This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://curi.us/2600--the-sovereign-child-contradicts-taking-children-seriously
1 Like
This one also has a glitches âShow Full Postâ along with Comments on The Boyfriend's Introduction to Feminism and Prices, Decision Factors and <i>Time Will Run Back</i>.
Maybe itâs the italics thats breaking something? There are none in the title of the feminism post, but the first line has Italics. Idk.
lol, these people know nothing about TCS and do no research.
I am literally holding paper copies of all four of those books in one hand as I hit send on this post.
2 Likes
Also
Many parents believe that without restraint children would resort to a diet of chocolate and coke and never look at another vegetable again. Why? Do adults who have no one to monitor and regulate their food intakes routinely resort to irrational diets that might endanger their health? Sadly, some do. However the likelihood is that adults with poor food ideas about food, who struggle all their lives with their relationship to food did not have childhoods where they could freely choose the foods they liked without âgoodâ or âbadâ labels being placed on them.
Surely, though, we canât simply let out children eat anything? As in other areas, we should certainly be sharing our ideas with our children as trusted advisors, but, tentatively and without scare mongering or overstatement.
Health is obviously an important factor to take into consideration when we are choosing foods, and we do well as parents to share health related information about food in non-manipulative ways,
This is better than The Sovereign Child.
Also, in general, Jan Fortune-Woodâs books are more philosophical and theory-oriented than Stupple and Chipkinâs book.
1 Like