Styled, As Only A Two-Year-Old Can


Everyday, Nora is getting more and more independent.

For the past two weeks, she has been all about doing things on her own.  She tells me she needs privacy in the bathroom.  She wants to brush her own teeth.  And this just in — she wants to pick her own clothes. She wore these pajamas (two tops, two pairs of long pants and two pairs of shorts — all at once) for nearly two days before I put my foot down and said they were dirty; she had to change into something different to visit Dada at work…and no, she could not wear the slippers my mom sent (which are nearly glued onto her feet) out of the house.  

It took a lot of cajoling, but she finally took the pajamas off, and picked out this:

Luckily, she’s cute in anything.  And clever, too.  When I tried to suggest that the tutu didn’t match her Patriot’s jersey, she got out the green and white stripe leggings and said, “Now they match, because this is green.” Needless to say, she won that argument.

Right now, I’m laughing and loving the outfits she puts together.  She obviously has her own sense of style (and matching) and she is so pleased with it.  “Do I look pretty?” She always asks us, “Do I look beautiful?”  Or sometimes, she giggles and asks, “Do I look a little funny, mama?”

“You’re always pretty, Nora, no matter what you wear,” we say, but we also join in the giggles.  She’s really wanted to choose her own clothes for the past four days or so, and I’ve just been going with the flow.  She’s so proud of herself and enjoys the process, I can’t bring myself to say no.  Plus, at least I know she’s warm when she’s wearing five shirts, two pairs of pants, and a skirt!  Clearly, the girl likes layers.  Anyway, there will be plenty of time to argue about style and appropriateness later, and by then I’ll probably be begging Nora to put leggings under skirts.

So, for now, we wear rain boots, pajamas, two swimming suits, sock mittens, and ladybug hats all at once.

Maybe it’s time to invest in one of those “I dressed myself!” buttons.

About the Author


3 responses

  1. Nora’s so cute Amber!!! You’re a great Mom! Have a wonderful week!

  2. Adorable!

  3. Hi Zoey’s Mom,

    Thank you for visiting my blog via my comments on the Huffington Post. I’m sorry if you misunderstood my reference to Mary Ann Warren’s definition of personhood. I’m quite sure that your daughter is indeed a person: a conscious, reasoning, and self-acting being. Warren’s definition of personhood doesn’t disqualify individuals with Down Syndrome or Leukemia from being persons. She says,

    [It] is clear that genetic humanity is neither necessary nor sufficient for establishing that an entity is a person. Some human beings are not people, and there may well be people who are not human beings. A man or woman whose consciousness has been permanently obliterated but who remains alive is a human being which is no longer a person; defective human beings, with no appreciable mental capacity, are not and presumably never will be people; and a fetus is a human being which is not yet a person

    If we are going to afford rights to something/­someone, then we must have a way of defining and identifyin­g who/what that thing/entity is, which is key in bioethics issues such as these. If you disagree that rationalit­y, consciousn­ess, and self-motiv­ated activity are criterion acceptable and necessary for identifyin­g a person, I’d be interested in hearing what criterion you would use.

    I’d also like to respectful­ly suggest that you follow the source link I provided and read Warren’s complete discussion before you dismiss her valid and logical argument. If you missed it, you can read her article here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *