This post is in response to Dubina’s post, here: <link>

I get frustrated when it’s assumed that a criticism of a society that treats men and women unequally is a criticism of men in general or in particular. The truth is, there’s lots to criticize about both men and women, but if we can’t talk about the underlying cultural constructs that support our current problems because we’re too busy pointing fingers and shoring up our defenses, then we’re blowing it.

”I suspect you think I think women are largely to blame for our debilitating materialism, and yes, I think that's true to some extent…”

Amusing. This had never occurred to me, actually, but it’s certainly worth discussing, and I do agree with you that the “causes of our cultural decline* are much more complicated than that.” Certainly, gender roles influence the way people behave with money. Women were historically chattels, and a man’s worth was measured by his ability to clothe and decorate his chattels (“a diamond is forever”), and in what standard he was able to keep them. Women sometimes still settle for Manolos <link> as a demonstration of their value and their power in the world, and they sometimes still fall victim to the idea that a man will take care of them. I believe that personal financial autonomy is one of the most important issues for women, so I agree with Dunleavey <link> .

Now, do you really think “women are largely to blame for our debilitating materialism”, or do you think they’re victims of social conditioning that encourages them to behave in ways not conducive to sound financial management? <link>

Do men make bad choices about where they spend money? Women tend to spend money on clothes and shoes and cosmetics and décor. Where does men’s disposable income go? What cultural conditioning drives the way men and women behave with money?



* wait a minute—are we really in "cultural decline"? I don't know that we are. "Debilitating materialism" I can go along with...


( for bite: <link> <link> )

dawn:

Quite a few amazing posts here this morning and I only have time to answer one before class.

I did manage to catch the conversation between demo and axian(?). What an intelligent person; but, I still believe she sounds like someone on a contract to save the industry. Something about her? f you google her name,there is quite a hisory on her and why she chose this economic path in life. I guess I am always searching for the underlying reasons.

The devil is in the numbers and it took me a bit but I believe I have been able to present a pretty sound argument that gender discrimination supercedes racial. Regardless of race women bare the brunt of discrimination. Gloria Steinem was not that far off the mark with her statement about it in January. Timothy Noah used incorrect assumptions and stats when arguing about the supposed lameness of her statement. And yes, poverty is the overriding factor and it hits women/gender the hardest regardless of race.

Perhaps, the real question for most women or people could be:

If there were suitable alternatives or choices, would they choose one over the present?

Which now brings up another thought to ask someone else. Off to class . . .

I mean there is shopping and there is shopping.

The materialism stuff is the BMW or jewelry/fancy golf clubs or the big house one can't afford. None of that can be found at Walmart or most of the stores where most people go shopping.

Now I don't see a lot of BMW's at Walmart but I sure do at the golf course. Is not playing 18 holes of golf shopping? It is certainly expensive.

I see this as cultural differences and how division of responsibility is divvied out more than anything else. Beyond that it is just putting lipstick on a pig.

... mostly. As genedio just said about the subprime mess, there are layers to this onion as well. Let's section the onion on multiple planes and try to sort it out.

To be clear, "women shopping" is only one of many ways to section the onion. We could easily start with Iraq or the subprime mess or Elliot Spitzer. That said, I think "women shopping" is an excellent section plane because nobody wants to talk much about "women shopping" and it applies in one way or another to all of us, not just a few. "Women shopping" is one of our great cultural taboos, therefore, probably more important than it seems.

The truth is, there’s lots to criticize about both men and women, but if we can’t talk about the underlying cultural constructs that support our current problems because we’re too busy pointing fingers and shoring up our defenses, then we’re blowing it.

Yes. I couldn't agree more

and they sometimes still fall victim to the idea that a man will take care of them.

Yes. How prevalent is this tendency? To be clear, what are some of its visible symptoms and effects?

Now, do you really think “women are largely to blame for our debilitating materialism”, or do you think they’re victims of social conditioning that encourages them to behave in ways not conducive to sound financial management?

Yes. The second proposition is much better put, although many women are more than willing "victims", purposive exploiters of that condition. It may be that some womens' spending isn't conducive to sound financial management, but the greater harm of that conditioning is in what it signifies and justifies.

Did you know?

Moms today control 80% of a households’ spending.

~Women are responsible for 83% of all consumer purchases:
94% of home furnishings
92% of vacations
91% of houses
60% of automobiles
51% of consumer electronics <link>

Any wonder Madison Avenue aims most of its ads at women, posing them as needy, indulgent and impulsive? (Just as you say, "social conditioning"....)

are we really in "cultural decline"? I don't know that we are. "Debilitating materialism" I can go along with...

The literal definition of "culture" is anything learned. Humans may be materialistic by nature, but they can only be materialistic in fact when their circumstance affords it. Our materialism has developed gradually. I'd date it roughly to the end of WWII, a condition made from all kinds of success. Manifestions of that success are normal now; we expect them and need them without a second thought. Thus, our environment teaches us what to value and expect...

... so yes, our culture has become materialistic. Debilitating? Yes, like a heroine habit.

What cultural conditioning drives the way men and women behave with money?

That's an excellent question. Deserves a better answer than I can give it now. I'll try to get back to you later today.

go shopping.

but somebody, please, take them somewhere.

[Hi W4B].

'tis a long road that brought us to this place, all of us.

by MichaelRyerson
03/18/2008, 6:38 AM

Are you sure you mean to say that "Women shopping" is one of our great cultural taboos", or do you mean to say that talking about women's financial behaviour is taboo? I don't know that I buy that, either (heh), but I do recall vehemently justifying my own (somewhat irrational) spending behaviour at one time or another.

The bigger picture, I believe, is the way that men and women hold/exercise power. We're in a phase of transforming gender-role norms for men and women. Women are encouraged to get an education, to pursue career success, to not rely on a man to be a husband and provider, but the financial management stuff has lagged behind the other changing conditioning women receive. We still get the message that a richly decorated home and person are evidence of our value. It doesn't jibe with long-term financial stability, of course, but it still feels right to many of us to be decked out in expensive duds and luxuriating in spa treatments and the like. Recall that it wasn't so long ago that women couldn't inherit property, or keep their own earnings, so it's not really a surprise that there's some confusion about what to do with money when we get it.

and they sometimes still fall victim to the idea that a man will take care of them.

"Yes. How prevalent is this tendency? To be clear, what are some of its visible symptoms and effects?"

— I think it's less prevalent with women in the generation after mine (I'm 43), but there's still a lot of it about. Women are in such a vulnerable state in early motherhood, that it makes sense to choose a man who can provide financial support for the family through that period. The vulnerability of new mothers is most pronounced at lower incomes, while educated women have more options for childcare and maternity leave. I'm quite appalled by the way the US lags behind Canada in provision of parental leave supports. By mitigating the primary caregiver's dependancy on his or her partner, the Canadian government provides vastly improved options for women, and men.

As for symptoms and effects of women's financial dependancy on men, I'm not sure what you're thinking of, but I'm interested, if you care to elaborate.

"many women are more than willing "victims", purposive exploiters of that condition. It may be that some womens' spending isn't conducive to sound financial management, but the greater harm of that conditioning is in what it signifies and justifies."

Your statistics seem reasonable. I can believe that women control most consumer spending in their households, and I won't dispute that some women sometimes spend money in irrational, self-indulgent and even passive-aggressive ways in their relationships. I'm sure that men do this also, or, if not this, they exercise power and express their dissatisfaction in equally irrational and harmful ways.

I don't know if you're aware of Andrea Dworkin's claim that in a relationship where one person is financially dependent on another, no transaction between the two of them can be deemed fully consensual on the part of the dependent partner. She was talking about sex, but I believe it applies to other activities, as well.

Clearly, economic and political equality will change much of the gender role disparity. Who knows what that will look like, but I'm interested in every step we take in that direction.

was "heroine addiction" intentional or accidental? Cute, regardless.

Accidental, funny

recreational shopping.

