Brunettes have more fun!
Your ball-busting brunette blogger read the above headline on The Times website this morning with a mixture of delight, amusement, scepticism, and visions of proudly linking it from her facebook profile. When I clicked through to the article though I found that it was such a pile of monkey pants that I almost didn’t even bother blogging about it.
Here’s the angry feminist bit: the reason brunettes supposedly have more “fun” is that they are more likely to marry rich men. No statistics for women who become rich through their own intelligence and hard work then. “Fun” is being rich, and getting rich means marrying into wealth.
Experts at LOVE@LYCOS the dating channel of Lycos.co.uk analysed the WAG’s hair colour of the world’s top 100 billionaires to determine if there is a predominant hair colour wealthy men seen to go for. The majority by a long way were brunettes, with 62% of billionaires marrying women with brown hair.With wealthy men showing such a considerable preference for brunettes, it will be interesting to chart the number of women requesting a change of colour at their local hairdresser!
Eww.
And here’s the debunkment bit: the reason that 62% of billionaires marry brunettes rather than blondes is probably simply that brown hair is more common. Duh.
Posted by Samara Ginsberg on 8 April 2008, at 9:37 AM | Comments (13)
Have your say
In order to keep this blog as a feminist and friendly space, comments will be subject to some rules. We do not seek to censor debate: the beauty of the internet is that anyone can set up their own blog or website to express their views.
- This blog is a safe and friendly space for feminists and feminist allies. Debate and critique are welcome where it is constructive and deepens analysis or understanding. Anti-feminist comments will not be approved. We get to decide what's anti-feminist.
- All comments must be approved by one of the bloggers. For this reason, there may be a delay before your comment appears.
- No sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, classist, ablist comments, comments which make personal attacks on any blogger or commenter, or comments that are otherwise deemed offensive by us will be posted.
- Trolls will be banned from commenting. We get to decide who is a troll.
- No anonymous comments - please feel free to use your real name or make one up, though.
- Be nice.
Feeds
Savinah said:
Well, if The Times thinks being MARRIED (even to a rich fella) is more fun...!!! Sod that for a lark.
On another flippant note, maybe more billionaires (and yes, of course, they're ALL male!) marry brunettes because the sexist bastards reckon brunettes will be more pliable and less prone to gold digging than their fun-loving blonde sistas!
If I was a billionaire I don't think I would get married...certainly not without an ironclad pre-nup.
Posted on 08 April 2008 at 12:24 PM
Jorma said:
Haha if I didn't laugh I'd cry I think. I saw something on GMTV yesterday morning and they were discussing this with a famous hairdresser (Lee Stafford maybe,i'm not sure) and a female author who I can't remember the name of. But basically this hairdresser was saying the opposite that brunettes are more sophisticated and career minded and that the blondes are more sexy,fun,ya know...out going and carefree. Infact he actually said that the majority of the women come in to change their hair colour to blonde, and that when they do their skirts get a little bit shorter, their heels a little higher and they generally become and act like a sexier woman.
I suppose it depends on how you define sexy.
Posted on 08 April 2008 at 12:55 PM
Lindsey said:
Surely the proportion of blondes in the world's population is significantly smaller than that, meaning that they are still overly represented?
Posted on 08 April 2008 at 1:12 PM
Samara Ginsberg said:
Hi Lindsey,
Obviously you're right. I thought about making that point, but decided against it as it's difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions by examining world statistics. What are the chances, for example, of an impoverished African woman actually meeting a billionaire? There is a higher representation of blondes in the privileged Western countries in which most billionaires reside than there is in the world population as a whole, although I'm not sure just how much higher... Also, it doesn't say whether or not the survey took only natural hair colour into consideration. I can't believe I'm actually having a debate about this bollocks article!
Posted on April 8, 2008 1:32 PM
Feminist Avatar said:
There is also an assumption here that all billionaires are married to homemakers. When quite a few billionaires, who I can think of off the top of my head, are married to successful career women in their own right.
Posted on 08 April 2008 at 2:44 PM
Anne Onne said:
Not to mention that, of the women who are blonde, how many of them are naturally so? Are they talking about whatever hair colour women decide to adopt (since most dye their hair) ro genetics?
