Megan Garber, The Atlantic writer who once insisted “squad goals” was invented by famous white girls, has recently penned a 700-plus-word essay about the significance of Beyoncé September Vogue cover.
But it wasn’t for reasons you might assume.
Though this marks only the third time in history a black woman has nabbed the prestigious cover, Garber claims that what makes this issue so significant is Bey’s wet hair. Uh … yeah.
Throughout the piece, the writer describes the “stringy” hairdo as a “political statement,” claiming it gives the industry the middle finger by being purposefully and aggressively “un-pretty.”
“Bey and Vogue are not necessarily recommending that the Normals of the world start rocking stringy hair […] They’re making a political statement disguised as an aesthetic one,” she writes. “Here is Beyoncé, whose brand is strong enough to withstand being photographed with stringy hair, suggesting that, for the rest of us, the best hairdos might be the ones that don’t require all the doing.”
Oh, man. There are so many fails in this piece, we don’t even know where to start. For one, this isn’t the first time a magazine has featured wet hair on the cover: Publications, including Vogue, have done this for years, making this hairstyle far from revolutionary. Second, anyone familiar with styling and black women’s hair knows that this particular ‘do likely involved a lot of work, and is by no means something that was easy or effortless. Third, there’s something a bit off-putting when a white woman grants herself the authority to decide what is (or what isn't) "political" about a black woman's hair. And fourth, she’s just seems to be reaching for dear life; Beyoncé slayed on the cover, and there was nothing "un-pretty" or "undone" about the images.
Of course, the Beyhive was quick to call out the essay on social media. You can read some of the Twitter reactions below.
