Athena's Head

On Writing, Parenting, and Pop-Mom Culture

Martha Nichols

Martha Nichols
Location
Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
Title
Contributing Editor
Company
Women's Review of Books
Bio
I am a freelance journalist and editor in the Boston area. I write about women's issues, business, nonprofit management, youth services, and adoption. As the mother of a son born in Vietnam, I look for fresh perspectives on the many seemingly random pieces of our lives.

Martha Nichols's Links

New list
No links in this category.
Martha's Blogs
NOVEMBER 23, 2009 12:16PM

Is Cuteness Trendy? Sour Grapes from Vanity Fair

Rate: 7 Flag

There I was on an airplane to California, stuck with the December 2009 print issue of Vanity Fair because I couldn't get my credit card to work for a video on-demand feature. (Julie & Julia, if you must know.)

OK, I can deal, I thought. VF is a guilty pleasure, anyway, and I might even read the cover profile about Robert Pattinson of Twilight fame. I noted the blurb at the bottom of the cover—"How Grandmas and 12-Year-Old Girls Are Corrupting American Culture"—thinking, huh, that sounds sexist, probably about Twilight, whatever, not what I'm in it for.

Turns out this piece by Jim Windolf was not about Twilight or that particular void of an interview; instead, Windolf's article about girl oldsters and youngsters is called "Addicted to Cute"—with a tag line of "America has been flooded by a tsunami of cute."

To which I put it to you right now: Really?

"Addicted to Cute" got my ire up again about trend stories. This one falls into the frothing-at-the mouth category. It's a mere reaction to something that may or may not be a trend, showcasing the writer's slick use of words and pandering to the audience by running all sorts of pictures of puppies and pandas. Read me! Read me! I hate this crap but READ ME!

I happened upon cuteness not by searching through VF's table of contents, which is always buried in a swath of ads, but by random page-flipping. When I started seeing Pikachu, puppy piles, and dogs in human clothing, I realized I'd found the grandma/12-year-old piece, although within the article itself there are only the slyest of references to this being a female phenomenon—a sexist warning flag.

I object to the idea that cuteness has now become a "broader cultural movement" for two reasons: (1) While we may indeed be awash in cute critters on the Internet, Smart Cars, and cupcake boutique bakeries, the love of cuteness doesn't seem like a new trend at all.

(2) Even if it is a trend, who cares? Why is it so bad that a sushi chef has crafted a creation out of colored seaweed showing President Obama's "cute" face? Or that the media gush about the Obama dog?

Windolf opens with the "Hahaha" baby video, which shows a baby laughing helplessly as his off-screen dad says such words as "Bing!" and "Dong." He notes that at the time of writing, this was one of the most-watched YouTube clips at about 100 million views. Here's the video:

Here's the VF takeaway:

"Cootchie-coo behavior used to be reserved for private moments in the home. But now, with the Internet's help, people feel free to wallow in cuteness en masse, in the company of strangers." 

Just who the "people" are who are "wallowing" remains an open question.

A page or so later, Windolf has trotted out the not-stunning news from experts that human beings are hardwired to go "awwww" when they see infant-like characteristics: big eyes, round head, chubby cheeks, cuddly puppy fat. He notes (via Stephen Jay Gould) that Walt Disney got the point decades ago, as Mickey Mouse morphed from a skinnier rodent to the rounder head and ears. (On VF's website, we even get Windolf discussing "the roots of cute.")

So what's the trend, if the tendency goes back to the dawn of human consciousness—or at least to savvy animators like Walt Disney?

Think of It's a Wonderful Life, which would surely qualify as a cuteness fest in Windolf's terms, with guardian angel Clarence and Christmas tree ornaments jingling when angels get their wings. Frank Capra knew the power of cute, just as surely as the website founder of Cute Overload and Hayao Miyazaki and other purveyors of Japanese cuteness (or kawaii) do. 

Sure, sure, sure, Windolf grumps, long before Hello Kitty, there were the Monkees and the Osmonds and Bambi. But "the cute acts of today," he writes, "aren't controlled by a corporation or impresario looking to cash in; they're cute by choice."

This is a problem? Excuse the sarcasm, but I am not convinced that cuteness in the hands of corporations has less impact or that the appearance of "more than 150 other cute-animal sites catalogued by the recommendation engine StumbleUpon" proves there is a new and soul-killing trend on the loose.

There's more of everything on the Internet—foodie sites,  political ravings of every persuasion, fan clubs for every bit actor in Hollywood history. I could just as easily claim there's a trend in belief in the paranormal or wizards.

The "moreness" numbers of the Internet don't reveal anything except the very large trend of what it means to contend with so much cultural input in a virtual social setting. I'd like to see an analysis of that, or many cuts at this very big subject, but it isn't here.

Let me come clean and say that I share Windolf's loathing for Hello Kitty and pictures of cats in little arm casts. I've never been a girly girl, and I cringe at terms like "puppehs" (lingo from Cute Overload) and "cutegasm." When Windolf writes, "What is the antonym for 'cutegasm'? Because that's what I'm having right now," it gave me a vicarious thrill.

