Loveys

How many of you had a lovey when you were a child? Most people I talk to had a stuffed animal, toy, or blanket that was especially important. I had a blanket. His name was Banky. That is, his name is Banky. I plan to have him until he dissolves entirely (which should happen quite soon, by the look of things).

I don't think many parents have an issue with small children having a lovey. A book I am reading suggests introducing one at nap and bed times to help your baby feel comforted, especially once the baby starts a new schedule (like day care). My son begins daycare Tuesday, so this week we adopted Stripey:


My baby seems to love Stripey, and now he doesn't make a peep when we lay him down to go to sleep, even when he seems energetic. I feel confident that he will handle the transition to daycare well, because he will have a familiar-looking and -smelling companion.

Loveys have an important job of comforting kids. The issue, then, is how long should a child keep a lovey? I know many parents are uncomfortable with a child clinging to a blanket or animal over a certain age, maybe 3 or 4. To these people, I ask why? What's the problem with a kid having an item that comforts him or her?

I suppose for some kids, an extreme attachment to a lovey may interfere with their lives (especially socially). Some parents deal with this by chucking the lovey. I have known parents who threw it out while the kid was at school. What could be more traumatic that coming home and finding out the people you trust and love the most deceived you by destroying the item you trust and love the most? If my parents had done this, I don't think I would have been able to forgive them and trust them again. Instead of throwing loveys away, wouldn't it be better to set up rules of when the child is allowed to hold it? It could be locked up except at bedtime, for example. It seems there must be some way to make it work.

The job of a lovey is to be familiar and make the child feel safe. It reminds the kid of home and family. When going through periods of change (growth, divorce, new siblings, moving, going to school or daycare, losing a pet, etc), the lovey remains a consistent reminder to the child that there are some things that will always be the same, some 'friends' that will always love him or her. Who doesn't need that kind of reminder on a daily basis? I know I still do. So, as a grown up mommy, I admit I still love my Banky and sleep with him every night. You may think I'm weird, but I know I'm not the only one. And he still does his job.

Babies at the Fair

Living in St. Paul, I always feel like a tool if I don't make it to the state fair at least once each year. When I was younger, I went every day, and I had a blast. Lately I haven't been going as much, and for this I blame my husband, who doesn't like fairs, carnivals, parades, festivals, or any sort of fun community events.

Now that I am a mother, I wonder if my visits to the fair will increase or decrease. My son is 7 months old right now; I try to imagine what it would be like to have him there. Would it work to push a big stroller around? Would I need to buy a smaller umbrella stroller for the occasion? Would it be better to wear him in the Baby Bjorn? Where will I be able to comfortably breastfeed? Are there kidnappers and careless drunkards about?

And as he grows, will I need to worry about him running off and getting lost? How much should I expect to spend on food, rides, and souvenirs? It is worth all this stress?

Part of me is tempted to swear off the fair because of the hassle. But then I think back to my childhood; every summer, my family took a trip to Valleyfair and the State Fair. I remember looking forward to it all year. We went early in the morning and stayed all day, and the whole family (even my dad, who worked nights) was a part of it. When I think about these things, I am reminded of how much I love the fair.

Shouldn't I try to provide the same fun traditions for my child that my parents had for me and my sister? I feel like I owe him that. And shouldn't I indulge myself once a year and do something special and exciting? It seems to me a lot of what parents do 'for their children' is actually for themselves. But I don't see anything wrong with that. Parents are hard-working people! We deserve special treatment every now and then, so long as we aren't neglecting our responsibilities to our kids.

I guess I convinced myself--I want to go to the fair. I want to go every year. So I guess this brings me back to my original questions: should I use the big stroller, umbrella stroller, or Baby Bjorn? Breastfeeding? Any ideas?

Raising a Vegetarian Child, Part 1

When I tell people that I am raising my son as a vegetarian, most people try unsuccessfully to hide their disapproval. Although there are a few people who seem to support and be excited about the idea, most think it is a choice that is going to be a big pain and make my kid miserable. I even have gotten a couple, "Poor kid!"s. Well, raising a vegetarian child does not have to be a bother and it does not mean sacrifice on the part of the child. Many common assumptions can be easily proven wrong.

Your kid is going to miss out on so much good food.
Tofu is nutritious, but it is an acquired taste. Fortunately, there are also veggie versions of hamburgers, hot dogs, ground beef, steak strips, sausages, bacon, turkey, corn dogs, chicken patties and nuggets, and more. Just because a person is a vegetarian doesn't mean he or she won't be able to enjoy the foods the rest of the world is eating. Our version is just healthier, and slightly more expensive.

He'll feel weird when singled out from his friends.
This doesn't need to happen. Most day cares are willing to work with vegetarian families and prepare a meat-free meal that is similar to what the other kids are eating. Schools in many districts are required to provide a vegetarian alternative. And simple communication with parents of your kid's friends can help avoid awkward situations (ex: if he or she is invited to a birthday party serving hot dogs on the bonfire, you can send along veggie dogs).

