Marketing Newspeak in Everyday Conversations: Playpen or Play Yard

I recently had a conversation with some friends that went basically like this:

Friend: "My baby is outgrowing the bassinet. I think it's time to put him in a crib."
Culdesachero: "I guess he's growing."
F:"Yeah, it's a lot sooner than with our first. We didn't move her until she was X months old."
C: "Oh really, interesting."
F:"Of course, with her we didn't move her directly into the crib."
C: "Where did you move her?"
F:"Well, she moved to the play yard first."
C: "You had her sleeping, like, on the floor?"
F: (Slightly indignant) "No, of course not. It was in the play yard."
C: "I'm sorry, what do you mean by play yard?"
F:"It's a square thing you put the kid in so they don't get hurt. But this has extra sleeping and change table attachments."
C: "Oh, so it sounds just like the playpen we had for ours."
F:"Yeah, but they're also called play yards."
"Sorry, when I think of a play yard, I think of those little fences with gates where you just go in." making little gate-swinging motion.
F:"No. A play yard has a floor..."
C: "I guess a couple of years makes a big difference in the language."
F: Scoffs.
C: "It's still called a playpen. No matter what the marketing geniuses try to rebrand their product as. It sounds like they're just trying to separate the idea that you're penning your child in there like a dog."
F: "huh? That's just what they call it."
C: Cheekily, "It's CALLED a playpen. You don't have to invent new words. The word already exists."
F: "Well, at least you're open minded about it."
C: Laughing, "That's me, Mr. Open-minded."


Inside, I was facepalming like mad. If I hadn't deflected the conversation in a lighthearted, self-deprecating, "I'm-so-stuck-in-my-ways" manner to let everyone know that I understand that it's not really a big deal, this could have gotten pretty heated. Still, the point was made, although, I'm sure some participants and observers are of the opinion that I'm just a jerk.

Child exercising in "The Yard"

Do I take life too seriously? It amazes me how people accept corporate re-branding and renaming things that have existed for centuries with so little thought. Am I the only one bothered by this? Three years ago, nobody would have equated the terms playpen and play yard. Now, because my friends either read about play yards somewhere in some corporate-sponsored articles or talked to a slick saleperson who insisted on calling them play yards instead of playpens, they've completely erased the term playpen with this newspeak term play yard at the behest of marketing executives. (Yes, I really think about these things.)
I've never looked at one of these things and said, "Wow, look at that yard for babies to play in". I've never met a baby who liked to play in one regardless of the term used to describe it, but that's besides the point. The definition of yard means basically, a tract of ground next to, surrounding, or surrounded by a building or buildings, ofen enclosed. Whereas, a pen is defined as a fenced enclosure for keeping animals. This does not mean that pens have floors, but the definition of yard specifically mentions the word ground. So, pen may or may not have a floor, while a yard can not have a floor (other than the ground). Therefore, play yard is an incorrect term for a device with a floor designed to safely, temporarily confine and hopefully entertain small children while mom and dad are busy, but within earshot. But, you say, this is for indoors. Ah, I guess I'll give you that, but if you were to extend the definition of yard to an enlosed indoor area, the floor of the room would become proxy for the ground in that case, meaning you can call an enclosed area of floor could rightly be called a pen or a yard, a playpen that keeps the child off of the floor could not be called a yard.

Wikipedia currently has the following definition:

A playpen is a piece of furniture in which an infant or young toddler (typically those less than 35" tall and 30 lbs) is placed to prevent self-harm when her/his parent or guardian is occupied or away. The earliest use of the word "playpen" cited in the Oxford English Dictionary is 1902. More recently they have also been called "playards".

Recently(?) they have also been called playards????  Try, recently, a marketers have tried to remove the negative connotations of penning children like pigs, replacing it with the notion that they can be let "out" into the "yard" as if for fresh air.  I'm sure Lenore Skenazy could have some spin on this.  I mean, parents are being reported to police for letting their children play unattended in their own back yards.  Could this be the "yard" of the future?


I can picture the smarmy salesman speaking to the soon-to-be parent:
Mom-to-be: "But, I would never confine my child in a pen like a pig or a dog!"
Smarmy Salesman: "Of course not, madam, that's why you should consider our newest line of play YARDS for your precious ones. They'll enjoy the yard while you do their laundry or heat up their Kraft Dinner."
Mom-to-be: "Oh, well if you put it that way."

