Still scrubbing carpets this week, so not much time to blog. I will leave you with this though:
I like to have the tv on in my room as I get ready in the morning. I never leave it on any one station for very long unless something really grabs my attention. This morning as I was changing channels every few minutes while making my bed and getting dressed I heard a voice say, “And here is Suri Cruise in one of her designer dresses. She is our little fashion icon, she’s never seen wearing the same thing twice.”
I looked up to see a picture of Suri Cruise on a sidewalk somewhere wearing a white dress with dark pink flowers.
The voice continued, “This dress cost about $300.00. But, we will do anything for our kids, right?”
Are you kidding me? Buying a 2 1/2 year old $300.00 dresses that she will only be seen wearing once is considered okay because we will do anything for our kids? It would seem that “doing anything” for our kids has gotten out of hand.
Give me a break.
November 14, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Obviously some people don’t understand that less is more and the word “no” teaches some of the most important lessons in life.
November 14, 2008 at 7:20 pm
There is a HUGE difference between “doing anything for your kids,” and “doing EVERYTHING for your kids, so they reflect you.”
I know $300 is less to some in “higher” circles, but I wish the folks in those circles would realize how that is perceived by those of us living the “REAL” life. Especially those of us in tune with how many people $300 could feed, or how that can take care of one month worth of utilities for some.
People want to be perceived as the most awesome parents, or whatever titles they prefer, out there – that is why they do these things. That is why they can’t say “no” to their children. That is why they buy outrageously-priced items. It isn’t because of their child. It is to fill their own need to be perceived in a certain way.
November 14, 2008 at 8:50 pm
I always think that if they’re just throwing their money away (and really, a one-wear high-end designer item for a baby is exactly that), I’d love to catch just one percent of it.
Better yet, I’d rather see it donated to someplace it could do some good.
Poor Suri. Every time I see pictures of her, she looks lonely and sad.
November 14, 2008 at 9:05 pm
I agree with Kemi. Suri always looks so lonely and sad. So what does that tell us about a $300 dress?? That her parents are the only ones enjoying it. That’s what it tells me. Because a child is happy wearing a paper sack if they are happy. They have no clue to what things cost.
I don’t even buy dresses for myself that cost that. If I could, I still wouldn’t.
November 16, 2008 at 5:40 am
since when are people required to buy $300.00 one-time-use dresses for their kids? nobody informed me of that little “thing I have to do for my kids.” My kids love us even when they wear second-hand, consignment store finds ($7 old navy jeans!). how about adding “teach kids to be fiscally responsible” to that list of anythings we will do for our kids? or perhaps “teach kids to be economical and get the full value of every purchase”?
November 17, 2008 at 5:21 am
Amen! I won’t spend more than $15.00 on an outfit for my girls. They grow so fast, what’s the point?
November 18, 2008 at 3:15 am
Absolutely agree with you! It amazes me that the magazines are full of pictures of ‘what the stars are putting on their kids’ and the price tag is always astronomical. As though the higher the price, the more love felt. I think it might be the opposite!
November 21, 2008 at 7:13 pm
$300 for a dress that will end up with ketchup and chocolate on? (or maybe she doesn’t eat in it, I bet they keep the tags on & return it the next day!!!).
$300 (£150) is equivalent to my weekly food bill, there is no way I could or would spend that on a dress for my 3 year old (opr myself for that matter!)