Super Fudge book outs Santa as fake

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judy Blume: Parents worry too much about what children read
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay-festival/10868544/Judy-Blume-Parents-worry-too-much-about-what-children-read.html

I’m team Judy but you do you!

I agree that problematic material goes over kids' heads if they're not ready for it. I read Jean Auel in grade school and didn't really think anything of some of the content at the time.

Santa Claus is not above kids' heads, though. He is right at the level of 4, 6, 8 year olds.

From the article:
"A lot of people will want to control everything in their children's lives, or everything in other people's children's lives.”

I really feel like other people are trying to control my kids with respect to Santa - that I really have to keep up a lie for other people.

I'm sorry that a PSA about a book makes you feel so attacked.

The PSA specifically called out the author for being Jewish. It was an obvious attack.

No, it was not an obvious attack. It was noting that, possibly because of her lack of direct experience, Blume did not/does not seem to understand why this is an issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's so backwards that so many parents/schools/society in general now force reading and writing on kids well before it is age appropriate for them to be doing sit down academic work (age 4- when it's more appropriate to start that around age 6 or even 7 according to most child development experts, and let children learn almost entirely by play before that)... yet we've also started infantilizing them in other ways, like with pretending it's normal for a 9 year old neurotypical kid to believe in Santa Claus. Is it to make up for the fact that we're forcing them to grow up earlier in other ways? Or are the children pushing back on being forced to grow up earlier in other ways by now lagging behind in critical thinking/ problem solving skills that would usually allow them to naturally outgrow Santa much earlier? I've heard that kids are showing delays in things like sensory skills, etc because of forced early academic work taking up brain space that should be spent playing outdoors and learning to play with friends. It is an interesting thought.

Exactly. I feel this way about playgrounds ... we have to take tetherballs away because they're too dangerous, but we'll put 500 kids onto a 100 sq ft playground with 30 ft tall slides and 5 ft of foam padding to break their falls. I think what it comes down to is that it's all parent-directed, not kid-directed, but in a weird way based on small areas of personal belief that all combine into a nonsensical whole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judy Blume: Parents worry too much about what children read
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay-festival/10868544/Judy-Blume-Parents-worry-too-much-about-what-children-read.html

I’m team Judy but you do you!

I agree that problematic material goes over kids' heads if they're not ready for it. I read Jean Auel in grade school and didn't really think anything of some of the content at the time.

Santa Claus is not above kids' heads, though. He is right at the level of 4, 6, 8 year olds.

From the article:
"A lot of people will want to control everything in their children's lives, or everything in other people's children's lives.”

I really feel like other people are trying to control my kids with respect to Santa - that I really have to keep up a lie for other people.

I'm sorry that a PSA about a book makes you feel so attacked.

The PSA specifically called out the author for being Jewish. It was an obvious attack.

No, it was not an obvious attack. It was noting that, possibly because of her lack of direct experience, Blume did not/does not seem to understand why this is an issue.

Sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's so backwards that so many parents/schools/society in general now force reading and writing on kids well before it is age appropriate for them to be doing sit down academic work (age 4- when it's more appropriate to start that around age 6 or even 7 according to most child development experts, and let children learn almost entirely by play before that)... yet we've also started infantilizing them in other ways, like with pretending it's normal for a 9 year old neurotypical kid to believe in Santa Claus. Is it to make up for the fact that we're forcing them to grow up earlier in other ways? Or are the children pushing back on being forced to grow up earlier in other ways by now lagging behind in critical thinking/ problem solving skills that would usually allow them to naturally outgrow Santa much earlier? I've heard that kids are showing delays in things like sensory skills, etc because of forced early academic work taking up brain space that should be spent playing outdoors and learning to play with friends. It is an interesting thought.

Exactly. I feel this way about playgrounds ... we have to take tetherballs away because they're too dangerous, but we'll put 500 kids onto a 100 sq ft playground with 30 ft tall slides and 5 ft of foam padding to break their falls. I think what it comes down to is that it's all parent-directed, not kid-directed, but in a weird way based on small areas of personal belief that all combine into a nonsensical whole.

