I was on 7th Avenue on Saturday and I kept seeing these perfectly coiffed children wearing Patagonia jackets or Hanna Andersson coordinated outfits while sipping (hot chocolate? I guess) out of Starbuck's cups or sitting in Sweet Melissa's eating a $5.00 cookie. These kids might be great kids, I am not commenting on their behavior. I just noticed INDULGENCE and MATERIALISM and it was really a little disgusting to me. What is the difference between an overly indulged suburban child and an overly indulged Brooklyn child? Just the level of taste and style? Because the values of materialism felt the same to me--just higher end brands.
armchair_warrior retsop cixelsyd
Joined: 23 Dec 2005 Posts: 5857 Location: boondocks
Mon Nov 20, 06 3:55 pm EST
its their money.
/shrugs.
you dont see me going about tell those kids in the hood to stop buying 200 dollars sneakers. _________________ Fight white guilt and injustice by going to a Native American casino and gamble your money away.
Smoke tax free guilt free from Native American Stores.
Company faces of evil: Apple, Facebook , and now Google.
kensingtonmom Guest
Mon Nov 20, 06 4:05 pm EST
armchair_warrior wrote:
its their money.
/shrugs.
True and what a lot of money it is.
It just struck me as very Westchester. Nothing wrong with Westchester and in fact at least Westchester isn't hiding behind some delusion of urban superiority.
Guest
Mon Nov 20, 06 4:15 pm EST
Why does this stuff consume you? There are good newspapers and books available in case you are bored.
kensingtonmom Guest
Mon Nov 20, 06 4:21 pm EST
Anonymous wrote:
Why does this stuff consume you? There are good newspapers and books available in case you are bored.
Guess the same reason it consumes you enough to respond to my post??--at least I am annoyed by an aspect of Park Slope vs. annoyed by someone posting about an annoying aspect of Park slope.
steve Cylon
Joined: 17 Nov 2005 Posts: 1263
Mon Nov 20, 06 4:32 pm EST
kensingtonmom wrote:
I was on 7th Avenue on Saturday and I kept seeing these perfectly coiffed children wearing Patagonia jackets or Hanna Andersson coordinated outfits while sipping (hot chocolate? I guess) out of Starbuck's cups or sitting in Sweet Melissa's eating a $5.00 cookie. These kids might be great kids, I am not commenting on their behavior. I just noticed INDULGENCE and MATERIALISM and it was really a little disgusting to me. What is the difference between an overly indulged suburban child and an overly indulged Brooklyn child? Just the level of taste and style? Because the values of materialism felt the same to me--just higher end brands.
I'm not sure that any of these things are particularly indulgent or materialistic in and of themselves. To a kid, a cookie is a cookie, and a jacket is a jacket. I get myself similar items, why wouldn't I get my children the same thing? Where's the wrong here KM? If the kid is throwing a fit and whining, I don't want "Chips Ahoy, I want Sweet Melissa's" then you have something.
Frankly, I don't want my kids to grow up thinking that crap is good though to be honest with you. I had lunch at Bennigans today and that sort of experience really makes me appreciate all the pricey good food available just outside my door. It does not make me materialistic though.
friendlypitbull Local
Joined: 06 Oct 2005 Posts: 261 Location: Central Slope btween 4th and 5th
Mon Nov 20, 06 5:15 pm EST
kensingtonmom wrote:
I was on 7th Avenue on Saturday and I kept seeing these perfectly coiffed children wearing Patagonia jackets or Hanna Andersson coordinated outfits while sipping (hot chocolate? I guess) out of Starbuck's cups or sitting in Sweet Melissa's eating a $5.00 cookie. These kids might be great kids, I am not commenting on their behavior. I just noticed INDULGENCE and MATERIALISM and it was really a little disgusting to me. What is the difference between an overly indulged suburban child and an overly indulged Brooklyn child? Just the level of taste and style? Because the values of materialism felt the same to me--just higher end brands.
I think your reaction (disgust) is beyond ridiculous and might have more to do with your own class envy or consciousness of brands/materialism then anything overly indulgent by these kids or their parents. (your comment about the kids being "perfectly coiffed" is also interesting to me)
I know zero about brands but a quick search on the internet reveals that I can get a Kids Patagonia Jacket from the FIRST HIT on Google for anywhere from $53-$167 (an 3in1 jacket btw) - not exactly Burberry
As for the cookie and the hot chocolate - Sweet Mellissa sells a hot chocolate for $3 and while its not listed, I'll bet you 10 Patagonia Jackets that a cookie doesnt cost anywhere near $5.
kensingtonmom Guest
Mon Nov 20, 06 5:34 pm EST
friendlypitbull wrote:
I think your reaction (disgust) is beyond ridiculous and might have more to do with your own class envy or consciousness of brands/materialism then anything overly indulgent by these kids or their parents. (your comment about the kids being "perfectly coiffed" is also interesting to me) .
Of course I am conscious of class...this is America where class is buried under the carpet and not discussed. Envy to have indulged children? Hmmm, no can't say that is the root of my reaction. Walking down 7th Avenue and having it look like one of the photoshoots I stage--with lots of white kids in expensive clothes? Hmmm, just felt really soul-less TO ME, not to you, but to me.
Listen...I am entitled to my opinions and observations without a psychological profile being written about me. Our values obviously are not the same. I would never spend $168 on a winter coat for a kid that will last one year so that he/she can wear the "right" brand. FOR ME, I wouldn't want to add to the conformity and consumerism that now seems to be rampant in Park Slope (as it is most everwhere). As I said, this is why I thought we weren't living in the suburbs.
But you should definitely feel free to buy the Hanna Andersson matching outfits, the Elephanten shoes, the Patagonia Jackets, and have your kids hair perfectly coiffed at a salon with some hair gel. Maybe they can wear one of those $40 undershirts from Lolli with the matching boxer shorts. Your choice. Your values.
willregistersoon Local
Joined: 19 Sep 2006 Posts: 268
Mon Nov 20, 06 5:36 pm EST
I agree. Dog shit I understand, but have we stooped so low to complain about seeing well-dressed kids sitting nicely and eating a cookie? And I really don't see how that is so "Westchester". Wearing Padagonia and drinking a Starbucks is enough to be associated with an entire county?
steve Cylon
Joined: 17 Nov 2005 Posts: 1263
Mon Nov 20, 06 6:08 pm EST
Quote:
Walking down 7th Avenue and having it look like one of the photoshoots I stage--with lots of white kids in expensive clothes?
Um, now you just sound like a hypocrite, no undue offense intended. Let me see if I understand: You are profiting from reinforcing a value system that disgusts you and complaining about it in a public forum? That's meshugenuh. _________________ For The Love Of Paris, Don't Go To The Lounge!
kensingtonmom Guest
Mon Nov 20, 06 6:17 pm EST
steve wrote:
[Um, now you just sound like a hypocrite, no undue offense intended. Let me see if I understand: You are profiting from reinforcing a value system that disgusts you and complaining about it in a public forum? That's meshugenuh.
I don't think anyone can live in NY without making some concessions to pay the bills. I think anyone who is self-employed and paying the mortgage has taken a project or two they aren't thrilled with.
But these patagonian wearing 9 year olds are the same kids you all bitterly complain about when they were wheeled about in strollers a few short years earlier. But suddenly when the indulgence isn't for a baby any longer but a continuum of the same parenting style that indulges their children in buying the "best" (no longer Bugaboos but Patagonia or Garnet Hill).
It would be nice if people could stay on the subject and not attack personally with name calling. We don't all have the same outlook or values obviously.
friendlypitbull Local
Joined: 06 Oct 2005 Posts: 261 Location: Central Slope btween 4th and 5th
Mon Nov 20, 06 6:23 pm EST
kensingtonmom wrote:
Walking down 7th Avenue and having it look like one of the photoshoots I stage--with lots of white kids in expensive clothes? Hmmm, just felt really soul-less TO ME, not to you, but to me.
