Wed 28 Feb 2007
Hipster Babies
Posted by Liza under Opinion
I’m not sure how, but I seem to have offended David Brooks. Or maybe it was you. Either way, he’s mad.
Can we please get over the hipster parent moment? Can we please see the end of those Park Slope alternative Stepford Moms in their black-on-black maternity tunics who turn their babies into fashion-forward, anticorporate indie-infants in order to stay one step ahead of the cool police?
Babies and toddlers, apparently, are not supposed to be funny. They are not supposed to dress like their parents or reflect their parents’ taste. Babies and toddlers are supposed to wear sailor suits and fluffy dresses, no colors other than soft pastels (navy is ok in the sailor suit), no decoration other than puppies and bunnies.
Brooks thinks that to dress them otherwise is to strip them of their dignity:
What I object to is people who make their children ludicrous. Innocent infants should not be compelled to sport “My Mom’s Blog Is Better Than Your Mom’s Blog” infant wear. They should not be turned into deceptive edginess badges by parents who refuse to face that their days of chaotic, unscheduled moshing are over.
For God’s sake, let’s respect the dignity of youth.
Let’s review that last bit.
David Brooks apparently thinks that babies and toddlers have dignity.
Right. I can’t tell you what dignity Noah had last night as he suddenly changed his mind about the deliciousness of the raisin in his mouth, literally shaking it from his tongue to his lap. Or the dignity with which he arched his back and shrieked in anger at the horror of having his diaper changed. Or the dignity he brings to us both with his inspirational circus-performer contortions during his morning nursing.
Phrased another way, David Brooks, have you met any babies or toddlers? In real life, I mean, not in magazine ads.
I’m getting ahead of myself.
Apparently in the Sunday New York Times (Times Select, requires subscription) reprinted in the Monday Atlanta Journal Constitution and (probably illegally) copied on the Internet, David Brooks wrote a nasty diatribe against so-called hipster parents who dress their children in funny t-shirts and try to raise them with products purchased from small businesses instead of mass markets.
How dare we?
Brooks is apparently under the strange delusion that only a superhip parent would dream of doing this. Speaking as a member of the terminally unhip, I can tell you that this is far from the case.
I’ve never been in a mosh pit. I wouldn’t know a $600 messenger bag if it fell in my lap. I don’t think I even looked, talked, acted, or dressed like Brooks’ idea of a 22 year old when I was a 22 year old. I’m an NPR-listening, clearance-rack-shopping, suburban-home-owning, church-going professional. The closest thing I have to “hipster credibility” is that I’m a lesbian — and if that doesn’t prove to you that lesbian moms are pretty much just like straight moms, I don’t know what will.
I digress.
My point is that I don’t understand why becoming a Mom should suddenly force me to change my taste or my shopping habits. Quite the opposite, in fact. I want to teach my son my values, which include support for small and local businesses, healthy foods, and the importance of having a sense of humor.
So he shops with me at the Farmer’s Market. And we buy most of his books from our local and wonderful children’s bookstore. I’m not a purist about these things — he’s also been to Toys “R” Us, and I’ve bought books at Amazon.com — Noah even had his first fast-food french fry last weekend. But I do my best to balance the things I think are “better” to do with the things that are more convenient.
And there’s a fabulous picture of him in the masthead of my blog, wearing his, in my opinion hilarious, “My Mom’s Blog is Better than Your Mom’s Blog” t-shirt.
He’s outgrown it, but thanks to David Brooks, I’m ordering him a new one.
If you want to annoy David Brooks too, here’s where I got it: (and if you order it through this link, I get a little bounty for referring you)
(Heh, and yes, I also have the “I’m too lazy to make a bottle” adult shirt, and I love it. LOVE. It cracks me up every time.)
February 28th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
I have a feeling A LOT of things offend him. Perhaps he was born with that haircut and suit?
Did anyone else see the striking resemblance he has to Ward Cleaver? Add a pipe and a newspaper to that picture and he’s “worried about the Beaver”.
March 1st, 2007 at 12:37 am
“Innocent infants should not be compelled to sport “My Mom’s Blog Is Better Than Your Mom’s Blog” infant wear.”
I have to compel my 21 month year old boy to wear ANYTHING. He would be at his most natural and unaffected if he were running around in circles buck nekked.
March 1st, 2007 at 10:44 am
i haven’t read the article but i agree with him that adults should respect “the dignity” of children of all ages, and that a lot of times parents treat their kids in ways that impinge upon the kids’ dignity because it makes the parents feel good about themselves. a good example that i’ve previously discussed here is talking about babies have “girlfriends” or “boyfriends.” i don’t have a particular problem with the “my mom’s blog” tee shirt, but cutesy tee shirts can also easily be part of the problem.
i think you are taking a too narrow view of the term “dignity.” it’s not about “thurston howell III” dignity. it’s dignity that all humans (and in my view all creatures) should be accorded just by virtue of being alive. it’s about respecting the child as an individual. (it’s so irritating when people quote the dictionary, but the first definition of “dignity” in the american heritage dictionary is “the quality or state of being worthy of esteem or respect.”)
didn’t terry schiavo have “dignity” that deserved respect? doesn’t an adult with severe disability (who may also shriek at having his or her diaper changed) have dignity that deserves respect? in the same way, babies and toddlers have dignity that deserves respect.
the problem is the “adultithromorphizing” of babies and toddlers. adults project these adult thoughts and feelings onto the children but it’s all about those adults. it disregards the fact that the child is a human being with thoughts and feelings of her own. she doesn’t think like an adult, and even if she did, who is to say that she’d agree with the sentiment that her parents are imputing to her? the “my mom’s blog” tee shirt is pretty harmless, because if noah did think about blogs, he’d probably support yours out of affection for you. a better example of a tee shirt that impinges on a kid’s dignity would be one that said that he would have a certain career, like the “future president” (or, worse, “future first lady”) tees that they sell on the streets of dc.
March 1st, 2007 at 12:53 pm
I don’t understand the suggestion that there’s a way that parents can NOT project or impose thoughts/feelings/values onto our children.
We are always making choices for our very young children simply because IT’S OUR JOB to do so until they are old enough to begin making decisions for themselves. Then it becomes our job to teach them to be self sufficient.
[Semi-tangent: Some educators beleive that the toys we buy for very children should be simple and unadorned with words and decorations in order to foster imagination–like wooden cars, small farm animals, cloth and rag dolls, etc. I’m not sure I’m that hardcore about that, but that, to me, is a thoughtful, compelling, substantial reason for a parental choice, as opposed to simply “I think your child looks ludicrous”.}
Finally, all this attention on what is essentially a fashion issue becomes ludicrous itself when compared to issues like substandard healthcare for children. I want Mr. Brooks to write about that. I want him to explain how a culture supposedly so beholden to “family values” fails to provide universal healthcare for all it’s children. Where the hell is the dignity in that?
March 1st, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Eric made the point I was trying to make. As a parent of a baby or toddler, it isn’t possible to avoid imposing our thoughts/feelings/values/tastes on our children.
I *have to* choose what my child wears, and there is no “neutral” option. As he gets older and more able to express his own opinions, I anticipate giving Noah more and more freedom in that matter. But right now, even if I wanted to, I couldn’t. I don’t see what makes my choices “more undignified” than a more traditional choice.
Indeed, given the rigidly gendered aspects of traditional baby and toddler clothes, baby jeans and snarky t-shirts seem more respectful than forcing a future butch girl into a ruffled dress or feminine boy into a shirt with a construction vehicle design.
Dignity, in the context of a baby or toddler, is an evasive concept. What does “the quality or state of being worthy of esteem or respect” look like in practice?
To my mind, it looks like being attentive to his need for attention, to when he seems to be getting overwhelmed, to his need for comfort, and to his fundamental physical needs, even when he doesn’t want them attended to, ie, changing his diaper.
To me, calling that dignity at this age seems like a stretch. I can see it as something that evolves into dignity, but it just doesn’t seem like the right word in the context of a baby or toddler. But even for an older child, I don’t see clothes being such a decisive aspect of it.
March 1st, 2007 at 3:39 pm
I suppose they should be in nothing but plain, solid colors, then? Why isn’t anyone talking about how we infringe on their dignity by putting them in TV character onesies and froofy girly things and sporty boy things? Why isn’t anyone talking about how fricking everything is pink or blue for infants and that we are compelling them to be their anatomy without knowing if we are right? We CAN’T KNOW. We can’t know what they want to do, other than eat, poop, and probably be naked. We get to choose when they are babies. THAT is one of the joys of having a damn baby! We get to dress them up! Why the hell not? They puke on us. It’s a fair trade. This is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. Babies with dignity. Give me a break.
Note - I will say I also detest those shirts that kind of sexualize their normal lives, like “boob man”. But I just won’t be buying those. To each their own. No one’s kid is going to be scarred by their 6 month t-shirt choice.
A friend bought me that onesie when I was pregnant with the penguin. And I have another on my registry that says, “My mom is blogging this.” And another that says, “Mommy drinks because I cry.” So there.
March 1st, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Bri, I’m with you on the sexualizing stuff. I also think it’s interesting that only nursing boy clothes are sexualized that way — not that I’m advocating more sexualization of children.
The pink/blue thing drove me insane when I was pregnant. Again, at least with snarky t-shirts, you get more options. Or more neutral options, like black and white.
March 1st, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Dress your kids, or don’t dress your kids. As parents, especially moms, we are continually being judged on absolutely EVERYTHING we do to/for our kids. Obviously we all want the best for our children and people need to understand that every piece of clothing whether we consciously chose it or not, has been chosen just for our children and with love. Whether we buy from a consignment store, a local business, or a mass marketer, we have to dress our children. Ultimately we all want the same things for our kids. We want them to be warm and comfy. We want easy access to those cute bums so we can change them easily. We want pants that fit and shirts that keeps their innards warm. If it happens to match our outfit, sport some trendy slogan or look like it cost a fortune, who cares at least they are warm and cozy and dressed for the day. God knows getting their clothes on, no matter what they look like is a freakin’ job all in itself!!
March 2nd, 2007 at 10:04 am
i want to make it clear that i don’t agree with all of brook’s sentiments, just the one about children having dignity that should be respected, that he is a human being with thoughts and feelings of his own, not an extension of his parents’ identity.
there’s a huge difference in imposing your ideas on your child, which you have no choice but to do, and projecting feelings and choices ONTO your child. in the first scenario, you are saying, “i have chosen this for you.” in the second scenario you are pretending as if, or making it appear as if, the child has chosen it for herself when she has not. it’s the difference between putting a penn state shirt on the kid because you like penn state (imposing your choice) and putting a “little nittney lion’s fan” shirt on him (projecting an opinion about sports onto the child). it does not make the job of parenting harder as a practical matter to not project adult thoughts and feelings onto the child.
similar to adultithropomorphizing kids, another issue is objectifying them. bri said “THAT is one of the joys of having a damn baby! We get to dress them up! Why the hell not? They puke on us. It’s a fair trade.” maybe she was joking, but many parents seriously do think this way. but i agree with brooks that this attitude is offensive. a baby is a person, not a toy and not a business transaction where you do x for them so you are entitled to y. sure, you have to impose your choices on them out of necessity but many parents go beyond just making sure they are warm and appropriately dressed for the occassion. many parents treat their kids as accessories or toys (i.e. objectifying them). they use how their child looks or acts, or even the fact that they have a child, to try to say something about themselves. that isn’t right. the people here might not do this, but a lot of parents definitely do it.
is any of this the biggest problem facing children today? of course not. but that doesn’t mean it can’t or shouldn’t be discussed. (it’s not like david brooks came and posted a criticism on liza’s blog attacking her — she chose to read the story, take it as a criticism of her, and discuss it.) many of the comments are about “but we work so hard to take good care of our children!” but that has nothing to do with this issue. no one is claiming that anyone doesn’t work hard, or needs to work harder. no one is accusing anyone of being bad parents. i understand that when you care so much about doing the right thing for your child, it’s hard not to get defensive and hear any kind of discussion as a personal attack on you as a parent. but does that mean that no one should state an opinion about parenting issues? i think these difficulties that we as americans clearly have in talking about issues surrounding children and parenting are a large part of the reason why there are so many problems with how our society deals with important public issues such as childcare, children’s education, etc.
March 2nd, 2007 at 5:00 pm
But what about onsies that say “I love Grandma” or “I’m Mommy’s sweat pea”? Couldn’t we argue that those pieces also project feelings onto the child that they couldn’t possibly vocalize themselves?
I think the shirt is cute!
March 2nd, 2007 at 5:02 pm
I don’t know what a sweat pea is. But sweet pea, yes. That makes sense. (Sorry!)
March 2nd, 2007 at 8:09 pm
A “sweat pea” is a wasabi pea that has so much wasabi on it that one begins to sweat while eating it.
(Forgive the digression. I like my peas plain, not coated in sinus-burning, sweat-inducing substances. However, I fully support the right of any parent to eat wasabi peas, or even to dress their child/children in “My mommy loves wasabi peas” shirts.)
March 3rd, 2007 at 6:48 pm
It’s easy to take his essay personally. But, what if he had written the exact same idea, only instead of talking about hipster parents (”hipster”? who uses that word?), he used it to talk about trust fund babies/parents, like Justice John Roberts and his kids? I’ll admit I saw his son in that uptight suit and daughter in her precious dress and thought they were forcing their children into their mold of the perfect family. I think the same thing when I see kids dressed up in uncomfortable sailor suits, complete w/ hat…parents who raise their children on mass produced toy Hummers. If Brooks had talked about that, calling it ludicrous, exposing their children to their materialism, I might have nodded my head and moved on. But, he’d never insult his audience that way, and chooses another example that insults a lifestyle that his audience doesn’t understand. Somehow I can see David Brooks son in khakis and an oxford shirt at an early age, his daughter in a pinafore. What’s ludicrous?