Alternatives

Yesterday’s post about what to get a man for Valentine’s Day led several people to ask me what, in fact, I did recommend they get their significant other for the big day, if not Special Occasion Sex. Let me hasten to assure everyone reading this (assuming that anybody is) that there is nothing whatsoever wrong with Special Occasion Sex; on the contrary, if your plans for Thursday included any form of intimate activity that does not involve actual criminal acts, then by all means go ahead. And, in fact, if that is what you believe to be the best choice for your significant other on that occasion, I wouldn’t dream of telling you otherwise. I am merely pointing out that the reasons for giving someone a present and the reasons for sleeping with them aren’t always congruent – and sleeping with someone only because you can’t think of another option is probably not the best idea…

For the most part, men in this culture haven’t been socialized into expecting anything in particular for this occasion – many of them believe that V-Day is nothing more than an occasion on which the right combination of gestures, words and expenditures may result in a form of reward that they will enjoy. Thus, they may not be expecting anything from you, and almost any form of gift will suffice – although, as noted in previous years, presents that represent alterations in their lifestyle or behavior that you would like to see are likely to be unsuccessful. With that proviso, the average man will be quite happy to receive the same type of gift you would give him on any other occasion…

By contrast, women in most Western cultures have been socialized into placing importance on V-Day, and specifically on tokens given to them as an expression of love by their significant other. This often becomes problematic in the case where one partner is committed to celebrating the holiday and the other is not. Fortunately, this means that a man attempting to purchase a present for a woman on this occasion has a great deal of leeway; the only really fatal errors would be those cases in which his significant other finds his choice to be inappropriate. And while no hard-and-fast rules exist, it’s probably fair to say that anything you wouldn’t purchase for any other occasion will also not suffice for this one, meaning that anything too cheap, too expensive, too cutesy or not cute enough, too personal or too impersonal, too elaborate or too casual, etc., will still not suffice…

The point which in my estimation gets overlooked much too often is that this occasion does not, or should not at least, occur in isolation from the rest of your interactions with your significant other. Months or years of previous experience should give you some idea of whether a pink stuffed animal holding a heart-shaped object with a holiday-appropriate slogan on it is a suitable gift, or if a package of personal lubricants isn’t. If you seize on this occasion to make a grand, romantic gesture that is perfectly reasonable – but you should probably be prepared for the possibility that you may be wrong, or that you may have chosen the wrong gift, the wrong price level, or just the wrong person to give it to…

But that’s a story for another day…

Outside Looking In

And we’re back, talking with our favorite fictional fish out of water and occasional misanthrope, Dr. S. Today we’ve going to cover some of the topics surrounding one of the most controversial of all major holidays, Valentine’s Day.

MPB: Good morning, Dr. S, and thanks for joining us again today.

Dr. S: Pleased to be here, I’m sure.

MPB: I understand there are aspects to the celebration of St. Valentine’s Day in America that strike you as confusing?

Dr. S: Yes, although the existence of the holiday is puzzling enough. Are you aware, for example, that there is no consensus even within the Catholic Church as to whether St. Valentine actually existed? Or, for that matter, if any of the festivals or observances associated with him existed before Chaucer included them in the Canterbury Tales?

MPB: Actually, I was. But none of that is precisely relevant to the current discussion; all of the aspects of the holiday would still exist in America even if its patron did not.

Dr. S: All right, then, can you account for the disparity of opinions regarding the event? Why do some people regard it was one of the most important days of the year, and break off otherwise meaningful relationships if their expectations are not met on that day, while others consider it a mere “Hallmark Holiday” and object to its propagation in any form?

MPB: Well, much of the disparity can be explained by the institutionalized gender roles in this country during this period. Female children are socialized to believe that the event is important in terms of social acceptance and development of relationships, whereas male children are conditioned to believe that any expression of appreciation for this holiday is inappropriate behavior, and therefore a threat to their social acceptance and peer relationships. There are numerous exceptions within the population, of course.

Dr. S: That accounts for the friction between males and females over observance of the holiday. Now, what about the disparity in gifts and other gestures acknowledging the event? If you have acceded to your partner’s wishes, or gained acceptance of your own, wouldn’t that also codify your choices?

