So it sounds like Trump is trying to roll back some of the regulations on school lunch guidelines, and at the moment I'm not going to comment on whether that's a good choice or not. I do, however, want to comment about the argument people are making about how because of Michelle Obama kids are getting food that they refuse to eat because they don't like it, and so all that food is just being thrown away. I vividly remember what school lunch was like when I was growing up, and food was thrown away then too. My tray consistently had limp green-ish brown things that might have been beans, gray hamburgers with "ketchup", tater tots that were hollow because they'd been fried in so much fat, hot dogs that tasted odd, and dry-looking sawdust that I was told was taco meat. I learned that if the menu said "pizza" they meant bread with hamburger and cheese on top, but if the menu said "barchedda" or "galaxy pizza" it generally was pizza. In first grade we were given strange brown-ish red blobs (possibly sugarplums) that we didn't dare touch. I threw away an obscene amount of food that I didn't like. I'm ashamed of how much food I threw away. I remember carefully watching Mrs. Mac because I knew if she saw me approaching the trash cans without having eaten my food she would make me go back and eat it. It was better in high school when we had a salad bar every day. That's why my kids take a cold lunch to school every day (aside from the fact that over $2 per meal for my kids' lunch is not in the budget). It's what I should have done myself. So in terms of waste I doubt that the amount of food being thrown away has changed much.
In defense of the lunch ladies, they were being asked to make and serve a meal to 1000 kids within a couple of hours. They're stretched thin and they don't have much of a budget. I feel bad complaining about the food because I know they were probably doing the best they could. Also, their cinnamon rolls, chocolate cake, and dinner rolls (especially those ones they served with spaghetti) were pretty fantastic, and every once in a while they would serve this potato soup with a lot of pepper in it that I loved. And sometimes the cups of peaches were still frozen, and that was the best. The baked potatoes were actually just fine, but I was being picky.
If we're going to have school lunch (and for many children in poverty I think this program is really important) then these are the obstacles we have to face. How do we make school lunch healthy, affordable, palatable, and convenient to serve? And we have to recognize that doing this for your own family is not the same as doing it for an entire school. Making hand breaded chicken nuggets or freshly sauteed green beans is enough work for my family of five; we're not going to get that at school.
And on a slightly related note, recently I read an article talking about how many schools punish or shame students when their parents haven't paid their lunch accounts (as in, they threw the student's food away). My first reaction was shock that they could be so cruel, but on further reflection I have to admit that it happened sometimes at my school too. I remember in my irresponsible fifth grade years I forgot my lunch check or tickets several times, and if I had forgotten two days in a row I felt physically ill worrying about having to fill out another charge form. A few times I even snuck out of the line and went to my younger sister's classroom to borrow a lunch ticket from her. I remember a few times I got lucky because on a day when I didn't have a lunch ticket I was chosen to be a lunch helper and got free lunch. I actually don't remember if Jill the lunch lady ever yelled at me about not having a lunch ticket, but she definitely did yell at some other kids.
Showing posts with label rants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rants. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 2, 2017
Saturday, May 21, 2016
on gentlemen opening doors
Years ago a woman in Relief Society told about teaching her son to have good manners. Specifically, she said that if her son forgets to open the door for her she will stand and wait for him to do so. I've heard many women tell similar stories or say that they would never marry a young man who didn't open doors for her.
I have no problem with men opening doors for women, but I think we need to think about how we handle this. I once went on a date with a young man who did all the "right" things--opening doors, making sure I was seated first, helping me with my chair, etc.--but he treated me like a ditz and turned everything I said into something to make fun of me about. I'm an intelligent person and I found his behavior very insulting. That was one of the most expensive dates I was ever taken on and it was probably the worst one. I would have much preferred to be with a young man who forgot to open my door but responded kindly to my comments. Clearly there's much more to a man's character than if he remembers to open the door for his date.
What does it say about a woman's character if a man forgets to open a door for her and she stands haughtily by the door and gives him a dirty look? It takes a lot of courage to ask someone on a date and it's terribly unkind to treat a young man like that when he's probably already very nervous and self-conscious.
Won't it put a strain on a relationship if a wife gets irritated at her husband for forgetting to open her door? When our husbands already have so many worries on their shoulders (work, providing for their family, specific concerns about members of their family, callings at church), is it right to add to that the guilt of forgetting to open a door? Wouldn't it be much better to overlook it or gently say, "Would you mind opening my door, dear?"
Personally when I got married there were other characteristics that were much higher on the priority list. I'm a big girl and I can open my own doors. What I really need is someone who I can have an intelligent conversation with, someone who doesn't mind washing dishes and changing dirty diapers, someone who steps in when there's service to be done. A young man who never learned to open doors can be taught to do so, but you will have a much harder time changing his character.
I have no problem with men opening doors for women, but I think we need to think about how we handle this. I once went on a date with a young man who did all the "right" things--opening doors, making sure I was seated first, helping me with my chair, etc.--but he treated me like a ditz and turned everything I said into something to make fun of me about. I'm an intelligent person and I found his behavior very insulting. That was one of the most expensive dates I was ever taken on and it was probably the worst one. I would have much preferred to be with a young man who forgot to open my door but responded kindly to my comments. Clearly there's much more to a man's character than if he remembers to open the door for his date.
What does it say about a woman's character if a man forgets to open a door for her and she stands haughtily by the door and gives him a dirty look? It takes a lot of courage to ask someone on a date and it's terribly unkind to treat a young man like that when he's probably already very nervous and self-conscious.
Won't it put a strain on a relationship if a wife gets irritated at her husband for forgetting to open her door? When our husbands already have so many worries on their shoulders (work, providing for their family, specific concerns about members of their family, callings at church), is it right to add to that the guilt of forgetting to open a door? Wouldn't it be much better to overlook it or gently say, "Would you mind opening my door, dear?"
Personally when I got married there were other characteristics that were much higher on the priority list. I'm a big girl and I can open my own doors. What I really need is someone who I can have an intelligent conversation with, someone who doesn't mind washing dishes and changing dirty diapers, someone who steps in when there's service to be done. A young man who never learned to open doors can be taught to do so, but you will have a much harder time changing his character.
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
Curious George
I have a love/hate relationship with the Curious George books. The stories are kind of fun and my kids love them (we have a big book that has six of the books in it, and it's one of the most worn-out/well-loved books in our collection), but I get tired of them really fast and I'm completely exasperated by them sometimes, mostly because they're absurd (which is why kids love them so much) and so many people mooch off of George, especially the man in the yellow hat. I will show you what I mean by summarizing a few of the books and giving them more appropriate titles. (P.S. Don't take this post too seriously, please.)
