Week 5 blogs - ‘Not ugly, just poor’: how the beauty industry is widening the class divide

 Week 5 blogs - ‘Not ugly, just poor’: how the beauty industry is widening the class divide

‘Not ugly, just poor’: how the beauty industry is widening the class divide | Dazed

The ‘Dazed’ article “Not Ugly, Just Poor: How the Beauty Industry is Widening the Class Divide” looks into beauty, economics and social inequality in society. Looking at the current beauty industry, the article says that the beauty industry is not just selling products or services but they are now making class divisions worse. The article reveals how beauty has become a way to show privilege and how those without the financial means are going to be overlooked.

The article starts with the assumption that beauty has always been a way to show social status. This started when having pale skin meant you were rich and didn’t go outside, and if you had tanned skin, it was a sign you were lower-class and worked outside for the higher-class people. The beauty industry now pushes an expanding range of cosmetic procedures, skincare routines, and aesthetics, showing these as ways to self-improve. However, the article suggested that only certain people can afford the cost. The article also suggests that beauty is no longer for personal preference or fun, but it is financial. It is saying how those who can afford to pay for these treatments get advantages and privileges, and those who can't are left behind.

The article highlights “beauty tax”. This is forced on many individuals, mainly women who invest in their appearance to be seen as employable, desirable or competent. The article suggests that attractiveness connects with higher earnings and greater opportunities. In a way beauty is about looking your best and sometimes it can cause better treatment. However, that is based on personal opinions and not what actually happens.  

The article also talks about how class links with beauty. As procedures have become normalised, the need for cheaper alternatives has pushed some individuals to find unsafe and unregulated places that do the treatments cheaply. This shows how financial inequality has an effect all around. Individuals who struggle to afford these feel compelled to find a way that can potentially harm them, but because it is how they view the norm, they will take that risk. The article suggests that the poor may be compelled to take greater health risks to approximate elite beauty standards, while the wealthy can access safe, professional care.

The article has some good points, but it would benefit from a more intersectional approach. Factors such as race, gender, and disability also influence access to beauty capital and experiences of aesthetic discrimination. The article was very sexist and sounded like the writer had an alternate motive behind what the article said. 

Group discussion

During the group discussion, there were many interesting points. The article spoke about how if you are "pretty", you get privilege, but what if someone does not like having any form of treatment done to them? They could feel pressured to start having treatments done because they feel like it is what the rest of the world wants. However, it can also have an effect on the people who do want to have these treatments done because the prices are increasing, and it is becoming so expensive that someone who would get weekly treatment can not afford to have them done anymore. It was discussed how this could have an effect on mental health because if someone was used to having a treatment done at the same time every month, they have something to look forward to. However, if they can not afford it anymore, it could affect them and make them feel down. In the article, there was a comment about how the lower class can not afford to get treatments, and only the middle and higher classes can. This was disagreed with straight away because that is not true. Each individual is different because people will make the money if they want a treatment done. Anyone can afford what they want if they really put their mind to it. Someone could say they dislike treatments that change the way you look, like Botox and fillers, but then have their hair coloured or be covered in tattoos. These are all ways that can change your appearance, it is just personal preference. Someone who is wealthy can still be untidy or unhygienic and someone who is lower class can still be clean and have had treatments done. It is not about what class you are in, it is how you view yourself and others. Some people only get treatments sometimes because they need them or it could improve their mental health. For example, if someone was missing a few teeth and they went to get Turkey teeth because it made them feel more confident in themselves and how they looked. During the discussion, the article sounded like it had a different motive behind the article. It was very sexist and against treatments. Overall, the article was not very fair-minded and was one-sided to the reader, which could make the readers think differently because of one person's opinion. Getting treatments done is each person's preference. There is no one rule in this industry, it is all about what each individual wants.