StreetLevel: Baby Biz Out, Barber In on Fifth Ave.

Does anybody know if Posey Baker is closing? It was closed last Sunday and it had even less inventory than usual.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 2:36 PM

I'm actually glad to see some of the more kid centric things leaving Park Slope in favor of a more diverse section of retail.

There are far too many kiddie friendly places, considering the huge single population in Park Slope.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 2:37 PM

I saw a sign on Posey Baker that said "last day"

Very sorry if they have left.

I liked their stuff very much, even though it was quite pricey.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 2:37 PM

Gentrification reversing???? So the "gentry" don't need haircuts?????

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 2:43 PM

2:37--there's also a huge family population, and better to have kid centric things than driving everyone to the huge box stores to find what they need. And, as I understand it, Romp isn't leaving b/c of a lack of business, but because the owner is moving, and hasn't been replaced by a beer mug/futon/overpriced jeans store as of yet, so you may still have to put up w/another kid-friendly store...the horror.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 2:43 PM

I have kids and I never would go into Romp. Overpriced!

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 2:46 PM

2:43...

So the only option is kid centric or big box?

Wow...you are dumber than your post suggests.

And last I checked, there are no big box locations along 5th or 7th Avenues, so I think we'll be ok for a little while.

Cool it.

The world does not revolve around you and your kid. I know you're sad about Romp, but there are 25 other stores within 5 blocks of here for you to get your overpriced fix for moist towelettes to wipe up little Timmy's face with.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 2:49 PM

Nice try 2:49, but you forgot rule number one in tearing Park Slopers with Kids new assholes: use names like "Clarabelle" and "Duncan", not "Timmy."

Keep working on it though, you show promise. Now go to a bar and pretend like you're gonna pick someone up before you go home alone. Again.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 2:56 PM

co-sign 2:56.

2:49, you can use one of those moist towelettes to clean ur self up after you beat off at the end of another lonely night alone.

I can't understand these losers w/ all this hatred towards kids.....

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 3:04 PM

Yeah seriously if people don't have kids where am I going to find my second wife (who actually should be in 3rd grade about now)

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 3:06 PM

Believe me, 2:56/3:04

I'm getting laid a helluva lot more than the two of you, combined.

I feel for your hubby. You two sound frigid.

Never said I hated kids, btw. That's your own projection. But we certainly are not at a loss for all of the overpriced kid boutiques in Park Slope. If you don't see that, then the pole sticking up your ass is starting to affect your vision.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 3:07 PM

Pole?
Ass?

I dont get?

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 3:10 PM

I'm assuming it's your sunny personality and strong grasp of the english language that's keeping you single for the forseeable future....

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 3:11 PM

Park Slump. Suck it, slopers. (you too Timmy, Clarabel and Duncan)

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 3:14 PM

Actually, 3:11...I'm not allowed to get married in this state.

If you'd like to recify that, I'm more than happy to let you solve that problem.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 3:14 PM

2:43/3:04/3:11 = one of those nasty Park Slope moms everyone on gawker talks about.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 3:16 PM

Do you people even read Gawker?

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 3:19 PM

"Do you people even read Gawker?"

Are Park Slope moms neurotic?

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 3:21 PM

Ummm awkward...but back to the post. Did Posey Baker really shut down..would anyone happen to know if there is a for rent sign in their window.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 3:31 PM

I don't have kids, but I have also never been able to fathom where the nasty comments about those who do in Park Slope come from. Sure, some parents and some kids are rude (just like some of every other type of person), but I don't get the nastiness toward them as a group. Somebody has to raise the next generation. Who do we think is going to be there to provide us with all the services we need from people who are still working as we age?

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 3:34 PM

Why does everyone assume that someone who's not interested in more kid crap merchants has to be single? Not everyone with a spouse has to add a little brat to the mix. Some of us married and didn't discover that our wife/husband wasn't enough for us. It's called contraception. Seeing your little demons on their steamed-birch scooters blocking the sidewalk is motivation enough for me to avoid adding another one to the neighborhood.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 3:34 PM

This post isn't about posey baker. It's about romp and that disgusting incense shop that insisted on polluting the air on the sidewalk.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 3:35 PM

And let me just say, a hearty thank you for not spreading your poisonous dna to the next generation

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 3:38 PM

3:34...You are right, but we were having a nice conversation here until 2:43 came in with her..."better to have kid shit than big box stores"

I mean...where is the reference to Big Box stores? There are none in Park Slope.

And what SANE person (even with kids) would be able to say with a straight face that we have enough kiddie stores.

This isn't about kid hating, this is about parents who are SO entitled to the point of thinking and actually saying that if the neighborhood isn't filled with kid stores, it will be filled with Walmarts.

It's asinine.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 3:39 PM

SORRY...mean to say...what sane person would say we DON'T have enough kiddie stores in PS.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 3:40 PM

Earth-shattering meteor, where are you!?!?!?!

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 3:45 PM

all the big boxes are in fort greene (mall) and gowanus (alot of shit)

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 3:45 PM

Actually what sane person would commit to lifetime monogamy with no intention of raising children!

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 3:48 PM

And btw, there are MORE singles in Park Slope than there are people with kids. Just so you have some actual facts to go along with your lies.

