Mother shamed for sending her child to school with oreos
Options
Replies
-
separate from the issue of whether or not it's ok to send your kid to school with oreos (and in MY opinion there is NEVER a wrong time or place to have oreos), I'm wondering what the obsession with the word "shame" is all about these days. Was the mother "shamed"? or simply told, whether wrong or right, that either the teacher or the school as a whole didn't see oreos as an appropriate lunch option? Did I miss something? Was there some part of the note that said or suggested "you are a bad mother for feeding cookies to your child and you should be ashamed of yourself"? You can only be "shamed" about something if you choose to feel ashamed of the thing someone is calling you out on. If I did something I believed was right and someone disagreed with me it wouldn't cause me "shame".0
-
auntstephie321 wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »auntstephie321 wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »
What would make your boss right?YayFoodYayFood wrote: »carlaunderconstruction wrote: »Wow, I'm so amazed with how many people are defending processed sugar in kids lunches. I work in a private school in China, where the students are fed food prepared by the school. There is no added sugar! When we have special events where the students get sugar there is a drastic change in behaviour. Plus a lot of students almost never have sugar, so they have been physically sick (throwing up) after having something like a small piece of birthday cake, or two small pieces of chocolate. Of course I understand the need to teach kids self regulation, and moderation, but honestly I don't want to teach 25, 5 year old's that ate oreos as part of their lunch. Save the oreos for after school!
And I'm amazed how many people have made the choice to over consume food in their lives and not want to tell everyone else the stuff they eat is junk. Would you like it if you were eating something at lunch that your boss didn't think was the right choice and they took it from you and threw it away?
If my boss is right, then yeah.
You're okay with someone taking something you paid for and throwing it away?
Would you be okay with someone not agreeing with an SUV you might drive and taking it and dropping it off at the junk yard because they don't feel it's good for the environment?
Would you be okay with someone taking the Nkke running sneakers of your feet because they don't agree with their business practices?
Would you be okay with someone taking your diamond ring or earing from you because they might be from Sierra Leon?
Well, in nutrition, there is no doubt in my mind what is right and wrong based on literature and patterns over very long lengths of time, along with countless accounts of patient outcomes. So because of the certainty, I'd be pretty sure if my boss's actions regarding food were right or wrong.
Knowing that, if my boss did what's right and took those oreos out of my hands, I'll be honest and say, thanks you're the man. This is the kind of company I want to work for. One that looks out for my best interests. One that doesn't bury their heads in the sand. One that is brutally forthcoming in it's intentions. That's not only a boss, but something I would expect from a true friend.
The other thing is that employees who eat right are more productive. So if I was a boss, I would do my best to discriminate prior to hiring. And if I'm an employee, I want those beside me to be at their best.
With regards to the rest of your examples, I don't have certainty on my side. I don't know enough about cars/SUVs to know if one is an outlier to justify his actions. Same with running shoe manufacturing. And even diamonds that claim to be "clean"... they are hard to trace. Many middle men in that business from my N=1 experience. So I wouldn't be so sure about that either.
What certainty and extensive knowledge on nutrition do you have that says a snack pack or Oreos is something that should be ripped from your hands and disposed of by someone else to save you from destroying your life.
Your comment is extremely disturbing on so many different levels.
Certainty and extensive knowledge that you don't have:)
Sorry couldn't resist. C'mon u set urself up for that. I'm just playing.
Ya, I understand how my comment disturbs you. Because your comment (and those of many others) disturbs me. But that's what happens when people have opposite viewpoints. Mutual disturbance.
Your right to not eat those items is the same right another has to eat them or give them to their children. Just like no other person should be allowed to force you to eat something you object to, another should not be forced to not eat something they have chosen.
It's a very simple concept.
Anyone with "advanced" knowledge on nutrition must know that treats can be a part of a perfectly balanced diet. If that is not apparent then your knowledge I can only assume is based on a limited biased view of how nutrition works and therefore holds limited value.
