Author Topic: Gender construction and expense reduction  (Read 10203 times)

Ron Scott

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2049
Gender construction and expense reduction
« on: November 10, 2023, 07:34:00 AM »
Eliminating/Reducing unnecessary purchases is key to the average FIRE adherent. So, what is “necessary” to buy…or at least very highly desirable…beyond food and housing? Which purchases are unnecessary?

It seems like the answers differ based on whether you identify as a man or a woman.

The internet will tell you it costs $300,000–$500,000 or more to “be a woman” than a man. This is both a widely understood and logically flawed concept.

The cost differential relates to differing beliefs and interests.

For example, women spend up to 75% more than men on clothes while there is absolutely no logical reason to do so. Women also spend more on grooming…even on soaps and shampoos. 

Men are inordinately interested in gadgets and features of gadgets that target our wallets. The big screen TV has to be Slimline, QLED, HDR, 4 or 8K, with a good UI, and easy access to hidden HDMI, HDMI(ARC), USB and other connections. Home theater and audio systems are another product line than men get enmeshed in and are easy marks to sell at price point or above. And money spent on sports-related activities or entertainment doesn’t count.

There was a period in the US in the late ‘70s when many of us thought the gender divide on purchasing would eventually disappear and nobody would own 50 pairs of shoes or muscle cars. But that naïveté was dead by the ‘80s and things have gotten much worse instead. We talk a good game nowadays about equality but we accentuate the differences as much as they did in the ‘50s.

My take is you cannot change the broad culture much, but you can change how it influences your spending by recognizing the effect it has on you and push back.

I am doing my part: I no longer spend money to see a live sports event, and keep my sports-related TV expenses to one MLB pass. Spending on bicycles and all matter of equipment doesn’t count of course.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2023, 07:36:07 AM by Ron Scott »

Tasse

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4125
  • Age: 31
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #1 on: November 10, 2023, 07:49:28 AM »
For example, women spend up to 75% more than men on clothes while there is absolutely no logical reason to do so. Women also spend more on grooming…even on soaps and shampoos.

I agree that this is largely due to a consumer culture that, yes, targets people based on gender, but I'll tell you now that you are going to get some pushback on "absolutely no logical reason." Women are held to higher appearance standards, including standards of professionalism, meaning (depending on the field) it can hurt our careers to refuse to participate. (I don't say this in defensiveness: I never wear makeup, hate buying clothes, and cut my hair short, but I have a PhD and a remote work setup, so I've created a situation where it matters less.)

Despite that caveat, I agree this is a real phenomenon that is interesting to discuss.

You mentioned muscle cars, but not the latest iteration of them: unnecessarily massive trucks. I assume men drive most of those sales, though I suppose I've never actually seen the numbers.

Laura33

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3930
  • Location: Mid-Atlantic
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #2 on: November 10, 2023, 08:00:41 AM »
For example, women spend up to 75% more than men on clothes while there is absolutely no logical reason to do so. Women also spend more on grooming…even on soaps and shampoos. 

Why would you assume there is no logical reason for these purchases?  Have you talked to any women about why these things matter to them?

Why not look at things from the reverse angle?  Start by assuming that everything someone does seems logical and appropriate to them.  Then try to figure out what that is.

As a functioning female who has lived in the US for more than 5 decades, I can convey to you a few very simple truths from my own experience.  Culturally, women are judged by their beauty, age, and manner.  Just look at all the movies -- I guarantee you see some nebbish guy getting the hot chick way more often than you see the reverse. 

This means that if you want any kind of social status, you need to at a bare minimum meet the norms of your group -- and if you want higher status, you need to exceed the norms and be someone others want to be.  This applies in all sorts of environments, from choosing a mate to getting a raise and promotion.  You really think I wanted to wear panty hose and uncomfortable shoes all those years?  Talk about inventions of the devil.  But we had a dress code, and that was what "professional" meant for women.  Oh:  and women are trained from birth that this is how society works and they should be pretty, and so many women dive happily into that world and find they really enjoy it.

I am not in any way a clothes horse or all about hair and makeup; in fact, I'm the opposite and resent any time and money I have to spend beyond basic grooming.  But I learned that I need to put in the money and effort to fit in in that manner if I want to be accepted.  I call it protective coloration -- I don't need to be at the top, but I need to look like I fit in so that I am accepted enough to do the stuff I care about.  Part of the joy of being FI was realizing I no longer have to play that game and can look however I want to look.

Also:  have you priced women's clothes?  Ever?  Compared the cost of a basic shirt or pair of pants?  Or how about priced out haircuts?  The "pink tax" is a well-known phenomenon.

use2betrix

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2586
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #3 on: November 10, 2023, 09:01:01 AM »
Certainly a very generalized statistic, I can understand it being the case for the “average American consumer.” For my brother and his wife, it largely fits the bill. While his wife rarely wears makeup, is generally a bit of a “Tom boy”, she also (surprisingly to me), has a huge, fancy, expensive, purse collection. She also has an insanely huge running shoe collection. She clearly just enjoys the purses herself. They are largely in her closet, still with tags. No one would ever even know she has them (doesn’t flaunt them, use most of them, talk about them, etc.) General decorative items around their house look like they could be out of a magazine. My brother, on the other side of the statistic, is huuuuge into electronics. Top of the line everything. Probably $60k+ in pinball machines as part of his arcade. Fortunately, they are both very high income earners and have careers they seem to really enjoy.

My wife and I are really polar opposites of the statistic. She is about as frugal as it comes. She gets an annual haircut around her birthday (this year it cost $45 + tip). Her idea of clothes shopping is 2nd hand on FB market place, or Ross, Marshall’s, etc. I have a very very expansive/expensive wardrobe. I have a penchant for Red Wing Heritage Boots (Their made in USA line), which run around $280-$350 a pair (have 6 pairs). I have also spent the last 5-6 years building a capsule wardrobe, primarily from the highest quality materials and stitching I have found in existence, generally from Japan, but occasionally US/Canada. The majority of clothing at this point is from www.IronheartAmerica.com - a UK retailer that sources from Japan. I would expect the clothing to last a lifetime, assuming no tears/stains that could destroy it. Each article is around $250-$350. Compared to a similar piece of clothing for around $75, and the quality is quite obvious. The denim in my iron heart jeans is 2x-2.5x thicker than in my Levi’s I use for working on projects around the house/garage.

I cannot speak on behalf of most women that spend more on clothes, but I feel quite logical in my purchases for more expensive clothing. I remember walking through the mall a couple years ago and seeing a pair of boots at “The Buckle” for around $130 that LOOKED very similar to a pair of my red wing heritage boots. I picked them up and it was comical how crappy the material was. Yes, they cost about 1/2 as much, but I would guarantee they would last about 10% as long. They probably weighed 1/2 as much (crappy sole and thin leather)..