Makers of playpens have always had to deal with the notions of these insensible people who can't decipher between keeping an animal in a pen and confining your child to a safe place for short periods of time while you take care of important personal and household matters. The term pen always holds these connotations and, in the mind of marketers, prevents sales from reaching their full potential. So, they've invented a new word and are doing their best to wipe the old, more accurate, term off the face of the earth. When I google playpen, I get over 6,000,000 hits and images are fairly uniformly of playpens. "Play Yard" in quotes gets just under 3,000,000 and images vary widely between playpens and outside yards suitable for play. What we are witnessing is a corporate sponsored shifting point between these two terms. Nobody is much bothered by it except people like me who actually feel meaning behind words is important and who resist new expressions that loose accuracy. Granted, PLAYpen is using the word "play" fairly liberally, since all most kids do in them is scream to be let out.

Since the PC cleansing of our language that replaced such horrible terms as fireman, manhole cover and retarded with more inclusive or pleasant sounding firefighter, maintenance hole cover and developmentally delayed, we have become primed for such language adjustments. Strangely, it bothers me less that fireman has been changed to firefighter because at least the term does not conflict with its meaning. I'll still say fireman or firefighter interchangeably, but, I will not say play yard for a child containment device that has a raised floor.

Such conflicting terms have always bothered me, even before I finally completed Orwell's 1984 and learned more about the purpose and origin of Newspeak. It bothers me regardless of the motivations (power, money, goodwill). But, what truly disturbs me, is the ease with which the new words are accepted by people. I have this alarm in my brain that goes off whenever I see or hear something that conflicts with my previously held truths. If you tell me that something is blue and opaque and it is obvious to me that it is clear and yellow, my internal-conflic alarm will go off and I'll be forced to call you on your misconception. You cannot then say to me, "Let's agree to compromise and meet half-way. Perhaps it is green and transluscent." There is no perhaps about it. I can see that it is yellow and I can see through it clearly. There is no discussion. Your assessment is incorrect. As Winston Smith said, 2 + 2 = 4.

My New Schtick - "Woman Hating Creep"

I just checked out my stats, in the wake of my post comparing the reactions toward child abduction and rape being tweeted by Lenore Skenazy (thank you very much), and found that I was getting a lot of hits from a post by Rebecca Odes at babble.com.  Rebecca does a great job of expanding on my point being careful to avoid the implications toward the issue of rape.

Ultimately, the reason I think we hold parents responsible when something awful happens is that it gives us a sense of control. When we look to the details surrounding a tragedy, what we really want to do is find out how to differentiate ourselves: I’m different. I’m smarter. This happened because the child’s mother made a bad choice, because he lives in a big city, because he wasn’t educated properly. Anything but the truth, which is that we are all vulnerable.

Yes, we are all vulnerable - women, more so than men, children even more so than women.

Looking at the comments, we see why I decided not to submit the post on FreeRangeKids.  When I typed the post, I realized that most people will spot the hot-button issue and become angered that I wasn't making it abundantly clear that I absolutely tow the PC feminists line. 

Commenter BunnyTwenty attacks me outright and twists my words around completely.  (The ability of some people to twist others' words around to paint them as straw-villains of cliched rhetoric is the primary deterrent for honest debate).  Don't worry citizens.  The culdesachero, with his skin of incredible thickness, is able to fend off such hateful, childish insults and dirty fighting tricks.  He has even foreseen such an attack.  Although, "woman-hating creep" came as a big surprise.  Don't tell Mrs. Culdesachero or I'm sure she'll ... well, she'll roll her eyes and say "Geeze, what has he said now?"

So, on to battle.  What does the ever so thoughtful BunnyTwenty say about our hero?

FYI: cul-de-sac hero isn’t the best guy to be linking to on this. His point, at least judging by other posts of his that I’ve read, isn’t that parents aren’t responsible for their kids getting murdered (not my opinion! his! his!), but that women ARE responsible for getting raped because of what they wear or how much they drink. I skimmed through his blog and he’s kind of a woman-hating creep.

