One of the seeming oddities of the high end of the fashion world are purses and handbags that can cost well over $1000. (Here's Vogue UK's list of its current hot 100 handbags, prices in pounds.)
From a simple sociobiological perspective, it's hard to explain why any women would compete over something like an expensive purse that straight men simply aren't going to notice. Why not spend the money on getting hair extensions or giant implants or something else that will catch heterosexual men's eyes? So, one theory popular among straight men is that straight women are victims of a gay male conspiracy to brainwash them into competing with each other over stuff that doesn't attract men.
No doubt there is some truth to this, but let's look at it from the perspective of the women who do want to upstage other women by having the newest and most expensive of this season's handbags. Who are they? Typically, they are women with rich husbands. And that means they aren't particularly desperate to hook a new man because the one they've got is paying for their expensive gew-gaws. Moreover, they don't want to associate socially with women desperate to hook a good catch because their own husbands are good catches. So, they prefer to associate with other women who have rich husbands, too.
Women with rich husbands tend to have a competitive streak, which is how they snagged a rich husband in the first place, but they don't want to constantly replay the Darwinian struggle for a mate with the other women in their social circle. They are looking for a hobby they can compete with their peers in without ruining marriages.
So, women with rich husbands will often compete over things like handbags, a contest to impress other rich women and gay men, but not to arouse their friends' husbands into breaking up their marriages. It's a cartel with rules to keep the competition from getting out of hand.
It's like how a construction worker might go to Las Vegas and win or lose $20,000 while a the rich husband of one of these women is more likely to go to his golf club and win or lose a (largely symbolic) $20 bet on a golf game. As Freud suggested, the higher bourgeois classes tend to have more sublimated, less destructive hobbies.
Posts
49 comments:
Putting $1,000 handbags in your store makes middle-class women feel better about blowing $300 on your other purses. They feel like they "found a bargain" compared to the luxury item.
Then they brag to their friends about what a good deal they got.
Speaking of Freud, the hand-bag is, of course, a vaginal symbol in that its primary purpose is to hold and contain items, and thus demonstrate the fact of ownership and belonging, like the seed within the womb.
It has been surmised that this is, deep down, the source of the hand-bad obsession that affects so many women.
I would bet that the importance of status-symbol objects like premium accessories, clothes and jewelry increases as women age and their sex appeal decreases. Based on personal observation, the value of handbags for post-menopausal women is huge.
I think it's time for a post on the sociobiology of male activities, like video games. Why would adolescent (and single adult) males spend time and money on an activity that repulses heterosexual women? Are video games part of a conspiracy to prevent high-IQ white males from reproducing?
The next frontier in Feminism, protecting female gamers from online taunts: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/us/sexual-harassment-in-online-gaming-stirs-anger.html?hp
Right, William Poundstone wrote a book ("Priceless" on Anon's point.
"Ralph Lauren doesn’t expect to sell a $14,000 purse. It’s supposed to make the $800 purse look affordable and reasonable. The $14,000 price acts as an anchor; an arbitrary figure that affects the way people assign some other value."
http://briefwright.com/?p=669
That there ARE some people willing to burn $14k on a purse is a strong argument for Robert Frank's idea of a high income consumption surtax.
"Such a tax would not cause painful sacrifices because, beyond a certain point, additional consumption serves needs that are almost completely socially determined.
When all C.E.O.’s build bigger mansions, for example, they are simply raising the bar that defines how big of a mansion a C.E.O. needs. If a progressive consumption surtax induced all of them to postpone those additions, nothing important would be sacrificed."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/business/economy/21view.html
Another big reason for the popularity of handbags (and shoes) is that the vast majority of women, whether wealthy or not, don't look good in couture clothes. Fashion-loving women who lack the figures of models can still carry high fashion bags and wear high fashion shoes. As a woman who is fairly uninterested in fashion, but knows many women who love it, that is my take.
Gloria
"So, one theory popular among straight men is that straight women are victims of a gay male conspiracy to brainwash them into competing with each other over stuff that doesn't attract men."
And the other one about women being insane, in today's polite-speak, just being different because patriarchy touched them inappropriately when they were little.
The American husband, as Mrs. Houstoun wrote in 1850, was "merely the medium through which dollars find their way into the milliners' shop in exchange for caps and bonnets."
