Question about childhood hunger in America

[Beetkvass]

That's why it should be optional. Not mandatory.

 

Most parents could teach their children to read and write too. Maybe that should be optional in school as well.

[Lovedtodeath]

Quoting myself because I was editing and the thread took off so quickly:

 

One of my best friends is a single mom who works full time and lost her job last year. Yes, they eat a lot of convenient foods. She has to work a lot when she is sick and she had to ask for help to get her kitchen clean last time she had bronchitis.

 

Our church had brought us a basket with food for Christmas dinner (because we were new) and she cried when I gave it to her.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by 425lisamarie

We tried to do the sponsor a family thing. The items on the lists were more extravagant than anything I by myself.

 

She had a quilt, gloves and snow boots on her Christmas list. :glare:

 

Let's not paint things with a broad brush.

 

I am sorry Lisamarie. I really like you and didn't mean to single you out. I just wanted to be sure that people know that in contrast to your post, there are truly needy, humble, lovely people out there that need help.

[Mrs Mungo]

You are just being argumentative. It's been 34 years and I'd have to refresh my memory on the recipes. That does not mean I "can't" cook. I'd have to print out a mapquest to drive somewhere new, but that doesn't mean I can't drive.

 

Cooking for basic needs is hardly rocket science.

 

You say you could figure it out, if you needed to, THEN you say that you can cook everything from meatloaf to roasted chicken, THEN insist that *I* am being argumentative? :lol: Seriously. :lol:

[Beetkvass]

You are just being argumentative. It's been 34 years and I'd have to refresh my memory on the recipes. That does not mean I "can't" cook. I'd have to print out a mapquest to drive somewhere new, but that doesn't mean I can't drive.

 

Cooking for basic needs is hardly rocket science.

 

Argumentative? Seriously? Aren't you the one who compared teaching children basic cooking schools to going ahead and jailing everyone preemptively?

[Rivka]

I had to take home ec for 6 weeks and it was idiotic. "This is boiling, this is frying, this is how you make a pizza out of a box. This is how you sift flour." Really? What a waste of time if you have other life plans besides homemaking.

 

Well, that's a pretty insulting thing to say to a forum full of homemakers.

 

As it happens, though, I cook dinner mostly from fresh ingredients about six nights a week, and I have a Ph.D. and a research career. One of the best cooks I know is another Ph.D.-level researcher. My brother who has an environmental policy job is a great cook. I even know a corporate CEO who, when he is not traveling the world eating in fantastic restaurants, puts together fantastic meals at his home. Plenty of people with "life plans besides homemaking" cook.

 

I do use shortcuts, like frozen vegetables (as healthy as fresh in most cases, especially if you live in the north) and good-quality jarred pasta sauce. Making my family meals like tilapia with dill butter, chicken parmesan, or sesame beef stir-fry takes about half an hour a night, and those meals taste much, much better than anything heated up from a can.

[Mrs Mungo]

Argumentative? Seriously? Aren't you the one who compared teaching children basic cooking schools to going ahead and jailing everyone preemptively?

 

What? It's totally the same thing. :lol:

[Murphy101]

I refuse to let my kids out of the house in holes or stained clothes. Most of the bags were in good enough condition to resell. Old navy. Baby gap. Carriers.

 

I think when I was growing up I don't remember feeling poor bc of brands or newness. I remember feeling 'less than' bc my clothes were ragged and ill fitting. Or my mom never did my hair before school. So ive always been strict that my girls hair is brushed and braided. Stained or holey clothing is thrown away. No sagging clothes. No "flood water" pants. *I* might be stained up and ragged looking, but by golly my kids never are.

[SKL]

Most parents could teach their children to read and write too. Maybe that should be optional in school as well.

 

Maybe school should be optional, for that matter.

 

But nearly everyone needs to read in order to be employable, take care of their homes / finances / healthcare, and do right by their children. AND it takes a lot longer to gain basic literacy than it takes to learn basic subsistence cooking skills.

 

And yes, if my kid enters school reading well, she should be able to skip the basic reading courses.

[justLisa]

Quoting myself because I was editing and the thread took off so quickly:

 

One of my best friends is a single mom who works full time and lost her job last year. Yes, they eat a lot of convenient foods. She has to work a lot when she is sick and she had to ask for help to get her kitchen clean last time she had bronchitis.

