Oh, Baby!
So, playing on Facebook this weekend prompted me to go through some old stuff trying to find pictures that would embarrass my school chums and me. In so doing, I came across some baby things of mine that my Mom had given me a few years back. I hadn't really read any of it before, but when I finally did, two books got my attention.
In fact, I learned a couple things that I thought I'd share with you, the hapless reader.
1. Feeding a baby is a very, very precise and complicated procedure
The first book was from the hospital, and was really more of a foldout pamphlet to record my stats on. But it also includes some instructions on the care and feeding of a human infant in 1970.
Indeed, the booklet has a four page spread containing no less than 19 steps on how to prepare a bottle for your baby. This includes sterilizing the bottles, making your own formula from scratch, and discovering the secret to cold fusion (I'm guessing here... I zoned out at about step 14).
If push came to shove, I guess I could think of a much easier way to feed a baby. However, while it is never overtly stated in the booklet, one understands that only whores, the indigent, or ethnic people use breastmilk as a food source for their offspring.
2. Babies are equipped with parts
Bathing a human baby back then was significantly easier than feeding him (1970). There are only 7 steps for this process.
The final step is the one that really caught my attention, though:
Can you believe they printed this kind of filth back then, and passed it off as "educational"? Disgusting! Frankly, I'm ashamed of my mother for having kept this smut in the house all of these years. To think they used the "g" and "p" words, when surely they could've used something more oblique, like "mustn't-touch-it", "shame hole" or "sin zone".
(Also, it strikes me that this information might have come in a bit more handy before the baby has already been dressed and placed in bed. I can see a lot of frustrated new moms grumbling and unravelling their babies back onto the counter at this point.)
3. Advertising has come a long way, baby
The other book was also a stat book, but was so much more. It also instructed Mom on what to feed her baby as he (1970) grows up. It was sponsored by a major Canadian baby food producer, oh, and hey, guess which brand of food just happens to be the most nutritious for your baby?!
It's of course a time-honoured tradion to prey upon the fears of anxious young mothers in the hopes they'll buy your crap. That doesn't faze me. It's just that this attempt was so lame.
For instance, they peppered the book with pictures of babies in "adorable" poses with "hilarious" captions below. You know, a baby in a chef's hat stuffing food in his gob and a caption that says "Mother's Little Helper". Ugh. (Although, to be fair, this was well before an artist named Anne Geddes taught us all what it means to cram a baby into a costume.)
Anyway, here's the most disturbing picture:
Where to begin? Well, let's just start with creepy. There is something really off-putting about a baby with bags under his eyes, I'm sorry. It conjures images of child labour atrocities, teething, etc.
Also, what in god's name have they waved in front of this kid to get such a manic reaction? I've seen crackheads more reserved than this after just scoring a new rock (I used to live in Parkdale, that's where). Just what the hell are they putting in this baby food, anyway?
4. The 70s was a grey, dull place
In the interest of not getting sued, I've blocked out the name of the baby food producer here, but their work should stand on its own. This is perhaps the worst ad for baby food I have ever seen:
Here's where I think this ad falls down: To my mind the word rainbow implies colour. 20 different shades of almost white and yellow doesn't really cut it for me.
Maybe they were going for the "wide variety" connotation of rainbow instead. Okay, but still, I'm wracking my brain to think of more than a couple foods that are almost white in colour. Um, rice, potatoes... uh, maybe mashed up pears? And I'm spent. I don't even want to get into the yellow foods.
Also, why the acid blotter pattern? These women don't even know what their babies "parts" are called, you think they're going to get a veiled drug culture reference? I highly doubt it.
Although, perhaps that explains junior's manic gaze after all...
In fact, I learned a couple things that I thought I'd share with you, the hapless reader.
1. Feeding a baby is a very, very precise and complicated procedure
The first book was from the hospital, and was really more of a foldout pamphlet to record my stats on. But it also includes some instructions on the care and feeding of a human infant in 1970.
Indeed, the booklet has a four page spread containing no less than 19 steps on how to prepare a bottle for your baby. This includes sterilizing the bottles, making your own formula from scratch, and discovering the secret to cold fusion (I'm guessing here... I zoned out at about step 14).
If push came to shove, I guess I could think of a much easier way to feed a baby. However, while it is never overtly stated in the booklet, one understands that only whores, the indigent, or ethnic people use breastmilk as a food source for their offspring.
2. Babies are equipped with parts
Bathing a human baby back then was significantly easier than feeding him (1970). There are only 7 steps for this process.
The final step is the one that really caught my attention, though:
Can you believe they printed this kind of filth back then, and passed it off as "educational"? Disgusting! Frankly, I'm ashamed of my mother for having kept this smut in the house all of these years. To think they used the "g" and "p" words, when surely they could've used something more oblique, like "mustn't-touch-it", "shame hole" or "sin zone".(Also, it strikes me that this information might have come in a bit more handy before the baby has already been dressed and placed in bed. I can see a lot of frustrated new moms grumbling and unravelling their babies back onto the counter at this point.)
3. Advertising has come a long way, baby
The other book was also a stat book, but was so much more. It also instructed Mom on what to feed her baby as he (1970) grows up. It was sponsored by a major Canadian baby food producer, oh, and hey, guess which brand of food just happens to be the most nutritious for your baby?!
It's of course a time-honoured tradion to prey upon the fears of anxious young mothers in the hopes they'll buy your crap. That doesn't faze me. It's just that this attempt was so lame.
For instance, they peppered the book with pictures of babies in "adorable" poses with "hilarious" captions below. You know, a baby in a chef's hat stuffing food in his gob and a caption that says "Mother's Little Helper". Ugh. (Although, to be fair, this was well before an artist named Anne Geddes taught us all what it means to cram a baby into a costume.)
Anyway, here's the most disturbing picture:
Where to begin? Well, let's just start with creepy. There is something really off-putting about a baby with bags under his eyes, I'm sorry. It conjures images of child labour atrocities, teething, etc.
Also, what in god's name have they waved in front of this kid to get such a manic reaction? I've seen crackheads more reserved than this after just scoring a new rock (I used to live in Parkdale, that's where). Just what the hell are they putting in this baby food, anyway?
4. The 70s was a grey, dull place
In the interest of not getting sued, I've blocked out the name of the baby food producer here, but their work should stand on its own. This is perhaps the worst ad for baby food I have ever seen:
Here's where I think this ad falls down: To my mind the word rainbow implies colour. 20 different shades of almost white and yellow doesn't really cut it for me.
Maybe they were going for the "wide variety" connotation of rainbow instead. Okay, but still, I'm wracking my brain to think of more than a couple foods that are almost white in colour. Um, rice, potatoes... uh, maybe mashed up pears? And I'm spent. I don't even want to get into the yellow foods.
Also, why the acid blotter pattern? These women don't even know what their babies "parts" are called, you think they're going to get a veiled drug culture reference? I highly doubt it.
Although, perhaps that explains junior's manic gaze after all...
posted by Alanis at
2:07 PM
|
1 comments
