2008 Woodie Awards
Rosie the purchase manager
Feature Editorial
Amanda Krupman
Issue date: 11/6/06 Section: Opinions
The illustration accompanying the New York Times article titled "What Do Women Want? Just Ask," says it all. A woman in profile, baring a muscular arm that recalls Rosie the Riveter, holds a purse that overflows with credit cards and a checkbook. The thrust of the article reflects this message: that women in 2006 have more muscle power as consumers and "purchase managers" (a title I find inane for a score of reasons) for their families, and are thus more powerful overall.
Like, gag me with an AmEx. There is nothing new about consumer products being marketed directly to women. Product advertisers as far back as the late 19th century (in Ladies Home Journal, for instance) identified women as responsible for buying clothing, home appliances and luxury items for themselves and other family members. The 1950s surge in consumerism put women on a shopping pedestal, and marketed 'New-and-Improved' products directly to housewives and an image-conscious middle class.
The false equation of consumer freedom with power seems so transparent (and un-newsworthy) I wonder why this article topped the "Most Emailed" list the day it was published. Were women passing it on to other women in a congratulatory way, to exclaim "Hoorah! We've arrived!" though the article makes mention that women still make only 81 percent of the money that men make? Or maybe it was to ridicule the moronic statement by Michael J. Silverstein of the Boston Consulting Group, which read "We are perhaps on the first step to a matriarchal society; women will earn more money than men if current trends continue by 2028."
Matriarchal society? Through retail? I'm sure Bob L. Nardelli (Home Depot's CEO), Jonathan Tisch (Loews' CEO), and Alan Lacy (Sears, Roebuck, and Co.'s CEO) are giggling on the end of their cigars about that one. And I assume that by "current trends," Silverstein is referring to a "nowhere else to go but up" standard that once disallowed women from taking out loans without a male cosigner (also mentioned in the article). Given that women still make less money than men despite doing the same work, I think Silverstein's economic model needs a little tweaking.
Like, gag me with an AmEx. There is nothing new about consumer products being marketed directly to women. Product advertisers as far back as the late 19th century (in Ladies Home Journal, for instance) identified women as responsible for buying clothing, home appliances and luxury items for themselves and other family members. The 1950s surge in consumerism put women on a shopping pedestal, and marketed 'New-and-Improved' products directly to housewives and an image-conscious middle class.
The false equation of consumer freedom with power seems so transparent (and un-newsworthy) I wonder why this article topped the "Most Emailed" list the day it was published. Were women passing it on to other women in a congratulatory way, to exclaim "Hoorah! We've arrived!" though the article makes mention that women still make only 81 percent of the money that men make? Or maybe it was to ridicule the moronic statement by Michael J. Silverstein of the Boston Consulting Group, which read "We are perhaps on the first step to a matriarchal society; women will earn more money than men if current trends continue by 2028."
Matriarchal society? Through retail? I'm sure Bob L. Nardelli (Home Depot's CEO), Jonathan Tisch (Loews' CEO), and Alan Lacy (Sears, Roebuck, and Co.'s CEO) are giggling on the end of their cigars about that one. And I assume that by "current trends," Silverstein is referring to a "nowhere else to go but up" standard that once disallowed women from taking out loans without a male cosigner (also mentioned in the article). Given that women still make less money than men despite doing the same work, I think Silverstein's economic model needs a little tweaking.
Be the first to comment on this story