That's exactly it- early and even middle childhood are so parent directed that it takes away things kids actually need- free play, outdoor play, unstructured play without adults nearby to referee/ direct- and replacing it with things we THINK kids should enjoy, like soccer teams for 3 year olds or "fun workbooks" or a trampoline park with a million rules (as opposed to just a real, actual playground without all of the "dangerous" things taken out of it so that kids can actually play freely and learn their body's boundaries like they were meant to). Part of this is adults deciding that kids need to believe in Santa until they are 10 years old in order to have a "magical childhood" when really, magical christmas memories come from so much more than that if we just step back and let kids experience things the way their own bodies and brains want to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's so backwards that so many parents/schools/society in general now force reading and writing on kids well before it is age appropriate for them to be doing sit down academic work (age 4- when it's more appropriate to start that around age 6 or even 7 according to most child development experts, and let children learn almost entirely by play before that)... yet we've also started infantilizing them in other ways, like with pretending it's normal for a 9 year old neurotypical kid to believe in Santa Claus. Is it to make up for the fact that we're forcing them to grow up earlier in other ways? Or are the children pushing back on being forced to grow up earlier in other ways by now lagging behind in critical thinking/ problem solving skills that would usually allow them to naturally outgrow Santa much earlier? I've heard that kids are showing delays in things like sensory skills, etc because of forced early academic work taking up brain space that should be spent playing outdoors and learning to play with friends. It is an interesting thought.

Exactly. I feel this way about playgrounds ... we have to take tetherballs away because they're too dangerous, but we'll put 500 kids onto a 100 sq ft playground with 30 ft tall slides and 5 ft of foam padding to break their falls. I think what it comes down to is that it's all parent-directed, not kid-directed, but in a weird way based on small areas of personal belief that all combine into a nonsensical whole.

That's exactly it- early and even middle childhood are so parent directed that it takes away things kids actually need- free play, outdoor play, unstructured play without adults nearby to referee/ direct- and replacing it with things we THINK kids should enjoy, like soccer teams for 3 year olds or "fun workbooks" or a trampoline park with a million rules (as opposed to just a real, actual playground without all of the "dangerous" things taken out of it so that kids can actually play freely and learn their body's boundaries like they were meant to). Part of this is adults deciding that kids need to believe in Santa until they are 10 years old in order to have a "magical childhood" when really, magical christmas memories come from so much more than that if we just step back and let kids experience things the way their own bodies and brains want to.

Okay, but there is nothing inherently natural about a dangerous playground as opposed to a safer one. Both of them are constructed by parents and are therefore the result of micromanaging.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's so backwards that so many parents/schools/society in general now force reading and writing on kids well before it is age appropriate for them to be doing sit down academic work (age 4- when it's more appropriate to start that around age 6 or even 7 according to most child development experts, and let children learn almost entirely by play before that)... yet we've also started infantilizing them in other ways, like with pretending it's normal for a 9 year old neurotypical kid to believe in Santa Claus. Is it to make up for the fact that we're forcing them to grow up earlier in other ways? Or are the children pushing back on being forced to grow up earlier in other ways by now lagging behind in critical thinking/ problem solving skills that would usually allow them to naturally outgrow Santa much earlier? I've heard that kids are showing delays in things like sensory skills, etc because of forced early academic work taking up brain space that should be spent playing outdoors and learning to play with friends. It is an interesting thought.

Exactly. I feel this way about playgrounds ... we have to take tetherballs away because they're too dangerous, but we'll put 500 kids onto a 100 sq ft playground with 30 ft tall slides and 5 ft of foam padding to break their falls. I think what it comes down to is that it's all parent-directed, not kid-directed, but in a weird way based on small areas of personal belief that all combine into a nonsensical whole.

That's exactly it- early and even middle childhood are so parent directed that it takes away things kids actually need- free play, outdoor play, unstructured play without adults nearby to referee/ direct- and replacing it with things we THINK kids should enjoy, like soccer teams for 3 year olds or "fun workbooks" or a trampoline park with a million rules (as opposed to just a real, actual playground without all of the "dangerous" things taken out of it so that kids can actually play freely and learn their body's boundaries like they were meant to). Part of this is adults deciding that kids need to believe in Santa until they are 10 years old in order to have a "magical childhood" when really, magical christmas memories come from so much more than that if we just step back and let kids experience things the way their own bodies and brains want to.

Okay, but there is nothing inherently natural about a dangerous playground as opposed to a safer one. Both of them are constructed by parents and are therefore the result of micromanaging.

It's man-made, yes. But it's what children naturally need and gravitate towards. Playgrounds should be places for kids to test the boundaries of their bodies, think critically abou thow to navigate them, learn about risk taking and what's too much of a risk vs something they can push themselves to do to build confidence, etc. Plenty of research out there about this if you're interested. Or, just drop your kid off at a REAL playground and let them play with zero interference from you and watch what it is they like to do- I guarnatee it will involve climbing on things they aren't "meant" to climb on, swinging from things that aren't swings, running, etc. But my point is, parents are taking away things kids really need for healthy development (such as, one example, playgrounds that involve some element of risk) and replacing them with things we think kids should need (believing in Santa until they are in 6th grade). If we let the kids guide us a little more, they'll be better off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My DS knew Santa doesn't exist long before he told me he knew Santa doesn't exist. He told me that he didn't want to hurt my feelings because I was so "gung ho Santa!" that he thought that I didn't know that Santa doesn't exist.