 

Our church had brought us a basket with food for Christmas dinner (because we were new) and she cried when I gave it to her.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by 425lisamarie

We tried to do the sponsor a family thing. The items on the lists were more extravagant than anything I by myself.

 

She had a quilt, gloves and snow boots on her Christmas list. :glare:

 

Let's not paint things with a broad brush.

 

I am sorry Lisamarie. I really like you and didn't mean to single you out. I just wanted to be sure that people know that in contrast to your post, there are truly needy, humble, lovely people out there that need help.

 

No I was responding to someone else who said something lilke this ...the charity said she should make sure and buy expensive designer shoes, and she doesn't even by those for herself.

 

I mean I cannot afford to buy someone things that I do not even buy for us. Gaming systems and $200 bottles of perfume. You can buy a TON of stuff for those costs. I could feed a family for an entire week, or by one designer gift. That's what I mean. I get the needing something special. But I don't think overly extravagant items are necessary. Not that I think they deserve cheap either. Just realistic. We give A TON to charity and around the holidays I do what I can, but my money can only go so far and I'd rather it reach more people.

[Jenny in Florida]

I see what you are saying, but a food pantry can wash apples and ought to be allowed to.

 

Washing won't help if something has been deliberatly tainted.

[SKL]

You say you could figure it out, if you needed to, THEN you say that you can cook everything from meatloaf to roasted chicken, THEN insist that *I* am being argumentative? :lol: Seriously. :lol:

 

It's like long division (for non-homeschoolers). Or trig, for that matter, if you never use it. It was useful at the time but who can remember it decades later, without a refresher?

 

ETA: But I do still remember what they taught in home ec: what's boiling, what's frying, how to read prep instructions on a package . . . :P

Edited October 22, 2012 by SKL

[AimeeM]

We had home ec in hs. You know what we learned? How to use 6 basic pieces of clothing to combine several different looks for a complete wardrobe, and how to make a hot fudge pudding cake.

 

I kid you not there was not much more to it then that. Oh yeah, we sewed a stuffed animal from a kit.

I learned how to make no-bake cookies. :tongue_smilie:

[Lovedtodeath]

No I was responding to someone else who said something lilke this ...the charity said she should make sure and buy expensive designer shoes, and she doesn't even by those for herself.

 

I mean I cannot afford to buy someone things that I do not even buy for us. Gaming systems and $200 bottles of perfume. You can buy a TON of stuff for those costs. I could feed a family for an entire week, or by one designer gift. That's what I mean. I get the needing something special. But I don't think overly extravagant items are necessary. Not that I think they deserve cheap either. Just realistic. We give A TON to charity and around the holidays I do what I can, but my money can only go so far and I'd rather it reach more people.

:iagree::)

[Lovedtodeath]

LOL, I think we did something like that too. Really we learned an odd mishmash of barely passable food items. Totally pointless!

We made pancakes and quiche and learned to shine a stainless steal sink. lol.

[butterflymommy]

But nobody needs to cook produce, bread, milk, etc. And you don't need a class to heat up canned or frozen veggies, soups, ravioli, and a million other things. It takes about five minutes to learn how to cook eggs, boxed pasta, rice, and potatoes. (OK, maybe 10 minutes for some kinds of potatoes.) Everything else is gravy (no pun intended). That's what they invented cookbooks for.

 

Tell that to my husband :glare:. He is one of those people who truly can't boil water-- at least not without burning the kitchen and ruining the pots.

 

It is possible to eat real food without cooking if you have access to the right foods. Raw vegans do it all the time.

[Beetkvass]

Maybe school should be optional, for that matter.

 

But nearly everyone needs to read in order to be employable, take care of their homes / finances / healthcare, and do right by their children. AND it takes a lot longer to gain basic literacy than it takes to learn basic subsistence cooking skills.

 

And yes, if my kid enters school reading well, she should be able to skip the basic reading courses.

 

With all due respect you're just being hypocritical in this thread. You can't reasonably argue that something should be optional because a parent can teach it. And then argue that just because a parent can teach it it should not be optional because one thing takes longer to learn or is more useful in your opinion. You don't have a real argument here other than you hate cooking, think your family is healthier than others subsisting on canned and frozen foods for decades at a time and since you think it's stupid by golly NO ONE should ever be forced to learn it in school!