Why do "White" kids wearing (not so) expensive clothes feel "soul-less' to you and make you "Disgusted"? Don't white kids have a soul??
kensingtonmom wrote:
Listen...I am entitled to my opinions and observations without a psychological profile being written about me.
Well you are entitled but you are posting on a PS board and your "disgust" and value judgements are being made essentially about our kids and neighborhood (whether or not my kid wears Patagonia - I have no idea frankly)
kensingtonmom wrote:
Our values obviously are not the same. I would never spend $168 on a winter coat for a kid that will last one year so that he/she can wear the "right" brand. FOR ME,
I find it interesting that you try to make your point by taking the HIGHEST priced coat on that website - Since I am assumming that you didnt survey each child to determine which model of Jacket they bought I have to wonder why you assume that they all had the $168 jacket and/or didnt buy it on sale?
But could you tell me how much can a person spend on a jacket without it being disgusting or materialistic - would $60 be ok. Just so you know my values I would expect to pay $55-$65 (and apparently I can afford a PATAGONIA!!!) for a Kids Winter Jacket - but I dont shop much.
kensingtonmom wrote:
I wouldn't want to add to the conformity and consumerism that now seems to be rampant in Park Slope (as it is most everwhere). As I said, this is why I thought we weren't living in the suburbs.
Kids of EVERY socio-economic level are brand/conformity conscious and while I think it is approriate to instill in my children an understanding of $ and its value, and to certainly not spoil them, I think purposely forcing your child to wear the "wrong" brand or 'cheap' clothes so that the parent can make an (alternative) statement, is just as dumb (and maybe even more damaging to the child) then simply buying the child some reasonably priced "conforming" clothes.
kensingtonmom wrote:
But you should definitely feel free to buy the Hanna Andersson matching outfits, the Elephanten shoes, the Patagonia Jackets, and have your kids hair perfectly coiffed at a salon with some hair gel. Maybe they can wear one of those $40 undershirts from Lolli with the matching boxer shorts. Your choice. Your values.
Again the only brand you mentioned that I ever heard of is Patagonia, but I certainly feel free to buy my kids $60 jackets and $30 pants, and if your disgusted by it - so be it... but I again have to wonder why it is that you have such a depth of knowledge regarding designer brands and have such hostility to white kids with haircuts.
steve Cylon
Joined: 17 Nov 2005 Posts: 1263
Mon Nov 20, 06 6:39 pm EST
kensingtonmom wrote:
steve wrote:
[Um, now you just sound like a hypocrite, no undue offense intended. Let me see if I understand: You are profiting from reinforcing a value system that disgusts you and complaining about it in a public forum? That's meshugenuh.
I don't think anyone can live in NY without making some concessions to pay the bills. I think anyone who is self-employed and paying the mortgage has taken a project or two they aren't thrilled with.
But these patagonian wearing 9 year olds are the same kids you all bitterly complain about when they were wheeled about in strollers a few short years earlier. But suddenly when the indulgence isn't for a baby any longer but a continuum of the same parenting style that indulges their children in buying the "best" (no longer Bugaboos but Patagonia or Garnet Hill).
It would be nice if people could stay on the subject and not attack personally with name calling. We don't all have the same outlook or values obviously.
I don't think I called you any names but I did characterize your position as hypocritical and meshugenuh. There's a difference. Your comments about employment underscore that thought though.
As for stroller complaints, the only complaint I ever voiced is with double wides and really, do we want to go there?
Nothing you have said really makes your initial post anymore logical. It really does strike me as a class envy thing as someone else said.
