Talk:Blonde stereotype

Change in Image: Reason?

I noticed that the image of Paris Hilton at the top of this page was changed by a user who has been repeatedly banned for making disruptive edits to images on various articles. Frankly, I feel a little uneasy about pointing her out specifically, but it appears there has been an image of her on this article for a very long time, so I won't try to debate the reasoning for that. But given the current status of the user who changed the image, I feel we should probably consider whether the change in image was necessary or is beneficial to this article. Personally, I feel that the current image depicts Hilton more professionally, but since this article is about blonde stereotypes, I think we should revert back to the old image. I believe the old image more accurately portrays Paris Hilton's portrayal of blonde stereotypes, but my editing experience on here is limited, so I'd rather not make such a major change unless I'm 100% sure it would indeed be helpful. Pingrobb (talk) 04:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Characteristics

What are more characteristics of a dumb blonde?

I think being dumb and blonde are the two defining characteristics, any others would be irrelevant. --fvw* 22:16, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

An example of a popular joke about dumb blondes: Do you know how dies cerebral cells of blonde girls? By loneliness!!!!!!!!!!!

I think the definitive 'dumb blonde' is blonde, dumb and usually young and attractive - but not (neccesarily) sexual. A bimbo on the other hand is sexualised (and indeed may be a non-blonde)

There are virginal/non-sexualised dumb blondes:

• Melody Valentine from Josie and the Pussycats
• Kelly Gaines from Cheers

A bimbo on the other hand is usually sexualised:

• Harmony Kendall from Buffy the Vampire Slayer
• Linda from Becker (a non-blonde bimbo)

--Ross Nolan 11:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

In addition, despite the stereotype, dumb blondes can also be male or female.

Medieval Europe

The Frankish, Norman, and Gothic-descended nobility of Europe tended to be darker-haired than the peasantry--what? 207.68.245.5 (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Buffy

I don't know the Betty Cooper character, but in the film, at least, the whole point of the Buffy character was that she was dumb-blonde type, who triumphed anyway. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:07, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Valley Girl

I don't think Clueless really popularized the Valley Girl stereotype. When the movie Valley Girl came out in 1983, the idea of a Valley Girl was already well-ingrained in pop culture. Frank Zappa's song was released in 1982. Neither of these would have had any success if the Valley Girl stereotype wasn't already well-established. Al 15:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, in the case of Zappa, I suspect that not many people bought his records because of their lyrics — and I'm certain that most people outside (and many within) the U.S. didn't know what was being parodied, but enjoyed it anyway. It's the sort of thing that does become known through parodies rather than in any other way. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Opinion

I'm not sure if this article is really NPOV. It seems like a matter of opinion if someone is a Bombshell or not. Pelago 13:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Point of fact, I don't agree with classifying Monica Bellucci as a "bombshell;" the article (and the term itself) seem to me to imply not only a certain body type but also a kind of personal style; you can see where Anna Nicole Smith for example obviously emulated the look of "bombshells" like Marilyn Monroe. It's not a look that Monica Bellucci seems to go for. Atypicaloracle (talk) 06:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Roman empire era

Please forgive my ignorance where to put this...and the proverbial but,

Blonde woman lived north of the Roman empire. There were blonde men also. Both, each, blue eyed. Romans never called their ships she or their country she. The Celts did and to this day many countries. Why would a society that praises women would call them dumb if they were light of hair. Which leads us to Dumnorix.

A Celt/Gual king, crying out as Roman swords pierced him. "I am a Free man in a Free state". (not that I advocate kings but at the time it was better under Dummy than Ceasar.

At the time there were other Gaulsih chieftains conspiring with Ceasar's troops. Dumnorix died fighting against the Romans even though the odds were so stacked against him, maybe leaving the people to say don't be a dum(norix)my submit. But I haven't met a blond who would.

The above remark was added 01:15, 5 May 2006 and originates from IP-address 65.8.31.23

In defence of Dumnorix, Dumnorix was not natural blond according to the museum image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PoeticReturn (talk • contribs) 11:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Usagi Tsukino

Usagi Tsukino is definitely not "intelligent and appropriately serious in demeanor". It makes me wonder if whoever wrote that actually saw the show or read the comics. She is nice, caring person but she is also a superficial, over-romantic, fun-loving, whiny and scatter-brained child, immature even for a girl in her lower teens. She readily admits it herself. Perhaps whoever wrote this was thinking of Sailor Venus who is also blonde and fits the description much better. Usagi Tsukino actually fits the dumb blonde cliché much better than the description above.

