So that post I wrote down there about Dr. B.'s boots? I didn't get all of my reasons in for being pissed off. I have to add something:
It irritates me TO NO END that people think that because you have, at one time, be that time near or far from the present, been dead broke/complained about being dead broke/asked for financial help or advice that you are forevermore disallowed from spending any money in ways that other people have not approved of as "necessities." There are two reasons this bugs me:
#1: Being broke is a transitory state. Having been broke before does not mean I am broke now, and not being able to afford Thing X before does not mean that I can't afford Thing Y now.
#2: Splurges and treats should not only be morally OK for rich people. Those of us who have "better uses for our money" or even don't have the money at all, should not be looked down upon for purchasing the occaisonal treat. It's Puritanical. Yes, it would be great if nobody were driven by any material wants and we all spent only what was necessary for our organic food and our union-made clothes and our energy-efficient housing and gave everything else to charities, but people, we live in the consumerist capital of all time. It's going to effect us. Once in a while, we're going to want to buy something JUST BECAUSE WE WANT IT. Even if we're poor. This doesn't make us less worthy, it doesn't make us bad people, it makes us just like everyone fucking else. So get over it.
A commenter on my previous post said that she "felt swindled" by Dr. B.'s buying expensive boots, because Dr. B. has, in the past, asked for financial contributions on her blog. This bugs me for a couple of reasons. The first is that I think Dr. B. has every right to ask for financial contributions on her blog, regardless of her personal income. Her blog is a service, a piece of entertainment, and if she wants to ask people to pay for using it, that's her right. It's people's right to refuse, of course, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with asking. Especially when, if I am recalling correctly, the only occaison on which Dr. B. requested money for herself was when those funds were allocated to redesign the site. Secondly, this complaint once again ignores the temporality of being broke. Having been broke once does not make one broke now. It's that simple.
Another commenter suggests that judgements on other people's spending is not a problem that is limited to women. That's probably true, but I'd still argue that men are not generally treated like foolish, selfish children when they plan a purchase. Not to mention, excessive shopping (especially, good Lord, for shoes!) is a stereotype attributed to women. Women are the ones with the reputation for not being able to keep their wallets closed when faced with a great pair of shoes, or a great bag, or whatever. This dovetails nicely with another favorite stereotype, the one where women are too impulsive/weak/stupid to take care of themselves and really should be all too happy to accept "well-meaning" advice. And anybody who thinks they haven't internalized a little bit of those stereotypes when they are criticizing a woman's spending patterns should probably think again.
Comments (15)
You know what I think is another important (generalized!) difference between men's and women's attitudes to frivolous or luxury purchases? Men are far less likely to *ask* other people about what they are planning to buy. This is something of a hunch, but I'm going to keep an ear out for data.
Posted by Anna Phor | November 8, 2005 2:03 PM
I think that is likely to be true, Anna.
Posted by Grace | November 8, 2005 2:17 PM
I think that the conversation I overheard at the Powell St. Food Stamp office has made this such a completely obvious point to me. Everyone there said something to the effect of "I feel BAD buying expensive cheese or whatever with my foodstamps, but sometimes I SHOULD get to eat expensive cheese. I know people behind me in line look at me like 'You don't deserve food stamps--you're buying frivolous things!' but we all WANT luxury items." And I bet people buying expensive luxury items with food stamps in front of the wrong people causes many many people to think no one deserves them, but who hasn't bought something way more expensive than they "deserve" or whatever other Puritanical term you want to put on it.
Posted by broad | November 8, 2005 3:31 PM
I'm that asshole. I'm quoting a statistic citing in a business journal. The article is three years old, but I think it is a somewhat statistic. The statistic is that women purchase 80 percent of consumer goods in the US. a la: http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2005/10/03/smallb4.html I would expect that one of the reasons people have so many opinions about women's shopping habits (as opposed to men's) is that men's shopping habits are less consequential. Those kind of numbers represent a certain kind of power, and if there's one thing people like to get in on, it is power. So ladies have (collectively) massive purchasing power, and so people care about how ladies do their purchasing. In the same way that everyone knows I have massive sex-ing power, and everybody cares deeply about how/when/where I deploy that sexing. The more they influence my sexing, the more they share in its awesome power.