Brooklyn Heights Benny Guest
Mon Nov 20, 06 6:42 pm EST
if you dont know or are offended by what kensington mom is talking about, then are simply blind to a plague in this country of brand name material worship....we're supposed to be better than that. And it's just as bad on a "kid in the hood". Please.
incaviglia pete Guest
Mon Nov 20, 06 6:46 pm EST
Patagonia is so middle class.
friendlypitbull Local
Joined: 06 Oct 2005 Posts: 261 Location: Central Slope btween 4th and 5th
Mon Nov 20, 06 6:49 pm EST
Brooklyn Heights Benny wrote:
And it's just as bad on a "kid in the hood". Please.
Well Benny apparently KTM doesnt think it is, it is apparently much worse if the kid is white and has neat hair.
and frankly I have never heard anyone seemingly know more brands (I think 5 cited so far) then the person who is decrying them the most.
joshudan Guest
Mon Nov 20, 06 6:49 pm EST
Hey that's my kid you're talking about! I'll have you know that it was a decaf mocha with extra whip cream and that was her second cookie!
Oh, and I bought her the coat at full price, and it was $168 and I didn't even _blink_ when I saw the price.
Muahahahahahaha!
PS -- watch what you say about Sweet Melissa's -- Melissa will come and kick your ass! Or her husband, Angry Wade, will. Or their dog (extra points for anyone who knows the dog's name)
Guest
Mon Nov 20, 06 6:52 pm EST
Quote:
Kids of EVERY socio-economic level are brand/conformity conscious and while I think it is approriate to instill in my children an understanding of $ and its value, and to certainly not spoil them, I think purposely forcing your child to wear the "wrong" brand or 'cheap' clothes so that the parent can make an (alternative) statement, is just as dumb (and maybe even more damaging to the child) then simply buying the child some reasonably priced "conforming" clothes.
What the hey??? So, in your worldview, it is better to make sure that your children are "conforming" than to buy them clothes at a cost that reflects how long they'll be able to wear them?
When an adult buys a $100 garment, knowing that that same $100 could feed some villages in Africa for a year or buy a laptop for a 3rd world child, the adult generally figures out, well, I'll wear this coat for at least 2 or 3 winters, so it's a worthwhile investment for me. A child grows so fast though, that that same $100 coat is only good for one winter, and even thought most parents donate good condition used clothing, the value of the $100 is way diminished by the time the coat is sitting in a thrift shop.
I think KensingtonMom was trying to get at the idea that there are better ways to teach children about how money and materials work than by buying them trendy and rapidly depreciating things.
kensingtonmom Guest
Mon Nov 20, 06 6:55 pm EST
Anonymous wrote:
Quote:
Kids of EVERY socio-economic level are brand/conformity conscious and while I think it is approriate to instill in my children an understanding of $ and its value, and to certainly not spoil them, I think purposely forcing your child to wear the "wrong" brand or 'cheap' clothes so that the parent can make an (alternative) statement, is just as dumb (and maybe even more damaging to the child) then simply buying the child some reasonably priced "conforming" clothes.
What the hey??? So, in your worldview, it is better to make sure that your children are "conforming" than to buy them clothes at a cost that reflects how long they'll be able to wear them?
When an adult buys a $100 garment, knowing that that same $100 could feed some villages in Africa for a year or buy a laptop for a 3rd world child, the adult generally figures out, well, I'll wear this coat for at least 2 or 3 winters, so it's a worthwhile investment for me. A child grows so fast though, that that same $100 coat is only good for one winter, and even thought most parents donate good condition used clothing, the value of the $100 is way diminished by the time the coat is sitting in a thrift shop.
I think KensingtonMom was trying to get at the idea that there are better ways to teach children about how money and materials work than by buying them trendy and rapidly depreciating things.
Thanks much more articulately put then I wrote.