Curious George
aka The Man in the Yellow Hat Kidnaps a Monkey
In this book George is captured by the man in the yellow hat, who plans to sell him to the zoo. After they get on a boat, a very tearful George is allowed to freely roam the ship. (We won't go into how George's parents felt about their little monkey getting carried off since the book doesn't mention them.) He sees some gulls flying, and since he's apparently never seen birds before (despite having lived in a jungle his entire life) he thinks he can fly too, so he jumps off the ship and almost drowns. Fortunately, the sailors save him and he throws up four whole fish and about five gallons of water. At the man's house George smokes a pipe (!!!) and eats dinner, then goes to bed. The next day he plays with the phone and calls the fire department by dialing 123-4567. When the fire department discovers him, they put him in jail (which firemen are not legally allowed to do, not that anybody gets put in jail for making a prank call to the fire department, but you know . . .). George escapes through a window and then manages to get carried away by a large bunch of balloons, but when the wind dies down he begins to sink and unluckily gets recaptured by the man in the yellow hat, who is relieved that he can still get big bucks selling George to the zoo, but it's okay because a cage in a zoo is such a nice place for a monkey to live after he's spent his entire life in the jungle.
Curious George Takes a Job
aka George Escapes, but then a Lot of People Use him for Free Labor
In this book George escapes from the zoo by stealing the zookeeper's keys and hiding with the elephants until the zookeepers are all gone. After exploring the city, he sneaks into a kitchen to steal some food. Unfortunately, he makes a big mess and gets caught. The cook makes him clean up the kitchen, and then, realizing that this is a very intelligent and efficient monkey, takes George to work for free washing windows with no safety equipment on the outside of a 14 (or more) story skyscraper. Out of the goodness of his heart, George paints a beautiful jungle mural in the nursery of a woman's apartment, and for this act of service he is chased out of the building by five people. To escape from them he jumps off the fire escape and breaks his leg.
When the man in the yellow hat finds out what happened to George, he realizes he could make even more money off of George by making a movie about him, so he tells the hospital that he'll come pick George up after his leg has healed. (He doesn't mention any of this to the zoo, of course, since they would probably want their money back and he already spent it buying a new convertible and a helicopter [it's true--see Curious George Flies a Kite.)
Finally, George's leg is better and the man comes to pick him up. He is almost killed when he smells an open bottle of Ether that the nurse had left on the floor in his room (!?!?!?!?!?!), but fortunately they are able to revive him with a cold shower, and the man hurriedly takes George to the movie studio where George signs a contract he can't read while the man and the studio director smoke cigars (!!!). He plays in the fake jungle at the movie studio all day while the man sits back smugly, looking forward to all the money he's going to get when the movie comes out.
Curious George Rides a Bike
aka More People Use George for Free Labor
In this book George is given a new bike by the man in the yellow hat and then left at home by himself. The newsboy sees George playing with his new bike and convinces George to finish up his paper route so that he can go fishing with his friends at the nearby park (but still get paid for finishing his paper route, of course--it's not bad if George is having a good time, right?). George gets distracted and makes all of the newspapers into boats that float away down the stream (which is pretty incredible--I mean, have you ever tried to really float those things? They get soggy and sink in three seconds!) Then George starts riding his bike again, but unfortunately he hits a rock and the front wheel is ruined. That's okay, though, because George can ride on one wheel, so he heads home doing a wheelie. Then the owners of the animal show see him as they're riding down the street, and they decide to kidnap him and put him in their act (free labor, you know). They fix his bike, dress him up, and give him a trumpet. George almost kills the ostrich trying to feed it his trumpet, but it turns out okay because then he saves the baby bear. The man in the yellow hat shows up to the animal show and is thrilled to find his monkey because he had been worried sick at the thought that someone else was making money off of George instead of him.
Curious George gets a Medal
aka George Floods the Man's House and the Man in the Yellow Hat Thinks of Another Way to Make Money off of George
In this book George spills ink all over the carpet and tries to clean it up with soap and water, but he gets a little carried away and floods the house. He steals a cow and a water pump from a nearby farmer, but the farmer chases him and he has to make a getaway on a museum truck. George explores the museum and ruins a dinosaur exhibit, but it all works out okay because the museum director wants to do an experiment on him and the man in the yellow hat has agreed because the museum director will pay him big bucks for the use of his monkey. George is launched into space and then bails out of the space ship using a parachute. George gets a medal and the man in the yellow hat gets lots of money.
Curious George Goes to the Hospital
I don't really have any objections to this book, but I'm seriously grossed out by the fact that the doctor saved the puzzle piece George had swallowed, and that George and the man in the yellow hat went home and happily put it into the puzzle as if it was no big deal that it had been inside a monkey's BODY for three days. Oh, and everything my kids know about hospitals they learned from this book (and their minor surgeries), and they love to reenact scenes from the book using Ann Marie as their patient.
Curious George
aka The Man in the Yellow Hat Kidnaps a Monkey
In this book George is captured by the man in the yellow hat, who plans to sell him to the zoo. After they get on a boat, a very tearful George is allowed to freely roam the ship. (We won't go into how George's parents felt about their little monkey getting carried off since the book doesn't mention them.) He sees some gulls flying, and since he's apparently never seen birds before (despite having lived in a jungle his entire life) he thinks he can fly too, so he jumps off the ship and almost drowns. Fortunately, the sailors save him and he throws up four whole fish and about five gallons of water. At the man's house George smokes a pipe (!!!) and eats dinner, then goes to bed. The next day he plays with the phone and calls the fire department by dialing 123-4567. When the fire department discovers him, they put him in jail (which firemen are not legally allowed to do, not that anybody gets put in jail for making a prank call to the fire department, but you know . . .). George escapes through a window and then manages to get carried away by a large bunch of balloons, but when the wind dies down he begins to sink and unluckily gets recaptured by the man in the yellow hat, who is relieved that he can still get big bucks selling George to the zoo, but it's okay because a cage in a zoo is such a nice place for a monkey to live after he's spent his entire life in the jungle.
Curious George Takes a Job
aka George Escapes, but then a Lot of People Use him for Free Labor
In this book George escapes from the zoo by stealing the zookeeper's keys and hiding with the elephants until the zookeepers are all gone. After exploring the city, he sneaks into a kitchen to steal some food. Unfortunately, he makes a big mess and gets caught. The cook makes him clean up the kitchen, and then, realizing that this is a very intelligent and efficient monkey, takes George to work for free washing windows with no safety equipment on the outside of a 14 (or more) story skyscraper. Out of the goodness of his heart, George paints a beautiful jungle mural in the nursery of a woman's apartment, and for this act of service he is chased out of the building by five people. To escape from them he jumps off the fire escape and breaks his leg.
When the man in the yellow hat finds out what happened to George, he realizes he could make even more money off of George by making a movie about him, so he tells the hospital that he'll come pick George up after his leg has healed. (He doesn't mention any of this to the zoo, of course, since they would probably want their money back and he already spent it buying a new convertible and a helicopter [it's true--see Curious George Flies a Kite.)