I don't know if that occurs at Wal-Mart -- hang on -- I'll ask Ms. gmat -- OK she says of course recreational shopping occurs at WalMart, and it doesn't have to be obviously non-necessity stuff to be recreational.

Quote: "Women just love to shop. We just like to see what's there."

She's my oracle and spiritual guide (and also keeper of the much coveted hoo-ha) so I'm inclined to just let it go at that.

Are you sure you mean to say that "Women shopping" is one of our great cultural taboos", or do you mean to say that talking about women's financial behaviour is taboo? I don't know that I buy that, either (heh), but I do recall vehemently justifying my own (somewhat irrational) spending behaviour at one time or another.

The bigger picture, I believe, is the way that men and women hold/exercise power. We're in a phase of transforming gender-role norms for men and women. Women are encouraged to get an education, to pursue career success, to not rely on a man to be a husband and provider, but the financial management stuff has lagged behind the other changing conditioning women receive. We still get the message that a richly decorated home and person are evidence of our value. It doesn't jibe with long-term financial stability, of course, but it still feels right to many of us to be decked out in expensive duds and luxuriating in spa treatments and the like. Recall that it wasn't so long ago that women couldn't inherit property, or keep their own earnings, so it's not really a surprise that there's some confusion about what to do with money when we get it.

Interesting because you characterize the problem in terms of spending habits and power sharing. I see it more as a systemic cultural abandonment to hedonism that undermines character, personal integrity, spirituality and common sense. (e.g. Brittany, et.al.) I'm alarmed and offended by that abandonment...as in the more or less willfull abandonment of our children and grandchildren to a future lack of capital and the crushing effects of debt. Ben Bernanke, the Fed and almost everybody in Washington agree that bailing out banks is the right thing to do "to save our way of life". Out in the heartland, we agree, as well. We sacrifice everything to the moment, leaving nothing for later. (Slight exaggeration to make a point.)

I look past doing with money to the harm we do ourselves and others when we have too much money...as in "fiat dollars". Given too much money, too many things are possible...as in "5% of the population using 25% of the oil". In a constant state of too much money, extravagance and waste go wild.

...it wasn't so long ago that women couldn't inherit property, or keep their own earnings, so it's not really a surprise that there's some confusion about what to do with money when we get it.

I think it's not only about money for another reason, as well. My wife is a former Soviet basketball star who grew up poor in a poor country. Today, she's compelled, (whether she knows it or not), to buy stuff she didn't have as a girl, and to hoard stuff as her mother and most Soviet women once did by habit and necessity. Our house and garage is full of stuff we neither need nor use that I can't bear to throw away.

Speaking for myself, I'm an old fart, and once had my own run (at an earlier age than my comrade) at buying things only because I was curious/hopeful and suddenly able to buy. I tell comrade, but for her and the kids, I could live under an overpass and collect aluminun cans for a living. (Slight exaggeration intended to make a point: namely, materialism is a mentality that we learn as we encounter it in fertile conditions.)

Being a man and a geezer doesn't give me totally immunity. Madison Avenue markets hamburgers and cars to young men and women, viagra and arterial stents to geezers in general. Apparently Cadillacs turn on young men and women pretty much the same.

<link>

I realize this might offend a lot of women for whom circumstance precludes the "women shopping" syndrome. Likewise, I admit men have historic and present responsibility for exploiting women and allowing their own explotation in return. It's an incredibly complicated process / relationship. Other cultures have problems too, some I wouldn't care to have in trade. All true, very complicated. Still, long past time for us to put our culture and its cross sectional issues on the table and try to sort it out. Economic collapse would cause some serious cultural rearrangement, but that may not be in the cards. The difficulty with cultural change is that materialism has invaded "our way-of-life" and "our economy". Few Americans can imagine anything different, something more rational to the times.

By the way, I appreciate that you sometimes question my expression of ideas. In matters of great complexity that admit many different points of view, civil Socratic dialogue is the only way to go.

Why didn't I think of that?

