Babe, your lack of intersectionality is showing 💅
Bare nail propaganda has got to stop!
Have you heard? It’s now considered “low-status” to have a manicure.
This week, one of my best friends, Stephanie, DMed me a Reel about how bare nails are the new status symbol. The Reel (now viewed two million times) explains that, after several rich women have gone on the record saying they no longer have time to waste on manicures, naked nails are an example of countersignaling. Just as logo-laden designer bags became gauche once the masses started wearing them, manicures are now out. “The bigger flex is simply not needing one [a manicure]” the video says. Huh.
The nails-as-class-signifiers discussion bubbled up a lot over the last few months, thanks to a couple of viral Substacks (some more nuanced than others). The general consensus is that short, bare nails signify a level of nonchalance afforded by wealth and privilege. What does that look like? Well, the aforementioned Reel showed Valeria Lipovetsky. The Substack posts cited examples like Jane Birkin, Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen, SJP as Carrie Bradshaw, and Lauren Santo Domingo. Unsurprisingly, these are all white women.
“Quiet luxury” and “Fashion people” codes say nails must be short and bare. Gel, extensions, acrylics, nail art, charms…all of that is decidedly not chic. The thing that really pisses me off about people spreading nonsense like this is that there’s always a glaring lack of intersectionality. It’s dawned on me that, wow, 1) People really exist in bubbles where there’s zero exposure to other cultures, and 2) People are OBSESSED with looking rich according to white people standards.
I will not be falling for the bare nail propaganda. And, I think it’s harmful to conflate the naked nail look with better “taste” or “class,” or “understated elegance,” all of which are often just euphemisms for white supremacist beauty standards.