47.90% White
31.60% Black
0.60% Native American
0.10% or Alaskan Native Islander
11.10% Asian
24.70% Hispanic

19.50% Families w/Children
24.60% Families Married
10.50% Married w/Children
15.10% Female Household
7.60% Female w/Children
56.60% Non-Family
39.60% Single Household
(adds up to more than 100% because some check more than one option)

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 3:53 PM

ummm...because not everyone wants or likes, children.

people like you, 3:48 turn me off from the idea more and more.

judging from the dead inside look i see from many of the moms along 7th avenue, i certainly am not in any hurry.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 3:56 PM

356 - I got no issue with your desire to not have kids - but I seriously question why you would legally commit to a lifetime partnership and monogomy with 1 person when your not going to have children (who are legitimatly strengthened by a strong and stable family unit)

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 4:10 PM

Used to be a barber shop on this exact block that dealt alot of drugs maybe its the same dealers coming back to the hood. That would be huge for Duncan.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 4:12 PM

What does having children having to do with wanting to proclaim yourself to a lifetime of love in a committed relationship with another human being?

I don't see the correlation at all...

People like you who apparently LIVE for your kids (thus the only reason you got married, it would appear) scare me.

Don't you have an existence of your own?

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 4:14 PM

Yes I have an "existence of my own" - which is EXACTLY why a LIFETIME commitment to 1 person (when both of us may grow and change in unpredictable ways) makes little sense and is unnecessary when you do not need to do so for the sake of child rearing and the financial and personal sacrifices that this involves.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 4:33 PM

I don't agree with you at all, 4:33.

I don't believe that marriage and child-rearing go hand in hand as you suggest.

A lifetime of committment should be the basis for a marriage, not as a default if kids are in the picture.

I feel bad for you.

Sounds like you are only married for the sake of the kids.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 4:40 PM

Kids are cool. I used to be one.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 4:44 PM

All you anti-kid/family haters are a bunch of nazis. And all you brat-spawning breeders are a bunch of commies. There, I said it. The real question is, can I get a straight-razor shave at this barbershop or not?

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 4:45 PM

I feel bad for you - you fail to see the joy, challenge and beauty of taking on (the true) lifetime commitment of raising a child from an infant to an adult (and hopefully into middle-age)
yet you are committed to a partner that statistically you have a very good shot of ending up divorced from (leaving you significantly poorer) or not entirely compatible with in your later years (leaving you pretty lonely).

And if you are that minority couple that can stay happily together forever with little personal/emotional sacrifice - I still have to ask - why did you need some legal and religious commitment to facilitate that?

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 4:52 PM

I, for one am excited about a new barbershop.

And I'm glad Romp is closing too.

If that makes me a kid hating, nazi, so be it.

Teaching your kids the ways of American consumerism at age 6 months is not really my style, but to each his/her own.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 4:53 PM

Congratulations, thread! You're the 10,000th thread to visit the ol' "Slopers with kids and their brats SUCK" vs. "Single losers deluded they're immortal and forgetting without people who have children they'd not exist!" battle. You win a day out with Annabelle, Duncan and the single loser of your choice plus a mani/pedi spa day with the dead-inside Park Slope Mom of your choice!

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 4:56 PM

If the barbershop has Playboy, I'm THERE. With my kids. They love the articles, because they're smart, because they're my kids. SUCK IT, breeder hating eunuchs!

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 4:58 PM

Kids will be worthless once AY is built.

Oh wait, it's not going to be built.

Never mind.

As you were.

Cupcake?

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 5:01 PM

I'm gay, 4:52, so not only do I not have a piece of paper to signify my committment to my partner, but unless you'd like to carry a baby for me, I probably won't have one of those either.

They too 'spensive.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 5:03 PM

I wish i had a business to advertise on this site!

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 5:05 PM

"I feel bad for you - you fail to see the joy, challenge and beauty of taking on (the true) lifetime commitment of raising a child from an infant to an adult (and hopefully into middle-age)
yet you are committed to a partner that statistically you have a very good shot of ending up divorced from (leaving you significantly poorer) or not entirely compatible with in your later years (leaving you pretty lonely). "

so you had a baby to not be lonely???

oh god help little Ronen....

if he's a boy, you might want to get the "we're here, we're queer flag up and a waivin"

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 5:06 PM

Cupcakes, yum! I'll pour the milk!

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 5:09 PM

Then guess what 5:03! - Your not married and until you are, all your posts pontificating about the "proper" reason to get MARRIED are essentially the naive rantings of someone who really has no idea about what they speak (don't worry - you fit in perfectly here at Brownstoner)

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 5:11 PM

Did you people not hear what I said? NAZI! NAZI NAZI NAZI! Why won't you work, Godwin's Law?! Why won't this thread end?!

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 5:12 PM

My children are enjoying this thread.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 5:14 PM

5:06 - congratulations based on your post it appears your reading comprehension level is so low as to qualify you for SSI.

No my child is not a boy, nor do I think that homosexuality is a defect caused by bad parenting (poor reading skills are however)

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 5:16 PM

At least I don't need a kid to make me happy.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 5:18 PM

I hope ALL the kid stores in Park Slope close, just so 5:16 can cry her daughter to sleep every night.

BTW, lady...you asked the following question...

"And if you are that minority couple that can stay happily together forever with little personal/emotional sacrifice - I still have to ask - why did you need some legal and religious commitment to facilitate that?"

I think I answered that quite well. I DON'T have a legal paper and I AM quite happily together with someone who I don't plan to have children with.

And you know what...if we grow apart, I'll find someone else or I'll be alone. I like myself very much and enjoy my life...someone only adds to that, it doesn't MAKE my life what it is.

Sounds like if (god forbid) anything would happen to your daughter or husband, you'd not really have much to live for, and that's a real shame and a waste of a human being (you).

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 5:24 PM

"I DON'T have a legal paper and I AM quite happily together with someone who I don't plan to have children with."

"And you know what...if we grow apart, I'll find someone else or I'll be alone..."

Yes you will and it won't cost you over 1/2 your net worth and massive legal bills to do it. Thank you for making my point about child rearing being a justification for MARRIAGE so clearly.

Just in case it still isnt clear to you

A "commitment" is NOT MARRIAGE

Move in together, sign a domestic partnership agreement; invite your partner's family into your life as though they were your family, sign over 1/2 your net worth, 1/2 your current earnings and a percentage of your future earnings to your partner - wait 3-5 years and then we'll talk.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 5:36 PM

5:16's husband must be so glad to know she only married him in order to create a stable environment she views as mandatory for a child.

Do you really think your daughter isn't going to figure this out? That little whore will be sucking the neighbor dilf's cock for meth money before she hits 16.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 5:40 PM

Oh and BTW - I am not a "lady" and I am happily married; but to be happily MARRIED it takes work and sacrifice - and you give up a certain portion of yourself (as well as many legal rights) for the good of the whole - and even then it often doesnt "work" - so I again say - I see little justification to get MARRIED (not just "committed") if your not going to have children .

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 5:42 PM

5:36 sounds like my mother - who was married to my dad for over 50 years, was a raging alcoholic, suffered from depression and was the loneliest and most self-loathing person I ever knew.

So glad she did what was expected of her instead of what made her happy.

Too bad she didn't live in Park Slope. She would have met more people just like her and they could have wallowed in their misery togehter at Snooky's (until that too closed).
Maybe one of the brats in the hood will re-open it

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 5:52 PM

5:42 needs a nap and a diaper change.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 5:53 PM

you sound so unhappy, 5:42.

it comes through in every one of your posts.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 5:53 PM

"5:36 sounds like my mother - who was married to my dad for over 50 years, was a raging alcoholic, suffered from depression and was the loneliest and most self-loathing person I ever knew."

You must be pretty well adjusted to trash your Mom in this way.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 5:57 PM

Wow 5:52 - imagine that - your Mom sacrificed her happiness to do what she thought was right - which was presumably for YOU.
and now you mock and deride her on a message board. Very nice!
I assume you normal posts are rants about the self-absorbed "entitled" park slope parents....

It would be redundant but amusing if you signed all your future posts with the tag - Hypocrite

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 6:01 PM

Not all mothers are perfect, 5:57.

Guess you think we should love them no matter what.

Even the ones who drown their own kids, leave them in a 100 degree car, abuse them, or wake up in a pool of their own vomit every night.

I guarantee you your daughter is going to need some SERIOUS therapy when she gets older. And clearly I'm not the only one on this thread who thinks you're nuttier than a grey squirrel in heat.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 6:02 PM

Dear Physcho Mother and Wife:

Please don't show your husband this thread tonight. He won't be pleased that the only reason you've married him and had a child was so that you "weren't as poor" and "not as lonely"

God you are pathetic.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 6:04 PM

"Not all mothers are perfect, 5:57. Guess you think we should love them no matter what."

Yep, that's the general idea. If they have some of the problems you mentioned, their loved ones should try to get them help. If they refuse help, there isn't much anyone can do. But deriding the person on a blog is wrong anyway you look at it. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 6:10 PM

Nothing says romance like this:

"Oh and BTW - I am not a "lady" and I am happily married; but to be happily MARRIED it takes work and sacrifice - and you give up a certain portion of yourself (as well as many legal rights) for the good of the whole - and even then it often doesnt "work" - so I again say - I see little justification to get MARRIED (not just "committed") if your not going to have children."

Hallmark card, anyone???

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 6:10 PM

"Not all mothers are perfect, 5:57. Guess you think we should love them no matter what."

Yep, that's the general idea. If they have some of the problems you mentioned, their loved ones should try to get them help. If they refuse help, there isn't much anyone can do. But deriding the person on a blog is wrong anyway you look at it. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 6:10 PM

1st of all 5:57 isnt me (5:36, 5:42, 6:01 etc..) and secondly you didn't criticize your mother for drowning her kids, or abusing you - you criticized her for not doing what made her happy (in other words sacrificing herself).

Face it- you actually are the typical "entitled" self-absorbed a$$hole that you love to anonymously attack on boards such as this. Don't worry - we always knew that your comments were really just disguised envy over money ( and likely) social acceptance.

