The LA Times is reporting a shocking finding: men are doing the grocery shopping! In other news, they also apparently buy clothes, change diapers, and book swimming lessons. Will wonders never cease. The Times tells us that the grocery retailers are finally waking up to this supposed gender revolution:

The nation’s biggest food and personal products manufacturers are taking notice, trying to market products and adjust store layouts to cater to men. It’s a paradigm shift for the $560-billion retail food industry that has patently referred to the primary customer as “she,” focusing marketing and advertising firepower on women, and mothers in particular — sometimes making fun of dads in the process.

This type of analysis is as superficial as it is insulting. Men eat food. Men love food. Men cook food. Men shop for food. Trying to “adjust store layouts to cater to men” is short-hand for “caving to stereotypes about masculinity.” To really understand men and groceries, you need to spend a lot of time with a lot of men.

An amazing sight: a man shopping for food -- LA Times

In our work, we recently did a study about a food category and men. We showed our client that food has implicit gender “maps” to it. You can pattern food to this gender map, but don’t insult your customers. Don’t cave to the easy stereotype of “meat and potatoes = man.” Men, just like women, are diverse in their understanding of food.

To illustrate, we developed this framework.

Foods have implicit gender schme

Just because “steak” is masculine doesn’t mean most men want steak or identify with that type of masculinity. Remember that masculinity (just like femininity) isn’t a “must have” but a “should do” that we all grapple with, and some of us ultimately reject.

The Times goes on to profile P&G and Kraft’s attempts to understand men and their grocery shopping. We approve of their ethnographic approach in general, though we would want our clients to know that there is not one single category called “men.” You can’t be sure to be successful with “men” if you have a single idea of who a “man” is.

If grocery stores want to “cater to” men, they need to first understand that masculinity is a social construct. From there, they can make their in-store experiences more attuned to implicit gender maps that customers hold in their minds when they walk in.

I am a big fan of MUJI, the simple Japanese housewares company. So I was quite interested to read a post by their art director Kenya Hara on the New York Times’s “Room for Debate.” Hara argues that Japanese people have

…a special ability to focus fully on what’s right in front of our eyes. We tend to ignore what is not an integral part of our personal perspective. We ignore that our cities are a chaotic mess, filled with ugly architecture and nasty signage.

Hara believes that Japanese simplicity is a function partly of this narrow focus. Beautiful designs are better appreciated because of this focus, in Hara’s opinion. (Well known design guru John Maeda also weighs in and argues that the dearness of Japanese food is the primary issue).

A Beautiful Japanese Lunch: New York Times

Philosopher Dennis Dutton argues, interestingly, the American lunch box is of the same instinct: Americans have attempted to make their lunch beautiful but in distinctly different ways. Dutton leaves the symbolic interpretation of these competing “lunch beautifying” methods up to the reader’s imagination.

This reader thinks that by using exterior packaging instead of the food itself, Americans are not beautifying lunch as much as they are obscuring it. Indeed, they even commodifying it by making each lunch, regardless of content, look similar. The content of the lunch itself is irrelevant; whether it is fresh, healthy food or rotting, cheap, fast food, every lunch looks the same in a lunch box.

Perhaps this is indicative of the American spirit if industrialization. Mass production in the Fordist tradition (“You can have whatever colour car you like, as long as it’s black”) is an American value that has been spread around the world. Forget about the content of the thing, instead focus on its packaging, its marketing or its uniformity. This is what Ritzer means by the “McDonaldization of Society.” When the content of a thing matters less than how much of it is sold or how efficient it is to sell it, this is the height of capitalism — and perhaps of American culture.

This is perhaps the essence of why Americans can accept truly horrible food, while the Japanese and the French famously reject it. But it doesn’t explain why Hara thinks Japanese aesthetics are ruled in part by the ability to “focus” on one thing.

Is the Japanese form of capitalism less in need of obscuring and masking than the American? Is ugliness more tolerated by Japanese society and therefore, less of a threat to its form of capitalism?