Do you display photos of your kids in your own home?

[Anonymous]

Just happy to report that PBFC is making its way into the DCUM lexicon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When one receives in one's drawing or dining room, one should not arrogantly give the impression that one's family is the center of the world. This rule, and all etiquette, originally emerged from a desire to be polite and attentive to guests' feelings.

Interestingly, the only household I know with photos in the foyer are nouveau riche, relatively uneducated and somewhat uncultured. Friendly and generous people nonetheless.

My family members/friends who come from the aristocracy or from highly educated families over many generations never display photos in public areas of their homes.
One discreet oil painting at the most, and the rest in small photos in the upstairs boudoir/study.

You sound like a f*king blast! If I am ever 'received' in your drawing room...I hope you have a stiff highball waiting to help me tolerate the BS and boredom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:19:14 here. A boudoir is not a bedroom, PP. Not saying you can't have sex there, though! Creative is good

Define: boudoir: a lady's bedroom or private sitting room

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ha! This is classic DCUM.

Between us, DH and I have from "elite" schools" 1 JD, 1 MA, 1 PhD, and 2 BAs. We own a home in CC DC, our children attend a "big 3" school, and we have interesting DC jobs that pay us in the top 1% of income nation-wide.

We also have children's pictures in our entryway and living room.

Wait. With all that education and you still dont understand class distinctions? The fact that you even had to point it all out shows you are not high class. High class people are HUMBLE. HUMBLE. HUMBLE.

This. However, the word I would use is "discreet." Furthermore, it really isn't about money.

In Paul Fussell's book "Class: A Guide Through the American Status System" he updates "The Living Room Scale," which was originally promulgated by sociologist F. Stuart Chapin in his book "Contemporary American Institutions." The scale "scores" living rooms on a scale, based upon their contents, and the theory is that you can tell the "class" of the person living there by the score. The higher the score, the higher the class of the occupant. For example, plastic covers on furniture is minus 6 points. In any case, for "each family photograph (black and white)," you subtract 2, and for "each family photograph (color)," you subtract 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is very interesting. We don't have any pictures of our children in our home. I suggested we put some up a few years ago and my husband didn't want to for three reasons:

1 - He prefers artwork on the walls (we have 5 pieces that I painted up throughout our living room and kitchen)
2 - He said we can look at our kids anytime IRL
3 - I scrapbook and we're ALWAYS looking through those albums

Made sense to me. I wonder if people think it's strange when they come over and don't see any pics of the kids.

My FIL is a photographer and took some great pics of my son at a soccer game this past season. He blew it up into a poster print and gave it to my son for Christmas. He now has it hanging in his room. He LOVES that picture!

Ummmm isn't your son's room in your home?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ha! This is classic DCUM.

Between us, DH and I have from "elite" schools" 1 JD, 1 MA, 1 PhD, and 2 BAs. We own a home in CC DC, our children attend a "big 3" school, and we have interesting DC jobs that pay us in the top 1% of income nation-wide.

We also have children's pictures in our entryway and living room.

Wait. With all that education and you still dont understand class distinctions? The fact that you even had to point it all out shows you are not high class. High class people are HUMBLE. HUMBLE. HUMBLE.

This. However, the word I would use is "discreet." Furthermore, it really isn't about money.

In Paul Fussell's book "Class: A Guide Through the American Status System" he updates "The Living Room Scale," which was originally promulgated by sociologist F. Stuart Chapin in his book "Contemporary American Institutions." The scale "scores" living rooms on a scale, based upon their contents, and the theory is that you can tell the "class" of the person living there by the score. The higher the score, the higher the class of the occupant. For example, plastic covers on furniture is minus 6 points. In any case, for "each family photograph (black and white)," you subtract 2, and for "each family photograph (color)," you subtract 3.

How do McMansions score?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ha! This is classic DCUM.

Between us, DH and I have from "elite" schools" 1 JD, 1 MA, 1 PhD, and 2 BAs. We own a home in CC DC, our children attend a "big 3" school, and we have interesting DC jobs that pay us in the top 1% of income nation-wide.

We also have children's pictures in our entryway and living room.

Wait. With all that education and you still dont understand class distinctions? The fact that you even had to point it all out shows you are not high class. High class people are HUMBLE. HUMBLE. HUMBLE.

This. However, the word I would use is "discreet." Furthermore, it really isn't about money.

In Paul Fussell's book "Class: A Guide Through the American Status System" he updates "The Living Room Scale," which was originally promulgated by sociologist F. Stuart Chapin in his book "Contemporary American Institutions." The scale "scores" living rooms on a scale, based upon their contents, and the theory is that you can tell the "class" of the person living there by the score. The higher the score, the higher the class of the occupant. For example, plastic covers on furniture is minus 6 points. In any case, for "each family photograph (black and white)," you subtract 2, and for "each family photograph (color)," you subtract 3.

Using that scale, growing up, my family would have been super high class! Ha!

I have tons of pics of my kid - she is beautiful and highly photogenic. The collection is concentrated in the living room on the top of a piano....every one who visits looks and comments at the photos so I guess they don't mind my low class collection of color and black and white photos....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ha! This is classic DCUM.

