Researchers at the University of Queensland, who surveyed 13,000 women, said that the difference in pay remained the same even when other factors such as height, weight and education were removed.

They could not explain why blonde-haired women enjoy more financial success, but said no other hair colour produced similar results.

Do sociological factors determine the success of blondes?

Disclosure: I have blonde hair. Therefore, I apparently make $2,400 more than my non-blonde peers and will likely marry a wealthier man. (My mom should be breathing a sigh of relief over that one.) Naturally, I have dark blonde hair, but have had hair color all over the spectrum. I’ve had platinum hair (a mistake which drove me to only trust my hair stylist to color), brown hair and red hair. I was a faux redhead for two years.

Since at least the Middle Ages, blonde-haired women have been the standard of beauty. As such, I theorize that blondes have the upper-hand because we’ve been conditioned to view them (or I guess, us) at the top of the social strata. That explains why blondes would marry wealthier men. In economic terms, the man with the most resources would be able to take his pick of bride. Why not marry the woman who most closely resembles society’s ideals?

But do we make more? I don’t personally know since I’ve never compared salaries to women in similar jobs as me. Confidence is the major factor contributing to salary negotiation, and women are generally terrible at asking for higher pay. Since society views blondes as having the ideal beauty, are the flaxen-haired more confident than other women with the same socioeconomic factors excluding hair color?

I do believe that society has given us an easy out when we make mistakes. I’d love to see a survey question how many blondes have taken advantage of the dumb blonde stereotype.

Admittedly, I’ve used that crutch.  It’s an easy, easy excuse to make. When faced with a social or professional mistake, which course would you take? Making people laugh by shrugging it off as a “blonde moment” or face more serious consequences? It’s human nature to try and make a tense or bad situation funny, so perhaps blondes are more apt to perpetuate that stereotype to diffuse a situation or get out of trouble.

According to Hollywood, dumb blondes are also much more successful. From classic movies with Marilyn Monroe to The Girls Next Door, dumb or shallow blondes always end up winning. Also, because society has pushed the dumb blonde stereotype, are people more likely to expect less of blondes? Is it a catch-22? We’re held to lower standards because of the stereotype and when situations arise, we use it to get ourselves out of trouble?

As Jezebel notes, the statement from the International Blondes Association (which sounds just as silly as the proposed Blonde Defense Fund in the book version of Legally Blonde), this quote is rather absurd:

Olga Uskova, president of the International Blondes Association, told the Mail on Sunday: “Blondes have wealthier husbands because we are more fun and outgoing, and men are more attracted to us.

“We also do better in the workplace because when we make a mistake we can say, ‘Oh, sorry about that, it’s because I’m blonde’ and get away with it.”

How do you know blondes are more outgoing and fun? Can that realistically be measured? Again, that’s just a perception promoted by Hollywood and apparently members of the International Blonde Association.

Having experimented with my hair color so much, I do think that society has special exemptions for blondes. I noticed a distinct difference in the way people treated me when I had red hair. I find that I’m viewed as less threatening as a blonde (of course a woman espousing conservative views is always viewed as threatening).  As a confident woman with a strong personality and outspoken views, I’m accepted far easier as a blonde than I was as a redhead. Of course, my experiences are anecdotal and can usually be explained by other factors.

Am I happier  and more outgoing? There are many more factors that go into happiness than hair color. I don’t think that changing my hair color had any bearing on it. I feel more like myself as a blonde than when I had red hair. It is far easier to maintain your natural hair color than a fake one, especially in DC where a cut and color top $150 every six weeks.

What about men? Are blonde men viewed differently? Why does this standard only apply to women? While thinking about this post, the only example that I could remember was some backlash from the James Bond franchise when they announced Daniel Craig was the new Bond.  Since he deviated from the Bond tradition of dark-haired men, his hair color was the lede.

What do you think? Are blonde women happier and more successful? What would cause the results of this study? Is this an example of research dollars being wasted or a sign that it comes down to genetics to determine success and happiness?

Definitely taking a pro-life approach, the article features the two women and their roles as mothers of young children.

Jezebel mocks the Palin’s decision to grace the cover of In Touch:

According to its media kit, In Touch has a circulation of about 800,000 — 85% of whom are women, at a median age of 30. Will these people, who usually look to the magazine for Brad and Angie “news,” be curious enough about the former Vice Presidential candidate to buy the issue? (Wouldn’t they much rather see an in depth at-home with the Jolie-Pitts? We would!) On the other hand, the Palins could broaden the magazine’s reach: Those who have never picked up the celebrity glossy may find the Palins intriguing, and sales could get a bump that way. As for Sarah Palin, is she reaching out to these women, trying to convince them that she’s just like them — a working mom with issues, trying to make the best of it? Maybe.

My first reaction was surprise. Palin has the star power to be on the cover of practically any magazine. Why In Touch? Why  lower her image to a supermarket tabloid when she could do respectable press? Then I thought about it. I think giving an exclusive to In Touch does broaden her appeal to women. Jezebel discloses that the median readers are 30 and female. What they don’t mention is the median household income is $66,592, putting them comfortably in the middle class. These aren’t Glamour readers, nor are they picking up Town & Country.

Let’s think about this. Who are Palin’s supporters? Average middle class Americans. Who makes up In Touch’s readers? Average, middle class women who are bored standing in the checkout line at Wal-Mart. She’s transcending the political world and reaching directly out to her base, and I seriously doubt any of the Jezebel writers would grace Wal-Mart.

The general public doesn’t read political media. Sure, most people watch the news, but only a small segment follow it obsessively. If Palin is going to get her message beyond the politicos and echo chamber of the blogosphere, she has to do press like this. Once you get past the snobbery of the tabloid, there’s a smart strategy here.

Until Palin became a Fox News contributor (which was less surprising than the revelation that Mark McGuire took steroids. yawn.), she depended on Facebook to get her message out. Giving interviews like this one gets her off the same meme that the media won’t move past. I’m sick of hearing he said/she said comments about her VP debate prep. I’m sick of hearing about Wardrobegate. The media seems incapable of moving past the 2008 election. This type of story gives her another means of personalizing herself to average American women.

Traditionally, this group does not vote Republican, so it is critical to woo them if she has aspirations in 2012. This group is also less likely to be the obsessive political types and are busy. Therefore, they’re going to believe whatever talking points the main outlets put out there.

This article also gets a pro-life message out of the religious and political debate. I’ve said before that Christians are losing today because we stopped engaging in pop culture. It’s not very often that pro-life stories are positively protrayed in the media. Usually, we’re seen as religious zealots or potential bombers. Frankly, it’s nice to see a change.

…And even if it wasn’t at all worth the headache to the Republicans, you can’t deny that Palin and her family looked great that night — the night that was probably the peak of her glory.

I saw the NYT story last night and thought, “If I ever become wealthy, that’s the stylist I want to hire to dress me.” Palin looked great last fall. I loved her Valentino jacket at the convention and drooled over these Cole Haan boots. When you live in DC and are forced to wear business clothes all the time, Kline’s style is appropriate yet still fashionable. I wish she would leverage this announcement into a style guide for dressing fashionably and professional. I get tired of my closet always looking like an Ann Taylor store.

The hoopla last year was ridiculous, especially when Kline breaks down all the charges. She had less than 24 hours to completely build a wardrobe for Palin for the convention and dress six other people for the speech night over a holiday weekend.

In other circumstances, Ms. Kline said, she could have bought Ms. Palin’s wardrobe for far below retail through her relationships with designers. But it was the Friday of a holiday weekend and “there wasn’t a person around,” she said. “The only avenue was retail, straight retail.”

Perhaps the gossip-mongers have never watched an episode of the Rachel Zoe Project, but stylists buy lots and lots of clothes for their clients, help them put together looks, arrange for alterations and then bring back the unwanted clothes. Jezebel notes:

Those include Klein’s purchases for Palin at Barneys and Saks Fifth Avenue in New York (at retail, since it was so last-minute), a frenzied run at Neiman Marcus to the tune of $75,062 once Kline realized she needed to dress the whole family, plus her own fee of $54,900, which included an assistant, a seamstress, and round-the-clock labor on a holiday weekend.

You have to look nice with any public appearance, and since the Palins were coming from a more People of Walmart environment than Manhattan, they needed to do a lot of shopping. Plus, how do you dress an average, middle-class family to match Cindy McCain’s level of style? She always looks perfect, but that that kind of dressing is far above what most Americans could ever dream of spending.

It didn’t happen after her numerous appearances on various news channels, the many articles, the Drudge headlines, Congressional reprimands aimed at ACORN or her cameo in the “Damn It’s Good to be a Victim” rap. (It’s my favorite.) No, Jezebel suddenly became aware of the young lady who helped fire the opening salvo at ACORN through the Young America’s Foundation:

Move over, Sarah Palin and Carrie Prejean. The conservative movement may have already found its next telegenic spokeswoman.

Accepting a Young Student Activist Award from the Young America’s Foundation at the Reagan Ranch Center in Santa Barbara this past weekend, Giles — best known for posing as a prostitute to try and bring down ACORN — was greeted with adoring cries. The Los Angeles Times just called her “a rock star of conservative activism.”

When did the ACORN story break? August? Early September? It is now mid-November. Is Jezebel operating by carrier pigeon? Doesn’t Gawker pay writers by the blog post or have some crazy quota for writing a certain number of posts in one day?  My, these liberal broads were a bit slow catching onto this story.

Hannah Giles is exactly the type of woman that Jezebel readers hate. Gutsy, determined and strategic. Were she doing an expose of Focus on the Family or Concerned Women for America, they’d be singing her praises. However, ACORN is a sore spot for most liberals, and Hannah is very open about her faith and conservative values.

I think the Los Angeles Times is correct. Hannah and James O’Keefe are rock stars for doing something as gusty as infiltrating ACORN at multiple locations around the country. It was inventive and proved what everyone has believed for years: ACORN is corrupt as hell.

However, I seriously doubt that Hannah is going to become the next spokesgal for the movement. Hannah is very young and very courageous, but she needs some public speaking help. I don’t know Hannah or James O’Keefe, but I attended the press conference that they held at the National Press Center. Towards the end, Hannah asked to speak and gave some unscripted remarks. It was bad. Actually, it was one of those painfully bad moments when you expect Michael Scott to make an appearance and just can’t look away.  Possibly it was worse for me since I have a PR background, but it wasn’t her best moment. (I taped the press conference with my flipcam, but the footage is blurry because of the distance.)

Don’t get me wrong. Hannah Giles has an amazing future ahead of her. However, she needs time, experience and training before she can assume the position of “telegenic spokeswoman” for the conservative movement. Jezebel readers have a short reprieve before that happens.