As for my daughters, don't you worry about them - if a sicko like you (nice post at 5:40) can scrape up enough money for a computer and an internet connection, they will be quite successful and have more then enough cash to get whatever therepy they think they need.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 6:11 PM

Yowza, this thread took a very dark turn.

I think I need a dose of Cute Overload as a palate cleanser.

And a cupcake.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 6:19 PM

6:10 - I hate to burst your "teenage girl" bubble but life isnt a Hallmark card.

True (mature) love is actually about sacrifice and giving, not about individual "happiness" "romance" and taking.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 6:19 PM

Hey--any of you PS moms got the scoop on what happened at the 7th Ave Barnes & Noble the other day? One of you & your kids got thrown out for bad behavior? Details?

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 6:38 PM

All ya gotta do is put the word "baby" in a post about Park Slope and you're guaranteed almost 100 comments.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 6:39 PM

I would like to throw in my support behind the mother who people think is crazy. I think she has a very valid point of view - obviously historically the institution of marriage was created to raise families. Not saying that people can't, don't or shouldn't get married for other reasons, but it is a PERFECTLY legitimate point of view to feel it is unnecessary to bind yourself to someone in such a way if you're not having children. I dont' get the sense at all that she is unhappy - marriage and raising children is hard - saying so does not mean you're unhappy. sounds like none of you have ever thought ;hilisophically about the institution of marriage in your life - which frankly is what leads to so many divorces in this country.

Also, her point about the big boxes was that it's better to have local kids stores so that parents don't have to drive to big box stores in other places to buy things - not that there are or will be big box stores in Park Slope.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 6:46 PM

I think people who post comments are idiots. Or Nazis. Though Nazis had better stuff to do. Like killing Jews, Gypsies & Homosexuals. But all of you are obviously worse. I mean, would Himmler waste his time like this?

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 6:53 PM

Make my cupcake a double.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 6:57 PM

I don't know, why don't you tell us 6:53 blog poster time waster.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 6:58 PM

5:52 commenting on their mother is not reflection on his/her feelings towards their mother. At no point in that post did they say they hated their mother. I think they were taking a dig at the crazy "lady."

If you were offended by the post, take a look at your own issues and don't project.

So, crazy "lady," what do you do with yourself when you become post-menepausal and/or your children become adults and no longer need you to raise them? Ever thought of killing yourself? Sounds like a really good idea to me.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 7:13 PM

7:13, there's always someone who goes over the line on these threads and here you are, typing in your claptrap from a lonely Burger King. I pity you.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 7:22 PM

7:22: are you the crazy "lady"?

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 7:24 PM

Actually, 7:24 I'm a pretty sane transvestite.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 7:27 PM

Burger King has wi-fi, 7:22?! Did you install it yourself or do you just handle the fry-o-lator?

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 7:31 PM

seriously, 3:35, that incense was GODAWFUL. I'd rather be trapped on an elevator with a Pall Mall chainsmoker.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 7:31 PM

Where is The tWhat?

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 7:37 PM

In the 1800's we had the Civil War.

Now it's the SINGLES VS. THE BREEDERS!!!

Save your crotchfruit!

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 7:41 PM

I don't have kids and NEVER want them. I am quite happy with my life and the last thing I want is an obnoxious brat to consume my life.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 7:42 PM

I hate to break it to you guys but there is no "crazy lady; I (5:36, 5:42, 6:01 etc..) am not a mother, wife or a women - I am a man (father and husband).
However speaking of "carzy" whats with the anger there 7:13? Sounds like our decision not to have children is a wise one for all!

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 7:45 PM

Ditto, 7:42.

No desire.

I have WAY too much fun and love to travel too much and love my boyfriend and my job and home improvement and shopping and all that for a kid!!!

Thank goodness others want them, but to be honest...the world is overpopulated as it is.

A few less kids certainly can't hurt.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 7:45 PM

So anyone got the scoop on the Barnes + Noble scandal?

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 7:48 PM

OMG...you are a MAN??!!!!!

OH HELLZ TO THE NO!!!

YOU MUST BE 95!!!!!

THIS ISN'T 1920 ANYMORE, BUDDY!!!!!

GROW SOME BALLS.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 7:49 PM

Did anyone see that demographic data above?

Frankly I was surprised there were so many singles in Park Slope.

We outnumber the milfs and dilfs!!!

So over all this kiddie crap on 7th Avenue. I hope they turn all these closings into loud ass bars so all the mommies will move to Carroll Gardens where they belong.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 7:52 PM

7:49 does your post make sense in your bizzaro world

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 7:53 PM

they don't call it park dope for nothin

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 7:55 PM

I nominate 7:45 (the "crazy lady") as the new What.

All in favor, raise your hands.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 8:07 PM

7:42, I think you have made a wise decision. Anyone who assumes that their child would be a brat is probably one themselves, so makes sense their crotchfruit would be. I suggest a vasectomy.

As for 7:45, you seem a bit more thoughtful and I respect your desire to live the life you have chosen, which truly would not allow for raising kids. Just promise me you won't change your mind and become some mid forties new mom. It's now or never!

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 8:10 PM

CRAZY LADY!