0 -
I'm kind of on the fence about this. On the one hand, the article does not make it clear whether this is indeed a school policy. Plus I wonder if the journalist left out information (for example, the quote that if the child has potatoes, then he/she also needs bread? That sounds wrong or out of context perhaps?) If it is a written policy, then the mother should be aware and should abide by it or send her child elsewhere. If it's not a written policy by the school, then the school needs to mind its own business. If the school is not feeding the child, it is up the child's caregiver (here the mother) to decide her child's dietary needs.0
-
The level of control is interesting. When I taught school, I barely looked at the kids lunches, I was too busy controlling the kids from fighting with each other.
Of course, I taught at a Title 1 school. Every one was on free lunch.
Must be nice to work in a Prima Donna environment, where you can take food from kids and admonish the Mother for sending the wrong food. As opposed to an environment where we sent home food with the kids, so they had some. Oreos were fine, Snack Pack pudding, beef jerky, and canned Beefaroni.0 -
I think what would upset me more than the school's food policy is wondering how that teacher treated the child when she took away her cookies. Chances are she probably told her something like "You can't have these, they're bad for you." To a small child this is probably very confusing and upsetting because this is a lunch packed for them by their mother, and they're probably wondering why their mom would give them something bad for them. Also, I feel like this could probably make the child feel shame about food, which would bother me. If a teacher were to make my child feel shame/guilt over something that I personally didn't think was wrong, I would be absolutely livid.0
-
Yeah, because changing the scenario from a 5 year old to an adult is totally not moving the goalposts.mamapeach910 wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »
What would make your boss right?YayFoodYayFood wrote: »carlaunderconstruction wrote: »Wow, I'm so amazed with how many people are defending processed sugar in kids lunches. I work in a private school in China, where the students are fed food prepared by the school. There is no added sugar! When we have special events where the students get sugar there is a drastic change in behaviour. Plus a lot of students almost never have sugar, so they have been physically sick (throwing up) after having something like a small piece of birthday cake, or two small pieces of chocolate. Of course I understand the need to teach kids self regulation, and moderation, but honestly I don't want to teach 25, 5 year old's that ate oreos as part of their lunch. Save the oreos for after school!
And I'm amazed how many people have made the choice to over consume food in their lives and not want to tell everyone else the stuff they eat is junk. Would you like it if you were eating something at lunch that your boss didn't think was the right choice and they took it from you and threw it away?
If my boss is right, then yeah.
You're okay with someone taking something you paid for and throwing it away?
Would you be okay with someone not agreeing with an SUV you might drive and taking it and dropping it off at the junk yard because they don't feel it's good for the environment?
Would you be okay with someone taking the Nkke running sneakers of your feet because they don't agree with their business practices?
Would you be okay with someone taking your diamond ring or earing from you because they might be from Sierra Leon?
Well, in nutrition, there is no doubt in my mind what is right and wrong based on literature and patterns over very long lengths of time. So because of the certainty, I'd be pretty sure if my boss's actions regarding food were right or wrong.
Knowing that, if my boss did what's right and took those oreos out of my hands, I'll be honest and say, thanks you're the man. This is the kind of company I want to work for. One that looks out for my best interests. One that doesn't bury their heads in the sand. One that is brutally forthcoming in it's intentions. That's not only a boss, but something I would expect from a true friend.
With regards to the rest of your examples, I don't have certainty on my side. I don't know enough about cars/SUVs to know if one is an outlier to justify his actions. Same with running shoe manufacturing. And even diamonds that claim to be "clean"... they are hard to trace. Many middle men in that business from my N=1 experience. So I wouldn't be so sure about that either.
So you want to be baby sat? You want someone to take those dastardly oreos away from you so someone else can decide what your best interests are. In moderation, for a child a treat is a treat. If you teach your child a treat is a treat and not an all consuming thing then they grow up to learn what moderation is. They grow up learning what a treat is. No need to bury your head in the sand, we should be educating our children instead of depriving them and vilifying foods.
We have different views on parenting I guess.
