On shopping
Matt Yglesias draws my attention to the conceptual laziness with which we deploy the term "shopping." He attempts to bust a gender-role myth (a perfectly respectable goal) by noting an apparent hypocrisy:
Surely, though, this definition elides the distinction between several different activities. Here is a list of actions that may be described as "shopping."
We can even say something about how this activity differs from the other two in ways that ought to make it appealing to women under traditional gender role assumptions. The first two activities make economic sense insofar as the intentions-to-purchase and the selection criteria (in #2) do. The third does not; here you are actively seeking, or at least open, to spending money in ways that you do not currently regard yourself as having any reason for. The third activity is, however, more obviously an activity whose primary purpose might be social, rather than economic, for it has the open-ended character common to many such social activities (e.g., parties, picnics, hangings-out at bars, etc.). There is no goal or end built into the activity. Shopping of kind #3 will therefore seem to be an appealing activity to the extent that one places a high value on socializing and does not worry about the potential economic costs. And traditional gender roles put the responsibility for economic decisions primarily on the man's shoulders, while women are thought to place a higher premium on socializing for its own sake.
Of course, abandoning those assumptions, we can readily acknowledge that men and women both engage in activity of all three kinds when in a position to do so. That is, when there is sufficient money. Some people will naturally prefer other social activities to #3, but there is no reason to think that this will be correlated with sex except to the extent that people regard shopping-3 as a characteristically feminine activity and also regard that as itself a reason to avoid it for men. (I should add, also to the extent that women actually are more shielded from worrying about the economic costs of their activities.)
we've learned that women like to shop (men, of course, don't shop with our money; we just spend it buying things)The suppressed premise required for this particular bit of snark to have force is that shopping just is purchasing things with money.
Surely, though, this definition elides the distinction between several different activities. Here is a list of actions that may be described as "shopping."
1. Forming an intention to purchase some specific item, going to a store where that item is sold, and purchasing it.Surely, when people speak of "shopping" in the sense that is supposed to be a characteristic activity of women, it is #3 that they mean.
2. Forming an intention or purchase an item of some general kind, going to one or more stores where items of that kind are sold, searching for a particular member of the kind that best satisfies some criteria, and purchasing it.
3. Forming an intention to purchase some thing or things, going to one or more stores where there are things you might like to buy, searching for stuff you can rationalize spending money on, and buying that stuff.
We can even say something about how this activity differs from the other two in ways that ought to make it appealing to women under traditional gender role assumptions. The first two activities make economic sense insofar as the intentions-to-purchase and the selection criteria (in #2) do. The third does not; here you are actively seeking, or at least open, to spending money in ways that you do not currently regard yourself as having any reason for. The third activity is, however, more obviously an activity whose primary purpose might be social, rather than economic, for it has the open-ended character common to many such social activities (e.g., parties, picnics, hangings-out at bars, etc.). There is no goal or end built into the activity. Shopping of kind #3 will therefore seem to be an appealing activity to the extent that one places a high value on socializing and does not worry about the potential economic costs. And traditional gender roles put the responsibility for economic decisions primarily on the man's shoulders, while women are thought to place a higher premium on socializing for its own sake.
Of course, abandoning those assumptions, we can readily acknowledge that men and women both engage in activity of all three kinds when in a position to do so. That is, when there is sufficient money. Some people will naturally prefer other social activities to #3, but there is no reason to think that this will be correlated with sex except to the extent that people regard shopping-3 as a characteristically feminine activity and also regard that as itself a reason to avoid it for men. (I should add, also to the extent that women actually are more shielded from worrying about the economic costs of their activities.)
posted by gregates at 2:13 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home