Patagucci and Park Slope children
Comments
-
WhyFi wrote: Why do you come here to discuss things if you're just going to turn a deaf ear to other POVs? People go to great lengths to make very specific points which you completely ignore, instead opting to restate your position as if we didn't understand it the first few times around.
I thought I was trying to answer the charges and differences?? But we are so far apart that I don't think we can see each other's POVs. So I leave it at we agree to disagree. There can't be common ground here. -
kensingtonmom wrote: There can't be common ground here.
This happens unusually often with you. :-k -
WhyFi wrote: [quote=kensingtonmom]There can't be common ground here.
This happens unusually often with you. :-k
Quoted for truth. -
Drano wrote: [quote=saintjohnsnear5th][quote=friendlypitbull][quote=saintjohnsnear5th]
Just for accuracy - the median NYC teacher's salary is approximatley $54,000 before the 7% increase just negotiated and approximatley 1/3 of NYC teachers make $80,000 or more.(the current maximum salary is $93,416 which would increase to $100,049 if the new contract is ratified)
I don't think teachers generally make 60k a year.
Why are they always bitching and complaining about their salaries then?? My ex boyfriend was a teacher and he claimed he got 40-something thousand a year just over a year ago. If many of them are making 80k AND getting the whole long summer off - what is the problem?
Simple. Most people want more pay/benefits for less work, and teachers are no exception. Of course, they wouldn't state it in those terms ("OMG we teach your children and I believe that children are the future, teach them well and so on...") but it's perfectly understandable.
I don't think you can quote exact salaries of teachers in NYC, There is definitely a WIDE range of salaries. I think it is an uneducated statement to belittle the job of a teacher, and assume that they don't deserve to be paid a good salary (which is usually the case only after years of teaching, or due to additional degrees in education).
I wonder if you do not know any teachers personally, because if you did I think you would have a greater appreciation for the work they do. I come from a family of teachers: sister, mother, uncle and have numerous friends in the profession. They may progressively earn a good salary and have summers off, but they often do not have nights or weekends due to lesson plans and grading papers, planning & grading tests-- NOT TO MENTION dealing with numerous children (and their parents) from all walks of life on a day to day basis. I strongly support teachers (as you can see
because I admire what they are able to do and the influence they can have on children, who are essentially the "future" -
From The Dept of Ed website, here are the current salaries based on years of experience and level of education:
http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/15074C44-E87D-4A0A-982C-72DBAD1EAC8E/12731/certifiedteacherssch101.pdf -
sarajean8 wrote: I wonder if you do not know any teachers personally, because if you did I think you would have a greater appreciation for the work they do. They may progressively earn a good salary and have summers off...
I totally agree with you. My step brother is in the midst of a career change (he has a masters already in another field) and is currently getting certified to teach and his starting salary in NY is $46k. That is NOT a good salary for one of the most important public services--an investment in the future. Personally I am happy to have my tax money used to pay salaries for public servants who do some of the most important work. Teachers do need a break out of the classroom. Whether part of their summer could be used towards curriculum development--well maybe. But they have got to take a well-earned break to recharge. -
Subject: Re: Kensington Mom is right and Park Slope's delusion
lezginka wrote: This discussion is such a disappointment in what I thought Park Slope population represents.
Funny I didnt know there was some sort of political pledge that I was required to sign upon moving in.lezginka wrote: her main point which is the rampant materialism and class shift in this neighborhood which used to pride itself on non-comformism and progressive thinking...
Apparently the neignborhood never represented to you or KTM that admirable trait of being NON-judgemental btw If everyone represented the same progressive thinking and non-conformisim - wouldn't that be conformist????lezginka wrote: Park Slope is a new Upper East Side, but it is worse because, indeed, it is deluding itself into non-materialistic, progressive and intellectual superiority...
Again how can you read this thread and not recongnize that it is you and KTM who are actually the ones with an 'intellectual superiority' complex. No one responding claimed that there wasnt materialism in PS (or anywhere else) what I and others asked is who is KTM (and you) to cast judgements about the values of an entire neighborhoods citizens based on the brand of jackets and type of cookies their kids were eating one Saturday afternoon? And finally where is this P.S. mission statement articulating this neighborhood delusion? -
Subject: Kensingtonmom - please read!
