In which I pontificate about car seats

Yeah, I'm going to be one of THOSE MOMS like the ones flooding everyone's Facebook feeds with information about car seat safety.   It's Child Passenger Safety Week!  If that's not something you're down with, feel free to move along.

I'm one of those car seat nuts - you know, the ones who won't put a child in a seat wearing a thick/puffy winter coat, who still has her 2 year old rear facing, and who cringed when she saw a child going into a booster seat at daycare pickup (this at an infant/toddler center which doesn't have children older than 3).   I took my car to a seat check and was told by a tech that after 3 hours of checking seats, mine was the first one they saw that was correctly installed.   Did you know that up to 73% of car seats are not correctly installed or used?   That's a scary statistic, especially since I think all parents would do anything they could to protect their children.   Car seat misuse isn't because parents don't care, it's because it's confusing and can be difficult to get right.  

I've read the NHTSA studies and it's pretty convincing - keeping children rear facing as long as possible prevents injuries and saves lives.   Rear facing kids under the age of 2 are 5 times less likely to die or suffer serious injuries than forward facing kids.   FIVE TIMES.    The AAP's current recommendation is: "All infants and toddlers should ride in a Rear-Facing Car Seat until they are 2 years of age or until they reach the highest weight or height allowed by their car seat’s manufacturer."  

Lily is still rear facing in both of our cars in her Britax Boulevard 70 seats.   This seat is designed with a 40 pound rear facing limit (70 pounds forward facing) although realistically most children will outgrow it by height well before reaching either of the weight limits.   That's the case for most convertible seats on the market today.   She has at least 2" of hard shell over her head, and the limit for this seat is 1" of hard shell.  After the age of 2, children will gain around 1" of torso height per year so we should be able to keep her rear facing until around 3 years old in this seat.    Developmentally, her musculoskeletal system will be more mature and able to better withstand crash forces at 3 than it is at 2, and we'll be OK with turning her when the time comes.  

She's not at all uncomfortable - she either props her legs up on the seat back or sits cross-legged in her seat.   I'll give her a book or small toy if she wants one (we don't snack in our cars).   Rear facing is all she's ever known and she doesn't think it's weird.   It's not terribly difficult to get her in and out of the seat (I don't have her climb in because she uses the headwings for leverage, and I don't want to break them).   We have a mirror so that I can see her and she can see me, but Mark doesn't have a mirror in his car and she's just fine without it.  In the winter when we're driving home from daycare in the dark, I may pick up one of those DVD players that has the screen that attaches to a head rest.   Really, does this look like a toddler who just hates to be rear facing?

(Yes, she removed her shoe and was chewing on it.  Mother of the Year, right here!)

When we took Lily in for her 2 year well child visit, the doctor asked about car seat use and started off with, "She's probably forward facing now..." and her face lit up when we told her that she was still rear facing and would be for as long as possible.   We hadn't seen this young pediatrician before, but she said that car seat safety was emphasized during her residency and it's something she talks to all families about - she said she's had patients who were in boosters at two years old, so it was wonderful to have a family who follows the recommendation.

This is a great blog post, written in easy-to-understand language, about the AAP recommendations and what a good car seat progression would be.   It doesn't have to be expensive and complicated.   And please, regardless of what car seat or booster your child is in, go to a Safe Kids seat check or contact your local car seat tech.   They are certified to make sure that your seat is installed and is being used correctly!  

A little knitting project for me

This is the project I was wrapping up last time I posted knitting pics.   It's a shawl for me, one meant to keep you warm rather than just looking pretty.   My office can have some weird temperature fluctuations and I usually keep a sweater at work between October and April but I think this shawl will be much better.  I bought the yarn at Stitches East last October on a WEBS closeout and cast on immediately, but then we had that freak winter storm and I was busy (OK, overwhelmed) with grad school and work and home and I set it aside until a few weeks ago.

It's knit in a baby alpaca/merino wool/cashmere (!) blend and it's about the softest thing I've ever felt.  Handwash only, but insanely warm.

Lily saw my shawl and begged me for one.  I have three balls of yarn left, which would be enough to knit a matching shawlette. but I just can't bring myself to use a handwash yarn for a 2 year old.   With the way we do laundry it'd get chucked in her hamper and accidentally felted.   I'm actually knitting a pretty shawlette/wrap out of sock yarn right now and I'll probably let her use it because it'll be the right size and I can wash the heck out of it if necessary.

I'm on a shawl kick at the moment - all lacy pretty things.  Totally counter-intuitive when heading into the cold part of the year, I know.

Does she really need a pink and purple toy doctor kit?

Or: Why we don't buy girly versions of non-gendered toys for our kid.

Lily has been reallyinto those toy medical kits since they had health & safety week at daycare a few weeks ago and they got to play with them.  She has a doctor dress-up outfit with a toy stethoscope that she uses to “check” Mommy and Daddy and Bella the dog, but it only has the stethoscope so we decided we should get the full-on toy medical kit.   You know - the one that Fisher Price had when we were little; with a stethoscope, a blood pressure cuff, an otoscope, a reflex hammer, a bracelet that looks like a bandage, a fake syringe, and a little bag.  

Since I had to go to Trader Joe’s for bananas during my lunch break today, I stopped in at ToysRUs to see what they had to offer.   A surprisingly-helpful employee asked if he could help me find something and when I told him, he led me over to the preschool section and asked, “Do you want the boy version or the girl version?”   I said, “I want the gender neutral one.”  He chuckled and said that meant the so-called boy version.   He handed me the toy medical kit and said that they haveto ask almost all the time because now virtually all toys come in a standard/boy version and a girly version.     

This was what was on the shelf as the supposed "boy" version:

I don't find anything particularly boyish about this kit - it's just like the one I had 30 years ago when I was a kid.   Here's what the "girl" version looks like:

The parts are all the same, except the pink kit comes with a hard case (which according to online reviews doesn't hold all of the parts of the doctor kit anyways!).   And then there's the freaking pink everywhere for no good reason.  

If you doubt the pinkification of even simple and non-gendered toys, step into the toy and children’s products aisles at Target or BabiesRUs or ToysRUs.  Look at a bubble mower or a toy medical kit or even Duplo sets, and you’ll see that virtually every toy for babies, toddlers, and preschoolers comes in both the primary-colored version (apparently that’s the boy version) and a version in pink and/or purple hues (for the girls).   Leapfrog has all of their baby and toddler toys in a Scout version (green) and a Violet version (purple).  You’ll see a car seat or stroller which comes in a gender-neutral style and then a pink or purple style, often with flowers.  

Our infant car seat has a green cover because we didn’t know if we were having a boy or a girl, and like everything we got before Lily’s birth it’s gender neutral.  Our swing, bouncer, and most of our newborn layette is gender neutral with lots of lambs, ducks, and froggies.   We got her Boulevards (convertible car seats) in neutral prints/patterns because our plan is to pass the seats down to our next child when the time comes and to buy high weight combination seats for Lily.   When it’s time for a combo seat, she can help pick the pattern because she’ll be in that seat for several years, but when she was too young to choose we went gender-neutral.  

I see it not infrequently where if a couple finds out they’re having a girl, their BRU registry is full of pink infant car seats and pink Pack & Plays and pink swings and pink clothes and pink EVERYTHING.   I’m not saying to not get a girly bedding set or some pink receiving blankets, because we even went to the extent of ordering a boyish crib bedding set and a girlish one and then returning the unused one to Pottery Barn Kids after Lily was born!   But still, I think it's a little shortsighted to make an entire registry girly. Especially for gear that may be reused for a future child, unless you’re positive that your childbearing plans are “one and done” it makes sense to go with more neutral choices or you’re likely to feel that you have to buy new stuff rather than putting a little boy in a pink princess SwaddleMe (note that said little boy is unlikely to notice or care if you do so).   

As part of my apparently-useless M.S. in management, I took a required marketing course and enjoyed it enough that I took a marketing elective as well.   My husband’s undergrad degree is in marketing.   I don’t fancy myself much of a marketing genius, but I do know this – the current trend in pink-ifying baby gear, toys, and kids’ clothes is pure marketing.  Think about it – if you have a girl first you’re likely to get all of the girly versions of toys, then if you have a boy you’ll be re-buying the normal versions because HEAVEN FORBID a little boy push around a pink bubble mower (note my sarcasm there).   If you have a boy first you’ll have all the normal versions but will be at least tempted to get the girly stuff for your little one.   Since most American families have more than one child and statistically speaking it's most common to have at least one of each gender, it’s not surprising that there are families out there who have a red bubble mower and a pink one, or a green Scout and a purple Violet, purchased for different children.   The supply chain for making injection-molded plastic toys is only marginally more complicated if you’re making a girly version and a standard one.   So there’s minimal added cost to have the second pink line, and the potential for greater sales for the toy manufacturers – a win-win for sure. 

So from the perspective of not getting sucked into the marketing vortex of buying new toys in a few years if we have a son, we buy the standard versions of toys and we chose all gender-neutral baby gear.   What I find fascinating is that a lot of toys and gear aren't necessarily in stereotypical "boy" and "girl" versions - there's a neutral/classic version and a girly version.   It's just that people see the pink one, clearly intended for girls, and it starts to seem like the neutral version must be for boys.  

Little girls and boys don’t know that they’re “supposed” to like pink princesses or blue race cars.  Societal influences and marketing push them towards those things.   Mark and I have consciously tried to raise Lily without media and marketing and us telling her that she has to do or like certain things because she’s a girl.   We don’t restrict her from playing with toys but until she was old enough to start having and expressing her own preferences we stayed strictly gender-neutral on toys, books, etc.  We’ve had some good-natured fun poked at us by relatives and friends because of this, but it’s important to us.   

Needless to say, I bought the standard version of the toy today and Lily is overjoyed with her "doctor kit". 

Who wears the pants?

A few days ago I read a really interesting article in the New York Times, entitled "Who Wears the Pants in This Economy?"  The author visited a small former mill town in Alabama where until recently, a working wife/mother was shockingly non-traditional and where men were able to provide a comfortable living as sole breadwinners until the mills closed and most of the male employees were laid off.   With no real diversification in local industry, many of those men have been unemployed for the long term.   The working class and middle class families profiled had women who bucked the trend and had careers, and were now the primary or sole breadwinners while their husbands sort of drifted, maybe doing some light housework or ferrying teenage children to activities and hunting or fishing in between.   It was fascinating because these families were being told at their church and among their social circles that men are to provide and women are to nurture at home and were teaching these strict gender roles to their kids, and yet there's this sharp contrast with those values and the families' reality in the post-Great Recession economy.  The men are left in a position where they're the titular head of the household but with none of the financial power that they used to have, and the women are told in church that they're to be submissive wives yet are the ones financially supporting the household.

We are a family who was substantially impacted by the economic collapse.  In September 2008, we were doing pretty darned well.   Mark was working at a great job that he liked and that paid very nicely.   I was working where I work now, albeit for a different manager (one who I wasn't thrilled with).   And then in October the markets melted down and Mark was laid off with no warning.   Nine long and difficult months of unemployment ensued, followed by just over a year of him working in a retail setting for a crummy little cell phone company that hired him with the promise of rapid advancement that never panned out.   He was laid off by that company when I was 20 weeks pregnant, only to get a new job with that same company that not only paid less but gave him an hourlong commute each way every day (still better than nothing - especially with a baby on the way).   Because of the layoff he had no PTO and was short of FMLA eligibility by just a few weeks when Lily was born, so he took a week of unpaid leave and hoped they'd hold to their promise to keep his job while he was out.   They did, but the day he returned he was informed that his department was being closed down as of the next day and that he should be grateful that rather than being laid off they were sending the employees back to retail.   He came home from work that day to his wife and week old baby and started sending out resumes.  Within a week he'd heard from his current employer and started the interview process.  He gave his notice and started his current job when Lily was 6 weeks old.   A week after he left, his former employer ceased doing business in this state - we were fortunate that he'd gotten out prior to the company shutting down.

He works for a huge telecom/wireless company (a hint - "Can you hear me now?") and his employer provides us with great medical insurance at 1/4 the premiums of what is offered by my employer (which is pushing hard to get employees on high deductible plans).  Their tuition assistance will just about cover the bill for him to go to grad school, which hopefully will start next month.   Because he's salaried non-exempt, he's able to get overtime, which helps substantially even if he only picks up a few hours a week.   The kicker is that he basically started his career over again at entry level at the age of 31.   He'll get caught up again eventually, but it's not going to be during our childbearing years.   I still earn nearly twice what he does, and we expect that the relative disparity will continue for some time to come.

You'd think that this situation would bother us, but it really doesn't.   We both grew up in families where both of our parents worked.   Yeah, my mom was home with me for my first year and his mom was home with the kids until Mark started school, but basically for as long as either of us can remember, we saw our parents both working and parenting and maintaining our homes.   Our religion (or lack thereof) never told us that God wanted the man to provide and the woman to nurture.    Most of our friends and all of our relatives in our age range are in situations where both spouses work.   It's just our reality, and both of us have a decent sense of balance when it comes to our careers and our life at home.   We both provide, and we both nurture our child.   In a very real sense we both wear the pants in our family and we're happy with that!

That's why it was kind of shocking to read that NY Times article and realize that there are plenty of people who still buy into the "a man supports his family and a woman nurtures her family" gender roles.   I know it's a function of religious institutions and local society dictating as such, but it's still startling to know that in other parts of the US, little girls in Sunday School are being told that they are princesses for their future husbands to take care of - yet reality is that those girls are the ones going to college, getting jobs as nurses and teachers and engineers, and are likely to need to work to help support their families.   Their male counterparts are having it drilled into their heads that being a sole provider is their birthright, yet most of them will be unable to do so in the new economy.   As a sociological phenomenon I find it fascinating that kids are being raised with that sort of traditional outlook when in fact their actual lives are likely to be very different.

Small knitting projects

I've done a couple of small projects in the last few weeks.

The first is a Brattleboro Hat for myself.  Love!  I knit it in Malabrigo Rios, which has rapidly become my favorite superwash wool (unfortunately it's not cheap, although not as expensive as the gorgeous Tosh Vintage or DIC Classy).  Mal Rios is so soft and smooshy and easy on the hands to knit.   If I hit the lotto jackpot I'll be buying enough Rios to knit myself a freaking afghan.

The second is an Aviatrix hat for Lily, in the 2-4 year size.  It's just right for her giant noggin, but I wasn't able to get an action shot.  Also in Rios, but a different colorway that I bought a while ago for a cowl for myself.   I have more than enough yarn left over to knit her matching mittens!    

Finally, I taught myself to double crochet (thanks, YouTube) so that I could finish Lily's Elenka dress.  It's a size 2 with extra length in the skirt, knit in Lion Brand Cotton-Ease (see, I'm not that much of a yarn snob!).  No action shot yet, but she needs to wear it soon before it gets too cold.   I'm using the remaining yarn in the ball to knit a little diaper/underwear cover because the openwork in the skirt is a little more open than I'd like.  

I have a BIG project that I just finished, which I started in October 2011.  It's a shawl for me, knit in a lovely baby alpaca/merino/cashmere blend which is obscenely warm and cozy.   It's blocking now.