There were two thought-provoking quotes in Katha Pollitt's interview with Deborah Solomon in Sunday's New York Times:
Deborah Solomon: "Really? I think you’re underestimating the value of living in the Age of Britney Spears."
Katha Pollitt: "Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, poor Britney Spears — I feel sorry for all of them, because they are being made into these icons of female ruin. Everyone watches them collapsing in public ways that are tremendously humiliating."
DS: "Are you a Hillary supporter?"
Katha Pollitt: "In this country we have a real problem with women and power. If people don’t stop saying incredibly sexist things about Hillary Clinton, I may just have to vote for her."
Me (Laura): So, someone else who thinks people who have a problem with Hillary Clinton really have a problem with women wielding power. Which raises the question, why are college-educated women less fond of Hillary than less well-educated women, as a recent poll showed? It must be because women are each other's harshest critics, and there's that natural survival instinct shaping our behavior, that if another woman has power that means there's less for us to hold onto, an instinct that has left women in the work force without the "old boys' network" that men profit from.
Me, again: What Pollitt said about Britney and Lohan being "icons of female ruin" is also fascinating. I'm captivated by how there are certain female archetypes that keep coming up again and again in the media. I wrote about the Marie Antoinette archetype in the Chicago Tribune a few weeks ago (think Martha Stewart, Leona Helmsley, Barbara Amiel.) There's also this sexed-up, debauched archetype of the ruined woman, also a woman of wealth - Paris Hilton; Britney Spears; Lindsay Lohan - which keeps re-appearing. What does this say about our culture and our views of women? It's a reaction to women in power, the same kind of aversion to women in power that's operating in the case of Hillary Clinton, but a completely different archetype, a sexualized one.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Friday, September 21, 2007
Hillary Clinton as a Cuckold?
Judith Warner had an interesting post last week in her blog comparing public reaction to Hillary Clinton as a "cuckold", or "cuckquean", to the French reaction to their new President, Nicholas Sarkozy, a modern-day "cuckold," and his unfaithful first lady, Cécilia.
As she writes:
"In case you missed it, Sarkozy last year greatly entertained France by running a campaign in which his wife was almost entirely absent. Cécilia, a former model whom Nicholas first eyed, in his previous incarnation as mayor of the city of Neuilly, while administering the vows that consecrated her last marriage, left him in 2005, eventually showing up – and being photographed – with her lover in New York City."
"The Sarkozys ultimately reunited. But life together remained rocky. Cécilia made major headlines once again last May when she pulled a no-show on the night of her husband’s final run-off race against his Socialist rival, Ségolène Royal.
She was rumored not to have voted at all."
"Yet by summer, in the press at least, all was forgotten. When I was there, every major magazine featured glowing profiles of the new first lady. They praised her charm, her fashion sense, her break-the-mold modernity."
She writes that for Sarkozy, "perhaps one of his boldest, cleverest and most successful [gestures] has been the fact that, by keeping his head high, standing by his woman and steadfastly, defiantly, professing his love and desire. . .he has transcended the old role of cuckold. He has instead been something more like a political wife."
In contrast, Warner writes that Clinton, "[a formidable woman of real power and prestige. . .emerged from the Monica affair much more cuckold than cuckquean. Her husband’s perfidy did, in a sense, disturb the natural order of things; in the post-feminist age, women like Hillary are not supposed to be subject to such indignities. Hillary has never been, as she herself once put it, 'some little woman standing by my man.' Perhaps that’s what made the spectacle of her public humiliation so unique and so unsettling and, ultimately, so unforgivable for the many women who came away from it all despising her."
First of all, Warner is wrong that Hillary Clinton came out of her husband's public admission of his affair even more despised. On the contrary, many women seemed to become more sympathetic to her. Indeed, she did win the election for NY senator on the wave of new sympathy coming out of the Lewinsky affair.
Warner asks an interesting question: "Could such public forgiving and forgetting of a wanton political wife [Sarkozy] ever have happened here? And could Americans, like the French, ever elect a cuckold?"
Warner asks an interesting question, as Hillary Clinton is asking us to elect a cuckquean (the female version of the word cuckold) to the presidency.
But Warner should have asked an even more interesting one. Why is Sarkozy a more sympathetic cuckold than Hillary?