MPB: Not as much as you’d think. Even if two people have agreed to celebrate the occasion in some mutually acceptable way, the relative importance of the holiday may remain in dispute. Thus, one partner may regard February 14^th as the single most important day on the calendar, and expect extravagant gestures and lavish gift on that day, while the other may regard the event as an unpleasant obligation accepted only because of its importance to the other partner, and seek to avoid spending any greater amount of time or money than is strictly necessary.

Dr. S: This would account for the behaviors described in your “Don’t Let This Happen” post from two years ago.

MPB: That’s right. The majority of people for whom this holiday is of major importance are women, and thus they make up the bulk of early shoppers. Men are also more likely to select something of lower retail cost or something easier to obtain, or both. This can result in the selection of gifts – or other observances of the holiday – which they feel are appropriate, but which their significant others do not.

Dr. S: Rather like the suppositories in your earlier post.

MPB: Yes, or the poor fellow who purchased reduced-calorie and sugar-free candy for his girlfriend on Valentine’s Day last year. I’m sure he only intended the gift to say: “Here is some candy you can eat without sabotaging your diet or your diabetes control medication,” but his significant other interpreted the gesture to mean: “You’re too fat, so try to eat less sugar and calories.”

Dr. S: Did he survive the experience?

MPB: So far, at least – although he may have to go into hiding.

Dr. S: But wouldn’t it make more sense for these people to try to overcome their social programming and agree upon something reasonable? Or, failing that, to reach a negotiated agreement based on their regard for their partner’s preferences?

MPB: Yes, but the question isn’t relevant. As long as people remain more focused on winning – on getting what they want out of the holiday, regardless of what their partner might need or want – than on enjoying the day, it will remain a point of contention, an unwelcome obligation, or a test that their partner continually fails. Or all of the above, of course…

Is it Really the Thought?

A while back I was talking with a few friends about how one might explain various customs to someone who was either so sheltered that they’d never experienced any, or so poorly socialized that they couldn’t understand things that you and I would take for granted. Fictional characters like this have been popular for years, since they present multiple opportunities to have another character explain various complexities of the plot to them (and thereby to the audience), as well as offering comic relief possibilities as they try to cope with familiar (to us) situations that they find baffling. But what occurred to me is that sometimes the social conventions we’ve gotten used to are so counter-intuitive that they actually cause problems even for people who are familiar with them. So I thought it might be fun to explain a few of these ideas to someone who has no grasp of them to begin with. To protect his anonymity (and since he’s a fictional character and I don’t have access to his copyright) I’ll just refer to him as Dr. S…

MPB: Good morning, Dr. S, and thank you for joining us.

Dr. S: I’m glad to be here.

MPB: I thought we might begin this discussion with a familiar platitude, “It’s the thought that counts,” which I understand you consider confusing and illogical.

Dr. S: Yes; that’s a good one. If it is actually the thought that counts in obtaining a present for someone, why do you need to proceed beyond the thought? Is it more important to produce tangible evidence of your thought, or is this maxim simply wrong to begin with?

MPB: Well, as is often the case, I believe that this statement and the associated custom are using the word “thought” as a convenient shorthand for a more complex convention. Consider, if you will, the steps required to purchase a gift for someone: First, you must identify something that the recipient might actually want or enjoy. Second, you must determine that your idea is feasible, practical, and affordable, all of which will vary not only with the gift concept but also with your budget and your ability to obtain specific classes of gift. Third, you must determine that your idea is appropriate to the recipient, the occasion, and the social conventions to which they (not you) conform. It serves no purpose to select a gift that implies your desire for a romantic relationship with the recipient if you have no such desire, or for that matter to identify an ideal gift which can’t be obtained or which you cannot afford.

Dr. S.: But there are thousands, if not millions, of gift-giving sites on the Internet. Is this process really that difficult?

MPB: That would depend entirely on how well you know the recipient, of course – and on how well you understand the social, political, financial and even religious context of the occasion and your relationship with the recipient. But even in very simple cases, it is clear that all of these considerations will require thought, as will the research (whether Internet, library, key informant, or expert opinion) needed to resolve the issue.

Dr. S. (raises one eyebrow): This is certainly the case. So “the thought” represents the effort to identify an acceptable gift, rather than merely selecting something at random?

MPB: You might be surprised how many people select a gift by simply picking up whatever is on the checkout counter at the supermarket. But that raises a fourth point: Once you have made your selection, you must identify where such an item can be obtained, and how to travel to that place. If your recipient would most like to receive a box of oranges, and you happen to have an orange tree in your garden, this will be relatively easy; if the item you have selected is available only from a brick-and-mortar retailer that does not have an outlet in your community, this will take quite a bit more effort. But in any case, you will have to devote at least some thought to obtaining the gift, wrapping it, transporting it, storing it, and possibly even hiding it, in the case where the recipient lives with you or is a frequent visitor.

Dr. S.: That does seem rather involved.

MPB: It is frequently more difficult than the actual purchase. However, all of this still misses the main point, which is that of why you are doing all of this in the first place.

Dr. S.: I’m not sure I follow.

MPB: Regardless of how close you might be to the recipient, it would still be far easier to ignore the occasion and not do anything. You could simply declare a philosophical aversion to the occasion, or to the commercialization of celebratory events in the first place, and refuse to participate. However, you have instead considered that the recipient’s happiness is important enough to you that you have chosen to incur this cost and inconvenience in the first place. You have, literally, “thought” enough of them, and about them, to attempt the process in the first place and try to find something they would enjoy receiving in the second place.

Dr. S.: So it is the importance of making the attempt, and of expending the required thought in order to solve the various problems and complete the exercise, that is actually important?

MPB: Exactly. The statement that it is “the thought that counts” is an acknowledgement of your making the attempt, and of the recipient’s importance to you. If your effort to find an ideal (or even acceptable) offering falls short, this is far less important than the fact that you made the attempt in the first place…

The Ethics of Public Giving

Over the past week the confrontation between the American Cancer Society and the militant atheist group calling itself the Foundation Beyond Belief has gotten a lot of attention on the Internet and occasionally even in the real world. As I noted in my earlier posts about the subject, I don’t think there’s a lot of ethical grey area in this specific case; the ACS is trying to maintain its usual quiet dignity while the atheists are using the situation to gain attention and forward their socio-political agenda. But the fact is that a lot of companies and non-profit organizations do support fundraising events in exchange for publicity and a non-specific upgrade to their public image, and the line between altruism and enlightened self-interest is not nearly as easy to draw as you might think. So I thought we should take a closer look…

As we’ve discussed before, it isn’t reasonable to expect a for-profit company to operate as a charity; the purpose of any corporation is to produce results through the concentration of capital that would not be possible for the individual investors working alone. Expecting a company to donate all of its assets – or even all of its profits – to charity is silly. But customer relations and public relations in general are legitimate parts of any business; customer loyalty increases sales and good relationships with the public can help you to avoid any number of legal, regulatory or legislative problems you might otherwise encounter. So corporate giving makes sense from a business standpoint; the question would appear to be at what point does it stop being something that you are doing because it is a pure and good act – something that is worth doing for its own sake – and at what point does it become something you are doing entirely for your own benefit?

This basic question is complicated by the fact that in many cases, donating very large amounts of money and/or time will inspire your beneficiary to recognize your support, whether by naming a building or an event or whatever after your organization or by advertising your support in their own publications. In the ACS case that came up this week, the large corporate donors would be featured on the Society’s own web pages, the promotional literature about the Relay for Life event, and eventually on a variety of television and Internet news sources (and probably print media as well) in addition to whatever tax advantages they might be able to pick up in the process. There’s no question that fifty or so fundraising teams each in at least two states (the minimum for inclusion in the National Partners Program) would raise a lot of money for cancer research, or that a lot of people would benefit from those donations; it’s even plausible to suggest that some of them will do more business with the sponsor corporations because they will be alive to do so. It’s highly doubtful that any of those people would care why your company supported the ACS, or that they would be grateful that you did…

Where the ethics of the situation becomes murky is where the donor organization is trying to get the most public-relations and publicity “bang” for their buck, as in the case of the Foundation Beyond Belief trying to get itself named to the National Partner Program for the Relay for Life events. If the requirement to be a National Partner is fielding at least 50 teams in each of at least 2 states of the Union, offering to field a single team clearly does not make the requirement (even if you can provide a matching donation for whatever that one team raises), and raising a huge stink about not being named a National Partner is clearly a publicity stunt. But at what point should such an offer be considered genuine? If the applicant manages to round up exactly 100 teams in two states, does that count? What happens if they can only come up with 89 teams, but each of those can double the national average of donations collected (making them the equivalent of 178 teams), should they be included? What about a group that won’t promise to field any specific number of teams, but is pledging to donate $10 million (the equivalent of about 3,700 regular teams) regardless of how many people they can get to show up?

No one is questioning the fact that corporate donations to a popular cause can also benefit the donor organization, and no sane person is going to question that any organization that is donating money and time to a worthwhile cost deserves to be recognized for their good works. But at what point does it stop being charity and become advertising?

It’s worth thinking about…

The Etiquette of Valentine’s Day

It’s the most wonderful time of the year for anyone who owns a florist business or a candy shop – or any retail operation that sells greeting cards – and the Internet is buzzing with horrible stories about people who bought the wrong gift for their significant other, forgot to buy a gift for their significant other, or just don’t have a significant other. I found the story about how 13% of all single women buy themselves flowers for the occasion to be an eye-opener; so was the story about the guy who got dumped for sending his would-be girlfriend a teddy bear at work (apparently, it was embarrassing and much too public a declaration) and the one about the guy who produced a big bale of fail by sending the object of his affections a bouquet of cookies for V-Day (apparently she had an eating disorder he’d never found out about, and freaked out upon getting the package). But it got me thinking about the etiquette of the situation – and what the proper behavior should really be…

To begin with, I have to ask if it would be better to try and fail or chicken out altogether? Granted, both of the cases featured above involve large amounts of crazy, either because the women are over-reacting to relatively harmless gifts (it’s possible to get much more personal than these examples) or because the men are complete strangers/bare acquaintances who are attempting to buy themselves relationships. But you can find hundreds (if not thousands) of similar cases online, ranging from the absurd to the heart-breaking, and you could easily find examples to support either side of this argument. Men are likely to face anger and rejection for gift attempts that are too large or too small; too public or not public enough; too serious or too corny; too romantic or not romantic enough; too expensive or too cheap. On the other hand, woman can face negative reactions just by purchasing something at all, and there certainly aren’t any socially-accepted defaults for men the way there are for women (e.g. flowers or jewelry). This may account for the fact that while women purchase two-thirds of the actual Valentine’s cards, men are more than twice as likely to purchase gifts for the occasion…

Then there’s the question about what to buy for your valentine, assuming you’re going to. I’ve blogged about this topic for several years now, so I won’t bore you by repeating those discussions, but any of the above referenced stories tend to indicate that even if you think what you are buying is perfectly appropriate, your significant other may not. I would point out that unlike Christmas or birthdays there is no social expectation of present exchanges for this holiday, which should eliminate the giving of anything truly unpleasant or hateful (so far there don’t appear to be “hate mail” valentines outside of the funny pages), which should make it easier to appreciate the thought behind the gift. On the other hand, if one partner spends weeks researching, shopping, purchasing and preparing and the other just offers to cook dinner (or other personal services) on the spur of the moment, it’s going to be hard for the more engaged partner to keep from feeling disappointed, no matter how much he or she appreciates the services offered…

I make no claims at being a philosopher or a deep thinker or anything other than a close observer of humanity, but I can’t help thinking all of these people are focusing too much on the existence of the question and ignoring the one important thing about the answer. If you are not alone today; if you have someone with whom you want to spend this extremely minor holiday; if you are loved and love someone else sufficiently that the observance of a lover’s festival has any real meaning for you in the first place, then you are already blessed – and presents given or received are just details…

Happy Valentines Day, everyone. Enjoy it if you can…

The Ethics of Gift Cards

In several earlier posts in this space I have written against the use of gift cards for both high-priority occasions and high-priority people, both because of the inherent business issues with such purchases (such as the company you bought the card from going out of business before the gift can be redeemed), and because of the high level of convenience involved. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with sending your third cousin’s son (whom you haven’t seen in three years) a gift card for his birthday, or with getting your friend the knitter a gift card for a large supply of yarn (since you don’t know what colors she needs or anticipates needing for her next project); I’m just saying that getting your wife a gift card from the supermarket around the corner for your Anniversary is unwise unless you like sleeping on the couch. If it’s really the thought that counts, a gift that says “I spent less than fifteen seconds picking out your gift!” is going to be inherently problematic. Unless it’s a gift card for a very large amount of junk food, in which case we’ve got a whole other level of grey area on our hands…

