What is it about bags...

[ChishandFips33]

...that cause so much negative reactions??

A poster asks advice about a £20,000 kitchen

A £2,000 watch /ring
and gets great advice/support

...but ask about which designer bag to buy for £1000+ and it's a different story: ie advice to spend it on something else/give to charity

I'm not a big spender so get the 'value' perspective but why do bags cause this reaction?

Oh and for what it's worth, my sofa was a bargainous £80.

I don't post on designer bag threads because I always trash mine so can't afford to get sucked into threads full of gorgeous spendy ones in case I fall in love.

It's not just a misogynistic thing I think, (partly but not entirely) because people will happily chat about the merits of vastly expensive shoes, dresses and suits which will admittedly cost less up front but get far less use than a bag.

However the thread title (judging on title only) in question seemed a bit arse about face, in common with some other bag threads and not many other S&B threads. It's not "I want a gorgeous bag, find me a lovely bag, I'll pay whatever money the bag I like most costs up to a maximum of 1,300." It's more of a mission to go out and pay over a grand for a bag regardless of whether there might be a 400 quid one which is nicer. You don't see that elsewhere - there's more of a "I'll pay 200 quid max but if you can find me a skirt that does the job for 40 quid I'll kiss you." feel. And that does feel weird to people who don't get the status bag thing.

However the thread title (judging on title only) in question seemed a bit arse about face, in common with some other bag threads and not many other S&B threads. It's not "I want a gorgeous bag, find me a lovely bag, I'll pay whatever money the bag I like most costs up to a maximum of 1,300." It's more of a mission to go out and pay over a grand for a bag regardless of whether there might be a 400 quid one which is nicer. You don't see that elsewhere

I think that is the perception of someone who is befuddled by the passion for bags. It's not arse about face at all, it's quantifying what you are planning to spend so that posters have a benchmark to go by. Believe it or not, there's huge price range and giving an upper limit like that gives posters an idea what to be suggesting, how high they can go iykwim? For me when I looked at that thread title; because I love Mulberry, I thought well she's not just after say a Mulberry Dario then, she's going to be looking perhaps at something like a Bayswater. That's why people say how much money they have to spend on bag threads, so that people know whereabouts in the ranges to be looking and suggesting.

I've posted once, trying to be even handed but I didn't really answer the question. The op asks why the dislike so - from my point of view and mine alone - let me try and explain:

1. I just think they're So. Fucking. Ugly.

I mean look at them! I know we all have different tastes but I just cannot for the life of me understand it.

1. The colours. Now I like a bit of colour - I'm not a 'wear black and neutrals' kind of woman. But if you like a lurid colour then please, for God's sake have the courage of your convictions and buy a frock in it.

1. The bling. I just think it looks horrible. I guess I'm not a very sparkly person - even diamonds don't do much for me. I like my jewelry a bit industrial looking.

1. The names. Now this, I accept, is totally, totally unreasonable and I know bags aren't the only offenders but, if I recall correctly, they were the first. They just make me think of ugly, snappy, pampered pooches. Sorry. Sorry bag lovers, sorry dog lovers, sorry everyone but that's the truth.

I've asked myself, 'Come on, Flo, Isn't it the prices?' And I honestly don't think so. Of course they're grossly over-inflated and I very much doubt the surplus money is going to the people who made them (though delighted to be proved wrong). But that's true of lots of things. I firmly believe in spending disposable cash on things that make you happy and if it's bags then you crack on.

I hope I would never be such a dick as to barge onto a thread where someone's asking for advice but the op asked the question so there you have it. Feel free to have a pop back (I used to have a real thing for hats ... )

Oh you always have to state a maximum budget - it's normally the second post on any S&B thread "What's your budget OP?".

But on a normal thread "I know you said you had a budget of three hundred quid, but this thirty quid version in the M&S sale is great and will do the job perfectly well, you could spend the rest on gin!" Is a perfectly helpful and polite thing to say. On bag threads there's a perceived need to spend the money regardless of other requirements, and "This one's great, 300 quid and you could have a weekend in Rome/three others in different colours with the change!" which would be a valuable comment on any other thread is not acceptable.

Ollycat I forgot about granite worktops and was really talking about the cabinets. Our entire house is furnished from Ikea, some of it up to 20 years old and it's generally all very solid and as good as new.

On occasion I've looked in other more expensive shops like Conran, M&S, Next, Barker and Stonehouse etc, and what I see is still flat pack veneered MDF or whatever it is, for more money and often not as nice.

I wouldn't have granite because it sounds like hard work. We would have had composite, but that would have stretched the budget a bit much so we had standard laminate, which are nice enough and one thing we can do in 10 years time or whatever is have the worktops replaced with composite, or maybe not - we won't do it until the laminate is looking shabby.

When we got our new kitchen, our old one was probably 20/30 years old at least (it came with the house and was a standard MFI type 80s thing) and it was in no way falling apart, just old fashioned and far too small (we had the new kitchen installed in an extension).

What annoys me about the high street vs designer argument is those that say standard products, not the absolute cheapest from Primark or whatever are a cheap nasty waste of money that work out more expensive because they don't last, because in my experience, that really isn't the case at all.

I think people are so down on bags is because most people just don't understand the desire to spend so much on a bag. If you use it day to day, chances are that you'll accidentally put it down somewhere dirty, or a child will throw up on it, or you'll spill something on it, or it'll get rained on and it'll be ruined.

Very very few people have that much disposable income that they can afford all the holidays they want, all the clothes they want, the best car they want, all the days and meals out that they want, all the jewellry that they want, etc etc and most people if they had a spare grand would spend on one of those things instead, I think? They’re not being intentionally nasty or sneery, it’s just that’s the reality for most people.

That said I agree that some people get terribly rude about the shallowness of bag lovers. And even a thread stating "I love the Xxx Yyy bag with all my heart, I know it's exactly what I need and I want to buy it with my bonus: shall I get black or chestnut - big decision because it's 1,500!" would bring out the How Much!?!? Give it to Oxfam brigade. Even though it doesn't have any of the issues from my previous examples.

I think it boils down to this for me, I loathe the idea of private school - the endless threads earnestly discussing the ins and outs of a suitable school is it academic, is it sporty, is it quirky???? Blah blah blah. It's implicit in the discussion that the OP has fortunes to spend on it while the rest of us just have to negotiate the state system. But I would never go onto such a thread and air my views on this. Bags are seen as such an empty headed and incomprehensible thing that posters feel they can be really rude and sneery in saying so, it's not just about the bag, it's the questioning the judgment and good sense of those who like them. It's fine to go WTF? but what is it about bags that make posters think that person needs educating and reigning in with Good Advice and Do This Instead?

The price of bags is going up everywhere. Only the other day I had to pay 5p of a bag I would have once got for free in tesco. It was a bad purchase as I doubt I'll see a future return on my 5p bag. Watches and jewellery are IMO better investment.

But yes on a serious to a certain extent you are calling hypocrisy on this one. I guess handbags have more materialist connotations.

I think people are so down on bags is because most people just don't understand the desire to spend so much on a bag. If you use it day to day, chances are that you'll accidentally put it down somewhere dirty, or a child will throw up on it, or you'll spill something on it, or it'll get rained on and it'll be ruined.

I think if I took this approach for everything then I would never have anything nice from the fear. It's like "saving things for a special occasion". With one exception, being our crystal glasses which were wedding presents, I don't save things for "best" or a special occasion. The quote about spending your money on things you will enjoy, for me, has an ending, which is "and make the most use out of the things that you enjoy as you never know what's round the corner".

I think the last few posters have made some fantastic points and I guess underlines the point that whatever motivates posters to go wading in on a bag thread to hurl venom at the OP, it's never about the bag itself but more about whatever is going on for the poster. This might be about core values (we are women so never worthy enough for treats that are just for us) or anger because of financial hardship. As others say threads about other expensive items don't eillict the same visceral reaction and that's why I can only conclude that misogyny is a primary driver for people behaving in such a dickish way.

No "most" people will not perceive a £130 bag to be a luxury bag.

I really think they would, cat. I imagine you move in circles where a £130 bag would not be considered a luxury bag, but trust me - to about 75% of the population a £130 bag would be considered a luxury item. Have a look at median incomes - you might be shocked!

In response to a point others have made, I do think it makes a difference that this was a one-off purchase for the OP rather than something she does every other month. If it was a regular kind of purchase (one month a £,1000 hat, one month a bag) then we're talking about the kind of money that could make a real difference to society - if I had that kind of disposable income then (after paying off debt, providing for dc etc), I honestly would set up some kind of charitable trust and would enjoy seeing the money go directly to where it was needed. And many others would do (and do do) similarly. In the OP's case that wasn't the situation, of course, but it might have been.

I had a look at the watch thread and I think the reason that that got different responses was that it was more discreetly titled and the OP set out the context for the purchase (rather than watches being seen as intrinsically more worthy than handbags).

As for sofas and laptops - of course you can get them cheaply (I also have a £100 sofa) but I can't imagine that a £150 laptop would be particularly serviceable - even my old Dell cost £400 - whereas of course you can get a decent bag for £100. I do think people are being disingenuous to say that a bag/holiday/sofa/laptop are equivalent in terms of reasonable budget.

It really isn't misogynistic to query spending a very high amount on what is generally not a very high-ticket item.

if I had that kind of disposable income then (after paying off debt, providing for dc etc), I honestly would set up some kind of charitable trust and would enjoy seeing the money go directly to where it was needed.

I hope we will be seeing you post this view regularly on threads where you deem people to spending their own money inappropriately. Then we will know it's not just bags you have an issue with.

Katherina you fail to acknowledge that people with that kind of disposal income usually make a significant contribution to society through taxes (and rightly so) and might already be doing a ton of charitable activities. That doesn't preclude them from spending money on nice bag(s). The two are not and need not be mutually exclusive.

No, they aren't mutually exclusive - and in any case this doesn't appear to apply to the OP.

I'm just saying that if one did have that kind of money to spend on a very regular basis, there are some very good causes to spend it on. But this isn't the OP's situation.

I'm kind of with Jeremy Corbyn on this one - nobody needs to earn £500,000 a year, and nobody needs to spend £1,300 on a bag. There are other priorities in society. I know that not everyone agrees with that point of view - or we wouldn't have a Tory government!

On a thread like this, I think it's fine to query it. I'm quite interested in why bags arouse such devotion and why someone like me - who loves clothes and fashion - doesn't get it at all.

What I don't think is fine is wading in when the op is asking for advice on what to buy - especially if it's a big, once-in-a-lifetime purchase.

It's like Botox. I have strong views on the anti ageing industry and I'll happily spout away on a 'What do you think of Botox?' thread. But if someone were asking, 'Does anyone know a good practitioner in ....?' then I hope I would have the good manners to shut up.

And actually, designer bags aside, I don't think most of us pay nearly enough for our clothes and I include myself there.

I tend to agree. But it wasn't at all clear from the other OP that this was a big, special purchase - and I think that's why the thread got the responses it did.

I don't think she should have to explain.

No, but if she doesn't set out a brief context - "this is a special purchase to mark a new chapter", or something equally bland, then I think she might reasonably expect people to query (especially with the post title as it was).

Only if the OP had asked "what do you think about spending £1300 on a handbag or how much would you spend on a handbag would those responses have been OK.

I think on an open forum (which isn't just a fashion forum) you can expect responses which throw the original question open - whatever you post about. (I actually think it would be OK to say on a Botox thread "I really hate that society makes us think that wrinkles are bad" - and then some feminism chat to ensue.) Now that is about misogyny.

I have several mulberry bags, mostly bought second hand. But I mostly wear primark/new look clothes, cheap shoes, I don't get my hair done more than once a year and everything in our house is paid for. My bags make me feel special and I feel more confident in my cheap clothes as the bag helps the overall 'look' of an outfit. You're also not going to get too fat or thin for a handbag, the heels won't hurt your feet and mine go with everything. Yet every time I see a thread about bag's there are women making nasty and disdainful comments. Such a shame as I've lost a bit of that confidence that I had wearing them.

Flo I read your earlier post and nodded, not because I agree with you on bags (no way!) but because I get that you're not a fan. I also nodded because you also said that you're not going to go on the thread with the sole purpose of making the OP feel bad.

Kitchen is for the whole family, yet a man can have a man cave for his hobbies.

Blingy nailed it.

Blingy I'm shocked that you don't agree

I actually wish I did like bags. I think it makes far more sense to splash out on the things you use every day. I've never got the hang of doing that.
Many years ago, I spent £200 on a 1920s beaded dress. It was a serious amount of money for me at the time - I didn't really have it.
What did I do with it? I wrapped it in tissue paper and put it away in a box. Never, ever wore it. And now it doesn't suit me any more.

Now that, ladies, that's what I call a waste of money.