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 11:38 PM

I heard that a video store(actually a dvd) rental store is moving into Romp's location.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 1:08 AM

who opens a dvd store in this day and age? might as well open a typewriter repair shop.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 6:23 AM

I too can't understand why anyone would get married and stay monogomous unless they are (1) having children or (2) hideously ugly and asexual.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 9:00 AM

I am happily married and my wife and I do not want or plan to ever have children. We have nothing against people who have kids and only wish that they would extend us the same courtesy. Unfortunately, this is too much to ask from some people, who insist on implying that marriage is worthless without children. I disagree and cite my happiness as proof.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 9:38 AM

Well, you've convinced yourself of the lie that you live every day, 9:38--and that is an accomplishment worth applauding. BRAVO!

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 9:47 AM

I'm not 9:38--but are you serious 9:47? Are you an actual thinking adult human being? You are your ilk are what make this world such a shitty place.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 9:58 AM

Marriage has nothing to do with kids. Your kids do not need for you to be married and you certainly do not need to have kids to make your marriage worthwhile.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 10:09 AM

I'm 9:47's wife and how DARE you--9:58--speak to my husband that way? Just goes to show you that single people don't want to hear the truth! They just want to go to their singles bars and go on dates and smoke cigarettes and drink. I tell ya!

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 10:17 AM

Once again, earth-shattering meteor, where are you!?!?!?!

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 10:35 AM

Ewww - the fact that the crazy lady is actually a husband makes me retract my support. Clearly he is obsessed with the fact that he has to share his income with his wife and children. I would be really depressed if I found my husband harping on those issues so aggressively. I kind of thought it sounded like a man, I've never heard a woman - even one who makes far more than her husband - express concern about sharing income and giving up legal rights in marriage. But thought when he didn't contradict all the posts identifying him as a crazy mother that he must be female. All I can say is YUCK.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 10:49 AM

10:49 - I have no issue giving all my income to my family - thats a huge portion of what the Marriage contract is about - but I see no reason why anyone would CONTRACTUALLY do so if someone is foregoing children and the reason they are bonded to another person is solely out of love and companionship.

It is also interesting that your 'support' was contingent on my gender - Clearly it is you who is still living in 1955.

I find it amazing that the "brownstoner mob', which would appear to support a liberal/progressive agenda is so old fashioned when it comes to the most conservative of all institutions = marriage. If most of you weren't so annoyingly hypocritical it would almost be kinda sweet.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 11:08 AM

THANK you, 10:49.

I'm the gay guy from yesterday and I'd also like to point out all the terrific lesbian and male couples who have managed to raise beautiful and well-adjusted children, WITHOUT BEING MARRIED!!!!

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 11:10 AM

I hear a typewriter repair shop's going into the ROMP space. But they only serve people with ugly children. No singles or non-parents allowed in.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 11:11 AM

I find it amazing that the Crazy Male Lady is still yammering on.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 11:14 AM

9:38 - Unfortunately for you, using your current happiness as a justification for a PLANNED childless marriage really is way to premature and in a way not relevant.

The issue is 1. Would you be unhappy with your partner if you werent married. 2. How does being married enhance your relationship/happiness 3.If you eventually break apart do you both still believe marriage was the best course. and 4. How will you answer 1 & 2 in the twilight of your life (i.e. in reflection).

I really don't think people need to choose between Children or being unattached to find happiness - the only thing I am saying - which is apparently quite crazy here on "Leave it to Beaver" is that MARRIAGE is a pretty old fashioned notion, that to me only makes sense if you plan on having a family.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 11:16 AM

10:49 gay male - you seem to be implying that the institution of marriage offers nothing beneficial towards raising a family. Ok - so if that is the case, presumably you also believe (as do I) that gay couples can have wonderfully bonded, committed, stable relationships without marriage as well (i.e. no children) - so then please explain to me what in your mind is the REASON that one needs to contractually bond themselves to another person, where the only way out is through a legal adversarial (no such thing as No Fault in NYS) process?

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 11:23 AM

Actually 11:16 - studies have found that people who are married are happier, healthier and live longer than people who are not married. Studies have also found that married people without children are happier than married people with children (really no surprise when you have children...)

I'm just sayin'

and p.s. I am married with children. Think I probably would have wanted to get married even if I wasn't planning on having children, but that's most likely from social pressures that I have internalized (not joking).

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 11:26 AM

"so then please explain to me what in your mind is the REASON that one needs to contractually bond themselves to another person, where the only way out is through a legal adversarial (no such thing as No Fault in NYS) process?"

because I am a human being born in the united states. and as a human being, i deserve the same right to marry as every other human being in the united states.

it is not about "NEED" it is about wanting the same as everyone else, if i so choose.

i never said i needed to get married (that's you CRAZY MAN). but i should be allowed if i choose to commit to another human being in that fashion.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 11:29 AM

11:26 - I dont disagree but only point out that those studies do not take into consideration the effect of that social pressure or (more importantly) that over 50% of marriages end in divorce.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 11:30 AM

I can't wait till Pinkberry opens on 7th Avenue and Berkeley!