Finally, George's leg is better and the man comes to pick him up. He is almost killed when he smells an open bottle of Ether that the nurse had left on the floor in his room (!?!?!?!?!?!), but fortunately they are able to revive him with a cold shower, and the man hurriedly takes George to the movie studio where George signs a contract he can't read while the man and the studio director smoke cigars (!!!). He plays in the fake jungle at the movie studio all day while the man sits back smugly, looking forward to all the money he's going to get when the movie comes out.
Curious George Rides a Bike
aka More People Use George for Free Labor
In this book George is given a new bike by the man in the yellow hat and then left at home by himself. The newsboy sees George playing with his new bike and convinces George to finish up his paper route so that he can go fishing with his friends at the nearby park (but still get paid for finishing his paper route, of course--it's not bad if George is having a good time, right?). George gets distracted and makes all of the newspapers into boats that float away down the stream (which is pretty incredible--I mean, have you ever tried to really float those things? They get soggy and sink in three seconds!) Then George starts riding his bike again, but unfortunately he hits a rock and the front wheel is ruined. That's okay, though, because George can ride on one wheel, so he heads home doing a wheelie. Then the owners of the animal show see him as they're riding down the street, and they decide to kidnap him and put him in their act (free labor, you know). They fix his bike, dress him up, and give him a trumpet. George almost kills the ostrich trying to feed it his trumpet, but it turns out okay because then he saves the baby bear. The man in the yellow hat shows up to the animal show and is thrilled to find his monkey because he had been worried sick at the thought that someone else was making money off of George instead of him.
Curious George gets a Medal
aka George Floods the Man's House and the Man in the Yellow Hat Thinks of Another Way to Make Money off of George
In this book George spills ink all over the carpet and tries to clean it up with soap and water, but he gets a little carried away and floods the house. He steals a cow and a water pump from a nearby farmer, but the farmer chases him and he has to make a getaway on a museum truck. George explores the museum and ruins a dinosaur exhibit, but it all works out okay because the museum director wants to do an experiment on him and the man in the yellow hat has agreed because the museum director will pay him big bucks for the use of his monkey. George is launched into space and then bails out of the space ship using a parachute. George gets a medal and the man in the yellow hat gets lots of money.
Curious George Goes to the Hospital
I don't really have any objections to this book, but I'm seriously grossed out by the fact that the doctor saved the puzzle piece George had swallowed, and that George and the man in the yellow hat went home and happily put it into the puzzle as if it was no big deal that it had been inside a monkey's BODY for three days. Oh, and everything my kids know about hospitals they learned from this book (and their minor surgeries), and they love to reenact scenes from the book using Ann Marie as their patient.
Friday, September 4, 2015
another Pinterest rant
Every once in a while I see posts about people who cried themselves to sleep because they saw a friend's Pinterest boards and knew they could never do all the things the person had pinned on Pinterest. I know I've said this before, but I think this is really odd because Pinterest is not there to show off all the things you have done. Pinterest is intended to be a visual way to find and keep track of ideas. If someone has a craft board, the pins there are most likely things that the person wants to remember so she can try them later. Today I decided to look through my pins and figure out how many of my pins are things I actually tried or used. Here are my results:
Recipes 36/82 (44%)
Recipes I Tried and Loved: 32/32 (100%)
Desserts: 11/94 (12%)
Breakfasts 15/39 (38%)
Snacks: 12/30 (40%)
Soup: 13/21 (62%)
Pasta: 16/41 (39%)
Bread: 7/16 (44%)
Things I want to Make 37/93 (40%)
Recipes 36/82 (44%)
Recipes I Tried and Loved: 32/32 (100%)
Desserts: 11/94 (12%)
Breakfasts 15/39 (38%)
Snacks: 12/30 (40%)
Soup: 13/21 (62%)
Pasta: 16/41 (39%)
Bread: 7/16 (44%)
Things I want to Make 37/93 (40%)
Joy school: 13/37 (Although I've deleted some activities that I already used and didn't plan to use again) (35%)
To do with the kids: ~36/159 (23%)
To make for Me: 6/25 (24%)
Hair: 23/29 (79%) (Most of these pins were haircut ideas--I haven't tried most of the hair-do ideas.)
Three Month Supply: 11/25 (hard to quantify this one because I made this Pinterest Board to share for a RS class, so I didn't actually intend to do several of the pins) (44%)
Nifty Ideas: 10/43 (23%)
Family Home Evening: 1/4 (25%)
Clothes: 1/1 (This board had more pins, mostly shoes I was thinking of buying--and two pairs of those were ones I actually did buy--but I deleted the rest.) (100%)
Quiet book: 9/21 (Speaking of the quiet book, it's scattered all over the house and I'm questioning whether I want to keep it anymore, especially considering that the kids have spent less time playing with it than I spent making it.) (43%)
Parks to Check out: 3/6 (50%)
To think about: 9/10 (These are mainly blog posts I wanted to save and come back to later.) (90%)
Handwriting: 3/7 (43%)
Music Videos: 7/7 (100%)
Organization: 1/1 (100%)
SPD: 1/5 (20%)
Genealogy: 1/9 (11%)
Salads and Vegetables: 5/14 (36%)
School lunch: Honestly? 0/10 (0%)
Genealogy: 1/9 (11%)
Salads and Vegetables: 5/14 (36%)
School lunch: Honestly? 0/10 (0%)
Based on conversations with my friends, I think I actually use my pins more than most people do. Many of my friends have told me they hardly try any of their pins. As you can see, for most categories I haven't even tried half of the activities/recipes. But when I want to try something new I know I can always go to Pinterest and find things that I know I am interested in trying. I don't have to search through recipe blogs or cookbooks. If I am planning a preschool class I can keep track of all my ideas on a Pinterest board and figure out which ones I will actually use. And it's also easy for me to find things that I want to try again because I know what the picture looks like and what board it is on. I'm also very selective about which boards I follow because I don't want to waste time scrolling through things that don't interest me (like interior design).
Bottom line: If you want to use Pinterest, use it in a way that will be helpful to you. And realize that nobody does all the things they pin on Pinterest.
Sunday, March 8, 2015
reading woes
I am becoming very frustrated with the way schools teach reading. I honestly don't see any logical progression to their method other than the font size getting smaller to accommodate more words. I think the problem is partly that they're trying to teach kids to read before most of them are developmentally ready. At the beginning of the year Kevin was getting books with text like, "The cow. The horse. The pig. The sheep. The farm." They didn't decode the words--they just used the pictures to know what it said. As the year has progressed, they have learned a lot of sight words and they are also learning endings like -ing and -ed and being trained to see sight words with those endings added, and they largely use the pictures and first letters of the words to guess what the rest says. I have not seen very much phonetic reading. So now Kevin has gotten into the habit of thinking that you have to know the word before you can read it, and getting him to sound out words is like pulling teeth. It's frustrating because I spent a lot of time and energy teaching him how to do that last summer and it feels like they've undone all of that work.
