Makeover = Hair Cuts = WHY?

Why does the fashion world's definition of a makeover always seem to include a major haircut? I was watching a rerun of a popular talkshow the other day and they did all these "beauty makeovers". Most of the women looked better when they started. Also, all of them got haircuts and several lost lots of inches of beautiful hair. Am I missing something? Why does this happen and is there anyway to stop it?

> Why does the fashion world's definition of a makeover> always seem to include a major haircut?Guess who sponsors these kinds of shows....people whose job it is to cut and style hair! Besides, it is the quickest way to make a noticeably dramatic change in a person's apperance.> I was watching a rerun of a popular talkshow the other day> and they did all these "beauty makeovers". Most of> the women looked better when they started.Well, that is just your opinion. I did not see the show, so I can't say, but I often think that the results of these kinds of things are about 50/50, that is about one-half look better and one-half look worse than when they started.> Also, all of them got haircuts and several lost lots of> inches of beautiful hair. Am I missing something? Why> does this happen and is there anyway to stop it?This presupposes that "losing inches of hair" is always a bad thing, I don't always agree. Also, if the person is consenting and wants the change, why do you feel compelled to stop it???

>> Why does the fashion world's definition of a makeover>> always seem to include a major haircut?>>Guess who sponsors these kinds of shows....people whose job it is to cut and>style hair! Besides, it is the quickest way to make a noticeably dramatic>change in a person's apperance.The whole event is a sales pitch for their "services." And doyou know what? No counterpoint to their opinion and actions isEVER offered.Yes, the resultant change is dramatic, but the idea of makingrapid changes seems overvalued.>> I was watching a rerun of a popular talkshow the other day>> and they did all these "beauty makeovers". Most of>> the women looked better when they started.>>Well, that is just your opinion. I did not see the show, so I can't say, but I often>think that the results of these kinds of things are about 50/50, that is about>one-half look better and one-half look worse than when they started.They also put the victims, oops, I mean "makeover candidates,"in new, "stylish" clothes and change their makeup. IMHO theclothes and makeup are nice and generally improve appearances,but removing lots of hair IMO does not serve to enhance theirappearance. Is not hair considered a beauty asset?>> Also, all of them got haircuts and several lost lots of>> inches of beautiful hair. Am I missing something? Why>> does this happen and is there anyway to stop it?>>This presupposes that "losing inches of hair" is always a bad thing, I don't>always agree. Also, if the person is consenting and wants the change, why do>you feel compelled to stop it???"IMO, 99.9% of the time, removing healthy length does NOT representan improvement. Is there any way to stop it? Maybe, maybe not.It can't hurt to give your dissenting feedback to the producersof these shows. If enough people do so, they may (may) reconsiderthe point of view they choose to be presented on their show.Dave

>Why does> this happen and is there anyway to stop it?It is a plot by the various right- and left- wing communistic liberal conservatives to deprive the world of long hair. You, yes you can help. Join the guild of Musician/Artist/Hippy/LongHair loving people of America to kill all scissor happy 'stylists' and then to kidnap all long haired women and hold them in a big room that has no cutting implements. Oh, the joy of the concept!!!! It can work. Just send my $5,000,000 in care of 'People for the ethical care of long hair in today's society' Yes, you can help. Long Hair is a terrible thing to waste.(attach many :)'s )LJ (yes, a long-hair who loves long-hair)

> Yes, the resultant change is dramatic, but the idea of> making rapid changes seems overvalued.It just depends on the individual and the situation. Lots of women cut their hair during a life crisis, lots of other do it just because they are ready for a change or they are just tired of their old style. Sometimes, change is GOOD.> They also put the victims, oops, I mean "makeover> candidates,"These women are there by choice, and have a right to do with their hair what they choose. They are not victims.> but removing lots of hair IMO does not serve to> enhance their appearance.Your opinion, you are entitled to it. Others may believe otherwise.>Is not hair considered a beauty asset?Yes, hair is a beauty asset, probably the single most important...why else do people spend literally billions of dollars each year on styles, products, and colors? BUT,this does NOT mean that making changes is taboo. IMO, keeping the same old, tired, long hair for years and years is not making the most of your "beauty assets". Would you keep on wearing the same style of clothing for years and years?> IMO, 99.9% of the time, removing healthy length does> NOT represent an improvement. Is there any way to stop> it? Maybe, maybe not.Maybe, if you consider forcing your will on others to bean acceptable course of action. Why not just let peopledecide for themselves???

