As a shopkeeper my job is to make readily available to customers whatever they want. Still, I never cease to be amazed at how many seemingly unnecessary things people not only desire but apparently can’t do without. But then I’m a man, and apart from pharmaceuticals probably 90% of the stuff in my stores is either bought by or for women. It’s incredible really how different male and female needs seem to be. Left to our own inclinations all most men really require is enough food, shelter from the rain, and occasional sex. Which is why bachelor homes usually resemble bear caves with furniture.

Life’s basics however are never enough for the fairer sex. Beds must be covered in decorated sheet sets. Bathrooms must be decked out in matching floral mats and towels. Couches must be accented with patterned cushions. Dining tables must have intricately carved legs. Kitchens must have stylish cupboards. In short women’s homes must have as much comfort and style as they or their men can afford.

But above all women must look pretty and smell nice. And as I wandered through a mall on a recent trip to Canada trying to buy some clothes for my girlfriend, my mind once more boggled at the astonishing range of goods and services these gigantic shopping structures contain, 90% of which are devoted to woman’s body.

Whenever I venture into a mall without female accompaniment my brain is quickly overwhelmed, and just choosing which shop to go into gives me a headache. But while to my glazed male eyes almost all the stores seem to offer virtually the same range of clothes and shoes, the hordes of females busily trying on blouses and dresses and pants apparently see an infinite variety. For a slight cut here and a few buttons there can mean the difference between orgasmic sighs and PMS like outbursts - though the big questions always seem to be “Does it make my bottom look fat?” and “Does it make my feet look big?”

But then the ladies say they only go through all this trouble because men are so shallow. As the old joke goes, women would rather be pretty than smart because men see better than they think. Now it’s true that we males are all to some extent captives of our genes and have a big breasted, slim waisted, firm bottomed, petite ankled female ideal planted deep in our subconscious. (As opposed of course to women’s tall, well muscled, big footed, thick walleted fantasy.) And women know that anything which gets them closer to this picture gives them greater sexual power.

But the slight variations on which women appear to base their clothing purchases are completely invisible to the average male eye. I am immensely appreciative of adorned female beauty. But what females regard as desirable new fashions often appears so bizarre to we ignorant men that it sometimes seems as if women really are dressing to impress other women.

Be this as it may, these huge retail temples devoted to the female body suggest that there is some connection between the market economy and the cult of womanly beauty. For throwing all females behind identical black chadors and banning all  makeup and perfume and jewelry would cause such a huge hole in western economies that capitalism probably could not survive in a recognizable form.

Surely it’s not mere coincidence that one of the most noticeable consequences of the iron curtain’s demise has been the enthusiastic entry of most ex-soviet countries into international beauty pageants. Indeed a country’s attitude towards beauty contests may be one of the most telling indicators of its economic outlook. For the only countries which shun international beauty pageants nowadays are Moslem theocracies like Iran and Iraq and communist hold outs like Cuba and North Korea. In fact a fear of the exposed female body is one of the few things religious fundamentalism and Marxist communism have in common.

Now even China has joined the bathing suit fold, with Miss China recently placing third in Miss Universe. The Chinese authorities apparently frowned on such ‘bourgeois superficiality’, but it seems Deng Zho Pen’s market reforms have created a demand for female body worship that not even Mao’s communist party can resist.

In a way one can understand why ‘scientific’ socialism condemns something so irrational as beauty. For it really makes no sense whatsoever that a person should be treated specially merely because the bones on her face are arranged slightly more symmetrically or the deposits of fat on her chest are a bit bigger than her peers’. Nothing so disproves the assertion that man is a logical animal as the deference paid to beauty. Even very clever men often become obsessed with pretty but not particularly smart or nice women while ignoring their much more personable and intelligent but less attractive sistren. And given the choice most heterosexual males would no doubt prefer to meet the most beautiful woman in the world rather than the smartest person.

But this shallowness is hardly confined to men. Festival queen contests and beauty pageants for instance have mainly female followings. But while festival queens are generally far more articulate and talented than their Miss Jamaica World or Universe counterparts, the latter shows always draw far bigger crowds and the winners get far more publicity.

I recently watched a movie called Shallow Hal which tried to address society’s obsession with appearance. Its looks obsessed protagonist is hypnotized into seeing only inner beauty, and ends up falling in love with a massively fat women who he perceives as gorgeous and shapely. When the spell is broken he sees her as she is, but in true Hollywood style love wins out and Hal still marries his obese darling.

It wasn’t a particularly convincing movie as it constantly poked fun at fat people. And in interviews the star Gwineth Paltrow spoke about how horrible she felt in her fatsuit because everyone ignored her and no one would look her in the eye, which rather undermined the movie’s entire premise that looks are irrelevant. But Shallow Hal did ring a bell. For it truly is ridiculous to put such emphasis on something as ephemeral and meaningless as physical appearance when judging others.

Because while we have some control over our personality, we have very little over our looks. And since beauty is by definition based on exceptionality, the majority of men and women cannot be pretty or handsome. So as Miguel Cervantes pointed out in Don Quixote, most average or worse lookers who court the attractive are really saying "I love you for your beauty; love me although I am ugly." But whoever said mankind was sensible? changkob@hotmail.com