Patagucci and Park Slope children

I still want to know where KM shops.

linusvanpelt wrote: snip

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... snip

Yep. When I brought my knives out to the green truck for sharpening one rainy day, the fellow dutifully went through all of the Wusthof (or whatever, I can't remember) knives, but stopped at a lowly Chicago Cultery knife. "That's the best knife you got," he said. Heh. Who knew.

I think I understand kensingtonmom's sentiment. I can see how she might have a visceral reaction to the scenario she describes. I had a similar response to the Park Slope "punk" kids article http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/19/fashion/19teen.html?_r=1&ref=style&oref=slogin . However, there is nothing you can do about it, short of moving to a farm in the middle of nowhere. Any urban dweller who thinks he or she is morally superior to suburbanites by virtue of choosing the "city" over the suburbs is a fool. The whole concept of the "city" as an inherently more progressive and diverse community environment is a crock of shit in NYC.

Anonymous wrote: considering the Slope is supposed to be a progressive and liberal neighborhood.

Anonymous, the Slope is super liberal and progressive as long as we're dealing with someone else's dough - but let the nanny ask for benefits and watch what happens.

Besides, I don't get the impression most people on the board are espousing some "blame the poor" philosphy.

stillatwork wrote: I went to law school specifically so that I wouldn't have to worry about money.

the average lawyer in America earns around $40k/year. while a decent salary, certainly not one that could afford park slope AND patagonia AND children.

find a new line.

steve wrote: [quote=alafairnadia][quote=stillatwork]I went to law school specifically so that I wouldn't have to worry about money.

the average lawyer in America earns around $40k/year. while a decent salary, certainly not one that could afford park slope AND patagonia AND children.

find a new line.

Where did you get that number from? Seems real low.

heard it more than once in law school.

the average joe family lawyer, crim defense attorney, etc, isn't making much more than around $40k. and the big, white shoe firms might have lawyers that make tons of money, but the really, REALLY wealthy lawyers are the PI attorneys in the south. they're billionaires.

I know when I practiced family and criminal law in Houston, I made around $32k and would never have made more than $45k later on. out of my law school graduating class, I made about what everyone else made, except the folks who ended up at Weil or Vinson & Elkins.

steve wrote: Interesting. I know quite a few lawyers in all sort of practices including CD and I can't imagine any of them making that little. Of course, they all live in NY. What's PI btw?

personal injury

and NY is totally skewed. nationally it's balanced by ... well... every other state.

I've really had it up to hear with the other 49 states...

linusvanpelt wrote:
That said, I repeat: buy your kids all the Hanna Anderson you want. I don't even know what that brand is.

YES.

you know why you don't know what hanna anderson is?

because it's actually less aggressively "branded" than many (not to say most) other clothing companies. it is a poor choice to exemplify brand consciousness, since their clothes -- unlike, say, old navy's -- generally do not have visible logos on the outside. an adult may recognize the style of the clothes after looking at catalogs or, say, photo shoots, but another child is very unlikely to know the brand by looking at the clothes.

which is, i thought, the generally idea: a high-quality item that is appreciated on its merits as such, not as a label.

(oh, but they can cost a bit. guess that's the real issue after all.)

No real discussion can be generated with pop psychological analysis and accusations and no common ground ever.

No real discussion can be generated when the person who starts the conversation can only lash out at others and defend defend defend herself when others actually want to discuss the subject.

I think kensingtonmom is pretty right on, overall. I don't think she was making any direct attack a the beginning but a lot of people are taking her observations awfully personally. As a kid growing up on welfare + my grandpa's social security, I still feel pangs of .. maybe its jealousy.. when I see young kids completely oblivious yet completely indulging in their inherited wealth. Having everything you want as a child can give him the sense of a mandate to have everything he wants as an adult. I remember when the "rich" kid in my junior high would berate me everyday about how his sneakers cost more than my entire outfit. Never having to question your own wealth your entire life is a very powerful thing.

Sometimes, however, the parents-- these brownstone-owning young professionals, are giving their children things they never had as a child. Maybe that is something I would do too. If you work hard to get to your position, you should be able to spread the love to your family.

I have recently met a few people who grew up with nannies and drivers and maids... while they do seem to lack a bit of responsibility, their values seem to be alright. Not all privilege spoils a child, but as long as their are limits.

Besides, I used to live in Japan, and every child drinks starbucks and wears fancy clothes. I don't really think of them as being spoiled or whatever, its normal in the cities there.

kensingtonmom wrote: Actually the real issue for me (and my initial post was not well worded and I threw out a few brand names off the top of my head)-

And the real issue for me is the conclusions, generalizations and Judgements you make about Kids (and their parents) when you couldnt possibly have any idea what you are talking about

kensingtonmom wrote: but what happens when a neighborhood changes class?

When did PS "change class" - PS has been occupied by highly educated, high earning people for decades

kensingtonmom wrote: And it was really apparent to me for the first time with the very upscale kids outfitted and coiffed kids on 7th Avenue. What happens when affluent and often indulged kids are suddenly outnumbering middle class (and even upper middle class kids)?

Again please tell me how you know the 'affluence' of the kids eating cookies on 7th Ave? Did they have their parents 1040 Forms taped to their chests? Are their certain haircuts that distinquish the middle class from the upper middle class from the truly rich? - please let me in on these identifiers. and if PS has become 'more affluent' What happens??? other then making you sick

kensingtonmom wrote: And why do people in the Slope think they are above the keeping up with the Joneses of the suburbs? Because of the word "quality"? That somehow quality is not about status seeking?

Who said this? - where is the "slope" spokesperson that says b/c we live in this neighborhood we are above the suburbs? I am sure there are some people who may feel this but the main person who seems to think that they are 'better' simply by living in the city is YOU! And again how can you make such broad judgements based on some sub $175 jackets and haircuts??

kensingtonmom wrote: But I realize that message board discussions are really like talk radio with people often just shouting and not reading (and me reacting to accusations which really was stupid of me and a waste of time--what do I care if some "guest" accuses me of being a lousy mother neglecting my kids?".) No real discussion can be generated with pop psychological analysis and accusations and no common ground ever.

I have read everything you have posted very carefully, and I have asked you many questions (which you have ignored) to understand where you are coming from, but I am sorry, all your posts are not "poorly worded", your words indicate that you make extremely negative snap judgements about a whole neighborhood based upon the clothes of some 9yr olds you saw, you are extremely brand conscious and seem to have an extreme hostility to people who (based on what block they are standing and what brands they have on) you conclude to have more $ then you.

BTW - you are more then welcome to make any ridiculous judgements you want but when you post them on a Message Board, do not expect them to go unchallenged.

kensingtonmom wrote: [quote=steve]

No real discussion can be generated with pop psychological analysis and accusations and no common ground ever.

No real discussion can be generated when the person who starts the conversation can only lash out at others and defend defend defend herself when others actually want to discuss the subject.

It is hard not to defend against being called jealous, sad, a bad mother, needing to make more money, needing to get a life, a hypocrite uhm........ etc. But it was my mistake to engage in defending against those criticisms from strangers.

Sigh, you just don't get it. None of that matters. It's that you don't defend your viewpoint cogently.

This seems like the right juncture to point out our new board for Victorian Flatbush . . . a.k.a.
Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park/Kensington
http://brooklynian.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=167
there's people over there that need advice!