Moving goalposts. You were asked about your boss taking something away from you and you said you'd welcome it.
I don't know about you, but I didn't spend all this time becoming an adult just for other people to treat me like a child.0 -
I'm so effing tired of political correctness & people that seem to thrive on being offended about something all the time! A few Oreo's aren't a big deal0
-
YayFoodYayFood wrote: »
Yeah, because changing the scenario from a 5 year old to an adult is totally not moving the goalposts.mamapeach910 wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »
What would make your boss right?YayFoodYayFood wrote: »carlaunderconstruction wrote: »Wow, I'm so amazed with how many people are defending processed sugar in kids lunches. I work in a private school in China, where the students are fed food prepared by the school. There is no added sugar! When we have special events where the students get sugar there is a drastic change in behaviour. Plus a lot of students almost never have sugar, so they have been physically sick (throwing up) after having something like a small piece of birthday cake, or two small pieces of chocolate. Of course I understand the need to teach kids self regulation, and moderation, but honestly I don't want to teach 25, 5 year old's that ate oreos as part of their lunch. Save the oreos for after school!
And I'm amazed how many people have made the choice to over consume food in their lives and not want to tell everyone else the stuff they eat is junk. Would you like it if you were eating something at lunch that your boss didn't think was the right choice and they took it from you and threw it away?
If my boss is right, then yeah.
You're okay with someone taking something you paid for and throwing it away?
Would you be okay with someone not agreeing with an SUV you might drive and taking it and dropping it off at the junk yard because they don't feel it's good for the environment?
Would you be okay with someone taking the Nkke running sneakers of your feet because they don't agree with their business practices?
Would you be okay with someone taking your diamond ring or earing from you because they might be from Sierra Leon?
Well, in nutrition, there is no doubt in my mind what is right and wrong based on literature and patterns over very long lengths of time. So because of the certainty, I'd be pretty sure if my boss's actions regarding food were right or wrong.
Knowing that, if my boss did what's right and took those oreos out of my hands, I'll be honest and say, thanks you're the man. This is the kind of company I want to work for. One that looks out for my best interests. One that doesn't bury their heads in the sand. One that is brutally forthcoming in it's intentions. That's not only a boss, but something I would expect from a true friend.
With regards to the rest of your examples, I don't have certainty on my side. I don't know enough about cars/SUVs to know if one is an outlier to justify his actions. Same with running shoe manufacturing. And even diamonds that claim to be "clean"... they are hard to trace. Many middle men in that business from my N=1 experience. So I wouldn't be so sure about that either.
So you want to be baby sat? You want someone to take those dastardly oreos away from you so someone else can decide what your best interests are. In moderation, for a child a treat is a treat. If you teach your child a treat is a treat and not an all consuming thing then they grow up to learn what moderation is. They grow up learning what a treat is. No need to bury your head in the sand, we should be educating our children instead of depriving them and vilifying foods.
We have different views on parenting I guess.
Moving goalposts. You were asked about your boss taking something away from you and you said you'd welcome it.
I don't know about you, but I didn't spend all this time becoming an adult just for other people to treat me like a child.
It's ok, we are actually all guilty of moving the goalposts. All the time. But this is status quo. If you point me to an MFP forum thread where goalposts aren't moved or when the same crew that moved the goalposts then blames you for moving the goalposts then it would be kinda weird.
Actually, I think my overall sentiment got lost in trying to answer all these specific examples which got us sidetracked. It all of a sudden became about control and baby sitting and blood diamonds and SUVs. And when it's a free for all, somebody is bound to get disturbed or pissed off. Smart tactic actually.
Lost in all of this stuff... was my overall sentiment. I consider Oreos, and all other junk food to be garbage that I would never eat and would hope my kids don't eat. If this happened to my kid (it wouldn't b/c I would never willfully give them oreos or any junk for that matter), but let's say, somebody else gave them oreos, and the teacher took them away, I would call that teacher and say thank you. And ask them to do it again next time. And the next.