Brunettes/redheads who are naturally blonde

I don't quite understand the new heading ".../blondes who are..." Does that not remove the 'interest' from the issue?

Cameron Diaz natural blond? Recently seen pictures in which the bleaching is gone and a very natural deep black haircolor shows instead. But blue-eyed, which made the former artificial blond so much more look like real.

Don't think Miss Middler is natural blond. Seen a picture with black hair and it looked very much like real. She's got to much temperament for a 'temperate'. No Northern-Europide could sing for instance that 'Cuba-song', (what's it's exact title?) in a way, she does, unless eventually a natural orange-blond (which she might be). James Blond 05:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

But she most likely isn't. Found this:[1]; picture nr. 10 looks most natural of them all. Like that there's room enough for all those wigs, shown in most of the other pictures. All by all she's a Jewish person, who has been flaunting a lot with other persons feathers. But she can sing all right (unlike other blackhaired wigwearer Madonna). James Blond 14:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Title

I prefer the French title: "Stereotypes of blondes". More NPoV too, don't you all think so? - Gilliam 22:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Could this whole dumb-blond thing perhaps be a matter of projection? Projecting the fear for own dumbness on others, of whom one thinks, they might be more intelligent? Something like finding peace of mind, by playing it thus, that those others are dumb as well.

Besides, there is a lot, that justifies the thesis, that lightblonds are not dumb, when they turn out not to understand and/or know enough about this industrialised world, because it has been made the (more and more dramatic) way it is, by others, who wouldn't have done this, if they were not more or less dumb themselves. James Blond 04:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Natural Blondes section

Is this section needed? These women, that I know of, aren't really considered "dumb blondes" or at least not all of them. Shouldn't it be edited to either not be there or something like "natural blondes that fit the stereotype" or something? Black Kat 15:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Karen Smith

The character "Karen Smith" is included under "dumb blonde antitheses," as someone who defies the blonde stereotype and is intelligent or serious in demeanor. There are two problems with this: 1) The fictional Karen Smith is indeed dumb, although she is smart enough to recognize and regret her dumbness. 2) Her link leads to a real-life Karen Smith, a hockey player. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.255.245.109 (talk) 05:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Blonde hair and Ancient Greeks

The author(s) of the article mention(s) that the Ancient Greeks were fascinated by the blonde hair of northern barbarians. While this may be partly true, many heroes of the homeric tales had blonde (xanthos) hair: it was not at all something alien to them.

No, that's true, it most definitely was not alien to them. Blonde hair was present in Greek society in general, both because of Nordic integration, as well as Greek exploration and travel to Nordic lands. The best example would probably be Helen of Troy, who famously had blonde hair, and that blonde hair was likely a primary aspect about her that Greeks found so very attractive.216.185.250.92 (talk) 04:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, part of the prehistoric ancestors of the Greeks (the part which also brought the language in) came from Eastern Europe. Phenotypically, the ancient Greeks were therefore mixed, especially in the Mycenaean period probably, where blond hair was typical of nobility. But, as with the Romans, this blond component of the population eventually merged in with the Mediterranean-type majority and modern Greeks and Italians now look mostly Southern European. This brings me to a different speculation. Medieval and Renaissance-era Italians, who were overwhelmingly dark-haired, tended to look down on the Germanic-speaking Northern Europeans as barbarians and goths (whence ultimately gothic with its morbid, medieval associations), and thus, in the eyes of Italians, blond hair was associated with primitivity and lack of fine culture. It's easy to see that in Italy, a stereotype of unintelligent blonds could easily arise. (Conversely, legends formed in Central Europe around Venetians, mysterious ore- or gold-seeking foreigners from southern lands, or eventually mountain spirits, dwarfs or trolls, with magical powers, similar to the stereotype of the wizard with a pointed hat with moons and stars on it, which is sometimes speculated to be inspired by contact with medieval Muslim astrologers, alchemists and other scholars, especially in Al-Andalus.) Just a spontaneous idea, though, but maybe somebody would like to look for evidence for this. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't find any mention of ancient Greeks in the article. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, you know, this is a wiki. Articles have a tendency to change. ;-) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

China Dolls

Is this the Caucasian version of the China Doll stereotype, out of curiosity--69.234.207.238 (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)?