[Jenny in Florida]

Well, all except for the flour sifting - she told me about it, but it was already obsolete even then.

 

Ummmm, it's not obsolete. I still sift flour (and powdered sugar) for certain recipes.

 

And, as others have said, it might not be necessary to learn to cook in order to eat, but, without a much bigger budget than most of us have, it is certainly necessary to cook in order to eat well. Canned veggies and frozen pasta aren't "real meals" in my house.

[Lovedtodeath]

One time when I had the stomach flu my daughter called my mom crying that I hadn't made her breakfast. I literally could not move. It is a good thing that she knows how to cook now that she has no one to call.

 

Ummmm, it's not obsolete. I still sift flour (and powdered sugar) for certain recipes.

 

And, as others have said, it might not be necessary to learn to cook in order to eat, but, without a much bigger budget than most of us have, it is certainly necessary to cook in order to eat well. Canned veggies and frozen pasta aren't "real meals" in my house.

:iagree:

[Rosie_0801]

Washing won't help if something has been deliberatly tainted.

 

Ok, now you've got me wondering how someone could deliberately taint a pumpkin. I can't think of a way, so I must be a nice sort of girl. :tongue_smilie:

[SKL]

Well, that's a pretty insulting thing to say to a forum full of homemakers.

 

 

Not meant to be insulting at all. Time spent in school should not be spent going over stuff that one could have (and probably already has) easily learned outside of school, unless the person plans to pursue a related line of work/hobby. Time is limited and should be used for stuff kids are unlikely to learn at home, and likely to use in their future hobby/career.

 

If a homemaker said physics was a waste of time for her (and many others), should a rocket scientist be offended?

 

I said consistently that cooking class should be offered as an elective. If that's your thing, by all means pour your heart into it. Just don't demand that I do the same.

[SKL]

I dunno, it's a little odd to me that someone would brag about never cooking. I mean good for you, but that doesn't mean that cooking is stupid, pointless, and idiotic.

 

I never said it was. I'm saying it's not necessary in order to feed hungry children - in this country. Where did I say stupid, pointless, or idiotic (other than as a reference to how home ec was taught, which others agreed with)?

[Rivka]

SKL, this thread is reminding me of your assertion that because you don't personally value or choose to seek preventive medical care like checkups and routine testing, those things shouldn't be covered by insurance.

 

Now, because you hate to cook and apparently don't care much about the flavor or quality of the food you eat, you're arguing that schoolchildren should be given cold and unvarying sack lunches and that learning to cook is an unnecessary waste of time.

 

You're free to live however you want to live, and I have no reason to doubt you when you say that your family is healthy and thriving. But surely you must realize that your choices are idiosyncratic, and not necessarily the best path for all the world?

[JenC3]

I'd just like to thank the thread for reminding me of the Back Pack program. I found the local program for our area today and put it on on contributions list.

 

Church youth groups could do a lot of good offering home ec and budgeting classes for teens.

[SKL]

With all due respect you're just being hypocritical in this thread. You can't reasonably argue that something should be optional because a parent can teach it. And then argue that just because a parent can teach it it should not be optional because one thing takes longer to learn or is more useful in your opinion. You don't have a real argument here other than you hate cooking, think your family is healthier than others subsisting on canned and frozen foods for decades at a time and since you think it's stupid by golly NO ONE should ever be forced to learn it in school!

 

I agree only with the bolded.

 

I know hundreds of Indian women who are great cooks. Not one of them took cooking class in school.

[Geo]

I just wanted to reiterate the issue with the working poor. We fall through the cracks. We struggle to pay our bills, live paycheck to paycheck, and sometimes don't even make enough to quite cover the "have to pay" items. 99% of the time groceries are the first to be cut. On average, we get to grocery shop once every 3 months or so (when student loans come in, or tax time).......we try to make it a big shop with lots of staples, but realistically, it only lasts 3wk or so. The rest of the time we have to find other ways to make up the difference. We live very frugally, but at the end of the day there just isn't enough to cover it all - and we make over the limit for food stamps. WIC helps, but they've cut back on what they offer too.

 

Like someone else mentioned, I have skipped meals, at times, to make sure there was enough for the kids, and I often ration their food/snacks to make things stretch as far as I can. DH only eats one meal a day (dinner) 99% of the time. However, I make a very conscious effort to make sure that the kids never go truly hungry.

