Why do women need to buy branded bags?

[shawn]

ITT: People who completely missed the point.

[Lensor]

Still I do wonder about the difference of standards. A woman who collects designer handbags or clothes is seen as "wasteful with money". A man who collects, well, just about anything (SW figures, wines, train sets, guitars, cars(!), vintage video games, you name it) is just seen as "dedicated to his hobby". Sure some may make fun of his interest and the amount of money spent, but I never ever hear the derogatory remarks women get about how they are being wasteful.

Somehow a woman is expected to spend all money on "useful" things, whereas a man is given much more leeway. My theory is that this is because, traditionally, the man made all the money and just gave the woman what was needed to run the household. Since it was not "her money", anything non-essential became a waste in the eyes of the man who provided it (whereas his own non-essential buys were ok, because hey, he was paying wasnt he?).

And yes, men DO spend more money on hobbies and other "non-essentials", even though the gap is closing as more women are making their own money (and are thus free to waste it any way they see fit).

[Rob Van Der Sloot]

When men waste their money on toys/action figures, you can't really use those things for anything. Atleast women can take their handbags along when they go out.

Then again, men also waste a lot of money on expensive devices. Such as a new flatscreen tv, or a new console. Those ARE useful purchases.

[Lady Rhonwyn]

Then again, men also waste a lot of money on expensive devices. Such as a new flatscreen tv, or a new console. Those ARE useful purchases.

Not always. My brother, for example, has the tendency to buy a new TV every 2 years. While the old one isn't even scratched from use! Not usuful in my eyes... We did buy that flatscreen this year too, but to replace our 10-year old CRT TV. I'd say that's a bit more useful (think only of the energy saved that way!)

I also bought a tablet this year. Useful? Depends. I do use it on a daily basis, but I could have done without as well. I also bought it because it is a fun gadget to have.

[Kael Valeran]

Still I do wonder about the difference of standards. A woman who collects designer handbags or clothes is seen as "wasteful with money". A man who collects, well, just about anything (SW figures, wines, train sets, guitars, cars(!), vintage video games, you name it) is just seen as "dedicated to his hobby". Sure some may make fun of his interest and the amount of money spent, but I never ever hear the derogatory remarks women get about how they are being wasteful.

Somehow a woman is expected to spend all money on "useful" things, whereas a man is given much more leeway. My theory is that this is because, traditionally, the man made all the money and just gave the woman what was needed to run the household. Since it was not "her money", anything non-essential became a waste in the eyes of the man who provided it (whereas his own non-essential buys were ok, because hey, he was paying wasnt he?).

Thats doesn't explain why men hold more shares than women and most commercial spending and advertisements are aimed at women. Sure there are men who collect really expensive toys, but that is limited, certainly not something you see on TV, on the streets etc, and every guy has a specific hobby, some are cheap as well.

This is a well known phenomenon that we observe from everyday living, it is not me who put a label on the heads of women, its the society and media, and many women are happy to accept that.

Also, I have heard many women talking about finding a rich husband, work at home etc, but never from men. Just go shopping and you will realise that women spend more money, in a departmental store, there are toys, games, and clothes, and cosmetics and perfume. Always, an entire level is dedicated to cosmetics and perfume. Another level(or two) dedicated to women's clothing and handbags, and only one level for men and electronics etc etc.

Maybe we need to change the way society depicts women and how women depict themselves.

And yes, men DO spend more money on hobbies and other "non-essentials", even though the gap is closing as more women are making their own money (and are thus free to waste it any way they see fit).

As for hobby costs, it usually never exceeds 1k pounds a year, most equipment like fishing last long. Guitars are never that expensive anyway. When talking about non-essentials, women spend enormous amounts of money on hairdressing which nobody cares about, cosmetic products(that have only slight scientific evidence) and fragrances that come in tiny 50ml bottles.

Moreover, most women I have in contact with like to talk to richer men with the following features (high collar shirts or polo tee/aftershave/drives a car/buys the dinner, etc.) Why isn't wearing a simple tshirt, spraying plain deodrant, taking public transport and sharing the cost attractive? This indirectly influence men to spend more, like buying a new car instead of that 10 year old car.

