Babies and Stuffitis: The Marketing Campaign to Empty Your Wallet. Part 1

In the duration of my pregnancy I had the good fortune to only enter a Babies R' Us store on two occasions. Both of them were in the same week and happened only because the furniture stores in our area did not have a very good selection of glider-rocking chairs. My parents had very generously offered to purchase one for us as it had become kind of a tradition in our family with each of my sisters receiving a glider from my parents before the birth of her first child. It was a lovely gift and one that we have been able to use more than we ever imagined! My mom and I had a good time choosing the glider- and even more fun getting the manager to give us a good deal on the last display model of a discontinued color. All of that said, however, I do not plan to set foot in one of those God-forsaken places again.

The ridiculousness that is Babies R' Us (or insert any big-box-baby-superstore here) can barely be described. Wall-to-wall shelves and aisles crammed full of the latest and greatest in baby gear, baby wear, baby feeding, baby travel, baby furniture and every thing else. You name it and they probably have at least 10 different options of essentially the same thing. A quick search for "travel system" indicated almost 20 different options available in-store and a separate search on the mega-store's website returned over 70 options for "convertible carseats"! Incredible! The choices seem almost infinite and are utterly staggering.

And that is the problem with entering the baby years. It's mind boggling, completely overwhelming and can easily get out-of-control-expensive. Marketing techniques convince new parents that they "need" the latest technology and would be irresponsible to attempt parenthood without it. (Watch a commercial for just about any baby product and this subtext will probably jump out at you now if it didn't before.) Even Amazon is on board with the "needs" of babyhood. They recently posted their editors picks for "Newborn Essentials: 10 Products You Probably Didn't Know You Needed" which lists items like a "White Noise Machine", a "Moses Basket", and swaddle blankets along with a convincing blurb describing why new parents will absolutely require the item.

Many soon-to-be and new parents look to seasoned parents for advice on which items to register for and purchase, but most of us also observe and respond to social norms and trends regarding raising baby. That is how we ended up with a crib, crib bedding set, crib mattress, and TWO of those waterproof crib mattress pads that the Amazon editors indicate as positively necessary, and that we have NEVER used. And probably never will.

As we prepared for the arrival of our daughter we began to collect the things we thought would be necessary and to prepare a room for her. Compared to some we didn't really buy too much stuff. We were much less convinced than most that we would need every available baby item in order to be adequately prepared. We also opted not to learn our baby's sex ahead of time and to wait to make certain purchases until after the baby arrived.

Well, it turns out that most of the items we did buy were really NOT necessary. Even the crib. Especially the crib, in our case, actually. It's too bad that we spent so much money on it too, since when I eventually Craigslist it we probably won't get much of it back!

The guilt-ridden marketing toward soon-to-be parents is deceptive and dishonest, at best. While there are SOME things that are certainly necessary, they don't even begin to add up to the thousands of dollars in baby merchandise that marketers try to convince parents they will need to succeed in bringing-up baby. Parents would be better off to purchase a few small things to get started and determine what they really need as they raise their baby. That would definitely free up some cash to start a college fund for that same kiddo.

There are several short and long term complications caused by this very successful marketing scheme that go beyond the ridiculous surplus of stuff in American homes. The first and most obvious is a shortage of cash in the short term - cash that might otherwise be used to begin a college fund, or allow a parent (or both parents) to stay home with their baby for awhile longer before returning to work. This critical time with baby can especially effect breastfeeding success, parent-child bonding and attachment. Another issue may be a decrease in birthrates due to the perceived cost of raising infants. (Likewise, the cost may very well get out of hand because of the materialistic nature of our culture. But that is a topic for another time.) Requiring so much stuff for the arrival of and first year of baby's life is also setting a standard for the rest of the baby's childhood and maybe their entire lives. More and more stuff leads to "stuffitis" which can ultimately lead to poor priorities and poor checkbooks in adulthood. Maybe this seems like a stretch for some but take an honest look around and see if you still think it's untrue.

This doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with having some fun and frivolous things for your baby, or that there is anything wrong with being prepared with silly, pretty, or cool baby stuff. It just means that parents should consider the short and long term gains of the things they buy, if they can really afford them or if that money would be better spent on something else that is of more value to their baby (time, college tuition, etc). It means that parents should not buy into the commercials and advertisements laced with guilt directed at them for not having the newest and- almost always - outrageously expensive piece of baby equipment available.

It is important for parents to consider their parenting style and how they plan to raise their child as they prepare for baby's arrival. Conversations about these things are of much more value than stuff, and can lead to important, and possibly money saving revelations about which items are necessities and which items are more frivolous.

Next: Babies and Stuffitis: The Marketing Campaign to Empty Your Wallet. Part 2 - Ignoring the Force-Fed Guilt to Determine What You Need!

The Simple(r) Life: Not Just For Paris?

A few months ago I read a story in Mothering magazine about a woman who converted a 40 foot long Blue Bird bus into a home for herself, her husband, and three daughters, aged seven years and younger. Their desire to live simply and eliminate debt from their lives led her to the decision to park the bus on a piece of property owned by a relative, complete a moderate renovation and move her family in. Their family's lifestyle became one of simplicity, careful consideration of resources, and cooking entire meals in only one pot using as much whole food as possible. My reaction to the article was a strange combination of shock, horror, respect, curiosity, and realization that perhaps there are other ways to live outside of rampant consumerism and the proverbial rat race.

Although I have always considered myself to be frugal in many areas of life and I am certainly a self proclaimed disciple of Amy Dacyczyn, author of The Tightwad Gazette, I have not really been as frugal as I could be. This is at least partially due to spending the last several years enjoying two incomes- sometimes frugality is the result of necessity as much as anything else.

Last fall, anticipating a change in our living situation and a transition to a single-income household, my husband and I participated in Dave Ramsey's Financial Peace University. Although we were familiar with many of Ramsey's concepts, the class gave us the opportunity to begin practicing the methods that will allow us to ultimately live debt-free. Ramsey's famous adage "Normal is broke be weird!" struck a proverbial chord with us and has allowed us to see how encumbered we had become by things and the stuff we were keeping around the house, and without realizing, had fallen into the habit of regularly accumulating more of.

We followed Ramsey's advice and began to sell off the "junk" we weren't using. Utilizing websites like Craigslist we listed (slowly at first) things that we had not used in the last 3 years...followed by things we hadn't used or looked at in 2 years....and as the stuff rolled out and the cash rolled in, our momentum increased and we accomplished an extensive liquidation of "stuff". In all fairness, I must admit my tendency to get carried away with projects like this and although my husband has had to reign me in a time or two (but the baby doesn't REALLY need her crib-she can sleep in the pack n play!) for the most part our purge has been pretty reasonable. We parted with old gaming systems, books, clothes, furniture we weren't using and were keeping "just in case" (in case of what, we have no idea, of course).

The benefits of this project have been pretty awesome and even a little bit surprising. We found space in our house that we didn't realize was there because it had been so crammed with stuff, accumulated a big chunk of cash, unloaded "things" that at some point we thought couldn't be lived without, and have gained an (odd) sense of fulfillment by dumping the "junk"!

Life and financial situations can be especially troubling when headlines abound with stories about the United States' consumer bust and what happens if the government can't agree on how to handle our tax dollars. In a world obsessed with owning things, in which the quality of one's life is judged by the ability to accumulate things and the way we are perceived by others is largely influenced by our possessions, it can be difficult to recognize how quickly objects and our pursuit of them, can encumber our happiness. Although I am not an advocate of a miserly existence or one that does not allow for some comforts and modern conveniences- I want new living room furniture as much as the next person!- I think that evaluating our want versus need scenario can do a great deal for our sense of satisfaction in life and help us feel at ease in a world of perpetual financial unrest.

Until rather recently, I have never really considered the uncluttered and simpler way of life that is part of modern-day minimalist living as something that was even remotely feasible for my family. And I'm not sure I can entirely embrace it now- but I know for certain that the Blue Bird bus family inspired me to re-evaluate what is really important for my family. With some help from Dave Ramsey, a sense of humor, and a huge amount of determination, our family is determined to live a less-cluttered and more fulfilling lifestyle.

