Patagucci and Park Slope children

steve

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

7 for all mankind jeans for kids from the holiday barney's catalog

anonymous

steve wrote: [quote=Anonymous]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

i gotta say you park slopers have the most drama out of all the nabes in nyc . from the kids hat to dog pop to this now LOL.

carnivore

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!

anonymous

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

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. :roll: 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.

anonymous

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.

anonymous

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."

http://wiki.laptop.org/wiki/One_Laptop_per_Child

anonymous

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

kensingtonmom wrote: [quote=steve][quote=Anonymous]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

anonymous

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

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

Rose wrote: Ugh, me too, but I'm still bitter about it. :roll: 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.

saintjohnsnear5th

stillatwork wrote: 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?

Totally agree with you!

anonymous

Subject: ugh.

Meanwhile, the rental and housing market in Kensington is rising rapidly. It's only a matter of time before we have our own soul-less children here too.

Of course, I'd trade my soul for a Sweet Melissa's chocolate chip almond cookie, myself.

yavel

I'm put off by consumerism, but guilty of it too. When it comes to cookies I opt for the Sweet Melissa variety. They're a rare treat, so I figure they might as well be good.

friendlypitbull

stillatwork wrote:
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.

$50 might be too much for some but in reality your going to have a hard time finding any decent coat for under $30, and when your talking 50-70 bucks your probably going to have little trouble getting something nice - but when you talk 4x that price- while you might have no trouble affording it - you are spending $ that for most practical reasons could only be called a luxury. Now if you earn it you can certainly give your kid as many luxuries as you want, but I dont disagree with the notion that too much luxury bestowed upon a child who didnt "earn" it could have negative effect.

stillatwork wrote: 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?

Actually while I have my doubts that this applies to many of the people posting here, but there are many people who could legitimatley say that they really didnt h- ave much of a chance to aspire to, work for and achieve becoming a lawyer or some other high paying job. That being said it doesnt make the people who did, or the people who spend the $ they legitimatly earned - bad.

anonymous

One more thing probably more to the point of the original poster. She said: "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 .."

At which point does quality overcome a charge of indulgence/materialism? Patagonia jackets cost more than, say, Old Navy, or some no-name brand from a discount store. However, they actually are very good quality. I've never had a Sweet Melissa, but I imagine they use very good quality ingredients and it actually may really be worth $5 (or close to it). And if the Hanna Anderson outfit costs the same as something crappy that doesn't match -- they why shouldn't your children dress well?

While that child may outgrow that jacket after one season, it will still be in good shape for his/her little sibling. That one delicious cookie, baked with natural ingredients, is a better treat than corn-syrup laden monstrosity.

You pay for quality. And you pay for crap in it's own way too. Teaching your child that one quality item is better than 20 crap items is a life lesson. Teaching your child that how they present themeselves -- to be clean, considerate, well mannered and equally important, properly dressed and groomed -- seem to be considered either old fashioned or snobby. The original poster seemed to imply that good quality equals poorly raised children. However, assuming that the children were not acting indulged or materialistically, then those kids are learning about polite society and the importance of quality over crap.

steve

kensingtonmom wrote: [quote=steve][quote=Anonymous]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.

No one has advocated rampant consumerism, but some people think your examples are off base and your defense and justification of them even more so. Seriously.

anonymous

My comments are not racist--really they are about class. But it seems people are more comfortable twisting this to be about race and not class and accusing me of being a self-loating white person. Consumerism is everywhere in all races and classes etc. I was only commenting on the precociously, expensively over styled kids on 7th Avenue THIS particular Saturday. To me, it was gross. To be so self-aware and brand aware by 9 is (TO ME) sad. To many of you, you want to dress your children in expensive clothes. That is your choice. You bought the right to do that. Perhaps you bought the right to drive an SUV. Why do you need to think about the ramifications of our consumerism??

But it does make me think if people have enough money to dress their kids in overpriced designer clothes, then (gulp) maybe it is time for a redistribution of wealth--GLOBALLY? I know, I know if you guys knew my address you would string me up for treason. How dare I say anything against our god of consumerism??

linusvanpelt

kensingtonmom wrote: I was only commenting on the precociously, expensively over styled kids on 7th Avenue THIS particular Saturday. To me, it was gross. To be so self-aware and brand aware by 9 is (TO ME) sad...

But it's a big assumption, based on your observation, to assume that the kids are brand-aware. More likely the parents are.

I think you're right that it's a bad idea to teach kids to be slavishly brand-conscious, and that everyone else is right that it's OK to teach kids to appreciate quality. Who knows which is going on with these kids?