 

I know that so many have it so much worse, and I'm thankful we stay afloat, but I think people in our situation often go unnoticed or are forgotten about. Food is probably our #1 budget struggle. It seems like there is never enough left after bills are paid. I know there are so many out there like us!

 

We are in a similar situation...we grow food in season, it makes a considerable difference.

[justLisa]

Not meant to be insulting at all. Time spent in school should not be spent going over stuff that one could have (and probably already has) easily learned outside of school, unless the person plans to pursue a related line of work/hobby. Time is limited and should be used for stuff kids are unlikely to learn at home, and likely to use in their future hobby/career.

 

If a homemaker said physics was a waste of time for her (and many others), should a rocket scientist be offended?

 

I said consistently that cooking class should be offered as an elective. If that's your thing, by all means pour your heart into it. Just don't demand that I do the same.

 

But there are plenty of stupid classes I took in high school. Take PE for one. It was at the end of the day in 100 degrees half the year. I about died trying to run one lap on the track, and we learned how to kick a ball. Most of us just sorta stood around. It was NOT fitness. It was stupid.

 

My senior year they started offering a class called "food and fitness." It was 2 days a week fitness, but mostly indoor type stuff like stretching/yoga, and 2 days food. They at least attempted to teach about healthful eating.

 

I mean it's good to learn a foreign language, but how is it MORE Important than learning home and life skills? I think more college kids need to understand healthful eating more than speaking French to themselves. Not that I'm knocking foreign language. Just saying there is time in school to be able to take these classes as at least an elective.

[butterflymommy]

Once I attended a fancy hotel luncheon for "Shoes for Kids," on behalf of the donor business I worked for. One of the speakers explained the importance of providing new, popular (aka $100+/pair) shoes so that the recipients wouldn't have bruised self-esteem or whatever. That was the last time I donated to any similar charity. That is just ridiculous. I'm a 46yo woman with two graduate degrees and two professional licenses, and I've never spent anywhere close to $100 for a pair of shoes! I will never do so for my own children, as that would send a terrible message IMO. But "poor" kids need this? WHAT? The average person in the third world earns that much $ in a YEAR to feed his family! I'm sorry if that makes me a little cynical about how we view poverty in this country.

 

This was my original point when I wondered why a group of children with such high obesity rates can also have a problem of hunger. Junk food addiction may play a role. Maybe a child goes to school hungry because there were no more pop tarts-- but there was a cold leftover baked potato in the fridge. Or eggs that the parent is to exhausted or checked out to cook. Yet the net result is that the child goes to school "hungry" and is counted as hungry.

 

Absolutely there are people in these statistics really struggling, but I take it with a grain of salt (no pun intended).

 

I once watched a documentary about a band of widows living in caves in afghanistan. As widows they'd been shunned by their families are were living-- many with children-- in caves. They often survived for days at a time on nothing but weak tea. That's a very different hunger from the "hunger" we have in the US.

[Jenny in Florida]

She had a quilt, gloves and snow boots on her Christmas list. :glare:

 

Let's not paint things with a broad brush.

 

I am sorry Lisamarie. I really like you and didn't mean to single you out. I just wanted to be sure that people know that in contrast to your post, there are truly needy, humble, lovely people out there that need help.

 

One of the kids whose tag my daughter and I plucked off an angel tree last year asked for "food." So, yes, there is a lot of broadbrushing going on here. (Look at me, making up words again.)

 

Here's my take on the charitable requests thing: I strongly suspect that, much of the time, those lists are made with a great deal of input and facilitation from the agency. I always get the feeling that they have categories and give instructions like, "Make sure you write down at least one big item, one medium one, some clothing and a few small things." I always assume it's designed to give donors options.

 

The fact is that most of the most-advertised gifts in any given year tend to more and more expensive. I remember 30 years ago the hot item was a $20 Cabbage Patch doll, instead of a $200 game system. Just because a kid's family is currently down on their luck does not mean said kid (or his/her parents) are immune to advertsing and a culture of consumption. Nor do I think it means the kid should be expected to check personality at the door and be grateful for "anything" the rest of us might deign to toss his or her direction. Even poor kids have a right to favorite colors and heartfelt wishes.

