Photo Credit: Wrote via Flikr
It seems the latest group targeted by cosmetic marketers is… pre-tween girls. Just when you were starting to get used to the idea that such a term as “tween” exists (that would classify girls aged 9 – 12), there is now a new category brand of consumers, individuals who are so young the best label the marketing world could come up with for them was “pre-tween.” This month, Wal-Mart is launching its beauty cosmetics line GeoGirl targeting girls aged six to ten. The line includes blush, eyeshadow, eyeliner, mascara and lip gloss, and, according to Wal-Mart representatives aims to teach young girls how to maintain beauty care in an environmentally responsible way.
Don’t make me laugh. It is rather absurd to suggest that the best way to teach children environmentally conscientious behavior is to buy them a particular line of cosmetics (“No need to recycle, honey, your eyeshadow is all-natural!”). One wonders if it is actually significantly “green” enough to even be discussing as a legitimate benefit to our environment. Wearing this make-up will prove you care about the environment? Talk about greenwashing. One of the major selling points for GeoGirl is its environmentally safe nature; yet to argue that GeoGirl is worth anyone’s while because it somehow instills a “green attitude” among its users is about as effective as arguing that guns would be a better idea in schools if they were biodegradable. Right.
GeoGirl certainly is a bold move towards socializing girls to base their self-worth in their appearance even earlier than they already experience; but are we really surprised? Girls today are perpetually bombarded with manipulative, negative messages from the media, their peers, and even their parents. It is more than a little nauseating that pre-pubescent girls are now considered a consumer group for cosmetics and not just, say, Johnson & Johnson baby wipes, but you can’t fairly blame Wal-Mart for causing the problem; perpetuating it, yes, but marketing is usually about cashing-in on consumer interest that already exists. Hate the game, not the player.
Wal-Mart’s launching of GeoGirl points to a larger issue in American society: paradoxically, even as we strive towards equality between men and women in schools and in the workplace, women are subjected to intense social pressure to focus most of their time and energy on their appearance. A cosmetics line geared towards eight year-olds, though in itself concerning, is part of a wider picture in which girls are encouraged to be pretty before they are encouraged to be smart or creative or happy. In many cases girls sacrifice their happiness or creativity or intelligence by spending so much time in front of the mirror. The truth is that a cosmetics line like GeoGirl is merely a symptom of the American perception of what it means to be a woman. More important than placing blame on Wal-Mart is addressing the societal forces that engender consumer interests that made it possible for GeoGirl to launch in the first place.
Not only is this cosmetic line a more than obvious example of faked corporate responsibility, and another outlet for young girls to grow increasingly materialistic and appearance-crazed, but it is also diminishing the seriousness of environmentalism. The author mentioned “greenwashing” (when a corporation pumps out a line of “green” products to boost their image when really, they continue their same un-green practices), but I think it goes further than that. Although some people might actually choose to buy this make up over another brand because it is environmentally friendly, I think there are plenty of people who are buying it so that they can say they are environmentally friendly. It’s become a trend to be socially conscious, which you think would be excellent, only just because someone wears environmentally friendly make up does not mean that they make an effort to recycle, save water, or use less gas. It’s like the aids campaign (RED) tee-shirts at the Gap. I am willing to bet money that there thousands of people who spent $40 on a red tank top that says INSPI(RED) in front of a faded picture of Africa who also use thousands of different electronics powered by the mineral Coltan whose excavation is basically exploiting the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I’m no saint, myself, but at least I don’t say that I am what I’m not.
This article is a little scary. If we are trying to persuade parents that it is okay, ethical, and perfectly acceptable to allow children to wear make up at the age of six, seven, or eight, then in a few years, will there be make up for infants? I believe that even children wearing make up in the tween years, middle school, is absurd. I have a younger sister who is in middle school, and because of the talk and obsession that girls have with make up and appearance, she becomes very frustrated that my parents do not allow her to wear make up. Imagine your six year old sister complaining that she cannot wear make up. We are putting too much energy into frivolous things that do nothing but harm the developing minds of young children and take away from sincerity and genuineness. We teach young children that what is most important is the inside, what is in someone’s heart, rather than what is appealing to the eye, yet we condone a brand of make up for a young child. So after a child finishes her times tables and closes her coloring book, she uses her make up remover to take off her make-up. Probably not. Children can barely remember to brush their teeth. So how would they remember to take their make up off before they go to bed? And if they do not remove their make up before they go to bed, they could potentially do harm to their skin, and begin practicing improper hygiene. It almost sounds like a joke. The make up, although proven to be so called environmentally friendly, could cause complications for young girls’ skin that is still developing. And most importantly, if we can invest so much in make up– make up that sends out a completely perverse message to not just young girls, but all of society, why can’t we put money towards shelters for children? Maybe Wal Mart should consider allocating the money that they would have used for their toddler make up collection to orphans and young children who do not need make up, but need homes and families. Or they could possibly even use this money to donate to schools who need money for after school programs for children that do not have parental supervision when they get home. I am almost positive that a child would be better invested in if a company could enhance the child’s morale, character, and safety, as oppose to the redness of their cheeks and gloss on their lips.