Here we see the typical knee-jerk response that has been programed into most people these days from feminist (gender-feminist) indoctrination.  One inkling of the thought that women can do anything to raise or lower their risk of rape by their behaviour is seen as tantamount to excusing the rapist and  BLAMING THE VICTIM. 

My point was that it is completely hypocritical to blame the parents 100% for their choices that may have contributed in any way to something that happens to their child, even if it is the result of a deranged psychopath, or stand by while people make such claims, while you are not even allowed to discuss the choices that women make that may increase or decrease their risk of rape. 

Women are adults, and as such, are responsible for their own decisions about safety.  I have said this, and I will say it again, that a woman can walk around the street without clothes and it does not provide an excuse rape.  She can stand in a crowded room without clothes and it does not excuse rape.  There is no excuse for rape.  However, the behaviour she chooses sends signals to those around her.  She can draw attention from the wrong man and put herself at risk.  There are plenty of high risk activities that increase the risk of rape.  To deny this fact and prevent it from being heard, is to put young women at greater risk.  They must learn that it is not a good idea for a young woman to become so intoxicated that she blacks out in a male dorm.  They must learn and understand that some streets are not as safe to walk as others.  They must understand that dressing in a certain way attracts attention to themselves, which, although not dangerous under most circumstances, can lead some off-balance individuals to draw the wrong conclusion.

If we compare the rhetoric regarding rape safety to the comments and reaction about of child abduction, it becomes clear that there is a disconnect.  If you say that it is safe and reasonable to let a responsible, street-educated child walk 2 familiar blocks in a safe neighbourhood from his house to a pre-arranged destination in broad day-light, it does not follow that it is safe to let a child walk alone for two blocks if he has to pass a half-way house with known child molesters flanked by taverns, licquor stores and porn shops riddled with loitering drunks, prostitutes and pimps.  But if we applied the same mindset that is applied to rape, we'd say that the child should be able to walk anywhere and to say otherwise is to excuse the child abductor and blame the parents.  But, in the child abduction case, it is OK to blame the parents even if the child was doing something considered "safe" and reasonable.

There are some interesting  parallels between the nature of these two crimes, although, they are not identical. They both involve living victims (the parents are living victims in child abductions), they usually involve violence and they involve sex as the motive (although child abductions sometimes have other motives, such as ransom).  The last point is the heart of the matter for the rape issue.  Gender Feminists have sold the idea that rape is not about sex, but power.  Certainly, the victim feels a loss of power.  The power to choose a sex partner is central to the identity of a woman which is what makes the act so horrifying.  But, for the perpetrator, the motive is to gain sex.  It is a theft of sex.  Another similarity is that both crimes can be random.  This is the case of the relatively safe behaviour still resulting in victimization as in the sad case of Leiby Kletzky.  I'll reiterate Rebecca's point that we are all vulnerable.

Now, I'm still trying to figure out why Bunny thinks I'm a woman-hating creep.  Is it the last post where I pointed out how insulting it is to women to imagine that they are mindless slaves to advertising?  Or, is it the one about the Slut March in which I said I'd never carry a sign that might imply that dressing slutty invites rape.  Or maybe my anti-sexual harassment post.  I sometimes feel like most of my posts are about feminism, but reviewing, it only appears that roughly 1 in 3 have feminism as a topic, although it is my most used label.  Please keep in mind, that I love women.  I just don't agree with a group of intellectuals known as gender-feminists.

Child Abduction and Rape - Similar Crime, Different Reaction

I was going to post this OT comment over at Free Range Kids, but, I couldn't hit submit out of respect for Lenore's blog and her readers.  She is doing important work in combating the war on childhood, so I can't bring up such a contentious issue as rape of women that could derail the conversation and hurt her campaign.

The differences between the crimes of childhood abductions and rape of women are many and complex as are the reasons for different public response.  One reason is that there is no childrenism movement or such counterpart to feminism.  There are only child advocates who do not necessarilly have the interest of children in mind as much as they do the interest of their own agenda.  I won't go into the others here as there is not enough time.

The comment I couldn't post:

Lenore, good post about a terrible event.


