Parenting and Family Books

Comfort foods

June 24, 2007 by amanda Leave a Comment

Today I was reading in Mindless Eating about comfort foods and the differences between what women choose and what men choose.

What’s the big difference between men and women? When asked why they preferred pizza, pasta, and soup over cakes and cookies, men generally talked about how good they tasted and how filling they were. But when we probed a bit deeper, many also said that when they ate these foods they felt “spoiled,” “pampered,” “taken care of,” or “waited on.” Generally they associated these foods with being the focus of attention from either the mother or wife.

And women? Although they liked hot-meal comfort foods just fine, these foods did not carry the associations of being “spoiled,” “taken care of,” or “waited on.” In fact, quite the opposite. When women thought of these foods, they were reminded of the work they or their mothers had to do to produce them. These foods didn’t represent comfort, they represented preparation and cleanup.

For women, snacklike foods–candy, cookies, ice cream, chocolate–were hassly-free. Part of their comfort was to not have to make or clean up anything. It was both effortless and mindless eating.

Isn’t that interesting? Men chose foods that made them feel cared for or spoiled. As I think of Joe’s favorite foods, they are all warm and full meals. Mine are not. Last week I made lasagna because he asked for it, and I couldn’t fathom why someone would want lasagna when it is 99 degrees outside. I even talked to some friends at my yoga class about how all I want is a salad or to eat out. I need to keep our different preferences in mind, even if Joe’s tastes sometimes confuse me. I do this for my children, but I don’t always think a ton about Joe’s preferences, especially since he likes a lot of unhealthy comfort foods. Making those foods healthy and serving his comfort foods is another little way of honoring my family 🙂 I hadn’t really considered the deeper “why’s” behind that before.

In Turansky and Miller’s Say Goodbye to Whining, they point out that the Bible tells us many times to love, honor, serve, and encourage others. I sometimes think of that as being a loftier goal than it is. The fact is that many of my day-to-day decisions can be done in a more honoring way. They say,

It’s amazing how one family member can behin a chain reaction of change, resulting in a greater sense of honor. Maybe that one family member is you.

There are so many little ways to show honor and love. I am glad that I am starting to recognize some more ways to do this. It blesses me to bless my family.Â Who would’ve thought that a book on subconscious eating preferences would give me more ideas on how to bless my family?

You can’t set boundaries on other people

June 3, 2007 by amanda 1 Comment

Back when I was first married – when dinosaurs roamed the earth – someone gave me this book. I think I picked it up for a moment and realized that my problem was not in setting boundaries, but rather in respecting others boundaries ::ducking::Â I put the book down and didn’t think about it again.

I was looking at my bookshelf the other day and decided that I might as well read this book so that I can paperbackswap it. I’m really glad that I picked it upÂ 🙂

There is a section early in the book where the author is speaking to a client of his who is talking about boundaries she “set on” her husband and said that he could not talk to her “that way” anymore. This is how the author responds

“What you have done is not boundaries at all,” I replied.

“What do you mean?”

“It was your feeble attempt at controlling your husband, and that never works.” I went on to explain that boundaries are not something you “set on” another person. Boundaries are about yourself.

My client could not say to her husband, “You can’t speak to me that way.” This demand is unenforceable. But she could say what she would or would not do if he spoke to her that way again. She could set a boundary “on herself.” She could say, “If you speak to me that way, I will walk out of the room.” This threat is totally enforceable because it has to do with her. She would be setting a boundary with the only person she could control: herself.

Hmm, yes. Perhaps I have not been setting boundaries quite as much as I thought I had been. I have told people that they may not speak to me disrespectfully, although I suppose that was just an attempt to control. I’m going to be pondering this for a few days.

November 19, 2006 by amanda 2 Comments

I first started How Would Jesus Raise a Child back in 2004. Its been a long time. I’m about to go into year 3 with this book, and its only 200 pages long, lol. Sad.

Its not that the book isn’t good. I really enjoy it. I just seem to get on tangents where I read other stuff instead. I can’t really explain it.

I just finished chapter 7, and I wanted to talk about some of the concepts in there. ~~Mind if I share?~~ I’m going to share.

OK, so think of all of the times that the disciples were dense. They didn’t get what Jesus was saying. He’d have to say it over and over. Even the Samaritan woman at the well caught on faster than they did. The disciples were still trying to figure out if someone had brought Jesus some food after the Samaritan woman left. Dr. Whitehurst says,

…they just couldn’t converse with him at his level. This didn’t mean they weren’t bright; it meant only that they didn’t know how to translate his metaphorical language.

Still, it must have occasioned more than a few sighs on Jesus’ part. As parents, we can’t be blamed for getting exasperated at times. Children often half listen or, within minutes, forget what we tell them. This is where we can learn from Jesus. When a follower didn’t get his message one way, Jesus didn’t keep hammering him with that same parable over and over again until he understood; rather he changed the form of his message and used it when they next “teachable moment” arose.