Both my boots and clothing contain basically no branding. While many people are familiar with redwing boots, very few realize know that there’s both their crap Asian ‘standard’ line of boots, vs their separate American made series. Regarding my iron heart and similar brand clothing, I’d guess that probably 99.9% of people have never heard of these brands. In real life, i’m generally ‘embarrassed’ about the cost of my clothing and wouldn’t discuss it with most people I know, so it has nothing to do with ‘showing off’ how much I spent or the brand names. It is literally about buying top quality items that I see value in and enjoy. This extends for other items beyond just my clothing as well.

I will add that for ‘consumable’ clothes (t-shirts) I often buy pretty cheap stuff as they don’t last as long regardless. All of my boxer briefs are identical adidas (different colors). Most of my socks are rather expensive “darn tough” brand, however they come with a lifetime warranty. I’ve been wearing them for 5+ years and have only had to use the warranty claim once. They cost more and provide a life time warranty because they are truly top quality.

For good measure, here’s some of the boots:
« Last Edit: November 10, 2023, 09:03:35 AM by use2betrix »

Cranky

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3964
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #4 on: November 10, 2023, 09:02:04 AM »
Agree. Women’s social status (personal and professional) is heavily dependent on purchases for appearance, more so than men’s status relates to purchases on vehicles and toys.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 25659
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #5 on: November 10, 2023, 09:16:44 AM »
My TV was purchased fifteen years ago and the audio system twelve years ago.  Both are still going strong and have no need at all for any particularly fancy new features.  I also have a decent pair of studio monitors that I use to record and mix music.

My most wasteful area of life is that I have too many guitars (four electric guitars, an acoustic, a bass, a tenor guitar) but I play them all pretty regularly.  I've also got some mics and preamps for recording, a guitar amp, and a bass amp.

As far as sports . . . I purchased my weights thirty years ago for a couple hundred bucks.  I bought my touring bike more than a decade ago for 800$, and my winter commuting bike eight years ago for 300$.  Probably my biggest sport related expense is an ongoing membership to a Jiu-Jitsu gym.  I pay for a VPN (about 40$ a year? so I can watch the UK coverage of the Tour De France on ITV).

Overall though, I don't believe that my penis has made me inordinately interested in gadgets, cars, sports, or many (any?) of the stereotypical things a guy is usually told he should be interested in.  I don't have a cell phone, don't want the internet of things in my house, drive a 2005 Corolla, don't go to sportsball games or out on the town for entertainment, haven't had a drink this year (but never really drank much before), and only buy tools if necessary for projects I'm working on.

Ron Scott

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2049
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #6 on: November 10, 2023, 09:18:15 AM »
For example, women spend up to 75% more than men on clothes while there is absolutely no logical reason to do so. Women also spend more on grooming…even on soaps and shampoos.

You mentioned muscle cars, but not the latest iteration of them: unnecessarily massive trucks. I assume men drive most of those sales, though I suppose I've never actually seen the numbers.

The big SUVs and other trucky things on the road seem to be mostly driven (aggressively) by men. The one exception I see is Range Rovers, which are the second worst driven vehicles on the roads (following Dodge Chargers), and are often driven (aggressively) by women.

Women may never catch up with men in driving poorly, but some are clearly trying their hardest!

Ron Scott

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2049
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #7 on: November 10, 2023, 09:29:03 AM »
My TV was purchased fifteen years ago and the audio system twelve years ago.  Both are still going strong and have no need at all for any particularly fancy new features.  I also have a decent pair of studio monitors that I use to record and mix music.

My most wasteful area of life is that I have too many guitars (four electric guitars, an acoustic, a bass, a tenor guitar) but I play them all pretty regularly.  I've also got some mics and preamps for recording, a guitar amp, and a bass amp.

As far as sports . . . I purchased my weights thirty years ago for a couple hundred bucks.  I bought my touring bike more than a decade ago for 800$, and my winter commuting bike eight years ago for 300$.  Probably my biggest sport related expense is an ongoing membership to a Jiu-Jitsu gym.  I pay for a VPN (about 40$ a year? so I can watch the UK coverage of the Tour De France on ITV).

Overall though, I don't believe that my penis has made me inordinately interested in gadgets, cars, sports, or many (any?) of the stereotypical things a guy is usually told he should be interested in.  I don't have a cell phone, don't want the internet of things in my house, drive a 2005 Corolla, don't go to sportsball games or out on the town for entertainment, haven't had a drink this year (but never really drank much before), and only buy tools if necessary for projects I'm working on.

You are adhering to the MMM playbook like a pro and spend far less than I do in all these areas. But I can say I’m onto myself and society to a good extent. I almost never buy the higher priced item with more features than the reasonable one, and I’ve been long done with stadium entertainment.

I do enjoy live entertainment across the board however and while I don’t need the best seats in the house I’m not thrifty in this area.

neo von retorch

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5543
  • Location: SE PA
    • Fi@retorch - personal finance tracking
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #8 on: November 10, 2023, 09:34:55 AM »
https://www.zippia.com/pick-up-truck-driver-jobs/demographics/

While the ratio has slowly been changing, it's still about 90% men driving trucks.

https://motorandwheels.com/pickup-truck-demographics-segments/

Another source - 88% men.

https://hedgescompany.com/blog/2019/01/new-car-buyer-demographics-2019/

Suggests even among SUVs, 57% are men.

https://www.cjponyparts.com/media/images/blog/men-vs-women-car-buying-infographic.jpg

Suggests women are more likely to be practical when buying cars. The brands largely reflect this (with the exception of #1 Mini.)

wageslave23

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1906
  • Location: Midwest
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #9 on: November 10, 2023, 09:35:25 AM »
I just wanted to say that reading some of the justifications for women spending on what I consider materialistic, useless things has been enlightening.  I get so frustrated when my wife wants to spend money on makeup, hair products, comforter, drapes, lamp, other household items just because they look good. I'm all about utility, so it helps to see the psychological reasons behind her perspective.

RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 21161
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #10 on: November 10, 2023, 09:57:09 AM »
There is a lot more nuance in women's clothing (including shoes).   That means more clothes, more shoes, more purses, more coats, more everything. 

And for a woman in a business setting the push is there.  My sister, a high-level professional in a big firm, spent more on one suit than I spent on my whole work wardrobe.  She spent more on one trip to the hairdresser than I spent in a year.  Teaching biology and having labs and field trips means no-one expects you to look like an executive.  Of course we also don't get paid enough to look like an executive.

John T. Molloy's books on dressing for success (ancient now) addressed this.  When he was doing the research for his first book for women, he was appalled at how bad the quality was and how high the price was for women's clothing compared to men's equivalent clothing.


Hadilly

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #11 on: November 10, 2023, 10:17:55 AM »
I have to admit, I thought this post was going to be about doing gender affirming surgery on the cheap.

Hard agree with Laura33

parkerk

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 367
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #12 on: November 10, 2023, 10:25:50 AM »
My standard for "beauty" for myself is fairly simple - if a man wouldn't be expected to do it, I won't do it either. So I'll wash and comb my hair and wash my face, but I won't wear makeup or do a complicated, expensive hair style daily. Removing unwanted facial hair? Discretionary. Removing unwanted body hair? No. And it's as much a "fight the unreasonable standards, lead by example" thing as it is a frugality thing.

That said, everyone who's saying women are judged on their appearance is absolutely right and we definitely don't need to make women feel like they're doing something wrong because they can't just drop a lifetime of conditioning and take the risks that come with ditching it all. And on a financial level the risk of getting passed up for a job you really need because you didn't look "feminine enough" can justify that spend.

So I'll walk around with my bare face and hairy legs and people can get used to seeing one more woman like that because I can afford to, in the hopes that 20 years from now when my nieces are job hunting they won't feel like they have to use a bunch of expensive products just to increase their odds of getting a job in an office or restaurant.

Louise

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 222
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #13 on: November 10, 2023, 10:30:04 AM »
There is a lot more nuance in women's clothing (including shoes).   That means more clothes, more shoes, more purses, more coats, more everything. 

Women are built differently too. They have more body types- pear shaped, apple shaped, straight,  hourglass, etc. Sometimes it's difficult to find things off the rack that fit properly, much less trying to find something that fits properly secondhand. I've never had much luck in thrift stores or at clearance sales. However, my husband can buy a shirt from the thrift store without even trying it on and it will work just fine. I don't wear a lot of makeup, but my teen daughter loves it and I'm shocked at how much money it costs now.


ATtiny85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1184
  • Location: Midwest
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #14 on: November 10, 2023, 10:40:22 AM »
Who is doing all the judging and putting this pressure on women? My personal experience is that it is not men doing the judging. I have been in many groups in many circumstances in my five decades, and it seems easily fixable (assuming it is broken which seems safe given the responses so far) by policing yourself.

Similarly, I have heard many comments from men towards other men (including me) judging and putting pressure on vehicles and other toys. I have done my part by policing myself by both not making judgments/comments and by not paying attention to what anyone says about anything I have or wear.

Start breaking the cycle.

JupiterGreen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 760
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #15 on: November 10, 2023, 11:08:38 AM »
I have to admit, I thought this post was going to be about doing gender affirming surgery on the cheap.

Hard agree with Laura33

I have not read this entire rage-bait post, but thought I'd respond to you because, I've found in general @Laura33 says what I would have said so +1 to your response. The only thing I'll add is that women do most of the consumer buying for the household so not sure if people are taking that into consideration....walks back slowly into the bushes Homer Simpson style

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7832
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #16 on: November 10, 2023, 11:20:47 AM »
Who is doing all the judging and putting this pressure on women? My personal experience is that it is not men doing the judging. I have been in many groups in many circumstances in my five decades, and it seems easily fixable (assuming it is broken which seems safe given the responses so far) by policing yourself.

Similarly, I have heard many comments from men towards other men (including me) judging and putting pressure on vehicles and other toys. I have done my part by policing myself by both not making judgments/comments and by not paying attention to what anyone says about anything I have or wear.

Start breaking the cycle.

Yes to breaking the cycle.

But respectfully, if you haven't moved through the world as a woman, then you don't know to what extent men are doing the judging.

Log

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 925
  • Location: San Francisco
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #17 on: November 10, 2023, 11:26:06 AM »
Everyone's talking about professional standards of appearance being higher for women, but let's also just be real about dating prospects, especially among the college-educated professional class.

 - More women than men have been completing Bachelor's degrees every year in the US since 1982, so college-educated women can feel they're competing for a smaller pool of suitable partners.
 - Women are constantly receiving the message that they're at their most attractive when they're younger.
   -  (This time pressure is doubled up if the woman in question is interested in having kids.)

In contrast:
 - It's the norm in heterosexual marriages for the man to be slightly older than the woman. (Median age for first marriage in the US was, as of 2021, 30 for men and 28 for women.)
 - Men are constantly receiving the message that their value as a partner comes from being a "provider."

As a man, the message to spend your early career years focusing on increasing your earnings and saving for the future basically falls in your lap. We have much less time pressure put on us, so the strategy of focusing on our career and living frugally to build up savings for a couple years is extremely intuitive, not only for our financial future but for our future dating prospects!

In that same age range, women are receiving a very different message. The ROI may or may not be in dollars, but finding a more suitable marriage partner (and fast!) is a pretty strong incentive for a woman to spend more of those early-career dollars on beauty instead of index funds.

It may seem silly to focus on young people and dating, but these desirable qualities are still general indicators of status even if you're not looking for a partner. Even an already-married person cares about their status (and of course, cares about continuing to be a desirable partner to their spouse). Society confers proportionally more status on men for their money, and proportionally more status on women for their beauty. So the value of a dollar spent on beauty is higher for a woman than for a man, in a way that is not the slightest bit illogical. We are social creatures, status matters.

Laura33

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3930
  • Location: Mid-Atlantic
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #18 on: November 10, 2023, 11:34:39 AM »
Who is doing all the judging and putting this pressure on women? My personal experience is that it is not men doing the judging. I have been in many groups in many circumstances in my five decades, and it seems easily fixable (assuming it is broken which seems safe given the responses so far) by policing yourself.

Similarly, I have heard many comments from men towards other men (including me) judging and putting pressure on vehicles and other toys. I have done my part by policing myself by both not making judgments/comments and by not paying attention to what anyone says about anything I have or wear.

Start breaking the cycle.

Yes to breaking the cycle.

But respectfully, if you haven't moved through the world as a woman, then you don't know to what extent men are doing the judging.

It also doesn't matter which gender is doing the judging -- it matters when it's the person/people with more power doing the judging.  You don't have to care when the receptionist or the guy in the mail room thinks you should dress better.  But when the hiring manager does?  Or your supervisor who's responsible for your raise?  Or the guy you're interested in who has placed you firmly in the friend zone?  Then it matters.

This isn't about "women/men are worse because XYZ."  I was annoyed by the "illogical women" trope. 

Here's my logic.  Combine two fairly obvious statements:

People tend to act in what they perceive to be their own self-interest. 

and

You get what you measure.

And the conclusion is:  if women as a whole spend a lot of money on things that seem illogical or stupid to an outsider, it's a fair bet they're doing it because they think it's in their best interest to do so.  I.e., it is completely logical -- you just need to change your perspective.

Dictionary Time

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 156
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #19 on: November 10, 2023, 12:07:51 PM »
Who is doing all the judging and putting this pressure on women? My personal experience is that it is not men doing the judging.

I agree that men are less likely to consciously notice and (especially) comment, but projecting a positive impression as far as grooming and styling is equally important for dealing with men. It may be more on the subconscious level, disregarding an older frumpier woman and taking a polished woman more seriously.

I think that minorities face this as well. The need to project a particular middle class, educated image in order to be taken seriously.

Men have societal expectations as far as picking up the check, buying a round, etc. so put that in the Man column.

okits

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 12515
  • Location: Canada
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #20 on: November 10, 2023, 12:15:28 PM »
I have to admit, I thought this post was going to be about doing gender affirming surgery on the cheap.