“Our life is frittered away by detail ... simplify, simplify.”

Henry David Thoreau

No, No, No! It's Still About the Pages!

This weekend an opinion piece in the New York Times criticized modern book lovers for their attachment to books. Not the attachment to reading books, but rather the attachment to the physical objects and their aversion to the digitizing of centuries worth of published papers, records, and written items belonging to the famous, the brilliant, the rich, but mainly, the dead. (And largely the long dead.)

The author, James Gleick, begins by sharing a memory of the opportunity he had to personally examine the papers of Sir Isaac Newton. He describes the experience of touching and closely examining the very pages upon which Newton wrote his notes and ideas. Gleick relates to historians as he describes "the exhilaration that comes from handling the venerable original. It’s a contact high." He indicates that there was a distinct difference in physically examining the original papers rather than only the microfilm version. He notes specifically that he would never have known the diminutive and precise penmanship of Newton from the microfilm or that Newton began his text at both ends of his notebooks and worked toward the center.

After sharing this memory, which is sure to warm the hearts of readers, researchers, and historians, he halts abruptly and begins to chastise those who believe that these types of opportunities are nearing extinction because of projects that seek to make historic documents digital and available to anyone. He indicates that a recent project launched by Google and the British Library that will "digitize 40 million pages of books, pamphlets and periodicals dating to the French Revolution" and many similar projects, including one that recently that digitized a Bulgarian document dating from 1221 and the Swedish Rok runestone, which predates Leif Ericson, have provoked mixed feelings.

He argues that those who see this technological advancement as an affront to the art of research are simply caught up in the romance of touching or being near something hundred of years old. He indicates that while some believe that this technology devalues their own work and makes incredible and surprising discoveries impossible, he believes that online research can offer the same amount of "unexpected twists and turns of research" as traditional archival research.

Gleick asserts that opposition to this digitization is simply the notion that "what one loves about books is the grain of paper and the scent of glue." He charges the opponents to this progress with "sentimentalism" and "fetishization", faulting them for their love of the physical presence of books, manuscripts, and historic documents.

Although the piece is convincing enough, there is an incontrovertible difference between online research and digging through musty old papers. There is a difference between electronic words and the printed page. Although I own a Kindle (lovingly given to me by my husband two Christmases ago) and appreciate it for its convenience, especially while traveling, I have downloaded very few digital books (and those have been mostly free). When I want to read, I don't automatically grab my Kindle. I search through the shelves of books in my office (lovingly built by my husband) and search for one that I can pick up, hold on to, turn the pages, and inhale the faint scent of "book" from. When I want to do scholarly research, study, or work without interruption, my first choice of venue is not in front of a monitor, it is the library archives or my own office, surrounded by books that I love within arms reach.

Although I agree with Gleick that digitization of articles is an advancement in scholarship and will make some types of research simpler and more cost effective, I do not agree that it is going to allow for more amazing discoveries than non-digital research. I think that those who genuinely enjoy research and digging through piles of dusty papers and books, those who enjoy turning the pages and closely observing the intricacies of the pages and penmanship, are who will make discoveries in ancient works. Their zeal and zest cannot be matched by the online researcher and that is what will make the difference.

"I cannot live without books."
— Thomas Jefferson

Banning the Babies: Are Kiddos Going Out of Fashion?

Almost three weeks ago Malaysia Airlines announced that they have banned infants in first class on all of their Boeing 747-400 jets and intends to do the same for other flights as well. People all over the world have voiced their opinions ranging from relief and elation to outrage and chagrin.

Two similar stories highlighting an attitude of inconvenience toward children have made their way into the news just this week. Near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania a restaurant has banned all children under six years old due to complaints from retirement-age patrons that children were causing a "ruckus". ABC News reported that the establishment's owner announced to patrons that his restaurant was "not a place for young children" and customers had been disturbed during their meals "many, many times" by these kiddos.

The second story involves one mother's office dilemma. New York Times contributing writer Lisa Belkin shared a letter in which a mother described conflict in her workplace due to her breast pump. (Yes, her breast pump!) This mom stores her breast pump in a discreet black bag under her desk when she is not using it in the space allotted for pumping by her company. Her office mate happened to see a few empty bottles in the partially open bag under the desk one day and immediately filed an HR complaint. (This mom also notes that complaints were made when she stored the bag in the designated nursing area.)

These stories are disconcerting because they represent an attitude of inconvenience and annoyance toward children. I will admit that I have often felt annoyed by a screaming child at dinner or during travel, but I have not wished them to be banned. And I don't think most people do. At least, I hope not. Most people who have children are empathic to parents attempting to comfort an upset child. In my pre-motherhood years I often wondered why those parents didn't take their child home and put them to bed. Now I know that sometimes parents want to get out of the house too! Additionally, allowing children to accompany their parents on outings and social occasions teaches them appropriate behavior and how to conduct themselves in particular social settings.

When people fail to recognize the value of children, which includes acknowledging and respecting their needs, they are doing themselves and the children who need their patience and understanding a terrible injustice. There is inarguable evidence that breast milk is THE best nutrition for babies. Breastfeeding is the best way to give children the best possible start in life. It is troubling to think that there are those who are more concerned with how breastfeeding (and pumping, by extension) makes them feel than the invaluable nutrition it provides to babies.

The banning incidents also indicate that there is likely a problem in our society in addition to a lacking sense of empathy. Although children have been unruly, loud, and inconsolable at enormously inopportune moments since the beginning of time, perhaps today's parents are too passive in their response to these behaviors. I've noticed parents ignoring their toddler's screams in a restaurant and carrying on conversation as usual more often than I'd like to think about. I wonder on how many of those occasions the kiddo could have been soothed with a little bit of attention from his or her parents rather than left to entertain themselves.

The real questions these incidents raise are probably more disheartening than the events themselves:
Are infants and small children going out of fashion? Would people prefer not to be bothered with seeing or hearing them?
Or is our society becoming less and less tolerant of kiddos and there sometimes (and sometimes often!) unruly behavior?
Are parents and lacking discipline to blame for the bans against babies and small tots?
Are there really people who are not concerned with the general health and well being of the next generation?

A change in attitude toward infants, small children, and their needs will require a great deal of patience and understanding. People would do well to heed the words of a very wise man:

"A person's a person, no matter how small."

— Dr. Seuss (Horton Hears a Who!)

NEWS FLASH: Sex is For the Bedroom ONLY!

Recently an opinion piece appeared on the New York Times Sunday Review Opinion Pages asserting that today's generation of young women and mothers find sex to be passé and basically revolting. The author, Erica Jong, argues that the mothers who made the feminist revolution in the United States failed to pass along the ideals of feminism and free sex to their daughters, resulting in a generation that finds sexual satisfaction less and less motivating. Additionally, she argues that our culture shows "signs that sex has lost its frisson of freedom", possibly because sex and rampant sexuality are no longer restricted or taboo. The author also argues that young women today shun sex and sexuality and hold a "nostalgia for ’50s-era attitudes toward sexuality" and that young female writers are "obsessed with motherhood and monogamy" rather than sex.

Jong alleges that young women today find sex dangerous (which, coincidentally, seems to be in sharp contrast to her previous assertion that sex and passion are more desirable when forbidden). Rather than embrace their sexuality regardless of the consequences as a few women in a rather trashy (but wonderful) HBO sitcom-gone-cinema series did, today's young women refrain from sex, passion, and intimacy for a safer, sexless lifestyle (or at least a lifestyle of less passion).

Jong's worst offense in this piece though is her brazen statement that categorizes today's generation of young mom's as anti-sex and unwilling to be near their partners, let alone have sex with them. Her sweeping statement alleges that women would prefer to sleep with their children and turn their backs on their men as well as "wear one’s baby in a man-distancing sling and breast-feed at all hours so your mate knows your breasts don’t belong to him."

There are a few problems with her statement. First of all, Jong wrongly assumes that the bedroom is the only place for sex! Such thinking is quite archaic and really only points to her own disconnection with the younger generation she chastises in this piece. I'm pretty sure co-sleeping parents are utilizing other spaces in their homes for sex! I, for one, am proud to wear a t-shirt emblazoned with the phrase "co sleepers do it in the kitchen" - much to the dismay of my family.

