Gender-specific dress for babies
Stephen Sorensen
My wife and I are currently at odds about how to dress our baby girl
Ingrid. We've gotten lots of frilly and non-frilly clothes from friends
and relatives. My wife and I agree that the frilly stuff goes to Goodwill.
However, we can't agree on whether Ingrid should wear dresses. My view is
that putting dresses on her would be the start of gender stereotyping.
More specifically, it would seem to discourage a certain kind of play
(e.g., stuff in the dirt) and encourage play like tea parties and house.
It's not that I want her to be a boy; I just don't want to limit her
opportunities. I would appreciate hearing about any of your experiences.
Thanks!
Stephen Sorensen
sore...@leland.stanford.edu
Danie
In article <sorenses-1...@ev-97-lr103a.stanford.edu>,
sore...@leland.stanford.edu says...
> My wife and I are currently at odds about how to dress our baby girl
> Ingrid. We've gotten lots of frilly and non-frilly clothes from friends
> and relatives. My wife and I agree that the frilly stuff goes to Goodwill.
> However, we can't agree on whether Ingrid should wear dresses. My view is
> that putting dresses on her would be the start of gender stereotyping.
I don't know. Maybe a better question than "Should my baby girl wear
dresses" is "Why shouldn't baby boys wear them"? I guess I don't think
dresses should be cut out for everyone just because boys don't
traditionally wear them.
As for discouraging play, you kind of have a point. Babies can't crawl
well in dresses. As a stander and a walker myself, tho, I find dresses
and skirts more comfortable than pants.
Danie
--
Mother's Nature
Items for pregnancy, nursing, and new parenthood!
http://www.babyholder.com
Annette Marcucilli
>Stephen Sorensen wrote:
>
> My wife and I are currently at odds about how to dress our baby girl
> Ingrid. We've gotten lots of frilly and non-frilly clothes from friends
> and relatives. My wife and I agree that the frilly stuff goes to Goodwill.
> However, we can't agree on whether Ingrid should wear dresses. My view is
> that putting dresses on her would be the start of gender stereotyping.
Hmmmmm. Not so sure whether it's gender *stereotyping* or gender
*identification*.... my own daughter (now 20) has always been extremely
(I'm going to be politically correct here) assertive (we called it
"bossy" <G>), and was quite the tomboy, dressing mostly in overalls
(OshKosh, etc.), but occasionally wore dresses (she chose, depending on
how she felt she wanted to dress)....learned that wearing a dress to
Grandma's house on Thanksgiving was more likely to get her more
attention...and subsequently (she swears this is true...) better
Christmas presents. (Gasp. What a little conniver I've raised....)
She now dresses for her courthouse job in everything from coveralls to
hippie dresses to some pretty sexy looking little frocks.... depends on
how she feels on any given day.
> More specifically, it would seem to discourage a certain kind of play
> (e.g., stuff in the dirt) and encourage play like tea parties and house.
> It's not that I want her to be a boy; I just don't want to limit her
> opportunities. I would appreciate hearing about any of your experiences.
You could keep some dresses, but also have plenty of outside play
clothes, and let her grow up knowing the difference...that when she
plays in the dirt, she wears appropriate clothes for it. Then, if she's
given ample opportunity to play in dirt, she'll end up just as
un-domestic as my daughter is ! (And will need to find a spouse who
won't mind doing all the cooking and cleaning...or can afford paid help
for these....) <G>. Sooner or later, she'll find there are times that
it's actually to her advantage to be a girl, but that doesn't limit her
career choices or activities.
This is not inconsistent with the way you probably dress (not that I
envision you in frocks, Stephen...) -- you may have one sort of clothing
for going to work, another for special occasions, and grunge clothes for
just hanging around or cleaning the garage. She could easily learn that
sort of difference without ending up associating it with gender.
Annette :)
Marion Baumgarten
Stephen Sorensen <sore...@leland.stanford.edu> wrote:
> My wife and I are currently at odds about how to dress our baby girl
> Ingrid. We've gotten lots of frilly and non-frilly clothes from friends
> and relatives. My wife and I agree that the frilly stuff goes to Goodwill.
> However, we can't agree on whether Ingrid should wear dresses.
Well, I'll be honest. Your friends relatives presumably gave your child
these clothes because they love you and your daughter. It's prety
insulting IMHO to summarily gives gifts that were given in love to
Goodwill. If you want to start off your daughter's life my alienating
your extended family, well that's your right.
Also, I can tell you from experience that you can get very dirty in a
dress. I will also tell you that about 90% of all three year old girls
go through a I love Barbie and anything pink phase and want to wear
dresses all the time. My advice is to put up with it.
--
Marion Betor Baumgarten- Mother to die Wunderkinder
-Martha (9) Peter (6) and Robbie (1)
Vanessa Buchthal
Stephen Sorensen wrote:
>
> we can't agree on whether Ingrid should wear dresses. My view is
> that putting dresses on her would be the start of gender stereotyping.
> (e.g., stuff in the dirt) and encourage play like tea parties and house.
> It's not that I want her to be a boy; I just don't want to limit her
> opportunities.
Hey, from another mother of a girl (now nearly 2) who didn't want to
stereotype or limit her daughter in any way...
don't be quite so quick to dismiss (nonfrilly) dresses. Sheesh, the parents
of little boys don't know what they're missing ;) As long as you stick to
simple, stretchy cotton dresses that aren't too long, dresses can be great.
They *are* limiting for crawlers, and that's the time period (say 8-13
months or so) when I eliminated them from the wardrobe.
But there's *nuthin* like the ease of changing a younger baby who's wearing
a dress. No struggling to get her into the dress, it just pops over the
head. No struggling with undoing & doing snaps, you just flip up the hem
and whip off the diaper.
This is especially handy when they get older (able/insistent on standing
during diaper changes) and you're in a place that doesn't have a changing
table or a really sheltered, private place to change her diaper. You'd be
amazed at how quickly I can whip a diaper on and off underneath a loose
dress, without passerby's getting so much as a peek-a-boo at what is going
on. It's particularly handy when you're traveling.
Dresses are also proving more convenient right now, when she's in the throes
of toddler independence, and either wants to dress herself, or is going to
put up a royal battle if you try to dress her. Dresses pop over the head
*really* quickly, then I can get her to put her arms through and she's done.
Muuuuuch easier than trying to persuade her to don playpants and a
sweatshirt, or to struggle her into overalls. (We put heavy cotton leggings
on underneath in the winter, for some reason she doesn't object to that
process as much as she does to things with buttons & diaper changing snaps).
Guys just don't know what they're missing! <grin>
--Vanessa
(and Emma, my 22-month-old engineer, who tried to put together an entire
bookcase from Ikea *by herself* the other day -- the screws were MINE!, the
allen wrench was MINE!, the panels were MINE! and once Mommy fitted the
panels together, she actually managed to fit the screws into the predrilled
holes, fit the allen wrench into the screwheads, and screw them down a few
turns. What a kid :) )
Karen Carson
We found dresses weren't really practical at all until Rebecca could walk.
She usually only wears them on special occasions or on days when she insists
she is going to wear a dress. I think that eventually they decide what they
want to wear despite what you put them in. I think that you can get yourself
into knots alot worrying about what kids are going to wear and it's not
worth it. One little boy went to preschool not too long ago in what can only
be described as an array of clothing which he absolutely insisted on wearing
(aged about 3) which included his mummy's strappy, gold shoes!
Karen
Mum to Rebecca 2.5 yo and Samuel 1yo
Laura
How old is she? In general I would say that if your family is
casual in dress, I see no reason to put the baby in dresses, if you
tend to go places dressed up, I think it would be nice.
As for gender stereotyping. It's not up to you! It will happen
when your daughter decides all she wants is dresses or all she wants
is jeans and shorts. A friend of mine, she and her spouse are the
most laid back casual folks, have a small gentlemen's farm, horses.
Her little girl at 4 announced "I only want to wear dresses from now
on" . From that day on she would refuse to wear pants, and the
frillier the dress the better. They have NO idea where she came up
with this.
Also, see thread another thread on this group: The Difference
Between Boys & Girls - In a Nutshell. It's not up to you - it will
happen when your daughter decides!
--
Laura
to respond remove "not" and "here" - notl...@herenetexp.net
Stephen Sorensen <sore...@leland.stanford.edu> wrote in article
<sorenses-1...@ev-97-lr103a.stanford.edu>...
> My wife and I are currently at odds about how to dress our baby
girl
> Ingrid. We've gotten lots of frilly and non-frilly clothes from
friends
> and relatives. My wife and I agree that the frilly stuff goes to
Goodwill.
> However, we can't agree on whether Ingrid should wear dresses.
My view is
> that putting dresses on her would be the start of gender
stereotyping.
> More specifically, it would seem to discourage a certain kind of
play
> (e.g., stuff in the dirt) and encourage play like tea parties and
house.
> It's not that I want her to be a boy; I just don't want to limit
her
> opportunities. I would appreciate hearing about any of your
experiences.
>
> Thanks!
> Stephen Sorensen
> sore...@leland.stanford.edu
>
Catherine
Stephen Sorensen wrote:
>
> My wife and I are currently at odds about how to dress our baby girl
> Ingrid. We've gotten lots of frilly and non-frilly clothes from friends
> and relatives. My wife and I agree that the frilly stuff goes to Goodwill.
> However, we can't agree on whether Ingrid should wear dresses. My view is
> that putting dresses on her would be the start of gender stereotyping.
> More specifically, it would seem to discourage a certain kind of play
> (e.g., stuff in the dirt) and encourage play like tea parties and house.
> It's not that I want her to be a boy; I just don't want to limit her
> opportunities. I would appreciate hearing about any of your experiences.
>
> Thanks!
> Stephen Sorensen
I wouldn't worry about it too much one way or the other. WHen our
daughter was born (she's 17 mos old now), I, too, tucked away the
frillies and dressed her in blues, purples, and tie-dye -- no dresses
(for practicality than anything else -- kids with no necks who can't sit
up look pretty silly in dresses!). If she lived in a vaccuum, maybe
we'd be able to avoid the "stereotyping" -- and maybe not. She'd never
had a doll until she went to visit relatives in Ohio when she was a year
old -- within _seconds_ (literally!), she'd found a cousin's baby doll
and was hugging and rocking it. So much for all my efforts! The fact
is that your girl is going to be who she's going to be -- whether a
tom-boy or a tea-party hostess -- my advice would be to give her options
and let her be who she's going to be. Dress her however you like --
she'll figure out what your preferences are soon enough (our 17 mo old
Emma already has us figured out!) and then do whatever she wants to do!
just my $.02. . . .
Catherine.
Lauria Blackwell
Here's a quick tip for how to get dirty in a dress. Wear shorts under
it! At a certain age (4?), Robyn loooooooved to wear dresses, but felt
limited in them because she feared the boys would see her underwear.
So she started wearing shorts under her dresses and felt much more
able to get completely filthy and tangled by rolling, crawling, or
hanging upside down, while still maintaining her oh-so-important
femininity. :-)
I think it might actually lead to stereotyping to DENY your daughter
dresses. She IS going to see women in dresses, and she IS going to
associate women and dresses together. If you have a negative attitude
toward dresses, is she going to think that all the dress-wearing women
she sees around her are somehow bad or silly? Is she going to think that
the dress-wearing segment of the population is somehow inferior? After
all, you probably want her to identify positively with herself and her
femininity and with her gender, while still feeling able to express
herself however she feels comfortable with. So, if she wants dresses,
I'd say let her wear them, give HER the right to choose what she wants
to wear, I'm sure she'll let you know her choices!!!
In article <sorenses-1...@ev-97-lr103a.stanford.edu>,
sore...@leland.stanford.edu (Stephen Sorensen) writes:
> My wife and I are currently at odds about how to dress our baby girl
> Ingrid. We've gotten lots of frilly and non-frilly clothes from friends
> and relatives. My wife and I agree that the frilly stuff goes to Goodwill.
> However, we can't agree on whether Ingrid should wear dresses. My view is
> that putting dresses on her would be the start of gender stereotyping.
> More specifically, it would seem to discourage a certain kind of play
> (e.g., stuff in the dirt) and encourage play like tea parties and house.