I am still waiting for a list of approved clothes brands, price ranges, bakeries from kensingtonmom.
Is the Gap still OK?
If I don't have kids, can I buy my dog something really expensive - since he won't really be able to tell the difference between Gucci and Petland Discount?
Do I have to send all of my disposable income to Africa - or is it OK to wait for the celebrities to adopt every poor child (and parent) there?
Should I stop what I am doing as a healthcare provider and become a teacher?
Should I not have gotten those great photos of me and the dog for the holidays because I forced some artist to compromise his/her integrity to make the mortgage? -
Subject: Patagucci and Park Slope Kids
I am coming to this debate on the late side and I don't understand what
all the fuss is about. The kensingtonmother seemed to just state the
obvious. Frankly I was suprised how much hostility her observation generated instead of intelligent conversation.
I work at several public schools in Brooklyn--I am at 321 two days per
week. This is something we discuss at work actually quite a bit. While all
kids are brand aware now-(they all watch T.V. since the time they can lift
their heads)-but it has gotten particularly noticeable at 321 this past few
years. It isn't just the expensive clothes (which there are plenty of at 321) or the designer lunch boxes, or the passes for the kids to eat lunch at the area restaurants which separates these kids from my other two schools, it is also the topic of Real estate!! Many of these kids discuss renovation and park block location and then ask "where do YOU live" as if to peg my income or something. Is that brand aware or money aware? I am not sure if these kids are indulged as the kensingtonmother said--many of them are extremely spoiled with material things--but these same kids actually seem even MORE neglected with time then some of my more middle class kids. Just my observations. -
Subject: Re: Kensingtonmom - please read!
Random Visitor wrote:
Yes, why not send all of your disposable income to some middle class families in Africa so that they can import Patagonia clothes for their kids?
Do I have to send all of my disposable income to Africa - or is it OK to wait for the celebrities to adopt every poor child (and parent) there?
? -
I know the type KM speaks of; a year later they'll have cell phones and the rolling eyes to accompany them. I see them every day. It is a TYPE, and yes, they are the offspring of the Uber Liberal. It would take a few pages to describe this unique cross section of inherited wealth/liberal guilt; and a few more years to see if they rebel as they're supposed to.
But what will they rebel against?
Quite hard to "walk the talk" when you/we are the wealthy ones, but wealthy or just "house rich", each family's philosophy governs them. You can be cool with spending more, your kids don't know the difference, it's all about the values you behind it.
I don't discriminate against rich or poor--assholes are everyone's problem.
Most moms aren't buying $40 Bird onesies and thinking of handing it down! ONce they go into a store like that, their progressiveness is overcome by snob appeal and aromatherapy. A few days later it's forgotten..A year later they'll be in the garbage or at a stoop sale. And that's where you'll find me and my future activists shopping. -
The Chipster wrote: I don't discriminate against rich or poor--assholes are everyone's problem.
HA! Great post!
Most moms aren't buying $40 Bird onesies and thinking of handing it down! ONce they go into a store like that, their progressiveness is overcome by snob appeal and aromatherapy. A few days later it's forgotten..A year later they'll be in the garbage or at a stoop sale. And that's where you'll find me and my future activists shopping.
I hope I raise future activists. -
wHATEVER HAPPENED TO LIVE AND LET LIVE?
THERE'D BE AN UPROAR IF BOARD MEMBERS WERE BITCHING ABOUT GAYS OR POOR PEOPLE OR BLACKS. BUT IT'S OK TO BITCH ABOUT THE RICH, IS IT? KM'S ATTITUDE SUCKS AND IT SMACKS OF ENVY. -
saintjohnsnear5th wrote: wHATEVER HAPPENED TO LIVE AND LET LIVE?
Yeah, Amerikkka is always trying to keep the rich man down. Where are the rich senators? The rich CEOs? When will this bigoted country ever elect a rich president? I still remember the awful news clips of the police turning water cannons and dogs on rich people in the streets of Birmingham. How quickly we forget.