Jesus’ ability to change the form of his message can be seen, for example, in the many ways he tried to teach the concept of servant leadership. In the Sermon on the Mount, he taught that God values the meek and the peacemakers. When later his disciples were arguing over who would get top billing in the kingdom, Jesus didn’t shout, “When will you get this through your heads? I told you, the meek will inherit the earth!”

Instead, he gathered all of them together (not just the offenders) to discuss the issue in broader terms, describing the kind of behavior, or service, that would make them true leaders.

I sat and thought about this for a while. I think I need to keep this in mind and work on this concept. I am usually pretty good at being creative when it comes to ways of teaching, but it is easy to wonder if I’m talking to myself sometimes, lol. As a matter of fact, when I first started reading this passage, I was thinking about how I sometimes space out when dh is talking to me! Its terrible! I really need to be more understanding with my kids… after all, they are working with my DNA here.
So, piggybacking on that idea, she talks about how we need to give our kids permission to try again after they fail

Jesus predicted failure to inoculate his disciples against disagreement and self-blame when they failed or encountered obstacles… After failures did occur, Jesus didn’t berate his disciples nor did he give up on them. After Peter’s three denials, Jesus didn’t say, “Well, it’s pretty obvious you haven’t got leadership potential,” or “I guess I was wrong about your commitment.”

Jesus didn’t minimize failure, but neither did he hold on to it. Jesus interacted with people in such a way that if someone gave up on a goal or talent, it would be because he wanted to, not because he’d been made to feel so condemned about failures that he didn’t dare try again. This was Jesus’ secret: The moment the person wished to make another attempt, Jesus was happy to receive him. He continued working with his student from there, as if no failure had ever happened. He knew that Peter already felt bad enough; there was no need to rub it in.

So these are my two points to work on for this week 🙂 I’m really enjoying this book, despite the fact that my leisurely pace might make you assume otherwise, LOL.

https://www.hippiemommy.com/2006/11/19/267/

Autism… I now realize how little I understood

November 12, 2006 by amanda 2 Comments

..or maybe I should say I’m starting to realize how little I understood….

I’ve been reading The Only Boy in the World this week, and it has really made me think about my past actions and feel some serious regret.

Michael Blastland’s memoir of his autistic son, Joe, has truly struck me. I have several friends with children who have an autistic spectrum disorder, much like Joe, and as I read Michael’s words about all of the unhelpful (and hurtful) things that his friends and fellow parents said to him, I feel ashamed. I have said many of the same things. I was only trying to be helpful. This paragraph hit me hard

“Bless him!” say those who’ve mostly not experienced his stamina. “Chidlren. They do pester, don’t they?” Friends remark that all children like routine, all children like what they know, all are obsessive at times. Such commonplaces offer reassurance: “Don’t panic, mine do it too. Joe isn’t unusual and anyway, how bad can it be? One shouldn’t fret about a little repetitive behavior in children.”

I’m grateful for the intended consolation but, truly, they have no idea. For there’s the obsession of normal children and there’s Joe… He knows his priorities. Think drug-crazed, fanatical, murderous desperation, think lawless smack habit; think this without exaggeration; think it seriously. There’s a phrase used of Olympic champions and artists devoted to their craft: single-minded. Imagine this with absurd literality: a mind with one objective only, a single thought driving out all others, the thought of an obsessive lover, a glutton on a fast, a drowning man.

I have often said that my kids are obsessive too, my kids get a little OCD, my kids love routine too… I was trying to help, but I now realize that I was not helping.
As Mr. Blastland goes on to talk about Joe’s life and the way his brain (and other autistic brains) function, it is really fascinating. He talks about how adults and children relate to autistic kids, and the phenomenon that seems to follow where humans shy away from crazy, loud people (think of a drunk in a public place), and yet kids and adults are often threatened if someone is quiet and won’t move out of the way, or doesn’t understand personal space. Those quiet social differences are somehow much more upsetting to strangers.

He also talks about the lack of imaginative play in autistic children. He tells stories from now grown men and women with Aspergers, and how they explain that they didn’t realize that other people reasoned and felt the same way as they did. Somehow their mind didn’t make that connection, and even as adults they must focus and concentrate to remember this fact.

I really recommend this book to anyone, even if you don’t know any autistic children or adults. If nothing else, it will give you an appreciation for all of the things that your mind does without you even realizing it. You make millions of decisions based on how other people think, feel, and will perceive you. You trust what you’ve been told about dangers and possibilities. You are able to use fictional stories and imaginative mind play to think through different scenarios. The brain really is amazing, and this book has made me appreciate it even more.

To all of my friends with autistic children, I am very sorry. I only meant to help, but I now realize that I said all of the wrong things. Please forgive me.

