a wee bit insane?

we're normal. what are you talking about?

i think that some people, namely my mum and my brother, suspect that i am going a wee bit insane following my recent posts on giving sugar and santa the flick. (well, living in a little house and doing things repetitively like rocking the pram could possibly be sending me a little barmy. and having been wanting to move to the country all year but having no control over when we're able to go and so living in limbo land has also turned me into a major control freak over the little things, and especially over stuff to do with christmas. sigh.) i am also really just trying very hard to be a thoughtful mother, while i have the opportunity to do some thinking and am not living by the seat of my pants.

i've had some supremely useful conversations this weekend, and have come to a more moderate and satisfying (for me) position on the big fat red guy. my decision is to, for the most part, leave the initiating of santa-talk to the girls, and i'll answer their questions as they come. we will celebrate sinterklaas in 2012, and i will explain to the girls about who saint nicholas was and what he was on about, so when they do ask about santa, i will explain him in relation to saint nicholas. i will continue, however, to maintain my no-red and white-christmas decoration policy.

it was pointed out that perhaps i have been over-estimating the impact of the whole santa issue, and underestimating the impact of all the other jesus-focused elements of celebrating christmas. touche. i needed to hear that. i guess in my fear of my girls turning into entitled, greedy brats who don't value the things that they have (which is the lifestyle i associate with santa), i forgot that God is powerful, wise, merciful and kind, that he answers prayers, that Jesus has already claimed victory over sin, and that God is at work in the world all the time. so i needn't worry so much.

i have also had ample opportunity this weekend to put my convictions about sugar to the test in big sister's life, as our saturday consisted of a christmas party, a birthday party and a thanksgiving dinner, all with sugar-laden goodies to be had. though i didn't say this in my previous post, the fifth "rule" of david gillespie's diet is that "party food is for parties," which means that it's okay to indulge in some sugary delights when celebrating something worth celebrating - it's just not okay to indulge in them as part of your normal eating pattern. (and if you're a sugar addict, which is what he contends most people are, you'll most likely regret indulging in the sugar because you'll have to detox all over again. anyway...)

so big sister got to eat lollies, iced-biscuits, cake, chocolate, juice and ice-cream - the last three of which she had never really even had before. (she didn't really like the juice, so i am secretly pleased about that.) i actually felt okay about her eating these things in celebration, but i am still convinced that i don't want them in our house and that it's not really okay for playgroup morning tea to consist of sugary treats. the gillespie book contains recipes for party foods (and other normal foods) that are made fructose-free by using alternate ingredients (such as dextrose and glucose syrup, which each contain the glucose part of sugar but not the evil fructose part), so it is allegedly possible to make these celebratory foods in a low-fructose version. will be testing these recipes out soon.