THERE'D BE AN UPROAR IF BOARD MEMBERS WERE BITCHING ABOUT GAYS OR POOR PEOPLE OR BLACKS. BUT IT'S OK TO BITCH ABOUT THE RICH, IS IT? KM'S ATTITUDE SUCKS AND IT SMACKS OF ENVY. -
THIS THREAD IS NOW ABOUT CATS. DISCUSS.
-
linusvanpelt wrote: [quote=saintjohnsnear5th]wHATEVER HAPPENED TO LIVE AND LET LIVE?
Yeah, Amerikkka is always trying to keep the rich man down. Where are the rich senators? The rich CEOs? When will this bigoted country ever elect a rich president? I still remember the awful news clips of the police turning water cannons and dogs on rich people in the streets of Birmingham. How quickly we forget.
THERE'D BE AN UPROAR IF BOARD MEMBERS WERE BITCHING ABOUT GAYS OR POOR PEOPLE OR BLACKS. BUT IT'S OK TO BITCH ABOUT THE RICH, IS IT? KM'S ATTITUDE SUCKS AND IT SMACKS OF ENVY.
Yah, not to mention that the rich are now even being criticized by the proles for outfitting their kids in designer gear! Yet nobody dares say a word about the fact that poor black children are wearing gear that, if anything, is quite a bit more expensive than the rich white kids' gear. Rich people are really getting a rough deal nowadays. Really being discriminated against and stereotyped
-
Subject: seriously?
What I find interesting is that everyone arguing the liberal side of this thread immediately makes the assumption that any parent that would dress their child in Patagonia would automatically eschew any sense of social responsibility.
Fact is I, and many others that I know in the Slope, earn significant amounts of money and have no problem dressing our kids any way that we see fit. However, we also have no problem writing checks for more than the average American earns every year to causes as diverse as the American Red Cross, Head Start and, to keep it local, the Harlem Children's Zone and then backing up that $$ with volunteer time and effort and educating our children about the value of both of these endeavors.
Raising a child has much more to do with how you teach them values and ethics and less to do with what kind of jacket they wear. Perhaps those of us that think that the clothes do indeed make the man ought to step back and ask ourselves what we are actually teaching our children about the value of material possessions. -
It is not about how we dress our kids. It is about an attitude that they inherit from us. Pretty early. I would say at about 3. I see a lot of bitchy 5yo at the playground. You and your child is a lesser person if you do not belong.
I would hate to be forced to dress my child not in H&M, but at those expensive boutiques just that my child would not experience this "put you down" attitude.
I would hate to brag that I own a big brownstone or that we actually earn enough money just in order for my child to be OKed by other kids. (Rolling eyes type is everywhere).
But I would guess that I will be forced to behave the way that I dislike and actually teach my child some bitchiness for the sake of not making her life difficult at school.
It is more then enough that we are foreigners and therefore different.
I had this idea that Park Slope is very a acceptive for all types.
We used to live in Bay Ridge and my neighbour (a teacher) actually said that sunflowers in my frontyard look cheap. Our income is about 3 tymes of hers, I am not cheap, I just like sunflowers. did I have to tell her? did I have to excuse myself?
Kids absorb from the parents. Just look at this discussion. They would learn that this is OK to put people down. They only way to prevent this is to push your wealth and status on them before they even think of putting you down.
I do not like this and do not like that my child would have to deal with this. -
mamochka wrote:
Maybe an appropriate reply would be: "Only a lower class person would worry about looking cheap; the rich can afford to look as cheap as they like".
We used to live in Bay Ridge and my neighbour (a teacher) actually said that sunflowers in my frontyard look cheap. Our income is about 3 tymes of hers, I am not cheap, I just like sunflowers. did I have to tell her? did I have to excuse myself? -
Wow, how did a guy like me miss an argument like this for so long?
I must be slipping!