 

If we snag a tag that has nothing but larger items, we put it back. We keep looking until we find a child or two (or more, when I can get away with it) who has listed wishes we can make come true on our own budget. I just can't work up a big head of resentment steam about this one.

[SKL]

But there are plenty of stupid classes I took in high school. Take PE for one. It was at the end of the day in 100 degrees half the year. I about died trying to run one lap on the track, and we learned how to kick a ball. Most of us just sorta stood around. It was NOT fitness. It was stupid.

 

My senior year they started offering a class called "food and fitness." It was 2 days a week fitness, but mostly indoor type stuff like stretching/yoga, and 2 days food. They at least attempted to teach about healthful eating.

 

I mean it's good to learn a foreign language, but how is it MORE Important than learning home and life skills? I think more college kids need to understand healthful eating more than speaking French to themselves. Not that I'm knocking foreign language. Just saying there is time in school to be able to take these classes as at least an elective.

 

I agree with you on PE. Being active is great, but the way they do it is stupid. I agree there are other things schools do stupidly. Let's not bring back another requirement to be subjected to the school's way of teaching non-academic stuff.

 

I agree cooking should be an elective.

 

I get the impression some people don't believe in the spirit of "electives" for teens.

[JenC3]

Not meant to be insulting at all. Time spent in school should not be spent going over stuff that one could have (and probably already has) easily learned outside of school, unless the person plans to pursue a related line of work/hobby. Time is limited and should be used for stuff kids are unlikely to learn at home, and likely to use in their future hobby/career.

 

If a homemaker said physics was a waste of time for her (and many others), should a rocket scientist be offended?

 

I said consistently that cooking class should be offered as an elective. If that's your thing, by all means pour your heart into it. Just don't demand that I do the same.

 

The funny thing here is kids are graduating without ACADEMIC skills necessary to make it in the world/college or the LIFE skills needed to survive. What is it then are they learning? Sorry that last bit is off topic;)

[k2bdeutmeyer]

One of the kids whose tag my daughter and I plucked off an angel tree last year asked for "food." So, yes, there is a lot of broadbrushing going on here. (Look at me, making up words again.)

 

Here's my take on the charitable requests thing: I strongly suspect that, much of the time, those lists are made with a great deal of input and facilitation from the agency. I always get the feeling that they have categories and give instructions like, "Make sure you write down at least one big item, one medium one, some clothing and a few small things." I always assume it's designed to give donors options.

 

The fact is that most of the most-advertised gifts in any given year tend to more and more expensive. I remember 30 years ago the hot item was a $20 Cabbage Patch doll, instead of a $200 game system. Just because a kid's family is currently down on their luck does not mean said kid (or his/her parents) are immune to advertsing and a culture of consumption. Nor do I think it means the kid should be expected to check personality at the door and be grateful for "anything" the rest of us might deign to toss his or her direction. Even poor kids have a right to favorite colors and heartfelt wishes.

 

If we snag a tag that has nothing but larger items, we put it back. We keep looking until we find a child or two (or more, when I can get away with it) who has listed wishes we can make come true on our own budget. I just can't work up a big head of resentment steam about this one.

 

You make a very good point. It made me think that I want to clarify my previous statement....I was looking at it from an ADULT perspective. As in, me saying what my kids want. I hadn't thought about it from the child's perspective. And....being a "poor" family, I wholeheartedly agree with the idea that even poor people have right to have things they just want :)

[TXMomof4]

I get what SKL is saying - I think. We have schools that aren't able to teach children to read. We all complain about the quality of schools - but we want to require everyone to learn how to cook at that same school? If I were to send my kids to school, I would rather them learn things that will help with their future career. If they wanted to offer cooking as an elective, fine. However, since schools are cutting most every elective, how are they going to incorporate cooking as an elective. Seriously, if it is important to know how to cook green beans to feed your child, ask someone. I will bet the produce manager at the store would be willing to tell you to boil a pot of water, snap off the ends and dump them in the pot. Step by step instructions for anything from boiling water to cooking duck l'orange are available at the library, on the internet, etc. It has to be something you have some desire to do - if healthy meals are even on your radar, it isn't hard to figure any of it out. Requiring the class won't make it matter to someone who doesn't care and it will take valuable time and resources away from basic skills like reading and math.

[Parrothead]

It probably isn't that. It's probably that a minority doesn't do it, and so the entire population has to be punished. Shotgun approach or whatever.

