The Price of Vanity
Jul. 26th, 2013 12:24 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rinueIn most of my life, I am price flexible. I don't ignore how much things cost - my budget is limited - but any individual good in my personal market basket can yaw widely without much changing things, provided the aggregate remains around equal. I don't buy more milk when milk is on sale or drive less when gas prices are up, and although I'm more likely to buy a $2 dress I don't like than a $100 dress I don't like, I would much rather spend $100 on a dress I like. And that dress being $105 or $120 would probably not make a difference to my yes or no.
However, I am able to say with extreme precision how much I am willing to pay for a half ounce of eye cream, to the penny. I was able to figure this out by looking back at my buying habits on Avon.com. Avon might as well be an airline; there is always a sale of one kind or another, sometimes overlapping sales, and as a consequence prices change daily (althought not on all products every day).
There is a clear pattern in my willingness to purchase: if an eye cream is $18 and I need eye cream, I will buy it. If the eye cream I prefer is above $18 on a day I need eye cream, I will swap product lines and get an eye cream that is $18 or under. If the eye cream I prefer is priced somewhat below $18, I may buy more than one to stockpile. If there is no eye cream under $18, I don't buy anything, even if I need eye cream; I go to the drug store, and if I can't find anything there I want to use under $18, I stick with regular moisturizer and don't use eye cream until the price comes back below $18.
I tried to figure out whether I was just rounding; I imagined the eye cream I like priced at $18.01. I see that price and feel a deep sense of revulsion. I actually get angry and my heart beats faster. I clearly, somehow, have a very firm and unshakable sense that prices above $18 are not reasonable, to the extent that they are extortionate and immoral. (Incidentally, I think $18 is absurd as well. I'm just willing to say "stupid luxury that I am agreeably silly about for a small ego boost.")
As of yesterday, the eye cream prices were around $32 for a half ounce (with free shipping). Which I think is more expensive than printer ink. Which is more expensive than diamond dust. I would not pay $32 for a half ounce of angels' tears, presented personally by Jesus. (Well, okay, maybe. But only if presented by Jesus. I'd probably throw away the angels' tears, or water a plant or something.)
* * *
I am not very well-versed in hip hop conventions. There is a song that is very popular right now, which I have heard on the radio several times, called "Good Girl (You Know You Want It)" by Robin Thicke (featuring T.I. and Pharrell Williams). I believe it is the top song on the Billboard Charts, but am not completely confident about this.
I am not sure what to make of the song and would appreciate some input from someone who is better grounded in hip hop culture and tradition. If I analyse the lyrics on their own, they seem to be promoting rape culture - a sense that maybe "good girls" say they don't want sex when in fact they want sex, and the singers are each going to have sex with this particular girl because they can tell she wants it regardless of whether she gives verbal consent. The lyrics don't explicitly have the girl saying no; they just say that the singers recognize she's a "good girl," which has traditionally been associated with refusing sex, and the singers affirm or suggest that it's the role of the male to pick up on nonverbal signals and be a sexual aggressor.
However, if I listen to the music, it's using techniques I associate more with affirmation and empowerment than aggression, which may recontextualize the lyrics to suggest something notably more progressive: that the singers recognize that the girl in the song is having a lot of sex and interested in having a lot of sex, and this does not remotely change their sense that she is a "good girl." In other words, it may be doing the opposite of slut-shaming, saying that the singers' evaluation of whether this girl is "good" is independent of whether she's sexually promiscuous, and they see no contradition there.
This may be a silly thing to wonder about. I may be making excuses for lyrics that are not ambiguous simply because I think the groove is peppy. It would be simple to say that men's evaulation of whether a girl is good or is by definition not feminist, by elevating the (notably collective) male role in making decisions about the appropriateness of women's sexuality. However, since I believe that men are perfectly able to be feminists and feminism must necessarily include men (and further believe that feminism will not be completely successful until it has been embraced as an ideal by every person in the world), this may in fact be a cheering sign of mainstream acceptance.