Of course I am in the vast minority here in that most people think oreos are food that can fit into a balanced diet as a treat. That. Is. Fine. I'm not trying to tell you or your kids what to eat, and that wouldn't work anyway. "Lots of people" eat this stuff. But I don't consider anyone in my household to be "lots of people". They get taken care of first, second and third. Like any family. It's not like I don't care about other kids, it's just that I keep a boundary where their family culture is their own business.
So, if I was the teacher I wouldn't have plucked the oreo from the kids hand, because it is a social faux pas. But I see that as a failing on my part. I really do wish I was the kind of person that enforced what is right and took the blame as the @#$hole to the unappreciated benefit of other kids. I admire that.
But it's not really about oreos either. Its about whether the teacher/school/government has the right to override the patent's choices of food for their kids. You view oreos as unhealthy and not good for your kids, fine no problem.
What happens when the school disapproves of something you are fine with your kids having? Maybe homemade, low sugar black bean brownies or homemade organic fruit leather whatever you consider a healthy treat. Do they have the right to take it away, even though you dream it healthy and are OK with your kids eating it? Do they have the right to determine what is healthy for your child, no matter your opinion on the issue?0 -
You said it's clear there is a policy when that isn't true. That's your whole stance in the post I quoted and you're just assuming. And that picture above is just ridiculous. As if Americans are the only people that are fat.
I'm going off the original story. I also understand journalism; such crowd-pleasing stories are rarely complete.
My point about such policies stands: they aren't unreasonable and evidence suggests we have to do a better job educating our young about nutrition and health and in making that comment I did not single out the United States.
However, a glance at national statistics is sobering.YayFoodYayFood wrote: »
This is exactly what is happening as other cultures get introduced to Western foods.
are exposed to an overabundance of food.
I fixed it for you. You're welcome.
Over-abundance isn't the issue for some people, it is over-indulgence.
I fixed it for you. You're welcome.
More seriously... for significant percentages over-abundance isn't the issue. Sobering stats:
http://nccd.cdc.gov/NPAO_DTM/LocationSummary.aspx?statecode=94- Adolescents who consume fruit < 1 time daily: 37.4%
- Adolescents who consume vegetables < 1 time daily: 38.5% [1]
- Adolescents who are physically active daily: 27.1%
- Adolescents who drank soda daily: 27.0%
- Adolescents who are obese: 13.7%
- Low-income 2-5 year olds who are obese: 14.4% (over-abundance or choices?)
- Cropland harvested for fruits and vegetables: 2.5%
- Adults who consume vegetables < 1 time daily: 22.4%
- Adults who are obese: 28.3%
[1] Respondents were asked about intake of the following: 1) 100% fruit juices; 2) fruit; 3) green salad; 4) potatoes; 5) carrots; 6) other vegetables. Total daily fruit consumption was calculated based on responses to questions 1 and 2, and total daily vegetable consumption was based on responses to questions 3-6.
Are some not getting balance in their diets due to over-abundance? Lack of abundance (poverty)? Choice? Education? Combinations of the foregoing?
I don't know the answer to that but long observation of lunches coming to schools tells me education is at least one of the issues. People won't knowingly and habitually send their children to school with bad meals if they know better, unless they truly have no other option. In working with economically disadvantaged people in my experience beyond lacking the means to purchase food education overwhelmingly is next big hurdle.
I find meal standards in a communal eating environment need not be an evil thing. Sure, it'd be nice if all parents took it upon themselves to teach good nutritional habits but the reality is many children will not receive that education at home, just like many children don't receive any sex ed at home and many children don't receive any financial literacy ed at home and many children don't receive any physical education at home. School should and can be about more than Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic.0 -
I had a friend who imposed this on her child growing up. It doesn't always work. He's now 24 years old and obese. Why? Because when he became an adult and had free reign, he took advantage of it. Obviously enjoying eating tons of food stuffs he missed out on as a kid. There's NOTHING wrong with teaching daily moderation.lisafrancis888 wrote: »Whilst no one should shame a parent we should as a society start to see the growing problem of children's health.