"Speaking of Freud, the hand-bag is, of course,"
to hold and contain items, a tool for causing castration anxiety in the husband, and thus demonstrate the fact of ownership and belonging.
I dunno, I think Steve is all wet on this one.
Although it seems to have abated in recent years, the hunger of young ladies in Japan for expensive handbags is legendary and probably unparallelled anywhere in the world.
I don't get the sense that they are influenced at all by gay guys on this or other points.
This handbag lust has deep roots, goes back at least to edo period, a nicely togged out lady had a beautiful bag to go w/her kimono...
Sometimes handbag envy is just handbag envy.....
Poundstone seems a little dated now. There are five-figure watches, handbags, etc. advertised in the FT's How to Spend It magazine by brands that actually sell them, and don't market to the middle as well like Ralph Lauren does.
As for a progressive consumption tax, the logical consequence of it would be to drive some of the super-rich out of the United States. Bear in mind that the super-rich are already limited in what they can consume. A hedgie with ludicrously big houses likely has at least 10x as much of his money in securities (i.e., on loan to governments and corporations, or in ownership stakes in corporations). There's just a physical limit to what a person can realistically buy, and that's already below what the richest earn.
From a simple sociobiological perspective, it's hard to explain why any women would compete over something like an expensive purse that straight men simply aren't going to notice.
Not to mention shoes.
But the explanation is that this sort of thing is intra-female competition. It's irrelevant whether guys notice it, the point is to one-up other women.
Guys do the same thing only with cars, motor-cycles, tech gadgets etc.
Expensive designer clothes usually are designed to fit slim taller women and don't always look good on women with different body types or on older women. Expensive handbags don't suffer from a similar limitation.
I dunno, why do dudes drop four or five figures on expensive watches that don't keep time any better than a 30 dollar Seiko?
Because they're intrinsically beautiful and they signal to other people in the know that you've made it and are a person to take seriously. It doesn't seem that complicated.
This theory seems reasonable to me. Handbags are a means to compete for status. Whatever the female status game du jour is, buying expensive hand bags or adopting your own African child, rich females will do it.
An expensive handbag is a way to prove how rich your husband is. The theory being that if money is no object, then the price of the handbag is immaterial.
"Why would adolescent (and single adult) males spend time and money on an activity that repulses heterosexual women? Are video games part of a conspiracy to prevent high-IQ white males from reproducing?"
Most games simulate natural instincts of males. For example, to practice and compete at war (FPS, RTS), to progress through a career getting achievements and going up levels etc (RPG). The difference is that the game is easier and less risky than the real thing, with a lot of the tedium removed. Thus it is more addictive.
Video games are a lot like drugs, but instead of just giving your brain straight dopamine (the reward), the video game tricks your brain into thinking that you have done valid work to garner the reward. Your brain then responds by making you feel good. Extra levels, loot to upgrade your weapons and armor, your name at the top of the frag tally - these all give your brain a reward.
The competition to build a better simulator to create addiction and convert that addiction into an income stream is just unfettered capitalism at work. You don't need any nefarious explanation for it. Of course, over time, societies will adapt to limit or prevent the damage, much as the Chinese eventually reacted to the British opium merchants.
Could you live without such a lady?
I've often wondered (and maybe this is germane) why Covergirl has been using homely lesbians (Ellen, Queen Latifah) as spokesmodels. Certainly, very few men find either of these women attractive, and they're LESBIANS. Why would a hetero woman--who's presumably using makeup to enhance her attractiveness to a man--want to use a product endorsed by a plain-featured and/or chunky dyke?
The recipe of our success?
Genius.
Thorstein Veblen explains all:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good
Jonah Lehrer, who writes the same things in the same places as Malcom Gladwell, was caught fabricating multiple Bob Dylan quotes in his book:
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/107779/jonah-lehrers-deceptions
http://www.newgeography.com/content/002992-americas-future-is-taking-shape-in-the-suburbs
Steve,
I read recently that there had been a luxury bag bubble, and then it popped a couple years ago.
Here is a young female lawyer describing why she purchased a $1000 purse
http://bamber.blogspot.com/2007/02/in-which-i-rationalize-indulgence.html
" Why would adolescent (and single adult) males spend time and money on an activity that repulses heterosexual women? "
I think one reason is that prehistoric man spent a lot of his time hunting and video games are a modern substitute for hunting.