A story that turned up in the Sunday Mail of Queensland documents several strenuous objections to the KFC $500 gift card available in Australia and various other parts of the world as being health hazards. The argument is that since $500 is enough for 14 buckets of chicken or at least 50 to 70 individual meals at current prices, such a gift card would enable the recipient to enjoy KFC meals once a week for a year, or possibly even more often, instead of the once per month or once per calendar quarter that nutritionists would prefer. While there’s no explanation given as to why this would be worse than gifts of bio-toxins (alcohols) or refined sugars (any form of candy), you could actually argue that giving someone a present that is actively bad for their health – or at least enables them to do things that are actively bad for their health – is not a good choice. The question that struck me is, does this actually involve an ethical dilemma, either for the consumer or for the company?

Fast-food companies have for years pointed out that no one is forcing their customers to purchase or consume the company’s wares, and that if you don’t limit yourself exclusively to foods with high fat, carbohydrate or cholesterol contents, their meals are not going to do you any real harm. In the case of high-dollar gift cards, companies like KFC will generally point out that such a gift would enable a large family to eat out once each month, or permit a single individual to enjoy a hot meal once each week, and that if all of your other meals are relatively healthful, this will not harm anyone. KFC in particular will point out that they do offer food that, if not exactly healthy, is certainly no worse for you than any other dining-out experience would be, so blaming them for your poor eating habits (or those of your recipient) is hardly just. But the real question is, if these gift cards have the potential for actual harmful misuse, should they be offered or advertised as gifts?

A similar point could be raised with the consumer. If you are giving a KFC gift card to someone who can not afford to eat out very often, and who will only order the relatively healthy items off the menu (and enjoy them in moderation) are you really doing any harm? More to the point, perhaps, if you give such a gift card to someone who you know will use it just to purchase deep-fried items in bulk, are you responsible for their poor eating habits and/or lack of self-control? Or, to put it another way, do companies have any ethical responsibility to only market gift items that are part of a healthy lifestyle? Do private citizens have any ethical responsibility to only give gifts that are actively good for the person getting them? Or should companies market what people want to buy, and let people make their own decisions about what to consume, even if those decisions will ultimately kill them?

It’s worth thinking about…

Give Them Hell

I’ve written in this space before about how much I dislike gift cards – not because I feel there’s anything wrong with these Internet-age descendants of the humble gift certificate, but rather because there’s a real chance that the company you’ve bought them from will lose your records, change card formats without telling you (or sending you a replacement card), or go out of business altogether before you (or the recipient) can cash them in. To that list of possible electronic mishaps, we now have to add the possibility that the company trying to redeem the gift card will suffer a procedural miscue, accuse you of credit card fraud, and have you (or the recipient) arrested and jailed…

A story off of the New York One website tells the curious tale of a customer who went to Best Buy to cash in three American Express gift cards, only to have the clerk on duty handle them incorrectly, decide that it must be a case of credit card fraud, and summon the police. Getting the family members who had purchased the gift cards on the phone to verify the charges and vouch for the recipient didn’t help; the police took her off to jail anyway, and it was several hours later (after the people at American Express finally confirmed that there was no fraud involved and the recipient had done nothing wrong) that she was finally let go. At which point, things actually got worse – at least, from a business standpoint…

On returning to the store, the recipient was not given her money back (including the $180 she paid out of pocket), nor was she given the DVD player she had been trying to purchase; Best Buy told her she’d have to take it up with American Express. American Express, in turn, told her that the money had already been charged by Best Buy, and she’d have to take it up with them. At this point, the recipient did the only reasonable things she could do: she reported the story to the consumer advocate reporter at New York One, and hired an attorney to go after Best Buy. Personally, I hope she asks for an outrageous punitive award – and I hope the court gives it to her…

Best Buy’s explanation is that an employee somehow gave incorrect information to American Express, and that this caused the chain of events that eventually spiraled out of control. I don’t know if that’s even possible, but it’s been 15 years since I last ran a credit card-reader, and perhaps it is now. If it is, however, then the company has a legal responsibility to make sure that anyone who operates such a device knows how to do so correctly – and if they fail to do so, they are responsible for the consequences. In this particular case, the consequences include either false arrest or unlawful detainment (depends on how you’d want to prosecute it), as well as legal liability for defamation of character, public humiliation, deliberate infliction of emotional trauma, and (when they refused to return the customer’s own money, independent of the gift card validation issues) fraud and/or grand theft…

If such a credit card-reader malfunction is not possible, then we can add perjury and conspiracy to commit a felony to the above charges, and all of the people who were responsible for this foul-up should be looking at jail time in addition to putting the company at risk for huge punitive damages. Even worse, though, are the literally millions of people who either have heard or will hear about this episode – not because of this blog, of course, but of the hundreds of other places this story will be posted around the Internet. It’s going to convince a potentially large number of customers to avoid Best Buy, American Express, electronic gift cards, or all of the above, possibly for some time to come. No one is saying that credit card fraud isn’t a serious crime, or that private companies shouldn’t do everything they can to combat it. But as with any other crime, the more people who are falsely accused of credit card fraud, the harder it’s going to be to stop real crimes and catch real criminals later. In which case, the people who are paying for this screw-up are you and me; the public…

And I still hope the gift-card recipient in this story gives the company hell…

It’s That Time Again…

Every year around this time somebody posts a blog or set of message board discussions about “What was the worst present you ever received?” Most of the time it’s a mixture of the crass, the tacky, the tightwads and a handful of trolls who are either attacking the rest of the posters for being too material or spouting a bunch of religious rubbish about how because they don’t personally agree with giving gifts on a holy day, everyone should spend the day in church, or eating cold gravel, or whatever trolls pretending to be holy rollers believe we should all be doing. Some of the posts are sad, some are touching, and some are either the most materialistic people on the planet or more trolls trying to get a rise out of people by pretending to be wretches who would actually complain because the new sports car their parents gave them was the wrong color…

Although, in fairness, it’s sometimes hard to tell who’s a troll and who’s just an appalling human being these days. In any case, you can catch this year’s version on MSN Money if you want to. Personally, I think the people who make the “groaning moose clock” referenced in the comments to this article are about to get a surprise at how much traffic on their website has picked up, but then I’d imagine it would take a lot to surprise people who manufacture and sell clocks that make a 60-second “moose mating call” ever hour…

I thought it might be worthwhile to review some of the comments made earlier about the rules for buying presents. If you’re not the type who thinks moose (or strange noises that sound like a moose made them) are funny enough to make the ideal gift, some of these might come in handy:

1. Never purchase anything that is actually for you. It’s rude. Especially if it’s something you know the recipient does not want, and will just give back to you.

2. Don’t assume that just because you want something, your significant other does too. This goes double for home entertainment equipment that you will also get to use.

3. Never purchase exercise equipment for any female recipient. Not even if she specifically asks for it. It sends the wrong message (e.g. “you need to work out more”).

4. When purchasing gifts for a female significant other, never purchase anything because your mother, your sister, your ex-girlfriend or some hot saleswoman at the store where you were shopping liked it. And if you’re dumb enough to violate this rule, for heaven’s sake don’t ADMIT that you did so!

5. When purchasing gifts for a male significant other, never purchase lifestyle or wardrobe accessories that conform to your ideal of him. For example, if he doesn’t already carry a “man-purse” you probably shouldn’t get him his first one. If he already does, there’s nothing wrong with getting him a new one, but otherwise…

6. Regardless of the recipient’s gender or your relationship with him or her, do not purchase things he or she doesn’t use but you think he/she ought to. This applies to styles he or she doesn’t wear, grooming items he or she doesn’t use, religious or self-help texts that will help to short up something YOU believe is a shortcoming, and so on.

7. Avoid gift cards. It’s not just that they’re impersonal, although they are, but in the current economic climate there’s a nonzero chance that the company will go under before the recipient can cash them in – and if that happens, the card won’t be worth the price of the plastic it’s made out of. Also, keep in mind that just because the store you’re buying the card from is convenient for you, that doesn’t mean there’s one in the recipient’s neighborhood. If someone gave me a Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf gift card this year, for example, I’d be roughly 2300 miles from the nearest place I could use it…

8. Avoid novelty items that make loud, rude noises every hour on the hour. Unless, of course, you KNOW that the recipient really likes the sound of moose mating calls…