But whatever you do don't point out consumerism in the Slope. Them's fightin' words!
incaviglia pete Guest
Mon Nov 20, 06 7:03 pm EST
i think you guys should mud wrestle.
willregistersoon Local
Joined: 19 Sep 2006 Posts: 268
Mon Nov 20, 06 7:03 pm EST
Eating a cookie and having a nice haircut is consumerism? And even if it is - so? What's wrong with that? You're posting on a forum for an affluent and expensive neigborhood and then complaining that its residents act affluent? I'm also curious why you think somehow Park Slope tries to hide the fact that its an affluent neighborhood. You wrote:
"..at least Westchester isn't hiding behind some delusion of urban superiority."
How is Park Slope hiding behind this delusion? There is definately some delusion though - right here in this thread
friendlypitbull Local
Joined: 06 Oct 2005 Posts: 261 Location: Central Slope btween 4th and 5th
Mon Nov 20, 06 7:04 pm EST
Anonymous wrote:
What the hey??? So, in your worldview, it is better to make sure that your children are "conforming" than to buy them clothes at a cost that reflects how long they'll be able to wear them?
Actually that ISNT what I said... what I said is I wouldn't force my kid to be some posterchild for my 'non-conformist' views or to make a statement about the hungry villages in Africa.
If my kids want a coat to keep them warm, and is reasonably priced (as I said $55-$65) and it happens to be a 'brand' (arent all clothes a brand of some sort??) that alot of other kids are wearing - they can have it - my pleasure. Its hard enough being a kid w/o Mom and Dad coming along and forcing them to make geopolitical statements w/ their choice in outerwear - or have you forgotten?
BTW - I find that I can get 2 years out of the average kids winter coat.
bknyDad Guest
Mon Nov 20, 06 7:08 pm EST
Speaking as a Slope parent (and a Brooklyn born and raised) I have to ask KM a couple of questions, have you had one of Sweet Melissa's cookies? The chocolate and cherry are amazing (although not as good as their Bee Sting,) much better than any cookie from Key Food, or the Co-op for that matter. And what is wrong with Patagonia? They make very warm fleeces, yards better than anything from Old Navy.
Now you can dress and feed your children whatever you want, but I will always get my children the best I can afford, regardless of brand, and I've never been a fan of Cargo Pants or Nutter Butters.
Guest
Mon Nov 20, 06 7:08 pm EST
uh... i think i'd say new york and, now, if perhaps not in the past, brooklyn kids are far and away more spoiled than their suburban counterparts. hello, you are raising your kid in a rich rich city with messed up values -- success and independence over happiness and community -- where we are constantly being advertised to. basically, we live in a giant mall. i grew up here, and i think it definitely messes with your head. i would recommend not raising children here. for real. sorry.
Brookslyn Guest
Mon Nov 20, 06 7:12 pm EST
Can we please just take away the kids' jackets? It just seems silly and very Minnesota that they are even wearing jackets in the first place.
Or at the very least leave the price tags on the jackets so that we know if it is a high or low end Patagonia?
Guest
Mon Nov 20, 06 7:13 pm EST
Congrats, Kensingtonmom! This dopey thread has now reached a sufficient level of silliness to hit Gawker (which is where I, a Park Sloper with two kids--winter jackets from Cookies, btw--just found it )...
It's really terrific that there are people out there like you so committed to fighting the good fight against the
"conformity and consumerism that now seems to be rampant in Park Slope (as it is most everwhere)." That is, of course, when you're not selling "conformity and consumerism" for a living by staging "photoshoots...with lots of white kids in expensive clothes."
I guess if Park Slope has a problem with Patagonia, then Kensington has one with platitudes and piety...
Brookslyn Guest
Mon Nov 20, 06 7:16 pm EST
Quote:
basically, we live in a giant mall.
The giant mall you speak of is in Minneapolis. New York does not have nearly enough Foot Lockers to be a giant mall, so please stop with the foolish statements.
Guest
Mon Nov 20, 06 7:19 pm EST
Lions Den Mud Wrestling Pits
Lets Make it Happen, I'll bring the Patagonia and you bring the Sweet Melissas cookies.