Miss South Carolina (2007) answers incident?

Anyone wanna mention that incident in the article?

I think that this might have something to do with the "dumb slut" stereotype. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.168.209 (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I proposed for the merge of Blonde jokes to Dumb blonde. To my opinion, they are too closely related to be in separate articles after all. Also, the section regarding the cultural impact of the blonde jokes, which is the only thing that is keeping the Blonde jokes article from deletion, is similar in content, if not almost identical, to the one in this article. Udonknome (talk) 03:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Support - these articles cover almost identical subjects. Blonde jokes essentially just contains examples of the dumb blonde stereotype - little more than an {{Examplefarm}}. It should either be merged into this article or deleted outright. Terraxos (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Blonde jokes has notability on its own & these two should remain as separate articles.

Oppose - The two are perfectly viable separate. - DevOhm ^Talk 01:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Support I think that this section is too small and non-notable to be kept here on it's own the way it is. If someone can add more information and get this to at least a start class, mabye this article will have a leg to stand on. P.S. WP:POLL--Ipatrol (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - Blond jokes are intrinsically a part of the "dumb blond" mythology, and would serve better to support this article than they would to stand on their own. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 18:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Support, since texts are small now and will become smaller when trimmed of overlap and unreferenced stuff. - At the same time it is a clearly defined and notable topic. Wikipedia is not paper, and a separate page is quite fine, since the texts have almost no overlap. Therefore there should be no prejudice to split them back when reliable, references content grows. Twri (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

--Done. Half a year poll already. `- 7 bubyon>t 20:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Blonde jokes entries to this article are being removed as off topic. If there is to be ONE article, it is only proper to offer perspectives for both blonde jokes and dumb blondes. Otherwise, let's split them apart again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.179.8 (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"Sober theories of origins" section

I have a few problems with the "Sober theories of origins" section. Foremost, there is already an "Origins" section, so this section is redundant from the outset – why not just integrate the information into the Origins section? A fair amount of the info is already there. Additionally, the name of the section is weird. "Sober theories?" Are the other theories frivolous?

In terms of content, the section isn't particularly clear – it seems to be talking more about blondness itself, rather than the dumb blond stereotype. The sentence that (I guess?) makes the connection – "Therefore many wanted to believe that blond and rich women were stupid and cheap" – is pretty tenuous, uncited, and sounds like POV. Really, overall I think this section is extraneous. I'll probably delete it within a week or so if no one protests.

- DevOhm ^Talk 01:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Obvious origin

A great deal of people who have blonde hair turn to darker blonde or brunette in puberty or later, but never the other way aroud. Thereforem, take the mean age of someone who's blond, take the mean age of someone who's not, and you wind up with blonds being younger, hence associated with youth, including innocence, and naivety.--Loodog (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

In Flanders (Belgium), 55% to 68% of adults were born blond but then darkened as they became adult to usually light or medium brown tones. Germaniathane (talk) 08:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Hypothesis

Is the stereotype of blondes as dumb maybe due to real subjective perceptions of the many women who dye their hair blond as opposed to natural blonds? Are there any studies on this?

That German Study

I heard on the radio about a study in Germany on the effect of dumb blond jokes on blonds. Indeed, blonds do perform worse on mental tasks right after they've heard a dumb blond joke. Has anyone seen a reference on this? If I were an employer, I'd ban such jokes out of a fear of lowering the performance of some employees. (I have very dark brown hair.)Bostoner (talk) 04:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Dumb male blondes

Even though this stereotype is usually used on females, there are some male variations that are popping up more often now. I've seen a few blonde jokes that use male blonds instead of female blondes. Often, he will act the same way as a female but in a more masculine manner. I'm sure that there are more male variations of these blonde jokes out there.