> It's not that I want her to be a boy; I just don't want to limit her
> opportunities. I would appreciate hearing about any of your experiences.
>
> Thanks!
> Stephen Sorensen
--
---------------------------------------------------
/ _ o _ Lauria Blackwell
/_ (_/ /_/ /~ / (_/ (Lau...@erato.usask.ca)
---------------------------------------------------
naomi pardue
Stephen Sorensen (sore...@leland.stanford.edu) wrote:
> My wife and I are currently at odds about how to dress our baby girl
> Ingrid. We've gotten lots of frilly and non-frilly clothes from friends
> and relatives. My wife and I agree that the frilly stuff goes to Goodwill.
> However, we can't agree on whether Ingrid should wear dresses. My view is
> that putting dresses on her would be the start of gender stereotyping.
> More specifically, it would seem to discourage a certain kind of play
> (e.g., stuff in the dirt) and encourage play like tea parties and house.
> It's not that I want her to be a boy; I just don't want to limit her
> opportunities. I would appreciate hearing about any of your experiences.
Shaina has always worn a variety of outfits. Frilly dresses were/are
mostly reserved for pictures and parties, but she has always worn 'play'
dresses (which, in smaller sizes usually include some sort of bloomers so
she could play inthem more easily) part of the time. She also wore
'gender neutral' rompers, pants and shirts, etc.
I'm not sure how dresses discourage playing in the dirt? If it's ok to
get jeans and a tee shirt dirty, why should it be a problem to get a
casual dress dirty? (And, as noted above, the bloomers/panties that
usually come with toddler size dresses allow plenty of freedom of
movement without worrying about modesty issues. [They are also
breathtakingly cute...] As long as we're not talking about dry-clean only
velvet party dresses from "Storybook Originals", what's the problem?
Now, at age 6, Shaina goes through stages where she wants to wear dresses
to school every day ... and other stages where she will go weeks without
touching one.
Naomi
BarbLuongo
In article <sorenses-1...@ev-97-lr103a.stanford.edu>,
sore...@leland.stanford.edu (Stephen Sorensen) writes:
>My wife and I are currently at odds about how to dress our baby girl
>Ingrid. We've gotten lots of frilly and non-frilly clothes from friends
>and relatives. My wife and I agree that the frilly stuff goes to Goodwill.
>However, we can't agree on whether Ingrid should wear dresses. My
>view is that putting dresses on her would be the start of gender stereotyping.
Do you mean for formal occaisions, or everyday? As a child I hated
wearing dresses, but girls had no choice back then. My daughters both
prefer dresses for the most part. They like blue, so they wear blue
dresses. I don't restrict when or how they wear them, never tell them
that they "must act like a lady" in dresses, so they get very well worn,
and destroyed easily.
Life is for living, and they are only kids once.
<---Barb (barbl...@aol.com)--->
Mom to Will (9-23-82), Mary (10-8-85) & Laury (2-23-93)
BarbLuongo
In article <01bd1fc5$55f6d4e0$9645b6cd@fenzljl>, "Laura" <la...@seesig.net>
writes:
>As for gender stereotyping. It's not up to you! It will happen
>when your daughter decides all she wants is dresses or all she
>wants is jeans and shorts.
I think it is. It depends on 2 things: the child's unique personality (not
the gender) and what kinds of things you like. Neither of my daughters
were exposed to pink, neither like pink. Both have been given every
opportunity to play ball, climb trees, and be people, and they are
NONE of those gender stereotypes has fit any of my kids - they are
too busy being unique to fit into little niches defined by society.
> A friend of mine, she and her spouse are the
>most laid back casual folks, have a small gentlemen's farm,
>horses. Her little girl at 4 announced "I only want to wear dresses
>from now on" .
My daughter Laury started pre-k in September. Every day we asked her
what she wanted to wear the next day, and she always said "How about
a dress?" as though it was an original thought. I made sure that she had
enough blue dresses, tights and nice shoes.
A few weeks later, the teacher aide asked me if she had any play
clothes, all she ever wore were dresses, and they liked to get messy. I
told her it was fine with me, but all she wanted to wear was dresses, and
that is what her sister wanted at that age too.
We finally convinced Laury to wear pants most of the time. She doesn't
really like it, but will go along with us. It's a phase. It happens, it goes.
"General Notions are generally wrong." Lady Mary Wortley Montagu
BarbLuongo
In article <69eohg$2k4$1...@tribune.usask.ca>, lau...@erato.usask.ca (Lauria
Blackwell) writes:
>So, if she wants dresses,
>I'd say let her wear them, give HER the right to
>choose what she wants
>to wear, I'm sure she'll let you know her choices!!!
She's a BABY. At this point she can't choose! That's why he's
asking! :)
Barb
>In article <sorenses-1...@ev-97-lr103a.stanford.edu>,
sore...@leland.stanford.edu
>(Stephen Sorensen) writes:
> My wife and I are currently at odds about how to
>dress our baby girl Ingrid.
Josephine Georgakopoulos >
Stephen Sorensen wrote:
> However, we can't agree on whether Ingrid should wear dresses. My view is
> that putting dresses on her would be the start of gender stereotyping.
> More specifically, it would seem to discourage a certain kind of play
> (e.g., stuff in the dirt) and encourage play like tea parties and house.
> It's not that I want her to be a boy; I just don't want to limit her
> opportunities. I would appreciate hearing about any of your experiences.
Don't you think that forbidding dresses (or tea-parties, or dolls...)
is also a kind of reverse gender stereotyping? You don't have to push
the frilly little girl image all the time, but teaching her that "girl"
stuff is bad doesn't strike me as very desirable. Don't you want her to
play house AS WELL as climbing trees? She can wear different clothes for
different things, same as grown-ups - and she can get very, very dirty
in a dress, my daughter does! What we've tried to do is provide
opportunities for both "boy" and "girl" activities; at three and a half,
her current favorites are books, cars, legos, and toy animals. And she
demands dresses about 80% of the time, at a certain age they are very
vocal about what they want to wear (it seems that dresses are nicer for
dancing in...:)). She will also climb anything she can regardless of
what she's wearing. FWIW, in the recent "house" stage she wore overalls
almost all the time (I got to choose in those days...).
For myself, I won't even discourage frills if my daughter asks for them
(coming soon, no doubt); after all, looking feminine is part of the
opportunities I don't want to limit, I just don't want her to think that
she has to decide between that and rocket science!
Jo
Elizabeth Gardner
In article <sorenses-1...@ev-97-lr103a.stanford.edu>,
sore...@leland.stanford.edu (Stephen Sorensen) wrote:
> My wife and I are currently at odds about how to dress our baby girl
> Ingrid. We've gotten lots of frilly and non-frilly clothes from friends
> and relatives. My wife and I agree that the frilly stuff goes to Goodwill.
> However, we can't agree on whether Ingrid should wear dresses. My view is
> that putting dresses on her would be the start of gender stereotyping.
> More specifically, it would seem to discourage a certain kind of play
> (e.g., stuff in the dirt) and encourage play like tea parties and house.
> It's not that I want her to be a boy; I just don't want to limit her
> opportunities. I would appreciate hearing about any of your experiences.
>
We started out wanting our little girl (now 2) to wear only unisex things,
too, but soon found it impractical. The problem is that there's really no
such thing, once you get beyond sweats. Little girls' clothes are styled
differently, even if it's only a little bow on a tee shirt. Little boys'
clothes are almost invariably extremely, aggressively butch--navy blues,
dark reds, and a lot of truck appliques. So you're generally faced with
three choices: a feminine look, a masculine look, or a lot of sweatsuits.
I would say the real division starts at about the 6 month size, and gets
worse in the larger sizes. Fortunately, pink shorts with a bow, or Osh
Kosh overalls with a pink label rather than a blue one, are perfectly
appropriate for the dirt.
I think there's a difference between gender recognition and gender
stereotyping. The first is inevitable--absolutely the first thing you
notice about a person is whether they're male or female, and if you really
can't tell, it's a source of extreme discomfort. (The basis of the old
"Pat" skits on Saturday Night Live.) If you cut a little girl's hair
really short, she'll look like a little boy, not some non-gendered being.
A girl in a "unisex" outfit will _always_ be assumed to be a boy (unless
she has long, flowing ringlets, which she probably doesn't if her folks are
shooting for a non-girly look), and I personally don't think that's
particularly healthy if you're trying to foster a positive self-image and
female identity. That's why I haven't gone out of my way to avoid frills
and flowers on playsuits. (I don't buy them new in a store, but if I see
good quality ones secondhand, or someone gives us one, that's great.)
If you only put her in dresses, and only buy her dolls, that's gender
stereotyping. If you refuse to put her in dresses and refuse to buy her
dolls, that's negative gender stereotyping--saying that all feminine things
are bad. She'll pick up on that.
And don't be so quick to dump the frilly stuff. A little girl in a frilly
outfit is extraordinarily cute and melts the hearts of all around her.
Missing such a nice sight because of fear of femininity would be too bad.
Just make sure the frilly dresses are comfortable and easy to move around
in. That's the most important consideration for any piece of clothing.
For what it's worth, our little girl became devoted to her dollies early on
(and is an excellent mother to them), but also likes trains, blocks and the
computer.
AnOler
>We started out wanting our little girl (now 2) to wear only unisex things,
>too, but soon found it impractical. The problem is that there's really no
>such thing, once you get beyond sweats.
Try Hanna Anderson, Lands Ends, the Gap, or if you are really brave(and have an
extra *second* of time), try making clothes. We find that cords and overalls
are perfect. Sweaters make great *neutral* tops as do Gap turtlenecks.
Annette Marcucilli
> --Vanessa
> (and Emma, my 22-month-old engineer, who tried to put together an entire
> bookcase from Ikea *by herself* the other day -- the screws were MINE!, the
> allen wrench was MINE!, the panels were MINE! and once Mommy fitted the
> panels together, she actually managed to fit the screws into the predrilled
> holes, fit the allen wrench into the screwheads, and screw them down a few
> turns. What a kid :) )
.... Sounds like I could have used Emma's help in assembling my
"Stauder" pre-drilled unassembled entertainment center....
Annette :)
Annette Marcucilli
Jill, I want you to know my eyes are watering, just trying to visualize
that combination. Should I run across your daughter in that outfit,
there's a good chance I'll be struck blind.
Thanks a lot. ;)
Annette :)
>Jill Moore wrote:
> otherwise, she'll be free to wear a pink
> lacy shirt, green plaid flannel pants, red socks and her black patent
> leather shoes, if that's what she wants.
>
> Jill (mom to Helen, 1/25/96)
Elizabeth Gardner
In article <19980113171...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, ano...@aol.com
(AnOler) wrote:
They all make great clothes, but for the most part they're (however subtly)
styled for either girls or boys. I remember going to exchange a onesie
that someone had gotten at BabyGap that was the wrong size. They didn't
have the right size in that style, so I got one with blue and white stripes
instead. But it had no bow, and the typeface on the "BabyGap" label on the
sleeve was kind of a macho Roman boldface, rather than the cursive that the
girls' clothes had. And the cut of the neckline was higher. She did
actually look a bit butch when she wore it all by itself, and people told
us what a nice little boy we had, even though she had these cute little
curls in the back and was usually clutching her dolly to her side.
Alison D.
Stephen Sorensen wrote:
>
> However, we can't agree on whether Ingrid should wear dresses. My view is
> that putting dresses on her would be the start of gender stereotyping.
I think saying that she can't wear dresses would be limiting her options
just as much as saying she can only wear dresses would be. I think girls
are lucky because they have *more* choices about what to wear than boys
do!
--
Alison D.
a...@sprynet.com
Lauria Blackwell
In article <19980113155...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
barbl...@aol.com (BarbLuongo) writes:
> In article <69eohg$2k4$1...@tribune.usask.ca>, lau...@erato.usask.ca (Lauria
> Blackwell) writes:
>
>>So, if she wants dresses,
>>I'd say let her wear them, give HER the right to
>>choose what she wants
>>to wear, I'm sure she'll let you know her choices!!!
>
>
> She's a BABY. At this point she can't choose! That's why he's
> asking! :)
>
> Barb
>
her in potato sacks and bow ties and she'd never know the difference
(although she might get some funny looks)!!
