Sunday, December 19, 2010

Shower.

I was standing in the shower, thinking about my previous blog post (here, for all you lazies that can't be bothered), trying to figure out how to sound un-offended enough for people to still take me seriously while still registering my displeasure and, you know, actually making my point. And somehow, as I was staring at the rack of soaps and whatnot in the shower trying to figure it out, it dawned on me how I didn't own many things (or the variety/amount/number) people deem necessary for people, especially women.

Things in my shower:
  • a $1.00 bottle of shampoo, which has thus far lasted me four months and will probably last another month or two
  • a $1.00 bottle of conditioner, which has lasted me a month and might last another. I'm trying to use it up as quickly as possible because I inherited it from the downstairs bathroom and it smells nasty
  • a $3.50 bottle of body wash, because I like the texture of exfoliating bead thingies and could afford it at the time
  • a $4.00 tube of face wash that isn't mine but I use anyway. Will switch back to the body wash when it's gone. 
  • a $2.00 tub of cocoa butter
Now, for a little game I play with myself. I expected to come down to three items, maybe two. I was wrong. No moralising needed, kthxbai.

Which of those things could I live without while not effecting my life at all? The face wash, certainly. The body wash as well, since I can use shampoo on my body. The conditioner? Probably. I could not wash my hair as often, be even more careful about only shampooing the hair near my scalp, and rub cocoa butter on the ends when they get dry. 

Now, which things could I live without, but doing so would make my life more difficult? The cocoa butter. My skin is über dry, and unless I slather myself with some sort of lotion or butter after every shower, there's itchiness and flakiness galore. So I probably don't want to live without my cocoa butter.

But really, the only thing in my shower that I really and truly need is the shampoo, if only to feel mentally clean. Would I use more if I were washing my body with it as well? Absolutely. Would it be cheaper and possibly easier than using body/face wash? Probably. I'll try it when my current set of body/face wash runs out.

There are alternatives to shampoo out there, most commonly apple cider vinegar, but the smell makes me gag. If I ever need to do it, I will, but I'm drawing the line there, for this. That's the point at which I'm going to choose comfort over economy, probably for as long as I have a meaningful choice about the matter.

Choice. That's something about this that has been bothering me. Our society says that, given the choice, a woman will buy forty million kinds of soaps and things with which to populate her shower. Kind of how society believes that women will go out shopping for fun (i.e. as a recreational activity/hobby, and not because they actually need groceries), even better if they're spending their husband's well-earned money. And that women will convince themselves that they need a million varieties of [whatever it is they're buying today]. Yes, society also makes fun of men needing every new electronic gadget around, or yard equipment, or you Big Macho Piece of Machinery of the Week, but it's not nearly as prevalent as the "women like shopping, especially unnecessary shopping" stereotype, and hey, at least men are spending their own money, right? *wink wink nudge nudge eye-roll hurl*

But what if we weren't presented with the choices that allow us to buy those things in the first place? What if products weren't so disgustingly minutely specialised? What if everyone just used soap to wash themselves, lotion for moisturising their hair and body, and a towel to dry themselves? Would our stereotypes about consumption be different? Would what we actually consumed be different? And who's to blame about the fact that people are convinced every type of hair needs its own specially-tailored shampoo, conditioner, gel, mousse, hair dryer, and towel?

I guess what I want to know is which came first, companies trying to sell us crap or our desire for the crap?

1 comment:

  1. Companies. As someone with like 4 people in the family in the marketing business, I can tell you from first-hand knowledge that no one actually NEEDS all that crap, save for the very odd outlier. If given the chance, people tend to buy just what they use, like your shampoo and cocoa butter. Marketing was created by a clever cad sometime long ago to sell us crap we don't *need* and wouldn't normally buy, but they don't care, as long as we buy it once, just to try it out or whatever justification we accept.

    It's a remarkable ploy, actually, worthy of respect, cause the sheer brashness of the trick is amazing. It really makes you go "wow, that takes balls" when you stop and think about it. There are multiple industries that basically exist to get you to do something you don't wanna be fuckin' doing, and yet, somehow, they get you to do it! It's amazing, really. Scummy, but amazing.

    -A

    ReplyDelete