External Links

Seems that there is some disagreement on external links. Before the merge, blonde jokes contained links to good sources of blonde jokes. Since the merge, all links keep getting deleted. There is interest in blonde jokes, so why not have links? Before deleting links, please discuss. Other alternatives include unmerging the topics so that blonde jokes can specifically cater to those who are interested in them. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.179.8 (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a web directory. Links are sources of references to encyclopedic information on the subject. Joke collections are not. People may easily google to find hundreds if not thousands of joke websites with blonde jokes, including det]dicated ones. - Altenmann >t 19:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a different take on the definition. The following is taken from the article you reference. It indicates that a content-relevant link is appropriate and is not limited to encyclopedic information.

Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files.[2] Wikipedia articles are not:

Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.

I say we put that link back, or another blonde joke site if a better one can be found. Let's have a truce on this issue until other input is received beyond just the two of us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.179.8 (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bombshell (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 21:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Movies of Marylin Monroe in the Cinema

Marylin Monroe played the roles of dumb blond, in particular in her first movies such as "Gentlemen prefer Blonds" and "How to marry a millionnaire", for which she actually was named "Best actress" of 1953 by Photoplay magazine. Note: Obviously the role she plays (and not herself) is considred as of a Dumb Blond.

in Victoria Sherrow (2006) Encyclopedia of hair: a cultural history, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006 page: 274.

Note: I would apreciate that you assume good fate the next time before removing big chunk of content, and first start by putting tag into the text. Thanks. --Nabeth (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The reference in question says "a fragile woman who relied rather on her looks rather than on intelligence - what some people refer to as "dumb blond". This definition does not exactly match what is written in wikipedia and I would say rather questionable, but whatever. However I don't see why you don't add this reference into the article, which does mention Marylin Monroe among "dumb blondes" and it is already tagged. I am doing this for you. What about other actresses? Twri (talk) 03:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If this definition does not match exactly, maybe it may mean that we should amend the Wikipedia definition if it is really one of the way people think of as a Dumb blond. One of the problem with using the term 'Dumb' is that it only refer to stupidity. In the french Wikipedia, the name of the article is "Blonde 'stereotype" (fr:Stéréotype de la blonde) which refers to something slightly broader. Other actresses (or rather roles in cinema)? Sure. Actually, I was just wondering what was the exact impact of Cinema in the perception of this stereotype by the society. Yet, when thinking of dumb blond in cinema, the first character that come to my mind is Marylin Monroe, and it isn't indeed really about studipidy, but rather that what matters is the perception (like if some other part of my brain taking control). To finish, yes it would be good and I would thank you to make the addition, since I had previous contribution on this subject reverted. I would like to avoid playing too much the little game of editor / censor. --Nabeth (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I modified the article to address the concerns expressed in this talk section. Twri (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the dumb blonde stereotype

There is no information in the article about when this idea that blondes are dumb emerged. Did it exist before Hollywood started to propagate it?--Victor Chmara (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Gerblondz

Could the concept of a blonde moment originate from the Yiddish word Gerblondz (not sure of the spelling), meaning confused?--MartinUK (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Repetition in the article

Why are things repeated over and over on the article? Is it like that so that blondes can get it or what? Seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.27.180.246 (talk) 02:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Etymology?

This article desperately needs an Etymology section. Just why is an attractive woman a "bombshell"? --NetRolller 3D 20:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

New Here. Don't know how to edit this properly, but I'm trying to bump up this article because the opening paragraph has been vandalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.170.235 (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Bombshell merge

User:Aditya Kabir attempts to merge Bombshell (sex symbol) article into this one. I object this merge for a simple reason: according to wikipedia, a bombshell girl is not necessarily a blonde, and therefore, contrary to Aditya's edt summary "Blonde stereotype" is not "mother article" for "bombshell". The two are close but may be rather different subjects. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, I am open to arguments that in fact the original term was "blonde bombshell (disambiguation)", rather than "bombshell" or "bombshell girl". In this case, if properly referenced, the merge is valid. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I re-reverted Aditya Kabir's revert, not because her addition is invalid (See above; I am open to discussion), but because it was done improperly: along with restoration of Kabir's content, it deleted my additions. Next time please be more careful. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Against merging Bombshell (sex symbol) to anywhere. As I said when I first reverted him "not all women described as bombshells by the media are blonde" [2]. Dream Focus 19:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that they referred to women as "bombshells" even if they weren't blonde, from the beginning, and do so now. Ample coverage found and referenced already. And I see no reason for you to have created the Blonde bombshell (disambiguation) article today. It serves no purpose. I'm nominating it for deletion. Dream Focus 19:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Please read about the purpose of disambiguation pages. There are several different things called "Blonde Bombshell". Staszek Lem (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Do you have an evidence about "from the beginning"? If yes then please add the reference to the article. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