Spare the rod

October 13, 2006 by amanda 3 Comments

I love reading different people’s perspectives on the rod verses. Even when they don’t all agree, I find that studying the verses and the interpretations of the verses is a great way to both reinforce and rethink my beliefs 🙂

I am currently enjoying Heartfelt Discipline as one of my reads, so I thought I’d discuss his beliefs on the rod. As always, please buy the book if you want the details! It truly is excellent, even if I disagree with a few little parts 😉

In his book, Clarkson talks about how he spanked and even fashioned his own paddle for a “rod” for his children. It didn’t feel right though. He says

As much as I preferred other methods, I used the paddle for one reason only: I believed it was God’s ordained method of disciplining children. I didn’t want to be disobedient to God in my role as a father, and I certainly didn’t want to contribute to my children’s becoming rebels. And yet my spirit was deeply troubled every time I used the paddle. It didn’t seem to fit the character of God or be consistent with the nature of a loving parent. It didn’t seem to be proportional discipline for a young child. Neither did it seem to have sufficient biblical support. in short, it just didn’t seem right.

He started to research it some more. In his research, he learned several things (buy the book if you want the hebrew word study! This is just an overview):

The “child” in Proverbs 22:15, 23:13-14, and 29:15 (all of the “rod” verses except for one) is the hebrew word “naar”, which means a young adult… usually mid-teens – could be 16-24 according to Jewish rabbinical law. Naar was used to describe men such as Joseph when he was sold into slavery, David when he defeated Goliath, and Joshua when he scouted the lands. The only other rod verse applied to children (13:24) uses the word translated “son” (“ben”), and there is no need to assume this means anything other than a “naar”. All other rod verses refer to adult fools.
The rod is literal, but not as most Christian parents use it

The rod is an instrument of punishment and correction. It’s not a switch or a paddle or a dowel or a wooden spoon. If you accept the rod passages of Proverbs as a divine mandate for disciplining young children and you take those passages literally, you’ll find yourself beating your child with a heavy stick or branch.

Preach on, brother! 😉
Children are not the focus of these verses. These chapters are all about older teens who are to the point of deciding good and evil. Young children are not yet to that point. They are not yet believers and are expected to think like children.
Proverbs are proverbs. They aren’t law. They should be read proverbially 😉

Clarkson closes the chapter with this quote

When I finally began to “spare the rod,” I naturally wondered about the biblical alternative to rod-based discipline. Answering that question has shown me not only a heart-oriented approach to discipline, but also a biblical relationship with my children. I was missing the relational part of discipline that would enable me to open and to win my children’s hearts; I was missing the biblical picture of discipline as a journey along a path with my children; and I was missing the life of the Holy Spirit in the discipline and training of my children.

The link above goes to my previous article on the same topic 🙂

Clarkson agrees that the rod was probably used on older children. Then again, as he also points out

Should we use the rod on rebelious sons today? No, I think not… We are no longer bound to the Old Testament Law (for instance, we don’t stone rebellious sons). We are instead guided by the liberty and grace of the New Covenant, made possible by the shed blood of Jesus on our behalf… So should we be just as serious in dealing with rebellious sons as Solomon suggests? Yes, emphatically so! But we need to discipline our sons in light of the rest of Scripture, which was not available to Solomon. There is so much more to biblical discipline, as we will see in the chapters that follow, than what is found in a few passages in proverbs.

And I shall write about those future chapters very soon 🙂

Are we responsible for making sure Jesus has a good day?

October 12, 2006 by amanda 8 Comments

And now for my first bone to pick with Say Goodbye…

It’s amazing what things touch a child’s conscience. Sometimes it’s a word spoken in sadness instead of anger. Other times it’s a Scripture verse graciously revealed by a parent… When disciplining his daughter, one dad said, “It makes me sad when you choose to hit your sister instead of talking things out. It also makes God sad when we don’t choose to do the right thing.”
Appealing to the conscience is different from using guilt to manipulate. It is not a matter of telling a child, “You’re bad and you need to change.” Instead, we are trying to convey that the child is a good person who has done the wrong thing.

Ick. I really dislike this line of thinking. As Jeff VanVonderen says in Families Where Grace is in Place, when we use scripture or guilt to change someone, then that is manipulation. I have written about this before.

…you may get an answer like; “I’m really angry that I have to do this,” or the child may simply show his anger by stomping or complaining. In response, many Christian parents would say, “Don’t you ever let me hear you talk like that, [or act like that],” or “You are making Jesus sad by being angry,” or “Go to your room and don’t come out until you can be polite.” If so, you are provoking them to seethe.
It is better to acknowledge their anger. Tell them that you appreciate their telling you about their anger, or the fact that they are angry, even though they may still be required to do the chore they don’t like. – Jeff VanVonderen

Turansky and Miller must realize on some level that this is manipulative. They directly address the manipulation aspect.

Here’s my main issue though: If kids are somehow responsible for making sure Jesus has a good day, then they should be afraid. Afraid of their power and the fact that God’s mood can change at their whim. This is not accurate! How can a child ever feel safe in this kind of God? Perhaps Turansky and Miller are of the opinion that we are responsible for others feelings, but I do not believe that at all. I think they are really off base here.

« Previous Page