I’ve just learned that women who want to be leaders should dye their hair blonde, according to science. I learned this by reading an article entitled “Why Women Who Want to Be Leaders Should Dye Their Hair Blonde, According to Science“.
It seems that women in leadership positions, who must be authoritative and competent in order to attain those positions, feel compelled to soften their look so they’re not perceived as too authoritative and competent. Naturally (no pun intended), they do this by dyeing their hair blonde.
Forget for a moment that this might be mildly offensive to blondes. I’m a natural blonde and I can’t seem to muster any genuine outrage about blonde stereotypes, but really? Do you really think that hair color is an indicator of intelligence or lack thereof? Oh wait, it seems that some of your factions still believe there’s a correlation between intelligence and skin color, so I shouldn’t be so surprised. Touché, Society.
The thing about these research findings that makes me want to shake you so hard that your nuts fall off is this Faustian pact you’ve made with women. We can be successful, but only if we alter part of our identities in order to compensate for our strengths. We can reach the same lofty positions that men do, but we’ll crash back through that glass ceiling if we lose our grip on the role you’ve prescribed for us. Why you gotta make us strategize so hard?
You might argue that hair color is a choice (thanks, Clairol!), and that women who dye it have needlessly chosen to succumb to real or imagined pressures. That’s a bullshit simplification, Society, and you know it. We may have a choice, but it’s definitely on your terms. Kind of like shaving our legs and wearing heels and compartmentalizing the Madonna and the whore.
I didn’t want to do this, but you asked for it. I’m going to get political. Why do you make Hillary walk the tightrope between major kick-assery and mothering (not just her own daughter, but all the children of the world)? She’s probably authentically excellent at both, but that’s irrelevant. So what if she’s better at campaigning than nurturing? Why is that a problem for you? Can’t you forgo the exhausting dissection of her voice, laugh, and wardrobe and just skip to the Benghazi thing again? She can’t win at your game because she’ll never be hard enough, or soft enough, for you.
You might argue that you’re also obsessed with Trump’s fingers and hair, so you’re an equal opportunity judge of appearances. To that I say: 1) He is the exception to your rule, because there’s never been a presidential candidate like him, 2) Please stop, because it distracts from the real horrors of his campaign, and 3) You don’t actually hold Trump to the same standards as Hillary, because he’s a man. You don’t expect him to counterbalance his dogged pursuit of power by working to end human trafficking, for example. Hell, you don’t even expect him to run his businesses legitimately or not touch his daughter in a creepy way.
While the research findings are gross, I don’t doubt their validity. If Hillary had Trump’s “hair” instead of her own perfectly coiffed blonde ‘do, you know she wouldn’t have gotten the Democratic nomination. Do better, Society. I can’t wait to NOT hear about the hair color of all the smart, capable, assertive, powerful broads in our boardrooms and laboratories and city halls.
Sorry, was this letter kind of bitchy? I’d better soften it with a nice closing.