It's also hard because the books the kids are given to read are terrible. First of all, they are not interesting. What five-year-old would want to read a book that says, "The train goes up the hill. The train goes down the hill. The train goes around the bend. Oops!" (The pictures show some toddlers playing with a toy train.) Second, they throw in words that the kids have no resources to read. And when I look at the easy reader books at the library I find the same problem. I spent fifteen minutes going through them yesterday and wanted to cry. How are these kids going to be motivated to read when we give them stupid books to read? I realize it's difficult when they don't know that many words yet, but can we at least try to make them entertaining? I don't think the writers of these books have spent any time with five-year-olds.
I still try to pull out Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons sometimes, but Kevin won't have anything to do with it. At this point we're trying to find books that are interesting to him and helping him with the hard words. There are several Step Into Reading books about superheroes and movies that are interesting to him. If the words are phonetic I make him sound them out and if they're weird words I give him time to try to figure them out and then just tell him if he doesn't. One of the books he read this week had the word pigeon in it. This was supposed to be a Level 1 book. I don't get it.
It feels like they're trying to move all the curricula back one grade. I really don't see what the rush is. There is still so much mental and emotional development going on in the early grades of elementary school. I really don't see any benefit to expecting all kindergarteners to be able to read and do addition and subtraction. Let them play. I think so many people don't realize that playing is a physical need for children. It's not just that it's pleasant or fun for them. They need to be running, jumping, and swinging, especially kids like Kevin who struggle with regulating their senses.
And if you're going to suggest homeschooling, believe me, I've thought about it. Again and again. I seriously considered it before enrolling Kevin in public school, but when I prayed about it the answer was clear that he needed to be at a public school, and he needed to go this year. I do feel that he has gotten a lot of benefits from school. Other than the way they teach reading I've actually been very happy with what he's learning in school. He loves having a routine, and I just can't give him that kind of routine at home right now. Just having the routine has really helped him to regulate himself, and his behavior has improved dramatically since he started school. He's gone from refusing to pick up a crayon to writing all of his letters and numbers and spelling phonetically. Oh, and for the record, I don't blame the teacher. The state has rigid requirements for kindergarten students to be reading at Level D by the end of the year in order to move on to first grade, and she kind of has to teach the kids using the methods they tell her to use or else the kids won't pass the tests.
The one thing I'm hoping is that Heidi will be more interested in the reading book, because if this is the reality for public schools then I want her to be reading before she goes to school.
I thought writing this blog post would be helpful, but I think I'm just more stressed.
It's also hard because the books the kids are given to read are terrible. First of all, they are not interesting. What five-year-old would want to read a book that says, "The train goes up the hill. The train goes down the hill. The train goes around the bend. Oops!" (The pictures show some toddlers playing with a toy train.) Second, they throw in words that the kids have no resources to read. And when I look at the easy reader books at the library I find the same problem. I spent fifteen minutes going through them yesterday and wanted to cry. How are these kids going to be motivated to read when we give them stupid books to read? I realize it's difficult when they don't know that many words yet, but can we at least try to make them entertaining? I don't think the writers of these books have spent any time with five-year-olds.
I still try to pull out Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons sometimes, but Kevin won't have anything to do with it. At this point we're trying to find books that are interesting to him and helping him with the hard words. There are several Step Into Reading books about superheroes and movies that are interesting to him. If the words are phonetic I make him sound them out and if they're weird words I give him time to try to figure them out and then just tell him if he doesn't. One of the books he read this week had the word pigeon in it. This was supposed to be a Level 1 book. I don't get it.
It feels like they're trying to move all the curricula back one grade. I really don't see what the rush is. There is still so much mental and emotional development going on in the early grades of elementary school. I really don't see any benefit to expecting all kindergarteners to be able to read and do addition and subtraction. Let them play. I think so many people don't realize that playing is a physical need for children. It's not just that it's pleasant or fun for them. They need to be running, jumping, and swinging, especially kids like Kevin who struggle with regulating their senses.
And if you're going to suggest homeschooling, believe me, I've thought about it. Again and again. I seriously considered it before enrolling Kevin in public school, but when I prayed about it the answer was clear that he needed to be at a public school, and he needed to go this year. I do feel that he has gotten a lot of benefits from school. Other than the way they teach reading I've actually been very happy with what he's learning in school. He loves having a routine, and I just can't give him that kind of routine at home right now. Just having the routine has really helped him to regulate himself, and his behavior has improved dramatically since he started school. He's gone from refusing to pick up a crayon to writing all of his letters and numbers and spelling phonetically. Oh, and for the record, I don't blame the teacher. The state has rigid requirements for kindergarten students to be reading at Level D by the end of the year in order to move on to first grade, and she kind of has to teach the kids using the methods they tell her to use or else the kids won't pass the tests.
The one thing I'm hoping is that Heidi will be more interested in the reading book, because if this is the reality for public schools then I want her to be reading before she goes to school.
I thought writing this blog post would be helpful, but I think I'm just more stressed.
Monday, March 2, 2015
Parenting Myths I Believed
Don't give your child coloring books because it stunts their creativity. Instead give him/her blank pieces of paper and plenty of art supplies and let him/her come up with his/her own creations.
I know, it was dumb to believe this. But in my defense I was also under the impression that coloring books are expensive. The reality is that coloring books are dirt cheap in the dollar bins at Target, kids love them, and there's nothing wrong with them. Yes, there are some kids that can come up with creative things without being taught, but I've found that if I just give my kids art supplies they get overwhelmed and upset. I used to give Kevin scratch paper and crayons and try to get him to color, but he would get tense and usually refuse to even try. All he wanted was to tell me what to draw and watch me do it. Now that I know that he has dyspraxia I understand why he did that. Once he was given a model for how to draw a person he calmed down a lot and now he will draw all sorts of things. There's nothing wrong with giving them pictures to color and demonstrating for them how to draw basic things like cars, people, and trees. A lot of kids need to observe and then learn.
Kids need to be left to play by themselves so that they can learn social skills.
I agree that there is merit to this statement. It's good for kids to play without parents telling them what to do and micromanaging everything. Plus sometimes the magic of pretending goes away when a parent comes in for some reason. But at the same time social skills do not come naturally to kids, and they need coaching so that they can learn to interact with other people and get along well. I've learned a lot about this from taking Kevin to therapy. They often have kids play together and give them a lot of guidance for what to say and how to share. This week I brought Heidi with us to therapy and Kevin's OT had them play a game together at the end to see how they play together. I hadn't realized until she pointed it out how little they communicate with each other. For example, Kevin would grab things out of Heidi's hands without asking. I realized that a lot of conflicts happen because Kevin and Heidi don't communicate what they are going to do and they often expect each other to read their minds. These are problems that would be better treated by playing with them, observing closely, and giving lots and lots of guidance for what they should be saying or doing together. If we don't spend some time playing together with our children and their friends we miss things like that, and they miss out on learning important social skills. Some kids are better at it than others, but it doesn't come naturally and they often need to be directly taught. My guess is that most parents should probably play MORE with their kids, not less.