[Edited to Add: Further investigation of Robin Thicke and his body of work reveals he is a thoroughly repellant person, and his intention is definitely a date-rape intention. I tend to think it is to some extent necessary to separate the work from the artist, because what audiences get out of a thing is not the same thing the artist intended to put into it. At the same time, especially with writing (lyrics included), context is important. If this weren't true, The Colbert Report wouldn't be satire. In this case, I think the combination means the song is awful but its embrace by the general populace does is not de facto depressing.]
However, I am able to say with extreme precision how much I am willing to pay for a half ounce of eye cream, to the penny. I was able to figure this out by looking back at my buying habits on Avon.com. Avon might as well be an airline; there is always a sale of one kind or another, sometimes overlapping sales, and as a consequence prices change daily (althought not on all products every day).
There is a clear pattern in my willingness to purchase: if an eye cream is $18 and I need eye cream, I will buy it. If the eye cream I prefer is above $18 on a day I need eye cream, I will swap product lines and get an eye cream that is $18 or under. If the eye cream I prefer is priced somewhat below $18, I may buy more than one to stockpile. If there is no eye cream under $18, I don't buy anything, even if I need eye cream; I go to the drug store, and if I can't find anything there I want to use under $18, I stick with regular moisturizer and don't use eye cream until the price comes back below $18.
I tried to figure out whether I was just rounding; I imagined the eye cream I like priced at $18.01. I see that price and feel a deep sense of revulsion. I actually get angry and my heart beats faster. I clearly, somehow, have a very firm and unshakable sense that prices above $18 are not reasonable, to the extent that they are extortionate and immoral. (Incidentally, I think $18 is absurd as well. I'm just willing to say "stupid luxury that I am agreeably silly about for a small ego boost.")
As of yesterday, the eye cream prices were around $32 for a half ounce (with free shipping). Which I think is more expensive than printer ink. Which is more expensive than diamond dust. I would not pay $32 for a half ounce of angels' tears, presented personally by Jesus. (Well, okay, maybe. But only if presented by Jesus. I'd probably throw away the angels' tears, or water a plant or something.)
* * *
I am not very well-versed in hip hop conventions. There is a song that is very popular right now, which I have heard on the radio several times, called "Good Girl (You Know You Want It)" by Robin Thicke (featuring T.I. and Pharrell Williams). I believe it is the top song on the Billboard Charts, but am not completely confident about this.
I am not sure what to make of the song and would appreciate some input from someone who is better grounded in hip hop culture and tradition. If I analyse the lyrics on their own, they seem to be promoting rape culture - a sense that maybe "good girls" say they don't want sex when in fact they want sex, and the singers are each going to have sex with this particular girl because they can tell she wants it regardless of whether she gives verbal consent. The lyrics don't explicitly have the girl saying no; they just say that the singers recognize she's a "good girl," which has traditionally been associated with refusing sex, and the singers affirm or suggest that it's the role of the male to pick up on nonverbal signals and be a sexual aggressor.
However, if I listen to the music, it's using techniques I associate more with affirmation and empowerment than aggression, which may recontextualize the lyrics to suggest something notably more progressive: that the singers recognize that the girl in the song is having a lot of sex and interested in having a lot of sex, and this does not remotely change their sense that she is a "good girl." In other words, it may be doing the opposite of slut-shaming, saying that the singers' evaluation of whether this girl is "good" is independent of whether she's sexually promiscuous, and they see no contradition there.
This may be a silly thing to wonder about. I may be making excuses for lyrics that are not ambiguous simply because I think the groove is peppy. It would be simple to say that men's evaulation of whether a girl is good or is by definition not feminist, by elevating the (notably collective) male role in making decisions about the appropriateness of women's sexuality. However, since I believe that men are perfectly able to be feminists and feminism must necessarily include men (and further believe that feminism will not be completely successful until it has been embraced as an ideal by every person in the world), this may in fact be a cheering sign of mainstream acceptance.
[Edited to Add: Further investigation of Robin Thicke and his body of work reveals he is a thoroughly repellant person, and his intention is definitely a date-rape intention. I tend to think it is to some extent necessary to separate the work from the artist, because what audiences get out of a thing is not the same thing the artist intended to put into it. At the same time, especially with writing (lyrics included), context is important. If this weren't true, The Colbert Report wouldn't be satire. In this case, I think the combination means the song is awful but its embrace by the general populace does is not de facto depressing.]
