Boyzillians: Bikini Waxes for Men

Today I stumbled upon this article about the rising trend in Boyzilians (named after the waxing treatment for women called the Brazilian), which are bikini and body waxes for men. Popularity for the beauty treatment has (allegedly) increased with the widespread appearance of the David Beckham Emporio Armani ads.
I suppose what happens is that some men see this image and want to emulate this particular version of male sexuality. Therefore, they have their body hair waxed off, in various degrees of removal. Some just do the bikini line (called the 'Speedo') while others will have their thighs, backs, and chests waxed as well.

What is interesting about this whole concept of male grooming is how advertising is being used to exploit male self-conscious about body image. According to the article, men only comprise 5% of spa/salon service usage, but their numbers are expected to increase.

Media images often portray idealized versions of male and female sexuality which, for most individuals, would require massive amounts of time, effort, and capital to achieve. While the desire to appear attractive is biological (thus to attract potential mates), I would argue that the desire to experience painful, expensive beauty treatments is not.

Rather, the desire to undergo such procedures, and other extreme procedures, such as plastic surgery, can be explained by game theory. Game theory is an applied mathematical theory used in the social sciences; the premise is that the behavior of individuals depends on the behavior of other individuals. The costs and benefits of actions change with the behavior of other people. Thus, if individuals in a society do not receive beauty treatments or do not have access to such services, the ideal standard of male and female attractiveness will reflect what is available in that society.

In American society, where access to beauty treatments is largely unrestricted, it is considered normal for individuals to dye their hair, remove body hair, and spend a considerable amount of time grooming. Individuals who perform these beauty rituals are rewarded for it by being considered to possess more traits equated with conventional attractiveness. Therefore, other individuals are motivated to participate in such activities so that they too will be considered conventionally attractive. Those who do not participate in these activities may be considered less attractive, since the norm of male and female attractiveness will be changed with the addition of beauty-treatment engaging individuals.

The issue is collective behavior. For example, a majority of American individuals have access to cable television. If someone does not, that fact is considered extraordinary by many individuals who do have cable access. The same issue is present for beauty rituals; women who do not wear makeup are considered deviant, in the sense that they do not follow societal norms. Are we turning into a society where individuals must engage in costly, painful, and unnecessary procedures to achieve a socially constructed baseline of attractiveness?

Well, regardless of the answer, bear in mind that women are still expected to engage in these rituals, or else experience sanctions. The article concludes with this quote:

"Men have been tidying themselves up for years, but I can't see the majority going the full hog. It'll stay a vanity thing. It'll never be like with women, when everyone stares if they don't shave their armpits."

Billion dollar endowments

Billion dollar endowments have become the norm at institutions of higher learning; the riches from the endowments will fund university expansion and provide bragging rights in the academic community. The university I attend continuously promotes its billion dollar endowment; Harvard, on the other hand has a $34 billion endowment.

Endowments are a special type of donation. The donor of an endowment expects for their money to be invested; over time, the donation is able to have more of an impact. Many chairs in departments (not department chair, but designated chairs) are funded through endowments. In theory, endowments are a logical fund raising mechanism because the money is allowed to make money in the stock market.

Endowments are managed by hedge fund managers, the new superstars of Supercapitalism (to borrow from Robert Reich). These managers are given the task of making money no matter what. Because if money isn't made, or is lost, the institution will pay the price in terms of budget cuts. The Art Institute of Chicago faced 3% budget cuts in 2001 because of a $39 million hit to their endowment.

Collectively, endowments in the United States and Canada have grown 21% in the 2006-2007 academic year. Spending from endowments, across the board, has averaged 4.6%. This discrepancy has not escaped the eyes of United State's lawmakers; on Thursday, Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), in the Senate, requested data from 136 universities on financial aid spending, tuition costs, and endowment growth. It will certainly be interesting to see how this plays out.

Regardless of intention, endowments seem inherently flawed to me. Educational institutions should be in the business of educating people, not making money. I would be interested to see where all of the money goes at my school. As a public institution, there ought to be more transparency about the endowment process and how this money is made.

Furthermore, endowments are not taxed as income, even though they generate billions of dollars in revenue. Elite institutions have a clear advantage when raising money. Their alum generally make more money than the average American citizen. Many of their students come from backgrounds of vast wealth. If these funds were taxed, the federal government could redistribute some of the income to institutions and individuals who do not have such an advantage.

I will continue to discuss this issue as more information is made available from the Senate investigations. I hope that the outcome from attention on this issue is higher spending from endowments. Given that educational attainment is so important for social mobility and a comfortable standard of living in our society (and it will grow in importance as the economy changes), it is more important than ever to provide everyone the opportunity to further their education. If institutions have so much money, why isn't more of it being used for these means?