Earlier this week, Unnamed Law Firm LLP (not my own) hosted a “women’s forum” event at Saks Fifth Avenue, where female attorneys were given cocktails, free reign of the “shoes” floor of the prestigious fashion venue, and one-day-only 15% discount cards.
While I don’t see eye-to-eye with Catharine MacKinnon, I consider myself an enlightened, feminist, pro-equality man. So, when I first heard about this event from an Unnamed Friend, my immediate reaction was, “how patronizing and anti-feminist for Unnamed Firm to pigeonhole all women as shoe-addicted fashionistas! Who do they think they are, billing this as an ‘equality’ and ‘feminist’ event?!?”
I’ve since changed my tune. Putting this argument and male outrage at a perceived stereotyping event to my female friends, I couldn’t even get through the word “anti” in that short little speech before receiving the following reactions:
- <Eyes glazed> “…that’s…. awesome…”
- <Eyes glazed> “NO. WAY. Wait, Saks?”
- <Chat window glazed> “SHUT. UP.”
I guess some stereotypes are fine if they’re applied to bring near-uniform happiness. Equally, I for one wouldn’t object to a similar event at Best Buy or the Apple Store, so my gender might be just as easily pigeonholed. In fact, if I were a male associate at Unnamed Law Firm LLP…
No Comments Yet so far
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
I’m glad you see it that way. The mere fact that something is a stereotype doesn’t mean that reference to it suddenly becomes anti-[group] or bad. Women shouldn’t have to pretend to not be interested in shoes, and people in general shouldn’t have to pretend that women aren’t interested in shoes, just because it’s common knowledge that women are interested in shoes.
Stereotypes are bad only when they’re actually used to stereotype. If a company were to give out Best Buy gift cards to all the men it employed and Saks gift cards to all the women, when it could have easily just asked everyone what they wanted, that’d be stereotyping. But if you need to pick just one thing for a group of people, you might as well pick the thing that will make as many members as possible happy. You just never want to take for granted that any given individual conforms to the stereotype.
Comment by Gotchaye July 17, 2008 @ 10:00 pmyes. i confess i have some really, really, really lovely shoes in my closet … i am not immune. neither are many of my enlightened friends; though, some prefer handbags to shoes.
Comment by didionsmommy July 17, 2008 @ 10:04 pmHell, Ames, you know me, and even I wouldn’t object to getting a Saks gift card. After all, I’m sure I know a lady who’d smile at me if I passed it on to her.
Comment by Steve July 17, 2008 @ 10:41 pmWell, I am female, last time I looked, but I don’t have a closet full of shoes, and have little interest in Saks, but give me the same deal at an Apple store…
Comment by shadowcatdancing July 17, 2008 @ 11:52 pmYou and I are on the same page :-).
I’m vaguely worried this post came off as anti-feminist. Someone tell me it didn’t?
Comment by Ames July 17, 2008 @ 11:54 pmI like shoes too.
I count in my closet 7 pairs of boots. These are subdivided into 2 pairs of hiking boots, 2 pairs of wellingtons, 1 pair of combat boots, two pairs of LL bean ‘duck boots’ . I also have two pairs of Crocs, one pair of tevas, one pair of soccer cleats, three pairs of running shoes, one pair of kayaking booties, a pair of Keens and one pair of black wingtips for weddings.
I LOVE shoes.
Comment by Progressive Conservative July 17, 2008 @ 11:58 pmI have one pair of sboes. When they wear out I’ll buy another.
Comment by StyxMaker July 18, 2008 @ 1:59 amAmes, I don’t think it was anti-feminist. There are feminists who would take offense at it, certainly, but they’d also be offended that your three friends played into the stereotype. There are lots of different kinds of feminism, of course, but I think this only really offends the fringe, and they take anything less than whole-hearted subversion of the patriarchy as a slight.
Comment by Gotchaye July 18, 2008 @ 4:17 amProgressive Conservative, I’m sure Roosevelt would approve. A man’s got to know his boots.
(Or maybe that’s an inappropriate gender stereotype as well?) ;-)
Comment by lanfranc July 18, 2008 @ 5:11 amI think TR would definitely approve….. and I actually think a little gender stereotyping isn’t always such a bad thing.
Comment by Progressive Conservative July 18, 2008 @ 8:13 amames … don’t worry about pleasing the feminists … they are a pretty tough crowd. there is absolutely NOTHING you have ever written on this blog that is remotely anti-woman.
Comment by didionsmommy July 18, 2008 @ 11:44 amWhat struck me about this was the idea that you’d be OK with getting something free out of a men’s event. Has a firm ever had a “men’s forum” event?
Comment by Collin July 18, 2008 @ 1:34 pmThat is to say, I’d be happy to get something too. The idea of a men’s event struck me as something rarely, if ever, tried.
Comment by Collin July 18, 2008 @ 1:34 pm“I’m vaguely worried this post came off as anti-feminist. Someone tell me it didn’t?”
It didn’t.
Comment by Linus July 18, 2008 @ 4:02 pm