Save or Splurge? Part 1: Baby Clothing Essentials

Head on over to the most awesome online shopping directory website in the universe, NeverShoppedOut...and check out my Kid's Corner blog!

Is it better to be economical and stick to department store old faithfuls when choosing basics for your bub, or is it ok to splurge because having a newborn is such a special time that deserves a bit of designer treatment? Join us on a choose your own price point adventure as we give you the rundown on the everyday essentials your little one needs, and some things they don’t but are hard for style-conscious Mums to resist:

Rompers, singlets, socks and hats:
As cute as little outfits are, the honest truth is that until they are out of 000’s and well into 00’s you spend more time changing them from one spit/vomit/wee-covered outfit to the next, so simple items such as rompers are in high rotation. However, the choice out there is massive, whether you go fro Baby Dior or Baby Bonds:

SPLURGE

Thanks to the wonders of online shopping, designer gear for your bub is but a click away….

At the luxurious end of the scale, you can buy high end designer threads from Babye and Children’s Salon (shipping calculated per parcel, but they ship all over the world). Pick up some cute Armani socks for $35, or a hat for $50; a Dior romper for $80, or a gift set (muslin wrap, mittens and hat) for $165. Dolce & Gabbana do sleeveless bodysuits for around $43, or you could go for a Missoni romper, bib and hat set for $175. If husband perhaps hasn’t won a pro Tennis tournament for awhile, you may have to budget slightly and go for Ralph Lauren – hat and bootie sets are around $50, or grab a 3 piece bodysuit set for just $50 (on sale).

If you are or want to be a C-grade British celeb try the Juicy Couture singlet 3-pack for about $100 (just like Jordan, the “glamorous” logo will match your pink velour tracksuit).
Alternately, Nordstrom in the USA have Burberry 4-piece bodysuit, small blanket, hat and socks set for US$122. Please don’t add bling to your Burberry, a la Chav.

Locally, the very gorgeous Petit Bateau range is available from Fragile with a two-pack of very cute wrap rompers going for $53.

Even if you are reading and clicking purely for curiosity’s sake, I am convinced every little princess needs these:
for about $90. Too cute! Sigh.


SAVE

Baby Bonds: Almost a right of passage for Aussie kids, Bonds romper suits are less than $15, come in simple colours, wash well and are super comfy. If you’ve got a winter baby, layering an outfit over the top of these suits is a great idea for extra warmth. Their singlets are an essential layering piece all year round, come in heaps of colours and are about $4 a pop. Buy Bonds from most department stores, or online at Zodee or Oneontheway .

Target have an awesome range of singlets and basic rompers, including an organic range, starting at $3. In my personal experience, the sizing on these is fantastic (roomy but not too big), they last wash after wash and are true blue value for money. You’ll need to brave the crowds because you can’t buy online (yet) but it’s worth it!

Purebaby make thoughtfully designed and reasonably priced garments from 100% organic cotton. This romper is $24.95 and sweet little singlet is $14.95. Gaia also make simple organic options, with singlets at $15 and suits $19.95.

American Apparel also offer eco-conscious buys, in a massive range of colours, from about $20.

The onesies would look so cute with those Dior shoes (what did you say? Living vicariously? Oh, shoosh.....)

Madison Mag: Brazilian Waxing is not for 14 year olds

There's a lot to get you fired in up the current, Green issue of Madison magazine: aside from the obvious hypocrisy of the fact that a glossy magazine is printed on the most anti-green commodity out there, paper, there's an article about tweens with personal shoppers, which also mentions Brazilian waxing. Disturbingly, this is printed under the "trend" section.

Before we get started, a few points: you can always get great all-round mag reviews over at Girl with a Satchel. Madison has this month interested and infuriated me so I'll be focussing on a few particular points only. Editor Paula Joye does a great job of addressing the inherent contradiction of printing a "Green" issue by stating that Madison is a media outlet with a duty and responsibility to inform and inspire. Fair point, especially considering that knowledge is the first step to power, and if we're going to be green, we need to be informed. There's a cute spread with "celebs" spouting all sorts of obvious but still useful go-green info - the best comes from comedian Tim Ross: "I don't wash my clothes, and I have a doona made of John Butler".

