Patagucci and Park Slope children
Comments
-
Families aren't big enough anymore for hand-me-downs to make much sense within a family's economy...but you can dress your young children at least in cheap or secondhand clothes for everyday -- so they can play, and get dirty, and not worry about ripping those expensive jackets.
You can give the money you save to people who actually need it, in the u.s. or other countries. Donate the extra $$ to www.heifer.org, for example, and do something good for all the desperately needy children on the other side of the world, and for your children, too. You want them to grow up in a world that isn't a nightmare, right?
Allowing your kids be kids means resisting the impulse to outfit them like little adults, or encouraging status seeking in the fourth grade.It's so much the best for society and for our individual children, too, if parents work against inculcating materialism rather than buying into it brainlessly. Park Slope used to be populated by people who knew this!
Plus, if you truly aspire to be a perfect snob, dressing your children in expensive new duds for daily life is middle-class, nouveau-riche tacky -- wearing old clothes is much more aristocratic. -
[ . 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.
LOL , she knows what people are wearing in Phil and Seattle. And this is what sets her off. One thought quickly springs to mind -get a life. I wish that what 9 year olds are wearing or presume they are wearing is giving me my most pain, I wish that was my biggest problem. -
Anonymous wrote:
Exactly.
Allowing your kids be kids means resisting the impulse to outfit them like little adults, or encouraging status seeking in the fourth grade.It's so much the best for society and for our individual children, too, if parents work against inculcating materialism rather than buying into it brainlessly. Park Slope used to be populated by people who knew this!
.
The clothes are just a symptom of the materialism that is really everywhere but was particularly prevalant on 7th Avenue on Saturday.
There is a reason stores like Lolli and Baby Bird are in business--they aren't selling the occasional gift item, they are outfitting the privileged kids of the slope. Nothing wrong with privilege, just what you chose to do with it.
You guys that are acting as though my post is about the brand of the clothes or ridiculing my observation, don't get or want to get what I am saying. You don't have to agree obviously, but I believe I have a point about the materialism and branding that was rampant the other day. And I am sorry but a jacket is not an investment. Maybe 30 years ago it was when we actually repaired our clothes and wore them to threads--but nobody fixes much anymore. -
1) Talk about not getting what someone is saying...
We understand your point, but happen to disagree with it for the various reasons listed above. You are the one that seems to be missing the points that others are expressing. Remember saying that it wasn't about race, but about class? Well, how 'bout, it's not about brand, but about quality? If anyone here is stuck on brand...
2) 'just a symptom'? Your ranting is just a symptom of your concern about being pushed "outward and outward," a valid concern. If you wanna talk about that, let's talk about that, not jackets. -
You don't have to agree obviously, but I believe I have a point about the materialism and branding that was rampant the other day.
This just sounds like you were walking down the street being envious of children. You need to think about other things and not be so jealous of others. Dress it up all you like but you just sound sad and in need of other things to fill your mind than picking on the way kids dress and eat. -
WhyFi wrote: 1) Talk about not getting what someone is saying...
I do get your points and we just have different values and disagree (now should I resort to name calling here or analyzing why I think you need to defend materialism??) When people say that I am a self-loathing white person, or sad or a hypocrite or this or that....then I have to think, hey this person is so busy attacking they can't hear what I am saying--this person wants to defend their right to indulge their kids. And that is their right--I just don't agree with it.
We understand your point, but happen to disagree with it for the various reasons listed above. You are the one that seems to be missing the points that others are expressing. Remember saying that it wasn't about race, but about class? Well, how 'bout, it's not about brand, but about quality? If anyone here is stuck on brand...
2) 'just a symptom'? Your ranting is just a symptom of your concern about being pushed "outward and outward," a valid concern. If you wanna talk about that, let's talk about that, not jackets.
There are a lot of things I have liked (and like) about the slope--and many of those things are very quickly disappearing. Walking down 7th Avenue on Saturday, I saw that I don't want to raise my kids there just as I chose not to raise them in Westchester. It isn't about being pushed out--I chose to sell and leave. -
KM - I'm curious where you buy your kids clothes? Do you think they should close those boutique clothing stores and replace it with a Walmart? They have cheap clothing. Oops - Walmart is an example of consumerism. Maybe they should shop at Marshalls. They're inexpensive. Wait - they sell name brands! Maybe the clothes you saw were discount bought at Marshals? Hell - lets close all the shops and replace them with dollar stores. Then everyone can afford it. When you walk down 7th next time you'll see me sitting there with my kids wearing plastic garbage bag jackets and eating twinkies. Hopefully that won't upset you.
-
twinkies and garbage bags.
They will find something wrong with that, this is jealousy pure and simple, sadder still they envy children they see and have to bash them. This kind of person will find fault with everything in life they feel they lack and can't have- and then try to make anyone that has what they want look bad. Funny thing is THEY just look bad 
-
WhyFi wrote: We understand your point, but happen to disagree with it for the various reasons listed above. You are the one that seems to be missing the points that others are expressing. Remember saying that it wasn't about race, but about class? Well, how 'bout, it's not about brand, but about quality? ...
While I could care less about parents dressing their kids in Patagonia -- honestly I don't even know how relatively expensive Patagonia is -- I'm going to disagree with you a little here.
It always amuses me that upscale urbanites (yuppies, whatever term you want to use) will never cop to being brand- or status conscious. Oh, those other people out in the burbs--they waste their money on giant TVs or Hummers or whatever, useless conspicuous purchases of big crap to fill their big houses. But us? We don't care about status. It's only about quality for us discerning professionals! The Subaru Forester, or the Mercedes M class--hey, they're good cars! They were in Consumer Reports! Jeez! That Bugaboo stroller is for my baby's safety! It has nothing to do with status!
I'm not saying you're like this because I don't know you, but I think the nugget of truth in Kmom's rant is that Slopers in general (and their counterparts around the country) are more status conscious than they like to believe. -
Subject: KensingtonMom
I've got two Hanna Anderson coordinated outfits for my one-year old which I bought on the street - yes, 7th Ave - for a grand total of $4. I've lived in the Slope for 10 years in a relatively low-rent apartment and I'm as poor as a church mouse. Thank you very much. -
I love how someone named Kensingtonmom is on a Park Slope board complaining about Park Slope and how children are dressed and what types of beverages they drink. BTW, a cookie from Sweet Melissa's is not $5.
Stick to Kensington then where I am sure the children are appropriately dressed to your liking and drinking hot chocolate made from a powder mix. -
"It isn't about being pushed out--I chose to sell and leave."
then why do you keep coming back? -
linusvanpelt wrote: While I could care less about parents dressing their kids in Patagonia -- honestly I don't even know how relatively expensive Patagonia is -- I'm going to disagree with you a little here.
Some people are, some people aren't, but I think it rather too easy to label someone as being brand conscious simply because of what they own. Some people might buy Wusthof knives because they think of them as a status symbol, but I have them because they're decent knives and I was sick of going through shitty knives every year; I realized that, with a little care, they would last me a lifetime.
It always amuses me that upscale urbanites (yuppies, whatever term you want to use) will never cop to being brand- or status conscious. Oh, those other people out in the burbs--they waste their money on giant TVs or Hummers or whatever, useless conspicuous purchases of big crap to fill their big houses. But us? We don't care about status. It's only about quality for us discerning professionals! The Subaru Forester, or the Mercedes M class--hey, they're good cars! They were in Consumer Reports! Jeez! That Bugaboo stroller is for my baby's safety! It has nothing to do with status!
I'm not saying you're like this because I don't know you, but I think the nugget of truth in Kmom's rant is that Slopers in general are more status conscious than they like to believe. -
WhyFi wrote: Some people might buy Wusthof knives because they think of them as a status symbol, but I have them because they're decent knives and I was sick of going through shitty knives every year; I realized that, with a little care, they would last me a lifetime.
Hey, I have Wusthof knives too. I'm no monk. -
I am still left asking....
1. How much can I spend on a Jacket etc... for my kids
2. what Brands should/can appear on them (even the cheapest clothes have a Brand) and;
3. How much can my kids spend on Hot Chocolate and Cookies
3. and what stores are ok to buy these things at
..so that my kids arent branded as WHITE, spoiled, indulged, 'Westchesterites' by Kennsingtonmom and her ilk.