I know, it was dumb to believe this. But in my defense I was also under the impression that coloring books are expensive. The reality is that coloring books are dirt cheap in the dollar bins at Target, kids love them, and there's nothing wrong with them. Yes, there are some kids that can come up with creative things without being taught, but I've found that if I just give my kids art supplies they get overwhelmed and upset. I used to give Kevin scratch paper and crayons and try to get him to color, but he would get tense and usually refuse to even try. All he wanted was to tell me what to draw and watch me do it. Now that I know that he has dyspraxia I understand why he did that. Once he was given a model for how to draw a person he calmed down a lot and now he will draw all sorts of things. There's nothing wrong with giving them pictures to color and demonstrating for them how to draw basic things like cars, people, and trees. A lot of kids need to observe and then learn.
Kids need to be left to play by themselves so that they can learn social skills.
I agree that there is merit to this statement. It's good for kids to play without parents telling them what to do and micromanaging everything. Plus sometimes the magic of pretending goes away when a parent comes in for some reason. But at the same time social skills do not come naturally to kids, and they need coaching so that they can learn to interact with other people and get along well. I've learned a lot about this from taking Kevin to therapy. They often have kids play together and give them a lot of guidance for what to say and how to share. This week I brought Heidi with us to therapy and Kevin's OT had them play a game together at the end to see how they play together. I hadn't realized until she pointed it out how little they communicate with each other. For example, Kevin would grab things out of Heidi's hands without asking. I realized that a lot of conflicts happen because Kevin and Heidi don't communicate what they are going to do and they often expect each other to read their minds. These are problems that would be better treated by playing with them, observing closely, and giving lots and lots of guidance for what they should be saying or doing together. If we don't spend some time playing together with our children and their friends we miss things like that, and they miss out on learning important social skills. Some kids are better at it than others, but it doesn't come naturally and they often need to be directly taught. My guess is that most parents should probably play MORE with their kids, not less.
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
A few years ago I was visiting another ward. In Relief Society the lesson was about chastity, and most of it was honestly not very uplifting. The majority of the lesson had turned into a gossip fest with smug stories about teenage girls who had become pregnant and how horrible it was that they had given in to temptation and ruined their lives. There was a very judgmental and prideful tone and I kept trying to think of some kind of comment I could make that could help bring the spirit back. The ward was mostly older people who had already raised their children, so I felt a little intimidated by that and I wasn't sure how to say what I wanted to in a way that would be relevant to them.
Eventually the topic turned to how we can help our children understand the importance of virtue, and a woman made a comment that I have never forgotten. She had recently remarried. Her previous husband had been addicted to pornography and eventually they were divorced because of his addiction. Then she said that because of her experience she had begun teaching her children about the dangers of pornography when they were very young (like four years old or even younger). Now her kids turn around the magazines at the stores and they are very aware of how damaging pornography can be to our spirits and our families. I saw pornography for the first time when I was ten years old, and I didn't know what to do, so as she made this comment I made a commitment that I would talk to my children about this from a very young age and help them understand what it is and what to do if they see it somewhere.
I had my own thoughts I wanted to share about helping children have a healthy attitude about sex, and the teacher called on me next. It was going to be a really profound and inspiring comment. Unfortunately, instead of making a profound comment I started blubbering like an idiot and the words that came out (i.e. exploded out between sobs) were not what I was planning. It was completely ridiculous and it wasn't really something I would normally have cried about. I really have no idea why I started crying. So anyway, it was awkward and I was really embarrassed. But the point I was going to make was that it's really important to teach our children that sex isn't yucky or bad, and unfortunately I think Christian churches in general, including the LDS church, often accidentally give kids the message that it is yucky or bad. Elder Holland gave a really great talk once where he talked about sex between a husband and wife as a sacrament.
In my defense, Heidi had just been born about six weeks before and my hormones and emotions were really off. Also the previous woman's comment had really touched me. So perhaps that's why I cried at such an odd time.
Anyway, ever since then I have regretted that I didn't have it together enough to make a comment earlier in the lesson. I don't know how it would have been received, but it needed to be said, and nobody said it. This is what I wanted to say: Yes, it is a tragedy that so many people today do not believe that intimacy should be saved for marriage. It's causing so much damage to our society. But I did not sense much charity in the comments that were being made that day. If I had a pregnant teenage daughter I wouldn't want to be in that ward. The truth is that we all make mistakes. Some are more serious than others. But Christ atoned for all of those mistakes, and people who have broken the law of chastity need a lot of support and love from the rest of us as they strive to repent of what they've done. It could have been so different if instead of being judgmental these sisters had tried to share Christ's message of mercy and love with these girls who they were gossiping about. Our wards need to be a place where the people who need it most can get help accessing the cleansing power of the atonement. And we need to teach (and show!) our youth that we will always love them and welcome them back when they need to repent.
Eventually the topic turned to how we can help our children understand the importance of virtue, and a woman made a comment that I have never forgotten. She had recently remarried. Her previous husband had been addicted to pornography and eventually they were divorced because of his addiction. Then she said that because of her experience she had begun teaching her children about the dangers of pornography when they were very young (like four years old or even younger). Now her kids turn around the magazines at the stores and they are very aware of how damaging pornography can be to our spirits and our families. I saw pornography for the first time when I was ten years old, and I didn't know what to do, so as she made this comment I made a commitment that I would talk to my children about this from a very young age and help them understand what it is and what to do if they see it somewhere.
I had my own thoughts I wanted to share about helping children have a healthy attitude about sex, and the teacher called on me next. It was going to be a really profound and inspiring comment. Unfortunately, instead of making a profound comment I started blubbering like an idiot and the words that came out (i.e. exploded out between sobs) were not what I was planning. It was completely ridiculous and it wasn't really something I would normally have cried about. I really have no idea why I started crying. So anyway, it was awkward and I was really embarrassed. But the point I was going to make was that it's really important to teach our children that sex isn't yucky or bad, and unfortunately I think Christian churches in general, including the LDS church, often accidentally give kids the message that it is yucky or bad. Elder Holland gave a really great talk once where he talked about sex between a husband and wife as a sacrament.
In my defense, Heidi had just been born about six weeks before and my hormones and emotions were really off. Also the previous woman's comment had really touched me. So perhaps that's why I cried at such an odd time.
Anyway, ever since then I have regretted that I didn't have it together enough to make a comment earlier in the lesson. I don't know how it would have been received, but it needed to be said, and nobody said it. This is what I wanted to say: Yes, it is a tragedy that so many people today do not believe that intimacy should be saved for marriage. It's causing so much damage to our society. But I did not sense much charity in the comments that were being made that day. If I had a pregnant teenage daughter I wouldn't want to be in that ward. The truth is that we all make mistakes. Some are more serious than others. But Christ atoned for all of those mistakes, and people who have broken the law of chastity need a lot of support and love from the rest of us as they strive to repent of what they've done. It could have been so different if instead of being judgmental these sisters had tried to share Christ's message of mercy and love with these girls who they were gossiping about. Our wards need to be a place where the people who need it most can get help accessing the cleansing power of the atonement. And we need to teach (and show!) our youth that we will always love them and welcome them back when they need to repent.