So, all this greenery makes you start thinking about taking responsibility, being more careful with the precious resources we have, and feeling guilty about consumerism. I don't know whether it's intentional or not but the fashion pages* consequently annoy me (mainly, the fugly as all fug Armani handbag on page 133 which costs $14,000 - I'm hoping this is a misprint. Presumably if it costs this much it wasn't produced by 5 year-olds in Vietnam, but then it's most likely made of real animal. Green, planet-friendly and responsible? Not really. And man, it's ugly) and stories such as pg 92's "Are You Cooler than a Fourth-Grader?" are thus made all the more poignant.

I have a daughter and I love shopping for her. So, in some respects I can understand why the New York advertising exec mother (naturally) in this story likes to spoil her 9 year old - it's fun, and a type of expensive bonding experience. However, her daughter has a team of personal stylists and shoppers, at a going rate of $650 per day. They "make it easy" to find the perfect outfits for back-to-school, parties, and whatever else it is that 9 year olds do. Like play. No, not that. Apparently, personal care products for teens and tweens nowadays are worth $8.5 billion in the US. Ok, so I read all that, and just sort of scoff at how ridiculous Americans are (though the whole tween industry in Aus is projected tor each $10 billion next year), and how surely people have better things to spend money on, and how these kids are going to grow up totally bratty without backbone nor brain cell. THEN I read the most disturbing part of the article, beneath the bit about 12 year olds with more makeup then their teenage babysitters and Nair's Pretty hair removal line, aimed at 10-15 year olds: the website girl.com.au, apparently the number 1 website for girls aged 9-14, ran a feature on Brazilian waxing, stating that "nobody really likes hair in their private regions...it has a childlike appeal". Stop, stare, re-read. Oh. My. God. Thankfully, this line has since been deleted from the site, but the point is: somebody put it there in the first place. Somebody thinks private hair removal is appropriate for primary-school aged kids. None of my friends even shaved their legs until we were in year 7. And it was probably not until year 9 or 10 when you start wondering about giving those sideburns a trim before swimming in PE. No wonder girls these days (listen to me, it was only a decade ago I was 14, and thinking more about Clearasil rather than pubic waxing) have an alraming rate of eating disorders and low self-esteem. When you are a child, and you're told by that most influential force in your information-soaked life, that your child like looks are not good enough, that nobody who's anybody should look like or want to look like a child, what are you going to do? You're an impressionable pubescent already uncomfortable with your changing body and emotions, and to be told things like this, and think it's normal?! As you can see, it completely freaked me out. If our kids are taught to be embarrassed by normality, uncomfortable with themselves and always being told they can be better, what hope will the planet have when we put it in their hands? Ben Lee's enviro-quote on page 61 perhaps gives us a good starting point: "I am interested in creating social change in a positive way...". Social change is going to go hand-in-hand with the massive lifestyle and environmental changes we are slowly beginning to make. Is our culture and our society able to change, or have we become so self-absorbed with ourselves, our looks and our posessions that we won't be able to handle learning to take less, use less, and respect more?

Hats off to you, Madison, for creating an issue that encourages us to do that most dangerous and worthwhile of activities: to think.

*Yes they need fashion pages in a glossy magazine or it wouldn't sell. There's a great story on pg 138 "The Green Fashion House Effect", profiling eco-friendly designers such as Stella McCartney, but Madison falls a little short of practising what it preaches, on the surface. It's like the Green part of the issue (which is a good 2/3, thankfully) is just there for the sake of it, and then the rest can revert back to good old-fashioned selfish indulgence. Without meaning to sound harsh, this is honestly the feeling I get from this issue, and usually I quite enjoy Madison. How can you print pictures of the devastated Styx Forest, and then really give a stuff about the latest "it" eye shadow? In this instance then, Madison has done it's job of opening up one's eyes to the real issue at hand. 'Cos, you know, I love makeup and pretty sparkly things as much as the next female. The fact I don't care to read about them in this issue means the most important message has come through loud and clear.