Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

Friday, November 14, 2008

How the Other Side Lives... and Breeds

Posted by Dominic Holden on Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:08 AM

I just got back from the Treehouse Wearhouse, a shopping center for kids who are in the state welfare system and under foster care. The clothes, shoes, toys, etc. are all free. It’s pretty amazing. The Stranger is donating the proceeds from our annual charity auction, Strangercrombie, to Treehouse.

The parents and guardians I spoke to can't afford socks. So they also can't afford “kids couture” from Matooka, a link sent by Slog tipper Jubilation T. Cornball. The child clothier's web site is promoting the spring 2009 line of semi-sexualized clothing for little girls. Each outfit is about $650. This one is called “chip on her shoulder”:

kids_couture_matooka.jpg

Perhaps I have a chip on my shoulder because I just spent three hours among abject poverty—poor black kids who can’t afford socks and just want a good home. Then to see Matooka dressing up little girls as hussies in outfits that retail at the cost of clothing for 15 kids but will be outgrown by next season... ugh. It's sickening on so many levels. And it gets worse. Matooka is donating the proceeds, not to adopting poor kids, but to this:

Our goal is to bring the Matooka look to as many little girls as possible. So much so that we proudly donate 10% of our profits to research in infertility and to families undergoing costly assisted reproductive treatments.

You can donate auction packages to Strangercombie by sending us an email.

Share via

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Newsvine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Email
 

Comments (34) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
EWWWW GROSS. Yeah lets donate a whopping 10% to those rich white people who just NEED their OWN spawn....so they can buy more of our clothing....ew ew ew
Posted by randi on November 14, 2008 at 11:14 AM
2
Any parent who would even think of spending $650 to dress their little girl up in high fashion slut attire is an idiot, I don't care how rich they may be. The fact that there is a market for this speaks poorly of us as Americans.
Posted by Hernandez on November 14, 2008 at 11:16 AM
3
oh dominic, don't tell me you don't know at least 2 or 3 of your gay friends that have spent that amount of money on clothing in one shopping expedition.
Posted by Bellevue Ave on November 14, 2008 at 11:19 AM
4
It's important that Daddy's Little Tax Deduction learn about entitlement early. If possible, from the moment of fertilization.

"Daddy, where do babies come from?"
"Well pumpkin, when a mommy and daddy love each other very much, they pay some doctors several hundred thousand dollars, and if everything goes right, three years later...."
Posted by flamingbanjo on November 14, 2008 at 11:22 AM
5
Also, that outfit is pretty ugly. I'd never let my theoretical kid wear it, mostly because I'd want to dress my theoretical kid better.
Posted by Abby on November 14, 2008 at 11:22 AM
6
I think you meant: "abject poverty—poor kids who can't afford socks..."
Maybe all the kids you saw there today were black, but Treehouse addresses an economic problem, not a racial one.
Yay Treehouse, and yay Stranger for supporting Treehouse!
Posted by compulsive copyeditor on November 14, 2008 at 11:24 AM
7
Dom - get a grip .... you sound a bit silly.

There have always been upscale party and Sunday outfits for little girls and boys from families of wealth.

And in most of the Euro world, formal and dress up is very common compared to Seattle.

Parents with money lavish it on their kids. Why is that so shocking?
Nice outfit - little girl paid t to model - smart mother would put red leggings on her to complete the ensemble.

Mocking high end clothes for kids is a bit dullard ... I doted on mine, and, guess what, both turned out just fine.

Ask Dan what he will spend on his kids first sets of really good dress clothes. You will be shocked. Dan will not be shopping at K-Mart ...

Your charity choice is excellent. One of my sisters was a case worker for foster kids and she had her own clothing bank for her kids and was always getting some cash from family and friends. State allowances are puny for these kids and very short the real cost of decent threads for school, incl. good coats and shoes.

Course, a bit later, they go to Goodwill when they discover it is hip .....thanks God.
Posted by Adam on November 14, 2008 at 11:24 AM
8
Of course they donate to infertility research and costly assisted reproductive treatments. Their customers likely include a lot of yuppie couples that needed fertility assistance b/c they waited well past the historic child-bearing age range to start spawing hyper-spoiled kids. Madrona/Leschi is awash in these couples.
Posted by Sad on November 14, 2008 at 11:25 AM
9
@ 6) Point taken--Treehouse serves children of all races. But that sentence is about my experience. I saw dozens of kids, and every single one of them was black.
Posted by Dominic Holden on November 14, 2008 at 11:27 AM
10
Stupid and ugly, yes. Slutty? I don't think so.
Posted by NaFun on November 14, 2008 at 11:31 AM
11
Is this loli?
Posted by Pedo Bear on November 14, 2008 at 11:36 AM
12
Ew. Just looking at that website made me feel like a pedophile.
Posted by ew on November 14, 2008 at 11:37 AM
13
c'mon dude, documentation is thee way to go. "How Was It?" helloo?? Where is Feit?! Dan, is it true you fired him??
Posted by gry mklsk on November 14, 2008 at 11:39 AM
14
I dunno, seems awfully obscene to me.
Posted by TVDinner on November 14, 2008 at 11:45 AM
15
megan (and dom), is it possible to have a 'sock drive' at the next two SLOG happys? everyone can bring socks, which are then donated to treehouse. maybe hats and gloves, too. just suggestin'.
Posted by scary tyler moore on November 14, 2008 at 11:45 AM
16
This is about the same as when ECB had a fit because some people in Fremont donated a couple thousand dollars for a dog's medical bills.