Hard agree with Laura33

I have not read this entire rage-bait post, but thought I'd respond to you because, I've found in general @Laura33 says what I would have said so +1 to your response. The only thing I'll add is that women do most of the consumer buying for the household so not sure if people are taking that into consideration....walks back slowly into the bushes Homer Simpson style

I clicked on this thread knowing it would be rage bait.  But it prompted a useful realization.

My husband has worn the one suit he owns to the following events: office parties, our wedding, other people's weddings, funerals, formal dinners.  It has been suitable for all seasons and accommodated moderate changes to his waistline due to stress, lifestyle, and aging.

The social and professional cost of not conforming to gender expectations is too high, so I have worn a different dress for each of: office parties, our own wedding, other people's weddings, funerals, formal dinners.  Sometimes I have re-worn something if appropriate, but different seasons have required different attire and footwear.  Feminine clothing is tapered at the midsection and will accommodate limited changes to one's waistline for due to stress, lifestyle, and aging; it will not accommodate the big changes that are inevitable if your body has an extra 30lbs of fetus, blood volume, amniotic fluid, and placenta.  DH and I didn't have the option of sharing the effects of that body change 50-50; he kept wearing his suit, I went clothes shopping.

Perhaps 2024 will be the year I buy one excellent pantsuit and DH and I can be twins forevermore.  I'm an affluent and established middle-aged mother now, I have the social and professional currency to survive a little nonconformity.

Thanks to everyone who made the effort to share perspective on why people behave the way they do.  It is indeed very driven by survival and self-interest.

jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #21 on: November 10, 2023, 12:19:02 PM »
Yep.  If I were forced to go back to the office, I would definitely think twice about my hair, for instance.  I'm going very grey, it makes me look older, and I'm mostly fine with that because the effort and money it would take to disguise that is just not worth it to me.  But in a professional setting, I would feel like it would behoove me to get it cut and colored constantly.  I have a massive wardrobe in part because of my past professional wardrobe which I have been slowly getting rid of, and I've been weaning myself off the habit of buying clothes/shoes that are not utilitarian or needed.  I really don't have the patience for heels, makeup, regular mani/pedi/hair appointments etc., and I can get away with not doing any of that stuff because I have had a great partner for the past 25 years and I haven't had to go into the office for >10 years.  It's not that I don't take care of my body and hygiene, it's that I don't do the nonsense stuff that I don't prioritize.  I'm fit, exercise daily, and don't have the time to deal with hair and makeup when it's just going to get all sweaty anyway.  Fortunately I hang out with lots of older sporty women who feel the same, but not all my professional colleagues are like that.  I have been told by men in the past that I should do my nails.  They definitely judge - they just don't always have the vocabulary to know what women do in terms of maintenance.

All that said, I do spend more than I should on fitness attire and I spend money on skincare partly because I am vain and partly because it is most definitely frowned on when women get old (or at least, when we look old).  I could look better than I do if I spent more time on makeup and hair, but one of the things I enjoy about no longer living in the south is that it is less expected that I be groomed within an inch of my life every time I step out my front door.

ATtiny85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1184
  • Location: Midwest
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #22 on: November 10, 2023, 12:33:48 PM »
And the conclusion is:  if women as a whole spend a lot of money on things that seem illogical or stupid to an outsider, it's a fair bet they're doing it because they think it's in their best interest to do so.  I.e., it is completely logical -- you just need to change your perspective.

Well sure, classic game theory shit. However, I thought we collectively want to get to a point where there is fundamental equality. To do that it takes sacrifices. So it might be logical to _______ (pick whatever, do, wear, say) for oneself, but it can be simultaneously illogical to the greater group. Tough nut to crack for sure. Maybe, since $$$ was part of the original topic, striving to be more efficient with the dollar for whatever will naturally start helping.

jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #23 on: November 10, 2023, 12:56:43 PM »
And the conclusion is:  if women as a whole spend a lot of money on things that seem illogical or stupid to an outsider, it's a fair bet they're doing it because they think it's in their best interest to do so.  I.e., it is completely logical -- you just need to change your perspective.

Well sure, classic game theory shit. However, I thought we collectively want to get to a point where there is fundamental equality. To do that it takes sacrifices. So it might be logical to _______ (pick whatever, do, wear, say) for oneself, but it can be simultaneously illogical to the greater group. Tough nut to crack for sure. Maybe, since $$$ was part of the original topic, striving to be more efficient with the dollar for whatever will naturally start helping.

I mostly agree with this in theory...although I practice this imperfectly, it's why I spend more money/time on fitness and skincare vs hair and makeup.  A healthy body and healthy skin is desirable for other reasons with the bonus of also looking good, and when you have a good foundation, you don't need a disguise.  I do think people do need to get more used to what people (women) actually look like without makeup.  It's more efficient timewise for me to spend a half hour twice a year on IPL facial treatments or 15 minutes on botox or take ten seconds to slap on a hat/suncreen so that my skin is in great shape to begin with than to spend x minutes every day on makeup and everything else that goes with it.  Now if I were a man, it probably wouldn't occur to me to do even that, so it's still somewhat of a compromise.

PoutineLover

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1651
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #24 on: November 10, 2023, 01:03:21 PM »
I think saying that women are illogical for spending money/time on appearance related items is bullshit. I have opted out of a ton of "feminine" things (makeup, waxing, shaving, botox, dying hair, perfume, nails) and while I can do that in my profession (education), I would not fit the mold or ever get hired in certain industries that are more appearance focused. Just like driving an old car will make you look a certain way to some people, which may or may not be acceptable for your industry.

There are very real costs to opting out of the socially acceptable beauty norms and while I wish everyone could just opt out, it's probably not going to happen as long as there's money to be made in making women feel inferior and selling them everything they need to fix it.

On top of that, things just cost more for women (haircuts, deodorent, shampoo, clothes) and while we can probably use the male equivalent for some things, it doesn't work for everything. Pink tax is real. So everyone, male or female, should examine and optimize their spending for value, but not every choice can be freely made without consequences.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 25659
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #25 on: November 10, 2023, 01:10:55 PM »
I clicked on this thread knowing it would be rage bait.  But it prompted a useful realization.

My husband has worn the one suit he owns to the following events: office parties, our wedding, other people's weddings, funerals, formal dinners.  It has been suitable for all seasons and accommodated moderate changes to his waistline due to stress, lifestyle, and aging.

Hahaha . . . yeah, I've had three dress shirts, three ties, two pairs of dress pants, and a suit jacket . . . and those are my dress clothes.  Bought 'em first year university.  Aside from a rented tux on my wedding, they are the only dress clothes I've worn for the past 23 years.

okits

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 12515
  • Location: Canada
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #26 on: November 10, 2023, 01:19:53 PM »
I clicked on this thread knowing it would be rage bait.  But it prompted a useful realization.

My husband has worn the one suit he owns to the following events: office parties, our wedding, other people's weddings, funerals, formal dinners.  It has been suitable for all seasons and accommodated moderate changes to his waistline due to stress, lifestyle, and aging.

Hahaha . . . yeah, I've had three dress shirts, three ties, two pairs of dress pants, and a suit jacket . . . and those are my dress clothes.  Bought 'em first year university.  Aside from a rented tux on my wedding, they are the only dress clothes I've worn for the past 23 years.

