Ted Campanelli wrote:

> On 8/6/2004 6:13 PM Ted shuffled out of his cave and grunted these
> great (and sometimes not so great) words of knowledge:
>
>> Try giving him/her a small plate (salad size or smaller) with
>> very small portions of each food. Cut up vegetables. Think how
>> threatening a big spear of broccoli can look to someone who
>> doesn't like it. Ask them to finish the plate before they get
>> more of everything.
>
> You will need your spouse/SO to back you up on this and also to
> follow through. This will work. It is called 2 things -
> Discipline and Tough Love.

Actually, it's neither.

It's punishment...

for breaking an arbitrary rule based solely on the principle that
whatever you say *must* be observed irrespective of benefit to anyone.
That's not love, its dictatorship with no guiding principle beyond
absolute obedience.

> You TELL the kid to eat it. They refuse, fine. They get the same
> thing on their plate for the next meal. They get NOTHING ELSE
> until they eat it. You keep doing this until they eat it.

What benefit comes from this? Satisfaction of a controlling, ego-based
system of life rules?

How is the life of the child improved by this? How is your life
improved by this? The implications above of "discipline" and "tough
love" are that someone endure present discomfort for some ultimate
good. There is certainly discomfort. There is no ultimate good.

> For instance, they will not eat broccoli at supper. First, no
> desert or snacks. They get the broccoli for breakfast. If they
> eat it, THEN they can have a "normal" breakfast. They don't eat
> it, back in the fridge until lunch and we do it again, and again
> and again until they do eat it. I promise they will eat it by day
> 3 AND THEY WILL BE NO WORSE FOR IT (and they will not starve
> either).

And your ego will be satisfied that you can browbeat a child into
doing what you want them to do.

The larger question here isn't whether "THEY WILL BE NO WORSE FOR IT"
but whether they will be any better for it. I'm afraid I can't see any
way they or you will be better people for the whole exercise. Beyond
that, if this is the norm for how they'll be treated, it's very likely
that it will breed hatred and, even worse, will create more people who
treat others this way. The cycle perpetuates.

"THEY WILL BE NO WORSE FOR IT" - what a wonderful motto for how to
deal with others. I find this repellent and, frankly, stupid. It deals
only with the immediacy of the situation. Not *why* they should eat
broccoli if they find it distasteful. Not *why* the need to eat
broccoli at all. Not *how* this is an expression of love. Not *who*
benefits from this exercise of smug, unreasoning surety and the defeat
of a child.

> Of course you may be "a little worse for wear" with all
> the yelling and screaming, but that is another issue that is best
> handled in the "woodshed".

Let me see if I have this right. When you were a kid, chances are good
that there were foods you didn't like. Your parents *made* you eat
them. That's not love, it's bullying. It's coercion for the sake of
coercion.

The rule that has been in effect in my house is that kids have to
taste everything before saying yuck. And, if they say yuck, they don't
have to eat it ever again, if they don't want to. Just like an adult.
Maybe kids shouldn't be in charge of heavy equipment, but they can
certainly be in charge of their tastes. The net effect is that
mealtime has always been a relaxed time with no contests of wills. The
kids are all four venturesome eaters because they know what there's no
penalty for trying something new. If they know that they'll have to
eat it no matter their response, they take small portions and try to
gag them down if they don't like it. Not for love, but to avoid being
browbeaten and humiliated. They won't eagerly embrace the untried for
fear they won't like it and will still have to eat it. WHere's the good?

We never made anything special for the kids to replace our normal
menus. Because of the balance of our normal meals, there was always
something for them to eat. If they didn't want anything on the table
(I don't recall that ever happening) there would always be bread and
butter or something else leftover from a previous meal. It was a
frequent situation that they chose the menus based on what was
available. It was also funny to see them picking things to prepare for
dinner that they didn't like but that others did. They wouldn't eat
it, whatever it was, but the others would be pleased that they were
considered.

My parents' style was "You'll sit there until you eat it." There were
nights I sat until midnight because I just couldn't stomach it,
whatever it was. I learned how to not eat the food and sneak it out in
my pocket. I learned how to evade their orders. Later, when I had kids
of my own, I decided that respecting their tastes in this small arena
would be a better way to operate. Would be a whole lot closer to
treating them as I would like to be treated. I read that in a book
somewhere.

> There is no such thing as an unruly child or dog, just ineffectual
> parents/owners.

And the sad, sad parallel you draw here explains everything about you.
Children and dogs, indeed.

Forgot what it was like to be a kid?

Pastorio