Society is more accepting of a powerful man who isn't afraid to show his soft, metrosexual, feminine side, than of a powerful woman who isn't prone to showing her feminine side, who appears "too masculine." That's why people still despise Hillary even though she's been "cuckolded." It's not that she comes out of this looking like a "cuckold," as Warner writes, and that no one likes a cuckold. It's just that she wasn't humiliated enough by her husband's infidelity. She gained power by it--she became a Senator, she got her public voice back, and her own career. Those who despise her would have liked her to have been humiliated, brought low, even further. It's Hillary's power, power that she retained, even strengthened, as a cuckold, not her humiliation, that make people dislike her.
As she writes:
"In case you missed it, Sarkozy last year greatly entertained France by running a campaign in which his wife was almost entirely absent. Cécilia, a former model whom Nicholas first eyed, in his previous incarnation as mayor of the city of Neuilly, while administering the vows that consecrated her last marriage, left him in 2005, eventually showing up – and being photographed – with her lover in New York City."
"The Sarkozys ultimately reunited. But life together remained rocky. Cécilia made major headlines once again last May when she pulled a no-show on the night of her husband’s final run-off race against his Socialist rival, Ségolène Royal.
She was rumored not to have voted at all."
"Yet by summer, in the press at least, all was forgotten. When I was there, every major magazine featured glowing profiles of the new first lady. They praised her charm, her fashion sense, her break-the-mold modernity."
She writes that for Sarkozy, "perhaps one of his boldest, cleverest and most successful [gestures] has been the fact that, by keeping his head high, standing by his woman and steadfastly, defiantly, professing his love and desire. . .he has transcended the old role of cuckold. He has instead been something more like a political wife."
In contrast, Warner writes that Clinton, "[a formidable woman of real power and prestige. . .emerged from the Monica affair much more cuckold than cuckquean. Her husband’s perfidy did, in a sense, disturb the natural order of things; in the post-feminist age, women like Hillary are not supposed to be subject to such indignities. Hillary has never been, as she herself once put it, 'some little woman standing by my man.' Perhaps that’s what made the spectacle of her public humiliation so unique and so unsettling and, ultimately, so unforgivable for the many women who came away from it all despising her."
First of all, Warner is wrong that Hillary Clinton came out of her husband's public admission of his affair even more despised. On the contrary, many women seemed to become more sympathetic to her. Indeed, she did win the election for NY senator on the wave of new sympathy coming out of the Lewinsky affair.
Warner asks an interesting question: "Could such public forgiving and forgetting of a wanton political wife [Sarkozy] ever have happened here? And could Americans, like the French, ever elect a cuckold?"
Warner asks an interesting question, as Hillary Clinton is asking us to elect a cuckquean (the female version of the word cuckold) to the presidency.
But Warner should have asked an even more interesting one. Why is Sarkozy a more sympathetic cuckold than Hillary?
Society is more accepting of a powerful man who isn't afraid to show his soft, metrosexual, feminine side, than of a powerful woman who isn't prone to showing her feminine side, who appears "too masculine." That's why people still despise Hillary even though she's been "cuckolded." It's not that she comes out of this looking like a "cuckold," as Warner writes, and that no one likes a cuckold. It's just that she wasn't humiliated enough by her husband's infidelity. She gained power by it--she became a Senator, she got her public voice back, and her own career. Those who despise her would have liked her to have been humiliated, brought low, even further. It's Hillary's power, power that she retained, even strengthened, as a cuckold, not her humiliation, that make people dislike her.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
On Obama's Wife's "Stinky" and "Snores" comment
As reported in today's New York Times:
"In an interview with Glamour magazine, Michelle Obama reveals that her husband, Barack, is so “snore-y and stinky” when he wakes up in the morning that their daughters won’t crawl into bed with him. The interview, in the magazine’s October issue, was conducted by Tonya Lewis Lee, who is married to Spike Lee, the filmmaker."
"Referring to their daughters, Mrs. Obama says: 'We have this ritual in the morning. They come in my bed, and Dad isn’t there — because he’s too snore-y and stinky, they don’t want to ever get into bed with him. But we cuddle up and we talk about everything from what is a period to the big topic of when we get a dog: what kind?'