  Hollywood's Redheaded Bombshell Hartford Courant - Aug 24, 1958 [3] I also see Bombshell Redhead Peeved And Hubby Better Look Out Windsor Daily Star May 10, 1946. [4] So 66 years ago it was used for others who weren't blonde. And since a term has been used for at least that long for non-blonde women, I think my case is made. Dream Focus 22:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

  Colleague, this is not a pissing contest. We are working about article improvement. If you found an interesting reference, what's good for wikipedia to shove it up my nose? OK, you kicked my ass. Now how about improving the article in question? (BTW, keep in mind that I actually helped you to un-merge it (in case you are misreading edit history), so I am kinda not your opponent. I just want to be fair to the third party and show the correct way of handling edit disagreements, namely, using talk page. And so far we are winning the argument, aren't we?) Staszek Lem (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

  Don't take things personally. You wanted to talk about a merge, I stated my reason against it, you questioned whether I had any "evidence", so I found two news sources to prove it to you. Dream Focus 22:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

  Actually, the ultimale purpose was in the second sentence of my question. If you are familiar with the works of WP:ARS, the best way to keep an article is to improve it. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose merge: for several reasons:

1. Blonde bombshell isn't exactly the same thing as the blonde stereotype
2. This could potentially lead to a number of disparate topics bloating the blonde stereotype article
3. Though I am a fan of sumptuous blondes, I've heard that sumptuous redheads and sumptuous brunettes also exists

pbp 23:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I think the problem can be fixed quite easily. Blonde Bombshell was redirecting to Bombshell (sex symbol) and hence the confusion. That's been fixed. Also selective parts of the Bombshell article can be incorporated here. I don't know about Staszek's additions. Are that still valid? This discussion, I believe, can close now. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The redidect was correct: the main meaning is "bombshell", not "blonde". I don't see a reason for a section about "blonde bombshells" here, since hair color is accidental. Google easily shows "ginger bombshell", "redhead bombshell", "brunette bombshell", etc. We are not going to bomb all hair colors with bombshells, neither this one, unless you provide a compelling reason to do so. And since you didn not address my concerns, the discussion cannot "close now". Staszek Lem (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

But, looking at the fact that it's an entry in the Macmillan Dictionary (it's the only example of a bombshell referring to women in the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary), and has so many books and movies dedicated to the phrase, I believe it's encyclopedic enough to have it's own sub-section (if not an article, yet). Myra Marx Ferree says discusses the stereotype of the "blonde bombshell" (Revisioning Gender, 1999), and so does Audra Price (Blogging and identity), Philip Herbst (Wimmin, wimps, and wallflowers), Annette Kuhn (The women's companion to international film), Paul Martin Lester (Images That Injure), Suzanna Danuta Walters (Material girls) and many more mainstream authorities and experts. That makes it way more significant than a "redhead bombshell" or a "brunette bombshell" (the mainstream academic experts seem to largely ignore those). Besides, with so many references to the blonde bombshell right here on the Wikipedia, it only makes sense that there's at least a sub-section on the right article. If that makes it too narrow or partial, we can have a separate article that is linked from and to both Blonde stereotype and Bombshell (sex symbol). With this much information found it's entirely possible to create a C-class article right away, conforming to every Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I believe, we need it too.