George,I am aware of a number of the reasons women have for cutting their hair.Some may be the result of sound reasoning, others may not (one suchunwise reason being to spite one's self). Sometimes change is good.Sometimes change is bad. Change for change's sake alone, though, isnot fruitful.>> They also put the victims, oops, I mean "makeover candidates,">> These women are there by choice, and have a right to do with> their hair what they choose. They are not victims.Perhaps not directly. But some are victims of coercion, be itsubtle or not-so-subtle pressure from family/friends/colleaguesto cut their hair.Have you ever received such pressure to cut your long hair?I have George, and I know exactly how it feels, and what isgoing on.> BUT, this does NOT mean that making changes is taboo.I agree. Change in general is not taboo.> IMO, keeping the same old, tired, long hair for years and years is> not making the most of your "beauty assets".Your opinion. Some people like change. Others prefer consistency.Different strokes for different folks.> Would you keep on wearing the same style of clothing for years and years?Why, yes I would. I think any number of women would freelystate that suits are very becoming on men of all ages.>> IMO, 99.9% of the time, removing healthy length does>> NOT represent an improvement. Is there any way to stop>> it? Maybe, maybe not.>>Maybe, if you consider forcing your will on others to be>an acceptable course of action. Why not just let people>decide for themselves???Whoever said that those among us who dissent would try to"force our will" onto others? Most people in the "western"world have the freedom to express dissent, which is whatI was suggesting.What I don't understand, George, is why so many peoplewith short hair try to force their short-hair will ontothose with long hair. Perhaps it's because they've beenemboldened by TV shows that "feature" these drasticmakeovers.Dave

> Perhaps not directly. But some are victims of coercion,> be it subtle or not-so-subtle pressure from> family/friends/colleagues to cut their hair.Granted that this does take place, but people have to deal with subtle pressures all the time. I still think that calling women "victims" who choose to undergo such a "makeover" on TV is a little extreme.> Have you ever received such pressure to cut your long> hair?Yeah, when I was a kid I used to go to summer camp for a month every summer. I had hair that was pretty much longer than most of the kids. The counselors did not approve. They encouraged the other kids to try to tell me I was a "hippie" and that I needed a haircut. I never did. Of course, that was about 30 years ago!> Why, yes I would. I think any number of women would> freely state that suits are very becoming on men of all> ages.Yeah, but even styles in men's suits changes, and the regular men's suit is the bastion of conservatism. Even so, styles change over the years.I just cannot imagine either a man or a woman having the same hairstyle for decades...there is just something about it that I think is kind of boring. Of course, if that is what they want to do, then it is OK for them!> Whoever said that those among us who dissent would try> to "force our will" onto others? Most people in the> "western" world have the freedom to express dissent,Expressing dissent is great when it directly affects your own person or interests. But, when you start dissenting to what others choose to do to their own person or property, then it becomes coersion.> What I don't understand, George, is why so many people> with short hair try to force their short-hair will> onto those with long hair.Agreed. This is exactly what I meant in the previous paragraph.> Perhaps it's because they've been emboldened by TV shows> that "feature" these drastic makeovers.That is stretching it a little, IMHO.

>> Have you ever received such pressure to cut your long hair?>>Yeah, when I was a kid I used to go to summer camp for a month every>summer. I had hair that was pretty much longer than most of the kids. The>counselors did not approve. They encouraged the other kids to try to tell me I>was a "hippie" and that I needed a haircut. I never did. Of course, that was>about 30 years ago!George,I'm sorry to hear that you have been so pressured.The events in your story seem, on one hand and froma detached point of view, unbelievable, and yet I caneasily imagine this type of situation having happened.>> Whoever said that those among us who dissent would try>> to "force our will" onto others? Most people in the>> "western" world have the freedom to express dissent,>> Expressing dissent is great when it directly affects your own person or> interests. But, when you start dissenting to what others choose to do to their> own person or property, then it becomes coersion.The person who has long hair has made a choice to wearit long. So when someone else tells that long-hairedperson to "get a haircut" it can become, as you said,coercive. I think we're in agreement on this.>> Perhaps it's because they've been emboldened by TV shows>> that "feature" these drastic makeovers.>> That is stretching it a little, IMHO.Maybe, maybe not. Since I don't engage in the practiceof telling long-haired people to cut their hair short,I don't know what motivates those that do. Certainlythese shows intend to portray the change in a positiveway, so I wonder if some people find compulsion to "share"that "knowledge" gained with long-haired people in anattempt to "help" them. But this brings us back to ourprevious point about dissent and pressure.Dave

Have you also noticed that they always straighten peoples hair? I have yet to have seen a make-over either on tv or in a magazine where a curly head emerged and a curly head in the end. Weird.Regina

> but then> again, it's really a showcase of their> "talents" (a term I use loosely considering> some of the makeovers I've seen on TV lately!) and> perhaps they believe the more dramatic the makeover,> the more people will flock to their salon. Yikes!Hi H.Taylor,I understand and agree with your perspective on the issue.It is as if the stylists' competition amongst themselves has them takingthe atttitude of "well, MY makeovers are more dramatic than YOURS!" It'sas if the measure of the value of their services is defined by the extentto which the client's appearance can be changed, instead of by "what canI do with what the client HAS to make her look as beautiful as possible?"Were that the case, I should think that the majority of the client's hairwould be allowed to remain attached to the client's head to assist in thebeautification of their client's appearance.Dave