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 11:31 AM

11:29 - I fully support you - 1000%; still doesn't give a REASON WHY (having that right) you would make that choice.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 11:31 AM

I don't understand why a lot of people do a lot of things. I don't understand why we are at war with a country who didn't invade or plan to invade us. I don't understand how it's possible that we have one of the most idiotic men running our country and I don't understand why people would vote for john mccain.

that's what makes the world go around though. some people want to get married, some people don't. it's not up to you to decide who should and should not marry.

it's a personal decision and one in which every human being should be able to make for themselves without juddgement from others.

there are way more important things to discuss than why you seem to think that the only reason to get married is to have kids.

meanwhile 10,000 kids a day are dying in africa. maybe you should spend some time figuring out why that is before spending too much more energy on admonishing people on this board for living their life.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 11:38 AM

11:38 - so in short - you have NO REASON.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 11:39 AM

There are some sick and uptight people in Brooklyn.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 11:41 AM

11:39 = nazi

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 11:45 AM

11:45 = least creative person in the history of the known universe.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 11:50 AM

I cannot WAIT for that typewriter repair shop. My '81 Emerald Green Selectric has been acting up lately, and I've got to get these dittos finished before tomorrow's pop quiz!!

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 11:51 AM

Anyhooo... I think a video store would be good in the hood. All we have now is Hollywood Video near 8th St. & Get Reel on St. Marks (which has the worst service in the world!) Gotta supplement my Netflix.

Anyone have anything to say that's germane to the original post?

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 11:53 AM

11:53

I think that was covered already...

Romp going to be a new video store, Barker Posey is going to be a crappy new kiddie store and there's a new jewelry store opening where the frame shop was.

That covers it all.

Now back to bashing that totally, off his rocker husband who has no backbone.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 12:00 PM

"....who has no backbone."

what does that even mean????

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 12:02 PM

The problem with hip high-end amenities throughout a neighborhood, is you end up with no places to buy the things and services you need in real life on a day to day basis.

Look at Soho. Totally useless as a residential neighborhood unless the only thing you shop for are designer boots. And you actually enjoy living in an outdoor version of Mall of America.

PS should really hope to hang onto the drycleaners, the tailors, the barbershops, the shoe repair place.

As for kids stores unless you have no problem paying $50 for a onesie your baby can wear for a month or two, you're out of luck. Park Slope kids stores are great for finding special baby gifts but not for acquiring your children's entire wardrobes. Most Park Slope parents surely order their kids clothing from Gap.com. If they don't, they're waayyy too status conscious.
Read = insecure. You know, like having to have the "right" stroller.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 12:05 PM

it means whatever you want it to mean.

i personally think he is nuts.

anyone who got married solely because they are having kids doesn't make much sense to me. marriage is a union between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, a man and a man or an ape and an ape.

not a man or woman and child.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 12:07 PM

As for kids stores unless you have no problem paying $50 for a onesie your baby can wear for a month or two, you're out of luck. Park Slope kids stores are great for finding special baby gifts but not for acquiring your children's entire wardrobes. Most Park Slope parents surely order their kids clothing from Gap.com. If they don't, they're waayyy too status conscious.
Read = insecure. You know, like having to have the "right" stroller.

You are INCREDIBLY naive if you think this is a phenomenon known exclusively to Park Slope.

You've just described EVERY liberal parent in America.

Which is why this conversation is always SO STUPID!

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 12:09 PM

"it means whatever you want it to mean."

12:07 - so in short - it means NOTHING.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 12:12 PM

Yeah, 12:09, right wing wackos such as yourself don't spend ridiculous amounts on their kids, no never. Please do us a favor and shut the fuck up.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 12:14 PM

I'm not a parent, nor am I in any way conservative, 12:14.

You're sorry.

Most republicans are too uneducated and poor to be able to afford $50 onesies anyway.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 12:17 PM

I'm a liberal and I totally agree liberals in America today are extremely narcissistic and status conscious and have departed from original liberal values almost entirely. The problem with Republicans pointing this out to Democrats, is if there are any more hypocritical people than the Democrats it's the Republicans. They're in no position to lecture the liberals about anything.

I hope the recession reminds people what's important in life. Clue - it's not $50 onesies and $1,000 strollers.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 12:28 PM

People who believe they can ACCURATELY categorize the behavior and attitudes of huge groups based on ascribed titles such as "Democrat" or "Republican" (much less "liberals" and "conservatives") are either complete idiots or intellectually lazy.

Yes I know the media does exactly the above - thereby helping to prove my point.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 12:39 PM

Is the answer $1,000 onesies?

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 12:40 PM

People in Brooklyn are really not thinking about status when they buy their strollers- they're just trying to find the stroller that makes life in NYC with small fry as manageable as possible. People who have fancy strollers in places like LA ARE being status conscious because it really doesn't matter at all what kind of stroller they have since for the most part they drive and then just pop their stroller in and out of the back of their car. In Brooklyn you walk at least 1.5 miles a day with your stroller and need to go in and out of subways, up and down stoops, etc etc etc. there are only a few strollers that have all the qualities one needs to do all these things without having a nervous breakdown, and unfortunately they are expensive. that is why every parent in brooklyn has the same stroller.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 12:41 PM

I'll bet if some of these snarky singles took a ride in a bugaboo, they'd continue their arrested adolescence even LONGER.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 12:47 PM

One actual point of reference to note on the stroller issue that NEVER gets brought to light (and I say this as a single person who has no children and quite frankly...they kinda annoy the hell outta me, but I digress...)

Park Slope, in many places...especially along 7th Avenue and the sidestreets have the old bluestone sidewalks, where in many places they are heaving around trees and generally NOT FLAT.

I can absolutely see why some people need more higher endurance strollers...I oftetimes trip along these same sidewalks and if there is a neighborhood where these heavy duty strollers are needed, it would be Park Slope...

Just an actual fact to ponder...

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 12:47 PM

Hey, as far as strollers go--for any kid over 1, all you need is the $50 Cicco Caddy. Thing is LIGHT, durable easy to fold and plows through snow. They should sell them on the side at that new typewriter repair shop that's going into the old "Romp" space...

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 12:48 PM

Any single person (or married w/ no plans of having children) who knows about, cares about and has opinion on stroller brands and prices is an envy filled loser with too much time on their hands.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 12:59 PM

I'm a single person with no kids, but I make my living stealing strollers--so I MUST be up on the latest brands and prices, 12:59. And I work 60 hours a week, so kiss my ass you liberal!!

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 1:01 PM

go back to your rathole, 12:59.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 1:04 PM

The bugaboo strollers are not the only ones that can take bumps in sidewalks. Most are built for that now. As for being convenient to carry up and down subways steps are you kidding? They're huge and ungainly. I never see bugaboos on the subways. Never. They're only for strolling around Park Slope and to the playground. And it's tough in status-conscious Park Slope to not have the cool expensive stroller.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 1:09 PM

I don't find Park Slope at all status conscious, actually.

People seem to wear what they want, I see quite a few stoner types around and people seem pretty chill.

There is about 2% of the population who are slightly agressive mom's, but I really don't get what all of you are talking about.

Most people complain that Park Slopers dress horribly and in crocs, so how exactly is that status conscious.

When I think of status conscious I think of the meatpacking district where everyone is wearing Christian Dior sunglasses at midnight.

You people need to get out more if you truly believe Park Slope is even remotely like that.

And all because of a nice looking stroller that some have chosen to buy.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 1:15 PM

I push my kid around in an old shopping cart I stole from one of the scrap metal guys down at the junkyard on 6th st and 2nd ave. Works just fine, but our Nanny always complains that she gets strange looks. Status conscious Tibetans!!!

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 1:17 PM

the only reason people berade others for their choice of strollers is jealousy. no one complains if someone decides to spend 50k on a bmw, volvo or audi...those aren't condisered status conscious to most, but people are so insanely jealous of people who have 1000 bucks to drop on a stroller, that their only response is to denounce them.

it's like 5th grade all over again.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 1:17 PM

I'd say 7th grade is a more appropriate comparison, 1:17. Jr. high is the cruellest.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 1:20 PM

Don't need this thread anymore. The new one about the bar on Vanderbilt has all the makings of a classic Brownstoner neighborhood war!

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 2:39 PM

1:15 - Wait so are you saying that all these stroller brand/anti-PS/anti-mom posts are actually the pointless hypocritical rantings of a bunch jealous people who are actually themselves consumed with all things material and status conscious???

You don't say......I wonder if they are writing those posts on an iphone or ibook?

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 3:05 PM

i like to make my bstoner comments from my ibook and iphone simultaneously.

- douglas elliman broker

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 3:32 PM

Crazy Male Husband Father Lady,

You keep writing that nobody is giving any good reason for being married if they don't have kids. For the answer to that, I suggest you speak with your accountant, estate attorney, oh and maybe your wife's lover/your daughters' future stepdad.

Now, why don't you explain why someone needs to be married if they do have kids. You seem to be arguing the kids make it necessary, but that is in no way true.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 3:39 PM

So 3:39 still cant answer the question!

But I'll answer you - some reasons why I think it makes sense to form a legal/financial bond (i.e. Marriage) when having children is-

it provides additional financial security to the spouse that chooses to sacrifice (any) portion of their career for child rearing; it can provide financial benefits for the child related to insurance and inheritance. It imposes a penalty on 'leaving' the union thereby helping maintain the family unit. It formally (and socially) bonds the paternal and maternal sides of the family and Societal expectations are such that failing to get married may leave a child feeling less secure and 'different' related to his/her peers.

Those are my reasons - accept or reject them as you wish but again I must ask why do 2 (presumably) equal partners who are allegedly committed to each other need to LEGALLY/FINANCIALLY bond themselves to each other if they have no intention of having a family?

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 4:19 PM

"it provides additional financial security to the spouse that chooses to sacrifice (any) portion of their career for child rearing"

unnecesary. this can be legally accomplished through child support rather than marriage.

"it can provide financial benefits for the child related to insurance and inheritance"

again marriage of the parents has nothing to do with insurance or inheritance.

"It imposes a penalty on 'leaving' the union thereby helping maintain the family unit."

To what end? This is just as desirable to the childless married couples you accuse of being irrational.

It formally (and socially) bonds the paternal and maternal sides of the family and Societal expectations are such that failing to get married may leave a child feeling less secure and 'different' related to his/her peers.

Worst yet of your arguments given the failure rates of marriage that you yourself have cited. To the extent that such familial and societal expectations and support do exist and are beneficial, they would lend support to the marriages without children as well.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 4:37 PM

We are now at 151 posts and when you get past all the unsolicited insults directed at me (Crazy, drug addict/slut daughter, nazi etc....) and ill-informed critiques (ex. CHILD support - is not for the financial security of a SPOUSE and penalizing divorce IMHO should be for the benefit of the CHILD not to hold free-thinking adults together) - the fact remains you still cannot offer any basis to my original premise -

why would 2 (presumably) equal partners who are allegedly committed to each other need to LEGALLY/FINANCIALLY bond themselves to each other if they have no intention of having a family?

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 4:52 PM

Someone said:

"the only reason people berade others for their choice of strollers is jealousy. no one complains if someone decides to spend 50k on a bmw, volvo or audi...those aren't condisered status conscious to most, but people are so insanely jealous of people who have 1000 bucks to drop on a stroller, that their only response is to denounce them."

Ah yes, the old "you're just jealous" response. Nobody is jealous here. Ever heard of differences in personal values? Why isn't there room for even a conversation about it?

Some people don't believe spending $1,000 on a stroller because it's wasteful. Plain and simple. It has nothing to do with how much money anybody has. Old money never spends like new money, that's for sure. The richest kid in our high school drove an old station wagon and the nouveau riche kids drove the BMW's. My father had twice the money the BMW kids families had, and he bought me a beat up 70's muscle car. I loved it. My friends thought it was cool. Because they were cool. I'd have hated to be one of the barbie doll girls (now grown into barbie doll mommies) who are terrified of what everyone thinks of them all the time. If that's the way you want to live, that's fine. Just don't project it on me, thanks. I am not jealous of bugaboo strollers. If we wanted one we could easily afford it. I'd just rather put the money in a college savings account. Imagine that.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 5:17 PM

We don't NEED to marry. That's what makes marriage special. Because it's something people WANT to do. It's funny how anti-marriage people always use the fact marriage is not necessary to disparage the institution of marriage. When I think that's the very thing that makes marriage so romantic, that it's not necessary.

I am an atheist and don't hold a moral view people have to be married. But I have always believed the non-married couples have a committment or confidence issue they're not acknowledging. Being married is absolutely different from just being together. I've never met a married person who said otherwise. The difference between the opinions of those who have never been married and those who are married, is the unmarried have only been in unmarried relationships, and the married people have been both unmarried and married relationships. So who is the more informed? Never-married people telling married people it's all the same is absurd. How the heck do they know?

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 5:30 PM

5:17...

it's good you are so open minded.

a nice trait, indeed.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 5:33 PM

5:17 - but as you type on your (price premium) Apple computer, in a coffee shop that charges $5 a cup - did you ever stop and consider that maybe SOME of the people who buy a $700 stroller think it is actually functionally better and since they use it everyday for hours at a time over a course of years - the pennies extra it costs (amortized) isnt a waste or a luxury at all???

I dont have such a stroller but then again I never used one. However,until EVERYTHING I buy is the least expensive most basic model available - I am going to refrain from criticizing and generalizing people who I don't even know simply because they didnt do the same.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 5:38 PM

"I'd just rather put the money in a college savings account. Imagine that."

My wife and I combined make 350K a year, we paid cash for our brownstone in 2003 and it's now worth double (on paper, of course), we have 200K in college savings for our 2 year old daughter and a we have a little over 2 million in our own portfolio and donate a sizeable portion of our income each year to charity. We are both 33.

Why can't we spend 1000 bucks on a stroller if we want to? Who are you to tell us what is too much to spend?

That's how much we spend on eating out in a month so I think it's a worthwhile investment on a stroller.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 5:41 PM

"We don't NEED to marry. That's what makes marriage special. Because it's something people WANT to do"

Ok so substitute want for need if that makes you feel better:

why would 2 (presumably) equal partners who are allegedly committed to each other WANT to LEGALLY/FINANCIALLY bond themselves to each other if they have no intention of having a family?

BTW - I have asked this as a married and unmarried person.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 5:42 PM

you are an idiot, 5:42.

every person on this thread disagrees with you, but you keep spouting the same nonsense over and over.

go live your sexless, unfullfilled life strapped to your overbearing wife and leave us alone.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 5:51 PM

5:42 you really are an idiot and we GET it. You want to go out and get laid, you feel trapped in your marriage and NEVER would have considered marrying your poor wife if you didn't need her to raise your offspring. we GET IT> For god's sake.

AND to the person who just felt the need to brag about his income, savings and real estate purchasing power - your post just justified everyone's suspicion that people who buy $1000 dollar strollers are indeed status-conscious idiots.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 6:15 PM

Some people think it's absolutely romantic to commit to someone for the rest of their lives. I believe most people who get married do it because they think it's a sweet and genuine display of affection and love--total commitment. Of course, it doesn't work out 1/2 the time. But I think it's pretty obvious that that's what motivates *most* marriages. Kids are an afterthought.

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 7:57 PM

Wow, I am so happy this thread is still going. I think I'm going to buy a bottle of bourbon, find that 350K annually couple, and have a drunken threesome. They sound fun!

Posted by: guest at January 31, 2008 11:33 PM