What astounds me, is that any suggestions to women that they should moderate their behaviour to help them reduce the risk of becoming victims of rape - such as dressing appropriately for the situation, avoiding dark alleys and not drinking too much at parties - is called "victim blaming" and hateful and results in marches and protests.

However, telling parents that their behaviour is the only reason for childhood abductions and murders is perfectly ok. Why do some victims completely bear responsibility for the criminal acts performed against them, while others are completely free of it?

Lenore, I'm sorry to bring up a separate, even more contentious issue on your site, but I can't help but see the similarity between the two crimes and the disparity between the reactions.

UPDATE:  for a full discussion of my opinions on this issue and a response to some misguided comments at another blog, please see this post .  Suffice to say, I'm not a creep and I don't hate women.

Hyper Chinese Parenting

LOT's of people commenting on the dragon-lady Amy Chua and her spooky glimpse into the hyper-parented Chinese-American household. I have to take the article at face value although some commenters say her entire memoir softens the whole picture.  I don't have time between bedtimes to read it.  At the time of writing, the WSJ article has 5100 comments.

My take:

Western parents seem to be adopting strategies similar to the Chinese approach more and more.  I've been following http://www.freerangekids.com/ for some time where many examples of the "Hover Lest Our Children Fail Us" attitude are shown frequently.  Even The Simpsons picked up on this with a line from a hyper-parent "You can't let children ...(do things themselves)..., you have to hover over their shoulders and force them to succeed."
More and more pressure is hoisted on kids, although, the western flavour includes academic and athletic excellence.  Just look at the one-on-one sports training for kids as young as 4 geared toward the "anything to get them to the bigs" attitude.  I was skating on a pond (really a big puddle) with my son when a father came with his two boys to let them play hockey.  After a half-hour or so, he jumped out of his SUV to yell at them for being "lazy".  Huh? I thought this was just fun pond hockey.  You're going to ruin the sport for them. Let them enjoy some skating time without a coach breathing down their necks.
 
Chinese parents do seem to take things to the next level, and as Half Sigma says they will, "no doubt produce workers who are good value creators, and their corporate employers will love them, and they will be paid far less money than the value they create."  By turning her children into piano playing/math problem solving machines, eschewing social activities and refusing to let their children any choice, Chua is producing highly-proficient drones.  I'm not anti-achievement, but, the drive has to come from the children.  Chua thinks that she owns her children.  She is also steeling their own achievements by molding them into what she imagines them to be.  One day, they may wake up and realize that they were only performing for their parents and the emptiness will begin to grow. 
 
Read the passage about the piano practice.  Her daughter was exhasperated about a difficult piece so Chua dragged her back to the piano bench.
 
She punched, thrashed and kicked. She grabbed the music score and tore it to shreds. I taped the score back together and encased it in a plastic shield so that it could never be destroyed again. Then I hauled Lulu's dollhouse to the car and told her I'd donate it to the Salvation Army piece by piece if she didn't have "The Little White Donkey" perfect by the next day. When Lulu said, "I thought you were going to the Salvation Army, why are you still here?" I threatened her with no lunch, no dinner, no Christmas or Hanukkah presents, no birthday parties for two, three, four years. When she still kept playing it wrong, I told her she was purposely working herself into a frenzy because she was secretly afraid she couldn't do it. I told her to stop being lazy, cowardly, self-indulgent and pathetic.


Eventually, she got it and was elated.  Wonderful, right?  To me, it sounds empty.  To me, it sounds like Chua was the one afraid of raising a daughter who is a loser (something I'll cover on my new blog 911OnSpeedDial).  If the daughter had been allowed to go to her lesson without perfecting the piece, her teacher would have helped her.  Then, maybe after more practice, she could have mastered it on her own, in time for the recital.  Her accomplishment, or failure, would have been hers and not be overshadowed by her mother but either way, she would have learned to work it out herself. Chua is the one playing the instruments through her children and missing the point of teaching piano in the first place.  It's not to create prodigies.  It's to create a learning experience.

What western cultures realize and have ingrained, is, that to force children to excel and make their life-choices for them, is taking a big risk.  Your child could rebel and you lose your relationship.  Your child could internalize the pressure and crack if they don't achieve a high enough level of success (whatever that is).  Without making choices at a young age, they'll grow older and not have enough life experience to cope in the real world.  To most western parents, the rewards aren't worth these risks.  Still, we find plenty or western children who find their own motivation to push for excellence.  Some were pushed by parents, but most get a thrill out of competition and push themselves.

