I watched a CBS segment this AM about women and their hair. Their conclusion was that women who have "bad hair days" really are less confident and it negatively affects them through their day. But why?
In some ways, the answer goes to Evolutionary Psychology. Evolution favors the genetically better. Humans are conditioned to respond to cues of genetic, and therefore immune system, superiority: clear skin, waist hip ratios close to .7 (in females; in males .9), and other signals like full, shiny hair. Hairdos are simply amplifications of this biological cuing system. What's this about on a psychological level? Fear of rejection. I explain this to my students whenever I can. We fear first and foremost (after the threat of loss of food, water, and other biological necessities) that others will not approve of us, that we will not be loved. This fear derives from pair bonding imperatives, and it is intense and primal. The advertising machinery knows this.
The manipulations of this are so clear that I am still astonished that most cannot see it. Advertisers play on the dynamic by engaging the fears shared by everyone (save for a few with particular pathologies or perhaps a highly evolved individual) and then offering a way to quell them by implying that if you buy this product, you will be loved and accepted.
Take shampoos. The Prell commercial where the woman fans in slow motion her magnificent head of thick and shiny hair, is a great example. If you use Prell, you too will be beautiful, and if you are beautiful (because right now you are not) others, particularly men, will want you. You will no longer be lonely or feel like an outcast. You will be in the group that men yearn and hunt for. And if you keep using our products, your partner will stay with you.
I recently asked a class of mine why women need so many pairs of shoes? A student responded saying "It's fashion!" I asked what the need was for a woman to be in fashion? She said, "So you'll look your best!" Who runs the fashion and cosmetic industry? Men. Who spends the money on advertising to get your attention? Men. Who wants you to wear a certain outfit, a certain pair of shoes? Men. Why? Do men really care what kind of shoes a woman is wearing? No. So the whole thing is simply a manipulation to get your money? Yes. How do they do it? Easy. By showing you imagery of unhappy, lonely women who are wearing shitty shoes. These women are sad, depressed, frazzled. And then you see happy, fulfilled women in relationships who use the product. They virtually writhe in orgasmic ecstasy before your eyes. Who would you rather be? Nuff said.
It's the same formula they use to sell everything to men. We are sold formulas and hardware to make us more virile and to generate envy among other men, a way to ascend in the hierarchy of social power and dominance. Drink Budweiser, and you too can have a swarm of beautiful comely women playing volleyball with you on the beach, all smiling and ready to go to bed with you. Men are sold a bill of goods, too, on things like Viagra. Never mind that these drugs are only 60-80% effective: they are sold as cure-alls for failing penises, the worst imaginable destiny for any man. A man without a stiff one is useless, the advertising implies. Buy this product and you'll really be a man!
Now the show also made reference to the scarcity of blond hair as the origin to it's special importance and interest. Not entirely true. Yes, blond hair is less common than shades of brown or black, but if this were the directing variable, then red haired women would be in special demand, and they are not. In ancient times, prostitutes dyed their hair blond as a signal that they were in the sex business, to distinguish them from all others. That conditioning has carried a long way forward. Do blonds have more fun? Only if you are blond and a prostitute, and only if you consider prostitution "fun."
In the end, things are distractions from what's really important: our emotional connections to others.
In some ways, the answer goes to Evolutionary Psychology. Evolution favors the genetically better. Humans are conditioned to respond to cues of genetic, and therefore immune system, superiority: clear skin, waist hip ratios close to .7 (in females; in males .9), and other signals like full, shiny hair. Hairdos are simply amplifications of this biological cuing system. What's this about on a psychological level? Fear of rejection. I explain this to my students whenever I can. We fear first and foremost (after the threat of loss of food, water, and other biological necessities) that others will not approve of us, that we will not be loved. This fear derives from pair bonding imperatives, and it is intense and primal. The advertising machinery knows this.
The manipulations of this are so clear that I am still astonished that most cannot see it. Advertisers play on the dynamic by engaging the fears shared by everyone (save for a few with particular pathologies or perhaps a highly evolved individual) and then offering a way to quell them by implying that if you buy this product, you will be loved and accepted.
Take shampoos. The Prell commercial where the woman fans in slow motion her magnificent head of thick and shiny hair, is a great example. If you use Prell, you too will be beautiful, and if you are beautiful (because right now you are not) others, particularly men, will want you. You will no longer be lonely or feel like an outcast. You will be in the group that men yearn and hunt for. And if you keep using our products, your partner will stay with you.
I recently asked a class of mine why women need so many pairs of shoes? A student responded saying "It's fashion!" I asked what the need was for a woman to be in fashion? She said, "So you'll look your best!" Who runs the fashion and cosmetic industry? Men. Who spends the money on advertising to get your attention? Men. Who wants you to wear a certain outfit, a certain pair of shoes? Men. Why? Do men really care what kind of shoes a woman is wearing? No. So the whole thing is simply a manipulation to get your money? Yes. How do they do it? Easy. By showing you imagery of unhappy, lonely women who are wearing shitty shoes. These women are sad, depressed, frazzled. And then you see happy, fulfilled women in relationships who use the product. They virtually writhe in orgasmic ecstasy before your eyes. Who would you rather be? Nuff said.
It's the same formula they use to sell everything to men. We are sold formulas and hardware to make us more virile and to generate envy among other men, a way to ascend in the hierarchy of social power and dominance. Drink Budweiser, and you too can have a swarm of beautiful comely women playing volleyball with you on the beach, all smiling and ready to go to bed with you. Men are sold a bill of goods, too, on things like Viagra. Never mind that these drugs are only 60-80% effective: they are sold as cure-alls for failing penises, the worst imaginable destiny for any man. A man without a stiff one is useless, the advertising implies. Buy this product and you'll really be a man!
Now the show also made reference to the scarcity of blond hair as the origin to it's special importance and interest. Not entirely true. Yes, blond hair is less common than shades of brown or black, but if this were the directing variable, then red haired women would be in special demand, and they are not. In ancient times, prostitutes dyed their hair blond as a signal that they were in the sex business, to distinguish them from all others. That conditioning has carried a long way forward. Do blonds have more fun? Only if you are blond and a prostitute, and only if you consider prostitution "fun."
In the end, things are distractions from what's really important: our emotional connections to others.
No comments:
Post a Comment