Just a note: I don't think improving something should not be deterred here because some discussion is unfinished, as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Differences in opinion is why we discuss, but propriety of process isn't the only thing that made Wikipedia. There's a policy and a tradition around here for a very long time. But, of course, that's not the discussion here. You don't need to answer to this (will be distracting us uselessly). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Aditya, you are not paying attention about what people are saying here. YOu are not forbidden to improve articles. The objection is that you want to put "blonde bombshell" here. All other say that it belongs to Bombshell (sex symbol) page. If you have read so much, you must know that not every sexy blonde is a "bombshell", and even more, blonde stereotype is not "bombshell". "Bombshell" is a specific term, and "blonde bombshell stereotype" is even more specific in the historical frame. If you want a small summary section here, it will be fine, as long as you have a reasonably large text in Bombshell (sex symbol) page. Right now there is not much there, and therefore "see also" here is just enough. It is not a good idea to repeat the same text in many pages. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Please, pay attention. What I am saying is - we DON'T need a MERGER. What we CAN HAVE instead is a NEW ARTICLE created for the redirect link. Is this clear enough? I would have removed the merge tag myself, but looking at what has transpired, you probably would have found it improper. Also, since it is so difficult to understand, I believe I need to create an article on blonde bombshell myself, instead of just discussing. Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. I have created a start class article for Blonde bombshell and redirected Blond bombshell to that article. Please, close the merger discussion. If we want to discuss a merger or a deletion of the new article, this may not be the right place to do it. Also, note that I am most willing to address any problems with the new article for some time (not indefinitely, of course). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge Blonde bombshell here

As the Dumb blonde is a section of this article, so should Blonde stereotype be. No use having a separate article. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC) All this is racist. If this would be about black people, everyone will shout out that or this is racist. Why this is not? What a shame of world we are living on... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.244.9.150 (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Monroe

The chapter in this book is titled "Marilun Monroe, the Inventor of Blondeness". Now that needs some serious exploration, methinks. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Alexz Johnson?

The first picture shown is very misleading as it is not a prime example of a Blonde stereotype and would not typically be associated with the general prejudices of being a blonde female. Her photo placement seems like self-promotion, in that, it is not a stock photograph nor is it a clear example of the associated subject matter. 65.73.44.148 (talk) 06:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right and I've replaced the image. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Finland Smartest Country and Blondest

I do not know how to format the references, so could someone please do it for me and add it in? https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_countries_by_student_performance This link says Finland is second in Reading and first in science. Isn't Finland the blondest country in the world? Lightvd 04:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightvd (talk • contribs)

Lightvd, please provide a couple of sources that actually back up your statement. What you propose is pure synthesis. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Finland is not the blondest country in Europe, but it is the smartest.

Blondness in Nordic Countries % :

Iceland - 64.7% Denmark - 64% Finland - 58% Sweden - 54% Norway - 48% Germaniathane (talk) 08:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

"Blonde" versus "Blond" spelling uniformity

The article has both "blonde hair" and "blond hair", both "blonde stereotype" and "blond stereotype", and both "blonde" and "blond" used as a noun (esp. in the phrase "dumb blonde"/"dumb blond", but also separately). It has "blonde jokes", "blonde bombshell", "blonde babe", and "blonde-haired individuals", but also has "blond woman", "blond men", "blond actresses", "blond girl", "blond character", "blond person", and "only 25 (5%) of the 500 CEOs were blond". I don't sense any logical pattern. This seems to simply be sloppy writing style.

As I understand it, the question of the spelling of "blonde" versus "blond" is somewhat of a mixture of national variations of English and the convention that sometimes "blond" is used to refer to men or to either men or women generically, and that "blonde" is sometimes reserved specifically to women and girls.

We should decide what our convention is for this article and apply it consistently. For what it's worth, I note that the article uses the spellings "characterization" and "feminization", and that all of the women who appear in the photographs are American celebrities (thus there are some national WP:TIES to the topic), so I suggest that the article be considered to be written in American English, such that American spelling conventions should generally apply.

—BarrelProof (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

What is that convention? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, I was hoping someone else would have a suggestion, but my current thought is to simply always use "blond" (without commenting about it in the article) except in direct quotations. I think "blond" is the most common spelling in American English, where it is frequently used for both genders, and thus it avoids WP:GENDER stereotyping problems. Here is one source that supports that view. Another possibility would be to always use "blond" as an adjective, and switch between "blond" and "blonde" according to gender when used as a noun. Here is one source that seems to support that view. But if we go in that direction, we have to decide which variant to use as a noun when the noun gender is unclear. That gets us into difficult WP:GENDER territory, which I think may be best to avoid by just always using "blond". —BarrelProof (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The English language doesn't give gender to words like the French do. Also the French words were blound and blounde. Where all of our words came from isn't relevant here. Webster dictionary says Blond is the proper English spelling, with blonde just a variation. We should just use blond everywhere, no need for a silent pointless e at the end. Dream Focus 18:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind "blond". But, is that the convention? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Examples of types

