In no way do I agree that kids should be told or required to clean their plate, and saying that one thing happens after another does not make it a reward. I might agree that the kid ate plenty of healthy food at breakfast and lunch, so it is perfectly healthy for them to have a treat at dinner, even if they don’t eat much then. It’s not a reward, it is a healthy way of looking at how one’s daily calorie intake ought to be proportioned. That’s also reflected in the explanation that the treat sometimes precedes dinner. It’s not just a semantic disagreement.
As somebody who doesn’t have children, I generally avoid offering my opinions in parenting threads. But I have no problem saying this is really horrible parenting.
But what if the stuffed animal is into BDSM and wants to be beaten?
That’d be fine. But terrorizing the kids with that abhorrent behavior wouldn’t be. Keep your freak in the bedroom or barn but not in front of the highchair.
That managed to make the fact that they’re involving their child in it even worse.
Y’all know that was a joke, right?
It was pretty obvious.
I agree with Mangetout that using unhealthy food as a reward teaches disastrous logic. It cements this notion in the kid’s head that “healthy = gross, unhealthy = delicious”. It’s setting them up to desire junk food and loathe healthy food.
I’m not a parent, but that’s abusive, to the kid and the stuffed animal.
So what do you do with a kid that won’t eat? I was one. Food just didn’t interest me. I was very thin, even had the swollen belly that undernourished kids get. Mom tried everything, and was very frustrated.
Mangetout said the opposite.
Back to the OP – I think it’s abusive, and not funny.
Sounds like a good test for latent sociopathy. Does the kid root for you, or the bear?
I only clicked on one of them – the stuffie was Mickey Mouse – and the look on the baby’s face was heartbreaking. Even a baby understands exactly what that was meant to convey. Refuse to eat, get punched repeatedly in the face, presumably by Dad.
There’s a thread here about “vaguely creepy”. This isnt “vaguely”.
Nor me. I would also be wondering if, however unadmitted, that’s in the back of the parent’s mind too.
If a child really DOES refuse to eat, period, something else is wrong, and it’s usually a medical issue. Maybe the child has GERD, or allergies? For an extreme example, this disease is very rare, and kids usually outgrow it but not always, and people with it often have to be G-tube fed.
Eosinophilic esophagitis - Symptoms and causes - Mayo Clinic
How was your issue resolved?
Yeah, it is; you’re imposing a rather specific meaning to the term ‘reward’, but that’s probably my fault for using the term at all.
Replace ‘reward’ with ‘balancing complement’ or some such and you’re talking about nearly the same thing, with the slight detail exception of sequence and connected consequence, which is fine. I concede we don’t agree on the exact detail.
I personally don’t agree that the less healthy thing should be permitted to precede the main meals, simply because sugar can be an appetite suppressant - it will be counterproductive to allow that, but also (and here we stray back toward the notion of ‘reward’) I think it’s useful for kids to learn that there are often things they need to do, before they can do the things they want to do.
I agree, but also, there is a more immediate piece of damage - the example being set to wit: ‘when I don’t get what I want, I will do something horrible’
Isn’t that the message every time a parent exercises power and punishes a child for non-compliance with household rules?