Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Under the influence

New York Magazine profiles the 283 best women's shoes available for purchase in our fine city. As it happens, one of the pairs they recommend are the flats I just got at Banana Republic, which at the time had 30% off on flats and boots, so get 'em while they're hot.

One benefit to male-female cohabitation I've never heard mentioned is that it makes one* inhibited in terms of how much one purchases in the way of Sephora products, shoes that one "will wear for years," and so forth. Partly this is just a matter of sharing a limited amount of closet/cabinet space, but it is also that I (one, one!) would feel silly coming home with a slightly different shade of nail polish from the one I currently use, or a liquid eyeliner when the pencil has not quite run out. If I buy a book and it doesn't have the phrase "French Jews" in the title, it can be for both of us. A dress from H&M is tricky.

I know I'm part of Generation 'Friends,' but this does, I realize, have an 'I Love Lucy' ring to it. That said, it's not that Jo cares either way, it's just that coming home to a female roommate, there's a whole discussion of 'ooh, what a cute new whatever,' but except on rare occasions, straight men** will be at best bored and at worst, 'Lucy, not another hat.'

*To borrow from Rita, by one I mean, of course, me.

**I'm sure I have an inhibitory impact as well when it comes to electronics, as I am so bored by the prospect of entering the Circuit City near campus that I keep not buying new headphones, although mine have been broken for ages, because it sounds just that dull. If this is all too stereotypical for you, and by you I mean on the off-chance anyone reads this blog, I assure you that I have some non-girly interests as well. When was the last time a girl-student edited the 'Viewpoints' section of UChicago's school paper? I thought as much.

3 comments:

Comment said...

Phoebe - thia is somewhat off topic but you had an earlier post about America being officially Christian or not.

Here is one of many documents about the debate that took place at the Constitutional convention -

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a6_3s11.html

Phoebe said...

How dare you sully a silly post with such seriousness!

But yes, an interesting document. I feel like I've only seen French variants of the same.

Comment said...

The irony is that the reason America is unofficially Christian is because the argument he articulated in that document and elsewhere prevailed in 1787. Whereas in Europe - with it's official Christianity sanctioned by the state - means that they have become unofficially non Christian.
ps - sorry to change topics, Phoebe;)