Look. If a necessary program is not being funded, talk about getting it funded. Shut up about what everyone does with what they have left over.
Posted by elenchos on November 14, 2008 at 11:52 AM
17
@12 but saying a bikini for children is pedo bait was completely ludicrous.
Posted by Bellevue Ave on November 14, 2008 at 11:52 AM
18
The way the photographs on that site are styled is a bit sexed up for a six year old. Even the shot in this post... I don't know, they are styled and posed exactly as if they were adults, and that is what creeps me out.

I have no problems with bikinis on little kids (for example), but don't photograph them as if they were in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition.
Posted by Julie in Chicago on November 14, 2008 at 12:03 PM
19
ah, the old saw of "how can you be so crass with all these poor people! Don't you know you're supposed to be sharing in their misery?"

Posted by AR on November 14, 2008 at 12:03 PM
20
"I just spent three hours among abject poverty"

That gives you the right to have a chip on your shoulder?
Posted by Your Name Here on November 14, 2008 at 12:05 PM
21
Shades of Jon Benet Ramsey.... gross.
Posted by Uncle Pervy on November 14, 2008 at 12:17 PM
22
"saw dozens of kids, and every single one of them was black."

===========

Wow, that's like getting a "Wimpy White Seattle Liberal Merit Badge"!!!
Posted by Wimpy White Seattle Liberal on November 14, 2008 at 12:19 PM
23
There are kids out there that don't even know what pajamas are because they only own one pair of clothes they wear day and night, and there are still people throwing $650 at an outfit their kid will grow out of in 3 months???
Posted by GT on November 14, 2008 at 12:20 PM
24
Ijust looked at the pictures, and the clothes themselves aren't slutty, though some of the poses are a little cringeworthy. But what's up with the deliberately-highly-visible zippers? If my mother had MADE me a dress with that kind of zipper, everyone would have assumed that she screwed up. If I was paying that much for essentially playclothes, I'd want that zipper nicely set in. Those clothes just plain don't look like $650.
Posted by Nora on November 14, 2008 at 12:26 PM
25
Hey, baby, you're lookin' at me. Yes, you are! Sweet baby! Where'd you get those LEGS?
Posted by Fnarf on November 14, 2008 at 12:41 PM
26
Fnarf, you aren't by any chance a youth pastor, are you?
Posted by Julie in Chicago on November 14, 2008 at 1:16 PM
27
I will bet they are anti-choice as well.
Posted by inkweary on November 14, 2008 at 1:16 PM
28
@ 23 - you think that's unfair, there are people in Africa who don't have food...and here you are eating every day! you pig!
Posted by AR on November 14, 2008 at 1:17 PM
29
I don't think noticing and being pissed about the massive racial inequality of poverty makes you a wussy liberal. Noticing it and doing nothing does. Writing about it, especially highlighting how Slog readers can contribute via Strangercrombie seems like a good first step to me.
Posted by Lara on November 14, 2008 at 1:17 PM
30
those clothes are dreck! those awful zippers! those obnoxious colors! those clunky contours!

buh! i'd do better at goodwill. and have money left over to give to charity. win/win.
Posted by ellarosa on November 14, 2008 at 1:51 PM
31
I am so disturbed this this.
Posted by Utah Democrat on November 14, 2008 at 1:59 PM
32
How out of the mainstream am I if I support gay marriage & gay adoption, but am against IVF or any forms of conception other than plain ol' gettin' it on? Doesn't seem like there is a shortage of babies being born, but a major shortage of good parents.

One of the main reasons human sit at the top of the animal kingdom is our ability to adapt to difficulties. I just wonder if we are crossing too big of a line when it comes to how we make new people. Once they are made, we adapt to allow them to survive. Should we really adapt how we make them? Fighting natural selection at the root seems a little risky.
Posted by Sir Vic on November 14, 2008 at 3:54 PM
33
@32

I'd recommend some math, perhaps statistics, so you can get a grasp of large numbers, and then some serious reading on the topic of genetics and evolution. Then you will stop worrying.
Posted by elenchos on November 14, 2008 at 4:01 PM
34
I guess that once the Whack Job in Chief weighs in, the topic is dead.
Posted by Sir Vic on November 14, 2008 at 4:21 PM

Add a comment

Most Commented on Slog

 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use