S02.E09: Material Girl

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Quote

Alicia treats herself to an expensive purse, but Paul finds out and demands that she return it; Bow bribes Alicia to buy her a fancy backpack so she can impress her friends at school.

Original air date: 4/6/21

[ElectricBoogaloo]

This week's musical reference:

 

[Meedis]

What a coincidence....heard Madonna's Material Girl playing at my local casino today.    

[Arcadiasw]

Did not like Paul in this episode. Paul was completely wrong. Burning the kids toys? Why not just donate them? Getting on Alicia for ONE expensive purchase when he has several and he's not even using them? It's her money, she's earned it and the family isn't being deprived. Who paid for all of Paul's junk? I know it wasn't him since he started working THIS season. 

Harrison is completely right about not having anything as kids people make up for that with excessive buying as an adult. My brother is the poster child for that.🤣🤣

[LadyintheLoop]

Quote

 It's her money[.]

Technically, it's their money. "There's no room in the budget for a $150 splurge" would have been a reasonable position to debate. "You're not allowed to have that because I say so" is not.

[tennisgurl]

I always love when Denise and Harrison team up to snark on family drama. "He just said capitalisms teat." "You had a barbeque and didn't invite us?" 

Paul really needed that reality check, he was being ridiculous. Sure you shouldn't only care about stuff and shouldn't spend tons of money all of the time unnecessarily, which are good lessons for kids, but there isn't anything wrong with a splurge every one in awhile. Burning the kids stuff seemed to be going way too far especially, at least donate that stuff if you don't want the kids to have it. 

I wonder if some of that is because Paul always had money growing up. Harrison made a good point about how people who grew up poor but made lots of money later tend to spend a whole lot as soon as they can, I have definitely seen that happening before. 

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Paul was totally out of line burning the kids' stuff. Even if he wanted to punish the kids (and it's pretty terrible to punish your kids for being honest about their feelings), burning their stuff was such a waste. He could have donated that stuff to a shelter, a hospital, a charity, etc.

I really felt for Rainbow because although my parents weren't hippies, they were not about to spend extra money on name brand things when there was a similar item that cost less. They would have seen that red Jansport backpack and said, "Why can't you just get this $5 backpack? It's red too." They really didn't understand that sometimes you just need one or two key items to help you feel like you fit in with everyone else.

Harrison was right when he said that if you deny kids something all their lives, the first thing they're going to do when they break free is exactly what you've been withholding from them for years.

I don't know why Paul and Alicia didn't come up with the very logical and very 80s solution of doing chores for money and earning cash for the stuff that your parents won't buy you. It teaches kids the value of money as well as life skills (I rolled my eyes when I moved into the freshman dorm and there were people who didn't know how to do their own laundry because they'd had no chores or responsibilities). And it also teaches kids to think about how badly they want that name brand item. If you earn say, $1 for doing XYZ, do you really want to put 20 hours into earning enough money to buy that one thing?

Even if Paul hadn't been hoarding a bunch of weirdly specific kitchen stuff, Alicia still should have been "allowed" to buy that purse. Everyone needs to be able to splurge and treat themselves once in a while. And, as Harrison pointed out, being a partner at a law firm and carrying around a cheap purse is not a great look. As shallow as it sounds, you have to look the part (and that was especially true for professions like lawyers in the 80s).

[SoMuchTV]

17 hours ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

Even if Paul hadn't been hoarding a bunch of weirdly specific kitchen stuff, Alicia still should have been "allowed" to buy that purse. Everyone needs to be able to splurge and treat themselves once in a while. And, as Harrison pointed out, being a partner at a law firm and carrying around a cheap purse is not a great look. As shallow as it sounds, you have to look the part (and that was especially true for professions like lawyers in the 80s).

Speaking of looking the part, I'm surprised this hasn't come up previously with regard to Alicia's wardrobe.  I don't think most of that stuff came from Target!

Or I should say, the thrift store. I’m sure Target would have been too materialistic for Paul. 

Edited April 8, 2021 by SoMuchTV
2nd thoughts

[JakeyJokes]

Even adjusting for inflation, a Louis Vuitton bag would still be worth way more than what the show was telling us Alicia spent on it. It took me completely out of the episode.

[txhorns79]

15 hours ago, JakeyJokes said:

Even adjusting for inflation, a Louis Vuitton bag would still be worth way more than what the show was telling us Alicia spent on it. It took me completely out of the episode.

The specific LV bag Alicia had (the Speedy) did cost around $150 in 1986.  

I didn't like Paul at all this episode.  His solution to the issue was way too extreme, and honestly, really wasteful. 

[Joimiaroxeu]

Meh, I think even back then LV bags were considered kinda bougie and mainly for show even if you could well-afford one. Alicia should've gone with Coach or Dooney & Bourke. Arguably better quality and less flashy.

The exact same backpacks? Come on, at least they could've bought each kid a different color. Paul and Alicia basically demeaned the value of the gifts, IMO. But I guess from their point of view, beggars can't be choosers.

This was an interesting episode, mixing it up on race and wealth and indicators of class.

[TiffanyNichelle]

They made Paul really unlikable in this episode. The writing was flirting on Dre levels for me.

[Fostersmom]

On 4/7/2021 at 6:25 PM, ElectricBoogaloo said:

I really felt for Rainbow because although my parents weren't hippies, they were not about to spend extra money on name brand things when there was a similar item that cost less. They would have seen that red Jansport backpack and said, "Why can't you just get this $5 backpack? It's red too." They really didn't understand that sometimes you just need one or two key items to help you feel like you fit in with everyone else.

I was literally Rainbow with the Jansport backpack back in the 90's. I wanted nothing more than a black Jansport with a brown suede bottom before I started high school, so like 1992ish. I begged for the bag. My mom kept saying no. I told her she needed to take the money out of my meager savings account, I probably had like $300 if that, so I could buy it. Yeah, I think it was like $50 even then, but it was one of the few things that was going to help me feel like I fit in. I kept saying I would use it forever. I came home one day and found it on my bed. And honestly it DID help me feel like I fit in. I carried it all thru high school and college, it went to band camp 3 times and a camp I volunteered at 4 summers, and I still have it to this day! It's still as study as the day I got it and while it doesn't get used often anymore, it's still useful if needed. 

[mtlchick]

Watching this now, I feel Rainbow got the want? Need? For material things later in life based on what happened with her mom’s bag. That she did earn them through hard work. The main difference is Dre is more materialistic than her. 

Paul should have focused more on teaching the kids what is a want, what is a need and how to earn something you really want.