[raspberry jam]

Always, an entire level is dedicated to cosmetics and perfume. Another level(or two) dedicated to women's clothing and handbags, and only one level for men and electronics etc etc.

Maybe we need to change the way society depicts women and how women depict themselves.

This short clip from South Park explains why the cosmetics and perfume departments are so large.

[Lensor]

The talk of getting a rich husband is a cultural thing, which is in direct relation with how much, on average, a woman makes compared to a man. The less of a difference, the less women will be on a lookout for a sugardaddy (and the more men will be on a lookout for a "sugarmommy"). For the record I have never met a woman looking for a rich husband so she can stay at home.

Also, men spend more money on "wants" (like fancy computers just to surf and do word processing..), but women buy a bigger number of items (again on average). That is why you see more advertising towards women even though men buy for more. It is really not rocket science.

Like, take a man who buys a $200 000 car (he can afford it, and want it, so why not). That is one helluva lof of purses or whatever a woman can buy for the same total cost if she in stead buys a $50 000 car (which is still a very nice car). The two would have spent the exact same amount on "wants", and the purses will probably even hold their value better, yet the man who spent $200 000 on a car is not "wasteful". He is just really into cars..

[raspberry jam]

Like, take a man who buys a $200 000 car (he can afford it, and want it, so why not). That is one helluva lof of purses or whatever a woman can buy for the same total cost if she in stead buys a $50 000 car (which is still a very nice car). The two would have spent the exact same amount on "wants", and the purses will probably even hold their value better, yet the man who spent $200 000 on a car is not "wasteful". He is just really into cars..

...and he lets his wife drive it as well, of course.

Meanwhile, few husbands borrow their wives' purses.

[Alaris]

I think the situation comes from concern.

This is just it.

As long as it's their cash, who cares? (...) What seems irrational to you might not be irrational to others.

I think the proper response should be:

"Ok, I listened to your concerns, but in my opinion what I did with my money was not irrational. The mixer I got will see a lot of uses, I love making cakes, and it's not like I buy 5-10 mixers some of which end up in a box. I calculated that I can afford it. etc"

You don't have to justify all that to someone else, but to yourself, being honest with yourself. You need to take the concern seriously, and think for yourself if they might have a valid concern.

And yes, sometimes it's hard to make that judgment call yourself, you might need outside help.

Still I do wonder about the difference of standards.

My brother collects race car miniatures, those go at easily 45$-90$ each. He's filled a wall full of those. He knows we think he's wasting money.

And to be honest, it's easier to accept that someone's spending is bringing them happiness if they are happy. He is a happy person. In contrast, I know many who waste money on stuff and are not happier for it. This I would say is a clear sign to tell when something is addictive, when you still do it despite it not making you happy.

Then again, men also waste a lot of money on expensive devices. Such as a new flatscreen tv, or a new console. Those ARE useful purchases.

I'd argue that while useful, the difference lies in how much you spend on it. Do you really need to upgrade? Do you really need surround sound, and HD? Do you really need a screen that large?

I still play on my PS2, and the only reason I am thinking of getting a PS3 is because some games I want are just not made for PS2.

Also, I have heard many women talking about finding a rich husband, work at home etc, but never from men.

That'd be awesome actually. Except I'd want a wife instead.

[Lady Rhonwyn]

And to be honest, it's easier to accept that someone's spending is bringing them happiness if they are happy. He is a happy person. In contrast, I know many who waste money on stuff and are not happier for it. This I would say is a clear sign to tell when something is addictive, when you still do it despite it not making you happy.

Ah, but now you're talking about an addiction. Which will give you a short kick but when that wears off, you'll want another one.

If we go back to the original question: why a branded bag, instead of that (identical) cheaper non-branded one? I doubt that has anything to do with an addiction (in general that is), but rather with the idea that a branded one does give you more status (or bragging-power) or even because you think the quality is better. Naturally, the second is something you can check (I always try to read as many user reviews as I can before I buy something expensive), but the first is (for me) still a mystery....