An article in New York magazine claims blonde hair is racism


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Want to see bigotry on display? Read this New York magazine article: Political Peroxide: Blonde privilege

Attributes associated with whiteness — light skin, narrow noses — have dominated American beauty ideals as long as there’s been such a thing. Which means that blondness has always been … charged: The ’50s gave us Doris Day, who once said that her only ambition ever had been to “be a housewife in a good marriage” (“Preordination had other plans”). To be blonde was to be a good American woman, pure of intention and heart — which implied also, of course, that to be a good American woman, pure of intention and heart, meant being blonde. Betty was blonde, Veronica was trouble. Ditto Sandy and Rizzo. Hitchcock liked to cast blondes because he said they made the best victims: “The color was virgin snow that shows up the bloody footprints.”

Fox News and Donald Trump have given blonde hair a new chapter: Now, blonde is the color of the right, for whom whiteness has become a hallmark. Over the past decade or so, as inclusiveness became the hallmark of Obama-era liberals, the left found feminist icons in Rachel Maddow, Samantha Power, and Michelle Obama, who make no apologies for their failure to fit traditional ideals. But #MAGA, Fox News America is a place where all the classic signifiers of privilege and wealth work on overdrive: country-club-issue blue blazers with brass buttons and khaki pants, and above all else, for women, that yellow-blonde, carefully tended hair — a dog whistle of whiteness, an unspoken declaration of values, a wink-wink to the power of racial privilege and to the 1980s vibe that pervades a movement led by a man who still believes in the guilt of the Central Park Five. During that Republican Preppy Handbook era, when Dynasty and Dallas were on TV, the type of conspicuous ostentation that would lead a real-estate developer to sheath his entire apartment in gold leaf was actually in vogue. Look at the movies: Jake’s girlfriend in Sixteen Candles with the lush swoop of thick, blonde locks that ended up stuck in a door (losing the boyfriend to a redhead of all things meant, literally, losing that luscious hair). Johnny, the villain of the Karate Kid films, had a decisive swoosh of blond hair that obscured his headband. We knew, the moment we saw that hair, that small, ethnic Daniel was up against more than another teenager, he was up against privilege itself. [emphasis mine]

Not only is this incredibly stupid, it reeks of hatred and bigotry. You have blond hair? You must associate with white supremacists. You choose to dye your hair blond? You must be a white supremacist!

Don’t be surprised when these leftwing progressive bigots take the next step and strongly suggest that we need a final solution to this problem of “whiteness,” that maybe we should round up all these evil whites so they can’t do society any harm anymore.

Share

3 comments

  • Anthony Domanico

    I just can’t wait for my blonde girlfriend to cash in on her white privilege for the big payoff so she doesn’t have to work the night shift as a CNA wiping asses for meager earnings. When is she eligible to begin receiving these benefits?

    I am proud to have friends from Burma, Thailand, Ghana, Lebanon, St. Lucia, Jamaica, and Puerto Rico among other places from around the world. These kinds of articles only serve to divide this great nation and this bs needs to stop.

    If these lunatic SJW’s want to do some real good then they should go to the Middle East, North Korea, or even China where real violations in human rights are taking place. Cowards…

  • eddie willers

    Why is it only liberals can hear dog whistles?

    Worth a research grant?

  • Edward

    Interestingly, her entire description of the blonde is that blonde is exotic, therefore attractive.

    From the article: “Since only about 2 percent of the world has naturally blonde hair, being blonde is a choice…” I think that the author, Amy Larocca, is jealous, and has an editor who is willing to let her air her jealousy in public. Then again, she could always choose to be blonde in order to cash in on all that privilege that she does not get as a brunette fashion director.
    http://wwd.com/business-news/media/rebecca-ramsey-named-fashion-director-at-the-cut-and-new-york-magazine-amy-larocca-editor-at-large-10841859/

    If being blonde is a choice, doesn’t that mean that being brunette is also a choice?

    losing the boyfriend to a redhead of all things meant, literally, losing that luscious hair.

    Meaning that red hair is even more exotic. Add the recent popularity of green hair, purple hair, and several other exotic colors, perhaps the choices are overwhelming her, preventing her from making a choice of hair color, forcing her to remain the common, dull, ordinary, unexotic brunette that she was born to be, thus she jealously lashes out at those who are naturally blonde as well as those who are capable of making a choice to be blonde.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *