time. I've done that sometimes -- we'll get something special, and I'll tell the kids that they can only have, say, one a day, or two total out of the bag (because there are 10 in the bag, and 5 people in the house). OK, this may work, IF: 1. Everyone can look at the tempting goodie and not partake, if they've already had their quota. But wouldn't this call on the much same restraint as one would need in order to see someone eating and not expect to have some? 2. You can afford portions for everyone. Which really is the only solution in a household that expects everyone gets everything anytime. If folks get jealous of private stashes, too, then one is left with what I did when it was my turn to run for supplies after the first pot-sticker incident: sit down and eat them before going back with the supplies I didn't say everyone gets everything any time. I said that I don't think it's reasonable to keep good stuff for "just the parents", and never let the kids have it, or eat special stuff in front of the kids and not let them have any. OK, since you're so strong on this, and you've said you've seen foodstuff kept to parents in "a lot" of households, what kind of conditions are you talking about? Are you talking about a lot of treats (my Dad was really into cashews..), or are you talking about limited food supplies being relegated perferentially to the adults where there was true deprivation? Or somewhere in between? I react because of frustration with non-family shared living situations where I'd have to stash in my room, and sometimes nice things couldn't happen. (And related things, like the dismal choice one gets between living in squalor or becoming housemaid.) Like, if I couln't bake just before taking the goodies to an event, I couldn't bake, 'cause the goodies would be gone by time I left. I've long thrown up my hands about it and deal with it, but I dont' think it's exactly a virtue to be promoted, that one thing they get what they want or they shoudln't even see it. I should have specified living with family (however you define that). Roommates are a different situation, and can be extremely frustrating! DD1 is dealing with that situation right now. She bought some Baklava -- a HUGE platter of it! -- and left it out in the common area, because she wanted to share it with her housemates. One of them ended up eating more than half of it before she got home again. Frankly, the stuff is so rich I can't imagine how he managed to eat that much! She ended up without very much. So next time she'll only put out as much as she's willing to share, and put the rest in her private-stash area. Housemates ought to respect that. Well, my pot-sticker story is about research group collegues, but the fancy cake with a big square cut out of it *is* a roomate story, although it wasn't an anniversary cake, it was for more of a welcoming party. But I really don't see this huge difference between if it's family, and if it's a housemate. I mean, if you're both sharing refirgerator space and living in front of each other, what is so importantly different? Dont' you think my housemate's and collegues at grad school LEARNED their idea that they're entitled to my food 'cause it's there, from their families? If it's really so gosh-awful to eat something right in front of your sister, why isn't it gosh-awful to eat it right in front of your roomate? Whatever it is that makes it so rude, would be the same rude - no? To my mind, offering to share (vs. just finding your stuff scarfed up at random, which I think would always be rude) is MORE of a needful ritual when not dealing with intimates. On the other hand, when living with family, where you are day to day dealing with differnt people's preferences and caloric needs, it should be *more* acceptable to take a meal without everyone else eating it or even offering it. Else - if I were at homme how would my 13 year old son get his after school snacks without me blowing up like a balloon? I'd have to become an athlete in training ;-) When we visited my father, it would be clear that certain foodstuffs would have to be reserved for him due to his diabetes. Peanut butter, for example since that's good low-glycemic nutrition for him. If he needed to eat, he woudln't offer - why should he? Unless we'd just taken insulin.. This idea that family ALWAYS (or even usually) have to offer food to each other seem to move away from food as a nutrition, attaches maybe too much emotional importance to it. That's not to say that it isn't important to serve food for hospitality, to share most meals together as family because there is of course *some* social and emotional significance to it. But *always*...? Heck, when I was a kid I can remember a couple of family gatherings where the grownups got steak off the grill -- and the kids got hot dogs. I don't mind eating hot dogs, but not while others are eating steak! My parents would never do that -- they might offer us a choice -- but these were events where someone else was providing the food, and we had better manners than to challenge the situation. Are you sure it wasn't simply because the kids by and large preferred the hot dogs? I'm sure that's what they told themselves; however, I found ways (at other times) to make SURE my aunts and uncles knew how much I liked steak, but still was not offered steak at barbeques; that was only for the adults. But there's the possibility that they hadn't planned for steaks all around when the rest of the kids want some, just because you have it on *your* plate. Possibly, it would have been different if you were the only kid. You don't extend this to beer, do you? Not me! Some of my relatives, on the other hand . . . Heh. Well, in my family, kid's got *tastes* to satisfy their curiousity. And that would be that. The Frankenstein monster notwithstanding, alchohol *is* an acquired taste. But where does that leave your rule that foodstuffs have to be shared? Similarly, I would think it unreasonable if we'd kept, say, coke in the house (DH used to have a serious addiction to the stuff) and told the kids that it was just for him. You're talking about Coca-cola, right ;-) So, what would you have DH do? In many households, he'd get two cases of coke. He'd enjoy two cans one evening. Then he'd be off at work, out for the evening, come home at 10 pm, reach in the fridge and - - no coke! So, is he to go shopping every day? What? Them's that hang around at home get the riches? Does that seem fair to you? So he's stuck with: 1. Bottomless coke budget and shopping time - not practical 2. Private stash - may work, but folks may get ****ed about that, too 3. No coke Or 4: setting a limit on how much Coke each kid is allowed per day. The kids were good about that. Glad they were. But, woudl you need to keep the quota's worth of cokes on hand? Would DH's consumption rate need to stay in step, else the quota start cutting into what he wanted unless there was money and time to go shopping? ::snip:: And Mom didn't do without her lox; she just kept them where she knew we wouldn't find them, and never ate them in front of us. It turns out there's a LOT of tasty things I never ate growing up -- we couldn't afford it, so Mom and Dad figured it was just easier if we never knew . . . Yeah but this sharing thing is WHY you never had lox! How many things did you not even know about? In my family, there were things understood to be special. My Dad's mixed nuts for example. I could *sometimes* have some if he were around and I asked. Left to myself, I know I would have scarfed it up on a regular basis! Especially the cashews And no, if he were eating it and I saw that, it woudln't necessarily get some. What if he's eating the last handful in the can? It really wasn't a big deal to have nuts around for my Dad, and not for me. By and large, everyone did get to eat the special things we liked. Including us kids of course. To me, that's the important thing. Some things, like candies, were pretty much *for* us. That *every occassion* has to be shared seems impractical, and seems to attach too much importance to it. Banty |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Halloween candy
In ,
dragonlady wrote: *No -- actually, I think it's pretty funny that I'd never tasted lox *until after I left home, and just assumed my mother didn't even know *what they were, and that I would be able to introduce HER to them. I didn't say anything about this when I saw it in the other post but... erm... isn't "lox" singular?? -- Hillary Israeli, VMD Lafayette Hill/PA/USA/Earth "Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read." --Groucho Marx |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Halloween Do's and DON'Ts from America's Favorite Gransma!!! | Grandmother Henrietta Hickey | Spanking | 7 | October 18th 05 05:51 AM |
Halloween Do's and DON'Ts from America's Favorite Grandma! | Grandmother Henrietta Hickey | General | 0 | October 16th 05 08:25 PM |
Halloween Do's and DON'Ts from America's Favorite Grandma! | Grandmother Henrietta Hickey | Solutions | 0 | October 16th 05 08:25 PM |
Halloween Do's and DON'Ts from America's Favorite Grandma! | Grandmother Henrietta Hickey | Spanking | 0 | October 16th 05 08:25 PM |
Thoughts on Halloween | Harold Buck | General (moderated) | 18 | December 5th 03 03:42 PM |