‘Beauty is pain and Beauty is everything’- the politics of beauty, the pink tax and the cost of being a womxn
The politics of beauty, the power of femininity, and the manner in which womxn choose to physically present themselves are often quagmired in a grey area of free choice as opposed to a socially engineered one (which in principle then, is not really free). Although this conundrum is one that doesn’t seem to be of much importance, on the face of it, it is in fact, something that permeates the lives of womxn in multilayered ways.
Food for Thought
Is the shade of the lipstick you choose to wear to work simply one that you love or is it one that makes your demeanor come across in a particular manner? (Will you be considered more demure/confident/aggressive?)
Why are some shades of red lipsticks called a ‘bold red lip’? (Does this imply that red is bold while other colors are not?)
Is wearing bright yellow eye-shadow to a meeting going to make you seem vacuous and be taken less seriously? (Unless of course, you work in the field of beauty or fashion, where one is then expected to look the ‘part’?)
Watch the video from 1:39 to 1:56 mark. While explaining her beauty routine, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, talks about how the dynamics of beauty and femininity work alongside the attribution of certain behavioral traits to womxn.
In this video, Cortez goes on to recall the difficulties of having her voice heard or being taken seriously in Congress while also dueling with the dilemma of whether what she wears on her face and body is likely to affect the outcome of the above. She has in fact simply emphasized how certain belief systems and myths that plague society, disproportionately harm womxn in terms of opportunities, time, and the monetary returns they receive.
“What is beautiful is good!”
A 1972 study by Dion et al, indicated that men and womxn with a high level of physical attractiveness were deemed to possess a greater number of socially desirable personality traits than those with a lower level of attractiveness. Male and female observers predicted that physically attractive people were likely to lead better lives, be better spouses, be successful occupationally, have better dating lives, and so forth. This is the ‘ what is beautiful is good’ effect. (Dion, Berscheid, & Walster , 1972)
This finding was explained using the halo effect.
The ‘what is beautiful is good’ stereotype as indicated in the study believed that generally, attractive people are likely to fare better across their lifespan in everything that they do.
However, Leah Sheppard, a Washington State University researcher says that such stereotypes, “become more nuanced when we look at gender, for in certain contexts beauty does not benefit womxn.”
In fact, attractiveness can harm womxn and their employability chances according to further research leading to two paradoxical stereotypes at play here: (a) ‘what is beautiful is good’ as well as (b) ‘beauty is beastly’ (Sorensen, 2019).
“Beauty is Beastly”
M Heilman and L Saruwatari in their research found that attractive womxn are perceived as more feminine than their less attractive counterparts. This makes them less suitable for occupations considered “masculine”.
They found that attractiveness consistently proved to be an advantage for men but was an advantage for womxn only when seeking a non managerial position such as that of a clerk.
This phenomenon was referred to as the ‘beauty is beastly effect’ (Heilman & Saruwatari, 1979). In other words, the more attractive a womxn as perceived to be, the lower her chances of getting certain jobs.
It occurs due to two primary reasons:
the lack of fit model
the social role theory
According to the lack of fit model, attractive womxn are perceived to be “too feminine to perform the job duties of a masculine sex-typed job.” Thus, they are rated low on the masculine traits that are considered to be requisite for success, making them suitable for only clerical roles. (Johnson, Sitzmann, & Nguyen , 2013). Illustration by Roshni Ranganathan
According to the social theory model, womxn are seen as bitter, quarrelsome, selfish, deceitful, and devious when they are successful at a “masculine” job. (Heilman , Block , & Martell , Sex stereotypes: Do they influence perceptions of managers?). Illustration by Roshni Ranganathan
In short, is being femme, truly fatal?
This was answered in the affirmative in Leah Sheppard and Stephanie Johson’s 2019 research. The research corroborated the “beauty is beastly” stereotype by adding to the social role theory. They also found that “attractive” business womxn are considered less trustworthy, less truthful, and more worthy of being fired compared to “less attractive” womxn. They term it the ‘femme fatale effect’ . (Sheppard & Johnson , 2019).
In social terms, the findings can be attributed to the commonplace assumption that womxn use attractiveness to get jobs or ascend the corporate ladder (think terms like ‘sleeping your way to the top’). Central to this belief is the conventional norm that beauty and brains are mutually exclusive. If an attractive womxn is successful then it must largely be due to her looks, while if someone considered less attractive is successful then her success is attributed to intelligence and hard work.
Beauty and brains are never expected to go hand in hand! The term ‘beauty with brains’ is testimony to this, since it stems from the implicit assumption that physical beauty must be devoid of intellect or academic achievement. The dissection of womxn’s professional lives and achievements under a social lens is one that often corrodes and diminishes them to objects merely seen in binaries of either attractive or not attractive.
The effect that physical beauty has on employability while clearly gendered in its outcome does clearly establish that attractiveness impacts outcomes among both males and females. But what exactly is the premium or reward that beauty bestows upon people? Does the culture of beauty and grooming operate differently for men and womxn?
The answer is yes and the implications are multifold.
