Hair waves

Newsweek has a huge take out this week on the cosmetic business and how the beauty hawkers are snagging their suckers at earlier ages than ever. Lots of multi-media sidebars too, slide shows of gonzo gadgets and funky old ads.

Reared on reality TV and celebrity makeovers, girls as young as Marleigh are using beauty products earlier, spending more and still feeling worse about themselves. Four years ago, a survey by the NPD Group showed that, on average, women began using beauty products at 17. Today, the average is 13—and that's got to be an overstatement. According to market-research firm Experian, 43 percent of 6- to 9-year-olds are already using lipstick or lip gloss; 38 percent use hairstyling products; and 12 percent use other cosmetics. And the level of interest is making the girls of "Toddlers & Tiaras" look ordinary. "My daughter is 8, and she's like, so into this stuff it's unbelievable," says Anna Solomon, a Brooklyn social worker. "From the clothes to the hair to the nails, school is like No. 10 on the list of priorities."

Much has been made of the oversexualization of today's tweens. But what hasn't been discussed is what we might call their "diva-ization"—before they even hit the tween years. Consider this: according to a NEWSWEEK examination of the most common beauty trends, by the time your 10-year-old is 50, she'll have spent nearly $300,000 on just her hair and face. It's not that women haven't always been slaves to their appearance; as Yeats wrote, "To be born woman is to know … that we must labour to be beautiful." But today's girls are getting caught up in the beauty maintenance game at ages when they should be learning how to read—and long before their beauty needs enhancing. Twenty years ago, a second grader might have played clumsily with her mother's lipstick, but she probably didn't insist on carrying her own lip gloss to school.

<SNIP>

A combination of new technology and the Web, is responsible—at least in part—for this transformation in attitudes. Ads for the latest fashions, makeup tips and grooming products are circulated with a speed and fury unique to this millennium—on millions of ads, message boards and Facebook pages. Digital cameras come complete with retouching options, and anyone can learn how to use Photoshop to blend and tighten and thin. It's been estimated that girls 11 to 14 are subjected to some 500 advertisements a day—the majority of them nipped, tucked and airbrushed to perfection. And, according to a University of Minnesota study, staring at those airbrushed images from just one to three minutes can have a negative impact on girls' self-esteem. "None of this existed when I was growing up, and now it's just like, in your face," says Solomon, 30. "Kids aren't exempt just because they're young."

<SNIP>

''Which can lead to very real consequences—and a hefty debt. A lifetime of manis and pedis could cover four years at a public university; hair and face treatments would pay for a private college. "

Consider: I have naturally wavy/frizzy hair. It was my bad luck to be a teenager in an era when long, straight London look hair was in style. I wasted so many hours every day, every week, fighting nature. It was exhausting, and it sapped energy that would have been better spent on my studies.

But it didn't cost much except a few jars of Dippity-do. And at least I could so some of my homework while under that hideous bonnet dryer.

What's happening now is insane.

No wonder so many young women are caught with massive credit card debt problems.

Yes, of course parents should put their feet down. But if their daughters are earning their own cash while babysitting or slinging burgers, how much can a parent accomplish, especially against the powerful media forces which are so influential in children's lives?

Comments

[Marian]

If thine TV offend thee, pluck it out, or somesuch. We got rid of ours. I think it helps. Peer pressure at the schools is another matter though...

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

maybe I'm not the best one to be giving advice to women (sounds of the Esteemed and Beautiful Moderator, Sooey Sweetie, Pat Pet, Hizb-IRI-ya, Mozo de Beauxyeux, and Missie Chrissie dropping their coffee, etc., on the keyboard in shock), but try forgetting the hair and cultivate the EXPRESSION! (smile, etc.) It can really do wonders (cf. the picture of the E&BM to the left!), costs nothing,and therefore for those anti-free-marketeers among you (probably all of you, come to think of it), can do the big companies involved a tiny bit of damage.

[Sebastian Stoker]

Antonia,

I do not discount the responsibility of the hawkers, as you call them - the cosmetic makers, the fashion world, Hollywood - but to blame them for all of this is irresponsible. I see them as more symptoms than cause. We have much deeper problems in our society, that are causing not just, but, yes, primarily females to view themselves as product.

Our culture is one of stupidity, where careful and thoughtful consideration is seen as not just a flaw, but suspect, and where any level of true sophistication is condemned as elitist, ivory tower, pretentious, and - when exhibited by a male - queer. The average populations in modern western countries have abandoned ties with high culture, discounted popular culture as insignificant and disposable, creating an environment where the only thing that counts is the material, and superficial. So, a person understands that her body is the only thing that is hers and that endures (for better or worse), and becomes both product and her own marketer, aware of all the key words - sexiness, youth, etc.

Is it any wonder that youngsters are not experiencing/enjoying the important things (nature, real social interaction, high and pop culture), choosing instead to do body work (makeup, dieting, clothes and hair, and in the case of males, bodybuilding)? They are just working on what they have been told, that packaging is all. In a way, one has to admire our culture, for imprinting this on the young so effectively, and our young for processing the message so well, and so diligently putting theory into practice.

[neko]

Question: Do the thousands of dollars my Parents and I have spent combating my acne count? When the problem started (regretably, age 7) and always since, I have never thought of it as pursuit of beauty, I thought I was aiming for normal!

[Paul]

"The average populations in modern western countries have abandoned ties with high culture"

Sebastian, if we are defining our populations by their cultural tastes, then any average population, by definition, eschews "high culture" - whatever that would happen to be.

It's funny, you know, if you go back a few thousand years and study Aristotle's polemics, you'll see him raging against the problems with the "kids of today", complaining about drunkeness and various disorderly behaviour.

The traditional roles of men and women are "success object" and "sex object", though we only tend to focus on the negative aspects of the latter of those in feminism. Neither of these are new --they are an outgrowth of millenia of social evolution rooted in biological traits- traits and tendencies that are much less relevant in a society where division of labour is no longer fixed along gender lines. The roots run deep - check out a personals ads to see how many women want to see a guy with a job, and compare that to how many men ask for the same.

I will say this - I think women get ripped off by toiletry suppliers. Compare the size of men's deodourants vs womens - for the same price.

[Sebastian Stoker]

Paul,

I do not know where to begin. I will tackle two of your points.

High culture is no longer something the masses are denied. It is something the masses refuse, primarily because they are lazy and indifferent. There were periods in recent history when the masses were better connected to high culture (1960's and 70's). Up until recently, the masses were at least connected to a shared pop culture. Now we do not so much have culture as we have short and extended-play advertising. Movies and TV shows about modern life (see Disney, the Olsen twins, The Hills, etc.) are just vehicles for product or lifestyle promotion.

You are younger than I, yet you are not aware that a Beauty Myth now dominates the lives of young men almost as much as it does young women. I was back in college several years ago, and sat in class with a gaggle of moussed and perfumed boys who spent every spare moment in the gym and talked of low-carb and more extreme diets. Now, I was a dandy in high school (a New Romantic) but this was about rebellion and pushing the envelope, not about meeting some standard. The fact that now, even males feel the need to "sell themselves" or base their value on how OTHERS assess their physical appearance, is an indicator of something very very wrong with our society.

[Paul]

Sebastian, the male "metrosexual" movement began like many trendy things do - with gay men. The gay male community, during the HIV scare in the early 80's, became particularly conscious of presenting an outward image of health and vitality. This is the point where male bodyhair became unfashionable - so as to better show off the physique. It was a hit. By now, it doesn't surprise me that you should be alarmed by this.

As for high/low culture, these things have a tendency to shift from one into the other, depending on which socioeconomic class is enjoying them at the time. There has always been pop culture - or a common culture, and there have always been those professing a more rarified taste. For every Dickens, there were a thousand penny dreadfuls (and even Dickens himself was published as a newspaper serial). Shakespeare was performed in all day noisy halls, where wenches sold oranges and where the unwashed shouted back at the players. Today, we buy $100 tickets.

[Sebastian Stoker]

Paul,

You have a very unusual perspective that I find perplexing. Your comments, your responses to me, are flush with pseudo-and ancient-feminist-theory-turned-on-its-ear jingoism, which is usual, but now you have introduce a rather pedestrian Marxist notion - that the masses are by definition always disassociated from high culture. Ah, so you are saying much of the twentieth century - the generally successful attempts by countries of all political ideologies (including the United States, which saw the creation of PBS, and various high culture institutions) to make high culture available to the masses - was some sort of dream.

As for "high culture", I gave examples. If these were not clear enough, look it up - it is not that complicated. If you want to debate every term used in a comment, and deny that there are accepted standard usages and meanings of terms, which are intended to make discussions of ideas easier, then we might as well stop now. We cannot post comments containing definitions, clearly stated intentions of usage, endless historical references, footnotes, etc., as these would average 10,000 words.

People like Malcolm Gladwell and Nial Ferguson are perfectly happy to encapsulate their thoughts and theories in order to suit particular forums, and accept and expect that certain words are defined not just by dictionary and textbook, but also by cultural currents and modern spin, so I see no reason why we cannot.

[Keith]

Antonia, In your Men of Honour post just one day after this one you speak of a women that snuck out into public wearing makeup in a culture that I highly doubt has any mass marketing of cosmetics and in fact social pressures to NOT wear makeup. I believe this shows that women's obsession with vanity is self induced.

This is just another example of Antonia and the feminists blaming others for women's choices. The phrase, Doctor heal thy self, comes to mind. Let me guess, Drunk Drivers don't kill people, it's the big bad beer companies and thier evil advertising that kills people.

[Antonia]

Keith,

Are you kidding me?

Have you been to Jordan? Anywhere in the Middle East? That's where they INVENTED eye make-up. Kohl, for example. Henna. Hello?

They have TV, departments stores, magazines and everything now. You think all the major cosmetic companies don't operate there?

When all you can expose is your eyes -- as is the case for many of these women -- you make the most of them.

And, once again, thanks for your outpouring of sympathy for the victim here whose torture and murder was doubtlessly ''self-induced.''

[Paul]

Sebastian - you are overcomplicating my comment and you've lost me. Lets rewind.

"if we are defining our populations by their cultural tastes, then any *average* population, by definition, eschews "high culture" - whatever that would happen to be."

High culture is defined by that which is enjoyed or appropriated by the upper class. It is fluid. You seem to think there is something intrinsic about "high culture" - whereas I take into account the wider historical context, and see that it is simply defined by whichever socioeconomic class enjoys it at the time. High culture is simply fickle fashion.

Take food. Lobster and oysters were considered bottom feeding garbage food, fit for commoners at the pub. Now that the upper class has appropriated them, they are served in finer restaurants and the "common folk" eat something else. Think of that the next time you go to a fancy restaurant in NYC and they decant a can of vintage sardines, tableside.

You should look up "jingoism". In the words of Inigo Montoya, "I do not think it means what you think it means."

[Sebastian Stoker]

Paul,

My concern RE male body image is the new wide-spread efforts being made to conquer the body - in the same way women attempt to - as opposed to exploiting it. Up until the mid-eighties men generally saw their bodies as tools. Some exploited its current state; young men accentuated their thinness, and older men enjoyed the bulk that age provided. Most men did not try to whip their bodies into Shape, or a SHAPE.

Good point about the the effects of AIDS, and AIDS awareness. This was indeed a turning point. In the seventies and early eighties, prior to the impact of AIDS, the gay world celebrated the seedy, shady and camp aspects of its culture, and this inspired a slew of sub-cultures (including New Romanticism). (I remember being depressed in '84, because of the new gay music idols - Bronski Beat and Morrissey - who served as milestones in the great shift from the wild and decadent to the serious and concerned). There is an important point to be made here.

Up until the mid-eighties, the gay world only directly inspired sub-culture. Since then, the male gay community has led young straight men, en mass, by the nose. The evolving notion that men are also objects of desire, for others, and even themselves..even for each other, is something that straight men have never before believed to be anything other than strange and disgusting. This I see as a very negative phenomena - once women lived in the gaze of others, then gay men (once able to develop a relatively open culture), then straight men and lesbians (see: lipstick lesbians). Feminist theory of the 60's and 70's spoke of freeing women from the gaze-of-others syndrome. Now we are all enslaved. Sad, no?

[Sebastian Stoker]

Also Paul,

Your comments RE high and low culture, supports my point that something is now very wrong.

All high culture began as low culture - the plays of Shakespeare, novels, opera, orchestral music, painting - were originally for the masses or born directly of some other art form intended for the masses. The existence of future high culture is dependent on a current alive and thriving low culture.

Our low culture, pop culture, is barely alive. Its purpose is no longer so much to amuse, pass on cautionary tales, carry forward cultural detail or word of historical minutia, but to sell merchandise or lifestyle. Everything is now product, product is disposable, and not embracing but consuming things, ideas, people, is our raison d'etre. The only legacy of this will be one big garbage dump.

[Paul]

Sebastian, the feminism of the 60's and 70's was about miniskirts, bra burning, the Pill - nipples, tight T-shirts and free love. It was an emancipation from June Cleaver's rigid sex role prescriptions - and a realization that women were sexual creatures too, and that it was ok to have desires and to be desired.

It wasn't until Steinam, Dworkin, and MacKinnon subverted that movement in the late 70's and 80's, with their anti-sex Victorian sensibilities, to which you subscribe - the equation of desire with enslavement, of deviance with obscenity. This brand of feminism was not an extension of the earlier '60's renaissance (of the Roaring Twenties, similar movement) - though it appropriated the gains of their movement; it was a complete inversion of it. This is why they found themselves allied with Falwells's Moral Majority in the 80's, fighting porn and promoting censorship to protect these fragile creatures.

You keep telling me that my view of this kind of feminism is outdated, that it no longer holds sway, and yet with each post you reveal in detail how deeply and strongly you subscribe to its every tenet.

Call me a "glass is half full" guy, but I view the emancipation of men from their traditional roles as a positive thing that will have some negative side effects. In the same vein, with women working in the workforce, they are beginning to succumb to more stress-related diseases traditionally associated with men. If a dude wants to make an effort to look good for his wife or to attract a partner, this is not "disturbing" at all.

BTW, the gay community isn't exactly a new influence in the world of fashion or culture, and it isn't an exclusive one either. You could also say that, beginning in the 80's with rap music appearing in the pop scene, the urban black counterculture has made a significant impact, and many others.

[Paul]

"Our low culture, pop culture, is barely alive."
----------
No, you have just let yourself get old, and pop culture is too alien for you to recognize its worth. There's nothing you are saying now that hasn't been said by every old fogey about the next generation for the last few thousand years.

[Keith]

So Antonia, Which of the big cosmetic companies Brad washed you into saying this, "When all you can expose is your eyes -- as is the case for many of these women -- you make the most of them."

Could it be your own obsession with vanity is what causes you to "know" that it what these women are doing. Thanks for making my point.

[Antonia]

If anybody can translate Keith's post into something comprehensible, I'd appreciate it.