Seriously KTM you have been pretty vocal about what your 'values' are against and you seem pretty smug in the correctness of your 'values' so please answer the above questions and let us all know how KTM addresses these questions. -
Anonymous wrote: BTW, a cookie from Sweet Melissa's is not $5.
Heh. She was using hyperbole to enhance her point. -
linusvanpelt wrote: It always amuses me that upscale urbanites (yuppies, whatever term you want to use) will never cop to being brand- or status conscious. Oh, those other people out in the burbs--they waste their money on giant TVs or Hummers or whatever, useless conspicuous purchases of big crap to fill their big houses. But us? We don't care about status. It's only about quality for us discerning professionals! The Subaru Forester, or the Mercedes M class--hey, they're good cars! They were in Consumer Reports! Jeez! That Bugaboo stroller is for my baby's safety! It has nothing to do with status!
Heh, too true. My wife and I like to joke that with our PS residence, VW outside and Apple computer inside we're fitting in nicely in our assigned demographic. Somebody in some marketing department knows our material "tastes" exactly and has a clue how to push our material desire buttons. It never ceases to amaze me that despite actively opting not to be overly influenced by advertising or marketing, my choices still "reflect" a kind of class or material aspiration.
I'm not saying you're like this because I don't know you, but I think the nugget of truth in Kmom's rant is that Slopers in general (and their counterparts around the country) are more status conscious than they like to believe.
Sad? A little. Not compared to hunger or violence, of course. But anyway, the question of "choice" or "taste" is endlessly interesting, and as KS mom alluded to earlier, the elephant in the room. It is very American to pretend it isn't so.
That being said, KS mom has chosen a petulant way to talk about class issues. It is very easy to criticize a number of brand names attached to a cute, innocent child -- this is shooting fish in a barrell, and it is so boring to post such waiting for the invariable "tut tuts" to follow such a tarring-and-feathering. It is much harder to suggest what the alternatives are, especially in this time and place. The whole "PS used to be a utopia" halo and "what about the ideals of the 60s" is tiresome.
KS mom is right in that, perhaps, we should not dress our children as little adults (which is part of the larger truth that we should parent our children, not be their friends), but being catty and callous about people she doesn't know and the choices they've made is shallow. Furthermore, trying to suggest that children's clothes are some kind of marker or zeitgeist is also silly. The better idea, in my opinion, is to post something that gets people self-reflecting, because otherwise the surest way to alienate folks is to attack their kids or how they parent. -
I think there is a point to be made about the Manhattanization of Park Slope. This neighborhood used to be more low-key and it wasn't full of rich people. I grew up in the suburbs in an atmosphere of conformist consumerism and I did not want to raise my kids like that. I would be sad if Park Slope turned into another Scarsdale.
And yes, it is hard to write these posts without sounding like you're saying "Park Slope used to be a utopia." -
I know this is nit-picky, and definitely not the point, but Sweet Melissa's is very fairly priced for the high quality of ingredients used. A cookie is $2.50 (and it's a big cookie). Honestly, I would be happy to see more Sweet Melissa bags over Starbucks bags, etc, as they are a Brooklyn-owned and operated business. Again, not the point, but I felt the need to defend my favorite bakery!
-
Subject: judging by appearances
I've read all these posts with great interest, being of two minds on the subject: yes, 'brownstone' brooklyn has become increasingly upscale, wealthy, etc.. and it shows. However, having two siblings living in Westchester and 2 in-laws in New Canaan and listening to their woes about suburban competitiveness, 16 year olds receiving brand new Saabs for their birthdays, teenage group trips to Aruba, my 7-year-old niece asking about Juicy Couture sweats, etc... I know Park Slope (at least the Park Slope I know) could be a lot worse.