I got a kick out of imagining re-wearing my wedding dress to other people's weddings.  I've never been stabbed at a party before but that would probably do it.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20655
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #27 on: November 10, 2023, 01:44:13 PM »
I have to admit, I thought this post was going to be about doing gender affirming surgery on the cheap.

Hard agree with Laura33

I have not read this entire rage-bait post, but thought I'd respond to you because, I've found in general @Laura33 says what I would have said so +1 to your response. The only thing I'll add is that women do most of the consumer buying for the household so not sure if people are taking that into consideration....walks back slowly into the bushes Homer Simpson style

I clicked on this thread knowing it would be rage bait.  But it prompted a useful realization.

My husband has worn the one suit he owns to the following events: office parties, our wedding, other people's weddings, funerals, formal dinners.  It has been suitable for all seasons and accommodated moderate changes to his waistline due to stress, lifestyle, and aging.

The social and professional cost of not conforming to gender expectations is too high, so I have worn a different dress for each of: office parties, our own wedding, other people's weddings, funerals, formal dinners.  Sometimes I have re-worn something if appropriate, but different seasons have required different attire and footwear.  Feminine clothing is tapered at the midsection and will accommodate limited changes to one's waistline for due to stress, lifestyle, and aging; it will not accommodate the big changes that are inevitable if your body has an extra 30lbs of fetus, blood volume, amniotic fluid, and placenta.  DH and I didn't have the option of sharing the effects of that body change 50-50; he kept wearing his suit, I went clothes shopping.

Perhaps 2024 will be the year I buy one excellent pantsuit and DH and I can be twins forevermore.  I'm an affluent and established middle-aged mother now, I have the social and professional currency to survive a little nonconformity.

Thanks to everyone who made the effort to share perspective on why people behave the way they do.  It is indeed very driven by survival and self-interest.

Yep, thanks to all of the really bright women taking the time to respond here and not letting this thread be a shit show.

You're absolutely right about the consequences professionally and socially of not conforming.

I had to gain A LOT of professional and social power to be able to reject these norms as much as I did. Up until I had all of that clout, I was a strict adherent to the norms and pressures. It felt VERY important.

Then I got to a place where it no longer mattered and I got to breathe freely, chop off all of my hair stop wearing makeup, stop wearing proper bras, and generally show up in work and life looking however the fuck I felt like looking that day.

It was not a choice that was free of consequences, they were just consequences I was readily equipped to manage compared to earlier in my life when there were just so many people above me with power over me.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20655
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #28 on: November 10, 2023, 02:14:39 PM »
I clicked on this thread knowing it would be rage bait.  But it prompted a useful realization.

My husband has worn the one suit he owns to the following events: office parties, our wedding, other people's weddings, funerals, formal dinners.  It has been suitable for all seasons and accommodated moderate changes to his waistline due to stress, lifestyle, and aging.

Hahaha . . . yeah, I've had three dress shirts, three ties, two pairs of dress pants, and a suit jacket . . . and those are my dress clothes.  Bought 'em first year university.  Aside from a rented tux on my wedding, they are the only dress clothes I've worn for the past 23 years.

I got a kick out of imagining re-wearing my wedding dress to other people's weddings.  I've never been stabbed at a party before but that would probably do it.

I've gotten in shit TWICE at weddings for wearing the exact shade of pink as the wedding colours. I stopped wearing pink to weddings, but then had to buy a new dress because at the time I only wore black, white, and red, none of which were safe colours for weddings. I bought the stupid pink dress specifically to wear to weddings, and yes, many people commented that I always wore the same pink dress, but they knew I always wore black, so it just became a running joke that it was the only appropriate thing I owned to wear to weddings.

That it, until the two pink episodes, and I stopped wearing the stupid pink dress, which I still own btw.

Hilariously, I switched to wearing a very nice black suit to weddings.

What a lot of dudes don't realize about women's suits though is that they are MUCH more sensitive to weight and body composition changes than men's suits. Men's suits can tolerate a solid range of weights and still be functional. My really well tailored suit doesn't even fit properly if I'm bloated.

I've worked in both menswear and womenswear. I switched early on to exclusively menswear because it was just so much easier even though there was less commission in it because men never needed to buy as much. I could just look at a dude, ask his size, and put together an outfit and he would either like it and want to buy it or not. On the women's side I often had to pull dozens of items just to find ones that would fit properly because an item being "in your size" can fit just horribly.

It's a shocking amount of work just to find items that actually fit your body proportions. I have an unusual hip:waist ratio, and I literally gave up on wearing proper pants about a decade ago. I even had to have my scrubs tailored because they fit so poorly it was uncomfortable.

My hospital had the cheapest scrubs ever and I was paying $50/set to have them customized just so that I could sit properly. DH can order almost any brand of pants in "his size" and get something that fits. He buys his jeans at the grocery store across the street. Last time I bought jeans the only pair in the store that fit me were $300. I bought them and then a year later gained a few pounds and was never able to wear them again.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2023, 02:16:19 PM by Metalcat »

Car Jack

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2196
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #29 on: November 10, 2023, 02:22:00 PM »
I read recently that 80% of retail sales is to women.  Walk into any department store, mall or even Goodwill and that's well displayed.  Of the entire store or mall, there's this tiny spot over there that's the men's department.  The rest of the store has 138 categories of women's items. 

Anyways, on generic expense reduction, for a long time, before buying something, I ask myself do I NEED this or do I just WANT this?  It makes spending hard. 

curious_george

  • Guest
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #30 on: November 10, 2023, 02:41:40 PM »
I have nothing much to add except that in my experience the money men are spending on new lifted pickup trucks, 4 wheelers, motorcycles, dirt bikes, sports cars, sports tickets, big screen TVs, smartphones, electronic gadgets, beer, and entertainment and travel completely dwarfs the amount of money women spend on clothes and fashion and makeup...

Men spend so much more money than women do, on average, I can't believe anyone would assume and generalize that women are the ones making illogical spending choices because they tend to own more clothes. Like...wth.

A woman can buy about 20,000 purses from garage sales and 10,000 dresses and it STILL won't equal how much money some guys spend just on their oversized jacked up gas hogging climate destroying soul sucking useless piece of shit pickup trucks that they need just to prove they are a man...because apparently having a penis isn't enough.

People tend to notice women's looks way more than men. Even professional women tend to get more comments and judgements based on their appearances than men do. Society expects women to look good and judges them on their appearance way more than men get judged. So yes, women will buy more clothes, because that is what they are basically told to do by society.

This thread seems like it was made to point the finger at women and blame women for spending money on clothes and fashion but...really...men waste way more money, on average, than women do. Imo.

Morning Glory

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5380
  • Location: The Garden Path
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #31 on: November 10, 2023, 02:45:18 PM »
Its not just fashion choices. Retail aside, what about the extra costs we pay for transportation and travel just to feel safe? If you want women to spend less, get men to quit raping and harrassing us.

https://www.wired.com/story/nyc-public-transportation-pink-tax-gender-gap/

"
The survey suggests that those experiences on public transit led to many women to make a different set of transportation choices from those made by men. Seventy-five percent of female respondents said they had experienced harassment or theft on public transportation, compared with 47 percent of men. And they responded differently: 29 percent of women said they don’t take public transportation late at night because of it, compared with 8 percent of male respondents. And they spent differently: 42 percent of women said they felt safest taking for-hire vehicles like an Uber or Lyft (which is almost always more expensive than a transit ticket) late at night. Just 15 percent said they felt best on public transit."


This does not even include opportunity costs from avoiding certain occupations/worksites/hours due to harassment or safety risk.

https://www.bitchesgetriches.com/one-reason-women-make-less-money-theyre-afraid-of-being-raped-and-killed/

And also since most rape victims are women we also bear most of the economic cost when it happens:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28153649/

"Results: The estimated lifetime cost of rape was $122,461 per victim, or a population economic burden of nearly $3.1 trillion (2014 U.S. dollars) over victims' lifetimes, based on data indicating >25 million U.S. adults have been raped. This estimate included $1.2 trillion (39% of total) in medical costs; $1.6 trillion (52%) in lost work productivity among victims and perpetrators; $234 billion (8%) in criminal justice activities; and $36 billion (1%) in other costs, including victim property loss or damage. Government sources pay an estimated $1 trillion (32%) of the lifetime economic burden.

Conclusions: Preventing sexual violence could avoid substantial costs for victims, perpetrators, healthcare payers, employers, and government payers. These findings can inform evaluations of interventions to reduce sexual violence."

« Last Edit: November 10, 2023, 03:02:15 PM by Morning Glory »

Tasse

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4125
  • Age: 31
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #32 on: November 10, 2023, 02:54:46 PM »
My standard for "beauty" for myself is fairly simple - if a man wouldn't be expected to do it, I won't do it either. So I'll wash and comb my hair and wash my face, but I won't wear makeup or do a complicated, expensive hair style daily. Removing unwanted facial hair? Discretionary. Removing unwanted body hair? No. And it's as much a "fight the unreasonable standards, lead by example" thing as it is a frugality thing.

I live by this in many ways, but there are a few things for which it just got too exhausting and giving in improved my life. It's not fair, but sometimes you have to put your personal experience ahead of the principle. Making that call took me multiple years of agonizing and is still not something I'm comfortable with, honestly.

Morning Glory

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5380
  • Location: The Garden Path
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #33 on: November 10, 2023, 03:13:30 PM »
On a brighter note, the five years of extra life expectancy could easily account for a 300k difference in lifetime expenditure:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2022/20220831.htm

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20655
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #34 on: November 10, 2023, 03:16:22 PM »
Its not just fashion choices. Retail aside, what about the extra costs we pay for transportation and travel just to feel safe? If you want women to spend less, get men to quit raping and harrassing us.

https://www.wired.com/story/nyc-public-transportation-pink-tax-gender-gap/

"
The survey suggests that those experiences on public transit led to many women to make a different set of transportation choices from those made by men. Seventy-five percent of female respondents said they had experienced harassment or theft on public transportation, compared with 47 percent of men. And they responded differently: 29 percent of women said they don’t take public transportation late at night because of it, compared with 8 percent of male respondents. And they spent differently: 42 percent of women said they felt safest taking for-hire vehicles like an Uber or Lyft (which is almost always more expensive than a transit ticket) late at night. Just 15 percent said they felt best on public transit."


This does not even include opportunity costs from avoiding certain occupations/worksites/hours due to harassment or safety risk.

https://www.bitchesgetriches.com/one-reason-women-make-less-money-theyre-afraid-of-being-raped-and-killed/

And also since most rape victims are women we also bear most of the economic cost when it happens:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28153649/

"Results: The estimated lifetime cost of rape was $122,461 per victim, or a population economic burden of nearly $3.1 trillion (2014 U.S. dollars) over victims' lifetimes, based on data indicating >25 million U.S. adults have been raped. This estimate included $1.2 trillion (39% of total) in medical costs; $1.6 trillion (52%) in lost work productivity among victims and perpetrators; $234 billion (8%) in criminal justice activities; and $36 billion (1%) in other costs, including victim property loss or damage. Government sources pay an estimated $1 trillion (32%) of the lifetime economic burden.

Conclusions: Preventing sexual violence could avoid substantial costs for victims, perpetrators, healthcare payers, employers, and government payers. These findings can inform evaluations of interventions to reduce sexual violence."

100%, it gets dark here early and public transit alone after dark is not my friend.

In undergrad I used a razor scooter to get around. This was not because I loved using a razor scooter, it's because it makes for an EXCELLENT self defense weapon.

ETA: now as a disabled woman with a walking aide, I'm radically more vigilant about where I'll go alone. You wouldn't believe how much more aggressive and creepy men are when they know you can't run away.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2023, 03:18:00 PM by Metalcat »

Laura33

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3930
  • Location: Mid-Atlantic
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #35 on: November 10, 2023, 03:20:07 PM »
And the conclusion is:  if women as a whole spend a lot of money on things that seem illogical or stupid to an outsider, it's a fair bet they're doing it because they think it's in their best interest to do so.  I.e., it is completely logical -- you just need to change your perspective.

Well sure, classic game theory shit. However, I thought we collectively want to get to a point where there is fundamental equality. To do that it takes sacrifices. So it might be logical to _______ (pick whatever, do, wear, say) for oneself, but it can be simultaneously illogical to the greater group. Tough nut to crack for sure. Maybe, since $$$ was part of the original topic, striving to be more efficient with the dollar for whatever will naturally start helping.

My version was minimal/slightly malicious compliance + advocating for why XYZ was stupid and we shouldn't do it.

Then again, I've never been particularly attuned to social cues, and I was sufficiently egotistical to believe I'd be judged on merit, not makeup.  So I largely skated along for years at the "just enough protective coloration to not stand out from the herd" level.

RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 21161
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #36 on: November 10, 2023, 03:29:40 PM »
I have long feet and for everything but dress shoes and dressy sandals I can shop in the men's shoe section.  Men's shoes are made so well.  They are comfortable. They last.  The same size always fits.  Women's shoes are expensive junk.  Men have no idea how happy privileged their feet are.

And yes the transportation cost is real.  When I lived in Ottawa I would go to the National Arts Centre for evening performances.  Bus to it, taxi back.  I would have preferred an afternoon matinee but those are not always available.

When I was a student with late afternoon classes (so it was dark at 5) I walked back to my apartment with my dissecting kit handy.  The one with the scalpel in it.  The area I had to walk through to get home was not a good one.

And I also adjusted clothing to expectations.  I have bought clothes specifically for meetings I was going to go to, so I would be taken seriously.  Men in academia can get away with the absent-minded professor look, women generally can't.  Maybe if you are a Canada Chair with masses of publications and your work is massively cited?  I've seen female Associate Deans much better dressed than their male Dean.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20655
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #37 on: November 10, 2023, 03:31:17 PM »
And the conclusion is:  if women as a whole spend a lot of money on things that seem illogical or stupid to an outsider, it's a fair bet they're doing it because they think it's in their best interest to do so.  I.e., it is completely logical -- you just need to change your perspective.

Well sure, classic game theory shit. However, I thought we collectively want to get to a point where there is fundamental equality. To do that it takes sacrifices. So it might be logical to _______ (pick whatever, do, wear, say) for oneself, but it can be simultaneously illogical to the greater group. Tough nut to crack for sure. Maybe, since $$$ was part of the original topic, striving to be more efficient with the dollar for whatever will naturally start helping.

My version was minimal/slightly malicious compliance + advocating for why XYZ was stupid and we shouldn't do it.

Then again, I've never been particularly attuned to social cues, and I was sufficiently egotistical to believe I'd be judged on merit, not makeup.  So I largely skated along for years at the "just enough protective coloration to not stand out from the herd" level.

Lol, love this.

I got myself to a place where I would maliciously defy the expectations. I didn't just not wear nice clothes, I showed up to corporate meetings with clients dressed overtly badly. I had a phase where I was growing my hair out from shaving my head and I had Einstein hair, but bright red.

I also have half blonde eyebrows that make me look like a doberman if I don't tint them.

I literally looked insane, it was great. Lol.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20655
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #38 on: November 10, 2023, 03:34:31 PM »
I have long feet and for everything but dress shoes and dressy sandals I can shop in the men's shoe section.  Men's shoes are made so well.  They are comfortable. They last.  The same size always fits.  Women's shoes are expensive junk.  Men have no idea how happy privileged their feet are.

And yes the transportation cost is real.  When I lived in Ottawa I would go to the National Arts Centre for evening performances.  Bus to it, taxi back.  I would have preferred an afternoon matinee but those are not always available.

When I was a student with late afternoon classes (so it was dark at 5) I walked back to my apartment with my dissecting kit handy.  The one with the scalpel in it.  The area I had to walk through to get home was not a good one.

And I also adjusted clothing to expectations.  I have bought clothes specifically for meetings I was going to go to, so I would be taken seriously.  Men in academia can get away with the absent-minded professor look, women generally can't.  Maybe if you are a Canada Chair with masses of publications and your work is massively cited?  I've seen female Associate Deans much better dressed than their male Dean.

And let's not let it pass by folks that Ottawa is a tremendously safe city as far as large urban cities go. It's not that particularly high crime areas are dangerous for women at night, it's that existing as a woman at night is dangerous.

I've literally never worried about being mugged in Ottawa, but I've always been hyper vigilant if alone after dark.

Ron Scott

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2049
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #39 on: November 10, 2023, 03:51:52 PM »
I have long feet and for everything but dress shoes and dressy sandals I can shop in the men's shoe section.  Men's shoes are made so well.  They are comfortable. They last.  The same size always fits.  Women's shoes are expensive junk.  Men have no idea how happy privileged their feet are.

Yeah, my wife’s and daughter’s shoes wear out 3X as fast as mine, It’s nuts. But it’s not just shoes unfortunately.

There’s a lot of crap out there for men, but women’s clothing has been deteriorating in construction quality for some time now. Style and fit is probably better now but women are expected to keep their stuff for a short period of time, discard, and buy more.

You can’t shut my wife up about it…and she’s absolutely right.

You guys need to go on strike or something. It’s out of control.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20655
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #40 on: November 10, 2023, 04:08:03 PM »
I have long feet and for everything but dress shoes and dressy sandals I can shop in the men's shoe section.  Men's shoes are made so well.  They are comfortable. They last.  The same size always fits.  Women's shoes are expensive junk.  Men have no idea how happy privileged their feet are.

Yeah, my wife’s and daughter’s shoes wear out 3X as fast as mine, It’s nuts. But it’s not just shoes unfortunately.

There’s a lot of crap out there for men, but women’s clothing has been deteriorating in construction quality for some time now. Style and fit is probably better now but women are expected to keep their stuff for a short period of time, discard, and buy more.

You can’t shut my wife up about it…and she’s absolutely right.

You guys need to go on strike or something. It’s out of control.

Style and fit is absolutely worse now.

Fast fashion is designed to fit more bodies, so it's flimsier and generally designer to be either tight or very loose so that it can fit more bodies.

A lot of what's out there is just utter crap. I used to be big into clothes and fashion and there were stores I used to dream about being able to buy clothes at. Now that I can afford them, the clothes are shit.

I find it really easy to not lust after expensive clothes anymore because it's almost all terrible. Women's clothes used to be highly tailored and now they're just spandex or blobs.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 25659
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #41 on: November 10, 2023, 04:09:37 PM »
Are there no clothing stores that offer well made women's clothing any more?  It feels like there's some demand for this.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20655
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #42 on: November 10, 2023, 04:12:27 PM »
Are there no clothing stores that offer well made women's clothing any more?  It feels like there's some demand for this.

There are some brands, yes, they are eyewateringly expensive, and even then, a lot of them go down in quality as they become popular.

My mom owned a high end women's clothing store and curated mostly Canadian and European made brands that were beautifully well made. Even at wholesale prices I couldn't afford my mom's store.

ETA: in case you wanted to understand why this is, it's because any one item of well tailored clothing will only fit a minority of women. So women's clothing manufacturers can never get the margins on any given item that men's clothing manufacturers can.

I worked at Club Monaco when I was younger. The men's side of the store was a fifth of the women's size, and yet, made almost as much in sales because I could sell the exact same 5 styles of pants to every single customer who wanted pants. Pants just fit.

To fit as many women, you would never several times more pant cuts. So women's items never sell as many units as men's items, meaning they lose the benefit of scale.

It's much more profitable to sell a ton of cheap, shitty clothes to women and create a fashion norm of constantly changing styles so that disposable stretchy and flowy clothes are desirable than to invest in making high quality pieces that no matter what, you can only sell to a minority of women due to fit limitations.

It's also daunting as a woman to invest in very expensive very well tailored clothing because if your weight changes even slightly, they stop fitting. Men's clothes are more forgiving on that front because they're generally fitting straighter lines, not curves.

You have no idea how sensitive the fit of pants is on a curvy body compared to a straight one. The fit of cling vs hang is why suit tailoring and dress making are completely different skills.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2023, 04:21:26 PM by Metalcat »

spartana

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1371
  • FIREd at 36
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #43 on: November 10, 2023, 04:12:49 PM »
I worked dirty blue collar jobs (both military enlisted and a science degree-required/LE background-required civilian Gov job) and it didn't matter what I looked like or how stylish or well.groomed I was. So I avoid much of the issues and expections (and high added expenses) that surround women in white-collar professions. But it was still glaringly obvious to me that women in general were held to a much stricter standard of dress, grooming, stylishness, and even physique than many men were. Who could often just throw a often-used suit over the big pot belly, comb over the bald spot with the remaining gray hair and put on the same shoes you've worn for a decade  and call it good!.

But the obvious aside, women generally are raised to place a higher value and higher expections on their looks then men are on theirs. And that goes beyond the work place as others have mentioned - dating, even friendships, etc - place a high value on how a woman looks. And trying to constantly to keep up with those expectations can be expensive.

ETA: Personally I enjoy glam-ing it up a bit and rocking my inner Barbie (give me pink or give me death lol) on occasion. But if I was expected to do it in order to be seen as "appropriate" for my job or attractive enough to date or be seen as part of my self worth I'd rebel big time. I pretty much live with out make up and my hair in a pony tail in workout clothes or shorts so I doubt I'd ever find being Barbie-like 24/7 appealing AT ALL.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2023, 04:56:39 PM by spartana »

RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 21161
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #44 on: November 10, 2023, 04:24:31 PM »
One of my most freeing groups is my spinning and weaving guild.  More than half the women are going grey or already grey, without fashionable hair cuts or clothes.  Lots have really long hair, which is not standard these days for older women.    Maybe because spinning and weaving need our bodies to be free to move?  It is wonderful. 

We are all clean and neat, perfectly presentable, just not fashionable.


It seems to me that the standards are getting higher for young women - nail polish was enough when I was young and working, now they seem to have to have all these fancy nail decorations.  That has to cost money, and time.  And eyebrow threading, whatever that is.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2023, 04:29:42 PM by RetiredAt63 »

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7832
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #45 on: November 10, 2023, 05:28:24 PM »
One of my most freeing groups is my spinning and weaving guild.  More than half the women are going grey or already grey, without fashionable hair cuts or clothes.  Lots have really long hair, which is not standard these days for older women.    Maybe because spinning and weaving need our bodies to be free to move?  It is wonderful. 

We are all clean and neat, perfectly presentable, just not fashionable.


It seems to me that the standards are getting higher for young women - nail polish was enough when I was young and working, now they seem to have to have all these fancy nail decorations.  That has to cost money, and time.  And eyebrow threading, whatever that is.

Yeah, eyebrow shaping/microblading, etc., eyelash extensions, and much more elaborate nail designs are some recent trends that just seem like soooooooo much work, holy shit. There is no universe in which I would have the energy for that.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20655
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #46 on: November 10, 2023, 05:44:19 PM »
One of my most freeing groups is my spinning and weaving guild.  More than half the women are going grey or already grey, without fashionable hair cuts or clothes.  Lots have really long hair, which is not standard these days for older women.    Maybe because spinning and weaving need our bodies to be free to move?  It is wonderful. 

We are all clean and neat, perfectly presentable, just not fashionable.


It seems to me that the standards are getting higher for young women - nail polish was enough when I was young and working, now they seem to have to have all these fancy nail decorations.  That has to cost money, and time.  And eyebrow threading, whatever that is.

Yeah, eyebrow shaping/microblading, etc., eyelash extensions, and much more elaborate nail designs are some recent trends that just seem like soooooooo much work, holy shit. There is no universe in which I would have the energy for that.

My mom love spa days and I literally can't stand them because they take for fucking ever. It's not relaxing, it's tedious, meticulous work for miniscule cosmetic gains.

I have a gift certificate for manicures at the spa in my building and I haven't used it for 2 years because manicures are the most fucking tedious shit ever.

Pedicures are great though. I will always have time for a nice pedicure, but that's no so much a cosmetic procedure as a super relaxing foot and leg massage while sitting in a massage chair.

Pedicures are the shit.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7832
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #47 on: November 10, 2023, 05:47:04 PM »
One of my most freeing groups is my spinning and weaving guild.  More than half the women are going grey or already grey, without fashionable hair cuts or clothes.  Lots have really long hair, which is not standard these days for older women.    Maybe because spinning and weaving need our bodies to be free to move?  It is wonderful. 

We are all clean and neat, perfectly presentable, just not fashionable.


It seems to me that the standards are getting higher for young women - nail polish was enough when I was young and working, now they seem to have to have all these fancy nail decorations.  That has to cost money, and time.  And eyebrow threading, whatever that is.

Yeah, eyebrow shaping/microblading, etc., eyelash extensions, and much more elaborate nail designs are some recent trends that just seem like soooooooo much work, holy shit. There is no universe in which I would have the energy for that.

My mom love spa days and I literally can't stand them because they take for fucking ever. It's not relaxing, it's tedious, meticulous work for miniscule cosmetic gains.

I have a gift certificate for manicures at the spa in my building and I haven't used it for 2 years because manicures are the most fucking tedious shit ever.

Pedicures are great though. I will always have time for a nice pedicure, but that's no so much a cosmetic procedure as a super relaxing foot and leg massage while sitting in a massage chair.

Pedicures are the shit.

Haha I could have written this myself.

And I also love pedicures (though I haven’t had one in years). They feel soooooooo good.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20655
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #48 on: November 10, 2023, 05:56:43 PM »
Haha I could have written this myself.

And I also love pedicures (though I haven’t had one in years). They feel soooooooo good.

That's it, I'm going for.a pedicure this weekend. Done. I need a woman with small but shockingly strong hands to rub my feet while a ginormous chair punches me in the kidneys.

Villanelle

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7402
Re: Gender construction and expense reduction
« Reply #49 on: November 10, 2023, 06:02:46 PM »
Fun!  A man telling women that our lives aren't affected if we don't spend money on all the things for which women and not men are judged.   

I once worked at a place that required women to wear pantyhose if they were in skirts or even in capri pants.  No bare women ankles allowed. Pantyhose are expensive, and for me at least, rarely last more than 3 wears.  Of course, we could instead wear pants, but that's just one example--men are not required to wear essentially disposable socks by any dress code with which I'm familiar. 

The cut of men's clothing is also more forgiving.  As has been mentioned, that means that gaining even 7-8 pounds means the pants that looked great now look awful and unprofessional.  And it also means that just finding clothes that fit well is far more difficult than most men's clothing.  And often requires expensive tailoring to fit well.

A properly fitting bra costs me $70+.  And lasts no more than 12 months (and that's if I have several in the rotation, extending its life). And no, there are not cheaper options.  (There are plenty of more expensive options though.)  So my bra budget alone for a year is probably $210.  And, given the start of this thread, I suppose I should mention that this isn't just vanity.  It's very uncomfortable for me not to wear a bra.  that's would be expensive.  Additionally,  without a bra, clothing would never fit properly.  And I can assure you that given the size of my breasts, if I were to go to most places ignoring the physicaly discomfort and forgoing a bra, people would absolutely find it inappropriate and unprofessional. 

But yes, I'm just a silly, vain, feminine rube who is foolishly and easily parted with my money.   

(95% of the time, I wear no makeup.  I get haircuts about once a year.  So I'm not exactly a pampered poodle of a woman who is obsessed with how I look and am perceived. But much of this stuff can't be avoided, and that's the point of all of this.  The money women spend on many appearance-related things may be about vanity for some, but there are also much wider, far-reaching, intrinsic implications for forging many of them.  I'd never not wear at modest make-up to a professional, office-type job interview.  Fair or not, chances are it would matter.)

 



 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!