Lipstick it to 'em

What if, one day, every woman in America refused to spend a dime? The economy would combust from lack of shoe, jewelry and low-carb bread purchases, right? Every mall would be a ghost town, and the stock market would crash, sending us all to Hoovervilles. \nWell, Tuesday was supposed to be that day, but as far as I know, brokers still trade, women still max out their credit cards, and, despite the "recessive" nature of our current economy, I can't say it's significantly wavered in the last 24 hours. \nYesterday, 85 Broads, a New York-based businesswomen's organization, plotted an experiment that would have women cross-country boycott all of their spending and charging. \nThey called it a "buy-cott." \n"We're hoping that women (will) choose that day not to buy any essential goods so they can reflect on their enormous purchasing power, which so far has not translated into economic power in the workplace," said Head Broad Janet Hansen in a CNN report on Sunday. \nWhile those clever broads reflect on their hugely successful rebellion, I'd like to reflect on the bottom line of the issue. \nStatistics show more than 80 percent of all purchases are either made or influenced by women, according to the CNN article. \nHusbands and boyfriends around the world with empty wallets are not surprised by those figures.\nHowever, the statistic concerning the organization most is that only 15 percent of top executives in Fortune 500 companies are women. \nThe Broads have a point. If women are the ones buying all the products, shouldn't they also be the ones designing, marketing and selling them? \nSo far, men's ideas of tailoring technology products to women include lipstick memory sticks, iPods in pink and cell phones with mirrors in them. This poor attempt to gear products to a much wider group of consumers ultimately patronizes women with gadgets that accessorize an outfit but don't do much to meet their needs. \nThere is a discrepancy between female consumption and production, but there's an even larger discrepancy between wanting higher paying jobs and boycotting shopping. \nThe Broads must be aware of the stereotype that women are vain and materialistic. Doesn't the emphasis on shopping in their little experiment sort of propagate that stereotype? \nThe buy-cott proves one thing: Women are better at spending money than making it. \nStop making feminism look stupid, Broads! \nWomen get the economic shaft all over the world, not just in this country. How effective did they think their buy-cott would be in the scope of this issue? \nHere's a business concept: If the boycott was against one locally-owned dress shop, the Broads could inflict a profit injury liable to put it out of business. If they attempted to lead a boycott against a multinational clothing store chain, like Bloomingdales, it would likely have the magnitude equivalent to a broad breaking her nail: It's a little annoying, but not life-threatening. \nTuesday's buy-cott wasn't even a boycott against a chain; it was a boycott against "it all" for a total of one day. That doesn't make for a very powerful statement. \nMaybe the 85 Broads aren't seated in corporate boardrooms because they failed microeconomics in college. \nThe buy-cott was nothing more than a symbolic gesture, and a weak one at that. If women want real change in the business world, they need to stop pandering around. Lobbying for government contract exclusions, taxes and punitive regulations is the way to demand companies to move toward equal opportunity between the sexes. That's the most effective tactic to make boardrooms, "broad" rooms. \nOne more stereotype: Isn't it so like women to withhold something -- be it spending or sex -- to try and get their way from men? \nThe only difference is that the latter usually works.