There has been a lot of criticism from the vox populi, or the peanut gallery, in response to her comments, for being too humanizing, too crude, or basically, just too much information.
One man writes in the online comments to the New York Times piece, "Believe it or not the best thing she can do at this time is pretend she’s the little housewife who likes to decorate instead of trying prop herself up and minimize her husband." So he acknowledges the falseness of the stereotype of the First Lady, the archetype Laura Bush has modeled herself on, but suggests that this is an easier image for people to accept than the one Michelle Obama is trying to project. Another man writes, "The wives of Biden, Richardson, Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel, McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Tancredo, Hunter, Paul, and even Giuliani ALL have shown better political sense than Mrs. Obama, in supporting from the sidelines and not eclipsing the candidate. I’d say the wives of Sen. Clinton and Sen. Edwards are both making the same mistake (although Bill is trying his best not to outshine, he’s the most popular wife of them all)."
So there's a feeling out there that she is not pretending enough, not giving in to the accepted archetype of the traditional First Lady, or potential First Lady, which is to be quiet and stay in the background while she lets her husband be glorified. She's trying to create a new mold, a new image for the First Lady that's more real, more candid, but that's not what people are ready to accept.
"In an interview with Glamour magazine, Michelle Obama reveals that her husband, Barack, is so “snore-y and stinky” when he wakes up in the morning that their daughters won’t crawl into bed with him. The interview, in the magazine’s October issue, was conducted by Tonya Lewis Lee, who is married to Spike Lee, the filmmaker."
"Referring to their daughters, Mrs. Obama says: 'We have this ritual in the morning. They come in my bed, and Dad isn’t there — because he’s too snore-y and stinky, they don’t want to ever get into bed with him. But we cuddle up and we talk about everything from what is a period to the big topic of when we get a dog: what kind?'
There has been a lot of criticism from the vox populi, or the peanut gallery, in response to her comments, for being too humanizing, too crude, or basically, just too much information.
One man writes in the online comments to the New York Times piece, "Believe it or not the best thing she can do at this time is pretend she’s the little housewife who likes to decorate instead of trying prop herself up and minimize her husband." So he acknowledges the falseness of the stereotype of the First Lady, the archetype Laura Bush has modeled herself on, but suggests that this is an easier image for people to accept than the one Michelle Obama is trying to project. Another man writes, "The wives of Biden, Richardson, Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel, McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Tancredo, Hunter, Paul, and even Giuliani ALL have shown better political sense than Mrs. Obama, in supporting from the sidelines and not eclipsing the candidate. I’d say the wives of Sen. Clinton and Sen. Edwards are both making the same mistake (although Bill is trying his best not to outshine, he’s the most popular wife of them all)."
So there's a feeling out there that she is not pretending enough, not giving in to the accepted archetype of the traditional First Lady, or potential First Lady, which is to be quiet and stay in the background while she lets her husband be glorified. She's trying to create a new mold, a new image for the First Lady that's more real, more candid, but that's not what people are ready to accept.
Gender Roles Topsy Turvy in This Week's "Damages"
This week, the women seem to be sketched as black and white archetypes. Glenn Close's Patricia Hewes seems completely venal; she does talk to her associate Ellen Parsons about how she needs to find a mate that will not be threatened by her, but one senses that her advice has ulterior motives, that, for some reason, she wants Ellen's fiance out of the picture. (Foreshadowing is at work here: we know the ending, that her fiance is killed, and so Hewes' words of advice about what to look for in a man are not seen by us as supportive "girl talk," which is how Ellen views it, but as Machiavellian, well-thought out words that will influence Ellen to act according to Hewes' mapped-out plans.)
Meanwhile, Ted Danson's character continues to be portrayed in a more nuanced way, designed to elicit viewers' sympathies. (See my post from last week). He has just as dark a side as Hewes; he tells an underling to do whatever it takes to deal with the witness Gregory, including, it seems, kill him. But in this episode, as in others, we see him interacting lovingly with his son. We seem that he cares about what his son thinks of him, about the "legacy," he's leaving him, which is why he is setting out to write his own biography (after punching the assigned ghostwriter in the face.) The only time we saw Patricia Hewes with her son was after she met with the school principal, and they walked down the hall together (with her husband), and when she meets him at a restaurant, then, in the antithesis of a loving mother-son relationship, has him seized by hulking men to take him, without his knowledge or consent, to a behavioral boot camp.
