-
May 1, 2007 3:53 PM
Are These People Serious?
With thanks to the Broadsheet for bringing the piece to my attention, I have to comment on the Washington Post piece (claiming to be journalism) that insists that women don't want compact fluorescent light bulbs or CFLs because they are more interested in aesthetics than protecting the environment.Please. The piece claims as evidence the fact that CFL sales have not increased as quickly in the places where women shop for bulbs (drug and grocery stores) as where men shop for bulbs (big box home improvement stores). What the author ignores is that the recent improvements in CFLs (warmer light, less flicker, no annoying hum) are readily available in the bulbs stocked in the mega home centers, but not necessarily in the bulbs easily picked up at a neighborhood store.
-
TAKE ACTION
-
Recent CREDO Blog entries
-
This Modern World
-
November 6, 2008 -
October 27, 2008 -
October 20, 2008 -
October 15, 2008 -
October 13, 2008
-
-
Donations Recipients
-
RSS feeds
Discussion
I agree that this male/female distinction is an artifact.
CFLs last longer and cost more that incandescent bulbs. That means there is more of a tendency to find the place with the best price for a purchase that will last longer. That would tend to mean the "big box" stores.
Our family just this week made the decision to switch to CFLs. It's a big investment up front - we have to wait until next payday, lol - but we know the energy savings will be more than worth it over time. CFLs use at least 2/3 less energy than standard incandescent bulbs to provide the same amount of light, and last up to 10 times longer. You can bet I will be buying them at the home improvement store because it's less expensive to make the switch. I only wish we had a locally owned hardware store that carried them. That's the only reason I can justify spending more. BTW I happen to be female.
The bulk of the CFLs are going to naturally be bought at big box home improvement stores, or in my case a local janitorial supply store, because of the high initial cost. When I go out and buy a dozen or so bulbs, I'm not going to take cost difference into account? DUH!
Do they think women are stupid?
It's not women's vanity that is the reason for lower sales at grocery and drug stores, it's women's good shopping sense.
And, in case they didn't notice, about half the customers in the home improvement stores are women.
The discussion on the Washington Post is pretty interesting too. You can check it out here
sorry -- my link doesn't seem to work for the comment page. If you go to the bottom of the article, you can link to the comments and post one of your own...
The Washington Post really dropped the ball on this one. In addition to the sexism of the "wife test," they also imply that only men change lightbulbs.
Yes, well the reason it makes sense to the Times, and probably thousands of other outlets out there, to make such a wildly generalized and sexist statement is that they are not talking about women women, they are talking about 'women' as they understand them to be. You know the 'I shop therefore I am' women and the 'I accessorize and have my hair done' women. The women that are intelligent, caring, sensible (shoes included) they don't think of as women really, just sort of friends with different accessories.
The only women most men think about when they generalize this way are the 'pretty' and the 'feminine' and the 'I'm educated but I don't act that way so you won't feel bad' women and they imagine them all hovering around a television showing TLC programming every moment they aren't applying makeup.
It is the only explanation that makes such an assinine and gross generalization of an entire gender - millions and millions of people! - make any sense. Can we just call a spade a spade - they would never have dared to make any sort of statement that indicated that "men" do anything, or even narrowed ever so slightly to "husbands" do anything either!
Join the Discussion