We'll sort this mess out and be great friends and all get together and buy a big house is Park Chester and be great friends and mud wrestle every weekend and talk about winter jackets and and cookies and coffee and what we are asking for for easter and thanksgiving and stuff and the we can...oh god I didn't mean that I don't know what I am saying I am so confused and alone.
Guest
Mon Nov 20, 06 7:20 pm EST
Quote:
Its hard enough being a kid w/o Mom and Dad coming along and forcing them to make geopolitical statements w/ their choice in outerwear - or have you forgotten?
Hey, friendlypitbull, I wasn't trying to be aggressive or holier than Bono or anything. I just think I kind of understand what kensingtonmom was trying to say. It bothers me too to see so many American kids (anywhere, Westchester, Park Slope, whatever) living lives more privileged than Marie Antoinette while in many other parts of the country, let alone other parts of the world, $5 would probably really help out in putting together the family dinner.
And you know what? The Greenpeace t-shirt I got when my mom donated $25 in my name was my favorite shirt, and being proud of wearing it and getting to tell my friends about the great group that saved whales felt really good. Is passing on good values not trendy anymore?
homeowner "Way Too Incestial"
Joined: 20 Jan 2006 Posts: 2116 Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Mon Nov 20, 06 7:23 pm EST
For years the mantra "I don't care what Bobby and Sally are wearing, you'll wear what I buy or go naked" was drummed into my head. Now that I'm responsible for the delicate psyches of little people, my feeling is why not do the same thing?
I don't want to make a geopolitical statement, but neither do I want my kids thinking that a coat, or sneakers, or Ipod is the key to a happy and angst-free life. Its childhood. Its supposed to be somewhat difficult, so that they can actually deal with the adversity that adult life will throw at them. If they can't deal with not getting that toy that "...absolutely everyone else has, and I'll be a total outcast without!", how will they approach not getting the job they want, or getting turned down on a date?
The sooner that they learn that having things does not make them good people, the better off they will be.
saintjohnsnear5th Regular
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 Posts: 74
Mon Nov 20, 06 7:28 pm EST
I notice there are no complaints about the black kids in $200 jackets and $150 sneakers.
steve Cylon
Joined: 17 Nov 2005 Posts: 1263
Mon Nov 20, 06 7:32 pm EST
Anonymous wrote:
Congrats, Kensingtonmom! This dopey thread has now reached a sufficient level of silliness to hit Gawker (which is where I, a Park Sloper with two kids--winter jackets from Cookies, btw--just found it )...
ROTFLMFAO
Damn, they hit K-Mom hard. I just wish they had thrown in something about self hating white folk. Park Slope is full of 'em, and so is Kensington.
alafairnadia radical quellist
Joined: 08 Aug 2005 Posts: 8272 Location: not washington ave. btwn sterling & st. johns
Congrats, Kensingtonmom! This dopey thread has now reached a sufficient level of silliness to hit Gawker (which is where I, a Park Sloper with two kids--winter jackets from Cookies, btw--just found it )...
ROTFLMFAO
Damn, they hit K-Mom hard. I just wish they had thrown in something about self hating white folk. Park Slope is full of 'em, and so is Kensington.
Not really....they just reiterated what "Friendly" Pitbull said. Gawker has gotten pretty pathetic that they need to pick up content by trolling message boards and posting them.
And now that the initial knee-jerk reaction is over with--I am seeing that there are other people who do agree with me that there is something gross about the consumerism we are instilling in our kids. That is not self-hating white folk (uhm, again is that a personal psychological profile of what you think is me??), that is white folks worried about how much we consume and at what cost. Simple. There are alternate world views out there as much as some of you want to quash them.
armchair_warrior retsop cixelsyd
Joined: 23 Dec 2005 Posts: 5857 Location: boondocks
Mon Nov 20, 06 7:55 pm EST
i gotta say you park slopers have the most drama out of all the nabes in nyc :p. from the kids hat to dog pop to this now LOL. _________________ Fight white guilt and injustice by going to a Native American casino and gamble your money away.
