If you haven’t figured out yet, I read a lot of crap magazines. Actually, if you do a search, there is somewhere a post from last summer wherein I list most of the magazines we subscribe to. Aside from those, I also purchase. It’s a disease, I know. So… In Star, OK, In Touch, Us, or something of that ilk, they show a picture of a young starlet. Who? I don’t know. I don’t WATCH the shows, I just read about them in crap magazines. However…
The “article” in essence asks a “panel of experts”: does the starlet look better in her “natural” color or whatever color her hair might also have been? The experts decided in one case: blonde. Now folks [semi-racist, definitely rude comment to follow] that girl’s roots were darker than Alex Huxley’s! [for the uninitiated, he wrote the book Roots. He’s African American. Follow the rude yet?]. So were her eyebrows. The washed out thing they claimed, I didn’t see it. However for them to “deem” that she was naturally blonde? Oh hell no. Not since she was 5, like many of us Caucasians. Since then, ever changing shades of brown. I felt it did her a disservice. Now the poor thing will always claim to be “naturally” blonde. SIGH.
I truly believe you could have a monkey or a cat in the picture and they would ALWAYS pick the blonde one. While it is a color choice, why does it seem to be the ONLY color choice for “good” hair? I also bring this up because Bitch Magazine ran an article wherein they analyzed those side by side photos where the stars are wearing the same outfit (always women, never men) to see who looks better. Analysis for 80% of the time: young before old; skinny before normal sized (they’re rarely fat no matter what the magazines say); tan before pale; and popular before unknown.
And here you thought it was only hair and dresses!