So the writers of the show have chosen to make the powerful female lead character one who is not at all maternal, who compartmentalizes her life so as to block any maternal feelings from influencing her career (which doesn't mimic at all the real-life constant juggling act of working women) but to make the powerful male lead one who is totally driven by his paternal urges.
Meanwhile, Ted Danson's character continues to be portrayed in a more nuanced way, designed to elicit viewers' sympathies. (See my post from last week). He has just as dark a side as Hewes; he tells an underling to do whatever it takes to deal with the witness Gregory, including, it seems, kill him. But in this episode, as in others, we see him interacting lovingly with his son. We seem that he cares about what his son thinks of him, about the "legacy," he's leaving him, which is why he is setting out to write his own biography (after punching the assigned ghostwriter in the face.) The only time we saw Patricia Hewes with her son was after she met with the school principal, and they walked down the hall together (with her husband), and when she meets him at a restaurant, then, in the antithesis of a loving mother-son relationship, has him seized by hulking men to take him, without his knowledge or consent, to a behavioral boot camp.
So the writers of the show have chosen to make the powerful female lead character one who is not at all maternal, who compartmentalizes her life so as to block any maternal feelings from influencing her career (which doesn't mimic at all the real-life constant juggling act of working women) but to make the powerful male lead one who is totally driven by his paternal urges.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Thoughts on today's "Modern Love" column
I read the New York Times Modern Love essay this morning (of course, now it's almost 10 pm, my first chance to write anything all day). My first reaction after reading the piece was to think the author has some issues. The whole piece is about the author's realizing that she never says "I love you" to her one-year-old, while all around her other mothers are saying "I love you", to her ears, at unremarkable times, such as when a mom swoops up a child after she goes down the slide. The author wonders when she should say "I love you" to her son; she doesn't want to only say it after he's done a feat, like say some letters (she subtlely shows off that her young son knows his letters already) because then he might think his mother only loves him if he does some great act.
When I was at the pool today, I caught myself saying "I love you" to my son, as I kissed him on the head, and I realized how often I say these words, without thinking about it, just as a way of expressing my love for my children; I don't think about it consciously like this author does. It just comes naturally to me. The author mentions that her parents never said "I love you" to her. She does remember saying it to her father right before he went in for heart surgery. I think how our parents raise us, how they love us, has a great effect on how we express our love for our children. (I wonder how far any of us stray from the mold our parents cast.)
Maybe it comes in part from realizing that we don't choose when to say goodbye to those we love. I didn't get to say goodbye to my father, who died suddenly two and a half years ago. But I know that he knew that I loved him, and that I got the chance to say those words to him every time we spoke.
On a more uplifting note, already my two-year-old daughter knows how to say "I love you" at the right times. She doesn't say it as often as my son does, who, at the same age, was more expressive with hugs and kisses. But she does say it to me, and it's the best feeling to hear her say it. And I hear her say it when she plays pretend with her babies and little animals. And tonight, after the grueling nightly ordeal of putting my kids to bed, specifically tonight's episode of the bedtime 'routine': after my son dumped the stuffed animals out of the Container Store soft-cubey container in my daughter's room and then tried to hide himself inside of it so that I could not retrieve him and put him to bed, and having to pull him out and down the hall and insist he must stay in his room (which included holding the door closed for a minute while he was inside, with him banging on it, to show that I meant business, then deciding he was making too much noise which might wake up his sister, so going inside, and having him do a "yoga breath" to calm down befor we read books) it was soothing for both of us to have our nightly routine of saying "I love you" to each other before kissing him goodnight. So the kid still loves me, I thought, even if all weekend he called me "stupid" when he didn't like something I did.
When I was at the pool today, I caught myself saying "I love you" to my son, as I kissed him on the head, and I realized how often I say these words, without thinking about it, just as a way of expressing my love for my children; I don't think about it consciously like this author does. It just comes naturally to me. The author mentions that her parents never said "I love you" to her. She does remember saying it to her father right before he went in for heart surgery. I think how our parents raise us, how they love us, has a great effect on how we express our love for our children. (I wonder how far any of us stray from the mold our parents cast.)