Posted by simonmaxhill | November 8, 2005 5:45 PM
grace, you are wonderful, you know that? no matter how many people disagree with me on what i spend my money on, as long as i'm in agreement with you, i'm in good company.
Posted by wyzardess | November 8, 2005 5:46 PM
Might this have more to do with guilt over your (self-described) inability to control your spending than any out-of-line comments that have been made? Wouldn't it be easier for all of us if we could excuse away our concerns about being unable to spend any of our relatively large salaries as internalized sexism! The truth is that I, too, thought the boots were ridiculous, just as I think Jimmy Choos are ridiculous, because $400 is more than the average person spends on clothing in a year.
So unless we're talking about welfare recipients who are purcasing more fancy cheese at one time than the average person spends on food in a year, one has nothing to do with the other. On a related note - posts that are as reductive as "anyone who thinks it's silly to spend $400 on shoes and say so when asked directly must be sexist and hate poor people" aren't going to help build a readership.
Posted by Anonymous | November 8, 2005 5:48 PM
Hrm. It is so difficult for me to build up the urge to argue with someone anonymous. I just picture Breathless Mahoney in Dick Tracey ever time. Seriously. But yeah, part of it is almost definitely my own guilt. However, if I really thought that was the whole story, I wouldn't have made these posts. I do think there is something ridiculously judgemental about the way people talk about women's purchases, and about the way the poor choose to spend their money. It's something I have a lot more to say about than I've said here, actually. But what I said here wasn't near so reductionist as you made it sound, either.
Posted by Grace | November 8, 2005 6:20 PM
Actually, I totally agree with you, and I am constantly really pissed off when people get snippy about "the poor" spending money on things like cell phones or wtfever. And god knows it's worse with women, who pretty much since the origins of modern capitalism have been the ones associated with consumption and spending. On the other hand, I've internalized bourgeois values enough that it does pain me to ask for money (which is why I've only done it the once). And god knows I don't want people to feel *compelled* in any way. Then again, I think that maybe that's two sides of the same coin; both judging and asking, in a way, invite other people into one's own spending choices, and the other thing that's gone on since the origins of capitalism is the idea of *private* property.... Interesting posts.
Posted by bitchphd | November 8, 2005 7:05 PM
simon, i totally disagree with that statistic. only because while stereotypically men might not buy stuff as often, they seem to buy WAY more expensive stuff. if my dad wants a camera, he goes to best buy that same day and they talk him into the most expensive camera he can afford. i think electronics (which is actually what i buy "luxury" wise as well) end up being just as expensive, but just aren't bought as often.
Posted by broad | November 9, 2005 11:56 AM
J-dogg, First off, I'll say I feel a little like a dipshit using an article written by a woman who professionally markets to women as evidence -- obviously she has a vested interest in convincing people that women are -the- marketing segment. But I'm used to feeling like a dipshit, so I'll keep going. The lady (Marla, we'll call her) writes in the final paragraphs of the article about the typical buying patterns of men vs. women - men as pre-sold, less likely to comparison shop, less likely to continuously browse for better and better solutions (products) for their consumer needs. She seems to be sort of bullshitting a bit, but basically she described what you describe of your father -- he just goes in, sure he'll get a camera, and sure enough, he buys a camera. Here's the thing: I don't know many women who don't own nearly as many electronics as the guys I know. iPods, stereos, cameras...what respectable woman doesn't own all of the above? (Wait, did I just make purchasing power integral to "respectability"? Yes I did. Take that, poor people!) The exception, I guess, are the vanity project toys for boys: home theater, ATVs, low-riders, etc. But I would argue that such things represent sort of a wierd sub segment of men, in the way that spa obsessed women represent a wierd sub segment of women. Guys who join Porsche clubs, furrow their brows in deep conversation with the Circuit City employees, or jack their trucks up to ten feet high, are, basically, freaks. I'm going to end this comment with a final "take that, poor people!" just because I figure if I say it often enough, I can become a right wing radio host. Just imagine my face, 90 feet tall on the side of the building, grinning, grinning, grinning, with my on-air nickname "The Max" plastered diagonal across it. Take that, poor people!