Additionally, I can name at least a dozen places that are MUCH more fun for sex than the boring old bedroom! Seriously, who can't?

The author's comment regarding baby-wearing and breastfeeding only adds to the already significant evidence of her disconnect with women, families, and a generation younger than her. It's particularly interesting that she notes her idea that breastfeeding "at all hours" (baby-led breastfeeding) sends a message to one's mate that "(your) breasts don’t belong to him." It is particularly fascinating that an ardent feminist such as Jong would consider breasts something that should "belong" to one's mate. Ponder that for awhile.

Jong's statements were really nothing less than a vilification of a parenting style that she, in addition to the concept of sex outside of the bedroom, clearly does not understand. Her comments have little to do with sex and certainly very little relevance to this generation. It is unfortunate that she has used her celebrity and status to berate young parents, and especially young moms, since she seems to have very little knowledge of the parenting styles she tries to reprimand. Perhaps Jong should focus her future opinion pieces on something she has a little bit more knowledge about or, at the very least, enough connection with to adequately compose a few pertinent thoughts.

Home-Birth IS Normal Birth!

Every time I see an article or other journalistic piece highlighting home-birth and birth options I get very excited. It's an awesome way for women who might otherwise never have known that the option of home-birth was available to them to learn more about it and start to investigate their options!

A recent article that appeared on The Washington Post website was one of these stories. The piece highlights home-birth as an increasingly popular option for women, despite disagreement from the medical establishment regarding it's safety. (A topic that deserves chapters worth of posts all on it's own.) The piece indicates that many women have had unsatisfying birth experiences and interventions in the hospital- some even traumatic - and these women are some of those leading this birth-space revolution. The article highlights some terminology and facts about home-birth including lay midwives, some statistics regarding the safety of and overall numbers about home-birth. Overall, the article provides very basic information about this particular option.

It seems to fall short though when it comes to describing stereotypes surrounding the movement toward birth options. Th author uses quotes from home-birthing moms including this one, which portrays those involved in and choosing this option as mostly fringe: “It was never on my radar, until we couldn’t afford otherwise,” she said. “I’m granola, but not that granola.” and this piece of the quote which makes home birth seem like just a cheap alternative: "It cost us $3,300, as opposed to over $10,000 in a hospital." It is also interesting that the author chooses to highlight where her interviewee gave birth, rather than comments about her labor and overall birth experience: “They were both born over the toilet,” she said. “It was a nice position. It’s a way that we’re used to pushing.” (article of origin here) Although the author seems be trying to portray the normalization of home-birth in the United States, her use of these quotes could cause some readers to feel appalled by it rather than see the beauty of it for moms, babies, and families.

To the author's credibility though, she does cite the study published in the British Medical Journal in 2005 which gives very strong evidence of the safety and positive outcome of home-birth in the U.S. and Canada.

This is a great article with some very valuable information and kind of a jumping off point for moms (and dads!) interested in researching this their own birth options. It would be neat to see one like this though that does not add journalistic flair through particular sections of quotes. There is a long way to go to normalizing home-birth in the United States, and changing attitudes, educating moms and families, and eliminating stereotypes (“I’m granola, but not that granola.") are all part of the process. One out of three for this article isn't too bad.

Feed That Baby!

This is a super cool idea! A breastfeeding awareness VEHICLE that can be called on to rescue nursing mothers who are asked to leave public places while feeding their babies! It's kind of like the bat mobile for Moms and nurslings!

This type of awareness activity is so important in our culture where nursing mothers are often discouraged from breastfeeding by negative reactions of friends, family, and strangers. There is no argument that breastfeeding IS the best nutrition for EVERY baby and as a society ours needs to step up and be supportive of moms who choose to give this invaluable gift to their children. This breastfeeding awareness truck, although somewhat bold for me, is a positive step in the education of the general public and a step toward making public breastfeeding completely acceptable- as it should be!