All cultures have a wide range of parenting styles, but, Chinese definitely have a higher percentage of the high-pressue style that Hua describes and take it to another level. As I've learned from Chinese friends, it is the norm in China.  There, it is probably easier since the schools are geared toward this mentality and most other students are in the same situation.  In North America, it is more difficult due to the exposure to our culture.  This also makes the risks far greater if a child rebels and goes rogue.  With less social skills, they have less ability to navigate the pitfalls such as drugs and sex.

While there are certainly things we learn from Chua's parenting; that kids can be resilient and achieve great things, the warnings are abundant and clear.  The point of raising kids is not to compete for the highest achievement in school or music.  The most important thing is to raise kids who are happy, independant and strong.  With that to build from, they'll seek success for themselves.  It just may not be in medicine or asto-physics.

Proof I am a Free Range Parent or, more acurately, Proof My Child is Free Range

The Cul-de-sac’s docile and relaxed appearance belies the busy lifestyle of its inhabitants. In actuality, I have very little time for enjoyment of my pleasant abode and its surroundings. Enjoyment is exactly the reason we have long weekends. However, those in the cul-de-sac, who own their castles, must attend to the often-neglected tasks: both the obvious, like cutting the grass and pulling weeds, and the not-so-obvious but essential tasks, like re-grouting the shower tiles. Priorities often conflict with outward appearances so I hurriedly finished my hidden task so that I could at least enjoy a little holiday sunshine – especially to get away from the fumes of the caulk.
Truth be told, I love cutting the grass and pulling weeds. I don’t like green socks and shoes, but it’s satisfying to see a lush (in places) uniformly green pasture. At least it’s uniform length in the places that it is growing. The problem is that a 3, going on 4, year old companion also desperately needs some fresh air. He can help, or pretend to help pull the “flowers” that Daddy calls dandelions, but cutting the grass is another matter. Whirring blades, even from my push-reel mower, and weed-whackers are not the safest things to be playing near. Of course, a responsible almost-four-year-old can understand the danger or at least listen to Daddy’s warnings to stay away. The question: how to occupy a child while I’m busy spinning dangerous blades at a safe distance. Then of course, I have to go do the back yard. Not undoable, but I must use my cunning to do it safely without resorting to sending the child inside.
Thankfully, two answers arrived home in the form of neighbour’s children, one, an eleven-year-old star soccer player, the other, only about a year older than mine. Suddenly, chalk is marking the sidewalk and soccer balls are being bounced between pairs of feet.
In no time, my obvious task is complete, and I’m ready to complete the backyard. A quick check with the older child and a word or two with my own and I am ready to venture out of sight. Worried? Slightly. Thankfully, Lenore Skenazy has been coaching me in raising Free Range Kids. I’ve yet to buy her book, but the next time I have the luxury of going to the bookstore, it is mine. I was sure that my son and I were both ready to take our first step toward becoming Free Range. Much preparation has taken place. However, this was still a little nerve wracking.
So, I went back to the yard work. I set a new fastest time in cutting and trimming the back – even though the grass looked like a hayfield, in the places that it was growing, and my check-ups on the kid’s chalk drawings. It barely even caused a stir in my heart when I came back to the front to find all three of our yards empty. The logical explanation was the right one. No abductions, no runaways. Just an invitation to a sandbox filled with toys where parents were filling boxes with flowers. Another clue as to how similar we are to our neighbours.
I am sure that my son is free-range. He simply is too curious not to be. I can’t make that decision for him. I can help him prepare for the challenges that life will present when his curiosity overcomes whatever fears I might instill in him, intentionally or otherwise.
My suburb is actually not too bad. I see pre-teen and pre-pre-teen children roaming or playing under what some would say are lax supervision all the time. I don’t think that the horror-stories mentioned in Lenore’s blog are too common here. Still, helicopter parents and minivan-cloistering is becoming more and more common. I just hope it doesn’t become more common than the sense, my parents tried to instill in their children.