Posted by simonmaxhill | November 9, 2005 6:32 PM
i dunno simon. i know a lot of girls with computers, but how many of them (stereotypically) have external drives? added memory? external speakers? buy games for them? i know lots of girls with tvs, but relatively how large/fancy are they? i think, especially in electronics, going up a size or model is WAY more expensive than a sweater or something. Maybe they have an ipod, but will they upgrade with the same amount of regularity? I have rarely been able to convince another woman how necessary the new os upgrade was, but i have no problem doing that with men who know even the smallest bit about computers. said from my desk that i got for 30 bucks which is buckling under the drives, computers, speakers, ipod, and digital camera i have on it. :)
Posted by broad | November 9, 2005 6:53 PM
Let's take ourselves out of the equation as non-representative of the mean. I just got back from visiting the girl I have alter my clothing. We had a nice discussion about different fits she can do on the stuff I dropped off, and some talk about her making a shirt to my specs. And you have to beat me in the head with a taser-sword to get me to upgrade OS. Fuck upgrades. Software upgrades are a sucker game. I'll concede the point about men being easier to sucker into spending more on any given item, but I am less willing to budge on the yearly budget question. Though when I think about the whole project, I start to think the real focus for the marketing reports must be on married couples. Because single people clearly spend all of their money, and all of it on themselves...right? Or on airplane tickets. Are those consumer goods? Take that, poor people!
Posted by simonmaxhill | November 10, 2005 3:51 PM
Dear Simon, go to hell. "Ladies" don't have "power" because they purchase 80% of consumer goods. Do they earn $4 for every dollar of men's wages? That statistic (if true) means women run the goddamned errands and spend money on things for other people. Oh, the power. You trust a teenager to make your shirts?
Posted by Anonymous | November 10, 2005 6:02 PM
Normally I wouldn't respond to an anonymous comment, but since I love attention and hope to get more, I will. So I'm going to work backwards through your post. a. The girl working on my shirts is not a teenager, and I think there are plenty of talented teenagers that would be entirely trustworthy to make me a shirt. I mean, I trust 6 year olds to make my sneakers, why wouldn't I trust a teenager to make me a shirt? Take that, poor people! b. You point out that women earn less money than men, making an argument that single women and single men have different purchasing power, which is very smart. It also happens to be the point that I was making in the last paragraph of my comment. So direct your outrage elsewhere and understand that I pay just as much for a blowjob from a woman as I do from a man (and considerably more when if comes from a boy or a girl.) c. "power". It is very charming that you don't consider the responsibility/authority to spend money "power." What powers does congress have? Make laws and distribute money. Do they personally own the money? No. Do they have unfuckingbelieveable power? Yes. d. Legal ownership of the money. This, obviously is the difference between "purchasing power" and "wealth". I absolutely did not argue that women hold 80 percent of the wealth in the US. I didn't argue that purchasing power is identical to wealth. What I suggested was that because women have purchasing power (or authority, or responsibility, if you want), people pay attention to what they spend and how they spend it, more than men. Because they represent 80 percent of the activity, they might get more attention (of all kinds.) And honestly, I'm using the word "might" and "maybe" here because I wouldn't put that idea forwards forcefully, because I don't know if it's right. I posted to see what people thought about the idea, and also to maybe lure someone into flaming me so I could go on and on and try to sound smart. And how! e. "ladies". What the hell is the objection to the word "ladies"? Did I use it in some pejorative way? Actually, don't answer. Conversations focusing on the correct word to use are generally absurd, and outrageously passe. Don't you know that it is 2005? Get with the program! Every feminist I know shaves her pussy and calls it a cunt! And you are offended by the word "ladies"? f. I blame you for election of George W. Bush Jr., anonymous. You and my friend Joseph, who voted for him and, bizaarely, considers him his "personal hero".
Posted by simonmaxhill | November 10, 2005 6:40 PM
i guess simon, my point is that if men buy 5 electronical items that are all 500 apiece, and women buy 2500 dollars of little stuff, it all comes out the same. but i think you're right that a lot of it is married couples. i know nothing of these mythical people. i in no way meant to use us as examples of gender stereotypes, simon. and i always pay women more than men for blowjobs. call me sexist. ~J
Posted by broad | November 14, 2005 2:25 PM