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
un-learning how to read
I know a lot of people probably already saw my rant on Facebook, but I'm going to go into greater detail here on my blog.
Last week I was excited to learn that Kevin would be bringing home books that he was supposed to read to me. The first time he brought a book home, I opened the book and thought, "Wow, he can read words like these already?" Then we sat down to read the book. He read it in five seconds, and when I asked him about it, he said that no, he had never read this book before. I had him read it again, and when I watched his face I realized he wasn't even looking at the words. The pictures were so obvious that he didn't need to look at the words at all.
Okay, now let me explain my definition of "reading." To me, reading implies that you can decode the word (for most words, sound it out, or recognize the word if it's a sight word) and comprehend it. You do not need any pictures for this. Does that make sense?
Based on my definition of reading, Kevin was not reading this book. He was guessing based on the pictures.
We went back to read the title, which was not obvious based on the picture on the front cover. He moaned and said he couldn't read it because he didn't know what it said.
Here is an example from a similar book that he brought home yesterday.
When we got to the last page, he said, "The animals." I told him to look at the word and sound it out, and then he realized it said "the farm."
After he read the first book from school, I opened up this book that we had at home and asked him to read it. He looked at the first page and said, "A chicken." It took a little coaxing to get him to sound out the words instead of guessing, but he read the rest of the book and did a great job.
I'm upset because books like these create bad habits in early readers. They get in the habit of guessing what the words are based on the pictures. They also get in the habit of looking at the first couple of letters in a word and guessing what the word is (for example, on the page above that says, "the farm," Kevin would just need to look at the first letter and at the picture and realize the word was "farm"). When I was young and listening to some of my peers struggle with reading, and when I was a teenager and volunteered in the elementary school, I observed that this was a very common problem with kids who struggled with reading. My opinion is that it's unnecessary to start with books like these kindergarteners are reading, and in fact it's doing more harm than good. English may have a lot of exceptions to the rules, but it is still a phonetic language, and if kids are taught English like it's Chinese it's going to take them a long time to learn to read fluently, and they will struggle with reading new words. When I learned to read we started with sounding out words, then we moved on to learning letter combinations (like ow, ea, ar, ai, ful, etc.), learned to use the long vowel sound for most words that end in e, and in the midst of this we also picked up sight words.
I felt resentful that I'm being asked to be an accomplice in teaching my child bad reading habits (especially after all of the work I put into teaching him to read last summer), so I emailed his teacher about it. Apparently the point of these books is to help them develop confidence. Yay for confidence, except where's that confidence going to go if later on they are terrible readers?
The bright side is that at least I know what Kevin is "reading" at school, so now I can work with him on the right way to read at home. We still have quite a bit of the reading book left, and we also have some cute little books called Animal Antics (an example is the book about the hen above). I'll be hunting around to find more.
Up until now I have mostly been very happy with Kevin's school. His handwriting and drawing have improved 300% since he started school, and that by itself is huge to me. I prayed about it again and I still feel like this is where Kevin is supposed to be right now. At this point I don't think this is a deal-breaker, but it's definitely something I will keep my eye on. Everybody raves about how great this elementary school is, so we will see how things pan out. I realize that I'm not trained as an elementary school teacher, but I really don't see any benefit to teaching kids to guess with pictures.
Sunday, August 24, 2014
on "taking names to the temple"
Ryan's dad wrote this post on his blog a few days ago, giving some suggestions for goals stakes and wards can set for doing family history other than taking names to the temple. I wanted to add a few thoughts of my own.
Whenever wards decide to emphasize Family History more, it always seems to be about "taking names to the temple." My ancestors are all Mormon pioneers for several generations back, and there have already been many people who have traced the lines back and done a lot of the proxy temple work for them. (I'm not alone in this--Mormon pioneers tend to have a lot of descendants, especially the ones with multiple wives.) If I were to find an ancestor who needs temple work done, the fastest way would probably be to go all the way back to someone whose parents haven't been found, hurry and find their name in a census somewhere with their parents (or someone who sort of seems to be their parents), and submit that to the temple. There are a few different problems with that. The main one is that it's quite possible that mistakes have been made along the way and those people who lived in the 1600s aren't even actually my ancestors. (As an example, according to my family tree on familysearch.org, I apparently have an ancestor named John Crow who lived in Hartford, Connecticut in 1602 who had 21 brothers who were also named John Crow--all sorts of things don't make sense there.) If you do a hack job at family history it's not going to be meaningful and you're going to waste time doing proxy work for non-existent people or people who have already received their ordinances five times.
For me, the approach that makes the most sense is to start with the people who are closest to me (for example, my grammy and her parents) and work my way backward, verifying that everything on Family Search is accurate and adding sources like census records and life histories typed by my great-grandmother, which I have been transcribing. I expect that it's going to take me years to get oriented in my own family tree and figure out what needs to be done before I'm at the point where I can find people who need temple work done.
Personally, I would like to have help from my ward learning how to do good quality research. I want to learn about all the resources that are out there, beyond the US census, that will help me learn about my ancestors. I want to gain skills in recognizing which information is correct. These are skills that would be valuable to everyone, whether they are descendants of Mormon pioneers or the first person in their family to join the church. The scriptures indicate that someday we will have to present this work to the Savior, and when that time comes I think it's important that what we have done is accurate and well-done. A lot of what I've been doing on Family Search lately is looking at people's pages and cleaning things up--foot-long lists of alternate names, notes and sources that are gibberish, and various mistakes that need correcting. And that's a valid contribution to family history too. Our participation in family history isn't going to be measured exclusively by the size of our briefcase full of temple ordinance cards.
I also want to see them emphasize more that these are people, not names. We go to the temple to do ordinances for real people. We should focus not just on doing the ordinances, but also on getting to know the people. They're our family. Don't you think it will be more meaningful when we meet these people someday to be able to say we know them, instead of just saying we took their name to the temple?
Whenever wards decide to emphasize Family History more, it always seems to be about "taking names to the temple." My ancestors are all Mormon pioneers for several generations back, and there have already been many people who have traced the lines back and done a lot of the proxy temple work for them. (I'm not alone in this--Mormon pioneers tend to have a lot of descendants, especially the ones with multiple wives.) If I were to find an ancestor who needs temple work done, the fastest way would probably be to go all the way back to someone whose parents haven't been found, hurry and find their name in a census somewhere with their parents (or someone who sort of seems to be their parents), and submit that to the temple. There are a few different problems with that. The main one is that it's quite possible that mistakes have been made along the way and those people who lived in the 1600s aren't even actually my ancestors. (As an example, according to my family tree on familysearch.org, I apparently have an ancestor named John Crow who lived in Hartford, Connecticut in 1602 who had 21 brothers who were also named John Crow--all sorts of things don't make sense there.) If you do a hack job at family history it's not going to be meaningful and you're going to waste time doing proxy work for non-existent people or people who have already received their ordinances five times.