Anyway, brand-awareness is hardly the monopoly of the rich. How old is the average American kid before he recognizes the golden arches, two?

whyfi

Maybe I missed it somewhere, but what makes you think that the 9-yo themselves were so brand-aware?

And if they're 3-in-1 coats, that would make me think them a good value, being able to wear 'em for 3 seasons, instead of buying different coats for each...

Oh, one last thing - sometimes, more expensive, but well-made clothing lasts longer, making them a better value in the long run. Sure, kids grow out of things more than they wear them out, but how do you know that these kids don't have younger brothers and sisters that'll be wearing the very same clothing that set you off? Or, better yet, how do you know that some low-income mom won't be buying these items of clothing for her children at the Salvation Army, this time next year? Quite often, buying inferior goods is more wasteful than buying quality goods.

anonymous

I joked about selling my soul for a cookie, but I too am grossed out by toddlers wearing more expensive clothes than I could possibly buy for myself and by the endless stream of stores along 7th avenue filled with such grossly overpriced baby clothes and toys. (Yes, okay, maybe they are "well-designed" toys, but still. Expensive.) But I feel like we're fighting a losing battle here in Brooklyn, as the wealthy neighborhoods get pushed outward and outward. Where are those of us who can't afford the rents, not to mention the $50 t-shirts at Area kids, going to go next?

anonymous

linusvanpelt wrote: but it's a big assumption, based on your observation, to assume that the kids are brand-aware. More likely the parents are.

True. But parents teach values to their kids and on THIS PARTICULAR Saturday, and this particular group of kids that I saw, their parents SEEMED to me to be teaching them brand awareness by having them in very twee pricey outfits.

I remember posts with people getting all up in arms over the overpriced Children's T-Shirts at Bird but for some reason, it is O.K. to buy overpriced children's clothes with a recognizable brand?? What is the difference here? Whatever!! I didn't mean to stir up this hornet's nest. You guys raise your kids how you want, and I will raise mine how I want.

rose

I do think there is a difference between a $60 Sex Pistols tee-shirt for a baby and a Hanna Anderson coat for a 9-year-old. I never liked the look of the Hanna Anderson stuff but the brand has been around for a long time and from what I've heard is very good quality and supposedly lasts forever and can be handed down multiple times. Same with the Patagonia jacket -- for a winter jacket, I would rather have something good that will keep my kid warm through the winter. I think the examples you gave are a bit different from saying you saw 9-year-olds in Seven jeans.

anonymous

Rose wrote: I do think there is a difference between a $60 Sex Pistols tee-shirt for a baby and a Hanna Anderson coat for a 9-year-old. I never liked the look of the Hanna Anderson stuff but the brand has been around for a long time and from what I've heard is very good quality and supposedly lasts forever and can be handed down multiple times. Same with the Patagonia jacket -- for a winter jacket, I would rather have something good that will keep my kid warm through the winter. I think the examples you gave are a bit different from saying you saw 9-year-olds in Seven jeans.

O.K. you are right as far as brands. I did see several Patagonia jackets on Saturday with perfectly coordinated little scarfs and hats--but I don't know the names of the really high end kids' brands because it actually doesn't interest me. So was it Hanna Andersson I saw or Oillily or whatever the newer brands are that are out there? I don't know. But I can tell you I haven't seen any kids in Kensington or even Windsor Terrace or Philadelphia or Seattle wearing what I saw on 7th Avenue on Saturday Afternoon.

saintjohnsnear5th

As if there aren't enough problems in the world! Who but the white Park Slope faux liberals would even have time or inclination to analyze what other people's kids are wearing?

anonymous

I thought we in Park Slope were the least attractive group in Brooklyn for the per-capita income. At least the children give the community some hope. My mother spent the better part of my childhood fussing over what I was wearing, how I looked in public etc...even if it was toughskins from k-mart and keds she was always spitting on a napkin, wiping my face off and tucking in my shirt. And in this age of casual dress, especially in park slope where most of us go to the bank wearing what we stepped out of bed into, nice clothes and some hair gel may be a better way to raise a child that will be an adult that will become a professional one day. And sure...I have a Phil and Teds and buy the sweet melissa petite fors for my wife from time to time but my younger daughter wears her older sisters hand-me-down Hannah Anderson outfits b/c they last longer than the old navy stuff and because we take better care of things that cost more and will teach our children to do the same.

saintjohnsnear5th

This thread is so silly. People are allowed to spend their money on whatever they want and its nice that they choose to spend a lot of it on their kids. Don't hate.