Anyway, after reading through virtually this whole thread, I'd like to tack on a comment as well: Though I wouldn't couch the argument in the class-based terms of KM, I generally sympathize with her annoyance towards kids with bling (or padagucci, or whatever). People have said, "It's their $, so let them do as they please," but in fact the point is that it's not their money, it's their parents.
This theme came up in the whole buying your kid an apt thread, but as I said there I'm generally against giving people, even your children, things that are in exchange for nothing. A spoiled kid is one of the most annoying things on earth to me, and I would add that there's little correlation btwn being spoiled and being rich--a lot of poor kids are spoiled and a lot of rich ones aren't. It's the attitude of doling out gifts to your kids b/c they're just oh so precious, and not ever teaching them the value of a dollar. I'd broadly connect this to the sense of entitlement most people have as a whole (eg: "we should be able to retire age 40").
Kids should work for what they get, even around the house. They should clean up, do the dishes, vacuum the floors, etc.--in short, earn the roof over the head that you're providing them with, not take it for granted. As they get older, why not encourage them to get a part-time job, or if they're not old enough for that, pay them a modest allowance in exchange for real work around the house or other help you need. Let them earn it, don't just give them a credit card linked to your bank account! Then, if they take their money and buy lattes or $100 jeans, then it truly is their choice and you can't judge them. If it's really theirs, I'd also expect their behavior (with supervision) to be far more responsible and frugal than if they're just buying on mommy and daddy's blank check. You'd simultaneously be teaching them a valuable lesson and preventing them from turning into a little precocious brat all at once. And, you'd get someone to do your dishes. Seems like quite the win-win to me! :P -
escap wrote: Kids should work for what they get, even around the house. They should clean up, do the dishes, vacuum the floors, etc.--in short, earn the roof over the head that you're providing them with, not take it for granted. As they get older, why not encourage them to get a part-time job, or if they're not old enough for that, pay them a modest allowance in exchange for real work around the house or other help you need. Let them earn it, don't just give them a credit card linked to your bank account! !
That is kind of an old fashioned view (which I kind of agree with). I think kids today have pressure to work on their resumes for their college applications--so instead of bussing tables at a restaurant in the summer they have unpaid internships at publishing companies. I have always thought it is important to know what manual labor is like and what a service job is like because it gives you empathy for people who have to spend their lives working really hard. Not everyone can pull themselves up by the bootstraps and out of poverty. -
mamochka wrote: It is not about how we dress our kids. It is about an attitude that they inherit from us....I would hate to be forced to dress my child not in H&M, but at those expensive boutiques just that my child would not experience this "put you down" attitude. I would hate to brag that I own a big brownstone or that we actually earn enough money just in order for my child to be OKed by other kids. (Rolling eyes type is everywhere).
I think my issue is that I fail to see what is different about acting 'better' or obnoxious because you (or your children) wear a certain brand or live in a fancy neighborhood then b/c you purposly eschew brand names or live in a less fancy neighborhood.
It is all snobbery of one form of another.
And all this B.S. about how to raise your kids (and everyone elses) please STFU - its funny how many people think they know how to raise kids and yet whenever I talk to adults I hear about how f'ed up their parents made them (and btw generally not by buying them [or not buying them] a particular brand name).
Most people do the best they can, and many of the kids whose parents did everything right (according to new school conventional wisdon, or old school wisdom or whatever) still end up with kids who are obnoxius, or lazy, or on drugs or whatever and many parents who do everything wrong end up with great kids.
Isnt life and parenting hard enough without judging everyone else on how they do it. -
It's funny: my siblings & I grew up in a very working/middle class family. As an adult, I look back & realize how we were really scrabling to pay bills/etc...I brought this up to my mother recently, and I could tell she was quite upset at the suggestion we were somehow less than "comfortable". Kind of the polar opposite of many folks on here who feel people should somehow hide or feel badly about what they have...Yeah, there's arguments on both sides: people who work @ the food co-op are judgemental & passive-aggressive, and the lawyer down the street who dresses his kids in Patagonia is yuppie scum. Personally, I don't care. Unless you're paying my mortgage & gifting my kids w/all kinds of neat stuff, you can cram it.