" Why would adolescent (and single adult) males spend time and money on an activity that repulses heterosexual women? "
What data do you have that suggests women are repulsed by video games? There is always a disconnection between what women say and what they do.
I've purchased one $1000+ purse because it is a beautiful piece of art I get daily practical use of . No one else notices it and I don't notice others' purses.
Must men think everything is about competition?
For all of those who keep wondering why males do things that do not appeal to women: it is because the males who spend all of their time concentrating on appealing to women are seen as pathetic.
Men should have hobbies in tings that they find interesting and enjoy whether video games, golf, fantasy baseball, or Star Trek. Men who have no hobbies because they spend all of their time trying to appeal to women are seen as the lowest form of pussy wimped idiots by most men.
"Here is a young female lawyer describing why she purchased a $1000 purse"
Hmm should we employ the roissyian psycho-hamster-analysis or the utterly brilliant whiskyian method?
"1.)she hates hates hates white beta males
2.)she loves loves loves some testosterone-addled BBC
3.)???
4.)Profit"
"What data do you have that suggests women are repulsed by video games?"
Indeed, consider playable vampires, the possibilities are endless. The young boys' network promotion sexism and misogyny towards fat-challenged women is going down!
"Must men think everything is about competition? "
Indeed, they stupidly trivialize every female endeavor and don't know that it's more akin to war.
After having kids, these women compete with strollers. Seriously, rich women's strollers are like SUVs for their babies and cost more than my first car.
I knew the luxury bag craze was on its way out when I saw a UPS driver in uniform buying a $600 Coach bag at Macy's three years ago. Caste is totally lost.
That was about the same time the luggage manufacturer in New Bedford, MA was raided by ICE and over 100 illegal aliens were arrested there. Much to many people's surprise, they made some of the Coach products there.
"Women with rich husbands tend to have a competitive streak, which is how they snagged a rich husband in the first place"
Sounds plausible.
Handbags are partiularly good because they can use them a lot whereas an expensive dress only occasionally.
"I've purchased one $1000+ purse because it is a beautiful piece of art I get daily practical use of . No one else notices it and I don't notice others' purses.
Must men think everything is about competition?"
Must women think competition is a male-only preoccupation?
I've been in all-female gatherings. I've also often been the only female in an otherwise all-male gathering, none of whose members was out to impress me (I'm very "old shoe"). My experience has been consistently that women are far more cut-throat and competitive in their assessments of other women (and of their male sex partners) than men are in their assessments of other men or of women.
"As for a progressive consumption tax, the logical consequence of it would be to drive some of the super-rich out of the United States."
Fine, US citizens are liable for US taxes worldwide (Frank's surtax would be levied as part of current income tax so it wouldn't matter where the money is made or where its spent). They can renounce US citizenship Eduardo Saverin style-- and face a stiff exit wealth tax and a ban on re-entering the US.
Its more logical for the super-rich to just pay more for that $14,000 purse.
"Why would adolescent (and single adult) males spend time and money on an activity that repulses heterosexual women?"
Psychology professor Philip Zimbardo (still plugging away 45 years after his Stanford prison experiment) would say technology enchantment.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hero/201205/the-demise-guys
In my experience, men's social structure is hierarchical and men are pretty good at sizing each other up and figuring out where they fit in the pecking order. Whether the criteria is strength, intelligence, looks, wealth or something else, everybody quickly sorts themselves out along the continuum. If two men are close on the scale, there's conflict. But Joe Average is not going to buy a Rolex and a Porsche and expect his peers to suddenly perceive him as having higher prestige.
Women, on the other hand, have more amorphous social structures characterized by shifting alliances. The smartest, prettiest, richest woman is not always the most popular. This leads to continual competition. In such an environment, status symbols like a $1000 handbag are more useful.
Why would adolescent (and single adult) males spend time and money on an activity that repulses heterosexual women?
Essentially EVERY activity that single men find pleasurable repulses heterosexual women.
The role of women is to domesticate men. They snare these wild, hedonistic, self-centered creatures with their charms, crush their spirits, and turn them into useful beasts of burden.