Could we get some more up-to-date examples of who fit the ice cold/bombshell/etc stereotypes? Not all of us are versed in 60s pop culture. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Blonde stereotype. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.in-mind.org/article/are-blondes-really-dumb

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blonde stereotype. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131013192910/http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/Blonde-vs-Brunette-Does-it-determine-how-you-get-treated-176282771.html to http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/Blonde-vs-Brunette-Does-it-determine-how-you-get-treated-176282771.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Image caption

The first image caption: The stereotypes of blond people, especially blonde women, are exemplified by the public image of Paris Hilton.[1][2][3] seems very unencyclopedic. Is that just my perception or should it be changed? NikolaiHo^☎️ 05:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not really into celebrity culture. What is the public image of Paris Hilton? She is a former heiress and current businesswoman, who reportedly "earns over $10 million a year from product sales". Sounds like a successful woman. Dimadick (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blonde stereotype. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130412002456/http://tv.yahoo.com/news/blondes-vs-brunettes-tv-shows-betty-veronica-style-203200864.html to https://tv.yahoo.com/news/blondes-vs-brunettes-tv-shows-betty-veronica-style-203200864.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Black Women and Popular Culture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 1 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): StrawberryLemonade02 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by StrawberryLemonade02 (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Defending Hollywood dumb stereotype peroxided acresses that can be misunderstood and confused with dumb blondines.

How to propriatly defend the Hollywood dumb stereotype peroxided acresses that can be misunderstood and confused with dumb blondines?

References:

Any suggestions of phrasings that can lead to a consensus?

PoeticReturn (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• The sources you provide (half of which are clearly not reliable) do not discuss the concept of "dumb blonde" versus peroxided actresses. To draw conclusions based on article that just talk about bottle blondes in general would violate WP:OR. So there is no basis to make changes based on the information you provided. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

  How about an objective summary of the research status to not have more people falling into this rabit hole:

  "==Research status of who is dumb or not==

  There is no apropriate reliable source discussing the subject of peroxided actresses versus the stereotype on the topic of if the actresses are dumb or not.

  On the other hand are there no apropriate independant reliable sources of any well known celebrated natural blond Hollywood star being dumb.

  There is also no apropriate reliable sources discussing if peroxided woman on the street in general are more dumb or not." PoeticReturn (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

  The problem with your argument is that you assume that you have to be born blond to be stupid, but dyed blondes should not be stupid in your opinion.

  First, there are studies showing that natural blondes have higher IQs than other women. So your suggestion is an aggressive form of hairism. And the fact that brunettes dyed blondes and propagated the stereotype of "stupid blonde" speaks of them in a rather bad way. They need to be condemned. And yes, brunette women who can be stupid may well dye their hair blonde. Charamel (talk) 07:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Does that mean that there is no way of defending the dumb stereotype peroxided actresses? That would be a shame?

How about changing the addition to be something about peroxide bottle blonde stereotype actresses in Hollywood? With the reliable references to support?

Another source [5] PoeticReturn (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

How about the following phrasing? Any objections?

"==Research status of who is dumb or not==

There is no apropriate reliable source discussing the subject of peroxided actresses versus the stereotype on the topic of if the actresses are dumb or not.

On the other hand are there no apropriate independant reliable sources of any well known celebrated natural blond Hollywood star being dumb.

There is also no apropriate reliable sources discussing if peroxided woman on the street in general are more dumb or not.

There is no apropriate reliable sources discussing any correlation between peroxiding hair and being dumb or not, or in what direction the correlation would go in, if dumb people more often peroxide or if peroxide makes people dumb." PoeticReturn (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• You misunderstand the purpose of an encyclopedia. We are a tertiary source. We don't "judge", we don't compare and contrast, we don't draw conclusions. Ever. That is for secondary sources. We document what those secondary sources say, passing references to those secondary sources, and we do without injecting bias, instead taking a neutral perspecitive. This means if two sources say there is a difference, but two sources say there isn't, we docuement both sides in an even handed way. What we do NOT do is "defend" anyone. So if there are not multiple sources backing up your claim (or perspective, or however you view it), it can't be included in the article. Again, our policy on original research is really worth a look, and can explain this better, so you have a better understanding of what can and can't be done in matters like this. If you wanted to write an article that covers this topic, it might be interesting, but it would have to be pushlished elsewhere, in a secondary source, like a newspaper, webblog, etc. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Blonde stereotypes and the relevance of alternative viewpoints

@TylerBurden: reverted me on 21:23, 13 February 2024‎, with the explanation that "...the article seems to have strangely become some kind of attractiveness competition rather than focusing specifically on blonde stereotypes".