-
friendlypitbull wrote: Most people do the best they can, and many of the kids whose parents did everything right (according to new school conventional wisdon, or old school wisdom or whatever) still end up with kids who are obnoxius, or lazy, or on drugs or whatever and many parents who do everything wrong end up with great kids..
I thought Mamochka was saying she felt her kids were being judged by other kids in the playground for not being rich or wearing the right brands? I don't think she was judging other parentsso much as feeling defensive towards her own?
I am concerned about materialism and consumerism and the impact on the planet. You can only teach your kids so much at home before they are out in the world and learning more from their peers. I will feel sad the day my kids come home and ask for this brand or that (and I know that day will come as much as I fight it). I thought I could avoid it but see it is impossible and especially since my kids will probably be attending school in Brownstone Brooklyn where, in my observation only, the materialism seems to have notched up a level in the past year or so. -
friendlypitbull wrote:
Actually I'd say judging people is one of the simple pleasures life affords us.
And all this B.S. about how to raise your kids (and everyone elses) please STFU - its funny how many people think they know how to raise kids and yet whenever I talk to adults I hear about how f'ed up their parents made them (and btw generally not by buying them [or not buying them] a particular brand name).
Most people do the best they can, and many of the kids whose parents did everything right (according to new school conventional wisdon, or old school wisdom or whatever) still end up with kids who are obnoxius, or lazy, or on drugs or whatever and many parents who do everything wrong end up with great kids.
Isnt life and parenting hard enough without judging everyone else on how they do it.
In seriousness, everyone has the right to make their own parenting decisions, so let's call my comment a "suggestion" rather than a judgment. And by no means am I saying that a parent who doesn't spoil their kids is guaranteed that they'll refrain from drug use or being obnoxious, etc. To me it's a far ranging principle, not just with your own kids, but with all people in general, that giving something for nothing often has unintended negative consequences for both parties.
On the agreement side, I agree that you can be equally snobbish by purposely eschewing materialism as you can by pursuing it, and that the ultimate determinant of character is not found in a brand name, or the lack thereof. I dispute that materialism is an insidious threat to our society--if it brings you pleasure to buy nice clothes or a flat screen TV, and you worked to be able to do so, then by all means do so. -
KM - one question that I and others have asked you on this thread is where you deem it acceptable to buy clothing from? Where do you buy your kids clothing? What does materialism mean? How do you recognize it? Where can I shop that is not materialistic? You've avoided these questions consistently and I'm very curious to hear your response. Thanks.
-
kensingtonmom wrote: I am concerned about materialism and consumerism and the impact on the planet.
:roll: Care to outline how your buying habits have less of an impact than those clad in "Patagucci" clothing? -
kensingtonmom wrote: I thought Mamochka was saying she felt her kids were being judged by other kids in the playground for not being rich or wearing the right brands? I don't think she was judging other parentsso much as feeling defensive towards her own?
Oh please don't misread my post - I wasnt saying or implying that Mamochka was judging anyone based on clothes - I was more referring to you.
If you want to teach your children your beliefs that consumerism and materialism are a threat to the planet - great! but what I object to is when you (or others) judge other people for not necessarily sharing your beliefs.
While I dont obssess on brands or fancy cars, etc... I do happen to believe that in a world with 6 billion people, the best way for us to ultimatley protect the enviroment is to raise the worlds wealth and the best way I have seen to achieve that goal is by incorporating as many people/countries into the modern global economy.
This is my belief and while I dont want to raise spoiled obnoxious kids it doesnt preclude me buying them a Patagonia jacket or a $3 hot chocolate.
Now if you believe the way to enviromental salvation is eschewing name brands ; boycotting chain stores and community garden tomatoes - so be it; but I find wholesale judgements about people based on their zipcode, clothing labels, and haircuts distasteful, whichever perspective it comes. -
friendlypitbull wrote: Now if you believe the way to enviromental salvation is eschewing name brands ; boycotting chain stores and community garden tomatoes - so be it; but I find wholesale judgements about people based on their zipcode, clothing labels, and haircuts distasteful, whichever perspective it comes.
True that.
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