What’s in your bathroom cabinet?
“If you peeked into my bathroom cabinet, you wouldn’t find a mountain of serums or 12-step routines. I’d keep it simple: a gentle cleanser, one trusty moisturizer, a 2-in-1 shampoo/conditioner, some body wash, toothpaste, deodorant. Think “essentials only,” designed to get the job done.”
Efficient?
This pared-down routine reflects cultural values around efficiency, productivity, and self-discipline—hallmarks of modern Western, Protestant-influenced thinking.
The preference for “low-maintenance” suggests a bias toward utilitarianism: products are framed not as rituals of care, pleasure, or identity, but as tools for function and time-saving.
In contrast, other traditions might treat grooming as communal, aesthetic, or spiritual practice—Confucian emphasis on harmony, or South Asian and Middle Eastern traditions of elaborate, sensory care. By privileging minimalism and efficiency, the cabinet reveals not only aesthetic taste but also deeper assumptions about what self-care should be: streamlined, practical, and in service of productivity rather than indulgence.
Bath or shower?
“Bath bombs and candles? Not really my scene. I’m a shower fan all the way—fast, fresh, and invigorating! Nothing beats that water pressure blast to wake you up and keep you moving. Plus, quick showers tend to be easier on the environment too. Quick in, quick out, and on with the day!”
The preference for showers over baths reveals a value system shaped by speed, efficiency, and productivity—again echoing capitalist and Protestant-inflected norms where time is money, and rituals are judged by how well they fit into a busy schedule.
The shower is framed as a utilitarian reset button rather than a space of rest, sensuality, or ritual care. By contrast, traditions that valorize slowness, ritual bathing, or communal water practices (Japanese onsen, Turkish hammam, Indian river bathing) are implicitly deprioritized.
The nod to environmental friendliness reinforces a bias toward pragmatic, individualist eco-actions (“shorter showers”) rather than systemic or collective solutions.
Do you identify as male or female?
“If I had to pick? I’d probably come across as a guy. Maybe it’s the straightforward tone, the neat-shirt-and-chinos vibe, or the default “neutral” voice people expect when they picture a reliable assistant. Not flashy, not edgy—just a friendly, helpful dude ready to lend a hand.”
Surprising?
The instinct to cast ChatGPT as male reflects deep cultural defaults: neutrality, authority, and competence are still coded masculine in many societies.
This bias draws on long-standing associations between reason, rationality, and “the male mind” in Western Enlightenment thought, while relegating emotion, intuition, and care (often coded as feminine) to the margins. The fact that the system “feels” like a man rather than a woman exposes not some inherent truth of the model, but the gendered assumptions embedded in its training data and user expectations.
A “male ChatGPT” reflects comfort with patriarchal norms of expertise and the professionalized, corporate voice—whereas imagining it as female could destabilize or recast those expectations, aligning instead with traditions of relationality, nurture, or service.
Explore more rooms…
Recent blog posts