Whiskey bait
In my experience, men's social structure is hierarchical and men are pretty good at sizing each other up and figuring out where they fit in the pecking order
Speaking as a man, I have to say that such has never been my experience.
My wife just bought an $700 handbag, mainly I think to punish me for buying $13,000 worth of Snap-On tools and a tool box.
I've always wanted one. Now I have it.
But a more interesting question is, why do mechanics who earn a living from working on cars buy Snap-On tools new from the dealer when they can buy tools as good for much less in many cases, or buy Snap-ons used via eBay?
The value of mine is that they are not how I make a living. I teach vocational computer science-MCSE, MCSD, Cisco certification programs-at a for-profit educational institution. I work on old British and German cars and motorcycles and such as a hobby.
But most mechanics have a lot of tools they never use in their box, which itself tends to be way oversize.
What drives this?
Female, white, middle class. Purse is a big bag I use to tote things. Now, if you'd like to see these really cool old books I have...
Sadly, few people are interested in the ideas of our ancestors in this day and age.
Although it seems to have abated in recent years, the hunger of young ladies in Japan for expensive handbags is legendary and probably unparallelled anywhere in the world.
I don't get the sense that they are influenced at all by gay guys on this or other points.
I bought my wife a Chanel bag at an estate sale 4 or 5 years ago for maybe $150, but she seldom used it. Then about a year ago, we were in the local Swarovski shop, and the conversation somehow turned to my wife's bag.
"She thinks it might be a knock-off," I said.
"Oh, no, that's a real Chanel," answered the only person working the store that day, a gay man in his early 20's.
She now carries the bag much more often.
YES. Now extrapolate say, a Birkin Bag costing upwards of $20,000 or so, and make that say Melinda Gates hugging African kids (and HATE HATE HATING ordinary White ones who might compete with HER kids), and you have much of the sexual/racial dynamic among the moneyed upper classes.
Rich women with rich husbands want to compete in non-destructive ways for moral superiority, and what is less destructive of a marriage than good old fashioned moral superiority, ad being "anti-racist" (aka anti-White)? Why nothing, and expressing that stuff is like displaying a Birkin Bag that cost more than a small car.
Thorstein Veblen explains all:
The leisure class is the conservative class.
Conspicuous consumption.
Exploit versus industry.
What was the rest of it?
"Women with rich husbands tend to have a competitive streak, which is how they snagged a rich husband in the first place, but they don't want to constantly replay the Darwinian struggle for a mate with the other women in their social circle."
Anecdote about Barbara Amiel, the formidable wife of the now-disgraced Canadian newspaper magnate Conrad Black.
The couple had hosted a party in one of their homes and Amiel was circulating and distributing pleasantries among the guests.
Then, from across the room, she saw that a pretty young woman had engaged her husband in conversation, hanging on his every word. Black was clearly enjoying her attention.
Amiel waited until they were finished and went their separate ways around the room. She caught up with the young woman, took her to one side and without the smile ever leaving her face, said quietly:
"Why don't you just f*** off?'
All these bitchy jealous comments only confirm the wisdom of O'Bama to generate class warfare. Sailor's readers agree that rich women should be taxed more.
20 years ago I sold expensive leather goods in Ginza. Wallets were $500 or so and handbags were $1,000 or so and up.
I'd guess that most of my customers were "office ladies" although many were hostesses or their clients buying for them.
Disposable income was pretty high for those groups, so that was not really big money.
The brand was important of course, but they did seem to sincerely appreciate well-made durable products.
I'd say long term satisfaction was and is high.
I've been using the same $300 wallet for 25 years.
I didn't work for Hermes, but their Kelly and Birkin bags which are around $5,000 to $10,000, seem to be a pretty good investment, somehow. They hold their value, I believe.
"All these bitchy jealous comments only confirm the wisdom of O'Bama to generate class warfare. Sailor's readers agree that rich women should be taxed more."
You do realise that your concern for the wellbeing of wealthy ladies who lunch will never be reciprocated?
The govt has to tax something, taxing high income consumption is a lot more justifiable than the payroll tax or sales taxes on food.
If you're at a loss why this is, Google 'Jesus and widow's mite'.
@Ian and beowolf,
to restate, the jealous comments here only speak to the wisdom of O'Bama in generating class warefare. I had no idea Sailers's readers were so succombed by class warfare.
Post a Comment