That said, considering the long standing attitudes of people thinking blondes are more fun and sexy, would it be surprising if any correlation supposedly supporting this might be due the fact that women may dye their hair blonde to feel like they are sexier and more fun, and act that way because of pure placebo effect. Kind of like wearing sexy knickers makes some women feel and act more confident. Even if a change isn't visible, if people are taught to connect it with something positive, it might affect behaviour.
I'm still pissed off that there are so many more blonde women than there are blond men. Comparitively, they should be half and half, but when I see so many blonde women, it just reminds me of it all. That we're conditioned to change ourselves to be seen as more attractive, that changing personal things such as hair colour and length is something men are seen as reasonable to expect. That a hair colour that even in the UK is a relative rarity, is seen as the ideal which men prefer is worrying. That women are encouraged to follow this silly ideal, that we aren't encouraged to enjoy ourselves, is a real problem.
Posted on 08 April 2008 at 4:55 PM
Shinykatie said:
Hilarious. I *love* it! I wonder if the journalist writing it felt the cold, ghostly hand of lazy journalism on her shoulder. We've all been there - re-writing press releases at the behest of our editors.
Posted on 08 April 2008 at 5:24 PM
Anne Onne said:
I want to clarify that I'm not pissed off *at* blonde women, whether genetically blonde, or not. I don't blame them for dying their hair, whatever their reasons (which have nothing to do with me, really). It bothers me in the same way it bothers me to see women on TV wear a lot less than the men - there's nothing wrong with skimpy clothes or make-up per se, but with our current society, it jsut serves as a reminder to me of the role we're expected to play. It makes me sad, really. Especially when conforming to standards is very time- and money-consuming, as well as impractical and sometimes painful.
I just looked back at my comment, and thought it could be read as blaming/hating blonde women for the stereotype (which I don't ), and wish to correct myself.
Posted on 08 April 2008 at 10:54 PM
Jane said:
Well I'm a redhead and therefore 'volatile' and 'hot tempered'. What a load of fucking BOLLOCKS!
Posted on 09 April 2008 at 10:29 AM
Holly Combe said:
Absolutely! Obviously, all these attempts to define us by our hair colours (natural or not) are a load of old crap.
I've been a range of different colours over the years and, admittedly, part of me recognises that going to the trouble of dying my hair potentially traps me into a cycle of spending valuable time on my looks that could be directed elsewhere.
Going blonde was something that crept up on me. I would ask the hairdresser for low-maintenance highlights (i.e subtle, blends in okay as it grows out) and would end up going a little bit blonder every time. This was hard to maintain and I finally decided to let it grow out when I had to get some photos of myself and realised that I could easily be filed under "blonde." This, in itself, was very telling because, really, what would wrong with that (i.e being considered blonde)? I guess it was all about the attributes that people might attach to me as an "unnatural" blonde (i.e "she thinks people will see her more as fun, sexy and feminine if she's blonde").
More important than that, however, was that I would be making a stand against the hairdressers' possible ploy to make me spend more money on root touch-ups!
Posted on April 9, 2008 3:08 PM
Jules said:
You know what? It is all just speculative rubbish in my opinion and pity the poor girl who has a degree, I presume, in journalism and has to write it in The Times? Dumbing down has just taken on a new depth of meaning.
Save your breath and go get a glass of wine whatever your hair colour. Julesritter.com, blonde with brown roots
Posted on 09 April 2008 at 4:16 PM
Maria said:
Stupid article. I'm naturally blonde and in my opinion the sort of men you attract depends on your behaviour, not your hair colour. Maybe some women who go to the trouble of going from brunette to blonde feel they have to change their behaviour to fit some ridiculous stereotype.
Posted on 30 April 2008 at 5:29 PM
Giselle said:
I've notice over the years that brunettes seem to be more likeable and luckier..take for example the Queen of England she had dark hair when she became a Queen, Jaqueline Kennedy Onassis she lived till the end a very respected and revered woman..Mary the princess of Denmark she is a stunner with a long mane of dark auburn hair, Sissy the beautiful austrian empress and how many miss universe with dark hair and the list go endless I cannot remember all of them blonde is a nice color but brunettes have... ''it''
Posted on 03 May 2008 at 2:20 PM