Maybe it comes in part from realizing that we don't choose when to say goodbye to those we love. I didn't get to say goodbye to my father, who died suddenly two and a half years ago. But I know that he knew that I loved him, and that I got the chance to say those words to him every time we spoke.
On a more uplifting note, already my two-year-old daughter knows how to say "I love you" at the right times. She doesn't say it as often as my son does, who, at the same age, was more expressive with hugs and kisses. But she does say it to me, and it's the best feeling to hear her say it. And I hear her say it when she plays pretend with her babies and little animals. And tonight, after the grueling nightly ordeal of putting my kids to bed, specifically tonight's episode of the bedtime 'routine': after my son dumped the stuffed animals out of the Container Store soft-cubey container in my daughter's room and then tried to hide himself inside of it so that I could not retrieve him and put him to bed, and having to pull him out and down the hall and insist he must stay in his room (which included holding the door closed for a minute while he was inside, with him banging on it, to show that I meant business, then deciding he was making too much noise which might wake up his sister, so going inside, and having him do a "yoga breath" to calm down befor we read books) it was soothing for both of us to have our nightly routine of saying "I love you" to each other before kissing him goodnight. So the kid still loves me, I thought, even if all weekend he called me "stupid" when he didn't like something I did.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Different Reaction to Male and Female Power in the FX Show "Damages"?
I love the new FX show "Damages," starring Glenn Close as high-powered Manhattan attorney Patricia Hewes, who it seems it will resort to anything to win a case against billionaire CEO Arthur Frobisher, played by Ted Danson. Both characters wield tremendous power in their work lives, though it's questionable how much they have in their personal lives (there are suggestions of children and marriages run awry) and both are willing to hurt and even (order others to)kill others (so far, Hewes maims a dog, and Frobisher orders a hit on a woman who is going to testify against him) to sustain that power.
"Damages" is really all about power, magnified through the lens of gender. There's one episode in which Hewes says (disclaimer-this quote is from memory): "The most dangerous thing you can do to a man is take away his power," alluding to Frobisher.
In a recent Newsday article, one of the show's creators, Daniel Zelman, said they made the character of Hewes a lawyer because "We were looking for a world in which women could exercise as much power as men. There is the glass ceiling, but at the same time there are very, very powerful women who have risen in the ranks of the legal profession." In that same article another co-creator, Kessler says of meeting with Glenn Close before they shot the shows, "she had a lot of thoughts and ideas and wanted us to really push the boundaries in terms of a woman with that kind of power."
So how do people react to seeing a woman with so much power act so Machiavellian? It's interesting that today's New York Times has a piece on Ted Danson, "A Veteran of Comedy Rediscovers His Dark Side," which mentions how surprising it is that viewers responded to Frobisher's unethical conduct (cheating on his wife, snorting cocaine and then putting out a contract on the life of this woman who glimpsed him getting into his broker's car--need I mention that these three acts took place in the space of one minute--the cheating, snorting and ordering the hit) by feeling sympathy for him. Says one creator of the show, Glenn Kessler, "I don't know how many actors could have those huge plot points in their story and have the audience walk away liking them more." This is a testament to Ted Danson's acting skills, but even more so, it's a testament to our reaction to men wielding power and going to lengths to protect it: we have a natural sympathy for powerful men, a willingness to forgive them their wrongs and weaknesses.
I wonder what the public reaction is to Glenn Close's character, Patricia Hewes. How did people feel about her when they learn she was the one responsible for killing or injuring the young woman's dog in one show? Are viewers less sympathetic to her unscrupulous conduct than they are to Frobisher's? I'm guessing they are.
"Damages" is really all about power, magnified through the lens of gender. There's one episode in which Hewes says (disclaimer-this quote is from memory): "The most dangerous thing you can do to a man is take away his power," alluding to Frobisher.
In a recent Newsday article, one of the show's creators, Daniel Zelman, said they made the character of Hewes a lawyer because "We were looking for a world in which women could exercise as much power as men. There is the glass ceiling, but at the same time there are very, very powerful women who have risen in the ranks of the legal profession." In that same article another co-creator, Kessler says of meeting with Glenn Close before they shot the shows, "she had a lot of thoughts and ideas and wanted us to really push the boundaries in terms of a woman with that kind of power."
So how do people react to seeing a woman with so much power act so Machiavellian? It's interesting that today's New York Times has a piece on Ted Danson, "A Veteran of Comedy Rediscovers His Dark Side," which mentions how surprising it is that viewers responded to Frobisher's unethical conduct (cheating on his wife, snorting cocaine and then putting out a contract on the life of this woman who glimpsed him getting into his broker's car--need I mention that these three acts took place in the space of one minute--the cheating, snorting and ordering the hit) by feeling sympathy for him. Says one creator of the show, Glenn Kessler, "I don't know how many actors could have those huge plot points in their story and have the audience walk away liking them more." This is a testament to Ted Danson's acting skills, but even more so, it's a testament to our reaction to men wielding power and going to lengths to protect it: we have a natural sympathy for powerful men, a willingness to forgive them their wrongs and weaknesses.
I wonder what the public reaction is to Glenn Close's character, Patricia Hewes. How did people feel about her when they learn she was the one responsible for killing or injuring the young woman's dog in one show? Are viewers less sympathetic to her unscrupulous conduct than they are to Frobisher's? I'm guessing they are.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Leona Helmsley--The Marie Antoinette Syndrome Revisited
Leona Helmsley died on Monday at the age of 87. Every article covering her death mentions in the first paragraph that she was renowned as the "Queen of Mean" because of her reputation for cruel treatment of employees, and her statement, "only little people pay taxes." This statement is a "tumbrel" remark, which I wrote about a few weeks ago in reference to Lady Black, or Barbara Amiel, and how certain remarks that powerful, wealthy women make incite class warfare--Leona's famous dictum was one such remark, and it summarized her image in the public's mind even at her death.
Leona married Harry Helmsley in 1972, and he appointed her president of Helmsley Hotels in 1980. In the 80s, she cultivated the image of herself as a "queen" by appearing in a highly successful series of hotel ads saying such things as the Palace was the only place where "the queen stands guard."
As Gail Collins wrote Tuesday in an op-ed in the New York Times, the hatred for this woman was totally out-of-proportion to her bad acts. Why was she so hated? Because she was a woman who dared to be greedy, as Collins put it, to want more than her share. Gail Collins calls this the "Leona Helmsley rule": "If you are a woman, you do not want to be caught demanding way, way more than your share. We cannot get away with greed."
Again, just as in the case of Barbara Amiel Black, it's the case of a woman demonized for conveying an unrepentant desire for wealth and material possessions. She was too proud, and too greedy, and this behavior is not tolerated in women.
Leona married Harry Helmsley in 1972, and he appointed her president of Helmsley Hotels in 1980. In the 80s, she cultivated the image of herself as a "queen" by appearing in a highly successful series of hotel ads saying such things as the Palace was the only place where "the queen stands guard."
As Gail Collins wrote Tuesday in an op-ed in the New York Times, the hatred for this woman was totally out-of-proportion to her bad acts. Why was she so hated? Because she was a woman who dared to be greedy, as Collins put it, to want more than her share. Gail Collins calls this the "Leona Helmsley rule": "If you are a woman, you do not want to be caught demanding way, way more than your share. We cannot get away with greed."
Again, just as in the case of Barbara Amiel Black, it's the case of a woman demonized for conveying an unrepentant desire for wealth and material possessions. She was too proud, and too greedy, and this behavior is not tolerated in women.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Another Chinese Import For Parents to Worry About-Children's Clothes
This is getting absolutely ridiculous. I just saw this article from Australia finding extremely dangerous levels of formaldehyde and other chemicals in children's clothes imported from China (which can cause cancer).
Just a few days ago, I purchased a stylish winter coat for my young daughter; she loved it, demanding that I take off the store labels and that she put on her "fancy" coat and hat. I looked at the coat label and it said, "Wash Before Wear" and "Made in China". The "Wash Before Wear" I had not seen before on children's clothing, and I actually for once acted on my parental neurosis and returned it to the store, asking if the salesperson had any idea why this label was on the coat. (And, first, I looked at on the Internet for a possible explanation and found one mention of formaldehyde being put on clothes that are imported from Asia so that they maintain their look upon arrival.) The salesperson said the instruction was unusual, that she has seen it in jeans, so that you don't get the blue color on your body, but that she never looks at labels, and that I should call the company. Needless to say, I returned the coat, but for another nice-looking one made in a different Asian country, without an instruction to "wash before wear." But so much of our children's clothes is made in third-world countries where who knows what kind of chemicals are used.