For me an Oreo or cake or chocolate bar should be a treat for a child not an everyday normal part of lunch.
If all schools agreed to the same there should be no issues. Children will do what the grown ups tell them to. If the teacher says no sweet things and all the parents abide by it children will eat the sandwich or whatever they are given.
I actually wish only water was drunk at school not fruit juices.
We have to get tougher for the sake of our children.
As a parent we should not run out of a piece of fruit or a carrot.
The parents who put Oreos etc into their children's lunch packs are making it hard for every other parent to try and make healthy lunches as children will always complain they haven't got it. That's why I wish schools would ban sugary foods completely.
My DD's school has ice cream day after school on Wednesday's. Money made is used to help schools. Kids go crazy because for some of them, this may be their only treat for the week. My DD doesn't care. She gets her daily dose of "controlled" fun stuff a day, so ice cream day isn't a big deal to her.
If it's a private school, which it sounds like, then fine impose whatever restrictions they deem allowable. But kids aren't dumb. Give them an opportunity to break the "rules" and they will take as much advantage of it as they can. So where they may be restricted to eat only a certain way ALL the time, they will eventually break off and make their own decisions to satisfy their denied wants.
It not only happens with food, but money, dating, sex, game time, computer time, etc. can get abused when restrictions seem too tight.
Teaching moderation is okay. In fact most lean people in good shape will usually tell you that don't totally restrict to just healthy options. Most people who are always insisting on healthy options are usually the ones who seem to have weight and health issues.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
^^THIS. Describes my childhood perfectly.0 -
YayFoodYayFood wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »
Yeah, because changing the scenario from a 5 year old to an adult is totally not moving the goalposts.mamapeach910 wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »
What would make your boss right?YayFoodYayFood wrote: »carlaunderconstruction wrote: »Wow, I'm so amazed with how many people are defending processed sugar in kids lunches. I work in a private school in China, where the students are fed food prepared by the school. There is no added sugar! When we have special events where the students get sugar there is a drastic change in behaviour. Plus a lot of students almost never have sugar, so they have been physically sick (throwing up) after having something like a small piece of birthday cake, or two small pieces of chocolate. Of course I understand the need to teach kids self regulation, and moderation, but honestly I don't want to teach 25, 5 year old's that ate oreos as part of their lunch. Save the oreos for after school!
And I'm amazed how many people have made the choice to over consume food in their lives and not want to tell everyone else the stuff they eat is junk. Would you like it if you were eating something at lunch that your boss didn't think was the right choice and they took it from you and threw it away?
If my boss is right, then yeah.
You're okay with someone taking something you paid for and throwing it away?
Would you be okay with someone not agreeing with an SUV you might drive and taking it and dropping it off at the junk yard because they don't feel it's good for the environment?
Would you be okay with someone taking the Nkke running sneakers of your feet because they don't agree with their business practices?
Would you be okay with someone taking your diamond ring or earing from you because they might be from Sierra Leon?
Well, in nutrition, there is no doubt in my mind what is right and wrong based on literature and patterns over very long lengths of time. So because of the certainty, I'd be pretty sure if my boss's actions regarding food were right or wrong.
Knowing that, if my boss did what's right and took those oreos out of my hands, I'll be honest and say, thanks you're the man. This is the kind of company I want to work for. One that looks out for my best interests. One that doesn't bury their heads in the sand. One that is brutally forthcoming in it's intentions. That's not only a boss, but something I would expect from a true friend.
With regards to the rest of your examples, I don't have certainty on my side. I don't know enough about cars/SUVs to know if one is an outlier to justify his actions. Same with running shoe manufacturing. And even diamonds that claim to be "clean"... they are hard to trace. Many middle men in that business from my N=1 experience. So I wouldn't be so sure about that either.