Many years ago, I was driving in traffic. At one point, got behind a big May Kay pink Cadillac convertible. Got a glimpse or two of the driver. Her bumper sticker read

Happiness is having a horse

Unhuh, I thought to myself, Real happiness is having a pussy.

(Don't blame me, the hoo-ha made me do it.)

I see it more as a systemic cultural abandonment to hedonism that undermines character, personal integrity, spirituality and common sense. (e.g. Brittany, et.al.)

I don’t believe our era is the first to overindulge its appetites, though perhaps our hedonism, like our wealth, is more widespread than it has been previously. Periods of abundant resources have also historically been good for advances in human culture (ancient Greece and the Renaissance), and we see the same thing today as technological development proceeds apace.

as in the more or less willfull abandonment of our children and grandchildren to a future lack of capital and the crushing effects of debt.

This isn’t a function of consumer spending by women, but of the aging of the economic bubble created by the baby boomers. Sure, women gave birth to them…

I look past doing with money to the harm we do ourselves and others when we have too much money […] extravagance and waste go wild.

We humans don’t know our limits, I’ll give you that. Are you saying women are more guilty of over indulgence than men? Because I see guys buying lots of useless crap, too. My ex-husband had about $20,000 or more invested in tools, most of which he never used. He was a pack-rat, too. I’m more of a minimalist.

Newsflash: that Cadillac ad is not directed at women. It’s directed at men who hope women will be turned on by their Cadillacs enough that they might get to try some Viagra out on them.

I basically agree with you that there is much wrong with our culture about which much needs to be done, but I don’t think either gender holds more of the blame than the other. I do think that concepts of gender are a big part of our problems, though, and I’m glad to see us begin to transcend them.

I appreciate your responses. They are some of the most thoughtful I’ve gotten round these parts.

I don’t know if you’re the same Dubina, but Robes—a first generation frayster who departed us almost three years ago—was one of the first to greet me on these fora, and he told me about a poster named Dubina whom he held in high regard.

I don’t believe our era is the first to overindulge its appetites,

No doubt. But my view of America is more a side by side comparison of what I see now to what I remember from my childhood and younger days, not a comparison to the hedonistic extremes of Greece or Rome. My impression is that we've come a very long way in a very short time from a state of strength and moderation to a state of decline and excess. Many reasons for that time of earlier strength: industrialization, immigration, military success, science and technology, capitalism...a panoply of successful results.

My impression has a bias, of course. Young people are full of life and desire, but short on relevant experience and insight. Their balance of desire and insight will tip as they get older. I know that because I see myself now as the little old lady who invited me into her home when I was delivering her newspaper as a boy. She seemed to care a lot that I might be uninformed of the Communist plot to conquer America with fluoridated drinking water. Damn, I couldn't get out of her house fast enough. Today, though, I see that her Communist fluoridated water plot could be peak oil for me.

Anyway, maturation bias notwithstanding, I think Americans have become more materialistic, less kind and less sapient from about 1945. If so, I should see evidence of that change in anthropological comparisons of our recent past and present, and I do. Did you watch Ken Burns' 900 minute PBS documentary, The War? I think the changes that I see are real and alarming, warranting that alarm despite my changing POV.

though perhaps our hedonism, like our wealth, is more widespread than it has been previously. Periods of abundant resources have also historically been good for advances in human culture (ancient Greece and the Renaissance), and we see the same thing today as technological development proceeds apace.

Yes and no. Technology seems beneficial, but it may not be. In the short run, it tends to increase the population carrying capacity of land and sea. In the long run, what with climate change and other unintended consequences, it could be our downfall. In the early days of oil production (1901, East Texas, for example) energy return on investment (EROI) was on the order of 100 to 1. (Drillers used a barrel of oil energy equivalent to get a hundred barrels in return.) In the production of ultra-deep oil in the Gulf of Mexico and oil from the Athabasca oil sands, EROI will be much less. One could argue five years after the fact that the EROI of Iraqi oil might even be a negative number. It won’t be a good thing some years from now if we find ourselves struggling to disaster.