Now I just checked the new jeans that I bought for my son's first day of school tomorrow. They're from the Gap, and the label says "Made in Cambodia" and also recommends "Wash Once Before Wearing." At the Gap store, I disregarded the import of the wash before wear instruction because that salesperson's words wear in my head (wash so the blue color doesnt get on your body) but is there formaldehyde in these jeans that are going to go on my little son's body? Does anyone know (feel free to comment).
Add this to the new announcements from the Baby Bargains editors that we shouldn't buy Avent bottles because of the kind of plastic they use, with the number 7 on the bottom of the bottle; there is a chemical, BPA, in it, thay may cause cancer. Parents on the Baby Bargains bulletin boards are scouring their cabinets, looking underneath their plastic containers, even one woman wondering if she should stop eating hummus. It's hard, if not impossible, to know where the right line is between being a conscious parent trying to protect one's child, and knowing and worrying too much. But it's also disconcerting and troubling that our government is doing so little to monitor imports that children are using and being exposed to, and that the plastics industry was directly in charge of studies that said a few years ago that this kind of plastic is safe to use.
It all comes down to money, to the bottom-line. It's profits for big industries that is the cause of dangerous chemicals being put on our children's toys and clothes and food imported from China. And it's the influence of the plastic industry trying to protect its bottom line that lead to consumers not knowing the truth about the dangerous chemicals in plastic. So the only way to effect change is for consumers to somehow effect the industries' bottom line.
Just a few days ago, I purchased a stylish winter coat for my young daughter; she loved it, demanding that I take off the store labels and that she put on her "fancy" coat and hat. I looked at the coat label and it said, "Wash Before Wear" and "Made in China". The "Wash Before Wear" I had not seen before on children's clothing, and I actually for once acted on my parental neurosis and returned it to the store, asking if the salesperson had any idea why this label was on the coat. (And, first, I looked at on the Internet for a possible explanation and found one mention of formaldehyde being put on clothes that are imported from Asia so that they maintain their look upon arrival.) The salesperson said the instruction was unusual, that she has seen it in jeans, so that you don't get the blue color on your body, but that she never looks at labels, and that I should call the company. Needless to say, I returned the coat, but for another nice-looking one made in a different Asian country, without an instruction to "wash before wear." But so much of our children's clothes is made in third-world countries where who knows what kind of chemicals are used.
Now I just checked the new jeans that I bought for my son's first day of school tomorrow. They're from the Gap, and the label says "Made in Cambodia" and also recommends "Wash Once Before Wearing." At the Gap store, I disregarded the import of the wash before wear instruction because that salesperson's words wear in my head (wash so the blue color doesnt get on your body) but is there formaldehyde in these jeans that are going to go on my little son's body? Does anyone know (feel free to comment).
Add this to the new announcements from the Baby Bargains editors that we shouldn't buy Avent bottles because of the kind of plastic they use, with the number 7 on the bottom of the bottle; there is a chemical, BPA, in it, thay may cause cancer. Parents on the Baby Bargains bulletin boards are scouring their cabinets, looking underneath their plastic containers, even one woman wondering if she should stop eating hummus. It's hard, if not impossible, to know where the right line is between being a conscious parent trying to protect one's child, and knowing and worrying too much. But it's also disconcerting and troubling that our government is doing so little to monitor imports that children are using and being exposed to, and that the plastics industry was directly in charge of studies that said a few years ago that this kind of plastic is safe to use.
It all comes down to money, to the bottom-line. It's profits for big industries that is the cause of dangerous chemicals being put on our children's toys and clothes and food imported from China. And it's the influence of the plastic industry trying to protect its bottom line that lead to consumers not knowing the truth about the dangerous chemicals in plastic. So the only way to effect change is for consumers to somehow effect the industries' bottom line.