So you want to be baby sat? You want someone to take those dastardly oreos away from you so someone else can decide what your best interests are. In moderation, for a child a treat is a treat. If you teach your child a treat is a treat and not an all consuming thing then they grow up to learn what moderation is. They grow up learning what a treat is. No need to bury your head in the sand, we should be educating our children instead of depriving them and vilifying foods.
We have different views on parenting I guess.
Moving goalposts. You were asked about your boss taking something away from you and you said you'd welcome it.
I don't know about you, but I didn't spend all this time becoming an adult just for other people to treat me like a child.
It's ok, we are actually all guilty of moving the goalposts. All the time. But this is status quo. If you point me to an MFP forum thread where goalposts aren't moved or when the same crew that moved the goalposts then blames you for moving the goalposts then it would be kinda weird.
Actually, I think my overall sentiment got lost in trying to answer all these specific examples which got us sidetracked. It all of a sudden became about control and baby sitting and blood diamonds and SUVs. And when it's a free for all, somebody is bound to get disturbed or pissed off. Smart tactic actually.
Lost in all of this stuff... was my overall sentiment. I consider Oreos, and all other junk food to be garbage that I would never eat and would hope my kids don't eat. If this happened to my kid (it wouldn't b/c I would never willfully give them oreos or any junk for that matter), but let's say, somebody else gave them oreos, and the teacher took them away, I would call that teacher and say thank you. And ask them to do it again next time. And the next.
Of course I am in the vast minority here in that most people think oreos are food that can fit into a balanced diet as a treat. That. Is. Fine. I'm not trying to tell you or your kids what to eat, and that wouldn't work anyway. "Lots of people" eat this stuff. But I don't consider anyone in my household to be "lots of people". They get taken care of first, second and third. Like any family. It's not like I don't care about other kids, it's just that I keep a boundary where their family culture is their own business.
So, if I was the teacher I wouldn't have plucked the oreo from the kids hand, because it is a social faux pas. But I see that as a failing on my part. I really do wish I was the kind of person that enforced what is right and took the blame as the @#$hole to the unappreciated benefit of other kids. I admire that.
But it's not really about oreos either. Its about whether the teacher/school/government has the right to override the patent's choices of food for their kids. You view oreos as unhealthy and not good for your kids, fine no problem.
What happens when the school disapproves of something you are fine with your kids having? Maybe homemade, low sugar black bean brownies or homemade organic fruit leather whatever you consider a healthy treat. Do they have the right to take it away, even though you dream it healthy and are OK with your kids eating it? Do they have the right to determine what is healthy for your child, no matter your opinion on the issue?
Oh no. In that case I'd just take them out of the school. That teacher would then be an idiot. See, to me, it is all about the Oreos.
Are you being intentionally obtuse? So in your world there is no room for differing opinions. Those who agree with you are RIGHT and should be allowed to impose their way of doing things on others and those who disagree are idiots. Or at least, you can impose your way on our children and save them from their parents' wrong thinking.0 -
Absolutely parents should teach their children about food including what is a treat vs what is not and about limiting intake of stuff you don't need, but like. We never frequent McDonalds so my kids naturally didn't either, but we didn't stop them from attending other kid's parties at McD's. Except for Christmas / special occasions we never have soda in our home, but again we never stopped them from having it when visiting others. They learned through example and teaching that some things are treats, and some things are foods.
Now that both are teenagers earning some money we do not find them spending their time and money at the golden arches drinking pop.
Teaching children the meaning of "treat" - something out of the ordinary that gives pleasure - is very important. Kids get this and will internalize it well if parents are consistent, but if you blur the lines, who can blame them for mistaking "treat" for "food".
As an example if someone were to give two cookies to a child (or an adult!) every day that means the cookies are no longer a treat but part of that child's (or adult's) regular diet. IMO that's not a lesson anyone should be teaching a child.
