I recently received a message on Facebook from a couple that are interested in having children, but are worried that they don't make enough for the woman to be a full-time mom, and they were curious what I spend on Anders.
Before I share what I spend on Anders, here are some things that I know:
1) There is a wealth of information about this on the internet that can be Googled. There are even cost calculators that you can do by geographic area. Assume that your costs will be higher than those listed if you will not be feeding your child fake food. Also, cheap plastic diapers and wipes gave Anders diaper rash, so we used the Seventh Generation brand which is much more expensive. We used plastic diapers when we were out. We used cloth diapers at home, but I did not wash them myself, I had a diaper service. You could save money by using cloth diapers and washcloths and washing them yourself. Also, I was never willing to use the cheapest childcare available for Anders (daycares), so my child care costs (high quality babysitters) were always higher than what the websites list as well.
2) I read that parents spend about 33% of their expendable income on their first kid. If they have a second child that number goes up to 41%. If they have a third child that number goes to 47% and after that it stays around there, just under 50% regardless of how many children the couple has.
So my first thought is: Do you have expendable income?
Note that at my house, one cannot say, "No." Because my husband worked minimum wage jobs for ten years and during that time lived on just 20% of his income. No joke. So literally no one can tell him that they "can't save."
Now, what my husband did, I do not think most people are capable of doing. The sacrifices he made blow my mind. He parked miles from venues but never once paid for parking until he was over thirty years old. He periodically slept in his car for a few months to save on rent. He shared a studio apt with three other people. He couch surfed for years while working and saving. He worked as a bus boy at a restaurant and only ate the free food from there. The only food he was willing to pay for was Ramen noodles and cans of tuna fish. He drove a car with no a/c and a busted window in Los Angeles for over half a decade. He did not go out to eat or to movies - ever. He did not pay for books or movies, he only rented from the library. Stuff like that.
If you have a dream and you can make these sacrifices for it, even working minimum wage jobs, you can save. So, regardless of how much you make, what is your savings rate? Assume that 30% of your income needs to go to your child and another 10% needs to be saved each year, can you live on 60% of your income?
Surprise! If you were married to my husband, saving 10% would not fly. He would say you should save a minimum of 30%. Assume you will spend 30% on the child and save 30%. Can you live on 40% of your income? Start experimenting now to see. How does it feel to make those sacrifices? Because if you are not happy to do it now, when you are getting enough sleep, you will feel much less happy about doing it when you are a bleary-eyed, sleep-deprived parent.
If you are going to have a child you should definitely have six months of income stashed in a savings account for emergencies. If you are Mormon, you have to have an entire year. Do you have that?
3) Another thing I know is that, from the book, The Price of Motherhood, if the woman makes less than 50k a year, it is a better financial decision for her to stay home than it is for her to work. This is because the costs of childcare and taxes negate the entire worth of the woman's salary if it is below 50k. If you haven't read that book, I recommend it.
4) For Tom and me, our highest value is health. I would consider it cruel to have a child that I couldn't afford to feed a nutritionally-dense diet. Can you afford to feed your child real, chemical-free food? If not, start making friends with local organic farmers.
Also, remember that you need to prepare your body for two years before you have the child to maximize the DNA you pass on (this is from what I have read about epigenetics). Have you been doing that? Have you read about the pregnancy-prep diet in Nourishing Traditions?
5) Tom and I take pride in our family being "hard to kill." Are you prepared for black swan emergencies? Do you have a gun and know how to use it, gold and silver coins, medical supplies, batteries, and two months of stored water and food and a way to cook that food if there is no power? If you live in a cold climate and the power is out, how will you heat your home? Do you have a wood stove and two months of back up wood? *Assume it is not safe to leave your home for two months and figure out how you will survive. If you are Mormon, assume a year. (I really respect the Mormons in this area!)
In addition, have you taken an EMT class? Not CPR, that is basically useless, EMT. Have you studied a martial art, hopefully krav maga so that you can protect your family if there is ever an emergency?
Remember that children cost a lot more in time than they do in money. Assume that your family will now be your hobby. After work, are you happy to skip your favorite activity or show/video game and instead go to krav maga for your family? For the next year, experiment with having no down time. Instead, spend your free time on your unborn child – working extra to get the emergency food stash, money, and skills you need for your family to be hard to kill. How does that feel? Are you happy to be a king instead of a squire? If not, you will most likely not enjoy having a family. (The king/squire comment is referencing this post. If you have not read it, I recommend it: http://roslynross.blogspot.com/2016/07/living-right-story-parents-as-kings-and.html)
6) Finally, what do I spend on Anders every year? I don't have the info with me for the first few years, but in both 2015 and 2016 we spent about 18.5k, not including food or plane tickets. Here is the breakdown:
2015 (Anders was 3)
$10k on childcare
$5k on classes, camps, experiences, books, and toys. (We buy almost no toys, opting instead for experiences and camps.)
$100 on haircuts
$2.5k on health, this includes insurance (catastrophic coverage only), and dental apts. Keep in mind dental costs would be a lot higher if we agreed to fill his cavities. And medical costs would be higher if we went to the doctor for "checkups."
$900 on clothes
2016 (Anders was 4)
$4k on childcare
$11k on classes, camps, experiences, books, and toys.
$150 on haircuts
$2.5k on health, this includes insurance (catastrophic coverage only), and dental apts.
$1k on clothes
Food costs an additional $1k per month if we are feeding Anders in Los Angeles and an additional $200 a month if we are feeding him in Nicaragua.
Thoughts:
-Where you live matters the most. If you live in Nicaragua and make 30k, you are rich. Like, maid, cook, driver rich. If you make 200k in Los Angeles, you still can't afford those things.
-There are ways to do kids for a lot less than what I spend, of course. If you have a social network that you can rely on for hand-me-downs, that can save you money. Goodwill is a great option, but it's a big time investment. If you get the plastic tubs now and start hitting the store once a week, you could have a good collection of clothes two years from now when you need them. It doesn't work to go there when you need the clothes, as you will leave with only one or two items each time you go.
-If you have relatives nearby that would babysit once a week for a full day, that would help significantly. You will need time off. After Anders was a newborn, Tom and I got zero help from our families. Many families try to do without time off. I think that, except for a select few, this doesn't work. I think planning to have no time off is basically planning to end up divorced.
-When Anders was younger we didn't go to any classes (except for his RIE baby class), so I imagine those costs were negligible. There are free classes offered at libraries and through homeschooling networks that I know are available, but in general I found them to be not what I was looking for. I think that if Tom and I had a stronger social network (which would require being more mainstream) they might have been.
-I don't think kids need their own rooms until they are much older. So one way to save money is to plan on sharing a room with your child until he/she really wants one of his/her own.
-I do think it's important for you to think about what will keep your family together. Because if you don't plan for it, your family will most likely disperse and then – what was the point of having kids? This means: Are you in a city near your own family? Are you in a city you could live in for the rest of your life? Are you in a city you would be proud to have your child live in for the rest of his/her life? Are you in a line of work that you can share with your child? Start thinking now about how you will involve your child in your work life. Start thinking now about your grandchildren and great grandchildren. Have you read The Little House books? They were poor, and they had a happy family life. But the children were malnourished and unable to produce viable offspring. For me, that is a big fail. They would have been better off limiting themselves to one child. Or staying in the big woods where they had the support of their families. Either way, the point is to start thinking long-term. Most people think that if the children survive to adulthood, the parents were successful. I disagree. I think the children must survive to adulthood and be better off physically, emotionally, and financially for the parenting to be deemed successful. (Note that I am not suggesting parents should be perfect, just that they should think realistically and long-term about their abilities to do better in all three areas than their own parents did.)
-Tom and I would save quite a bit of money if I would stop writing this blog, and instead spend my free time growing veggies, preserving food, taking Anders on hunting and fishing trips, and learning how to make our clothes and do basic home repairs. I recommend saving money by not starting a blog! :)
-If you can get your hands on The Baby Decision by Merle Bombardieri, I highly recommend it. And one of those books along the lines of 100 Questions to ask before getting married. I do not agree that love is enough. (I think one should breed primarily with one's head, not one's heart.) Values and long term plans should be addressed before the long term commitment is made.
-And finally, if you don't do any of these things that I recommend, and you decide to be what I would call "irresponsible," remember that because you read this blog you will probably still be better than 99.9% of the parents out there.
I give you sooooooo many point just for even considering these things before having kids!
Showing posts with label b) 1 Year Before Baby. Show all posts
Showing posts with label b) 1 Year Before Baby. Show all posts
Monday, January 23, 2017
Monday, July 11, 2016
Only Kings and Queens Can Found Kingdoms: A Story About Successful Marraiges
This is a messy blog post. It is an idea I want to share because, though it may not be The One Truth, it's a story that has been helpful to me.
My husband and I have a great relationship now, but we didn't always. We had horrific childhood attachment issues to overcome in addition to terrible relationship models coming from our two sets of divorced parents. There was a key moment in our relationship right after we got engaged. We got into a terrible fight (of course I cannot remember what it was about). I called my mom, and she said, "Yeah, relationships end. Sounds like yours has run its course." He called his mom, and she said something similar.
When we made up from that fight we realized we could never call our parents to help us through our marriage struggles (if our goal was to stay married). Similarly, I couldn't turn to the advice offered by Ayn Rand or Nathaniel Branden on the subject of marriage and relationships as neither of them had marriages I would want to emulate. I started my search for new relationship role-models.
A few years later Tom and I were married, and I was pregnant. Tom's single friends at the time were Tindering it up, and his married friends (and him) were all feeling a little jealous and trapped. I had this realization then, that changed how we saw the situation.
Joseph Campbell wrote about the "human story." He saw a woman's life story as having three main arcs: Maiden then Mother then Crone. For a man was: Squire then Warrior then King. I don't think those work well for today, so I updated them to: Maiden then Warrior Queen Mother then Wise Woman and, for a man, Squire then Warrior King Father then Wise Man.
"The problem," I said to my husband, "is that your friends think they are still squires. They are like the 40-year-old married women running around in short skirts. They're living the wrong story. I'm not a maiden anymore. It's hard to let that story go. Flirting with squires was fun. But now I will live the Warrior Queen Mother story, and I will try to make that story as glorious as my Maiden story was.
As a Warrior Queen Mother, I don't want to wear skimpy dresses and flirt with boys. I want to fight for the survival of my kingdom (e.g. my children). Your married friends would feel a lot better if they stopped seeing themselves as squires who are supposed to be chasing maiden-tail. They are kings now, and they have kingdoms to fight for. They can be heroes. Or they can be playboy princes that destroy their kingdoms."
This story rings even more true now. I was at a department store the other day trying on dresses for a cocktail party. The saleswoman was trying to get me to buy something extremely short and "sexy." "You've got such a great body; you should flaunt it!" she kept telling me. I was totally uninterested and tried to explain to her that I am in my mid-thirties not my mid-twenties, that I am married, that I an not trying to attract anyone, etc. She found it sad that I didn't think I "could" wear sexy stuff anymore.
I became interested in this exchange. Hollywood loves the maiden/squire story and has fed us a ton of one-liners to keep us pursuing our mates rather than building kingdoms. It is rare, on television, to see loyalty between partners. There is so much back-stabbing. And yet it is partnership and commitment that leads to riches, the kingdom we create that leads to a better life.
Squires and maidens tend to spend money in their efforts to show off and attract a mate. Smart kings and queens are more likely to save money because security and ensuring the survival of their offspring is what motivates them. Maidens and squires, whether they have children or not, are largely focused on attracting a mate, not kingdom building.
Maybe it's because we give away our children to be raised by others – there is no kingdom to fight for anymore. Maybe it's because of all the subterfuge involved in today's battle for survival. On the subject of nutrition alone – how many wealthy dynasties have failed because of inability to produce viable heirs due to nutritional depletion of genetic stock across generations? Many wealthy and middle class people think they are successfully "surviving," but they are not, not if you take a long-term (three or more generations) view of it.
I find this reflected in my parent-friends who, rather than be focused on the battle for the survival of their children, are focused on their careers. "Your family is your job!" I want to say. The point of a flashy career is to attract the best possible mate. A married person overly focused on career is a person looking to get divorced (and "trade up" in mates). A king or queen would only be interested in their career to the extent that it could benefit their kingdom, perhaps by making family alliances so that their children can find the best mates possible. But in a very deep way, Kings and Queen know it's not about them anymore, and that's wonderful!
I am all about selfishness, but for me, the battle for the survival of my children is what I want right now. Every time I hear my parent-friends talk about their search for sexual fulfillment, I can't help but think – you are stuck in your old story. By all means, if you are so wealthy that your children are eating farm fresh organic Weston A Price food, if you and they have straight teeth with no braces and no cavities and no other signs of physical degeneration, if you have fantastic communication skills with your partner and your children and you are raising them and not having them raised by others, then perhaps you have so much free time that you could be focused on "sexual fulfillment." Otherwise: You are falling for what seems to me like a media sales gimmick.
When a twenty-year-old tells me about her wild sex life, it's entertaining. When a forty-year-old does so, there is something unattractive about it. And I think it's this: The social cues you are giving me with your focus on sex or your career is that you are not focused on your kingdom.
Having been born into poverty and having been studying successful families since the minute I understood what I wanted, and knowing that most people who make it into the top 1% will stay there less than two years and 80% will stay there less than ten years, and knowing that while I worked my butt off and rose in wealth throughout my life, I have watched most of my friends (who were raised in wealth) fall. Why? Why is it so hard for a family to keep its wealth once it has acquired it?
One conclusions I have made is that wealthy people equate their wealth only to money. This is a fatal mistake in the creation of a dynasty. Ask any of the failed dynasties why they failed: Inability to produce heirs (decline in genetic stock), poor parent-child relationships (which the parents will pass off as unmotivated kids), fighting among heirs (failure of family to share values).
It became clear to me while I worked for unhealthy 1%ers that you cannot lose focus on health and healthy relationships. My husband and I talk about this as we build our wealth. We will build our wealth more slowly than we can, but we will do it right. The foundation of physical health for our bodies and our children's bodies is our highest priority. We can always make money. But money cannot buy good health that has been lost.
Same with relationships. Divorce destroys kingdoms. Children who hate their parents destroy kingdoms. So though my husband and I could be moving toward our financial dreams twice as fast if we put Anders into school and I joined the paid workforce, that is sacrificing the future for the present. And it would likely destroy our kingdom, if not in our lifetime, in our children's lifetime. And why? My husband and I are taken; we don't need flashy amounts of money or success to attract mates. We only need enough money for our own enjoyment and to maximize the quality of our offspring.
Money will only serve the mind that can match it. It is far more important that we focus on giving our son a mind that can match and grow our current level of wealth, than that we keep growing it.
The battle for survival that my husband and I fight is glorious. We must be quite high earners just to feed our family properly. Tom has to earn twice as much as husbands whose wives work so that I can raise our son. But we have a dream of a family like one we have yet to see in our lives. There is nothing more bonding, nothing sexier, than going to war in this way with my husband. It's exhausting of course, but it's a beautiful, fun, and interesting exhausting because it is meaningful for us.
Something else I noticed recently: Battle scars are tragic and hideous on maidens and squires. On kings and queens they are hot, proof of our strength, our prowess. And thank goodness, because I don't think anyone makes it to old age without them.
The belief that we are warriors now, not innocent, happy young folk, also helps us on to the next phase of our life story – old age and accepting death. When you are a maiden or a squire death is tragic. When you are exhausted from battle, scarred, used, death is rest, something that you can be happy about (just a little bit).
This is a subconscious experience for us, an emotional story. But you better believe I am out there making friends who are living this story. Most parents I meet are still maidens and squires. They are not kingdom building and alliances with them are becoming more and more unfulfilling. They are married and have children, but seem to have bought into the advertising media pitch that their life purpose should be ... sex. I like sex as much as the next person, but as your meaning in life?
I was having lunch with a friend of mine the other day who is getting her PhD in sexual health. She was telling me how important sexual fulfillment is, and when I told her it wasn't a priority to Tom and me, she became worried. But upon further questioning it turned out that we have a "healthy" amount of sex. Yet we don't make sex dates or have a date night as is recommend for couples with children. Just the fact that we like each other is enough to get us into bed. I am not holding our relationship out there as a Model For Everyone To Follow, but I think that we are still attracted to each other because of how we see each other. Like I said above, there something bonding and super sexy about seeing each other as warriors fighting a battle together.
Here are some more metaphors: I think many wives subconsciously do their best to stay maidens because they think that is how they will keep their husbands. But it's actually the opposite. If you stay a maiden and keep your husband in squire-mode, eventually you will break up. Why? Because a mother cannot compete with the maidens. A forty year old woman cannot out maiden real maidens. Even if she isn't older than they are, her focus is divided, her story is wrong, and there is always something unattractive subconsciously about people living the wrong story. Rather, the woman who wants to keep her husband should specifically try to not be a maiden or compete with maidens. She should focus on being the most incredible queen any king could wish for. No maiden can compete with a true warrior queen. And no king is attracted to maidens - they are pretty, silly things, not useful to him in battle.
What does it mean when a married woman and mother dresses in a way to attract men? Does it mean she is confident about her body? I don't think so. Something about it is unattractive. (And that is interesting to me.) This is what I think: What it says to me is she is not happy in her relationship, that she may cheat on her husband, that she may wish she were still a maiden, in other words: I should not trust and form alliances with her kingdom as she is alerting me to its instability or lack of success. Perhaps she genuinely thinks she is just showing the world that she doesn't care what it thinks – but that's just out of touch with reality. And I don't think it's attractive to be out of touch with reality. The fact that you will be judged by how you present yourself is unavoidable. To dress as if that is not a fact just makes you in denial and likely to fail.
I think about the things we used to think (as a society) were "bad." Dressing slutty. Divorce. We don't want to stigmatize the people who do these things. But at the same time, in some ways, they signify someone's success or failure to grow up.
I went to a conference over the summer where I was hit on rather a lot. It was flattering, but it occurred to me that it's boring to me now. What's interesting to me is my son and my husband, our growth, our finances, the creation of the best life possible for our family, the dream of building something that could last generations. Several times I was hit on by people who have open marriages who wondered if I have the same. And I ... don't see that in my future. Because it's boring. Seduction and being seduced was once the most fascinating and marvelous thing to me in the world. I read books on it! But now it simply doesn't serve me. It doesn't serve my kingdom.
I can't help but wonder about the people who are married and have children, but are still pursing mating. I wonder how their kingdoms will do (long term) with their energies so distracted.
Likewise the high percentage of women who abandon their children and return to the workforce. This is a subconscious signal to me that they don't trust their relationship. Their relationship is on such shaky ground that the woman cannot afford to specialize in the children, she has to be prepared for the coming divorce. She has to have "her own" money. If you haven't even figured out how to make a committed alliance to your own husband, how can I trust any alliance you make with me?
Not to mention your children. I am looking for the best mates for my own well-raised children. If your children are going to be raised by servants, middle class teachers, and the television, they are not good mates for mine.
Some women think that staying in the workforce is sexier to their husbands. These women are completely out of touch with reality. Every father I know wants his wife to "do whatever makes her happy." But every last one of them hopes that caring for his children (and him) is what will make her happy. I have never seen a man jump for joy when his queen announces that she, actually, would not enjoy caring for his children. What man can forgive that betrayal? Of course they smile and pretend they are modern, but I think that when their wife shows she cares so little for the children, he starts to detach from them as well.
A man cannot become a king without a queen. A woman in the workforce is not a queen. Queens are focused on their kingdoms, on their children. Likewise men pursuing outlying career success are not kings. Kings are focused on their kingdoms. That is what the money is for.
Both partners must choose to mature. If the man stays a squire he will be obsessed with maidens, and since his wife cannot be one anymore, he will end up leaving her for one. And with his new wife he will start a kingdom a second time. And then he will leave her for a third maiden. Never will his kingdoms progress or grow in glory. He will have wasted decades of valuable kingdom building time reliving the same old story rather than committing to the new one.
I maintain that kingdoms can be built at any social status. It is a way of life, not a social status. Some people will argue that their family "cannot afford" to have one partner at home, but according to Ann Crittenden in The Price of Motherhood, if the wife isn't making over 50k (possibly 65k in today's dollars), it doesn't actually pencil for the woman to be working. What does "cannot afford" mean? Money is all about choices. We choose what we value. For a kingdom builder, nothing is more valuable than the children.
For the record, I don't agree with women being stuck in the house with the kids. Please see: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1185171129?type=review#rating_109775433. But I also don't think there is any other option today for the woman that values the health of her children and future of her kingdom.
When my children are ready, I will give up my throne and become a wise woman. This is one of the hardest and most important things a king or queen must do. The failure of many parents to "give up the throne" destroys relationships, and especially the children. It is this awareness of my future obsoleteness that enables me to give Anders my very best happily. Nothing like being a warrior for a few decades to make you feel excited about resting!
I had lunch with one of my favorite girlfriends the other day. Unlike me she grew up in a wealthy family, and she has happily married parents. She said, "Many girls marry rich men because they want to be a princess. But to be a princess you must make your husband your servant. If you make your husband your servant, he will soon be poor. Instead you must seek to be a queen at his side, and make your husband your king. If you treat your husband like a king, he will soon be more rich."
I love this story too. Princess-wives are another example of a way people can fail to change stories.
I apologize for any of this sounding judge-y. Like I said above, this is not The One Truth. There are many glorious stories to live, this one has been mine.
UPDATE
Frank pointed out below that it might be easiest for people to move on to their next story when they have lived their current story to the fullest. As in: squires and maidens who milked every last drop of their squire and maiden experience might be happier to settle into the warrior kingdom mode. Likewise, those who accept the warrior kingdom and live it to its fullest might be the happiest to let that go and become the wise "letting go" generation.
In my studies of death it occurred to me that Buddhism is a disturbing religion for the young. Nor is it helpful for the kingdom builders. But man is it the perfect religion for the old! It's about acceptance and letting go. The entire Tibetan Book of Living and Dying has one main thing to teach: how to die with grace and dignity. Buddhism is the religion for our final stage. I would say Christianity and Judaism (war-making religions) are quite fantastic religions for kingdom building. And for maidens and squires? Well, they should be Pagens. Again, not saying this as Fact. Using these ideas as metaphors to describe the human experience and how we can best facilitate one another to live our stage to the fullest.
My husband and I have a great relationship now, but we didn't always. We had horrific childhood attachment issues to overcome in addition to terrible relationship models coming from our two sets of divorced parents. There was a key moment in our relationship right after we got engaged. We got into a terrible fight (of course I cannot remember what it was about). I called my mom, and she said, "Yeah, relationships end. Sounds like yours has run its course." He called his mom, and she said something similar.
When we made up from that fight we realized we could never call our parents to help us through our marriage struggles (if our goal was to stay married). Similarly, I couldn't turn to the advice offered by Ayn Rand or Nathaniel Branden on the subject of marriage and relationships as neither of them had marriages I would want to emulate. I started my search for new relationship role-models.
A few years later Tom and I were married, and I was pregnant. Tom's single friends at the time were Tindering it up, and his married friends (and him) were all feeling a little jealous and trapped. I had this realization then, that changed how we saw the situation.
Joseph Campbell wrote about the "human story." He saw a woman's life story as having three main arcs: Maiden then Mother then Crone. For a man was: Squire then Warrior then King. I don't think those work well for today, so I updated them to: Maiden then Warrior Queen Mother then Wise Woman and, for a man, Squire then Warrior King Father then Wise Man.
"The problem," I said to my husband, "is that your friends think they are still squires. They are like the 40-year-old married women running around in short skirts. They're living the wrong story. I'm not a maiden anymore. It's hard to let that story go. Flirting with squires was fun. But now I will live the Warrior Queen Mother story, and I will try to make that story as glorious as my Maiden story was.
As a Warrior Queen Mother, I don't want to wear skimpy dresses and flirt with boys. I want to fight for the survival of my kingdom (e.g. my children). Your married friends would feel a lot better if they stopped seeing themselves as squires who are supposed to be chasing maiden-tail. They are kings now, and they have kingdoms to fight for. They can be heroes. Or they can be playboy princes that destroy their kingdoms."
This story rings even more true now. I was at a department store the other day trying on dresses for a cocktail party. The saleswoman was trying to get me to buy something extremely short and "sexy." "You've got such a great body; you should flaunt it!" she kept telling me. I was totally uninterested and tried to explain to her that I am in my mid-thirties not my mid-twenties, that I am married, that I an not trying to attract anyone, etc. She found it sad that I didn't think I "could" wear sexy stuff anymore.
I became interested in this exchange. Hollywood loves the maiden/squire story and has fed us a ton of one-liners to keep us pursuing our mates rather than building kingdoms. It is rare, on television, to see loyalty between partners. There is so much back-stabbing. And yet it is partnership and commitment that leads to riches, the kingdom we create that leads to a better life.
Squires and maidens tend to spend money in their efforts to show off and attract a mate. Smart kings and queens are more likely to save money because security and ensuring the survival of their offspring is what motivates them. Maidens and squires, whether they have children or not, are largely focused on attracting a mate, not kingdom building.
Maybe it's because we give away our children to be raised by others – there is no kingdom to fight for anymore. Maybe it's because of all the subterfuge involved in today's battle for survival. On the subject of nutrition alone – how many wealthy dynasties have failed because of inability to produce viable heirs due to nutritional depletion of genetic stock across generations? Many wealthy and middle class people think they are successfully "surviving," but they are not, not if you take a long-term (three or more generations) view of it.
I find this reflected in my parent-friends who, rather than be focused on the battle for the survival of their children, are focused on their careers. "Your family is your job!" I want to say. The point of a flashy career is to attract the best possible mate. A married person overly focused on career is a person looking to get divorced (and "trade up" in mates). A king or queen would only be interested in their career to the extent that it could benefit their kingdom, perhaps by making family alliances so that their children can find the best mates possible. But in a very deep way, Kings and Queen know it's not about them anymore, and that's wonderful!
I am all about selfishness, but for me, the battle for the survival of my children is what I want right now. Every time I hear my parent-friends talk about their search for sexual fulfillment, I can't help but think – you are stuck in your old story. By all means, if you are so wealthy that your children are eating farm fresh organic Weston A Price food, if you and they have straight teeth with no braces and no cavities and no other signs of physical degeneration, if you have fantastic communication skills with your partner and your children and you are raising them and not having them raised by others, then perhaps you have so much free time that you could be focused on "sexual fulfillment." Otherwise: You are falling for what seems to me like a media sales gimmick.
When a twenty-year-old tells me about her wild sex life, it's entertaining. When a forty-year-old does so, there is something unattractive about it. And I think it's this: The social cues you are giving me with your focus on sex or your career is that you are not focused on your kingdom.
Having been born into poverty and having been studying successful families since the minute I understood what I wanted, and knowing that most people who make it into the top 1% will stay there less than two years and 80% will stay there less than ten years, and knowing that while I worked my butt off and rose in wealth throughout my life, I have watched most of my friends (who were raised in wealth) fall. Why? Why is it so hard for a family to keep its wealth once it has acquired it?
One conclusions I have made is that wealthy people equate their wealth only to money. This is a fatal mistake in the creation of a dynasty. Ask any of the failed dynasties why they failed: Inability to produce heirs (decline in genetic stock), poor parent-child relationships (which the parents will pass off as unmotivated kids), fighting among heirs (failure of family to share values).
It became clear to me while I worked for unhealthy 1%ers that you cannot lose focus on health and healthy relationships. My husband and I talk about this as we build our wealth. We will build our wealth more slowly than we can, but we will do it right. The foundation of physical health for our bodies and our children's bodies is our highest priority. We can always make money. But money cannot buy good health that has been lost.
Same with relationships. Divorce destroys kingdoms. Children who hate their parents destroy kingdoms. So though my husband and I could be moving toward our financial dreams twice as fast if we put Anders into school and I joined the paid workforce, that is sacrificing the future for the present. And it would likely destroy our kingdom, if not in our lifetime, in our children's lifetime. And why? My husband and I are taken; we don't need flashy amounts of money or success to attract mates. We only need enough money for our own enjoyment and to maximize the quality of our offspring.
Money will only serve the mind that can match it. It is far more important that we focus on giving our son a mind that can match and grow our current level of wealth, than that we keep growing it.
The battle for survival that my husband and I fight is glorious. We must be quite high earners just to feed our family properly. Tom has to earn twice as much as husbands whose wives work so that I can raise our son. But we have a dream of a family like one we have yet to see in our lives. There is nothing more bonding, nothing sexier, than going to war in this way with my husband. It's exhausting of course, but it's a beautiful, fun, and interesting exhausting because it is meaningful for us.
Something else I noticed recently: Battle scars are tragic and hideous on maidens and squires. On kings and queens they are hot, proof of our strength, our prowess. And thank goodness, because I don't think anyone makes it to old age without them.
The belief that we are warriors now, not innocent, happy young folk, also helps us on to the next phase of our life story – old age and accepting death. When you are a maiden or a squire death is tragic. When you are exhausted from battle, scarred, used, death is rest, something that you can be happy about (just a little bit).
This is a subconscious experience for us, an emotional story. But you better believe I am out there making friends who are living this story. Most parents I meet are still maidens and squires. They are not kingdom building and alliances with them are becoming more and more unfulfilling. They are married and have children, but seem to have bought into the advertising media pitch that their life purpose should be ... sex. I like sex as much as the next person, but as your meaning in life?
I was having lunch with a friend of mine the other day who is getting her PhD in sexual health. She was telling me how important sexual fulfillment is, and when I told her it wasn't a priority to Tom and me, she became worried. But upon further questioning it turned out that we have a "healthy" amount of sex. Yet we don't make sex dates or have a date night as is recommend for couples with children. Just the fact that we like each other is enough to get us into bed. I am not holding our relationship out there as a Model For Everyone To Follow, but I think that we are still attracted to each other because of how we see each other. Like I said above, there something bonding and super sexy about seeing each other as warriors fighting a battle together.
Here are some more metaphors: I think many wives subconsciously do their best to stay maidens because they think that is how they will keep their husbands. But it's actually the opposite. If you stay a maiden and keep your husband in squire-mode, eventually you will break up. Why? Because a mother cannot compete with the maidens. A forty year old woman cannot out maiden real maidens. Even if she isn't older than they are, her focus is divided, her story is wrong, and there is always something unattractive subconsciously about people living the wrong story. Rather, the woman who wants to keep her husband should specifically try to not be a maiden or compete with maidens. She should focus on being the most incredible queen any king could wish for. No maiden can compete with a true warrior queen. And no king is attracted to maidens - they are pretty, silly things, not useful to him in battle.
What does it mean when a married woman and mother dresses in a way to attract men? Does it mean she is confident about her body? I don't think so. Something about it is unattractive. (And that is interesting to me.) This is what I think: What it says to me is she is not happy in her relationship, that she may cheat on her husband, that she may wish she were still a maiden, in other words: I should not trust and form alliances with her kingdom as she is alerting me to its instability or lack of success. Perhaps she genuinely thinks she is just showing the world that she doesn't care what it thinks – but that's just out of touch with reality. And I don't think it's attractive to be out of touch with reality. The fact that you will be judged by how you present yourself is unavoidable. To dress as if that is not a fact just makes you in denial and likely to fail.
I think about the things we used to think (as a society) were "bad." Dressing slutty. Divorce. We don't want to stigmatize the people who do these things. But at the same time, in some ways, they signify someone's success or failure to grow up.
I went to a conference over the summer where I was hit on rather a lot. It was flattering, but it occurred to me that it's boring to me now. What's interesting to me is my son and my husband, our growth, our finances, the creation of the best life possible for our family, the dream of building something that could last generations. Several times I was hit on by people who have open marriages who wondered if I have the same. And I ... don't see that in my future. Because it's boring. Seduction and being seduced was once the most fascinating and marvelous thing to me in the world. I read books on it! But now it simply doesn't serve me. It doesn't serve my kingdom.
I can't help but wonder about the people who are married and have children, but are still pursing mating. I wonder how their kingdoms will do (long term) with their energies so distracted.
Likewise the high percentage of women who abandon their children and return to the workforce. This is a subconscious signal to me that they don't trust their relationship. Their relationship is on such shaky ground that the woman cannot afford to specialize in the children, she has to be prepared for the coming divorce. She has to have "her own" money. If you haven't even figured out how to make a committed alliance to your own husband, how can I trust any alliance you make with me?
Not to mention your children. I am looking for the best mates for my own well-raised children. If your children are going to be raised by servants, middle class teachers, and the television, they are not good mates for mine.
Some women think that staying in the workforce is sexier to their husbands. These women are completely out of touch with reality. Every father I know wants his wife to "do whatever makes her happy." But every last one of them hopes that caring for his children (and him) is what will make her happy. I have never seen a man jump for joy when his queen announces that she, actually, would not enjoy caring for his children. What man can forgive that betrayal? Of course they smile and pretend they are modern, but I think that when their wife shows she cares so little for the children, he starts to detach from them as well.
A man cannot become a king without a queen. A woman in the workforce is not a queen. Queens are focused on their kingdoms, on their children. Likewise men pursuing outlying career success are not kings. Kings are focused on their kingdoms. That is what the money is for.
Both partners must choose to mature. If the man stays a squire he will be obsessed with maidens, and since his wife cannot be one anymore, he will end up leaving her for one. And with his new wife he will start a kingdom a second time. And then he will leave her for a third maiden. Never will his kingdoms progress or grow in glory. He will have wasted decades of valuable kingdom building time reliving the same old story rather than committing to the new one.
I maintain that kingdoms can be built at any social status. It is a way of life, not a social status. Some people will argue that their family "cannot afford" to have one partner at home, but according to Ann Crittenden in The Price of Motherhood, if the wife isn't making over 50k (possibly 65k in today's dollars), it doesn't actually pencil for the woman to be working. What does "cannot afford" mean? Money is all about choices. We choose what we value. For a kingdom builder, nothing is more valuable than the children.
For the record, I don't agree with women being stuck in the house with the kids. Please see: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1185171129?type=review#rating_109775433. But I also don't think there is any other option today for the woman that values the health of her children and future of her kingdom.
When my children are ready, I will give up my throne and become a wise woman. This is one of the hardest and most important things a king or queen must do. The failure of many parents to "give up the throne" destroys relationships, and especially the children. It is this awareness of my future obsoleteness that enables me to give Anders my very best happily. Nothing like being a warrior for a few decades to make you feel excited about resting!
I had lunch with one of my favorite girlfriends the other day. Unlike me she grew up in a wealthy family, and she has happily married parents. She said, "Many girls marry rich men because they want to be a princess. But to be a princess you must make your husband your servant. If you make your husband your servant, he will soon be poor. Instead you must seek to be a queen at his side, and make your husband your king. If you treat your husband like a king, he will soon be more rich."
I love this story too. Princess-wives are another example of a way people can fail to change stories.
I apologize for any of this sounding judge-y. Like I said above, this is not The One Truth. There are many glorious stories to live, this one has been mine.
UPDATE
Frank pointed out below that it might be easiest for people to move on to their next story when they have lived their current story to the fullest. As in: squires and maidens who milked every last drop of their squire and maiden experience might be happier to settle into the warrior kingdom mode. Likewise, those who accept the warrior kingdom and live it to its fullest might be the happiest to let that go and become the wise "letting go" generation.
In my studies of death it occurred to me that Buddhism is a disturbing religion for the young. Nor is it helpful for the kingdom builders. But man is it the perfect religion for the old! It's about acceptance and letting go. The entire Tibetan Book of Living and Dying has one main thing to teach: how to die with grace and dignity. Buddhism is the religion for our final stage. I would say Christianity and Judaism (war-making religions) are quite fantastic religions for kingdom building. And for maidens and squires? Well, they should be Pagens. Again, not saying this as Fact. Using these ideas as metaphors to describe the human experience and how we can best facilitate one another to live our stage to the fullest.
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
The Vaccine Decision Is a Trust Decision Not a Science Decision
I was asked recently what my position is on vaccines. This is what I know: I am not an expert! I don't have a lab where I can do my own experiments to verify data others are presenting me with. All the reading and documentary-watching in the world won't change that. I am going to have to trust someone else's advice here.
And that actually makes my decision pretty easy.
There is the pharmaceutical industry and the government on one team. And the other team is the Weston A Price Association and Dr. Mendelsohn.
I don't trust the government at all. Nor the pharmaceutical industry. And when it comes to these two, I am extremely wary of possible hidden agendas, especially financial ones.
Following the advice of the Weston A Price Association cured my husband's hair loss, my acne, my menstrual cramps, and gave me a beautiful, healthy baby who never had cradle cap, crusty eye, or spit up. And that's just in my immediate family. I could go on and on about the evidence I have seen with my own eyes about the benefits of following their diet for my family and friends. The Weston A Price Association does not profit from telling me to not vaccinate. (They do profit from telling me to take cod liver oil, but this post isn't about that.)
Following the advice of Dr. Mendelsohn, who wrote my favorite medical book, How to Raise a Healthy Child in Spite of Your Doctor, has saved me from a ton of parental worry, many pointless trips to the doctor, for not just my son but my husband and me too. Moreover, my grandfather was a doctor, and he gave this book to my mother in the 1980's. He said the medical industry was headed in a bad direction and no longer to be trusted. Dr. Mendelsohn and my grandfather have no hidden agenda that I can imagine either.
When it comes down to the only decision I get to make – which set of experts to trust – what decision I should make is clear.
It's terrifying – I want my son to be vaccinated against every horror life has to throw at him! And it's hard to reconcile my identity as a science-whorshipper with that of an unvaccinator. So I have to constantly remind myself of what Ayn Rand warned: Science isn't the science I love unless it's done on the free market. The meme that unvaccinators are anti-science is just advertising from two untrustworthy sources – big pharma and the government.
Personal anecdote: My vaccine free child is now six years old. He has had one fever in his entire life (when he was one and teething), he had diarrhea once that lasted a day when he was two, had a cough that was very slight and lasted a few weeks when he was three ... and that's it. He is gorgeously healthy. I don't worry when he plays with sick kids because I know he wont get sick, or if he does it will be nothing more than a runny nose. He also doesn't have any strange issues that doctors excuse as genetic, like eczema. I have two vaccinated nephews on my husband's side that have eczema (it runs in his family). My son's pediatrician - who suffers from eczema herself - says that she believes vaccines are a major trigger for eczema and that if you have eczema in your family, you should not be vaccinated.
Note: I studied nutrition pretty intensely for five years before I considered myself qualified to judge who to trust in that arena. Here is a link to a series of posts I wrote about my path to determining that Weston A Price diet is the one to follow:
http://roslynross.blogspot.com/2011/08/thinking-womans-pregnancy-before.html
And that actually makes my decision pretty easy.
There is the pharmaceutical industry and the government on one team. And the other team is the Weston A Price Association and Dr. Mendelsohn.
I don't trust the government at all. Nor the pharmaceutical industry. And when it comes to these two, I am extremely wary of possible hidden agendas, especially financial ones.
Following the advice of the Weston A Price Association cured my husband's hair loss, my acne, my menstrual cramps, and gave me a beautiful, healthy baby who never had cradle cap, crusty eye, or spit up. And that's just in my immediate family. I could go on and on about the evidence I have seen with my own eyes about the benefits of following their diet for my family and friends. The Weston A Price Association does not profit from telling me to not vaccinate. (They do profit from telling me to take cod liver oil, but this post isn't about that.)
Following the advice of Dr. Mendelsohn, who wrote my favorite medical book, How to Raise a Healthy Child in Spite of Your Doctor, has saved me from a ton of parental worry, many pointless trips to the doctor, for not just my son but my husband and me too. Moreover, my grandfather was a doctor, and he gave this book to my mother in the 1980's. He said the medical industry was headed in a bad direction and no longer to be trusted. Dr. Mendelsohn and my grandfather have no hidden agenda that I can imagine either.
When it comes down to the only decision I get to make – which set of experts to trust – what decision I should make is clear.
It's terrifying – I want my son to be vaccinated against every horror life has to throw at him! And it's hard to reconcile my identity as a science-whorshipper with that of an unvaccinator. So I have to constantly remind myself of what Ayn Rand warned: Science isn't the science I love unless it's done on the free market. The meme that unvaccinators are anti-science is just advertising from two untrustworthy sources – big pharma and the government.
Personal anecdote: My vaccine free child is now six years old. He has had one fever in his entire life (when he was one and teething), he had diarrhea once that lasted a day when he was two, had a cough that was very slight and lasted a few weeks when he was three ... and that's it. He is gorgeously healthy. I don't worry when he plays with sick kids because I know he wont get sick, or if he does it will be nothing more than a runny nose. He also doesn't have any strange issues that doctors excuse as genetic, like eczema. I have two vaccinated nephews on my husband's side that have eczema (it runs in his family). My son's pediatrician - who suffers from eczema herself - says that she believes vaccines are a major trigger for eczema and that if you have eczema in your family, you should not be vaccinated.
Note: I studied nutrition pretty intensely for five years before I considered myself qualified to judge who to trust in that arena. Here is a link to a series of posts I wrote about my path to determining that Weston A Price diet is the one to follow:
http://roslynross.blogspot.com/2011/08/thinking-womans-pregnancy-before.html
The other thing that makes me lean on the "no vaccines" side of the fence is this study (link below) showing that 12% of children in Ulster County, NY have eczema, but only 1% of unvaccinated children from there have eczema. 8% of children have allergies, but only 2% of unvaccinated children...
It's not this study itself that makes me question vaccines. It's that these studies aren't done all the time by interested scientists. If vaccines were about real science, the scientists would be passionate about finding out whether vaccines are actually ideal or not. They would be open to questioning. They would be open to being wrong.
Businessmen wanting to make money, on the other hand, are not interested in learning more about vaccines and their consequences for human health, they are only interested in convincing/coercing you to buy their product. My experience with vaccines has been all the latter. This makes me think that vaccines studies are done by $cientists, not scientists.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Ancient Child Spacing Wisdom
Here is what I know about child spacing:
Hunter-Gatherers had their children 3-6 years apart and usually had 4-5 children.
What this information means to me is that my body evolved to function best having babies every 3-6 years and to have 4-5 children, but that doesn't mean, should I want to have twelve babies in twelve years, that my body could not do it.
However, in the 1920's Weston A. Price spent over a decade traveling the globe looking for the healthiest people in the world (a control group to which he could compare Americans). He recorded the dietary and lifestyle habits of the thirteen or so native groups he considered to be the healthiest people in the world and noted that they followed this ancient pattern of spacing children no closer than three years. He learned that the native people believed that a baby born closer than three years after a sibling was considered to be unhealthy. He looked into this and found evidence enough to convince him of the validity of this concern. In the photographs he includes in his book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, one can see the perfectly straight, white teeth of siblings spaced 3 or more years apart and the crooked teeth of the sibling born too soon. Crooked teeth were just one signifier of in-womb nutrition deficiencies though--narrow faces, narrow hips leading to more difficult births, club feet and almost all other birth defects were more common in children born closer than three years.
Price's theory was that pregnancy exhausts a woman's nutrient stores. Nursing a baby further depletes those stores (or slows down the replenishment process). It takes a woman's body several years to replenish and be ready to give everything to a new baby. A baby born only a year or two after a sibling will most likely not be able to receive enough nutrients in the womb to develop properly.
There are many other things that can deplete a woman's biological fitness and make it not wise to have a baby. Children born soon after a woman suffers from a major illness or during a time of famine also showed signs of not getting properly nourished in the womb. This did not mean these babies couldn't survive, it just meant their gene expression was not optimized.
To put this theory into a real life example: very few Americans today, even the healthiest, will have children with naturally straight teeth. But if any of their children have straight teeth, it the most likely be the couple's first born. This could also be why the first born will have the highest IQ, be the most attractive and the least likely to have a hormonal imbalance. (If a woman's nutrient stores are properly replenished before she gets pregnant again, it is possible for all her children to be attractive with straight teeth and high IQs. Again, this does not mean that babies whose gene expression was not optimized will be stupid and unattractive, it just means that had they been properly nourished in the womb, they would have been even more intelligent and attractive than they are.) I cannot find any examples from people in my life in which this is not the case. Whenever I run into people who look like they have nice, wide mouths and perfectly straight teeth I ask about their mothers' diets before they were born. 100% of the time thus far, the person with the straight-teeth-no-braces had a mom who ate a traditional diet or some strange traditional foods that most people don't eat today or, in one case, fished and ate fish for at least one meal a day every day.
For these reasons, I would never consider having children spaced closer than three years.
Why did we lose our ancient knowledge and start having more children spaced closer together? The change took place after the middle ages due to religions pressure to not nurse and have large families. Nursing is a natural contraceptive. Native societies nursed their young for 3-6 years. When the church convinced women that nursing was sinful and dirty and babies started being weened either at birth or after a month, infant mortality skyrocketed (thus women had to have more children in order to have one or two survive to adulthood) and women were able to get pregnant again right away. The ancient knowledge, that this would lead to unhealthy offspring, was lost... and crooked teeth, narrow faces, and difficult child-bearing hips became normal.
If you would like to read more about this subject, check out:
Nutrition and Physical Degeneration
Centuries of Childhood: A Social History of Family Life
Friday, August 10, 2012
Rational Baby Registry - Part 4 - All the Things on the Baby Gear Section of Baby Registry Lists
A note on health: I do try to limit the toxins to which my baby is exposed, but I don't want to drive myself crazy, so I am super anal about the toxicity of places where he spends most of his time (like his bed) and less worried about toxic things that he won't be around that often (like an outside play pen).
Here is what Babies'R'Us calls the "must haves" of baby gear:
INFANT CAR SEAT & TRAVEL SYSTEM, CONVERTIBLE CAR SEAT & BOOSTER CAR SEAT
Toxic: The more time a baby spends in a car seat, the greater his chances of dying from SIDS. There is no definitive proof as to why this is, but what scientists do know is that in a car seat, infants are scrunched up, making it more difficult for them to breathe and that car seats are highly toxic and famous for off-gassing. The wise parent will make sure her child spends as little time as possible in a car seat.
Health issue: Newborns are most comfortable lying on their backs. According to Dr. Emmi Pikler in Bulletin Number Fourteen, this is also the best position for proper muscular development. Any time a baby spends in a "propped" position, his muscles are forming and developing badly. So again, the wise parent will make sure her child spends as little time as possible in a car seat.
For these reasons, I don't recommend buying an infant car seat at all and especially not a "travel system". Infant car seats with travel systems are made so that you can strap your baby in and never take him out. You put him in the car seat in the house, take him like that to the car, drive somewhere, take him out of the car (still in his car seat) and click that car seat right into a stroller, go for a walk, let him doze in the stroller/car seat while you have lunch at a restaurant.... Your baby can spend most of his day unable to breathe easily and only able to breathe toxic air.
Only uninformed parents carry their newborns around in their car seats. For people who know better, for people who plan to only have their child strapped into a car seat while in the car, there is no point in purchasing both an infant car seat and a convertible car seat since all of the nicer convertible car seats accommodate newborns all the way through booster age. Not to mention, that if you are buying one car seat instead of two, you will have more room in your budget to get something nice.
What I did: When choosing a car seat, I looked for safety first. But, knowing that eighty percent of car seats are not installed correctly (which makes them useless), looking for a user friendly and easy-to-install car seat was my number two priority.
After much deliberation between the Britax Boulevard, the MaxiCosi Pria and the Orbit Baby Infant Car Seat, I decided on the MaxiCosi Pria. First I decided against the Britax because it has sweater-snagging velcro on the straps. I then decided on the Pria because I could use it for much longer than the Orbit (the Orbit seat went from 4-30 pounds and the Pria seat went from 4-70). So far, I have been very happy with this choice.
With baby number 2 I did the Clek Fllo Convertbile Car Seat which I like even more than the Pria, but they are both great.
Note: The first lay-flat car seats are already on the market in Europe but are still illegal in this country. When they are legal here, they will be worth your consideration.
CAR SEAT CUSHIONING, HEAD SUPPORT, FULL-BODY SUPPORT, NECK WINGS & STRAP COVERS
Unnecessary! If you buy a nice car seat, it will come with all of these things built-in.
CAR SEAT ACCESSORIES: SUN SHADE, BABY MIRROR, CAR SEAT CUP HOLDER, CAR SEAT TOYS, CAR SEAT LEVELER
These are personal preference items. I did not buy any of them except sun shades for my windows which I LOVE and should have had in my car all these years even without children!
ADDITIONAL INFANT CAR SEAT BASE
Unnecessary! Since I did not buy an infant car seat, I was also saved this expense. My husband and I considered getting two car seats, one for each car, but then we decided it was easier to just make my car the "family car". I keep my car stocked with the stroller, backpack, a change of clothes, diapers, a nursing cover, a picnic blanket, water bottles, etc. It's nice to only have to worry about the inventory in one car.
TRADITIONAL STROLLER, LIGHTWEIGHT STROLLER, ALL-TERRAIN/JOGGER STROLLER, DOUBLE STROLLER
Health issue: The best stroller for a newborn is one that allows him to lay flat.
Toxic! But even strollers that enable your baby to lay flat are made of highly toxic things and babies should not spend very much time in them, similar to a car seat.
What I did: After much research, I settled on the Nuna Mixx. It is less toxic than most brands and came with a lay-flat basinet that my baby slept in while we were out. Once he graduated to the regular stroller, the lay-flat option was incredibly useful for nap times. I was very happy with that aspect of this stroller. What I did not like about this stroller was that it is bulky and annoying to transport. Also, I did not buy the travel case for it which was stupid as American Airlines broke this stroller while we were traveling.
WALKERS
Health issue: See what I have said about propping and body development above or read Emmi Pikler's Bulletin Number Fourteen.
Philosophical issue: Maria Montessori supported walkers as long as the baby could use it volitionally i.e. no toy that the baby cannot get in and out of on his own. Magda Gerber believed that babies should not be encouraged to do things that they cannot actually do. If your baby can't walk--he can't walk. He doesn't need something to help him pretend he can. I am a big fan of reality so I am with Magda on this one.
BOUNCER (CHAIR)
Health issue: See what I have said about propping and body development above or read Emmi Pikler's Bulletin Number Fourteen.
Philosophical issue: When all a baby can do is lie on his back, that is all he should do. There is plenty for him to do on his back and there is plenty of time for him to sit when he is older.
What I did: One of these chairs was given to me. I removed the toys and used it as a chair. I put my baby in every now and then during a festive meal when I wanted him to be able to be part of the group and could not have him on my lap. I never used it to bounce him or as an entertainment center. I would not have purchased one.
Here is what Babies'R'Us calls the "must haves" of baby gear:
INFANT CAR SEAT & TRAVEL SYSTEM, CONVERTIBLE CAR SEAT & BOOSTER CAR SEAT
Toxic: The more time a baby spends in a car seat, the greater his chances of dying from SIDS. There is no definitive proof as to why this is, but what scientists do know is that in a car seat, infants are scrunched up, making it more difficult for them to breathe and that car seats are highly toxic and famous for off-gassing. The wise parent will make sure her child spends as little time as possible in a car seat.
Health issue: Newborns are most comfortable lying on their backs. According to Dr. Emmi Pikler in Bulletin Number Fourteen, this is also the best position for proper muscular development. Any time a baby spends in a "propped" position, his muscles are forming and developing badly. So again, the wise parent will make sure her child spends as little time as possible in a car seat.
For these reasons, I don't recommend buying an infant car seat at all and especially not a "travel system". Infant car seats with travel systems are made so that you can strap your baby in and never take him out. You put him in the car seat in the house, take him like that to the car, drive somewhere, take him out of the car (still in his car seat) and click that car seat right into a stroller, go for a walk, let him doze in the stroller/car seat while you have lunch at a restaurant.... Your baby can spend most of his day unable to breathe easily and only able to breathe toxic air.
Only uninformed parents carry their newborns around in their car seats. For people who know better, for people who plan to only have their child strapped into a car seat while in the car, there is no point in purchasing both an infant car seat and a convertible car seat since all of the nicer convertible car seats accommodate newborns all the way through booster age. Not to mention, that if you are buying one car seat instead of two, you will have more room in your budget to get something nice.
As for the booster car seat--your kid won't need this for years. Why register for something so that it can sit in your garage gathering dust for three to five years? The laws may change by then!
What I did: When choosing a car seat, I looked for safety first. But, knowing that eighty percent of car seats are not installed correctly (which makes them useless), looking for a user friendly and easy-to-install car seat was my number two priority.
After much deliberation between the Britax Boulevard, the MaxiCosi Pria and the Orbit Baby Infant Car Seat, I decided on the MaxiCosi Pria. First I decided against the Britax because it has sweater-snagging velcro on the straps. I then decided on the Pria because I could use it for much longer than the Orbit (the Orbit seat went from 4-30 pounds and the Pria seat went from 4-70). So far, I have been very happy with this choice.
With baby number 2 I did the Clek Fllo Convertbile Car Seat which I like even more than the Pria, but they are both great.
Note: The first lay-flat car seats are already on the market in Europe but are still illegal in this country. When they are legal here, they will be worth your consideration.
CAR SEAT CUSHIONING, HEAD SUPPORT, FULL-BODY SUPPORT, NECK WINGS & STRAP COVERS
Unnecessary! If you buy a nice car seat, it will come with all of these things built-in.
CAR SEAT ACCESSORIES: SUN SHADE, BABY MIRROR, CAR SEAT CUP HOLDER, CAR SEAT TOYS, CAR SEAT LEVELER
These are personal preference items. I did not buy any of them except sun shades for my windows which I LOVE and should have had in my car all these years even without children!
ADDITIONAL INFANT CAR SEAT BASE
Unnecessary! Since I did not buy an infant car seat, I was also saved this expense. My husband and I considered getting two car seats, one for each car, but then we decided it was easier to just make my car the "family car". I keep my car stocked with the stroller, backpack, a change of clothes, diapers, a nursing cover, a picnic blanket, water bottles, etc. It's nice to only have to worry about the inventory in one car.
TRADITIONAL STROLLER, LIGHTWEIGHT STROLLER, ALL-TERRAIN/JOGGER STROLLER, DOUBLE STROLLER
Health issue: The best stroller for a newborn is one that allows him to lay flat.
Toxic! But even strollers that enable your baby to lay flat are made of highly toxic things and babies should not spend very much time in them, similar to a car seat.
What I did: After much research, I settled on the Nuna Mixx. It is less toxic than most brands and came with a lay-flat basinet that my baby slept in while we were out. Once he graduated to the regular stroller, the lay-flat option was incredibly useful for nap times. I was very happy with that aspect of this stroller. What I did not like about this stroller was that it is bulky and annoying to transport. Also, I did not buy the travel case for it which was stupid as American Airlines broke this stroller while we were traveling.
None of my kids have cared about strollers after about 18 months. They like walking! I ended up buying a Mac Sports Collapsible Outdoor Utility Wagon to bring groceries in from the car at some point and this wagon has ended up being my favorite stroller as it is so easy to fold up and put in the car and I can pull a toddler in it along with a ton of other stuff and if I am out and about my toddler can sleep it it -- it's flat too. But it does not have wheel locks, so legally, I have to advise you to never place your child into such a thing.
STROLLER RAIN COVER, NETTING & SUNSHADE
Geographical issue: I live in LA. I cannot comment on the necessity of these things and have zero personal experience with any of them. Except sunshades. My stroller had a sunshade and I did use it.
STROLLER ACCESSORIES: MOMMY HOOK, CUP HOLDER, SNACK HOLDER, STROLLER TOYS
Philosophical issue 1: If you are going for a walk, go for walk. If it's time for a snack, have a snack. No need to do both things at once. That does not teach good habits. That teaches chaos and mindlessness (there will be more on my eating philosophy later).
Philosophical issue 2: Stroller toys?! For your baby, the world looks like a crazy foreign country full of sights and smells he has never seen. Looking out at the world is the only entertainment your baby needs.
ENTERTAINERS & ACTIVITY JUMPERS
Philosophical issue: The name alone should stop you from buying these. What a terrible thing to do to a baby--force him to sit in something that he can't get out of with a mess of toys in his face that he can't escape from even if he wants to. These contraptions are perfect for future Epsilons: prison with meaningless entertainment. They do not belong in the home of someone who believes in freedom and wants to raise someone who thinks.
Health issue: According to Dr. Emmi Pikler in Bulletin Number Fourteen any time you prop your baby into a position into which he cannot get on his own, you are encouraging poor muscular formation. Babies who strengthen their legs before their strengthen their cores will walk early, yes, but they will be clumsy and their posture will only continue to get worse as they get older.
What I did: I was given one of these. I sold it.
STROLLER RAIN COVER, NETTING & SUNSHADE
Geographical issue: I live in LA. I cannot comment on the necessity of these things and have zero personal experience with any of them. Except sunshades. My stroller had a sunshade and I did use it.
STROLLER ACCESSORIES: MOMMY HOOK, CUP HOLDER, SNACK HOLDER, STROLLER TOYS
Philosophical issue 1: If you are going for a walk, go for walk. If it's time for a snack, have a snack. No need to do both things at once. That does not teach good habits. That teaches chaos and mindlessness (there will be more on my eating philosophy later).
Philosophical issue 2: Stroller toys?! For your baby, the world looks like a crazy foreign country full of sights and smells he has never seen. Looking out at the world is the only entertainment your baby needs.
ENTERTAINERS & ACTIVITY JUMPERS
Philosophical issue: The name alone should stop you from buying these. What a terrible thing to do to a baby--force him to sit in something that he can't get out of with a mess of toys in his face that he can't escape from even if he wants to. These contraptions are perfect for future Epsilons: prison with meaningless entertainment. They do not belong in the home of someone who believes in freedom and wants to raise someone who thinks.
Health issue: According to Dr. Emmi Pikler in Bulletin Number Fourteen any time you prop your baby into a position into which he cannot get on his own, you are encouraging poor muscular formation. Babies who strengthen their legs before their strengthen their cores will walk early, yes, but they will be clumsy and their posture will only continue to get worse as they get older.
What I did: I was given one of these. I sold it.
I was religious about never propping Anders. He learned to walk properly. Was strong, graceful and never fell. With Henrik, though I never propped him, Anders enjoyed holding his little fingers and helping him to "walk" so much that I allowed it. I should not have. Henrik was a terribly dangerous baby. He learned to walk before he could balance and fell all the time. Anders never hit his head even once a baby or toddler. Henrik fell so often and hit his head so often I am worried about his future IQ.
SWING: FULL SIZE & TRAVEL
Health issue: Propping your baby into artificial positions is not good for his health--from scrunched up lungs to improper muscular development.
Toxic: These are just as toxic as car seats.
Practical issue: Rocking babies to sleep--and especially by a machine instead of by a person--is a terrible habit to get your baby into. A baby who learns to fall asleep being rocked will come to need that in order to fall asleep. This means you will be getting up 5-10 times every night for months to rock your baby back to sleep every time he wakes up. Better to teach your baby to fall asleep without motion.
If you want to rock your baby to sleep because you enjoy it, get a rocking chair and rock your baby but don't hire a "machine nanny" to do it for you--and be clear on what you are doing: you are rocking your baby for your enjoyment. If your baby comes to need it because you have made it a habit and you no longer enjoy it, stop doing it. Instead of putting him in a toxic cloud that will give him a crappy body, teach him to go to sleep without motion.
Philosophical issue: When used as a toy, swings are noisy and overstimulating. They are active toys that entertain passive babies. This is not a wise kind of toy to have.
SWING: FULL SIZE & TRAVEL
Health issue: Propping your baby into artificial positions is not good for his health--from scrunched up lungs to improper muscular development.
Toxic: These are just as toxic as car seats.
Practical issue: Rocking babies to sleep--and especially by a machine instead of by a person--is a terrible habit to get your baby into. A baby who learns to fall asleep being rocked will come to need that in order to fall asleep. This means you will be getting up 5-10 times every night for months to rock your baby back to sleep every time he wakes up. Better to teach your baby to fall asleep without motion.
If you want to rock your baby to sleep because you enjoy it, get a rocking chair and rock your baby but don't hire a "machine nanny" to do it for you--and be clear on what you are doing: you are rocking your baby for your enjoyment. If your baby comes to need it because you have made it a habit and you no longer enjoy it, stop doing it. Instead of putting him in a toxic cloud that will give him a crappy body, teach him to go to sleep without motion.
Philosophical issue: When used as a toy, swings are noisy and overstimulating. They are active toys that entertain passive babies. This is not a wise kind of toy to have.
WALKERS
Health issue: See what I have said about propping and body development above or read Emmi Pikler's Bulletin Number Fourteen.
Philosophical issue: Maria Montessori supported walkers as long as the baby could use it volitionally i.e. no toy that the baby cannot get in and out of on his own. Magda Gerber believed that babies should not be encouraged to do things that they cannot actually do. If your baby can't walk--he can't walk. He doesn't need something to help him pretend he can. I am a big fan of reality so I am with Magda on this one.
BOUNCER (CHAIR)
Health issue: See what I have said about propping and body development above or read Emmi Pikler's Bulletin Number Fourteen.
Philosophical issue: When all a baby can do is lie on his back, that is all he should do. There is plenty for him to do on his back and there is plenty of time for him to sit when he is older.
What I did: One of these chairs was given to me. I removed the toys and used it as a chair. I put my baby in every now and then during a festive meal when I wanted him to be able to be part of the group and could not have him on my lap. I never used it to bounce him or as an entertainment center. I would not have purchased one.
With my second baby if I wanted him to be part of the group I just put him in his stroller and wheeled him over.
PLAY YARD, PLAY YARD SHEETS & PLAY YARD NETTING
Practical issue: There is no point in putting an immobile baby in a pen. Once a baby is mobile, the pen has to be, at minimum, 4' x 4' for proper body development.
Toxic! Most of these pens are made from toxic plastic materials.
Philosophical issue: Many of these pens come with built in entertainment. That makes this a toy which harkens back to--active toys make passive baby brains; passive toys make active baby brains.
What I did: A "pack'n'play" was given to me. Because it is not the proper size for a mobile baby, I did not use it and am still not willing to use it. I keep it in case I want to try using it while traveling. I will update this post if it ends up coming in handy! For now, I recommend skipping this purchase.
PLAY YARD, PLAY YARD SHEETS & PLAY YARD NETTING
Practical issue: There is no point in putting an immobile baby in a pen. Once a baby is mobile, the pen has to be, at minimum, 4' x 4' for proper body development.
Toxic! Most of these pens are made from toxic plastic materials.
Philosophical issue: Many of these pens come with built in entertainment. That makes this a toy which harkens back to--active toys make passive baby brains; passive toys make active baby brains.
What I did: A "pack'n'play" was given to me. Because it is not the proper size for a mobile baby, I did not use it and am still not willing to use it. I keep it in case I want to try using it while traveling. I will update this post if it ends up coming in handy! For now, I recommend skipping this purchase.
Update: I have never found these to be necessary.
HIGH CHAIR, HIGH CHAIR COVER, EXTRA HIGH CHAIR PAD, SPLAT MAT & BOOSTER SEAT
Philosophical issue: Both Maria Montessori and Magda Gerber believe children should never be put in something they cannot get out of on their own. Both recommend waiting until the child is really ready to eat (around nine months) and then providing him with his own child-sized table and chair.
My story: In the last decade I spent caring for other people's children, I found the whole high-chair feeding process to be loathsome. When my son was just starting to take an interest in foods (around six months) I let him taste things from my lap. When he could sit on his own I used the Stokke Tripp Trapp High Chair, with the Baby Set. He used this chair for many years so that he could be the right height at the table.
BABY CARRIERS: FRAMED, FRONT & HIP CARRIERS, WRAPS
Newborns love these. Older babies not so much. My back not so much.
HIGH CHAIR, HIGH CHAIR COVER, EXTRA HIGH CHAIR PAD, SPLAT MAT & BOOSTER SEAT
Philosophical issue: Both Maria Montessori and Magda Gerber believe children should never be put in something they cannot get out of on their own. Both recommend waiting until the child is really ready to eat (around nine months) and then providing him with his own child-sized table and chair.
My story: In the last decade I spent caring for other people's children, I found the whole high-chair feeding process to be loathsome. When my son was just starting to take an interest in foods (around six months) I let him taste things from my lap. When he could sit on his own I used the Stokke Tripp Trapp High Chair, with the Baby Set. He used this chair for many years so that he could be the right height at the table.
BABY CARRIERS: FRAMED, FRONT & HIP CARRIERS, WRAPS
Newborns love these. Older babies not so much. My back not so much.
My mom loved the backpacking backpacks with external metal frames that puts all the weight into your hip band/legs. Apparently her babies lived in those things and she was able to get a lot done with the baby on her back. My babies just weren't into it. They had too much to do and explore I guess.
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Rational Baby Registry - Part 3 - All the Things on the Baby Care Section of Baby Registry Lists
Here is what Baby's-R-Us calls the "must haves" of baby care items.
Unnecessary! There was nothing in this kit that wasn't already in my home medicine cabinet except for drugs, none of which I needed and none of which I advise using.
Possibly toxic! But your baby is probably not chewing on these so it's most likely fine.
BABY NAIL CLIPPERS
This is a personal preference item.
What I did: I have Dr. Mom's nail clippers and they work fine.
What I did: I have Dr. Mom's nail clippers and they work fine.
BABY BRUSH & COMB
Philosophical issue: Your toddler will love brushing his own hair and will have a much easier time with the right sized brush.
What I did: I bought a wooden handled and natural bristle brush that served as a toy long before it became useful.
What I did: I bought a wooden handled and natural bristle brush that served as a toy long before it became useful.
DIGITAL THERMOMETER / EAR THERMOMETER
I chose the ear and forehead thermometer. They work great!
FIRST AID KIT
Philosophical issue: It is not wise to medicate your baby, even for teething pain. Read my posts on heroic health, the books I have recommended on health and Dr. Mendelsohn's book, How to Raise a Healthy Child in Spite of Your Doctor.
Unnecessary! There was nothing in this kit that wasn't already in my home medicine cabinet except for drugs, none of which I needed and none of which I advise using.
HUMIDIFIER / VAPORIZER
If you or baby has a cough then these machines are great. I have one in my medicine cabinet. I have used it once in the last nine years.
GAS RELIEF DROPS & PAIN RELIEF PRODUCTS
Toxic! There are no pain relief medications out there that are not bad for your baby's health in some way. If it would make you feel better to give your baby something, look into homeopathic remedies and natural cures and your own psychology because--
Philosophical issue 1: Many parts of life are uncomfortable and downright painful. This isn't bad. Pain is just... uncomfortable for a little while. Better to get to know your body and learn to deal with physical discomfort than pop a pill for every ache.
Philosophical issue 2: Instead of masking the problem with gas relief drops, find out what you are eating that is giving your baby gas. Work to cure causes, not effects.
Philosophical issue 1: Many parts of life are uncomfortable and downright painful. This isn't bad. Pain is just... uncomfortable for a little while. Better to get to know your body and learn to deal with physical discomfort than pop a pill for every ache.
Philosophical issue 2: Instead of masking the problem with gas relief drops, find out what you are eating that is giving your baby gas. Work to cure causes, not effects.
BABY BATH TUB
Not fun! Bathing newborns sucks. They hate it and often shiver and for the parent it's just one more chore. I wanted to make bathing more fun for both of us so I skipped the baby bath tub and made a nice bath for me and my newborn once a week or so. In the tub with me, my newborn was a very happy and at peace little guy. Because he was in a real bathtub he could be immersed in the water and was never cold. He learned how to float on his back quickly, and I would just hold his head and let him float. Being fully immersed in water and able to stretch out made him so happy that I took him to baby swim classes! (And there I realized that the bathtub is warm whereas a pool is cold, the bathtub with mom is peaceful whereas pools are loud and chaotic and the bathtub at home has a chlorine filter whereas pools have extra chlorine. Plus--for a small baby, the bathtub is the size of a pool! There is no need for anything bigger.)
Health issue: It is not healthy for your baby to be "propped" into positions into which he cannot get himself. Many baby bathtubs force your baby to sit in a position similar to his car seat. This depresses the lungs and encourages muscles to form that will make your child slouch. Better to have newborns lay flat.
Health issue: It is not healthy for your baby to be "propped" into positions into which he cannot get himself. Many baby bathtubs force your baby to sit in a position similar to his car seat. This depresses the lungs and encourages muscles to form that will make your child slouch. Better to have newborns lay flat.
Health issue: Newborns don't need to take baths. It's not even good for them. That white goo they are born covered in is super good for them and should not be washed off. Ear infections are caused when water gets in kids ears during bath time. Baths give little girls yeast infections. I don't recommend bathing babies. Washing their butt and legs when they smell a little, yes, but I think keeping water away from their heads as much as possible is good.
BATH ROBE
Both my toddler and my nine year old love full length, warm, fluffy robes. They use them as wearable blankets though, they have never used them after bathtime.
BABY BATH SPONGE
Philosophical issue 1: They come in bright colors. Why do we think babies need things like this? Maria Montessori says it well: "The most marvelous aspect of the child is that he is quite an acute observer who sees things that we cannot imagine he can have seen. how peculiar, then, that we believe we must use bright colors, exaggerated gestures and loud voices to attract his attention."
Philosophical issue 2: They come shaped like little animals instead of like a sponge an adult would use. Again, Maria Montessori says it well: "Although the children in our first school could play with some really splendid toys, none cared to do so. This surprised me so much that I decided to help them play with their toys, showing them how to handle the tiny dishes, lighting the fire in the doll's kitchen, and placing near it a pretty doll. The children were momentarily interested but then went off on their own. Since they never freely chose these toys, I realized that in the life of a child, play is perhaps something of little importance which he undertakes for the lack of something better to do. A child feels that he has something of greater importance to do than to be engaged in such trivial occupations." For children under age of six, Dr. Montessori came to believe fantasy had no place. She believed that pretend is "not proof of imagination, rather it is proof of unsatisfied desire." Pretending was thus assimilation of the ego, rather than adaptation to reality. The child's task is to adapt to reality, so for adults to encourage fantasy was to encourage the child toward something that deviates from the developmental path he or she is on. "When children play house, they are expressing a desire to really keep house." Give them real chores! Teach them about real life! Not only will the child be happier and feel more competent and confident, but if he does want to engage in some sort of fantasy play it will be his fantasies rather than yours.
Philosophical issue 2: They come shaped like little animals instead of like a sponge an adult would use. Again, Maria Montessori says it well: "Although the children in our first school could play with some really splendid toys, none cared to do so. This surprised me so much that I decided to help them play with their toys, showing them how to handle the tiny dishes, lighting the fire in the doll's kitchen, and placing near it a pretty doll. The children were momentarily interested but then went off on their own. Since they never freely chose these toys, I realized that in the life of a child, play is perhaps something of little importance which he undertakes for the lack of something better to do. A child feels that he has something of greater importance to do than to be engaged in such trivial occupations." For children under age of six, Dr. Montessori came to believe fantasy had no place. She believed that pretend is "not proof of imagination, rather it is proof of unsatisfied desire." Pretending was thus assimilation of the ego, rather than adaptation to reality. The child's task is to adapt to reality, so for adults to encourage fantasy was to encourage the child toward something that deviates from the developmental path he or she is on. "When children play house, they are expressing a desire to really keep house." Give them real chores! Teach them about real life! Not only will the child be happier and feel more competent and confident, but if he does want to engage in some sort of fantasy play it will be his fantasies rather than yours.
HOODED BATH TOWELS
Regular ones work just fine, however, I was given a set of those towels with the little hood part and my toddlers loved them.
WASH CLOTHS
Practical issue: Do you use a washcloth in the bath? If not, your child will most likely not use one either. They are not necessary to get clean. If you do use one, your child should have one sized for his use.
BATH TOYS
Possibly toxic! Almost all toys made for the water are plastic. Plastic, even BPA free plastic, is toxic and does not belong soaking in hot water with your baby or in your baby's mouth.
Possibly toxic! Almost all toys made for the water are plastic. Plastic, even BPA free plastic, is toxic and does not belong soaking in hot water with your baby or in your baby's mouth.
Philosophical issue: Read my post on appropriate toys--i.e. items from real life,
My experience: I follow the 80/20 rule when it comes to toxicity--I do my best to keep major toxins out of my life and my baby's life and the rest of the time I try not to drive myself crazy. Same with toys--I do my best to keep my son's toys philosophically sound but when someone gives him a gift and he enjoys playing with it, I don't worry about it. In the bath tub my baby loves playing with bars of soap, my pumice stone, an old toothbrush, the body of my razor and his wash cloth. Most of the time however, he is too busy obsessing over the water spout, drain and doors to worry about toys.
My experience: I follow the 80/20 rule when it comes to toxicity--I do my best to keep major toxins out of my life and my baby's life and the rest of the time I try not to drive myself crazy. Same with toys--I do my best to keep my son's toys philosophically sound but when someone gives him a gift and he enjoys playing with it, I don't worry about it. In the bath tub my baby loves playing with bars of soap, my pumice stone, an old toothbrush, the body of my razor and his wash cloth. Most of the time however, he is too busy obsessing over the water spout, drain and doors to worry about toys.
My favorite bath toys ended up being items from the kitchen. Metal measuring cups and spoons were a big hit.
STORAGE BASKETS & BINS
Possibly toxic! But your baby is probably not chewing on these so it's most likely fine.
Philosophical issue: Your baby does not need very much stuff and that stuff that he has should be stored in an organized, peaceful and beautiful fashion. There are a few things like socks or a large collection of a particular type of toy, that merit attractive storage baskets, but otherwise, one small book shelf where each of the toys have a place and are all visible should suffice. For more on this, read Clear Your Clutter With Feng Shui.
BODY WASH / SHAMPOO & HAND SOAP
Possibly toxic! Read ingredients carefully before you buy. Never buy anything antibacterial. Only buy soaps and shampoos sold at health food stores.
Unnecessary! The purpose of soap is to remove oils from your skin and hair. We do that and then pay more money to put oils back in in the form of conditioner and lotion. I seriously question the necessity of soap and shampoo and would like to see some experiments done in this area in the how our skin would benefit from not removing the oils and drying it out. Remember that everything about our natural body evolved that way for a reason or was a successful adaption. This includes our natural oils. I don't want to smell bad any more than the next person, but rinsing off is enough for me to not smell. There is no need for soap and shampoo. My naturally wavy hair actually looks better without conditioners that make it silky-smooth. Unfortunately, I have not been able to break this normalization of wanting my hair to feel this way, so I continue to wash and condition. I have been able to break the daily habit though and am showering twice a week. That being said, I don't wish to inflict this habit on my son. I have a friend who has not done anything but rinse off daily for about a year. He looks and smells fine--though his hair is not silky to touch. It feels like animal hair.
Unnecessary! The purpose of soap is to remove oils from your skin and hair. We do that and then pay more money to put oils back in in the form of conditioner and lotion. I seriously question the necessity of soap and shampoo and would like to see some experiments done in this area in the how our skin would benefit from not removing the oils and drying it out. Remember that everything about our natural body evolved that way for a reason or was a successful adaption. This includes our natural oils. I don't want to smell bad any more than the next person, but rinsing off is enough for me to not smell. There is no need for soap and shampoo. My naturally wavy hair actually looks better without conditioners that make it silky-smooth. Unfortunately, I have not been able to break this normalization of wanting my hair to feel this way, so I continue to wash and condition. I have been able to break the daily habit though and am showering twice a week. That being said, I don't wish to inflict this habit on my son. I have a friend who has not done anything but rinse off daily for about a year. He looks and smells fine--though his hair is not silky to touch. It feels like animal hair.
LOTION & BABY OIL
Possinly toxic! Read ingredients.
What I do: My husband, my baby and I use organic 100% pure sweet almond oil for moisturizer. No need to have lotion too. Though we are not plants, we are animals, so the ideal moisturizer for human skin is actually tallow or lard. There are some companies that make amazing tallow lotion nowadays but it's much more expensive than oil.
What I do: My husband, my baby and I use organic 100% pure sweet almond oil for moisturizer. No need to have lotion too. Though we are not plants, we are animals, so the ideal moisturizer for human skin is actually tallow or lard. There are some companies that make amazing tallow lotion nowadays but it's much more expensive than oil.
ALCOHOL SWABS & COTTON BALLS
Health issue! These are "may irritate body tissue but will have no significant effect on germs. The body has its own system to fight infection, and they work quite effectively if you give them the chance," says Dr. Mendelsohn.
PETROLEUM JELLY
Toxic! Not sure what this would be used for, but I recommend using 100% pure lanolin instead. Almost identical products but lanolin is not toxic. Some people don't like lanolin because they are allergic to wool. I am not allergic to wool and neither of my babies are allergic to it (or anything). So I LOVE lanolin. Amazing as chap stick too!
HAND SANITIZER
Toxic! Never use antibacterical anything. This is one of the biggest mistakes people make.
DISH SOAP
Possibly toxic! Buy the gentlest, unscented, hypoallergenic dish soap you can find. Or just skip it. Dish soap isn't truly necessary. You learn this when you go backpacking and you learn to wash your dishes with dirt. Yes, you rub dirt all over your plate until it is dry and then you wipe it off or rinse it. Most soap is far more toxic than any food bacteria (despite what you have been led to believe).
LAUNDRY DETERGENT / STAIN REMOVER
Possibly toxic! Buy the gentlest, unscented, hypoallergenic laundry soap you can find. You can also save quite a bit of money by making your own.
DRYER SHEETS
Toxic! And irritating. And that shit stinks.
ALL-PURPOSE CLEANER
Possibly toxic! It is fascinating to me that many people with pets only use white vinegar to clean their homes because they don't want their pets to get sick when the lick the floor... but people with babies buy the harshest chemicals around and think they are at war with bacteria. If you think bacteria is bad, you need some reeducation on that subject. There are many great Ted Talks for listen to.
What I do: I use white vinegar.
What I do: I use white vinegar.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Rational Baby Registry - Part 2 - All the Things on the Diapering Section of Baby Registry Lists
Here is what Baby's-R-Us calls the "must haves" of diapering items:
DIAPERS
Practical issue: Cloth or plastic? If you google this you will find a ton of information, in my experience, these issues are the most important and the most rarely mentioned--
The main pro of cloth: The average baby who wears cloth diapers will potty train a year earlier than the average baby who wears plastic diapers (because the baby has made the brain connections of going pee and being wet. Babies who wear plastic diapers pee and since they don't feel anything, often never realize something is happening). It is not absolutely necessary to use cloth diapers in order to potty train a child at a young age.
The other great thing about cloth: Because the diaper is wet, poops are very easy to clean up. In a plastic diaper, all the moister gets sucked down and you are left with sticky grossness on the baby's but that takes a dozen wipes to wipe up. With cloth diapers, you often only need one wipe.
The main pro of plastic: The majority of Americans use plastic diapers which means baby clothes are made for the slim butts of plastic-diaper wearing babies and not the bulky butts of cloth-diaper wearing babies.
What I did: My baby wears cloth diapers at home and plastic when we go out or travel. He has only ever had a hint of a diaper rash and the only time I ever had poop escape his diaper was when he was wearing a plastic one. We have a diaper service so I cannot comment on whether cloth diapers are worth it if you also have to wash them. I will update this post as time goes on.
[Update 1: I almost gave up on cloth diapers after about three months since the diaper covers did not seem to be water proof. Both the Thirsties and the Bummies covers had the problem of losing their waterproof-ness after a very short time even when never washed in hot water. Once I started using the Grovia covers, I started to love cloth diapers again.]
[Update 2: With baby number 2 I used seventh generation disposable diapers because I wanted him to be able to wear regular baby clothes. These do not give him diaper rash, though I also change him right away. I did try Huggies and Pampers and both seem to give him rashes regardless of how fast I change him. But it's not bad. It's not like a rash all the time, it's just maybe once a every other week. (I had to use these on a three month stay in Nicaragua.)]
BABY WIPES & TRAVEL WIPES
Possibly toxic!
What I did: I use Seventh Generation and Earth First wipes.
What my parents did: Wipes didn't exist yet. They put dirty baby butts under running water in the sink!
WIPES WARMER
Practical issue: If you get your baby used to room temperature wipes he will be used to it. If you get him used to warm wipes he will get used to that, come to need warm wipes and freak out if your wipe warmer breaks or you forget to bring it with you when you are out and about.
DIAPER BAGS
This is a personal preference item.
What I do: I slip a diaper, changing pad, a travel packet of wipes and a ziplock bag into my purse. (The ziplock bag is in case I am going somewhere that does not have an appropriate place to dispose of a diaper, I can put it into the bag and dispose of it later.)
BABY CHANGING MAT
This is a personal preference item:
What I did: I have three Kushies delux flannel changing pads that fold easily, can go with me anywhere and wash easily.
DIAPER RASH CREAM / DIAPER OINTMENT
Practical issue: Diaper rash is caused by your baby sitting in his stools for too long so if your baby gets a lot of diaper rash, instead of slathering toxic things onto his butt, change his diaper more often or consider switching to cloth as cloth diapered babies get less diaper rash.
Possibly toxic! The best cure for diaper rash is fresh air and sunshine. Your first line of defense should always be naked time outside. When that is not possibe--
What I did: I was given four bottles of various diaper rash creams at my shower and I have only ever used it a few times. My favorite is the Weleda because of how it smells.
DIAPER PAIL & DIAPER PAIL REFILLS OR DIAPER GENIE WASTE BASKET
Practical issue: I have used a million different kinds of these in my decade working with children and I never found one that didn't smell. The solution that worked best was never a fancy contraption but rather a small waste bin that gets taken out frequently.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)