That is hilarious!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since we are talking about outing Santa... I thought I would warn people that Judy Blume's book Super Fudge totally talks about how Santa isn't real and only "babies" believe it is real. The 4 year old in the book say this.

Judy Blume- who was raised Jewish: Said that she can't imagine anyone being upset about the book, because all children know Santa isn't real......sigh.....

Wow, OP. Blame her Judaism. That’s not prejudicial at all. It couldn’t be any other reason.

I’m Jewish, and guess what? A Christian told me that Santa wasn’t real.

When you were 4?

Is your kid reading Super Fudge at 4?

I had older siblings so I pretty much never believed in Santa or the Tooth Fairy. If you pin so much importance on your kid believing a fairy tale, then yeah, you can't really be mad when the inevitable happens ...

Ha my poor 1st grader hasn’t lost any teeth and already knows the tooth fairy isn’t real (older sibling). When I heard him say it though I said if I ever hear you say that again she won’t visit you when you lose your teeth

See but why would you do that? A 6-7 year old is past the stage of magical thinking and obviously won't really believe in that stuff unless their parents make a conscious effort to trick them/ convince them they are real despite the child's natural instinct to figure out in their own that they're not real. Why not just let it happen naturally? Santa is for 3, 4, 5 year olds. Maybe in some cases 6 and 7 year olds that are a little less savvy. But beyond that you're just stunting them and lying to them for your own selfish reasons! And finding out will be traumatic because it wasn't a natural progression, it was a bold faced lie by their parent. It's not traumatic to find out naturally around age 5 or 6, just let it happen already. You do not he's not ACTUALLY real, right?

Oh I said that to him bc i know we all know the tooth fairy’s not real but I already had to hear he told another kid Santa wasn’t real (after I told him not to) so now I am trying to make sure he keeps quiet about Santa for the next 5 years, and to not ruin tooth fairy, Easter bunny and for crying out loud even leprechauns for other kids these days. It’s totally ridiculous

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's so backwards that so many parents/schools/society in general now force reading and writing on kids well before it is age appropriate for them to be doing sit down academic work (age 4- when it's more appropriate to start that around age 6 or even 7 according to most child development experts, and let children learn almost entirely by play before that)... yet we've also started infantilizing them in other ways, like with pretending it's normal for a 9 year old neurotypical kid to believe in Santa Claus. Is it to make up for the fact that we're forcing them to grow up earlier in other ways? Or are the children pushing back on being forced to grow up earlier in other ways by now lagging behind in critical thinking/ problem solving skills that would usually allow them to naturally outgrow Santa much earlier? I've heard that kids are showing delays in things like sensory skills, etc because of forced early academic work taking up brain space that should be spent playing outdoors and learning to play with friends. It is an interesting thought.

Exactly. I feel this way about playgrounds ... we have to take tetherballs away because they're too dangerous, but we'll put 500 kids onto a 100 sq ft playground with 30 ft tall slides and 5 ft of foam padding to break their falls. I think what it comes down to is that it's all parent-directed, not kid-directed, but in a weird way based on small areas of personal belief that all combine into a nonsensical whole.

That's exactly it- early and even middle childhood are so parent directed that it takes away things kids actually need- free play, outdoor play, unstructured play without adults nearby to referee/ direct- and replacing it with things we THINK kids should enjoy, like soccer teams for 3 year olds or "fun workbooks" or a trampoline park with a million rules (as opposed to just a real, actual playground without all of the "dangerous" things taken out of it so that kids can actually play freely and learn their body's boundaries like they were meant to). Part of this is adults deciding that kids need to believe in Santa until they are 10 years old in order to have a "magical childhood" when really, magical christmas memories come from so much more than that if we just step back and let kids experience things the way their own bodies and brains want to.

Okay, but there is nothing inherently natural about a dangerous playground as opposed to a safer one. Both of them are constructed by parents and are therefore the result of micromanaging.

It's man-made, yes. But it's what children naturally need and gravitate towards. Playgrounds should be places for kids to test the boundaries of their bodies, think critically abou thow to navigate them, learn about risk taking and what's too much of a risk vs something they can push themselves to do to build confidence, etc. Plenty of research out there about this if you're interested. Or, just drop your kid off at a REAL playground and let them play with zero interference from you and watch what it is they like to do- I guarnatee it will involve climbing on things they aren't "meant" to climb on, swinging from things that aren't swings, running, etc. But my point is, parents are taking away things kids really need for healthy development (such as, one example, playgrounds that involve some element of risk) and replacing them with things we think kids should need (believing in Santa until they are in 6th grade). If we let the kids guide us a little more, they'll be better off.

