Just an observation.
Understand: We're NOT saying that nobody attractive ever goes into Wal-Mart; WOS and YNSHC alone refute that theory. Rather, there's something about store itself that acts like some kind of beauty-sucker. Probably the pervasive atmosphere of worker exploitation. Or just really bad lighting.
We know, we know: "Solipsist, what are you even doing in Wal-Mart? The place is pure evil."
It is. . . but check out these prices! We're only human; we're not immune to the seduction of the rollback special. A six-pack of tube socks for $2.98--WITH A BONUS PAIR OF SOCKS! Are you kidding?!?!
Wal-Mart does pose something of an ethical dilemma to the socially conscious shopper. We don't approve of Wal-Mart's effect on locally-owned businesses, and we are even less sympathetic to their labor practices. But when times are tight, it's hard to resist a bargain. And while we lament the fact that the store treats its employees--particularly its female employees--in less than desirable ways, we realize that it is these very workers who depend on the low prices that Wal-Mart provides.
We take comfort in the thought--the hope, really--that Wal-Mart may become something of a victim of its own success. After all, if so many of their customers are also their employees, they'll almost have to start paying better--if only to maintain their customer base. In the meantime, we'll do our best to resist the lure of . . . of. . . . . .
Chicken pot pies: 3 for $3,00?!? We've got to run.
I make a point of looking really ugly and unkempt when I go to Wal-Mart, which is rare, mostly for toys and an occasional cookie.
ReplyDeleteIs it rare that you go to Wal-Mart? Or that you're ugly and unkempt? (Oh, we know the answer. . . )
ReplyDeleteSolipsist, the modifying clause "which is rare" appropriately refers to the action immediately preceding it in the sentence. Dat's da rule.
ReplyDelete