For me, the approach that makes the most sense is to start with the people who are closest to me (for example, my grammy and her parents) and work my way backward, verifying that everything on Family Search is accurate and adding sources like census records and life histories typed by my great-grandmother, which I have been transcribing. I expect that it's going to take me years to get oriented in my own family tree and figure out what needs to be done before I'm at the point where I can find people who need temple work done.
Personally, I would like to have help from my ward learning how to do good quality research. I want to learn about all the resources that are out there, beyond the US census, that will help me learn about my ancestors. I want to gain skills in recognizing which information is correct. These are skills that would be valuable to everyone, whether they are descendants of Mormon pioneers or the first person in their family to join the church. The scriptures indicate that someday we will have to present this work to the Savior, and when that time comes I think it's important that what we have done is accurate and well-done. A lot of what I've been doing on Family Search lately is looking at people's pages and cleaning things up--foot-long lists of alternate names, notes and sources that are gibberish, and various mistakes that need correcting. And that's a valid contribution to family history too. Our participation in family history isn't going to be measured exclusively by the size of our briefcase full of temple ordinance cards.
I also want to see them emphasize more that these are people, not names. We go to the temple to do ordinances for real people. We should focus not just on doing the ordinances, but also on getting to know the people. They're our family. Don't you think it will be more meaningful when we meet these people someday to be able to say we know them, instead of just saying we took their name to the temple?
Sunday, October 6, 2013
US Geological Survey shut down too
The above image is what you see if you go to www.usgs.gov. That's the US Geological Survey. It is a wealth of resources for geology research, and I would likely have used data from the website this semester for a class I am in. I know there is a significant portion of my department who would like to use data from the website.
I am not going to take any sides about whether the Republicans or Democrats are right on this issue. Honestly I think most of the people in both parties don't care very much about the United States and they don't really care that our country is getting deeper and deeper in debt.
But the Obama administration is handling the shutdown like ten-year-old drama queens, and I think the USGS is just one more example. If they had simply told the people employed by the USGS to not come in to work until the shutdown is over, what probably would have happened would be that the website would still be up, but there wouldn't be any updates and if there were any technical issues they wouldn't get fixed. It's completely unnecessary to shut down most of the website. And this seems mild compared to other actions they have taken, like putting guards around the World War II memorial so people can't go see it. These are not required cutbacks. They are putting our tax money into raising up a stink because they want the press to have plenty of material for making the Republicans look like jerks. It's incredibly childish.
Saturday, September 21, 2013
Goodreads Review: The Little Fire Engine by Lois Lenski
The Little Fire Engine by Lois LenskiMy rating: 1 of 5 stars
I hated this book so much I had to write a review about it.
Fireman Small and the other firefighters are called to save a burning house. They go there in a fire truck that says the same thing as the Winkies in the Wizard of Oz (ooo-weee-oooo). I could not figure out how to make that sound like a siren.
They get to the house and it is obviously a serious situation because smoke is coming out of the windows and doors. So Fireman Small sends his firefighters straight in with nothing but various sharp blades to find the fire.
Meanwhile, Fireman Small and another firefighter are preparing the pump and hose. The family is removing furniture from their house that has copious amounts of smoke coming out of it.
Then the plot thickens. One of the daughters is trapped on the second floor with her kitty and there are flames behind her. Apparently the family was so busy saving their furniture that they didn't bother to make sure the kids were all safely out of the house. But it's okay, because Fireman Small saves the girl and the kitty using the ladder.
By this point the fire has reached the attic, according to the report of the firefighters who went inside the house to explore, so Fireman Small climbs the ladder to the roof, chops a hole in it, and sprays water through the hole, extinguishing the fire. (This is not why firemen chop holes in roofs, by the way.)
Amazingly, although the house was up in flames, it was saved by Fireman Small's heroic efforts. He tells the family that their house is saved and they can go ahead and move all of their furniture back into their soggy, smoke-damaged home that has a hole in the roof, and the firemen drive back to the firehouse. What a happy ending.
You may have guessed that this is probably not a great book to use if you want to teach fire safety.
View all my reviews
Sunday, September 8, 2013
common conversations
It's amazing how often I get the same responses from people when they find out what Ryan and I are studying. Here are some typical conversations:
Friend: So what's your husband studying again?
Me: Astronomy. (Technically it's astrophysics, but Ryan has found that when people hear the word "physics" their eyes glaze over and suddenly want to get away.) He's getting a PhD.
Friend: Oh, wow. And you're in school too, right? What are you studying?
Me: Yeah, I'm going part-time. I'm getting my bachelor's degree in Geology.
At this point there can be a couple of different responses:
Response 1: Oh, wow, so you guys must have a lot to talk about/you must have a lot of really interesting conversations.
Response 2: Oh, wow, so you both must be really . . . um . . . yeah, like really, well . . . yeah.
Response 3: Wow, that's great. I'm so glad that there are people that enjoy those kind of things, because I know I could just never be interested in those things because I just don't really like them. But that's so great that you guys can do that stuff.
We find all three responses to be kind of interesting. If it's the first response . . . Um, yes, we do enjoy talking about geology and astronomy together, but guess what, we are both interested in many different topics and we talk about those too--politics, church, parenting, movies, and history, just to name a few. Is that normal, or do most people only talk about what they studied in college? If it's the second response . . . How were you planning to finish that sentence? Nerdy? Smart? Sciencey? Cool? Fond of licking rocks? If it's the third response . . . um, thanks, I think. I'm assuming you're not trying to imply that you don't want to hear me talk about what I do.
When people find out that Ryan does physics, they also sometimes say, "Wow, physics, huh? I bet you do a lot of story problems, don't you?" Not really.
I'm not offended by these comments (I figure they are meant to be friendly and therefore I take them that way), but I think it's really interesting how often Ryan and I have these exact conversations with people. I suspect that there are a lot of people who are intimidated by science and assume that whatever we say will be way over their heads because we're science people. We really can talk about a lot of different things, not just science.
But it is kind of fun to say that I'm studying Strontium isotopes using mass spectrometry. By the way, there's a lot more to geology than collecting rocks. We actually kind of like the rocks because they have a story behind them.
Friend: So what's your husband studying again?
Me: Astronomy. (Technically it's astrophysics, but Ryan has found that when people hear the word "physics" their eyes glaze over and suddenly want to get away.) He's getting a PhD.
Friend: Oh, wow. And you're in school too, right? What are you studying?