Yet that's about all this particular trend story amounts to—a vicarious thrill for hipsters and the cultural elite—and it's not enough to support its larger claims about this "tsunami" we're all suddenly being assaulted with.

Windolf does raise some interesting questions about the uneven power dynamic in a cute response—the baby being "dinged"  has no control over what the adult is doing, and we love to watch people doing pratfalls or otherwise losing control. But the inherent sadism in everything from stand-up comedy to parading bears in top hats is about more than cuteness.

The sour grapes of this article, with its longing for more "edge" in the cultural zeitgeist rather than everyone buying more candy bars (another dubious  contention) is really about girl stuff. 

Windolf doesn't talk to any feminists about this issue, and much as I am not the target audience for Marley and Me, I have to ask why a male writer is so "depressed" about the supposed triumph of the emotional and sentimental. The female sensibility that cuteness evokes is anything but monolithic, and it's plenty ironic.

Exhibit A: an actual twelve-year-old girl. This morning, "my honorary niece" (her term for me; awwwww) gave me a tour of her bedroom. This included photos of lion cubs and seals and puppies taped to the wall beside her bed. She had sparkle pillows and stuffed butterflies amid the bookshelves and family photos. She loves cute—as we joked—but she's also very funny and very opinionated. She has a calendar of cute dogs, but on this month's selection, she had taped a piece of "CAUTION" yellow tape across the dogs' snouts.

Why? "It seemed like a warning against cuteness," she said.

This reality of strong girls who LOL obviously worries the guys at VF. Windolf concludes: "I would not doubt the power of cuteness. It will bat its lashes and crinkle its nose, and it will smother its critics with its softness."

Oh, you poor critics, getting smothered by the gals. And funny thing, that. Besides Windolf's anti-cuteness manifesto, this issue of Vanity Fair includes only one female feature writer. The editorial content is surrounded by high-fashion ads of poreless young faces. James Wolcott, usually one of my favorites, writes a diatribe about reality TV called "I'm a Culture Critic...Get Me Out of Here!"

I'm with him in his disgust, but dissing reality TV isn't exactly cutting-edge commentary. When Wolcott says of the annoying Gosselins of Jon & Kate plus Eight that "We are now stuck with them for the foreseeable future," my response is that maybe Wolcott thinks he is but the rest of us can easily decide to flip channels or just turn off the TV.

The snarky bitterness emanates a whiff of something else: anxiety. All these male cultural critics are railing at the readers who have run away to the Internet, whether we're reading the Daily Kos or a wonderful blog about the literary scene called Ward Six  or Cute Overload.

That's a problem for VF, a glossy that surely counts on female readers. Based on the Audit Bureau of Circulations, VF's circulation numbers for the past five years can most charitably be described as flat—and that would be when viewed through a pair of Dolce & Gabbana rose-colored glasses. Without the grandmas and twelve-year-olds, magazines like Vanity Fair have to remake themselves or go under.

I submit that requires a major shift in conventional thinking and audience and culture, so I can see why Wolcott and Windolf are worried. But that sentiment gets buried under high-gloss condescension, because as we women know, anxiety is not cute at all. 

 

 

 

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
haha... its a funny and weird topic.

I can see what Windolf is talking about. But I am not worried about the "rise of cuteness" and I also agree with you that "cute" has existed as long as we have existed. They are probably certain things that are naturally cute, and we are born to admire it.

But I actually have my own theory about "rise of cuteness" though. The cuteness humans have created through materials. Since our culture is becoming more and more open with sex, and sexuality, (like porn, sex toys, etc) in my opinion, to counteract it we have devised cuteness to hold on to our innocence. That is why most girls admire cuteness because society does not want a girl to go and sleep around, whereas, males think cuteness is "gay" because society has less restriction against males going around and sleeping with different women.
Interesting point re: sexuality and girls. I definitely think there's truth to that (and again, it's not a new thing, infantilizing sex female objects), but the VF piece doesn't really grapple with anything this loaded because it doesn't openly admit that cuteness is about girls. The article talks about the rise of cuteness in terms of us wanting to humanize our machines. Well, maybe.
It IS a weird topic. I like cute and like to notice cute. at the same time, I admit I've felt "awash" in cute but then again, when my poor phone is groaning under the weight of dozens of forwarded YouTube videos of any kind, we both get a little overwhelmed.

The point the author should have made (or perhaps was trying to make but couldn't, hencce he went for the snark) is that we're awash in everyone's need to communicate everything with everyone. I'm happy to be living in a relatively non-repressed society and I understand (sort of) the "there's no filter" open frontier menality of the Internet and nearly any form of electronic communication represents. At the same time, I feel the need to be somewhat discriminating about what I share. I'm not inclined to pass along, divulge, uncover, discover, bloviate, argue, discuss, have a reaction, provoke a reaction, get involved, get interested in, or get interrupted by most stuff out there, whether it's cute, hot, amazing, disgusting, or weird. Somewhere along the line, I've gotta just say no.
PS - my typing stinks
PPS - Note that Wolcott is a huge curmudgeon...the print version of Andy Rooney.
Cute is a kind of downside beauty, isn't it? Oh, she's/he's cute, is one way of saying, he's not hot, or sexy, or immediately doable. We don't crave cute the way we do beauty or eroticism. And cute in kids, or kittens, is a distraction, from work, from bills, from something else.
I want to know what exactly ht thinks is the opposite of cute. Is it really cutting edge or is it snarky cynicism?