0 -
YayFoodYayFood wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »
Yeah, because changing the scenario from a 5 year old to an adult is totally not moving the goalposts.mamapeach910 wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »
What would make your boss right?YayFoodYayFood wrote: »carlaunderconstruction wrote: »Wow, I'm so amazed with how many people are defending processed sugar in kids lunches. I work in a private school in China, where the students are fed food prepared by the school. There is no added sugar! When we have special events where the students get sugar there is a drastic change in behaviour. Plus a lot of students almost never have sugar, so they have been physically sick (throwing up) after having something like a small piece of birthday cake, or two small pieces of chocolate. Of course I understand the need to teach kids self regulation, and moderation, but honestly I don't want to teach 25, 5 year old's that ate oreos as part of their lunch. Save the oreos for after school!
And I'm amazed how many people have made the choice to over consume food in their lives and not want to tell everyone else the stuff they eat is junk. Would you like it if you were eating something at lunch that your boss didn't think was the right choice and they took it from you and threw it away?
If my boss is right, then yeah.
You're okay with someone taking something you paid for and throwing it away?
Would you be okay with someone not agreeing with an SUV you might drive and taking it and dropping it off at the junk yard because they don't feel it's good for the environment?
Would you be okay with someone taking the Nkke running sneakers of your feet because they don't agree with their business practices?
Would you be okay with someone taking your diamond ring or earing from you because they might be from Sierra Leon?
Well, in nutrition, there is no doubt in my mind what is right and wrong based on literature and patterns over very long lengths of time. So because of the certainty, I'd be pretty sure if my boss's actions regarding food were right or wrong.
Knowing that, if my boss did what's right and took those oreos out of my hands, I'll be honest and say, thanks you're the man. This is the kind of company I want to work for. One that looks out for my best interests. One that doesn't bury their heads in the sand. One that is brutally forthcoming in it's intentions. That's not only a boss, but something I would expect from a true friend.
With regards to the rest of your examples, I don't have certainty on my side. I don't know enough about cars/SUVs to know if one is an outlier to justify his actions. Same with running shoe manufacturing. And even diamonds that claim to be "clean"... they are hard to trace. Many middle men in that business from my N=1 experience. So I wouldn't be so sure about that either.
So you want to be baby sat? You want someone to take those dastardly oreos away from you so someone else can decide what your best interests are. In moderation, for a child a treat is a treat. If you teach your child a treat is a treat and not an all consuming thing then they grow up to learn what moderation is. They grow up learning what a treat is. No need to bury your head in the sand, we should be educating our children instead of depriving them and vilifying foods.
We have different views on parenting I guess.
Moving goalposts. You were asked about your boss taking something away from you and you said you'd welcome it.
I don't know about you, but I didn't spend all this time becoming an adult just for other people to treat me like a child.
It's ok, we are actually all guilty of moving the goalposts. All the time. But this is status quo. If you point me to an MFP forum thread where goalposts aren't moved or when the same crew that moved the goalposts then blames you for moving the goalposts then it would be kinda weird.
Actually, I think my overall sentiment got lost in trying to answer all these specific examples which got us sidetracked. It all of a sudden became about control and baby sitting and blood diamonds and SUVs. And when it's a free for all, somebody is bound to get disturbed or pissed off. Smart tactic actually.
Lost in all of this stuff... was my overall sentiment. I consider Oreos, and all other junk food to be garbage that I would never eat and would hope my kids don't eat. If this happened to my kid (it wouldn't b/c I would never willfully give them oreos or any junk for that matter), but let's say, somebody else gave them oreos, and the teacher took them away, I would call that teacher and say thank you. And ask them to do it again next time. And the next.
Of course I am in the vast minority here in that most people think oreos are food that can fit into a balanced diet as a treat. That. Is. Fine. I'm not trying to tell you or your kids what to eat, and that wouldn't work anyway. "Lots of people" eat this stuff. But I don't consider anyone in my household to be "lots of people". They get taken care of first, second and third. Like any family. It's not like I don't care about other kids, it's just that I keep a boundary where their family culture is their own business.
So, if I was the teacher I wouldn't have plucked the oreo from the kids hand, because it is a social faux pas. But I see that as a failing on my part. I really do wish I was the kind of person that enforced what is right and took the blame as the @#$hole to the unappreciated benefit of other kids. I admire that.