Let the kid have a darn Happy Meal!
We all know fast food is not a healthy choice. If possible, we should avoid it entirely. But sometimes it is just too tempting. Being a vegetarian doesn't mean you can't enjoy fast food. We all know about the side dishes (fries, fiesta potatoes, etc). But there are vegetarian "main course" foods too: Burger King even has a veggie burger. I only recently learned of the BK veggie burger, and it is pretty tasty (they use a Morningstar patty). If you ask, they will probably sub it into a kids meal. You can also get vegetarian kids meals at Taco Bell and Subway (although at Subway, you have to get meat sandwich with no meat). And these options are much less fattening than their meaty counterparts that give fast food a bad name.

Aunts and Uncles

There has been some discussion in my house and among some friends about who deserves the titles of aunt and uncle. I seem to throw it around willy nilly. All my friends are Aunt Becky, Auntie Kristin, Aunt Stacy, etc. This has caused some confusion for people, who then ask if said "aunt" is my sister or my husband's. I don't mind this, but I think some people feel a more traditional use of the title is appropriate.

When I was very young, I didn't realize there was a difference between my mom's and dad's siblings and their spouses; they were all aunts and uncles. Now, I know that sometimes those couples split up, and one has the potential to disappear. Is one an aunt or uncle only if there is no risk of them dropping out of the family?

I also give the title to the boyfriends and girlfriends of the true aunts and uncles. They are, after all, filling the role of aunt or uncle, for the time being. And there is potential for them to really become the aunt or uncle (as is the case with Uncle Jon, who just proposed to Aunt Jacque--yay!). Of course, there is also the possibility of a break up.

We also have to consider step-families (aunts, uncles, brothers, parents, grandparents). In my life, I tried my best to consider them truly to be family (in most cases), but that was more difficult. If someone joins your life when you are at a certain maturity level, it is practically impossible to overcome the natural boundaries, especially if you have emotional issues.

So, what is an aunt? What is an uncle? Does blood make a difference, or are love and commitment the important ingredients? I like to think my family has room for anyone who wants to be a member. But when you have kids, you need to reassess your actions and their effects on the little ones. Is it going to confuse a child to grow up hearing "Uncle Abe," only to realize at age 12 that Uncle Abe is just some dude who we call uncle, and not really an uncle at all? The terms aunt and uncle, for a little kid, are supposed to serve a purpose of helping them grasp what a family is and how it operates.

Also, if someone is not a permanent member of the family, is it fair to a child to use the title, knowing they could go away? Are we then teaching kids that a family is a group of people who love each other for now? If uncle Brad disappears for a year, could Daddy do the same? Children should know that a family is forever, connected by bonds that cannot be broken.

So, what to do? I am sure I am over-thinking this, but I am curious to know what others think and how they use the title.

Materialism and Toys

This is a guest post by Pacifist Viking

You don't want to raise kids to be materialistic; you want kids to grow up knowing there are more important things than possessions.

But as little kids, they need toys. Toys are a necessary part of their development. The toys help them engage with the world. It is with toys that they learn how the world responds to them, and they practice and develop the use of their hands and their eyes and everything else. A baby playing with a toy is learning and reaching out into the world.

So there are all these toys that serve a functional, utilitarian, practical, developmental purpose. But then as we age, we don't need the toys to develop, and the materialism can become a hindrance in many ways (consumer debt is, after all, out of control in this country, and today I heard a sermon about "treasures in heaven" and "treasures on earth").

Oh, don't worry: I'm no secular monk who is going to forbid my child from playing with toys. I played with beloved toys very late into life (as in, I still collect football cards and Star Wars toys), and our son will play with lots and lots of toys.

But Cruelty-Free Mommy and I have done a fairly good job balancing our wants from our needs. We are very responsible with our money, because we know what we can and cannot afford, and what we do and do not need.

And for me, at least, that's a lesson I received from my parents. My parents have provided me with many toys and fun things throughout life (and obviously a lot more support, too). And still, they taught me to save money, to balance "choices and consequences," to be responsible and reasonable, and to know wants from needs. Furthermore, while I do have materialistic desire for things like football cards, this hasn't in any significant way hindered any spiritual yearnings and searchings on my part; I live with the recognition that I will die, and that material possessions mean little to nothing in the big picture.

So as far as I can see, there doesn't have to be a conflict. You can provide children with toys, while still teaching kids to be responsible and reasonable, and still teaching kids that there are bigger spiritual, emotional, and mental needs than possessions can fulfill. It doesn't seem to me that mistakes come from having the toys themselves, but perhaps in how we treat the toys. But providing kids with lots and lots of toys does not in itself make them materialistic people, just like violent entertainment does not in itself make them violent people. If parents do a good job at the more important things (like providing constant love, support, teaching, and time), these other things don't tend to harm.