as in the more or less willfull abandonment of our children and grandchildren to a future lack of capital and the crushing effects of debt. This isn’t a function of consumer spending by women, but of the aging of the economic bubble created by the baby boomers. Sure, women gave birth to them…

So far as consumer spending (I’d call it “consumption”) is part of the problem and women spend or control 80% of American family income, the problem is, in large part, a function of consumer spending by women. The family home tends to be a woman’s nest, and ongoing costs of home and maintenance probably account for the greater share of family expenditure. My strong impression is that television advertisers pander to women much more than men. Ellen Degeneres makes me cringe when she informs her audience of the gifts they’ll receive for attending her show.

Don’t get me wrong; I cringe at behaviors of men, as well. I can’t imagine a single woman who would approve Congressional spending of a billion dollars for a B-2 bomber or $400 million for a Presidential helicopter. (Some must have, though…little doubt of that.) I look at weekend sports and wonder how so many men can be so immobilized by so few. Lazy, I guess. Didn’t Churchill say something like that?

I look past doing with money to the harm we do ourselves and others when we have too much money […] extravagance and waste go wild. We humans don’t know our limits, I’ll give you that. Are you saying women are more guilty of over indulgence than men?

Speaking from personal experience, my woman is tolerably indulgent. Speaking for myself, if I was innocent, I’d be living out of a shopping cart under an overpass. I see advertising hacks who pander to women, shamelessly urging them to be more and more indulgent. They make direct appeals to “decadence”, whisper like naughty angels that you women should have many luxurious things because “You deserve it.” Why do you deserve it, I wonder? Well, those very deserving women are young and nice looking. What else is needed?

Because I see guys buying lots of useless crap, too.

Absolutely they do. Men are lesser targets of people who create needs and desires, but they get their share.

And that makes me think. I seldom see real men and women who exhibit the urges and insecurities that I so often see on the small screen. Real people seem much more reasonable and confident than those commercial stereotypes. On the other hand, when I’m tempted to think real people must be different, it dawns on me that TV ads work to some extent, that millions of seemingly reasonable, decent people voted for Bush and his cultural underlayment of American exceptionalism. I still have vivid memories of Lester Holt and Joe Scarborough in 2003 when they paved the way to war like media werewolves. Something must be happening out there…I can’t see what it is exactly, but I can see some of what comes of it.

My ex-husband had about $20,000 or more invested in tools, most of which he never used. He was a pack-rat, too. I’m more of a minimalist.

You’re fortunate. No peaceful coexistence for materialism and spirituality.

Newsflash: that Cadillac ad is not directed at women. It’s directed at men who hope women will be turned on by their Cadillacs enough that they might get to try some Viagra out on them.

Maybe so. But I think women are being more and more encouraged to have some of the needs and desires of men. (You know, of course, that TV commercials appeal with varying degrees of effectiveness to many demographics at once. As Kerry’s campaign tried hard to do in ’04.)

I basically agree with you that there is much wrong with our culture about which much needs to be done, but I don’t think either gender holds more of the blame than the other. I do think that concepts of gender are a big part of our problems, though, and I’m glad to see us begin to transcend them.

Really, I don’t blame it on gender anymore than I blame it on race or seniority. Something is to blame, however, so I blame our history and culture. Like Ryerson said (about something else), we’ve all taken a long time to get here. When you worry about our “concepts of gender”, I could substitute our “history and culture” and agree with you completely.

By the way, you might enjoy reading the first few pages of the following piece: Reaction Profiles by Americans, Chinese, Japanese, Thai, and Vietnamese on ‘Skeletons in the Family Closet’ Topics

<link>

I don’t know if you’re the same Dubina, but Robes—a first generation frayster who departed us almost three years ago—was one of the first to greet me on these fora, and he told me about a poster named Dubina whom he held in high regard.

I knew Robes online as well. Knew him as a nice guy, once a comrade in arms, thoughtful and decent. I was sorry to hear of his sudden demise. If you used another nic back then, he spoke often and kindly of you.