I actually love this sub-thread. It’s articulating sort of what I was thinking—that parental insistence on believing in Santa is emblematic of a newer type of parenting—one that insists on a sort of carefully orchestrated childhood. It includes carefully curated experiences, devoid of risk or disappointment, and based on adult definitions of what is meaningful during childhood. I think a lot of parental trends these days could be seen through this lens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since we are talking about outing Santa... I thought I would warn people that Judy Blume's book Super Fudge totally talks about how Santa isn't real and only "babies" believe it is real. The 4 year old in the book say this.

Judy Blume- who was raised Jewish: Said that she can't imagine anyone being upset about the book, because all children know Santa isn't real......sigh.....

The book is narrated by a fifth-grade boy, and is intended for older elementary students. If, by fourth or fifth grade, your child has not ever heard anyone say that Santa isn't real, then you have other issues.

Oooh, like what "issues", exactly? Do tell.

You live in an underground bunker? You belong to a cult? Seriously, by fourth grade, kids should have heard SOMEONE say that Santa isn't real. Maybe they didn't believe that person and they still think that Santa is real, but it's not realistic to think that kids that age should be sheltered even from the suggestion that there is no Santa. A kid in a book saying that Santa isn't real is not that big of a deal.

Np. Who here doesn't have precocious readers? I remember reading this as a second grader and being like, "Welp, that's it, no Santa." I consistently read books above my cognitive readiness. Honestly, I had completely forgotten about this until opening this thread. I also recall reading an Anastasia Krupnik book that clued me in on the fact that there was no Tooth Fairy and/Easter Bunny, one or the other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think it’s more nuts that people can’t believe that children believe in Santa. Im gearing kids aren’t smart because they still believe and it’s ridiculous. Lots of parents remember the joy of Christmas and Santa as a kid and that’s why they do it for theirs. I’m starting to think all the parents who can’t believe had miserable childhoods.

I believe that kids believe in Santa. I don't believe that most fifth-graders still truly, fully believe in Santa, and I certainly don't believe that hearing that someone else doesn't think that Santa is real is going to traumatize a kid or ruin all the magic of Christmas or whatever the obsessed parents on here think.

The issue isn't fifth-graders. It's first graders reading the book, or parents reading aloud to even younger kids.

But if you're going to read a book written for an older person to a first grader, then you have to expect that there will be things aimed at older kids in it. Authors of books for fifth graders shouldn't have to limit themselves to what people think 5 year old can handle.

Why object to this specific book, when there are plenty of books not written for first graders out there?

If your kid wants to believe, they'll believe. This book won't change that. If they're already questioning in their head, this book might lead them to questioning aloud.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I actually love this sub-thread. It’s articulating sort of what I was thinking—that parental insistence on believing in Santa is emblematic of a newer type of parenting—one that insists on a sort of carefully orchestrated childhood. It includes carefully curated experiences, devoid of risk or disappointment, and based on adult definitions of what is meaningful during childhood. I think a lot of parental trends these days could be seen through this lens.

This is fascinating and seems to ring true to me, too. What an interesting observation.

Write an article! I'll gladly read it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:An attitude of "I know it's not real but it's fun to play along with this" is perfectly acceptable in the case of Santa, Tooth Fairy, fairies in general, etc.

And Princesses, and unicorns, and dragons, and Hogwarts...

I’m an adult and I still think it’s fun to get caught up in the magic of those things. Judy Blume is right. People on the other thread yelling invectives and clamoring to get a kindergarten teacher fired are the Christmas grinches. I bet they kick puppies too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I actually love this sub-thread. It’s articulating sort of what I was thinking—that parental insistence on believing in Santa is emblematic of a newer type of parenting—one that insists on a sort of carefully orchestrated childhood. It includes carefully curated experiences, devoid of risk or disappointment, and based on adult definitions of what is meaningful during childhood. I think a lot of parental trends these days could be seen through this lens.

This is fascinating and seems to ring true to me, too. What an interesting observation.

Write an article! I'll gladly read it.

PP here and while I’d love to take credit, I was just summarizing the prior posts, which were not mine. Yes, that PP should write a blog!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Teach your kids whatever, but it's not the job of non-Christians to perpetuate your lie.

- Muslim kid who stood arm in arm with my Jewish classmates over this ridiculous Santa stuff

Thank you!

- Christian kid who was creeped out about having to sit on some weird dudes lap and ask for presents.