Smoke tax free guilt free from Native American Stores.
Company faces of evil: Apple, Facebook , and now Google.
Carnivore Brooklyn Snark
Joined: 14 Apr 2005 Posts: 13712 Location: St Johns Pl and Underhill
Mon Nov 20, 06 7:56 pm EST
homeowner wrote:
For years the mantra "I don't care what Bobby and Sally are wearing, you'll wear what I buy or go naked" was drummed into my head. Now that I'm responsible for the delicate psyches of little people, my feeling is why not do the same thing?
I don't want to make a geopolitical statement, but neither do I want my kids thinking that a coat, or sneakers, or Ipod is the key to a happy and angst-free life. Its childhood. Its supposed to be somewhat difficult, so that they can actually deal with the adversity that adult life will throw at them. If they can't deal with not getting that toy that "...absolutely everyone else has, and I'll be a total outcast without!", how will they approach not getting the job they want, or getting turned down on a date?
The sooner that they learn that having things does not make them good people, the better off they will be.
I was raised the same way. I was always the kid in class with the "reject" sneakers and hand-me-down clothes, and it sucked when I was in elementary school, but I think I'm better for it now.
However, if you say this:
homeowner wrote:
...but neither do I want my kids thinking that a coat, or sneakers, or Ipod is the key to a happy and angst-free life
you must not have an iPod!
Guest
Mon Nov 20, 06 8:01 pm EST
Anonymous wrote:
What the hey??? So, in your worldview, it is better to make sure that your children are "conforming" than to buy them clothes at a cost that reflects how long they'll be able to wear them?
When an adult buys a $100 garment, knowing that that same $100 could feed some villages in Africa for a year or buy a laptop for a 3rd world child, the adult generally figures out, well, I'll wear this coat for at least 2 or 3 winters, so it's a worthwhile investment for me. A child grows so fast though, that that same $100 coat is only good for one winter, and even thought most parents donate good condition used clothing, the value of the $100 is way diminished by the time the coat is sitting in a thrift shop.
I think KensingtonMom was trying to get at the idea that there are better ways to teach children about how money and materials work than by buying them trendy and rapidly depreciating things.
what would a 3rd world child do with a laptop?
Rose Ninja
Joined: 10 Nov 2005 Posts: 911 Location: South Slope
Mon Nov 20, 06 8:08 pm EST
Carnivore wrote:
I was raised the same way. I was always the kid in class with the "reject" sneakers and hand-me-down clothes, and it sucked when I was in elementary school, but I think I'm better for it now.
Ugh, me too, but I'm still bitter about it. I grew up in a fairly wealthy suburb and kids were brutal if you didn't have nice clothes. I don't get the sense that it's like that at my daughter's Park Slope middle school.
I agree with not buying super-expensive clothing for someone who will grow out of it in six months. But if I'm out doing errands and go into Starbucks for a coffee, I'm not going to refuse to get my kid some hot chocolate or a cookie.
Guest
Mon Nov 20, 06 8:12 pm EST
Wow. How refreshing! Finally, an "alternative world view," by someone who stages all-white photo shoots for advertising agencies, no less!
(Just a "concession").
Fighting aginst the quashers, even!
I guess those of us in social services, non-profits, etc should be thankful that the (ad) man is paying enuf for y'all to set us straight about our buying habits...
Perhaps you never got that whole "practice what you preach" memo.
Guest
Mon Nov 20, 06 8:34 pm EST
Quote:
what would a 3rd world child do with a laptop?
"The Children's Machine is a proposed inexpensive laptop computer intended to provide every child in the world access to knowledge and modern forms of education. It was previously known as the $100 Laptop. The laptop is being developed by the One Laptop per Child (OLPC) trade association. OLPC is a U.S. based, non-profit organization created by faculty members of the MIT Media Lab to design, manufacture, and distribute the laptops. To get around the problem of constant charging, the laptops will come with batteries that can be recharged using a simple wind-up crank. A minute’s winding should provide enough power for 40 minutes of use."
The initial post might have made a point about parents imposing their consumerism on their offspring - albeit badly.
Then kensingtonmom starts ranting about "soulless" white children, revealing her true intentions.
Have you been up to Harlem, or even out to Fort Greene recently? I dare you to tell me that consumerism isn't race-blind.
And, by the way, I am black so don't accuse me of "name-calling." I hate racism and casual idiocy, no matter where it is directed.
saintjohnsnear5th Regular
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 Posts: 74
Mon Nov 20, 06 8:38 pm EST
kensingtonmom wrote:
steve wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Congrats, Kensingtonmom! This dopey thread has now reached a sufficient level of silliness to hit Gawker (which is where I, a Park Sloper with two kids--winter jackets from Cookies, btw--just found it )...
ROTFLMFAO
Damn, they hit K-Mom hard. I just wish they had thrown in something about self hating white folk. Park Slope is full of 'em, and so is Kensington.
Not really....they just reiterated what "Friendly" Pitbull said. Gawker has gotten pretty pathetic that they need to pick up content by trolling message boards and posting them.
And now that the initial knee-jerk reaction is over with--I am seeing that there are other people who do agree with me that there is something gross about the consumerism we are instilling in our kids. That is not self-hating white folk (uhm, again is that a personal psychological profile of what you think is me??), that is white folks worried about how much we consume and at what cost. Simple. There are alternate world views out there as much as some of you want to quash them.
So you think its only white folks who consume a lot? Jeez, wAKE UP
stillatwork Guest
Mon Nov 20, 06 8:42 pm EST
Someone earlier posted: "you are raising your kid in a rich rich city with messed up values -- success and independence over happiness and community"
I've noticed this in other discussions of wealth/class in America: why is it assumed that if you are successful you are not happy, and if you are independent you can't live in a community? I understand the adage that money does not buy happiness, but since when does having money automatically equal misery?
And whether or not you think that spending $50 or $100 or $200 on a child's winter coat is too much or too little has more to do with your annual income. For some reason everyone seems to agree that $50 is okay, but $200 is too much. Why? For someone making $30K a year, even $50 might be too much, but if you make $500K, then $200 is very reasonable. In other part of the city/state/country, you might be considered a pampered snob for spending $50 on a coat.
Why are people being faulted because they earn a good salary? I went to law school specifically so that I wouldn't have to worry about money. I had a poor-paying job before and now I have a well-paying one. Anyone else could have done it too. If you aren't happy with how much money you make, get a better job. People with money to spend on their children's clothes have worked hard (or at least married well). Good for them. What's stopping you?
saintjohnsnear5th Regular
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 Posts: 74
Mon Nov 20, 06 8:42 pm EST
Anonymous wrote:
The initial post might have made a point about parents imposing their consumerism on their offspring - albeit badly.
Then kensingtonmom starts ranting about "soulless" white children, revealing her true intentions.
Have you been up to Harlem, or even out to Fort Greene recently? I dare you to tell me that consumerism isn't race-blind.
And, by the way, I am black so don't accuse me of "name-calling." I hate racism and casual idiocy, no matter where it is directed.
Thank you!
I am sick of this pathetic white attitude that assumes that the poor little blacks couldn't possibly have the means to be big consumers. Blacks are among the biggest consumers - from designer clothes to cosmetics!
Carnivore Brooklyn Snark
Joined: 14 Apr 2005 Posts: 13712 Location: St Johns Pl and Underhill
Mon Nov 20, 06 8:44 pm EST
Rose wrote:
Ugh, me too, but I'm still bitter about it. I grew up in a fairly wealthy suburb and kids were brutal if you didn't have nice clothes. I don't get the sense that it's like that at my daughter's Park Slope middle school.
It was definitely like that at P.S. 251, even in the "magnet" program.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Subscribe in a reader
I grew up in a fairly wealthy suburb and kids were