 

My mom taught me all I learned in home ec, and much more, many years earlier. Well, all except for the flour sifting - she told me about it, but it was already obsolete even then.

:confused: Since when is sifting flour obsolete?

[Murphy101]

It would be great, but people already have to take off work to go apply. Classes would mean more transportation costs and more time off work.

 

 

Yes, many people have to choose to either risk being written up/fired or go apply/pick up foodstamps/WIC. They certainly can't afford to to leave work more often!

 

My husband told her I'd tell her. No she didn't want them. She said she wasn't used to eating stuff like that.

 

Meh. She wasn't too hungry then.

 

Once I attended a fancy hotel luncheon for "Shoes for Kids," on behalf of the donor business I worked for. One of the speakers explained the importance of providing new, popular (aka $100+/pair) shoes so that the recipients wouldn't have bruised self-esteem or whatever. That was the last time I donated to any similar charity. That is just ridiculous. I'm a 46yo woman with two graduate degrees and two professional licenses, and I've never spent anywhere close to $100 for a pair of shoes! I will never do so for my own children, as that would send a terrible message IMO. But "poor" kids need this? WHAT? The average person in the third world earns that much $ in a YEAR to feed his family! I'm sorry if that makes me a little cynical about how we view poverty in this country.

 

No, I don't think it is cynical. I think it is accurate how ridiculous it is.:glare:

 

Ok, now you've got me wondering how someone could deliberately taint a pumpkin. I can't think of a way, so I must be a nice sort of girl. :tongue_smilie:

 

Ultra fine needle filled with whatever of your choice injected at the stem or if they really wanted to think ahead, purposely water with an absorbable toxin.

 

Come on. You're smart. I'm sure you have seen some medical or criminal tv show. Use your imagination.;)

 

But MY issue is that I think it is ...not sure what word to use... The vast majority of people who donate are not going to ever even think of that evil carp. It's a disservice to presume it to the point that it undermines actually helping people.

 

I'm sure some people are just awful. I'm not naive.

 

But I refuse to live as though everyone is that way.

[Murphy101]

I cook from scratch all the time. I never sift anything except powdered sugar to sprinkled over the top of a dessert. :D

[Mrs Mungo]

Not meant to be insulting at all. Time spent in school should not be spent going over stuff that one could have (and probably already has) easily learned outside of school, unless the person plans to pursue a related line of work/hobby. Time is limited and should be used for stuff kids are unlikely to learn at home, and likely to use in their future hobby/career.

 

If a homemaker said physics was a waste of time for her (and many others), should a rocket scientist be offended?

 

I said consistently that cooking class should be offered as an elective. If that's your thing, by all means pour your heart into it. Just don't demand that I do the same.

 

I guess it depends upon what we believe schools are for. And you must understand, most of our kids are NOT in school because we find the whole thing pointless and/or substandard. I would bet most of us have kids who can cook to some degree. My eleven year old made himself scrambled eggs for breakfast this morning. I was once working a breakfast fundraiser with a wife close to the age I am now (but I was much younger then) who had never cooked scrambled eggs. People should be able to do the basics, IMO, and I don't care if you disagree.

 

I get the impression some people don't believe in the spirit of "electives" for teens.

 

Most of us have teens who are in plenty of activities. But, they aren't in school. Not being in school leaves time for what they need to learn and what they want to do without all of the stupidity in between. The schools would look wholly different if I was in charge, but, yes, I would include basic life skills.

[SKL]

SKL, this thread is reminding me of your assertion that because you don't personally value or choose to seek preventive medical care like checkups and routine testing, those things shouldn't be covered by insurance.

 

Now, because you hate to cook and apparently don't care much about the flavor or quality of the food you eat, you're arguing that schoolchildren should be given cold and unvarying sack lunches and that learning to cook is an unnecessary waste of time.

 

You're free to live however you want to live, and I have no reason to doubt you when you say that your family is healthy and thriving. But surely you must realize that your choices are idiosyncratic, and not necessarily the best path for all the world?

 

I'm sure I never said insurance should never cover that, but I might have said some aspect of it should not be required by law, or that the recommendation of annual pap tests for all women is excessive, or something of the sort. I believe an insurance contract should be negotiated by the parties and if I personally don't believe in something, I personally should not have to pay for it.

 

A lot of people are putting words in my mouth. I think it's great if you cook, if you like to cook, and if you are a good cook. I factually cook rarely and because of that, I am aware of the fact that you can survive and even thrive without cooking in this country (even on a budget - I've always been pretty frugal). I never said that people who do not cook are better than people who do. Some of you seem to think the opposite, and that is fine, I don't care. Just please refrain from putting words in my mouth that I did not say.

 

For example, I never said it was a waste of time to learn to cook. I described the lessons I got in home ec and said THAT was a waste of SCHOOL time for people who do not want to spend much of their lives cooking.

 

Not saying my path is the best in the world. When we're talking about getting hungry kids fed, "best in the world" is a very lofty goal. We should start with the bare necessities and work from there IMO. Years of mandatory cooking instruction in high school (which would have led some of us to drop out sooner) are not necessary to feed needy children. The point is simple. Not sure why people are trying to make it about them and their personal cooking habits.

[stripe]

Why can't they check the recall notices for specific brands/types - when there isn't exactly a surplus of items coming in that they have to check up on?

 

I think it's just easier and safer not to take those things for most thrift stores or donation places because there are so many safety issues and who wants to be blamed for a dead or injured baby?

 

In my experience, donors often think their stuff is amazing and everyone should be honored to get it. People donate moldy romance novels from the 1940s to the library and are infuriated that they are not put into the collection. People likewise tend to donate weird canned goods, the stuff that's been at the back of their pantry for 15 years and never got eaten, often expired or damaged, and then want food banks and the hungry to line up to collect them. I can say from personal experience, my own grandma gave me shoes for my baby that were stained, damaged, and way too small, obviously found at her favorite thrift store, and she expected me to somehow use them for my child. I think a lot of people give things away that they would be downright offended if someone gave them.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Here's my take on the charitable requests thing: I strongly suspect that, much of the time, those lists are made with a great deal of input and facilitation from the agency. I always get the feeling that they have categories and give instructions like, "Make sure you write down at least one big item, one medium one, some clothing and a few small things." I always assume it's designed to give donors options.

Oh yeah, they actually did tell her categories and such. What she actually got was drastically different than the information that they asked her for. I think it set up false expectations.

One of the kids whose tag my daughter and I plucked off an angel tree last year asked for "food." So, yes, there is a lot of broadbrushing going on here. (Look at me, making up words again.)

:D

[Mrs Mungo]

I get what SKL is saying - I think. We have schools that aren't able to teach children to read. We all complain about the quality of schools - but we want to require everyone to learn how to cook at that same school? If I were to send my kids to school, I would rather them learn things that will help with their future career. If they wanted to offer cooking as an elective, fine. However, since schools are cutting most every elective, how are they going to incorporate cooking as an elective. Seriously, if it is important to know how to cook green beans to feed your child, ask someone. I will bet the produce manager at the store would be willing to tell you to boil a pot of water, snap off the ends and dump them in the pot. Step by step instructions for anything from boiling water to cooking duck l'orange are available at the library, on the internet, etc. It has to be something you have some desire to do - if healthy meals are even on your radar, it isn't hard to figure any of it out. Requiring the class won't make it matter to someone who doesn't care and it will take valuable time and resources away from basic skills like reading and math.

 

But, I think if any of it was done properly, then you'd be able to teach reading, math, basic life skills and electives like music or sports. And when I'm talking basic life skills, I'm talking also talking about budgeting, what to wear to a job interview, how revolving credit card debt works, how savings accounts work, how to balance a checkbook, how to check the oil in your car and more. I have been a military wife for 18 years. I have taught other wives all kinds of things from how to make iced tea (and she was from ALABAMA!) to how to use a double boiler to how to snake a toilet. There are lots of things that I think people should know and the a significant portion of people don't.

[SKL]

:confused: Since when is sifting flour obsolete?

 

They used to sift it to remove bugs since there were always bugs in flour. That aspect of it is obsolete in the US, except in places where storage of flour is different from the current standard.

 

I take your point about ongoing uses of flour sifting. As you can see, both my mom and I managed to survive without having to ever do this. :)

[Mrs Mungo]

Not saying my path is the best in the world. When we're talking about getting hungry kids fed, "best in the world" is a very lofty goal. We should start with the bare necessities and work from there IMO. Years of mandatory cooking instruction in high school (which would have led some of us to drop out sooner) are not necessary to feed needy children. The point is simple. Not sure why people are trying to make it about them and their personal cooking habits.

 

Except, nobody said anything about years of cooking instruction. I was talking about years of learning basic life skills, which, YES WOULD help feed needy children in all manner of ways!

[Parrothead]

Ok, now you've got me wondering how someone could deliberately taint a pumpkin. I can't think of a way, so I must be a nice sort of girl. :tongue_smilie:

With a fine gauge hypodermic needle and some arsenic.

[Parrothead]

Yeah, personally I feel my life is enriched because I can do these things. It saves a lot of money too. Will I die without it? No. But is that the only point to one's existence...doing whatever minimally to not die?

According to some studies not eating a large variety of non-processed foods will shorten one's life expectancy.

[SKL]

I actually don't care if schools teach cooking. I kind of agree they don't need to. But I was more floored by the attitude that cooking is completely unnecessary and pedestrian.

 

Never said that.

 

Since when does "I rarely do this" mean "this is pedestrian?" Am I so stupid as to not know that cooking is often a high art, or a career, or a favorite hobby, or a money-saving technique, or sometimes the only way to get a particular taste that you want?

 

Just because something is all of that does not mean it is necessary for all to be good at it.

[Lovedtodeath]

There you go Rosie, Chucki must not be as nice. :lol:

[Lovedtodeath]

This was my original point when I wondered why a group of children with such high obesity rates can also have a problem of hunger. Junk food addiction may play a role. Maybe a child goes to school hungry because there were no more pop tarts-- but there was a cold leftover baked potato in the fridge. Or eggs that the parent is to exhausted or checked out to cook. Yet the net result is that the child goes to school "hungry" and is counted as hungry.

 

Absolutely there are people in these statistics really struggling, but I take it with a grain of salt (no pun intended).

 

I once watched a documentary about a band of widows living in caves in afghanistan. As widows they'd been shunned by their families are were living-- many with children-- in caves. They often survived for days at a time on nothing but weak tea. That's a very different hunger from the "hunger" we have in the US.

Ah, yeah, I can see this.

[Beetkvass]

A lot of people are putting words in my mouth. I think it's great if you cook, if you like to cook, and if you are a good cook. I factually cook rarely and because of that, I am aware of the fact that you can survive and even thrive without cooking in this country (even on a budget - I've always been pretty frugal). I never said that people who do not cook are better than people who do. Some of you seem to think the opposite, and that is fine, I don't care. Just please refrain from putting words in my mouth that I did not say.

 

Just because you thrive on processed foods you don't cook yourself doesn't mean that most people do though. We have serious health problems in this country. Skyrocketing rates of obesity in childhood. And rampant disease that's mostly preventable through diet. Being able to enjoy good healthy food that's not highly processed is not just a fun thing for those who enjoy it. And otherwise everyone else who doesn't cook enjoys good health and thrives without it. That's simply not the case.

[SKL]

But you basically said people don't need it. I think they do.

 

We can agree to disagree on whether people "need" to know cooking skills beyond what they can absorb from their environment or teach themselves.

 

I think a lot of people misunderstood my comment about the poor home ec class I was required to take. I wasn't dissing cooks or cooking; only that cooking class and the idea of making that type of class mandatory for all (again). I felt it was a huge step forward when they did away with that requirement.

 

For what it's worth, my sister, who is an awesome cook and loves cooking, had the same attitude about our school cooking class. :)

[Murphy101]

You make a very good point. It made me think that I want to clarify my previous statement....I was looking at it from an ADULT perspective. As in, me saying what my kids want. I hadn't thought about it from the child's perspective. And....being a "poor" family, I wholeheartedly agree with the idea that even poor people have right to have things they just want :)

 

Wanting doesn't make it so. Can't count how often I've said that to my kids. And when times are rough, we have sat them down, even as young as kindergarten and told them point blank, they need to know some things are just out of Santa's budget. It's okay to want just about anything. But it's not okay for a parent to not honestly set reasonable expectations.

 

She was though. About a month later she was thrown out of her home and basically lived with various neighbors. I saw her turn rail thin. She really was weird like that.

 

Then idsuggest she wasn't weird. More likely she has some mental health issues making life extra difficult for her. :(