The process of beautification and grooming while having become increasingly important to men, still continues to be more salient for womxn because of cultural double-standards with very strict prescriptions for womxn. Womxn’s grooming practices also help to convey credibility, and allow womxn to assert power in the workplace. (Haynes, 2011) (Williams & Dellinger, 1997) (Weitz, 2001)
A 2015 study by Wong and Penner perhaps provides some very definitive findings on how beautification and grooming practices reward people at the workplace. In their study, they found that attractive people as a whole, get paid 20% more than those of average attractiveness.
When they accounted for grooming practices they established that beauty is seen as a cultivable asset and the premium earned on it can be maximized. The study discovered that while grooming accounts for almost the entire premium earned by womxn it only accounted for half the premium earned by men. (Wong & Penner , 2019)
Put simply all the primping and preening that womxn are expected to go through is something that is responsible for the relative increase in income that they receive.
So does this mean that all is not too bad? After all, there seems to be some reward to putting effort into one’s appearance?
The answer unfortunately is no. Womxn still are worse off than ever thanks to gender-based price discrimination more popularly called the ‘pink tax’.
To be pink is to be pricey
The pink tax is a form of gender based price discrimination where womxn are made to pay more than men for similar products and services.
The pink tax becomes incredibly important in the light of Wong and Penner’s findings because it points to the fact that womxn incur exorbitantly high expenses on grooming themselves. But since grooming is considered valuable in the work environment and comes with a monetary premium to it, naturally there exists a pressure upon womxn to keep doing it. This means that womxn end up being caught in a nefarious cycle where they have to spend much more on beautifying themselves as opposed to their male counterparts but gain less from doing so because on an average womxn are still paid less than men. Even if womxn do get paid more, womxn end up spending way more for the same goods than men do.
The prevalence of the pink tax and the fact as well as the higher returns to attractiveness that womxn receive in the workplace puts the free choice narrative on personal grooming and expenditure under greater scrutiny. Of course the beauty industry affects men too, but womxn stand to lose exponentially more.
Constructions of beauty, femininity, attractiveness are heavily contoured structures that survive off the decimation of womxn while asking the constant nagging question of who do these structures really seek to benefit.
Unfortunately and evidently its still not womxn.
KEY TERMS
Halo effect
The tendency of a positive impressions of a person ,company, brand or product in one area, to positively influnce one's opinions or feelings in another area.
‘Beauty is beastly’ effect:
Attractive business womxn were associated with negative quality traits such as being untrustworthy and more deserving of being fired.
Lack of Fit model
The lack of fit model is grounded on the premise that gender stereotypes dominate in the workplace where womxn are considered too feminine to do masculine typed jobs such as be a manager.
Social Role theory
A socio-psychological theory that pertains to differences among sexes and the behavior and roles associated to sexes. For example passive is to womxn as aggressive is to man
OUR OTHER ARTICLES
Our E-zine: 7PM
Miller established that if information is broken down into seven (plus/minus two) chunks, it is easier tor the brain to remember it.
That is exactly what we do with our zine! Each edition features one topic and 7+/- interesting experiments around it.
References
Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster , E. (1972). What is Beautiful is Good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Haynes, K. (2011). Body Beautiful? Gender, Identity and the Body in Professional Services Firms. Gender, Work and Organization .
Heilman , M., & Saruwatari , L. (1979). When beauty is beastly: The effects of appearance and sex on evaluations of job applicants for managerial and nonmanagerial jobs. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance.
Heilman , M., Block , C., & Martell , R. (n.d.). Sex stereotypes: Do they influence perceptions of managers? Journal of Social Behavior & Personality.
Johnson, S., Sitzmann, T., & Nguyen , A. (2013). Don’t hate me because I’m beautiful: Acknowledging appearance mitigates the ‘‘beauty is beastly’’ effect. Organizational Behavior and Human Decisision process.
Ruffner, Z. (2020, August 21). Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Self-Love, Fighting the Power, and Her Signature Red Lip. Retrieved from Vogue: https://www.vogue.com/article/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-beauty-secrets
Sehgal, P. (2015 , March 24). How ‘Flawless’ Became a Feminist Declaration. Retrieved from The New York Times Magazine : https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/magazine/how-flawless-became-a-feminist-declaration.html
Sheppard, L., & Johnson , S. (2019). The Femme Fatale Effect: Attractiveness is a Liability for Businesswomen’s Perceived Truthfulness, Trust,and Deservingness of Termination. Springer.
Sorensen, E. (2019, March 25 ). Attractive businesswomen viewed as less trustworthy “Femmes Fatales”. Retrieved from WSU Insider : https://news.wsu.edu/2019/03/25/attractive-businesswomen-viewed-less-trustworthy-femmes-fatales/
Weitz, R. (2001). Women and Their Hair: Seeking Power through Resistance and Accommodation. Gender and Society .
Williams , C., & Dellinger, K. (1997). MAKEUP AT WORK: Negotiating Appearance Rules in the Workplace. Gender and Society .
Wong , J., & Penner , A. (2019). Gender and the returns to attractiveness. Elsevier .
Lisa Jacob
Lisa is a cheesecake enthusiast who looses hair ties by the day, enjoys long runs and hopes to one day finish reading all the many journal articles she has downloaded on her desktop.