Me: Yeah, I'm going part-time. I'm getting my bachelor's degree in Geology.
At this point there can be a couple of different responses:
Response 1: Oh, wow, so you guys must have a lot to talk about/you must have a lot of really interesting conversations.
Response 2: Oh, wow, so you both must be really . . . um . . . yeah, like really, well . . . yeah.
Response 3: Wow, that's great. I'm so glad that there are people that enjoy those kind of things, because I know I could just never be interested in those things because I just don't really like them. But that's so great that you guys can do that stuff.
We find all three responses to be kind of interesting. If it's the first response . . . Um, yes, we do enjoy talking about geology and astronomy together, but guess what, we are both interested in many different topics and we talk about those too--politics, church, parenting, movies, and history, just to name a few. Is that normal, or do most people only talk about what they studied in college? If it's the second response . . . How were you planning to finish that sentence? Nerdy? Smart? Sciencey? Cool? Fond of licking rocks? If it's the third response . . . um, thanks, I think. I'm assuming you're not trying to imply that you don't want to hear me talk about what I do.
When people find out that Ryan does physics, they also sometimes say, "Wow, physics, huh? I bet you do a lot of story problems, don't you?" Not really.
I'm not offended by these comments (I figure they are meant to be friendly and therefore I take them that way), but I think it's really interesting how often Ryan and I have these exact conversations with people. I suspect that there are a lot of people who are intimidated by science and assume that whatever we say will be way over their heads because we're science people. We really can talk about a lot of different things, not just science.
But it is kind of fun to say that I'm studying Strontium isotopes using mass spectrometry. By the way, there's a lot more to geology than collecting rocks. We actually kind of like the rocks because they have a story behind them.
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Here is a rant. It might offend somebody. Oh, well. It's my blog.
Recently I came across a tutorial for making homemade sunscreen with coconut oil. Here are the first couple of sentences: "Most commercial sunscreens contain toxic ingredients and endocrine disrupting chemicals. In fact, in the years since sunscreen use began skin cancer rates have actually risen. In many cases commercial sunscreen use may actually promote skin cancer growth and free radical production." (emphasis mine)
And that is when I had to resist the urge to bang my head against the table. This is why I am very hesitant to get more involved in healthy living stuff--because so often I come across claims like this. Hmmm, skin cancer rates have been going up ever since people started using sunscreen, so it looks like sunscreen causes skin cancer. By that logic, you could probably also say that sunscreen causes tanning beds. Correlation does not equal causation, people. You have to look at who got skin cancer. Is skin cancer more common among people who use sunscreen than among those who don't? My guess is that skin cancer is more common among people who frequently use tanning beds or lay out in the sun to get a tan than among those who use sunscreen. The more you expose your skin to ultraviolet light, the more likely your DNA is to be damaged or altered by it.
As for the effectiveness of the homemade sunscreen, I suppose it's possible that it would work because of the zinc oxide. I find it interesting that several people commented below saying that they use plain coconut oil as a sunscreen, claiming it has an SPF of 4 (which is not much at all). I think one person even said she tried it and got burned everywhere that isn't normally exposed to the sun, so her arms and face were okay, but everything else was sunburned. Instead of realizing the coconut oil isn't very effective, she decided to keep using it every day until her skin builds up a sun tolerance. That sounds to me like her arms and face were already fairly tolerant of the sun and the rest of her skin wasn't, and the coconut oil does nothing to prevent sunburn. In fact, other commenters said that they used to use plain coconut oil to get tan faster.
I realize that toxins and nasty chemicals (Oh, I am so tired of that phrase!) and carcinogens and all that stuff are a concern. But whenever I stray to a health blog I always seem to see things like this and I rarely see good quality research. I am happy to cook most of our food from scratch (it tastes better that way anyway) and to strive to eat plenty of fresh and healthy foods, but I'm not going to let wild and unsupported claims get me worried, and I'm not going to spend money we don't have on magic foods just because some blog says I will get cancer if I don't eat them. It's like Abe Lincoln said: Don't believe everything you read on the internet.
Oh, and while I'm at it, here's another claim that makes me go bug-eyed: You should eat organic potatoes, because most of the potatoes that are eaten in the United States are in the form of deep-fried french fries, which are obviously really bad for you and are also usually not made from organic potatoes. So since french fries are not organic, you should eat organic potatoes.Yes, I have really seen this on the internet.
Recently I came across a tutorial for making homemade sunscreen with coconut oil. Here are the first couple of sentences: "Most commercial sunscreens contain toxic ingredients and endocrine disrupting chemicals. In fact, in the years since sunscreen use began skin cancer rates have actually risen. In many cases commercial sunscreen use may actually promote skin cancer growth and free radical production." (emphasis mine)
And that is when I had to resist the urge to bang my head against the table. This is why I am very hesitant to get more involved in healthy living stuff--because so often I come across claims like this. Hmmm, skin cancer rates have been going up ever since people started using sunscreen, so it looks like sunscreen causes skin cancer. By that logic, you could probably also say that sunscreen causes tanning beds. Correlation does not equal causation, people. You have to look at who got skin cancer. Is skin cancer more common among people who use sunscreen than among those who don't? My guess is that skin cancer is more common among people who frequently use tanning beds or lay out in the sun to get a tan than among those who use sunscreen. The more you expose your skin to ultraviolet light, the more likely your DNA is to be damaged or altered by it.
As for the effectiveness of the homemade sunscreen, I suppose it's possible that it would work because of the zinc oxide. I find it interesting that several people commented below saying that they use plain coconut oil as a sunscreen, claiming it has an SPF of 4 (which is not much at all). I think one person even said she tried it and got burned everywhere that isn't normally exposed to the sun, so her arms and face were okay, but everything else was sunburned. Instead of realizing the coconut oil isn't very effective, she decided to keep using it every day until her skin builds up a sun tolerance. That sounds to me like her arms and face were already fairly tolerant of the sun and the rest of her skin wasn't, and the coconut oil does nothing to prevent sunburn. In fact, other commenters said that they used to use plain coconut oil to get tan faster.
I realize that toxins and nasty chemicals (Oh, I am so tired of that phrase!) and carcinogens and all that stuff are a concern. But whenever I stray to a health blog I always seem to see things like this and I rarely see good quality research. I am happy to cook most of our food from scratch (it tastes better that way anyway) and to strive to eat plenty of fresh and healthy foods, but I'm not going to let wild and unsupported claims get me worried, and I'm not going to spend money we don't have on magic foods just because some blog says I will get cancer if I don't eat them. It's like Abe Lincoln said: Don't believe everything you read on the internet.
Oh, and while I'm at it, here's another claim that makes me go bug-eyed: You should eat organic potatoes, because most of the potatoes that are eaten in the United States are in the form of deep-fried french fries, which are obviously really bad for you and are also usually not made from organic potatoes. So since french fries are not organic, you should eat organic potatoes.Yes, I have really seen this on the internet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