I think the poster was probably asking a kind of future-planning question,
since he mentioned tea parties and playing in the dirt - not typical
baby activities.
Shannon Stelly Cavell
Jill Moore wrote:
> She hasn't yet started expressing clothing preferences, but I'm sure she
> will soon enough. When she does, I plan to accede to her requests for an
> all-pink wardrobe or whatever. I'm a true believer in picking my battles
> -- my rules will be related to things like safety (i.e., wearing shoes)
> and protection from the elements; otherwise, she'll be free to wear a pink
> lacy shirt, green plaid flannel pants, red socks and her black patent
> leather shoes, if that's what she wants.
>
Hehe. And when she's a teenager, she'll be mortified that you LET her
dress like that :-) At least I was. My mom always let me pick my own
clothes, once I was old enough to care. Looking back at old pics, I
must confess, I did not have the keenest fashion sense at age 5 or 6.
My favorite shorts (and as it was Louisiana, I wore shorts a lot) were
red adn green plaid (OK, it was the 70's). My favorite shirt was
purple. If they were both clean, I wore them together. Yikes!
Shannon
TheDesos
How it works in our household - whoever dresses our son gets to choose.
Sarah
Stephen Sorensen <sore...@leland.stanford.edu> wrote in article
<sorenses-1...@ev-97-lr103a.stanford.edu>...
Allison Wolf
In article <sorenses-1...@ev-97-lr103a.stanford.edu>,
Stephen Sorensen <sore...@leland.stanford.edu> wrote:
>My wife and I are currently at odds about how to dress our baby girl
>and relatives. My wife and I agree that the frilly stuff goes to Goodwill.
>that putting dresses on her would be the start of gender stereotyping.
>(e.g., stuff in the dirt) and encourage play like tea parties and house.
>It's not that I want her to be a boy; I just don't want to limit her
>opportunities. I would appreciate hearing about any of your experiences.
While I'm sure your intentions are good, I wouldn't necessarily dump the
dresses completely. If you want to stick with more casual things, that's
great. Be aware, though, that many of those people who sent frilly
dresses are likely to give your girl gifts such as pink kitchens, tea
sets, and Barbie dolls in the future, and that you're going to have to
deal with it at some point.
I don't see much of a problem with non-frilly dresses -- believe me, you
can get plenty dirty in dresses (as my mom can bear witness to). I used
to make mud pies, build forts, and climb trees in my dresses, which
usually ended with mom being a little upset. For the most part I wore
them only for more formal occasions.
If you're worried about the underwear issue, stick a pair of shorts
under the dress. No problem.
--
Allison Wolf,
allison*at*mathcs*dot*emory*dot*edu
Emory University, Atlanta, GA
Elizabeth Gardner
My original plan about this was to have only clothes that sorta kinda go
together, so that my daughter will not be a walking fashion don't when
she's ready to pick her own outfits. I still think it might be possible,
but I have to get the grandmas in on the plan. It's not what _I_ buy--it's
what comes in from other sources that's the problem.
Lori L. Grzybowski
Weellll, I see where the original poster is coming from
(dresses as the beginning of stereotyping/gender role
issues) but...
Seems to me that what gender-role stereotyping and
cultural expectations are based on is limiting options.
(Girls *don't* play with trucks. Boys *don't* play with
dolls. Girls *shouldn't* get dirty. Boys *shouldn't* cry.)
By ruling out all dresses, wouldn't you be just as guilty of
limiting options? Remember, dresses can be more comfortable
than pants, depending on the style, and if the parent isn't
warning, "Don't get that beautiful dress dirty," the child
should feel just as free to stomp through puddles.
And by passing them on to Goodwill, wouldn't you be saying,
in effect, "No stereotyping for *my* child, thank you very
much, but certainly if *you* want to make your child into
a dressy little plaything who will grow up to think of
herself as nothing more than a sex object, it's OK by
me?" :)
Ideologically and practically speaking, I'd keep the frilly
dresses to keep goodwill (pun intended) among family/friends
who gave them (though I wouldn't dress my child -- boy or
girl -- in anything uncomfortable, be it rough denim,
or scrachy lace or clothes with too-stiff care tags...) and
wear them occasionally. I'd feel free to buy a few dresses,
according to taste and washability, along with the playsuits,
pants, shorts and overalls, bought according to the same
standards.
And if you *really* want to examine your commitment to
your ideology, try thinking the exact same question through
with a son, placing special emphasis on the limiting
options aspect. :)
Lori Grzybowski
Marie Houck
In article <69g8ti$4lf$1...@tribune.usask.ca>, lau...@erato.usask.ca (Lauria
Blackwell) wrote:
> >
> Well I know that. As long as she's a baby, you could probably dress
> her in potato sacks and bow ties and she'd never know the difference
> (although she might get some funny looks)!!
>
What's interesting is to watch how differently people treat a baby based
on how it is dressed -- especially if they don't know the baby's gender,
but even when they do! This certainly continues into toddlerhood. I was
at a park with my oldest, she in bib overalls and a t-shirt, with no hair
yet. A teenage boy was at the park, and started playing with her. She
was having a grand time. He finally asked me what "his" name was. When I
said HER name was Katie, he put her down quickly, and appologized for
being so rough with a little girl! I was unable to convince him that his
play was entirely appropriate.
My oldest is now wearing 60's vintage clothing, and has burgendy hair
(this week). She's never liked wearing dresses. My 12 yo daughter LOVED
dresses for quite a few years, and now enjoys getting dressed up -- but
wears jeans most of the time. My 12 yo son enjoyed playing dress up in
all my old dresses, along with his sister and her friends, and I think
would wear skirts if he could get away with it. With him, I'm happy if he
leaves the house reasonably clean. You just never know what will happen.
Marie Houck
S. Jordan
I don't know...you've received some excellent responses to your question!
For what it's worth, my daughter wore whatever clothes we had clean - be it
a dress, pink overalls, generic onesies and t-shirts, or her big brother's
hand me downs. We're expecting another baby in 11 weeks, and if she's a
girl - she'll wear whatever clothes happen to suit the weather at the time.
I have hand me downs from 3 boys and 1 girl, so she may end up wearing a
blue outfit with trains on it, or maybe that pretty red dress with the
ruffles:-)
Getting dirty in dresses isn't a problem - though something to cover the
diaper is good, as it keeps *most* of the dirt/sand/whatever out of the
diaper...also, it's easier to unbutton the back of a muddy dress and take it
off than it is to pull a t-shirt of over the head - less mud in the hair<G>
Oh - both of my older boys went through a stage of wearing dresses...my
daughter also went through that stage - all of them wear pants and shirts
now. (though my daughter loves to wear dresses occasionally, the weather
just isn't conducive to it currently)
Stephanie
mom to Rob 11, Marissa 9, Mike 6, Timmy 2, and (Madeleine Rose) in about 11
weeks
****************************************************************************
*********
Stephen Sorensen wrote in message ...
>My wife and I are currently at odds about how to dress our baby girl
>Ingrid. We've gotten lots of frilly and non-frilly clothes from friends
>and relatives. My wife and I agree that the frilly stuff goes to Goodwill.
> However, we can't agree on whether Ingrid should wear dresses. My view is
>that putting dresses on her would be the start of gender stereotyping.
>More specifically, it would seem to discourage a certain kind of play
>(e.g., stuff in the dirt) and encourage play like tea parties and house.
>It's not that I want her to be a boy; I just don't want to limit her
>opportunities. I would appreciate hearing about any of your experiences.
>
>Thanks!
>Stephen Sorensen
>sore...@leland.stanford.edu
Rupa K. Bose
Stephen Sorensen wrote:
>
My wife and I agree that the frilly stuff goes to Goodwill.
> However, we can't agree on whether Ingrid should wear dresses. My view is
> that putting dresses on her would be the start of gender stereotyping.
> More specifically, it would seem to discourage a certain kind of play
> (e.g., stuff in the dirt) and encourage play like tea parties and house.
> It's not that I want her to be a boy; I just don't want to limit her
> opportunities. I would appreciate hearing about any of your experiences.
>
in my childhood, it was kind of unusual for girls to wear shorts/jeans a
lot. I lived in dresses. I climbed trees in dresses. Every dress I owned
had hedge-rents in it (those are the L-shaped rips from snagging a
garment on something). My mom would groan and darn them. I dug muddy
holes, and waded in ponds in dresses (much easier than in pants, BTW). I
also played house, along with my brother and a friend. (It was awkward
knowing what to do with my brother -- all we knew was Dads went away in
the morning, and came back in the evening. Not a fun role to play. We
equipped him with a toy gun and sent him 'hunting' instead, to get food
for the family.)
When my daughter came along, I dressed her in shorts or sweats most of
the time (except for parties and special occasions). Fine, until 2nd
grade. Then she went through a 'pink' phase, and wanted to wear dresses.
So I just got leggings to go under them, and that kept her warm and
comfortable...and didn't cramp her style. She's grown up into a lady,
BTW...no trees or mud, but she's a bookworm with a definite interest in
academics and a career. I think she'll be fine. She didn't play house,
but she and her brother played with Barbies and Ponies. (Much easier
role-modelling -- they were more creative about it than we were.)
Nowadays, my son plays Nintendo for preference, and my daughter reads.
Neither ever really climbed trees or played in the mud.
My advice: Dress her in whatever works -- including frilly frocks.
Dresses aren't limiting if they're accepted as disposable. :)
Rupa
Adcam7744
We need to be careful not to over-obsess on this gender role issue. Being
hypersensitive about a girl preferring tea parties is just as bad as telling
her to be a nice girl and not muss her dress.
I think too many parents today unconciously want to push their daughters toward
"boy things."
I grew up in house full of girls. Some of us liked dolls and frills, some
didn't. All of us had the same parents. You can't control everything.
So-called girls' activities have led many women toward rewarding vocations,
but many people put down feminine-oriented activities.
I spent many years denying my true vocation because it was too girlish. I
wasted years getting a "macho career", before I finally had the guts to go do
what I really wanted.
Just some thoughts from C.B.
Laura
Whenever I read something like this my thought is always - who are
the people who will spend all of the $$ these places charge for kids
clothes??! The only clothes I buy my kids "new" are underwear and
pajamas. Used panties gross me out, pajamas are always really warn.
Every April and September I hit the resale stores, plus garage
sales during the summer. I spend about $100 per year on kids
clothes.
--
Laura (who paid $2 for a velvet girls Xmas dress..and Jake was a
Jr. golfer last Easter - pink shirt with pastel plaid pants!!)
to respond remove "not" and "here" - notl...@herenetexp.net
AnOler wrote
Laura
(LOL)
That was our rule also. Jakes sitter was always confused by Jim
dressing him in girl sleepers or pink T-shirts and socks.
Then there was the day his sister had on a dress so he decided *he*
wanted one too. Thank goodness dad had bought him a huge T-shirt
that he considered his "dress"!!
--
Laura
to respond remove "not" and "here" - notl...@herenetexp.net
TheDesos <jns...@oz.net> wrote in article
<01bd2063$5844d8c0$50659ad0@jnsdeso>...
> How it works in our household - whoever dresses our son gets to
choose.
>
> Sarah
>
> Stephen Sorensen <sore...@leland.stanford.edu> wrote in article
> <sorenses-1...@ev-97-lr103a.stanford.edu>...
Bridgette and John Moore
Adcam7744 wrote:
> So-called girls' activities have led many women toward rewarding vocations,
> but many people put down feminine-oriented activities.
>
> I spent many years denying my true vocation because it was too girlish. I
> wasted years getting a "macho career", before I finally had the guts to go do
> what I really wanted.
Wow! I thought I was the only one. I was pushed to be an engineer. But
did Radio/TV production cause it was a good male dominated area to go
in. However since I was young I've had a gift for teaching. It's taken
awhile (plus I had to leave the states) to be able to go after that
career without the pressure of "doing the girl thing." And I'm one heck
of a teacher now.