>> It is as if the stylists' competition amongst themselves>> has them taking the atttitude of "well, MY makeovers are>> more dramatic than YOURS!">> Yeah, I have seen this kind of thing. Some of the so-called "stylists" are> just bums with scissors: no real artistic talent at all, just a desire to> keep chopping away...YUCK!Hi Lurker,While I appreciate your disgust, I (myself) won't go so far as to insultthe stylists in question. I (myself) wouldn't call them "bums," nor claimthat they have NO artistic talent. On the contrary, I imagine that theyare hard working people, with at least some amount of artistic talent.However... some celebrity stylists seem (to me) to be a bit overlyenamored of their "unique" ability to effect the "best" transformation.>> instead of by "what can I do with what the client HAS to>> make her look as beautiful as possible?" Were that the>> case, I should think that the majority of the client's>> hair would be allowed to remain attached to the client's>> head to assist in the beautification of their client's>> appearance.>> Well, I have to part with you here: a well-done precison haricut, done> with consideration of the person's needs and looks, is often very good> it the end outcome.I agree that a "well-done" precision haircut looks appealing -- and, sucha haircut CAN be given to a head of very long hair, without the need toremove lots of length! It's a matter of "fine-tuning." Otherwise calleda "trim.">I just think there is ample room for short hair or a good stylish precision>cut, but I don't think that one should use these "makeovers" as examples of>why all haircuts are bad inherently.I agree that haircuts are not inherently "bad."There is such a high percentage of women who *already wear* short hair.Why not employ those who already have short hair to demonstrate shorthairstyles?You would think that hairstylists view women with long hair as anopportunity to demonstrate what they can do WITH long hair. It isin this respect that I feel that the vast majority of stylists havetremendously underdeveloped artistic skills.Dave

A salon by my school was having a show where stylist from all around the area got to show off their stuff. The haircuts were free and color cost only $10 ( $ paid for chemicals). Anyway I went in for a cut and was talked into gettingt some non dramatic highlights. The stylist who was assigned to me was practically pissed that's all I wanted to do and treated me like I was a waste of time.Anyway, this women came in and the stylist who took her totally talked her into doing something drastic. She came in with shoulder length dirty blond hair and left with an Annie Lennox cut and her hair was practically fuschia! The woman didn't look too upset but I think I would have died!

Mike,Your approach to requested "makeunders" seems very thoughtful andconsiderate. It is good to know that there are at least some stylistswho do exercise restraint. I have known a few women, and known of someother women, who have changed their minds regarding a decision to cutoff their long hair. Every last one of the women I knew were allgrateful later that they hadn't acted on impulse.Re: TV Makeovers, I have noticed the exact same things regardingclothing and makeup -- and lighting as well. These props are used notonly to add to the contrast of the change, but also to try to show theshort haircut in a more positive light than would otherwise be the case.The exact same critique can be applied to magazine makeovers as well.In them, very unkind and derogatory words are used to put down thewoman's hair beforehand, but afterwards they use all sorts of kind andflattering words to describe the haircut.While I am not surprised that fees are offered as a coercive lure toparticipation, the untold message seems to be "sell out your friend."> But the thing I find most appalling is that the hosts of these shows> take great pride in waving hanks of shorn hair around on camera.>> First, that is objectifying a "trophy" which I personally dislike> strongly.Ain't that the truth! I also find this appalling. And it certainlydoesn't show respect for the feelings of the person who has just losttheir hair.> Third, it smacks of cheap, sensationalism ( I can get that by buying> a supermarket tabloid, where I know what I'm getting).And (sadly), cheap sensationalism draws viewers, which pay the bills.Money talks, and beauty walks.> And, fourth, it cheapens the profession of hairstyling, I don't know> of too many good stylists who would be pressured into such cheap> theatrics. Although I can think of lots of HACKS, (some very well> know and sought after) who thrive on such stuff.I've seen a few such "stylists" on TV and (IMHO) their behavior is notvery becoming. I'll leave it at that for now.Thanks for your reply, Mike. I appreciated it.Dave

> Anyway I went in for a cut and was talked into getting some non> dramatic highlights. The stylist who was assigned to me was> practically pissed that's all I wanted to do and treated me like I> was a waste of time.Regina,What a horrible story! The real tragedy here is that these youngstylists-in-training are either (a) developing an arrogant attituderegarding what they believe their clients "ought" to accept, or (b) arenot having their already-arrogant attitudes checked (eliminated) by theinstructors. These students seem to have too conveniently forgottenthat there is a sensient being attached to the hair, with a mind andfeelings.A very sorry situation.Thanks for sharing your story, Regina.Dave

make overs rule

I like makeover shows :-) . Even the times I feel I would've done something differently than the makeover crew did, it's fun to see how different a new haircut and outfit can make a person look. I guess it's kind of the whole "Cinderella" idea, of being made to look so different no-one will know you, and the idea of the totally new chance that might follow. . . The only thing I'm concerned about is, honestly, if your life sucks before the makeover, it's likely to be just as bad after. So the people who go in expecting their life to change completely because of one new outfit and haircut are going to be terribly mistaken.