Why are women pack animals and men are not? Yes, men have briefcases, but women always carry around lots of stuff.
There are two reasons, one of which arose somewhat out of the other. The first reason is that women can't, or won't, carry things in their pockets, as men do. Back when women wore voluminous dresses, bags were unnecessary because women would carry things in little pouches worn inside their skirts, which they reached into through slits in the sides of their dresses. But once the female silhouette was modernized, there was no more room for these pouches. Women could use pockets, like men do -- but a pocket with actual stuff, such as a wallet or keys, in it placed anywhere on a modern female outfit tends to destroy the female silhouette. So vain females eschew pockets and instead carry bags. (Non-vain females often don't have a choice, since clothing manufacturers, in response to women's preferences, often don't include pockets on women's garments.)
The second reason women carry around so much stuff is that they have a lot of stuff. The main items women carry that men don't are personal-grooming ones: makeup, hairbrushes, etc. These things can be, and used to be, contained in relatively modest-sized bags. But during the last 20 years or so, women started carrying even more stuff in their bags, just because they could -- and so bags got larger in response.
One reason women started carrying more stuff is that there was simply more stuff to carry. The obvious culprits are cell phones and iPods, which didn't use to exist. But women now carry around all kinds of other items that didn't seem essential in the past but now do, such as hand sanitizer, bottled water, breath-freshening strips, etc. Again, the focus with these items is personal care -- a huge, easy selling point for women. Manufacturers thoughtfully make these personal-care goods in "purse-size" containers for women to buy. They are feeding off not just a practical need, but also a psychological need women have to feel "secure" and "prepared" to deal with emergencies like bad breath or bacteria-covered skin. This gives women the illusion of power in a workplace still subtly dominated by men.
And lastly, there's the Sex and the City effect. That show and its huge rippling cultural effect (whose demise is finally upon us, heralded by the terrible copycat shows Lipstick Jungle and Cashmere Mafia) taught women to see the fantasy of glamorous, sexy "New York" as the ultimate covetable fashion ideal. Unlike most women across America, women in New York don't drive around in cars, so they can't keep their stash of necessities with them in the glove compartment. Instead they carry around huge bags. Women across America have recently followed suit, carrying similarly huge bags even though the original purpose for them is absent.
8 comments:
A comment on "purses" (is this an archaic term?) from some years back noted that French women had small "pocketbooks" since they carried only money in them, while American women's bags had to "carry their souls." Also, you miss the consideration that men of business have long carried their own purses, known as "briefcases" that could hide a multitude of these self-care items. But men of art and of slim jeans are fast running out of the pockets you find so handy for them. Where will they accommodate the hand sanitizer, eyeglasses, keys, iPhone, handkerchief, wallet? Maybe in hat pockets?
prospero, you make a good point. Men will just have to start carrying bags, too -- not just briefcases for business, backpacks for school, etc., but personal bags for everyday. The "man purse" will go from being a joke to being mainstream. This is already the case in New York and other big cities. "Creative" types who need their cameras, books, sketchpads, etc. are the early adopters -- but now that more men are into that kind of thing, they will have to get personal bags, too. A few years ago it seemed like the only good option was the generic Manhattan Portage bag, which became tiresomely ubiquitous. Now there are much better options, such as from Jack Spade.
Imagine all those women in the fifties who had to carry around unmentionables like sanitary napkins & belts and diaphrams along with their lipstick and compacts.
Your discussion of the way in which women carried their personal items before their clothing became more streamlined is quite interesting. What is your source for that information?
I wish I could remember where I read about those in-skirt purses. Probably in some book on the history of costume. Most surveys of costume history probably mention it.
I am not familiar with the ins-and-outs of this argument, but what about the classic thing with purses being the expression of some persistent/evolutionary desire to nest, for the ladies? http://www.alternet.org/story/65680/
I don't have an opinion about whether this is "true" (evolutionary psychology being a compelling creation story, perhaps not more). BUT I do notice in myself an annoying need to set up home-like situations, both in my apartment and up to and including my giant purse full of miscellaneous stuff that follows me wherever I go (plus a huge turtle backpack, in the case of Thursday night). Now, laptops have become a form of transactive memory that you can hardly do without for 15 mins, lady or not. I don't notice guys acting on the drive to feel the security of home wherever they venture in the big wide city/ "external" world. -Melissa TG
melissa, I think you're right that the "nesting" impulse is definitely part of it. But isn't it interesting that women try to take these "nests" everywhere with them instead of just leaving them at home. Maybe it's harder for women, psychologically, to spend as much time away from home as modern careers require than it is for men. Maybe because men are programmed for long hunting trips and women for shorter gathering ones?
Post a Comment