But it's not really about oreos either. Its about whether the teacher/school/government has the right to override the patent's choices of food for their kids. You view oreos as unhealthy and not good for your kids, fine no problem.
What happens when the school disapproves of something you are fine with your kids having? Maybe homemade, low sugar black bean brownies or homemade organic fruit leather whatever you consider a healthy treat. Do they have the right to take it away, even though you dream it healthy and are OK with your kids eating it? Do they have the right to determine what is healthy for your child, no matter your opinion on the issue?
Oh no. In that case I'd just take them out of the school. That teacher would then be an idiot. See, to me, it is all about the Oreos.
You're flip flopping in your own argument. It's okay if a teacher of a boss takes something away from a kid or yourself if it's Oreos but if they take something away they think is bad but you don't think so then you're removing your kid from the school all of a sudden. It's okay for the teacher to take away cookies from the kid because you feel they aren't healthy but if you don't think it's unhealthy then they can't? Well many people don't consider Oreos unhealthy but their opinion including the mother in the article doesn't count because you feel it's unhealthy even though they are fine with it, you're suddenly setting the standards for other people based on your beliefs. You all of a sudden have the right to tell people they are wrong simply based on your beliefs. Your stance makes no sense.
You never answered my question, I eat ice cream every night, am I unhealthy?
Oh sorry. Been busy today didn't see all posts.
1). Regarding ice cream, depends what it's made of. If it's conventional ice cream, I wouldn't touch it. So if you're eating it every night, yeah, From my standpoint, I wouldn't want to be you. I think that's unhealthy. You asked. But you don't care about my opinion anyways, which is fine. I'm just answering your question which you have asked twice. Even if it's organic and ingredients carefully selected, I would moderate carefully. Again, only because u asked.
2). I'm not actually flip flopping. I've ways been against the Oreo in the argument. For me and my kids. Not for the mother in question. So yeah, sounds harsh, but if the teachers actions are in line with my beliefs, he gets my support. If not, he doesn't. I'm not taking a stance on teachers taking things away from kids. That's not the issue for me. I just care about the food choices. And if they are in line with mine. My agenda in the conversation was that all I care about is the endpoint of what my kids eat. I don't care how that endpoint is achieved.
What other sorts of personal beliefs (outside of the realm of keeping an orderly, lawful society) is it okay for the state to impose on children in schools?
0 -
Absolutely parents should teach their children about food including what is a treat vs what is not and about limiting intake of stuff you don't need, but like. We never frequent McDonalds so my kids naturally didn't either, but we didn't stop them from attending other kid's parties at McD's. Except for Christmas / special occasions we never have soda in our home, but again we never stopped them from having it when visiting others. They learned through example and teaching that some things are treats, and some things are foods.
Now that both are teenagers earning some money we do not find them spending their time and money at the golden arches drinking pop.
Teaching children the meaning of "treat" - something out of the ordinary that gives pleasure - is very important. Kids get this and will internalize it well if parents are consistent, but if you blur the lines, who can blame them for mistaking "treat" for "food".
As an example if someone were to give two cookies to a child (or an adult!) every day that means the cookies are no longer a treat but part of that child's (or adult's) regular diet. IMO that's not a lesson anyone should be teaching a child.
See I don't see a problem with 2 Oreos, or an equivalent treat, a day as a part of a kid's regular diet as long they are balanced by fruits, veggies and protein.
I did some googling. Using my 50 pound 7 year old as an example. One source said she should be getting between 34-41 calories per pound. That's 1700-2050 calories a day. The USDA says between 1200-1600, depending on activity level. And the American Heart Association recommends that 25-35% of that comes from fat.
2 Double Stuff Oreos have 142 calories and 6.6 grams of fat. That's gonna fit pretty easily into the above guidelines.
And that's why schools shouldn't be policing food from home. Different parents have different ideas about what is appropriate for their kids.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 952 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions