Blogging Baby v. Cookie magazine on Salon.com

I got a copy of Cooky magazine in the mail, for some unknown reason (I certainly didn't subscribe) - actually my first thought was, I hope my five year old daughter doesn't see this and start thinking she's deprived. Yes, it is an obnoxious magazine -- there is an article on planning a two year old's birthday party that recommends one decorate the cake with elephant cookies ordered online ($8-$12 EACH). However, there was also a peculiar article by a freelancer about her son's misdiagnosis of aspergers (instead he is gifted) that demonstrates the effects of the hyper-indulgent parenting that the rest of the magazine promotes. Because it turned out the child was so heavily indulged by his doting parents that he never bothered to learn to do a lot of things because he was smart enough to realize he didn't have to.

Reply

I totally agree that by showering children with obscenely expensive things is arguably setting them up to have a distorted view of money and it's worth. In fact, I agree with most of the above comments! The amount of overindulgance in our society both sickens and saddens me.

But I did want to point out that some people buy more expensive clothing and gifts not because it IS more expensive, but because it's handmade. I think there's a big difference in buying a $100 outfit because it's name brand (usually made by women and children being paid pennies) and buying a $100 outfit that a work-at-home mom (WAHM) made during naps and after bedtime.

Buying from WAHMs not only celebrates the beauty and individuality of handmade work, but also enables moms (and dads) to stay home with their children and still support their family financially. Yes, handmade products are much more expensive than what you can buy in Target, but WAHMs can't be expected to compete on price with companies that import their clothes and utilize borderline slave labor.

I should point out that I am a WAHM myself and therefore can't be considered unbiased. I just wanted to point out that the products made by WAHMs usually aren't more expensive just to make their brand more desirable, they just want to pay themselves a fair wage and support their children while still being able to be at home to watch them grow up.

In that way, I don't think buying handmade clothing made by WAHM to be excessive consumption, but more a form of responsible consumption.

Anyway, thanks for letting me ramble!

Reply

Wow, there are a lot of bitter people blogging on this entry. I agree with Nina. The simple fact that a person buys this magazine gives one no insight to their character or how they raise their kids. If they have the money to buy the pricey products featured in this mag, so what. Did you consider that perhaps they've earned it?

Personally, I will buy from Old Navy as readily as an upscale boutique for my child --it just depends on if I love it. And I will buy a Bugaboo for the same reason I bought a Medela Pump-In-Style . . . it's a far superior product than anything out there and it's something you will use everyday and will make your life endlessly more convenient.

And you know what, my child also sees me work, sees me participate in community events (actively participate in life for that matter), and sees me volunteer for worthy causes and comes along if possible. I'm also consistently told my child is exceptionally well-behaved and compassionate --imagine that, inspite of buying boutique and upscale kids' clothes and gear!
-Lisa

Reply

As I work in a baby furniture store that sells Bugaboos and expensive furniture, I was not offended by the inclusion of high ticket items, but my wife and I felt that this magazine was not for us.

We unfortunately were given the issue with the excerpts from the book by the feelance author with the son who was misdiagnosed with Aspergers. As parents of a child who has been diagnosed with Aspergers syndrome, we felt that it spoke volumes of this magazine to include writing by this self-absorbed mother, who wanted to commit suicide because her son was "atypical" and wouldn't feel compassion. She alleged that she did research, but if she had, she wouldn't have come across sounding like an imbecile.

There is nothing wrong with advertising, and recommending quality products, but if your editorial contents are as shallow as that article was (and they were) that is offensive, and we will stick to magazines with articles about how to care for and raise children.

Reply

The best of the best for my kids is giving them all the love and attention I can possibly give them. That doesn't mean giving them attention at the expense of everything else (they need clean clothes, after all, and I *am* going back to school and I have my own needs and desires), but the best for them doesn't include expensive clothing and a whirlwind of activities.

I also think that it's best that I teach them the real value of things; does a $400 coat make you a better person, or does volunteering at the animal shelter make you a better person? And I don't mean better as in "I'm more important than you," I mean better as in "I'm giving back to the world."

Reply

Well, I got an ad for Cookie last week, and my first thought was "Yuck. A magalog for kids."

My second thought was, I ought to send this to "Blogging Baby."

Reply

My kids were mostly dressed in hand-me-downs and they still looked adorably cute... and because their clothes are hand-me-downs, I don't get upset when they inevitably spit-up or smear mashed carrots all over them... or if their diaper leaks... My son stained so many white onesies right in the back near the top of his diaper.

Kids are messy. With the possible exception of a formal event, like a wedding, it's a waste of money to buy them expensive clothes.

Reply

Misfit made my comment. (I'm not surprised.) Who says "the best" is properly measured by the price tag? If it keeps my baby warm and dry and looks cute to boot, does it matter if it cost $12.99 or $500? And if something that cost $12.99 keeps the baby just as warm and dry, what does that say about the person who'd spend an extra $487.01 for -- for what? Prestige?

Who finds it impressive that someone could be duped into spending ten, twenty, fifty times more than necessary? I'm astonished that people are that gullible.

And once again I agree with Misfit: what makes you a better person? The size of the price tag on your posessions, or what you give back to the world?

Reply

I don't think the parents of the people buying these fancy, expensive things for their kids are aiming to make their kids better people through their purchases. When we buy a kid a pretty dress - whether it's $10 or $100 - who's saying that they're buying that to make their kid a better person? They just like what it is, for whatever reason, and they have the money so why not? I think that it is totally possible to be a good and responsible parent even if you buy a $500 stroller. I think you can still teach your kid the value of money even if you decide to buy them dwell sheets. Why did buying your kids expensive things AND volunteering at an animal shelter suddenly become incompatible?

If we're going to attack parents who buy expensive things for their kids, then we should start attacking everyone who spends more than what's necessary on their purchases: expensive cars, homes, shoes and purses, etc.

I totally agree that it isn't necessary to spend a lot of money to take care of your child and mold him into a good person, but I also just think that IF you do spend a lot of money on your child...it doesn't mean that you're not taking care of your child and/or molding him into a good person. Not spending money does not automatically make people morally superior and vise versa.

And as far as using your child as an accessory, the only issue I would point out is that we all are most likely guilty of that to a certain extent. Does our kid really care if the nursery is pink or blue or whether we have an adorable going-home outfit or whether our diaper bag is black or has little bunnies on it? Such non-luxury retailers as Carters and the Gap sell cute little shoes for babies that can't walk and why do children's clothing have any decorative touches at all?

I think it's easy to caricature these priviledged parents and children into "yuppy scum", but what gives us the right to assume that their motivations are less than our own when it comes to their children?

Reply

Nina;

What a well-thought-out comment, respectfully presented! We see this issue differently, but as I read your comment, I was thinking, "Oh, I'd love to sit and have a coffee with this woman and talk about this!" I enjoyed several of the points you presented. There is no need to become polarized on this issue; there is always a gray area.

In fact, I do think it's a shame when people spend many times more than necessary on their own possessions, for something as ephemeral and meaningless as the right brand or an up-to-the-second fashion - in purses, in homes, in vehicles. It is too easy in affluent North America to end up being owned by your possessions, rather than the other way round. Working madly to afford the things that are supposed to enhance your life, only to discover you have very little life left outside the possessions.

It's a matter of keeping it balanced. As you quite rightly say, there's no reason you can't have fancy stuff AND volunteer at the animal shelter.

Does putting your child in cute clothes mean you're using him/her as an accessory? I suppose, if we were to be strictly utilitarian about it, a small baby would wear nothing but brown onesies until they were walking! But, because we go for more than the strictly utilitarian, does that mean our child's an accessory? However, you answer that question, I do think there is a difference between putting your child in a cute little $15 playsuit with puppies on the pocket, and dressing him/her in a $300 playsuit with the Right Label in the seam.

The woman quoted in the article said she was "proud" to have spent close to a thousand dollars on a single outfit for her child. This honestly baffles me. Why does this make her proud? My guess is that it's because it shows everyone that she has that kind of money to spend, that having a lot of money is a boost to her self-esteem, somehow, but I'm only guessing.

Thanks for your perspective, Nina: I liked thinking through this issue from a different vantage point.

Reply

I might just be upset because the writer completely slandered my website and actually had the nerve to email me several months ago under the false impression that he was doing a story about luxury baby items.

However...I do not understand the sudden hatred towards women who spend a certain amount of money on their kids. Who cares? It's nobody's business if a person spends $9 on a stroller or $900. It doesn't mean they are a bad parent or that they plan to spoil their kids.

As was pointed out in the article, I teach preschool. I can tell you for a fact that spoiling kids and giving in to them is present in every income level. I have seen kids dressed in $300 outfits who are terrible, spoiled, and have no morals. And I have seen kids dressed in hand-me-downs who are terrible, spoiled, and have no morals. You don't have to be rich to indulge your child. Allowing them to get their way at home doesn't cost money.

It's about not the wealth or what you spend on clothes and toys like the writer wants you to think. It's about rather or not you set rules and stick to them. That's what counts.

Reply