A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » General (moderated)
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Halloween candy



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old November 3rd 05, 08:35 PM
Banty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 3rd 05, 08:35 PM
Scott
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 4th 05, 03:37 AM
dragonlady
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 4th 05, 03:50 PM
Penny Gaines
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 4th 05, 04:34 PM
dragonlady
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 4th 05, 04:41 PM
dragonlady
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 4th 05, 05:06 PM
Banty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 4th 05, 05:08 PM
Banty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 5th 05, 12:25 AM
Banty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 18th 05, 04:05 AM posted to misc.kids.moderated
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 04:42 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.