There are plenty of truly uncute and grotesque things on the internet. What are the cute things muscling out the grotesque.

I agree with your undercurrent of girl bashing.

(As always, love your stuff).
Much as I sneer at pink fluffy kittens/unicorns/flowerfairies, I got tired of the trend that said everything had to be edgy. Give me genuine cute fluff over edgy poseurs any day.
The opposite of cute never really gets explored, Stellaa, except in a reference to coolness no longer being cool--another one of those meaningless contentions. Or maybe I just have no idea what cool is supposed to be.

I wish that the cute-beauty continuum had been explored, BOKO, especially in a magazine like VF, which is so stuffed with glossy ads promoting a faux kind of female perfection. Not going there, or not looking at girls and sexuality and how to make any of that seem safe or subversive--I kept expecting references to Japanese models in mini skirts sucking pacifiers--IS weird.

You're right about Wolcott the curmudgeon, Nikki. There's something in me that likes a dose curmudgeonliness, but this issue of VF made it really seem very past its pull.
Martha, I think the new cool is to call everything uncool. If everything is not cool, then you are cool.
I'm thoroughly not a cute type and never have been baby crazy yet will not hesitate to tell you that I went a long time recently needing daily doses of Cute Overload. It was probably during a time of mind-deadening soul-sucking work and the lightness and, yes, innocence of the subject matter. Now I have found LOL Cats-Dogs-News-Graphs-Fails and I have abandoned CO. It was the lightening I craved there.

I wouldn't have thought it until the middle of the previous paragraph, which was going to be my only comment but ... since there's nothing els but more mind-deadening soul-sucking work before me, here's a thought. It will be disjointed.

Girls must be under so much pressure now. It's certainly not the least bit new or original but I say over and over, I could not raise children in this cultural climate, especially girl children. It was one of my proudest moments as a mother when my daughter declared that her new daughter would not wear anything remotely princess-themed. (Though the let her keep the sock-monkey princess shirt I send for her birthday - because she loves monkeys and I had bought it in a fit of monkey blindness - never noticed the princess stuff.)

From birth girls are drowned in pink and lavender and princess and rhinestone, sparkle and glitter. Parents insist they insist, they adore it. Girls are born loving that crap. Anyone who's taken Psych 101 knows that's nonense. As they grow they get stronger and smarter. So on the one hand strength, on the other hand frou-frou silly and a culture where everything else tells them pink fluff isn't strong and smart. Back to Psych 101 - isn't this the definition of cognitive dissonance?

I said it would be disjointed. Did I mention it would be incomplete?

No. Sorry. What a coincidence. The guy in the next cube is talking to someone about hunting and a big Cabela's in SD. He said they have PINK GUNS FOR GIRLS.

Screw the work. I'm going to the john to throw up.
Yikes, NC! Hope you've survived the moment of mental vomiting.

I have many of those moments. You've brought up another excellent point--how cuteness is marketed along gender lines--which simply was excised in this VF article. It is not a simple thing, whether girls truly like pink and lavender and all the spangly princess trappings. I will say that in my niece's room, it seemed like a thoroughly lovely and grounded cuteness, not some kind of corporate princess version. I loved her room, the sweetness of it, how proud she was of having cleaned it up, her personal aesthetic.

I can certainly see needing doses of sweetness from Cute Overload or any other cute animal site. It's not my cup of tea, but neither is combat gear or pink guns.
Having borne daughters in the early '70's I could go on at length about this, if only I could organize my thoughts. My daughters were very consciously raised to ascribe as little as possible to gender, for good or for bad. For that matter, so was my son - who now says his wife loves him for his girlish ways and limp wrist. (He's a wit, that one.) There are times I think that was a mistake, as if I had any choice being who I am.

When the girls were about 6 & 9 years old and we lived in a neighborhood where we referred to children as either "boys", "girls", or "kids", I overheard them in conversation with a couple of similarly aged, university child flannel & denim clad kids of the female sub-classification and their tone alarmed me. They were talking about the really, really mean horrid parents of the new girls in the building. Turns out they wore dresses every day even to school and who would do that unless they had really, really mean horrid parents who forced them to.

Those girls now wear dresses nearly all the time. I don't understand.
Good analysis and rant. Sorry I missed this when you first posted it!
Thanks, Silk, I do love a good rant against a slick magazine. It's also part of a lot of thinking I've been doing about how women's topics are trivialized by being called "cute" or "sentimental." To some extent, that's what drove me to actually defend a reality TV program like Find My Family in my latest post.