Through the years, I have had many different spending strategies for my kids' clothes. For many years, I spent more on quality clothes (for me, that meant LL Bean and Lands' End with the occasional foray into Paragon) because my older son could hand them down to his younger brother, something that would never happen with a coat from Old Navy. As they grew to be the same size, as they are now, we mostly shop at Target. When I do splurge, those clothes get passed on to my many nieces and nephews. I've given thought to this stuff, how I spend my money. I'm a grown-up, I know people make judgments based on appearances, but it's slightly astonishing that a peer would see my kids on the street and make a snap judgment about my morals and values based on a winter jacket, a cookie and a hair cut. It's possible that on a beautiful Saturday afternoon, you might see me treat my sons to a Sweet Melissa gingersnap while wearing (what you would judge) a too expensive coat. What you wouldn't see, is the big brimming basket in our front hall, where I've piled all the requests for money coming in from so many charities this time of year. My kids are responsible for 'earning' money, that my husband and I match, and choosing charities to give holiday gifts to. We go to the Chips soup kitchen and volunteer. We try to be responsible stewards of our environment. We are grateful for the money we have and try to share it responsibly. We also -- without apology -- enjoy the things we can afford. My point is this: Kensington Mom does me (and her) a disservice by judging us by our clothes and cookie choices. That's one of the things I assumed I was avoiding by chosing the city over the suburbs. -
Thank you Linus for turning this into a discussion.
My original post was muddled and a bit overly dramatic but I do believe I turned into a ranter when the topic became about ME and my character. But enough about that part of it--it is really more interesting when people talk about the underlying issues of status and what is status etc. versus "you're jealous" "get a life" etc.
Did you know the number one hobby for Americans is now shopping?
Obviously I am a consumer and I am marketed to. Obviously it is getting almost impossible to avoid being marketed to. I have nothing against Hanna Andersson or Patagonia or any other "brand" per se. And I don't know the really high end brands because it isn't really something I am interested in. But I think the image of the slope and the reality of the slope are two different things. Even four years ago there seemed to be more of a socio-economic mix. All I am saying from my observation on 7th Avenue was that there were a lot of very privileged children walking around in some very expensive outfits on a nice Saturday afternoon. Yes, they were very high quality clothes, probably with a special insider boutique brand that I don't know. It did remind me of the suburbs when I was a kid and everyone had to have a LaCoste shirt. I grew up in the city and back then, we weren't as brand conscious as the suburbanites. Now, obviously we all are and MAYBE some of us can teach our kids not to be status seekers?? -
kensingtonmom wrote: ...we weren't as brand conscious as the suburbanites. Now, obviously we all are and MAYBE some of us can teach our kids not to be status seekers??
You do realize that people take offense to your assumptions that they're status seekers simply because of what they wear or own, right? Enough with the projecting and generalizing. -
friendlypitbull wrote: I am still left asking....
are your kids Caucasion? If so then what's the problem with them being "branded" white?
1. How much can I spend on a Jacket etc... for my kids
2. what Brands should/can appear on them (even the cheapest clothes have a Brand) and;
3. How much can my kids spend on Hot Chocolate and Cookies
3. and what stores are ok to buy these things at
..so that my kids arent branded as WHITE, spoiled, indulged, 'Westchesterites' by Kennsingtonmom and her ilk.
. -
Subject: LAME AS YOU
Where the hell is kensington anyway? I think the real issue here is what are all of your kids doing while you sit on pathetic neighborhood coward forums talking trash. I hope they are watching you and grow up to be just as petty and f---ing lame as you. -
Subject: Re: LAME AS YOU
incaviglia pete wrote: Where the hell is kensington anyway? I think the real issue here is what are all of your kids doing while you sit on pathetic neighborhood coward forums talking trash. I hope they are watching you and grow up to be just as petty and f---ing lame as you.
This is very hurtful.
-
Listen...I am entitled to my opinions and observations without a psychological profile being written about me.
The thing is, though, if you start a thread to air said opinions and observations, people are going to armchair analyze them, and not everyone is going to agree with you. And they're entitled to their opinions as well, right? If you don't want that sort of attention directed at you, you'd keep it to yourself. But maybe you get off on it, maybe it makes you think you're the One True Bohemian Left in this Sold-Out World. (See? There I go doing it, picturing you as the mom in [i]About a Boy[/].)
Why is it that you think other people are "consumed" with disagreeing with/analyzing you, but they can't think that you are "consumed" with starting threads to discuss your particular class/economics issues (and become frustrated when the whole board doesn't fall into lock-step with you)?
There's a world of difference between pursuing quality and pursuing brand slavery. Without conducting in-depth interviews with the families in question, and rifling through their credit-card statements, you have no way of knowing what's new/hand-me-down/on sale/a gift from grandma/whatever, or how much they give to whatever charities, or if they teach their kids about value and community service. There's no way of knowing what any of those people do with the rest of their time/money, and frankly, I find it sickly judgmental in it's own way to make assumptions.
friendlypitbull: I think you're allowed to dress your kids in whatever the equivalent Palmettos : Guess as X : Patagonia? Someone correct me if I'm wrong. -
WhyFi wrote:
I thought that was the definition of status seeking? using a material object to identify with a particular tribe or class? That was what I happened to see and happened to yes, gulp, JUDGE on Saturday. Yes, I sat in judgement of privlege as many of you sit in judgment of me. Mea culpa! WhyFi I know nothing about you or your children. I have no idea if you are a status seeker or not nor do I care.
You do realize that people take offense to your assumptions that they're status seekers simply because of what they wear or own, right? Enough with the projecting and generalizing.
There is a big difference between dressing your child with pride and choosing the "right brand" but hey, this is getting tiresome even for me....Apparently I am the only one who has noticed the big class shift in Park Slope which is reflected in the privileged children and their clothes on 7th Avenue. Let them continue to shop!
And to think that 1 in 6 families in New York now go hungry (which is up 14% from last year). -
jennitrixie wrote: There's a world of difference between pursuing quality and pursuing brand slavery...
OK, I guess I'm just being argumentative now, but I don't think there is a world of difference. There is a difference. But there is also a gray area of overlap that I think we spend a lot of our time in.
Take the Wusthof knives I was writing about to WiFi. I own them because a want a quality set of knives, I cook a lot, I don't want to cut myself with crappy dull knives or ruin food with them. BUT... if I'm being honest, I also own Wusthof knives because marketing and brand awareness has successfully pushed that particular brand into the "quality product" section of my brain, because I've seen them on food shows that promote a kind of cooking and attention to ingredients and lifestyle and home-and-hearth gestalt I would like to emulate, because I have seen them in the homes of friends whose kitchens I like and enjoy spending time in and who I maybe kinda sorta envy...
Point being, I guess, as I posted above, I'm suspicious of this idea that I think my socioeconomic demo tends to have, that other people are suckers for brands and conspicuous consumption but our choices are based on quality and rationality and an almost moral kind of practicality. (David Brooks has basically written books about this; just because he was wrong about Iraq doesn't mean he was wrong about this.) I don't feel guilty over my lifestyle but I don't think I'm immune to brand slavery either.
That said, I repeat: buy your kids all the Hanna Anderson you want. I don't even know what that brand is. -
kensingtonmom wrote:
And since you feel entitled to judge people on a message board, we feel entitled to ask for the basis of your judgement. How do you know that these coifed, cookie eating, Jacket wearing kids or their parents were "using a material object to identify with a particular class???" - maybe they just went to the store and liked a Patagonia Jacket?
I thought that was the definition of status seeking? using a material object to identify with a particular tribe or class? That was what I happened to see and happened to yes, gulp, JUDGE on Saturday.
Why is it unfair to ask why you are making these judgements? and to conclude that you have some sort of obsession with "privledge" and it sounds like it comes from some envy?kensingtonmom wrote: Yes, I sat in judgement of privlege as many of you sit in judgment of me.
Actually no one is "judging you" they are trying to make sense of your 'opinion' and unsolicited value judgements
and why are you so hostile to "privledge"? - I mean obviously some people (and their kids) have more resources than others, why do automatically judge them negatively? Certainly being ostentatious, spoiled or obnoxious are generally considered bad traits (as is being judgemental btw) - but your posts dont mention anything like that (except you being judgemental) - you simply seem to be saying these kids werent poor so they make you sick.kensingtonmom wrote: Apparently I am the only one who has noticed the big class shift in Park Slope which is reflected in the privileged children and their clothes on 7th Avenue.
No everyone has noticed and some people express their disappointment at the lack of diversity - but that is way different from saying that simply because someone (or their kids) isnt disadvantaged they make you sickkensingtonmom wrote: And to think that 1 in 6 families in New York now go hungry (which is up 14% from last year).
Actually the biggest crisis facing the urban poor is obesity but what that or hunger have to do with a 9 year old wearing a Patagonia jacket I have no idea.
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds