Of course you'll read it--it practically a shopping list of NYC's "flippant," "hipster" baby stores--but Daisy Carrington's NY Observer article about the wrongness of dressing your city kid in shirts with political, punk, and or hipster-related outfits gets a lot wrong itself.
She's starts out fine: Che Guevara onesies DO have basically zero political content now; they're just a standardized icon of rebellion. [Which isn't to say the kid didn't have one; of course she did.] But there's a world of difference between projecting "cool" onto your kid [e.g., Sonic Youth or Sid Vicious] and projecting "political" on them [e.g., "George Bush poopyhead"].
But what's this crap? "What kind of unresolved adolescent anger are New York parents trying to express by plastering images of angry rockers and political revolutionaries on their tots? Could it maybe be anger at the pressure to acquire a baby, now, as if it were the latest Marc Jacobs handbagˇcramming it into your closet of an unaffordable one-bedroom?" Does seeing a kid in a Ramones bodysuit really provoke randoms to such paroxysms of over-analysis?
On the bright side, a shopper in the Jacadi on Madison Avenue actually told a reporter, ýThat would not be my cup of tea.ţ [She was from New Jersey.] Rather than take cheap potshots at Billyburg hipsters, I'd like to see the Observer do a takedown of the parents who go all out with the "classic" thing, all flannel pants and cashmere. Maybe we can call them Cookie-cutter kids.
Red Diapers, Platinum Umbilical [observer, expiring link]
previously: Che Onesies [sic] and punk baby clothes
get your own Che gear at appaman