You are walking on a path around a shallow pond. There is no one else around but you hear crying and see a baby that is going to drown if you don't intervene. Although there is no possible way for you to get harmed by saving the baby you are wearing very expensive clothes and shoes and there is no time to remove them or else the baby will drown. Obviously, damn the clothes you save the baby, right? Pretty sure 99.9999% of the people on earth would.
So why do people spend so much money on luxury goods when there are children in the world whose lives would be saved for the price of that Coach purse you've been eying all month? From a personal, ethical perspective isn't it morally reprehensible to buy those shoes when the money could go to saving the life of an impoverished child?
I'm not trying to single out women here, that's the way Singer framed the thought experiment. Read it again but substitute phallic-shaped sports car for expensive clothes if gender equality (in stereotyping) is your thing.
Very curious to hear everyone's thoughts. It makes me think I should give more, but I also couldn't live in a world where women didn't walk around in expensive little black dresses.
Images taken from here and here.