Between us, DH and I have from "elite" schools" 1 JD, 1 MA, 1 PhD, and 2 BAs. We own a home in CC DC, our children attend a "big 3" school, and we have interesting DC jobs that pay us in the top 1% of income nation-wide.

We also have children's pictures in our entryway and living room.

Wait. With all that education and you still dont understand class distinctions? The fact that you even had to point it all out shows you are not high class. High class people are HUMBLE. HUMBLE. HUMBLE.

This. However, the word I would use is "discreet." Furthermore, it really isn't about money.

In Paul Fussell's book "Class: A Guide Through the American Status System" he updates "The Living Room Scale," which was originally promulgated by sociologist F. Stuart Chapin in his book "Contemporary American Institutions." The scale "scores" living rooms on a scale, based upon their contents, and the theory is that you can tell the "class" of the person living there by the score. The higher the score, the higher the class of the occupant. For example, plastic covers on furniture is minus 6 points. In any case, for "each family photograph (black and white)," you subtract 2, and for "each family photograph (color)," you subtract 3.

If you actually read Fussell, you would know that class is about money plus education and culture. What puts you at the very top? Gobs and gobs of money--like out of this world money. Then comes inherited wealth in the millions. Then comes the moneyed professional class (the doctors, lawyers, surgeons, etc.). Then the large middle class, etc., etc. There are certain cultural predilections found in each class, but money certain plays a large part in defining class, followed by profession. Fussell, being an academic, seems to be somewhat biased for people with PhDs and in higher ed, by the way.

[Anonymous]

I grew up seriously upper middle class... and I think we had large professional family portraits up in the living room, but all the school photos and snap shots were either in photo albums or in the more 'private' areas of the home.
So with DH and I, we initially didn't have any 'family photos' up. We both had a lot of art work to display. But over the years, more and more pictures have been framed and put up. We got a 20x20 family one framed, but haven't decided where to put it. I'd still say most of the photos are in 'private' areas though.

[Anonymous]

No. I prefer to sneak into the houses of the aristocracy late at night and hang 20x20s of my kids in their foyers.

[Anonymous]

I still think this is the craziest topic that has ever graced DCUM.

[Anonymous]

I thought this was a strange topic too, but it turns out that I enjoyed reading some of the posts. I'd really never considered this a potential class issue. But so interesting to think of it that way - or not to.

I didn't read all 8 pages of posts, so sorry if this point has already been addressed. A family unit within my extended family has decorated their house almost exclusively with family photos. There are a small number of generic framed "art" items. But mostly, the decor is all about themselves. This seems so limited - why give the kids the feeling that they're the center of everything? How about images of people from other cultures or some original artwork?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ha! This is classic DCUM.

Between us, DH and I have from "elite" schools" 1 JD, 1 MA, 1 PhD, and 2 BAs. We own a home in CC DC, our children attend a "big 3" school, and we have interesting DC jobs that pay us in the top 1% of income nation-wide.

We also have children's pictures in our entryway and living room.

Wait. With all that education and you still dont understand class distinctions? The fact that you even had to point it all out shows you are not high class. High class people are HUMBLE. HUMBLE. HUMBLE.

This. However, the word I would use is "discreet." Furthermore, it really isn't about money.

In Paul Fussell's book "Class: A Guide Through the American Status System" he updates "The Living Room Scale," which was originally promulgated by sociologist F. Stuart Chapin in his book "Contemporary American Institutions." The scale "scores" living rooms on a scale, based upon their contents, and the theory is that you can tell the "class" of the person living there by the score. The higher the score, the higher the class of the occupant. For example, plastic covers on furniture is minus 6 points. In any case, for "each family photograph (black and white)," you subtract 2, and for "each family photograph (color)," you subtract 3.

If you actually read Fussell, you would know that class is about money plus education and culture. What puts you at the very top? Gobs and gobs of money--like out of this world money. Then comes inherited wealth in the millions. Then comes the moneyed professional class (the doctors, lawyers, surgeons, etc.). Then the large middle class, etc., etc. There are certain cultural predilections found in each class, but money certain plays a large part in defining class, followed by profession. Fussell, being an academic, seems to be somewhat biased for people with PhDs and in higher ed, by the way.

I think you're just trying to prove that "YOU actually read Fussell." I DID actually read it. The reason it isn't all about money, is because, as someone else mentioned, it's about how much money your family used to have. The "out of sight" upper class, as Fussell calls them, got that way by having money at some point in their family's history, but that doesn't necessarily have to be the case with the current generation. That's why older things are higher class -- worn out persian rugs vs. new ones (a sure sign of the middle class, according to Fussell), for example. That house you can't see from the road (hence the term, "out of sight") is often inherited (and the maintenance -- not to mention the estate taxes -- really drains the family funds!). Like someone I know whose family rents their big house on Georgica Pond for most of the summer because that's the only way they can afford the upkeep. I assure you, their sensibilities are still very "upper class." The people who rent it have tons of money, but are generally pretty middle class in their sensibilities (leading to some conflict, as the renters, for the price they're paying, sometimes don't appreciate shabby gentility.)

As for the person who asked about McMansions -- pretty much anything new loses points on Fussell's scale.

[Anonymous]

Some of you act as if middle class is bad. ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some of you act as if middle class is bad. ?[/quote

Yep, the responses have been very telling.