I disagree. The article did not become an attractiveness competition. The key focus point of the article is the idea that blonde women are particularly attractive. The lede begins by saying that Blondes are stereotyped as more desirable, but less intelligent than brunettes. There are many blonde jokes made on these premises.

According to WP:NPOV, we must provide a balanced presentation of reliable research on a given topic. And it should come as no surprise that there has been plenty of research in to the notion that blonde women are especially attractive -- especially with a focus on testing that notion with empirical evidence. My edits introduce this content, which is relevant and reliably sourced, and consistently replicates the finding that blonde women are generally considered less attractive than women with dark hair. The authors explicitly frame this research in the context of blonde stereotypes.

Currently, the article does not present a neutral POV. It promotes the view that blonde women are considered more attractive than women with dark hair. Much research indicates that this is not the case in the Western world, and also in the Eastern world. Per NPOV, we must provide these findings to the reader.

I would also like to caution against this kind of blanket reverting. TylerBurden restored a great deal of content that I painstakingly read through and determined to fail WP:VERIFY.

They also removed my addition of content to the lede that was already established in the main body. This includes, for example, empirical research that demonstrated that blonde women are not less intelligent than brunettes, contrary to stereotypes. This content had already been in the article for years. This needed to go in to the lede, which is not only too short, it does not provide the full body of research that has accumulated around the topic of blonde stereotypes.

Although I know it can be frustrating and time consuming, in the future please precisely change content rather than blanket revert, as suggested at WP:MASSR. Thank you for your understanding. Red Book Librarian (talk) 07:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

"empirical research that demonstrated that blonde women are not less intelligent than brunettes" Big surprise there. Human intelligence is neither connected to the hair color, nor to facial features. Such stereotypes likely say a lot about the feminine beauty ideals of various eras and regions, but not much about human intelligence.Dimadick (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I apologize if I reverted objective improvements, since it was all done in one go it's difficult to seperate between the WP:DUE issues and other non-disputed changes. I don't disagree with you overall about balance, but adding too much content and giving more weight to dark hair being considered more attractive creates WP:DUE issues. In general, much of the content in both this and blond probably belong in blonde versus brunette rivalry be it views presenting blondes as more attractive or dark hair as more attractive. TylerBurden (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@TylerBurden: it seems like your main issue is with the length of the content. I am inclined to agree: I have made too lengthy of a contribution by reporting the details of each study, separately. My proposal is to simply merge this content in to two or three sentences in a single paragraph, which would read like:

"In the 1960s and 1970s, research showed that blonde women were over-represented in Western popular media.[1] However, research in Western countries has found that men in western countries generally find dark-haired women more attractive than those with blonde hair, and blonde women may not be over-represented in modern popular media[2][3][4]"

Let me know what you think about this proposal. P.S. I still haven't found a single study that actually says blonde women are considered more attractive than brunettes in the general population. Red Book Librarian (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Failures to verify

A great deal of content in this article fails to verify.

Starting with this sentence:

Some studies have shown that men, mainly those of Caucasian descent, find blonde women more attractive than brunettes, redheads, or women of other races who had darker hair, eyes, or complexion.[47][48]

Feinman et al, '78 is linked here. These authors do not anywhere say that men (Caucasian or otherwise) find blonde women more attractive than brunettes, redheads or women of other races. The word blond is written three times in the article, and it does not say in any case that blonde women are more attractive.

On page 47, Table 1, the data for hair color perception is listed. 38% of men "liked" blonde women, while 41% "liked" brunette. 21% liked women with other hair colors. The study says the opposite: most men did not prefer blonde women. Given the dated nature of this research and the fact that it wasn't even peer reviewed, I say we delete it entirely from the article.

Simpson and Douglas, '97 is, just as Feinman, another fabrication. Red Book Librarian (talk) 10:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)