I'm really beginning to lose faith in the New York Times. From the same publication that called Heidi Montag of The Hills (if you're staring at the computer and saying "who???".....exactly) a feminist hero, they recently wrote an article about chipped nails being in.
Listen, I have no problem with chipped nails- as a college student I see it all the time. It happens. For people who aren't as obsessive and anal about nail polish, it's sort of a "why bother?" type thing. Which is completely respectable.
But the NYT article talks about how "Instead of signifying manual labor, chipped nails may now connote professional fabulousness." Uh, come again? Kerry Diamond, a vice president for public relations at Lancôme says, “It’s not easy on your nails when you’re BlackBerrying all the time,” and here's the part of the article that bothers me:
Recently, a 20-something woman came to her for an informational interview, “beautifully dressed, Goyard bag, Louboutin shoes” with extremely chipped fire-engine-red nails. “It looked like she had definitely been wearing nail polish for two weeks,” Ms. Diamond said, sounding distinctly unhorrified. “This younger generation, it’s not that they’re more relaxed about grooming — they still spend time at the salon — but the grooming rules are different.”
Sure not everyone can take care of their nails. But for the most part, at least keep them groomed and somewhat neat. What may fly for New York and "high fashion" doesn't always apply to us normal people. I personally never think it's ok to walk into an interview with horrifically chipped nail polish...either fix it or take it off. It's not that hard. You're more likely to draw attention to your nails with unkempt and chipped polish than you are with no polish on. Your nails are part of the entire professional polished look- go bare or go with full color.
I also think that there's a distinct difference between chipped nails and nails with a lot of tipwear. The quote about how Blackberrying all the time isn't easy on the nails just seems like a pathetic justification for chipped nails, and is also a blatant quote of elitism- as is the part about the $5,000 bag. There is a distinct style between teens and adults, not only in apparel but in makeup styles as well. Chipped nails may fly for younger people, but not, at least in my opinion, in a professional setting. I mean, come on. When you're in your late 20's, 30's, 40's, you should be old enough to know how well professional attire and an overall polished look can be construed.
The best part about the article only comes at the end, where Deborah Lippmann (creator of Lippmann polishes) says “A girl with skinny jeans and a great bag looks like she did it on purpose. Those damn skinny girls can get away with murder.” Which is the whole point of the article. If you're young, skinny, rich, you can do whatever you want and pretty much get away with it. But what the NYT fails to understand is that their world and the world of normal people are very, very different. It's obvious who the NYT is catering this piece to.
Best way to sum up this article?