题目内容
A scientist In today’s society we are now seeing more children under the age of twelve developing eating disorders. It is estimated that 40% of nine year olds have already dieted and we are beginning to see four and five year olds expressing the need to diet. It’s a shame that children so young are being robbed of their childhoods. Why is it that so many young children are becoming obsessed with dieting and their weight I feel the family environment has a lot to do with it, along with the fact that children are constantly being exposed to the message society gives about the importance of being thin. Children raised in a dysfunctional family are at a higher risk for developing an eating disorder. In a home where physical or sexual abuse is taking place, the child may turn to an eating disorder to gain a sense of control. If they can’t control what is happening to their bodies during the abuse, they can control their food intake or their weight. Self imposed starvation may also be their way of trying to disappear so they no longer have to suffer through the abuse. Children may also develop eating disorders as a way of dealing with the many emotions that they feel, especially if they are raised in a home that does not allow feelings to be expressed. Children who are compulsive eaters are usually using food to help them deal with feelings of anger, sadness, hurt, loneliness, abandonment, fear and pain. If children are not allowed to express their emotions, they may become emotional eaters. Also, if parents are too involved in their own problems, the child may turn to food for comfort. Children are at a risk for developing an eating disorder if the parents themselves are too preoccupied with appearance and Weight. If the parents are constantly dieting and expressing dislike towards their own bodies, the child will receive the message that appearance is very important. In some families the parents mistake baby fat for actual fat and may try to impose a diet on the child. Not only is that not right, it’s cruel. As parents you need to set a good example for your children, which means that you yourself should be involved in healthy eating patterns. Another thing to remember about children is that they eat when they are hungry and they stop when they are full. Never force a child to eat if they don’t want to. Too many families still force children to remain at the table until they have eaten everything on their plate. Doing that could cause the child to hate meal times and develop an unhealthy attitude towards food. Exercise is also an important part of everyone’s life and we need to help our children become involved in physical activity, which means the parents themselves should participate in healthy exercise. Help the child to find activities they enjoy and activities the whole family can enjoy. They should be taught that physical activity is important in maintaining a strong and healthy body, but they should not be given the message that exercise is important in maintaining a slim figure. What kind of message does the society give to the children who are becoming obsessed with dieting and their weight
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
[听力原文]M: Miss, what time is flight 345 for New York due to departW: it leaves at 2:50, but you must check in one hour ahead of departure. At what time must the passenger arrive at the airport for Flight 345（）
采用加速折旧法计提折旧，计算出来的税后净现值比采用直线折旧法大。（）
If there was one thing Americans had a right to expect from Congress, it was a federal plan to help the elderly pay for prescription drugs. It is a promise that has been made again and again--in particularly high decibels during the last presidential election. The House and Senate have passed bills, and although both are flawed, this page has urged Congress to finish work on them as a first step toward fulfilling this longstanding commitment. Unfortunately, things have changed. The government cannot afford the program now. That is the fault of President Bush and the Republican majorities in the House and Senate. They broke the bank with their enormous tax cuts. The country is facing the largest budget deficit in history, and there is no realistic plan for getting it under control. The limited version of a prescription drug benefit now being considered in Congress would cost about $400 billion over 10 years. Older Americans had a right to expect that help, but they do not have a right to demand it, not when it would be financed by borrowing, with the bills to be paid by their grandchildren. Mr. Bush, a specialist in pain avoidance, told people that they could have the programs they wanted prescription drugs for the elderly, better schools for children along with modest tax cuts for the middle class and whoppers for the wealthy. When 9/11 occurred, the president simply added the war on terror, and then the war on Saddam Hussein, to the list. For all his talk about fiscal conservatism, Mr. Bush has never vetoed a spending bill, even the obscene $ 180 billion farm subsidy program. To pay for it all, he simply increased the deficit. Deficits in and of themselves are not necessarily a problem, but the current one is frightening for two reasons. One is its size: projected at well above $500 billion for next year, and approaching 5 percent of the gross domestic product. The Other is its permanence. Cutting taxes temporarily to fight the recession made sense, but the Bush tax cuts are meant to be permanent even though Congress gave most of them a phony 10- year expiration date in an attempt to mask their effect. Dropping the proposal is, of course, just what a large chunk of the Republican Party was hoping for all along. For those Republicans, deficits are a useful tool to beat back popular entitlement programs--a "starve the beast" strategy, in the words of Ronald Reagan’s budget director. Democrats in Congress, meanwhile, rail against the deficit, but they are still pushing for the prescription drug plan. Like the tax-cutters, they are simply building up to some sort of financial Armageddon like soaring interest rates or a collapsing dollar and hoping that blame will fall on the other party. Our answer is different. The people have to decide whether they want tax cuts or programs like the prescription drug plan. It’s true that the tax-cut radicals will win this round. But then we will have an election. The author’s attitude toward President Bush is ______.
If there was one thing Americans had a right to expect from Congress, it was a federal plan to help the elderly pay for prescription drugs. It is a promise that has been made again and again--in particularly high decibels during the last presidential election. The House and Senate have passed bills, and although both are flawed, this page has urged Congress to finish work on them as a first step toward fulfilling this longstanding commitment. Unfortunately, things have changed. The government cannot afford the program now. That is the fault of President Bush and the Republican majorities in the House and Senate. They broke the bank with their enormous tax cuts. The country is facing the largest budget deficit in history, and there is no realistic plan for getting it under control. The limited version of a prescription drug benefit now being considered in Congress would cost about $400 billion over 10 years. Older Americans had a right to expect that help, but they do not have a right to demand it, not when it would be financed by borrowing, with the bills to be paid by their grandchildren. Mr. Bush, a specialist in pain avoidance, told people that they could have the programs they wanted prescription drugs for the elderly, better schools for children along with modest tax cuts for the middle class and whoppers for the wealthy. When 9/11 occurred, the president simply added the war on terror, and then the war on Saddam Hussein, to the list. For all his talk about fiscal conservatism, Mr. Bush has never vetoed a spending bill, even the obscene $ 180 billion farm subsidy program. To pay for it all, he simply increased the deficit. Deficits in and of themselves are not necessarily a problem, but the current one is frightening for two reasons. One is its size: projected at well above $500 billion for next year, and approaching 5 percent of the gross domestic product. The Other is its permanence. Cutting taxes temporarily to fight the recession made sense, but the Bush tax cuts are meant to be permanent even though Congress gave most of them a phony 10- year expiration date in an attempt to mask their effect. Dropping the proposal is, of course, just what a large chunk of the Republican Party was hoping for all along. For those Republicans, deficits are a useful tool to beat back popular entitlement programs--a "starve the beast" strategy, in the words of Ronald Reagan’s budget director. Democrats in Congress, meanwhile, rail against the deficit, but they are still pushing for the prescription drug plan. Like the tax-cutters, they are simply building up to some sort of financial Armageddon like soaring interest rates or a collapsing dollar and hoping that blame will fall on the other party. Our answer is different. The people have to decide whether they want tax cuts or programs like the prescription drug plan. It’s true that the tax-cut radicals will win this round. But then we will have an election. How much will the prescription drug benefit cost per year
微信支付 
支付宝支付