While legislation in several states allow moms to nurse their babies publicly (with appropriate discretion such as nursing shawls and drapes, obviously), there are still some states in which there is no legislation and nursing moms have little or no LEGAL right to argue with an establishment when they are asked to leave. (You can find the laws for your state here or here.)

The best part about this idea is that it's creator, Jill Miller, is using kickstarter.com to fund her project. This means that anyone can donate to the campaign to help increase breastfeeding awareness. Contributions are happily accepted in any amount from $1 to more that $750 with incentives and gifts for your donation. (And, if for any reason, the project is not fully funded you get your money back!)

Be sure to check out this project and whether you contribute or not, try to encourage a nursing mom you know. It will mean more than you can imagine--and encouragement for nursing moms means more successful breastfeeding and better nutrition for babies!

American's Are Fat - But Is Anyone Really Surprised?

Reuters reported today that Americans are fatter this year than they were last year. While this does not seem surprising, it did make me wonder what additional factors could have influenced the increase in obese Americans. The article indicated that organizations such as the The Center for Science in the Public Interest (who sued McDonald's last year) and the American Academy of Pediatrics believe that marketing fast food and large portions to children to be a large part of the problem. That's too easy. It's so cliche, really, to just blame it on big business. The root of the childhood obesity epidemic in this country are much smaller targets- parents.

It is the responsibility of parents to monitor what their children are eating. The duty does not lie with the education system, Sunday school teachers, and least of all, McDonald's. It is the parent(s) who drive(s) the child to the fast food chain and allows him/her to consume the contents of a Happy Meal. And by the way, McDonald's isn't just giving those Happy Meals away- parents are paying for them! And paying well; in some places the cost of these meals has reached nearly $4.

Blaming McDonald's and the Happy Meal only touches part of the problem though. What about adult obesity? The Reuters article also indicates that two-thirds of American adults are obese (compared to one-third of American children). The Happy Meals and brilliant toy marketing can't be to blame for this too. Maybe adults are fat because they are lazy and inactive. Or perhaps is it because they have no self control and eat anything in front of them. It could be because they don't understand the principles of good nutrition and how to eat well. It's actually probably a combination of these things but perhaps it also has something to do with the cost of healthier foods.

It's a well-known fact that eating healthy and fresh (and especially organic) foods costs more (and sometimes a great deal more) than eating prepackaged or prepared foods. Perhaps the recession and housing market are also culprits of this epidemic. If families are having a difficult time paying for shelter then their grocery budget is probably also suffering. Clearly, this does not apply to the parents who feed over-sized kids meals with large price-tags to their children, but perhaps it is a piece of the equation.

Jeff Levi, executive director of the Trust for America's Health, said that "If we're going to reverse the obesity trends, willpower alone won't do it. We're going to have to make healthier choices easier for Americans," (click here for article of origin). Levi seems to think that it is up to someone other than the individual to help solve this problem. This article does not elaborate on how he plans to make these choices easier, but until American's are faced with and realize the truth, that there weight is their choice and responsibility, there probably isn't going to be much change in the statistics of American obesity. Personal responsibility for life, health, activity, and food choices are the answer to this problem.

The Beginning

For years I have considered blogging. I have found ample reason to procrastinate and push the thought out of my mind including the innumerable number of blogs I have read that include the details of days worth of mundane life, the description of meals, and other random and completely useless information. But today I have determined that I must have a blog. I am obligated to admit that my ultimate goal is selfish. I aim to improve my own writing skills through expression of my ideas, concerns, gripes, and musings with those who might find the time to read them and perhaps even offer me musings of their own. I do promise to never bore readers with recitation of my days, or details of my breakfast cereal. I hope to infuse my blogs with my own sarcastic and occasionally sick sense of humor. Although I find myself terribly witty, for some reason some people don’t always quite catch my fantastic sense of humor. This is the story of my life in a proverbial nutshell. ;)

I’ve decided to write this blog to review books that I've read. Too often I've picked up a book in the bookstore or a book online only to return home, read it cover to cover and wish only to have all of those hours of my life back. I know others struggle with this frustration and I hope that my reviews can help a few people find good books that are interesting to read and well worth the time and effort!