It almost seems that in the pressure of not being gender specific we are
still limiting our children (or ourselves).
bridge and junior 2/1
BarbLuongo
In article <egardner-ya0240800...@news.mcs.net>,
egar...@nospam.mcs.net (Elizabeth Gardner) writes:
>My original plan about this was to have only clothes that sorta kinda
>go together, so that my daughter will not be a walking fashion don't
>when she's ready to pick her own outfits. I still think it might be
>possible, but I have to get the grandmas in on the plan. It's not what
>_I_ buy--it's what comes in from other sources that's the problem.
That's what I've been up against too. Relatives don't like being told what
is ok and what isn't. Oh well, we worked around it anyway.
Ms Tory Caplan
That's funny, one of the reasons I chose my career was that after
a BA the idea of being a lawyer, doctor, etc. had little appeal AND
because it was a traditionally "woman's field". All my bosses have been
women, most of them combined outside work with raising children as far
back as the 50's and 60's (when you got to take sick leave or vacation
time for having your baby) and have been very sympathetic to the
difficulties I sometimes encounter and full of good advice.
I hope the criterion my kids use in choosing careers will be "do I
derive satisfaction from this work? Is it 'good work'?"
- Tory
Bridgette and John Moore (jnbm...@top2.ficnet.net.tw) wrote:
Snjezana Zenzerovic
Stephen Sorensen (sore...@leland.stanford.edu) wrote:
: My wife and I are currently at odds about how to dress our baby girl
: Ingrid. We've gotten lots of frilly and non-frilly clothes from friends
: and relatives. My wife and I agree that the frilly stuff goes to Goodwill.
: However, we can't agree on whether Ingrid should wear dresses. My view is
: that putting dresses on her would be the start of gender stereotyping.
: More specifically, it would seem to discourage a certain kind of play
: (e.g., stuff in the dirt) and encourage play like tea parties and house.
: It's not that I want her to be a boy; I just don't want to limit her
: opportunities. I would appreciate hearing about any of your experiences.
Well, try not to make this an issue - I would recomend that
you use practical and easy to wear clothes for both boys and girls.
And she can certainly play tea parties in her jeans and sweater if she
wants to. Personally, I don't like too dressed-up children who are
then not allowed to act like children because of eventual harm they
cane make to their dress or suit (sorry, this should have been 'I
don't like dressing-up' instead of 'dressed-up children' - children
usually are not to blame for that).
As for my experiences - I really did not make this an issue
(then, I have a boy - maybe that makes things easier). But, I did
buy pink sleeper for him when that was the only one in his size
left (and he looked cute in it!) and on few occasions when we were
out of clean clothes he even wore a pink dress someone gave me
(this dress was terribly unpractical - it had buttons on back and
poor Daniel just kept getting stuck with those buttons to Playpen
mesh).
Snjezana, mom to Daniel Dominik 16 1/2 mo
naomi pardue
Laura (la...@seesig.net) wrote:
> Whenever I read something like this my thought is always - who are
> the people who will spend all of the $$ these places charge for kids
> clothes??! The only clothes I buy my kids "new" are underwear and
> pajamas. Used panties gross me out, pajamas are always really warn.
> Every April and September I hit the resale stores, plus garage
> sales during the summer. I spend about $100 per year on kids
> clothes.
I buy almost all new clothes for Shaina. (Get a few hand-me-downs from my
sister's kids, but I don't shop garage sales.)
I've never found the prices unreasonable. $3-$5 for shirts (Shaina
currently wears a size 5, when she was younger clothes were often even
less.) $5-$8 for pants. I will occassionally splurge $25-$30 for a really
nice dress or cute outfit. I do make most of her pajamas, simply becuase
I prefer cotton and you can't buy cotton pjs for kids.
Naomi
Elizabeth Gardner
In article <69ih7h$k4i$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>, npa...@indiana.edu
(naomi pardue) wrote:
> Laura (la...@seesig.net) wrote:
>
> I buy almost all new clothes for Shaina. (Get a few hand-me-downs from my
> sister's kids, but I don't shop garage sales.)
> I've never found the prices unreasonable. $3-$5 for shirts (Shaina
> currently wears a size 5, when she was younger clothes were often even
> less.) $5-$8 for pants. I will occassionally splurge $25-$30 for a really
> nice dress or cute outfit. I do make most of her pajamas, simply becuase
> I prefer cotton and you can't buy cotton pjs for kids.
You can get them for babies and toddlers now, but most of them are
prominently labeled NOT INTENDED FOR SLEEPWEAR. I think this is some kind
of liability-dodger, since they're not flame retardant. But they sure look
like PJs and I can't imagine using them for anything else. I assume
home-made cotton PJs wouldn't be flame-retardant either.
You can buy flame-retardant cotton PJs in all sizes from Biobottoms, but
you have to take out a second mortgage to do it.
CandyBors
In article <sorenses-1...@ev-97-lr103a.stanford.edu>,
sore...@leland.stanford.edu (Stephen Sorensen) writes:
>
>My wife and I are currently at odds about how to dress our baby girl
>Ingrid. We've gotten lots of frilly and non-frilly clothes from friends
>and relatives. My wife and I agree that the frilly stuff goes to Goodwill.
> However, we can't agree on whether Ingrid should wear dresses. My view is
>that putting dresses on her would be the start of gender stereotyping.
>More specifically, it would seem to discourage a certain kind of play
>(e.g., stuff in the dirt) and encourage play like tea parties and house.
>It's not that I want her to be a boy; I just don't want to limit her
>opportunities. I would appreciate hearing about any of your experiences.
I haven't got a girl, so I'm not speaking from experience, but I agree with you
that dresses can restrict movement, particularly when learning to crawl, and
they're not "necessary" - girls can wear all types of clothes. If it were me,
I would dress her in practical clothes 90% of the time, and save dresses for
occasions such as Christmas, birthdays, weddings, parties etc. I think when
she gets older, though, you should at least partly take her preferences into
account. I know two little girls (5 and 4, sisters) one of whom insists on
wearing either a tutu or a Barbie dress-up outfit to school every day, and the
other who will only wear trousers, and has not worn a dress in 3 years apart
from when she was a bridesmaid one time, which brought on a 2-hour tantrum
before she would consent to put it on!)
Candy
Mummy to Peter, 4th September 1996
**********************************************
"A woman has to perform twice as well
as a man to get half the recognition.
Fortunately, this is not difficult."
**********************************************
Winnie Tung
egar...@nospam.mcs.net (Elizabeth Gardner) wrote:
> In article <69ih7h$k4i$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>, npa...@indiana.edu
> (naomi pardue) wrote:
>
> > Laura (la...@seesig.net) wrote:
> >
> > I buy almost all new clothes for Shaina. (Get a few hand-me-downs from my
> > sister's kids, but I don't shop garage sales.)
> > I've never found the prices unreasonable. $3-$5 for shirts (Shaina
> > currently wears a size 5, when she was younger clothes were often even
> > less.) $5-$8 for pants. I will occassionally splurge $25-$30 for a really
> > nice dress or cute outfit. I do make most of her pajamas, simply becuase
> > I prefer cotton and you can't buy cotton pjs for kids.
My daughter wears size 3. I bought her all cotton PJs from Carter's. They are
lovely. Gymboree also has some all cotton PJs. I just bought her a set last
week.
Michelle
> Laura (la...@seesig.net) wrote:
> > Whenever I read something like this my thought is always - who are
> > the people who will spend all of the $$ these places charge for kids
> > clothes??! The only clothes I buy my kids "new" are underwear and
> > pajamas. Used panties gross me out, pajamas are always really warn.
> > Every April and September I hit the resale stores, plus garage
> > sales during the summer. I spend about $100 per year on kids
> > clothes.
>
> I buy almost all new clothes for Shaina. (Get a few hand-me-downs from my
> sister's kids, but I don't shop garage sales.)
> I've never found the prices unreasonable. $3-$5 for shirts (Shaina
> currently wears a size 5, when she was younger clothes were often even
> less.) $5-$8 for pants. I will occassionally splurge $25-$30 for a really
> nice dress or cute outfit. I do make most of her pajamas, simply becuase
> I prefer cotton and you can't buy cotton pjs for kids.
>
> Naomi
Hey, somebody's gotta buy new clothes to stock the resale stores, don't
they? ;-)
I don't like frilly dresses for my little girl basically because I know I
would be uncomfortable dressed that way. I buy my daughter (19 months)
comfortable clothes, be they sweatsuits, overalls, dresses, shorts,
whatever. She has a few plain-but-nice dresses she wears on special
occasions. Other than that, my criteria for dressing her are:
Does it fit?
Is it clean?
Is it weather-appropriate?
Answer yes to all three questions, and it's a good day!
Michelle
Laura
We deal with whatever the kids get as gifts - my mom has started
buying each child a nice dressy Easter outfit for Christmas (I hate
spending $$ on dress clothes so works out fine) I buy all solids for
the kids. At least if they don't match it does not look *that* bad.
By the way my husband nearly fell out of his chair laughing when I
came home with several pairs of black stretchy pants for our
daughter (1YO).. Seems to be that is all I wear these days
myself!!
--
Laura
to respond remove "not" and "here" - notl...@herenetexp.net
BarbLuongo <barbl...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19980114041...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> In article <egardner-ya0240800...@news.mcs.net>,
> egar...@nospam.mcs.net (Elizabeth Gardner) writes:
>
> >My original plan about this was to have only clothes that sorta
kinda
> >go together, so that my daughter will not be a walking fashion
don't
>
Laura
My post was in response to a suggestion to shop at more expensive
kid's specialty store's not Kmart or Meijer or Wal-Mart. With my
first I found that too often the really in-expensive kids clothes
fell apart in the wash after a wash or two. I only buy resale or
garage sale items that look close to brand new, so my kids end up
slumming it in (as best as I can tell!!) the land's end, gymboree,
and high end department store play clothes that were apparently kept
for special occasions! You should try it sometime it's worth it (and
you meet your neighbor's at the neihborhood garage sales too!
I should mention that in our town we have a higher end kids resale
chain of stores - I'm not talking about salvation army type stores -
which I'm sure have great deals, but you really have to dig to find
the good stuff! Who has time with kids and jobs and marriages!
--
Laura
to respond remove "not" and "here" - notl...@herenetexp.net
naomi pardue <npa...@indiana.edu> wrote in article
<69ih7h$k4i$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
de...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Stephen Sorensen (sore...@leland.stanford.edu) wrote:
: My wife and I are currently at odds about how to dress our baby girl
: Ingrid. We've gotten lots of frilly and non-frilly clothes from friends
: and relatives. My wife and I agree that the frilly stuff goes to Goodwill.
: However, we can't agree on whether Ingrid should wear dresses. My view is
: that putting dresses on her would be the start of gender stereotyping.
: More specifically, it would seem to discourage a certain kind of play
: (e.g., stuff in the dirt) and encourage play like tea parties and house.
: It's not that I want her to be a boy; I just don't want to limit her
: opportunities. I would appreciate hearing about any of your experiences.
: Thanks!
: Stephen Sorensen
: sore...@leland.stanford.edu
Well, I'l tell you how I was.
My parents dressed me in dresses. Until grade six, dresses or dressy
clothes were the only thing I ever wore to school. While everyone else
was wearing jeans and t-shirts, I was wearing dresses or skirts, even in
winter.
This did NOT discourage dirt play--I would run around, play soccer, climb
trees, play with worms, play in the sandbox, pick up caterpillars,
ride a bike, go down slides, etc. And it wasn't my parents' choice when I
was in school. *I* wanted to wear dresses. Of course, the frillier,
nicer dresses were reserved for special occasions.
We have a 2 1/2-month old and have gotten some dresses for her. She's
terribly cute in them and we certainly won't stop putting her in them!
Daisy
who'd still wear dresses every day
if she could only find casual ones
that she liked
CandyBors
>Laura (la...@seesig.net) wrote:
>> Whenever I read something like this my thought is always - who are
>> the people who will spend all of the $$ these places charge for kids
>> clothes??! The only clothes I buy my kids "new" are underwear and
>> pajamas. Used panties gross me out, pajamas are always really warn.
>> Every April and September I hit the resale stores, plus garage
>> sales during the summer. I spend about $100 per year on kids
>> clothes.
>
>I buy almost all new clothes for Shaina. (Get a few hand-me-downs from my
>sister's kids, but I don't shop garage sales.)
>I've never found the prices unreasonable. $3-$5 for shirts (Shaina
>currently wears a size 5, when she was younger clothes were often even
>less.) $5-$8 for pants. I will occassionally splurge $25-$30 for a really
>nice dress or cute outfit. I do make most of her pajamas, simply becuase
>I prefer cotton and you can't buy cotton pjs for kids.
>
>Naomi
>
>
That's fair enough: each to their own. I personlly agree with Laura that new
clothes are a waste of money when used clothes have often only been worn 2 or 3
times and are often as good as new. But obviously it depends on how much money
you have to spend (and of course, as Shaina is older, she isn't growing out of
things so quickly, so they're a better investment). I reckon I can justify
spending around $5 a month on clothes, and this wouldn't go very far on new
clothes, but can buy 2 or 3 second-hand outfits. But I agree that I couldn't
go as far as second-hand underwear, even though its not logical.
CandyBors
In article <69hv65$j...@argos.tel.hr>, szen...@alf.tel.hr (Snjezana Zenzerovic)
writes:
> As for my experiences - I really did not make this an issue
>(then, I have a boy - maybe that makes things easier). But, I did
>buy pink sleeper for him when that was the only one in his size
>left (and he looked cute in it!) and on few occasions when we were
>out of clean clothes he even wore a pink dress someone gave me
>(this dress was terribly unpractical - it had buttons on back and
>poor Daniel just kept getting stuck with those buttons to Playpen
>mesh).
>
> Snjezana, mom to Daniel Dominik 16 1/2 mo
>
>
No justification, and no logic, but I just *can't* do it: Peter has one or two
handed-down "girly" outfits (not dresses, but, say, dungarees with a bow on the
back, pink Barbie pyjamas). But although I *know* that its silly, I just can't
dress him in them. I don't think I'd be the same with a girl, though: if we
were to have a girl, I wouldn't bother buying new clothes, I'd just dress her
in Peter's clothes (which are mainly jeans, polo shirts, jumpers).
Miche
> : Wow! I thought I was the only one. I was pushed to be an engineer. But
> : did Radio/TV production cause it was a good male dominated area to go
> : in. However since I was young I've had a gift for teaching. It's taken
> : awhile (plus I had to leave the states) to be able to go after that
> : career without the pressure of "doing the girl thing." And I'm one heck
> : of a teacher now.
>
> : It almost seems that in the pressure of not being gender specific we are
> : still limiting our children (or ourselves).
This reminds me of a lovely cartoon I once saw. It shows a six- or
seven-year-old girl talking to her mother.
Girl: Mum, when I grow up I want to be secretary...
Mum: A secretary! But when you grow up you can be anything you want -
a pilot, an engineer, an astronaut or a truck driver! You don't have
to limit yourself to traditional female vocations!
[next panel]
Mum: What am I _saying_! Of _course_ you can do anything you want,
even if that means choosing a traditionally female job. What kind of
secretary do you want to be, dear?
Girl: Secretary General of the United Nations, but I'll be something
else if you want...
Miche
------------
Miche Campbell <*>
Captain of the Starship Yentaprise
These are not necessarily the opinions of the University of Otago
You say Chaos like it's a *bad* thing!
Visit the home of The Jews Brothers, New Zealand's premier Klezmer
band! http://www.rouge.co.nz
Cissy . Thorpe
> Stephen Sorensen (sore...@leland.stanford.edu) wrote:
> : My wife and I are currently at odds about how to dress our baby girl
> : Ingrid. We've gotten lots of frilly and non-frilly clothes from friends
> : and relatives. My wife and I agree that the frilly stuff goes to Goodwill.
> : However, we can't agree on whether Ingrid should wear dresses. My view is
> : that putting dresses on her would be the start of gender stereotyping.
> : More specifically, it would seem to discourage a certain kind of play
> : (e.g., stuff in the dirt) and encourage play like tea parties and house.
> : It's not that I want her to be a boy; I just don't want to limit her
> : opportunities. I would appreciate hearing about any of your experiences.
>
If you think a dress will keep her out of the rocks and mud...come meet
Emily. As pretty and dainty a girl as they come. A fuss budget when it
comes to her dresses (she prefers to wear dresses) But when she wants to
play with her brother (she is 22mo, he will be three next month) it
doesn't make a blind bit of difference to her what she is wearing! She
doesn't let clothes limit her one iota. Mom (my daugther) has seen to it
that they all (she has 3 - the youngest is 9mo) do whatever they have to
desire to attempt. Avery has worn the ballerina outfit (they have a
dress-up box with hats, capes, shoes, aprons, etc) as often as she wears
the hard hat...if you don't make a big deal about what she is wearing,
she probably won't either. And putting her in nothing but "gender
neutral" or boy stuff won't make her a tom-boy, either...Emily has lots
of hand me downs from her brother - things her mom thought were still
quite servicable and very "gender non-specific" - she is still all
girl. The curls and dimples don't hurt - she flirts with her daddy
and grandpa shamelessly...usually gets what she wants, too.Don't send all
that frilly stuff away, she should wear it at least once.
We tried to make sure our daughter had lots of trucks and tools and such
25 years ago. We didn't eliminate the filly stuff, but we made clothes
very non-important. We now have a uniformed police officer (dispatcher)
that is competent and confident - and will knock your eyes out when she
gets all "foo-foo" as she calls it. A wonderful mother of 3 and a pretty
good friend to lots of people...I'm proud of her (I must remember to tell
her that tonight, I don't do it often enough)
Now if they would just find a house and get the heck out of mine....
Cissy
Annette Marcucilli
CandyBors wrote:
> No justification, and no logic, but I just *can't* do it: Peter has one or two
> handed-down "girly" outfits (not dresses, but, say, dungarees with a bow on the
> back, pink Barbie pyjamas). But although I *know* that its silly, I just can't
> dress him in them. I don't think I'd be the same with a girl, though: if we
> were to have a girl, I wouldn't bother buying new clothes, I'd just dress her
> in Peter's clothes (which are mainly jeans, polo shirts, jumpers).
>
...don't be so hard on yourself, Candy <G>. This has PLENTY of
"justification" and "logic" --
YOU could walk into any supermarket wearing any one of your husband's
outfits, and get scarcely a glance (well, perhaps if you wore one of his
three-piece suits, you'd garner a few looks...folks would wonder if Demi
Moore or Annie Hall were around the corner behind you !)
On the other hand, if your husband walked in wearing just about anything
of yours (even those cute stretch pants with that ribbed sleeveless
turtleneck), he'd not only get looks -- he and all his offspring would
be the talk of the town for a long time to come !
But, on the other hand, Mel Gibson did look *good* in a skirt, didn't he
?
Annette (whose youngest SON used to LOVE dressing in his sister's
dresses....)
AnOler
>It's prety
>insulting IMHO to summarily gives gifts that were given in love to
>Goodwill.
How about putting the *object of displeasure* on your child and taking some
photos to send to the *giver of this object*. Then send it to the Goodwill.
naomi pardue
Elizabeth Gardner (egar...@nospam.mcs.net) wrote:
> In article <69ih7h$k4i$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>, npa...@indiana.edu
> You can get them for babies and toddlers now, but most of them are
> prominently labeled NOT INTENDED FOR SLEEPWEAR. I think this is some kind
> of liability-dodger, since they're not flame retardant. But they sure look
> like PJs and I can't imagine using them for anything else. I assume
> home-made cotton PJs wouldn't be flame-retardant either.
>
> You can buy flame-retardant cotton PJs in all sizes from Biobottoms, but
> you have to take out a second mortgage to do it.
I'm not worried about flame retardant qualities. The odds of my daughter
deciding abruptly to set herself on fire at 3 in the morning are pretty
small.
The pajamas I sew are not flame retardant. I boldly buy those bolts of
cotton flannel that say all over them "Not for use as sleepwear!" (And I
got a giggle out of a PATTERN I bought that stated on it that this simple
pants and shirt set (which could be made out of any fabric desired...)
was "not for use as sleepwear.)
Naomi
Wakanyeja Makah
On 15 Jan 1998 16:39:40 GMT, npa...@indiana.edu (naomi pardue) wrote:
>I'm not worried about flame retardant qualities. The odds of my daughter
>deciding abruptly to set herself on fire at 3 in the morning are pretty
>small.
>
>The pajamas I sew are not flame retardant. I boldly buy those bolts of
>cotton flannel that say all over them "Not for use as sleepwear!" (And I
>got a giggle out of a PATTERN I bought that stated on it that this simple
>pants and shirt set (which could be made out of any fabric desired...)
>was "not for use as sleepwear.)
>
>Naomi
Naomi,
The reason that sleep wear for children is made fire retardant is
not because the manufacture thinks your child is going to get out of bed in
the morning and set herself on fire. It is made fire retardant so that IN
THE EVENT a fire should break out in your home during the night (and these
things DO happen) your child's clothing will not burst into flames (the way
non-fire retardant cloth will)
The fact that you deliberately sew a child's pajamas out of a bolt
of cloth which clearly states that it is not fire retardant and therefore
not for that use is negligent. I hope for your daughter's sake that she
never gets severely burned because of your ignorance (arrogant stupidity).
W. Makah
(...thinking quite loudly that you have to have a license to own a
dog...but ANYONE can procreate...)
Jim
Wakanyeja wrote:
> The reason that sleep wear for children is made fire retardant is
>not because the manufacture thinks your child is going to get out of bed in
>the morning and set herself on fire. It is made fire retardant so that IN
>THE EVENT a fire should break out in your home during the night (and these
>things DO happen) your child's clothing will not burst into flames (the way
>non-fire retardant cloth will)
That is what I've always believed. I think there are various reasons
why a young child may be more likely to have their PJs catch fire than
an adult. And one on fire, be less likely to quickly extinguish the
flames.
> The fact that you deliberately sew a child's pajamas out of a bolt
>of cloth which clearly states that it is not fire retardant and therefore
>not for that use is negligent. I hope for your daughter's sake that she
>never gets severely burned because of your ignorance (arrogant stupidity).
Whew! I disagree with this strong conclusion and save the
negligence allegations for those without providing a functioning
smoke detector in their children's room.
It's my impression that those fire resistance properties are largely
voided after a few typical washings anyway. Correct???
Jim
Whose daughter would *love* handmade cotton PJs. 2T. Hint. Hint.
Anne LeVeque
jetsam.uits.indiana.edu> <34c543a8...@news.tds.net>:
Organization: CAPCON Library Network, Washington, DC
Distribution:
If no one in Naomi's household smokes, and they take great care about
things like candles, heaters, and the like, and have smoke detectors
installed and kept up-to-date with their batteries, then the chances of
there being a housefire are slim. Yes, I know they still happen because
of faulty wiring, etc., but cotton pajamas are not going to be the
deciding factor in whether her children are injured in a fire. Some of
us don't like the flame-retardant fabrics because of the chemicals used
in treating them (remember Tris? carcinogenic stuff!). Some of us prefer
the softness of cotton, for ourselves and our children.
Fire safety mainly consists in being prepared for the eventuality -
having smoke detectors, having fire extinguishers handy, being
excruciatingly careful about lamps, wiring, food on the stove, and
anything else that is a possible fire hazard. Ask your local fire
department what the number one thing to do to protect your kids from fire
is and I bet they say that smoke detectors and teaching your kids to stay
away from matches and cigarette lighters are tied for the top of the list.
I remember reading not too long ago that studies had been done ( I know,
I know - by whom, subsidized by what company, etc.) that showed that
close-fitting cotton was as effective as chemically-treated polyester in
keeping a kid from being burned.
SO - Naomi is NOT NEGLIGENT!! So there.
Anne L.
le...@capcon.net
Wakanyeja Makah (waka...@iktomi.gov) wrote:
: On 15 Jan 1998 16:39:40 GMT, npa...@indiana.edu (naomi pardue) wrote:
: >I'm not worried about flame retardant qualities. The odds of my daughter
: >deciding abruptly to set herself on fire at 3 in the morning are pretty
: >small.
: >
: >The pajamas I sew are not flame retardant. I boldly buy those bolts of
: >cotton flannel that say all over them "Not for use as sleepwear!" (And I
: >got a giggle out of a PATTERN I bought that stated on it that this simple
: >pants and shirt set (which could be made out of any fabric desired...)
: >was "not for use as sleepwear.)
: >
: >Naomi
: Naomi,
: The reason that sleep wear for children is made fire retardant is
: not because the manufacture thinks your child is going to get out of bed in
: the morning and set herself on fire. It is made fire retardant so that IN
: THE EVENT a fire should break out in your home during the night (and these
: things DO happen) your child's clothing will not burst into flames (the way
: non-fire retardant cloth will)
: The fact that you deliberately sew a child's pajamas out of a bolt
: of cloth which clearly states that it is not fire retardant and therefore
: not for that use is negligent. I hope for your daughter's sake that she
: never gets severely burned because of your ignorance (arrogant stupidity).
: W. Makah
naomi pardue
Distribution:
Wakanyeja Makah (waka...@iktomi.gov) wrote:
> On 15 Jan 1998 16:39:40 GMT, npa...@indiana.edu (naomi pardue) wrote:
>
> The reason that sleep wear for children is made fire retardant is
> not because the manufacture thinks your child is going to get out of bed in
> the morning and set herself on fire. It is made fire retardant so that IN
> THE EVENT a fire should break out in your home during the night (and these
> things DO happen) your child's clothing will not burst into flames (the way
> non-fire retardant cloth will)
Of course most deaths in house fires result from smoke inhalation, NOT
burns. And frankly, the idea of having a polyester sleeper MELT onto (and
into) my child's skin isn't very appealing either.
(Then of course there are issues like ... house fires happen in the
daytime too. Perhaps ALL clothes should be made 100% synthetic. (Then
we'd all just sweat to death...) And of course ADULTS die in housefires
too. Perhaps I should be forced to wear polyester all the time?
Naomi
Savithri
In article <34c543a8...@news.tds.net>, waka...@iktomi.gov (Wakanyeja Makah) writes:
|>
|**** deleted*******
|> The fact that you deliberately sew a child's pajamas out of a bolt
|> of cloth which clearly states that it is not fire retardant and therefore
|> not for that use is negligent. I hope for your daughter's sake that she
|> never gets severely burned because of your ignorance (arrogant stupidity).
|>
|> W. Makah
|
Hmm, let me ask out of my ignorance or perhaps if you prefer "arrogant
stupidity", what should I put on my kids on a hot steamy day when they go
to bed. Most often in the summer they sleep in their underwears and maybe
a very light cotton t-shirt. Mostof those fire retardent stuff for kids
will be extremely uncomfortable to sleep in during the hot summer months
is my guess. Perhaps I am overlooking something in my stupidity.
(Oh we do have functional fire alarms /smoke detectors
installed in the house that are checked regularly to make sure they are
operational if that is of any use, of course.)
Savithri
--
Eadem mutata resurgo
Elizabeth Gardner
In article <34be57e1...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
ji...@ix.killspam.netcom.com (Jim) wrote:
> Wakanyeja wrote:
>
> > The reason that sleep wear for children is made fire retardant is
> >not because the manufacture thinks your child is going to get out of bed in
> >the morning and set herself on fire. It is made fire retardant so that IN
> >THE EVENT a fire should break out in your home during the night (and these
> >things DO happen) your child's clothing will not burst into flames (the way
> >non-fire retardant cloth will)
>
> That is what I've always believed. I think there are various reasons
> why a young child may be more likely to have their PJs catch fire than
> an adult. And one on fire, be less likely to quickly extinguish the
> flames.
>
> > The fact that you deliberately sew a child's pajamas out of a bolt
> >of cloth which clearly states that it is not fire retardant and therefore
> >not for that use is negligent. I hope for your daughter's sake that she
> >never gets severely burned because of your ignorance (arrogant stupidity).
>
> Whew! I disagree with this strong conclusion and save the
> negligence allegations for those without providing a functioning
> smoke detector in their children's room.
>
> It's my impression that those fire resistance properties are largely
> voided after a few typical washings anyway. Correct???
>
No, the manufacturing regulations require that the flame retardant
properties endure if the care instructions are followed.
Maybe it should be pointed out that the CPSC relaxed the rules for
fire-retardant kids' sleepwear in 1996, because a lot of people wanted
cotton PJs for their kids and couldn't get them, and were therefore using
T-shirts and other daywear as PJs. To avert that, the commission changed
the rules to approve untreated cotton PJs as long as they fit tightly to
the skin (like long johns) and didn't create air pockets that would allow a
fire to spread. They analyzed data on fire injuries occurring from burning
nightwear, and found the biggest problem with loose-fitting,
non-fire-retardant clothes. There wasn't a difference between
flame-retardant PJs and tight-fitting cotton ones. (They also OK'd cotton
PJs of any style for sizes up to nine months, because statistics showed
that babies who can't move around--i.e., under six months, which we all
know are wearing 9-mo. sized clothing--aren't at a significant risk for
putting themselves in the range of an "ignition source," which apparently
is the major cause of PJs catching fire.)
If Naomi is using fairly tight-fitting patterns to sew her PJs, then
there's nothing negligent about it according to current sleepwear
manufacturing standards.
CParssinen
I have two daughters: almost 6 and 2 1/2. #1 wore a dress maybe three times
ever until last year when #2 began to insist on wearing nothing but dresses.
#1 still doesn't really care much what she wears. #2 MUST pick out what she
wears, down to the socks, and given complete choice it would be some frilly
pink thing with pink stockings and pink socks. I do NOT know where she gets
this from. Certainly not from me!
My point is, dress her in what YOU want, as long as you can. You may be
fighting about it far sooner than you expect, or not at all.
CP
KL Ussery
I'd say there is a time for everything. I don't always wear dresses and only
do for certain occasions. My neice is that way. Mostly it's jumpers and pants
and blouses with dresses being reserved for church, parties and pictures. I
wouldn't use dresses for everyday just because she's a girl.
Kendra
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Always remember you are unique, just like everybody else.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wakanyeja Makah
On 15 Jan 1998 18:58:04 GMT, le...@transcom.capcon.net (Anne LeVeque)
wrote:
Well Anne...
Let us just hope that this THEORY is never tested. Especially
since in her original post she stated she *giggled* about patterns which
she chose which clearly stated they were NOT intended for sleep wear (so
from this one might deduct that they aren't formfitting cotton after all).
Take a tour in a Childrens Burn Unit and then you tell me if it is worth
the risk...
W. Makah
Edward and Phantom MacLennan
Actually, if I Recall correctly, the flame-retardent PJ law was changed
sometime last year. It appears that it is not the fabric content which
affects flamability so much as the amount of air being trapped between
the PJ's and the skin. Billowy garments such as nightgowns trap alot of
air which fans flames much more so than tight-fitted garments like
long-johns. In fact I believe that infant (and toddler?) PJ's can be
made of untreated cotton and marketed as PJ's (rather than daywear or
loungewear) so long as they are snug-fitting. In any case, the
flame-resistance is usually gone after a few good washings anyway,
particularly if fabric softener was used, and most deaths in household
fires are due to smoke inhalation, not flame.
Phan-- mom to Keith (12-93) and Jack (Due soon)
Marion Baumgarten
Wakanyeja Makah <waka...@iktomi.gov> wrote:
Most clothing burns in children are caused by loose fitting clothing
that got next to an open flame. You will not find a child in a burn unit
because a flash fire raced through her house and she was wearing cotton
pajamas insted of polyester. She would have been toasted either way.
--
Marion Betor Baumgarten- Mother to die Wunderkinder
-Martha (9) Peter (6)
Laura
You know I always wondered about this fact though. It would most
certainly be comforting to family members to hear that a loved one
died from smoke inhalation and not from burning to death. The last
few years though (since I had kids..) I've noticed many of these
"died from smoke inhalation" stories in the paper are accompanied by
lines of the "body being burned beyond recognition. It would seem
to me that at some point the body would be to badly burned to
determine whether the fire or the smoke caused the death.
--
Laura (who is now getting morbid and does not want to think about
this anymore..the idea of a fire with little children in the house
scares the gejeebaz out of me!)
to respond remove "not" and "here" - notl...@herenetexp.net
naomi pardue <npa...@indiana.edu> wrote in article
<69lpdu$3jl$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
> Distribution:
>
> Wakanyeja Makah (waka...@iktomi.gov) wrote:
> > On 15 Jan 1998 16:39:40 GMT, npa...@indiana.edu (naomi pardue)
wrote:
>
Laura
I think you are very harsh, and possibly thinking that fire proofed
children's clothing provides more protection than it does. It is not
an asbestos suit! One of my children had sensitive skin. The flame
retardant stuff was an instant full body rash for the first two
years of his life. Had planned on leaving him in the room alone
with the stove (or *ever* letting him near it!) or had a open fire
burning in the middle of the family room perhaps your comments would
be warranted, but as long as you are attentive to your child's
activities using non flame proof jammies are not the risk you
perceive them to be. If a fire erupts in your child's room in the
middle of the night while sleeping - the severe burns are not going
to be avoided because of flame proof PAJAMAS! You would be deluded
if you believed that.
I usually agree with your posts, but this one just shocks me!
--
Laura
to respond remove "not" and "here" - notl...@herenetexp.net
(snippage done..)
Wakanyeja Makah <waka...@iktomi.gov> wrote in article
<34c543a8...@news.tds.net>...
> On 15 Jan 1998 16:39:40 GMT, npa...@indiana.edu (naomi pardue)
wrote:
> >I'm not worried about flame retardant qualities. The odds of my
daughter
> >deciding abruptly to set herself on fire at 3 in the morning are
pretty
> >small.
> The fact that you deliberately sew a child's pajamas out of a
bolt
> of cloth which clearly states that it is not fire retardant and
therefore
> not for that use is negligent. I hope for your daughter's sake
that she
> never gets severely burned because of your ignorance (arrogant
stupidity).
>
naomi pardue
Distribution:
Wakanyeja Makah (waka...@iktomi.gov) wrote:
> On 15 Jan 1998 18:58:04 GMT, le...@transcom.capcon.net (Anne LeVeque)
> wrote:
> >SO - Naomi is NOT NEGLIGENT!! So there.
> >Anne L.
>
> Let us just hope that this THEORY is never tested. Especially
> since in her original post she stated she *giggled* about patterns which
> she chose which clearly stated they were NOT intended for sleep wear (so
> from this one might deduct that they aren't formfitting cotton after all).
Perhaps you don't understand what a 'pattern' is? A pattern is the paper
design. You can sew the garment out of any fabric .... INCLUDING flame
retardant 100% polyester fabric if that is your preference.
> Take a tour in a Childrens Burn Unit and then you tell me if it is worth
> the risk...
I would be interested to know how many of those burns occured due to a
housefire where the child was sleeping and wearing non-flame-retardant
garments, and how many resulted from playing with matches, contact
(during awake hours) with a heat source, daytime house-fires, car
accidents, etc. (And how many happened becuase the polyester garment
melted onto the child's skin...)
Naomi
CHRIS OVERMANN
Candy,
I'm the same. The thought of dressing any child, girl or boy, in
anything I wouldn't wear myself gives me the willies. Nathan did
have some pastel sleepers and I couldn't bring myself to put
them on him. I don't think it was because he's a boy, I'm not
real sure I could put a girl in them either! :)
Christy
CandyBors <cand...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19980114204...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> No justification, and no logic, but I just *can't* do it:
Peter has one or two
> handed-down "girly" outfits (not dresses, but, say, dungarees
with a bow on the
> back, pink Barbie pyjamas). But although I *know* that its
silly, I just can't
> dress him in them. I don't think I'd be the same with a girl,
though: if we
> were to have a girl, I wouldn't bother buying new clothes, I'd
just dress her
> in Peter's clothes (which are mainly jeans, polo shirts,
jumpers).
>
>
Laurie
naomi pardue wrote:
>
> Laura (la...@seesig.net) wrote:
> > Whenever I read something like this my thought is always - who are
> > the people who will spend all of the $$ these places charge for kids
> > clothes??! The only clothes I buy my kids "new" are underwear and
> > pajamas. Used panties gross me out, pajamas are always really warn.
> > Every April and September I hit the resale stores, plus garage
> > sales during the summer. I spend about $100 per year on kids
> > clothes.
>
> I buy almost all new clothes for Shaina. (Get a few hand-me-downs from my
> sister's kids, but I don't shop garage sales.)
> I've never found the prices unreasonable. $3-$5 for shirts (Shaina
> currently wears a size 5, when she was younger clothes were often even
> less.) $5-$8 for pants. I will occassionally splurge $25-$30 for a really
> nice dress or cute outfit. I do make most of her pajamas, simply becuase
> I prefer cotton and you can't buy cotton pjs for kids.
>
> Naomi
Yard-saling gets harder as children grow. The clothes you find for very
young children has been "grown out of" so fast that there is still life
left in them. Once they reach an age where they wear clothes for a year
or two, you don't find much worth buying.
I combat this by buying essentials while they're on sale - sweatshirts,
tee-shirts, undies, socks, etc. and shopping the sale racks for more
desired items (as my daughter aged she began to get very definite
opinions on what she did and didn't want to wear).
The clothing budget has definitely increased, but I have managed, in
most cases, to stay out of the Tommy Hilfiger/DKNY/Adidas/fill in your
most un-favorite over-priced designer trap. Suffice it to say that my
daughter (14 yrs old) is well educated in the meaning of the terms
"sweat shop", "human rights violations", and "mark-up".
Laurie
e...@cris.com
Wakanyeja Makah wrote:
> The fact that you deliberately sew a child's pajamas out of a bolt
> of cloth which clearly states that it is not fire retardant and therefore
> not for that use is negligent. I hope for your daughter's sake that she
> never gets severely burned because of your ignorance (arrogant stupidity).
>
> W. Makah
> (...thinking quite loudly that you have to have a license to own a
> dog...but ANYONE can procreate...)
This is pretty strong. My child wears only 100% cotton pjs--I hate the
feel of synthetic fabrics, so why would I put them on my baby? She is
*always* closely supervised by at least one adult, and she sleeps in our
family bed. So short of her spontaneously combusting, I fail to see how
wearing non-flame retardant sleepwear could possibly harm her...
Jill (mom to Elizabeth, 6/28/96)
mary...@hotmail.com
Besides just smoke-inhalation manychildren die in fires because they HIDE
One year ago three children died from smoke inhalation in a house fire.
The four yr old was found hiding in a closet. Children need to be taught
not to fear the firemen even if they look scary in their equipment.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Dirt Devil
In article <69mkd7$3...@xochi.tezcat.com>,
Marion Baumgarten <mari...@xochi.tezcat.com> wrote:
>Wakanyeja Makah <waka...@iktomi.gov> wrote:
>> Let us just hope that this THEORY is never tested. Especially
>> since in her original post she stated she *giggled* about patterns which
>> she chose which clearly stated they were NOT intended for sleep wear (so
>> from this one might deduct that they aren't formfitting cotton after all).
>> the risk...
>
>that got next to an open flame. You will not find a child in a burn unit
>because a flash fire raced through her house and she was wearing cotton
>pajamas insted of polyester. She would have been toasted either way.
If one thinks about this just for a second, one might realize that the
anti-cotton sleepware concern is unfounded.
Take a scrap of cotton and a scrap of polyester. Burn both.
I think that you will find some interesting things:
Cotton and polyester will catch fire at about the same temperature
(Actually, polyester might ignite first).
Cotton won't melt and stick to the skin.
Cotton is put out more readily by just slapping one's hand against it.
I don't suggest trying that with polyester unless one wants a burned
hand.
So, why all of the anti-cotton concern?
Consider that cotton is produced by a lot of smaller growers. Also
consider that the leading producer of polyester is a large corporation
that can afford a lot of lobbying money that can be used to pass laws
that favor its business position.
I see this as just another step in the plastics manufacturer's desire
to eliminate competition from the manufacturers of natural products.
This is how hemp was outlawed, too.
--
Do not underestimate your abilities. That is your boss's job.
It is your job to find ways around your boss's roadblocks.
______________________________________________________________
Glen Appleby gl...@armory.com HTTP://www.armory.com/~glena/
Nichole A Causey
It might be of interest to some that in the Navy you are required to wear
100% cotton uniforms and clothing while aboard ship. The concern is
that during a fire polyester (like someone mentioned) can melt causing
severe burns. I also know form my friends in the Air Force that their
"fire retardant" uniforms only remain that way the first few washes and
then only if they are washed and dried using the "permanent press" cycle
(I don't know why that is).
Nichole
(EDD 3/6/98)
Deanna Walker
Winnie Tung wrote:
>
> egar...@nospam.mcs.net (Elizabeth Gardner) wrote:
> > In article <69ih7h$k4i$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>, npa...@indiana.edu
> > (naomi pardue) wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I buy almost all new clothes for Shaina. (Get a few hand-me-downs from my
> > > sister's kids, but I don't shop garage sales.)
> > > I've never found the prices unreasonable. $3-$5 for shirts (Shaina
> > > currently wears a size 5, when she was younger clothes were often even
> > > less.) $5-$8 for pants. I will occassionally splurge $25-$30 for a really
> > > nice dress or cute outfit. I do make most of her pajamas, simply becuase
> > > I prefer cotton and you can't buy cotton pjs for kids.
>
> lovely. Gymboree also has some all cotton PJs. I just bought her a set last
> week.
Living in a warm clime (TX), I just bought hanes t-shirts and tie dyed
one set purple and one set red (purple for daugther her fave color and
blue for son, his fave). They came out VERY well and they love wearing
them. Perfect cotton sleepwear, easy on, easy off, inexpensive!
Have a good weekend!!
Deanna
Alan_Browning
>Wakanyeja Makah wrote:
>
>> The fact that you deliberately sew a child's pajamas out of a bolt
>> of cloth which clearly states that it is not fire retardant and therefore
>> not for that use is negligent. I hope for your daughter's sake that she
>> never gets severely burned because of your ignorance (arrogant stupidity).
>>
>> W. Makah
>> (...thinking quite loudly that you have to have a license to own a
>> dog...but ANYONE can procreate...)
W. Makah - wake up and smell the coffee and give the paranoia a rest! The
disclaimer on the fabric is to avoid lawsuits. The connection between
untreated cotton PJs and injuries from open flames is nowhere near as strong
as the connection between *caretaker neglect* and injuries from open flames.
But it is alot easier for parents to sue a manufacturer than it is to sue
themselves.
Treated PJs are unnecessary in my house because there are no open flames,
except on birthday cakes - and the kids are dressed by the time they appear.
So get a grip!
Here's an old news release from the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Comission
that relates to the subject at hand:
April 30, 1996
Release # 96-115
WASHINGTON, D.C. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission voted today
(CPSC)(2-1) (with Commissioners Mary Sheila Gall and Thomas Moore in the
majority and Chairman Ann Brown dissenting) to amend the current children's
sleepwear standard under the Flammable Fabrics Act.
The amendments will permit the sale of tight-fitting children's sleepwear and
sleepwear for infants aged nine months or under, even if the garments do not
meet the flammability standards ordinarily applicable to such sleepwear. The
new amendments will become effective 18 months after the date that they are
published in the Federal Register and the existing stay of enforcement will
remain in effect until that date.
In commenting on the amendments, Commissioner Moore said, "As a data-driven
agency, we sometimes find that our data support the relaxation of a consumer
protection regulation without compromising the safety of consumers. Over the
years the CPSC has taken a number of initiatives that have reduced potential
ignition sources in the home. Those other actions contributed to our ability
today to allow consumers a limited cotton option for children's sleepwear
garments."
Commissioner Gall said, "As a commissioner and a mother, I hope parents will
wisely choose the safer alternative of tight-fitting cotton sleepwear
garments made possible by these amendments, rather than loose-fitting
T-shirts."
The commission reached its result based on staff findings that there were
virtually no injuries associated with single-point ignition incidents of
tight-fitting sleepwear, or of sleepwear worn by infants under one year. The
data demonstrating this absence of injury were buttressed by staff findings
that: (1) tight-fitting sleepwear is less likely to come into contact with a
flame; (2) even when ignited, tight-fitting sleepwear is not apt to burn
readily because it does not trap air that feeds a fire and the proximity of
the skin soaks up heat that would otherwise cause the fire to spread; and (3)
infants under six months are insufficiently mobile to expose themselves to
sources of fire.
CPSC used nine months instead of six as the sizing criteria for infants'
sleepwear because of sizing practices within the clothing industry. The
commission hopes that its action will enable consumers who prefer cotton
sleepwear to choose safer tight-fitting garments rather than loose-fitting
non-flame retardant clothing, such as oversize T-shirts.
Alexis Bywater
Wait, who got the red one?
Arti Nigam
On Mon, Jan 12, 1998 8:26 AM, Stephen Sorensen
<mailto:sore...@leland.stanford.edu> wrote:
>My wife and I are currently at odds about how to dress our baby girl
>Ingrid. We've gotten lots of frilly and non-frilly clothes from friends
>and relatives. My wife and I agree that the frilly stuff goes to
Goodwill.
> However, we can't agree on whether Ingrid should wear dresses. My view
is
>that putting dresses on her would be the start of gender stereotyping.
>More specifically, it would seem to discourage a certain kind of play
>(e.g., stuff in the dirt) and encourage play like tea parties and house.
>It's not that I want her to be a boy; I just don't want to limit her
>opportunities. I would appreciate hearing about any of your experiences.
>
>Thanks!
>Stephen Sorensen
>sore...@leland.stanford.edu
>
Actually, for babies and toddlers of both genders, I wouldn't put pants or
shorts on them except for going out in cold weather. Dresses and tshirts
for my babies, regardless of gender! Consider the ease of diaper changes,
and once you get to toilet training (if you believe in training by age 2),
the child really can't manage shorts and pants well enough on their own.
Further, what in the world is wrong with playing in the dirt while wearing
a dress? Don't they get washed just as often as shorts would? Surely
you don't think anyone finds anything inappropriate in an infant or
toddler's diaper/underwear showing. I haven't yet really introduced the
idea that you might not want your underwear to show, and my daughter is
4 and a half.
Dresses and shorts are both very comfortable. I say, put her in a dress
and let her play in the dirt. Don't limit her clothing any more than
you would limit her play. Just avoid cold-wash clothes and stay miles
away from dry-clean-only clothes, maybe with the exception of time-limited
formal occasions where you wouldn't want any child to be running around
getting their clothes dirty anyway.
Artie
TheDesos
Read this report: http://www.nbc4.com/consumer/pjs.html
In summary, it states that the laws have changed, and that 100% cotton is
fine, as long as it is tight fitting.
e...@cris.com wrote in article <34BF37...@cris.com>...
> Wakanyeja Makah wrote:
>
> > The fact that you deliberately sew a child's pajamas out of a
bolt
> > of cloth which clearly states that it is not fire retardant and
therefore
> > not for that use is negligent. I hope for your daughter's sake that
she
> > never gets severely burned because of your ignorance (arrogant
stupidity).
> >
> > W. Makah
> > (...thinking quite loudly that you have to have a license to own a
> > dog...but ANYONE can procreate...)
>
BTW, you don't get a license to own a dog, you get a license *for* a dog.
Each dog needs its own license.
Abby Franquemont
In article <69mkd7$3...@xochi.tezcat.com>,
Marion Baumgarten <mari...@xochi.tezcat.com> wrote:
>
>Most clothing burns in children are caused by loose fitting clothing
>that got next to an open flame. You will not find a child in a burn unit
>because a flash fire raced through her house and she was wearing cotton
>pajamas insted of polyester. She would have been toasted either way.
[Hi Marion! I'm going to take your side here...]
The need to create flame-retardant synthetics exists, it is true, because
of lawsuits and legislative action -- and also in part because fabrics
such as polyester and nylon are petroleum products at their root, and
ignite very readily and burn very fast at an extremely high temperature,
going up in a flash of flame that is incredibly hot, being done in seconds,
and leaving a melted chemical residue which is extremely hot and harmful
to skin, among other things.
What "flame retardant" means is that, barring exposure to direct flames,
the stuff doesn't catch and burn. One could argue that it doesn't burn
at all, but rather ignites and leaves the nasty residue, typically also
giving off fumes which may or may not be toxic depending on the specific
synthetic in question. Flame retardant synthetics have been treated or
produced in such a manner as to prevent their ability to provide fuel for
flames. This does nothing whatsoever to say they don't still melt into
noxious, harmful substances, however!
Supposing a single spark were to land on a piece of non-flame-retardant
polyester, that polyester will very likely catch from the spark and be
entirely consumed in a matter of single-digit seconds -- far too fast
for a parent to do anything even if the child is in his or her arms --
and leave the child covered in nasty melted chemicals. Supposing that
a single spark were to land on a piece of plain cotton muslin, however,
it's much less likely that the cotton will ignite, and if a portion of
it does, it's going to catch very slowly and not have much chance to burn.
You can test this readily by taking swatches of these fabrics and touching
them with, say, a metal cooking utensil, which isn't even flaming! The
flame-retardant polyesters are supposed to behave more like the cotton
muslin would. Erm, you'll need to heat the cooking utensil for this to
be valid.
In my own independent burn tests, I've found that not only do the flame
retardant polyesters melt fast when exposed to direct flame as from a
cigarette lighter, but also splatter extremely hot melted goo. The
flame retardant polyesters I exposed to a cigarette lighter's flame were
consumed faster than a single human hair.
While flame-retardant synthetics are certainly less prone to sudden and
intense ignition than untreated synthetics, on the whole it is very easy
to make a case that demonstrates natural fibers, such as cotton and wool,
are preferable things to be wearing in the event of a fire, as compared
to _any_ synthetic.
As someone who was saved from fire as a toddler, thanks to a natural
wool blanket (I still have this blanket today, complete with a burn
hole I can put my fist through), and someone who grew up hearing tales
about this kind of stuff because my parents were friends with someone
whose daughter was horribly, horribly burned in a bad sleepwear episode
involving a single spark, I've done a lot of homework on this stuff.
I am also a weaver, and quite knowledgeable about fabric and textiles
in general. I personally have quite stringent rules about what fibers
I consider acceptable for my use in general, and the only non-natural
fibers or blends I will wear are the 50/50 T-shirt, rayon (which is
plant-based rather than petroleum-based) and in some cases, high-tech
insulating fibers which I don't know that I would consider to be proper
for a child.
It is true that there are some space-age fibers and fabrics which are
manufactured for high-end technological uses... but these aren't what
we're talking about when we talk about flame-retardant synthetics in
children's sleepwear, and are most likely priced outside the range of
anyone without a government institution's budget.
I strongly urge people with doubts about fabrics to get a few swatches
of different kinds of fabrics, and perform burn tests with things like
pieces of hot metal and cigarette lighters. You'd be surprised what
you might find!
--
Abby Franquemont Nothing cures insomnia like the realization
J. Random BOFH that it's time to get up. --Fortune program
L.I. Endell
Laura (la...@seesig.net) wrote:
: I think you are very harsh, and possibly thinking that fire proofed
: children's clothing provides more protection than it does. It is not
: an asbestos suit! One of my children had sensitive skin. The flame
: retardant stuff was an instant full body rash for the first two
: years of his life. Had planned on leaving him in the room alone
: with the stove (or *ever* letting him near it!) or had a open fire
: burning in the middle of the family room perhaps your comments would
: be warranted, but as long as you are attentive to your child's
: activities using non flame proof jammies are not the risk you
: perceive them to be. If a fire erupts in your child's room in the
: middle of the night while sleeping - the severe burns are not going
: to be avoided because of flame proof PAJAMAS! You would be deluded
: if you believed that.
Some children, with bad exczema (are there too many consonants?), can wear
only natural fibre clothing next to their skin. Cotton, for them, may be
the only option.
Some children throw the "refusal to get dressed in the morning" tantrum,
and it has been suggested that they go to bed in their day clothes. Should
they wear only flameproof clothes?
Linz
--
Lindsay Endell li...@cam.ac.uk & li...@earthling.net
Conference Administrator, Trinity Hall, Cambridge CB2 1TJ
Laura
huh?? So form fitting clothes can only be in certain patterns
now??!!!
Lets see
fabric has sign saying not for jammies - it is cotton.
mother giggles at amusing pattern
therefore jammies must not be form fitting.
See a flaw?! I hope for your sake you never have a child with
severe skin allergies that lead to bloody rashes. You'll eat your
words!
--
Laura
to respond remove "not" and "here" - notl...@herenetexp.net
Wakanyeja Makah <waka...@iktomi.gov> wrote in article
<34c1897c...@news.tds.net>...
> Well Anne...
Donna Kinney
e...@cris.com wrote:
> This is pretty strong. My child wears only 100% cotton pjs--I hate the
> feel of synthetic fabrics, so why would I put them on my baby? She is
> *always* closely supervised by at least one adult, and she sleeps in our
> family bed. So short of her spontaneously combusting, I fail to see how
> wearing non-flame retardant sleepwear could possibly harm her...
>
> Jill (mom to Elizabeth, 6/28/96)
I agree, totally. The requirement for flame-retardant sleepwear was a
legislative response to conditions that no longer exist. When children
commonly wore long, loose gowns at night and space heaters with hot,
exposed surfaces were commonly used in homes, this requirement probably
made sense. In my home, it makes no sense. The flame retardant fabrics
are not comfortable against the skin and they don't do as good a job of
staying warm but not sweaty. My daughter wears cotton, too.
I thought they were going to change those laws last year. What happened?
Laura
Ain't it the truth! What a hoot. Wonder what the risk of her
spontaneously combusting is?!! Watch out for FBI special agent
Mulder - I hear several of HIS friends have combusted!!??
--
Laura (with apologies. She is sleep deprived today)
to respond remove "not" and "here" - notl...@herenetexp.net
A. Joy McDonald
BarbLuongo wrote:
>
> >As for gender stereotyping. It's not up to you! It will happen
> >when your daughter decides all she wants is dresses or all she
> >wants is jeans and shorts.
>
> I think it is. It depends on 2 things: the child's unique personality (not
> the gender) and what kinds of things you like. Neither of my daughters
> were exposed to pink, neither like pink.
Sorry! A pal of mine *hates* pink and *never* dressed her baby girl in
pink. But once she learned colors and started picking out her own
clothes, guess what color she wanted?! And she didn't learn to like
pink from daycare, b/c she was home with Mommy all the time. And she
didn't learn to like pink from TV b/c she was one of those kids that
didn't watch much television.
Some little girls will decide to like pink clothes no matter *what*
their parents expose them to.
ajm
Carolyn Jean Fairman
A. Joy McDonald <ajo...@ionet.net> wrote:
>BarbLuongo wrote:
>> I think it is. It depends on 2 things: the child's unique personality (not
>> the gender) and what kinds of things you like. Neither of my daughters
>> were exposed to pink, neither like pink.
>
>Sorry! A pal of mine *hates* pink and *never* dressed her baby girl in
>pink. But once she learned colors and started picking out her own
>clothes, guess what color she wanted?! And she didn't learn to like
>pink from daycare, b/c she was home with Mommy all the time. And she
>didn't learn to like pink from TV b/c she was one of those kids that
>didn't watch much television.
>
>Some little girls will decide to like pink clothes no matter *what*
>their parents expose them to.
>
>ajm
Good thing that baby wasn't male then. *That* choice doesn't go over
very well in most parents (don't know about the folks quoted above,
just a generalized comment of what I have seen among friends with
kids, etc).
How many boys even have it as a choice when they learn colors and pick
out clothes? I really think girls have it better in many ways -- far
more choices. Pink and blue are both ok. It's interesting.
--
18 Oct '96, the phrase "You Play Like a Girl" ==If equality is viewed
took on an entirely different meaning-American ==as a loss, what does
Basketball League inaugural game. GO LASERS! ==that tell you about the
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~cfairman/ ==previous situation?
BarbLuongo
In article <34C91D...@ionet.net>, "A. Joy McDonald" <ajo...@ionet.net>
writes:
>> I think it is. It depends on 2 things: the child's unique personality
>(not the gender) and what kinds of things you like. Neither of my
>daughters were exposed to pink, neither like pink.
>Sorry! A pal of mine *hates* pink and *never* dressed her baby girl
>in pink. But once she learned colors and started picking out her
>own clothes, guess what color she wanted?! And she didn't learn to
>like pink from daycare, b/c she was home with Mommy all the time.
>And she didn't learn to like pink from TV b/c she was one of
>those kids that didn't watch much television.
So? She likes pink. It could just be the way she is as in individual,
NOT because of some gender rule. You *did* say that the outside
world didn't influence her.
I have 2 nephews, one loves purple and one loves pink - they were
the favorite colors for everything - til they started school, and the
younger one couldn't take the peer pressure, and started saying
he didn't like pink anymore. The older one still loves purple, and
the younger one likes pink only in private.
<---Barb (barbl...@aol.com)--->
Mom to Will (9-23-82), Mary (10-8-85) & Laury (2-23-93)
Orit Shacham
Vanessa Buchthal (buch...@ucla.edu) wrote:
: Stephen Sorensen wrote:
: >
: > we can't agree on whether Ingrid should wear dresses. My view is
: > that putting dresses on her would be the start of gender stereotyping.
: > More specifically, it would seem to discourage a certain kind of play
: > (e.g., stuff in the dirt) and encourage play like tea parties and house.
: > It's not that I want her to be a boy; I just don't want to limit her
: > opportunities.
: Hey, from another mother of a girl (now nearly 2) who didn't want to
: stereotype or limit her daughter in any way...
: don't be quite so quick to dismiss (nonfrilly) dresses. Sheesh, the parents
: of little boys don't know what they're missing ;) As long as you stick to
: simple, stretchy cotton dresses that aren't too long, dresses can be great.
Guess it's another case of different strokes for different folks. I've
found dresses to be very uncomfortable for my daughter (now 20mo).
: They *are* limiting for crawlers, and that's the time period (say 8-13
: months or so) when I eliminated them from the wardrobe.
For crawlers, yes. And also for climbers (stairs, ladders, jungle gyms).
They tangle. And if they're so short they don't tangle, you might as
well use t-shirts.
At the pre-crawling stage, when baby gets carried a lot, dresses (and
tees) ride up all the time. I prefer shirts with snaps at the crotch
(onsies?) and one-piece suits. They make sure the cloths stay where they
should be, covering the torso.
: But there's *nuthin* like the ease of changing a younger baby who's wearing
: a dress. No struggling to get her into the dress, it just pops over the
: head. No struggling with undoing & doing snaps, you just flip up the hem
: and whip off the diaper.
By this argument, leaving the baby unclothed is even easier. If the
weather calls for clothing, I prefer it to do its job.
: This is especially handy when they get older (able/insistent on standing
: during diaper changes) and you're in a place that doesn't have a changing
: table or a really sheltered, private place to change her diaper. You'd be
: amazed at how quickly I can whip a diaper on and off underneath a loose
: dress, without passerby's getting so much as a peek-a-boo at what is going
: on. It's particularly handy when you're traveling.
This I don't understand. When my daughter is "merely" wet, there's
no urgency on changing her. I wait until she's more willing and conditions
are right. And when her diaper is soiled - well, I don't think you'd want
to "whip it off underneath a loose dress" ...
: Dresses are also proving more convenient right now, when she's in the throes
: of toddler independence, and either wants to dress herself, or is going to
: put up a royal battle if you try to dress her. Dresses pop over the head
: *really* quickly, then I can get her to put her arms through and she's done.
: Muuuuuch easier than trying to persuade her to don playpants and a
: sweatshirt, or to struggle her into overalls. (We put heavy cotton leggings
: on underneath in the winter, for some reason she doesn't object to that
: process as much as she does to things with buttons & diaper changing snaps).
A dress and leggings are easier to put on than a shirt and pants? When
sweatpants are pulled on easily, and leggings you have to struggle with
and pull every inch of the way? Well, to each his own.
: Guys just don't know what they're missing! <grin>
: --Vanessa
: (and Emma, my 22-month-old engineer, who tried to put together an entire
: bookcase from Ikea *by herself* the other day -- the screws were MINE!, the
: allen wrench was MINE!, the panels were MINE! and once Mommy fitted the
: panels together, she actually managed to fit the screws into the predrilled
: holes, fit the allen wrench into the screwheads, and screw them down a few
: turns. What a kid :) )
Orit
Imma shel Keren, 5-June-96