Pink. Pink! Hmmm. Oh, and scheduled C-sections. Cribs, too

[walkitout]

H/T DaddyTypes

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7817496.stm

Periodically I tell people that I read somewhere (not here) that pink used to be for boys and blue for girls. They never believe me. But the author of this piece clearly read something similar.

Otherwise, kinda silly.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090107/ap_on_he_me/med_c_section_timing

DT points out coverage problems with this.

Me, I'm just goggling at the rarity of scheduled c-sections after 41 weeks. I must be a rare one indeed. I was also contemplating some of the hypothetical reasons given. We did indeed schedule it for Friday, rather that trying to push through to Monday (which would have put us at 43 weeks) in part because of mother-in-law's schedule (come on. It's _not_ unreasonable to schedule things to ensure additional help.).

Article at the Chicago Tribune about cribs, new regulations first time in a couple decades.

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/nov/16/local/chi-cribsnov16

Creepiest bit:

...cribs are designed for a family to leave a baby unattended for many hours at a time...

Yeah. That would would basically be my entire problem with a crib. Right there. I'm sort of lying about the "creepiest bit", because there's a story further down about a 9 month old in a crib (one hopes the parents didn't put her back in that crib after that incident).

Good news tho -- looks like we're finally ditching voluntary standards. About fucking time.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

The C-section thing is really pissing me off. I could have told you this years ago. The study included repeat c-sections, yet called them all "elective", even though increasing numbers of women have been denied VBACs. Most galling of all, however, is an editorial in the NEJM places blame for too-early c-sections on maternal demand. It seems the MDs have conveniently forgotten how they were running around screaming "your uterus will EXPLODE!!!' and insisting on repeat c-sections at 37 weeks.

-- Elizabeth

Oh, gosh yes

[ethelmay.livejournal.com]

And it used to be that 50% of twins arrived after 38 weeks -- I bet it's gone down now that there are so many doctors yammering that 38 weeks is "term for twins" (an expression I hate, right along with "twins mature early," which is totally bogus).

Re: Oh, gosh yes

[ethelmay.livejournal.com]

I think I meant 50% arrive after 37 weeks, sorry. But 36-37 weeks is also sometimes quoted as "term for twins."

[ethelmay.livejournal.com]

The weird thing about pink-fer-girls-ONLEEEEE is that it was NOT NEARLY so big back in the 1950s and 1960s, when we otherwise had way more gender stereotyping going on. Pink dress shirts for boys were a big deal in the 1950s, for instance (a must-have with your gray flannel suit!). I must say, it bothers me more that pink is *denied* to boys than that it's marketed to girls. We can see through the marketing a lot more easily than we can see through the stereotyping that happens by *not* marketing to one gender, in my experience.

It's just so odd to me how this country gets more reasonable in one area but pulls back in another, as if there were some zero-sum amount of gender sanity that we could work with here.

[volkhvoi.livejournal.com]

This seems to be part of a more general problem of "voluntary standards". I'd like to get back to a culture of regulation with teeth.