
Beauty is an ‘insidious force in women's financial lives,' says 'Rich Girl Nation' author — here's how to overcome it
Yet, there's another challenge in women's financial lives that is less-discussed — beauty costs, which can be an "insidious force in women's financial lives," said Katie Gatti Tassin, author of the new book "Rich Girl Nation: Taking Charge of Our Financial Futures."
More from Personal Finance:She made up to $110,000 a year as a nanny for the ultra-richMost women investors share a common regret: reportWhat the Senate Republican tax, spending bill means for your money
Tassin, who is also the founder of "Money with Katie," describes beauty expenses as a "hot girl hamster wheel." There's a whole industry dedicated to profiting on women's insecurities, she said, and it shows up in women's budgets.
CNBC spoke with Tassin in late June about how women can escape the "hot girl hamster wheel," and what to do instead with their cash.Ana Teresa Solá: The first chapter of your book talks about the so-called "hot girl hamster wheel." Can you describe what that is?
Katie Gatti Tassin: The "hot girl hamster wheel" is the collection of recurring expenses that are necessary to maintain what I like to call the "acceptable feminine appearance." Every single dollar that you spend will function like a commitment to keep spending more money in the future because of the nature of aesthetic enhancement: Your body is eventually going to reject all of these interventions that you're making.
Anybody who's ever gotten acrylic nails is familiar with this struggle, where they grow out and then your nails underneath are brittle and discolored.
ATS: What expenses fall under this type of spending?
KGT: Typically, for most women, it's hair, it's nails, it's skincare.
Things that are more about form than function, is probably a good way to put it.
Buying toothpaste does not count. Even though that's still a personal care purchase, because the toothpaste is doing a job for you, it's about hygiene. Whereas, Crest White Strips would probably count because this is something that you're doing to intervene with how you look and how you are perceived.
It can take a form that we accept as baseline feminine maintenance or upkeep, and that's really what I want people to take a closer look at for themselves.
ATS: How does one fall prey to it?
KGT: If you feel like the way that you look matters, that's probably because you are accurately picking up on signals that it does. We know that "pretty privilege" is real, and so I want to be careful not to insinuate that anyone who's falling for this is being made a mark, or is reacting to forces that are completely fabricated or artificial.
It is true that beautiful people are treated better and are accommodated. We know that. So in some ways, it's a rational path to start walking down because you sense that there is some return on that investment.
But what I want to bring people back to is, beauty is a depreciating asset by design. Unlike investing in actual capital — which will grow with time, it will become more valuable — when you invest in beauty, the opposite is happening. It's going to require more and more cash to extend that half-life.
ATS: It sounds like this is not by accident, particularly for women. Why is that? What dynamics are at play?
KGT: I just had a wonderful interview on my show with a woman named Tressie McMillan Cottom [who is a sociologist and writer], and I think she really nailed it. She said beauty is about power. Beauty is the only power that women can wield; they can use it, but they can never own it.
My perspective is that women are socialized to view beauty as the most powerful and important social capital that is worth their time to pursue.
But I do think as individuals, we have the ability to positively influence one another and give one another permission to opt out — and maybe you're not opting out all the way. I think a lot of this does come down to survival.
ATS: You mentioned in the book that the subject matter was "mysteriously absent" from personal finance books and sites you've frequented in the past. Why do you think that is?
KGT: The majority of personal finance books and the majority of the personal finance field has historically been written by and for men, which means that men have shaped in subtle and overt ways this field with their experiences, their preferences and their priorities.
By the way, I'm not knocking them. I learned a lot reading the men's money blogs, but obviously they are not going to be able to guide me on, "Hey, this is why your full highlights routine is making you broke." It was just completely out of their scope of reference.
ATS: You provide a strategy to cut back on such expenses called the "hot girl detox." Is this useful to strike a balance?
KGT: I think it's a useful exercise for all the spending that you do. It's just about giving yourself the gift of that insight by sitting down, doing the simple math and then getting curious and experimenting with, "Is this thing giving me the value that I want, and if it's not, what could I try instead?"
You list out all the beauty and personal care spending that you do in a given year, and you annualize those costs. You're going to figure out how they relate back to what you're bringing in income. You're going to start at the bottom and experiment with removing one thing at a time and seeing how it feels.
If you're like me and many other women who have gone through this process, what you're probably going to find is that you are going to get back not just an extraordinary amount of money, but time and mental energy, too.
ATS: Once the reader performs their detox, what should they do with the extra cash?
KGT: The goal really is for that money to go to work for you and your future. What that's going to look like will depend on the situation that you're presently in.
If you have a lot of high-interest debt, then the best thing for you to do with that money is to start attacking the debt.
If you don't have debt, but you also don't really have any cash savings, then saving that money in a high-yield savings account and giving yourself that cash cushion is probably the next best step.
If you've done both of those things already, investing for your future is the best possible thing that you can do. It's the best gift that you can give yourself.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Politico
34 minutes ago
- Politico
House Democratic leaders won't whip against crypto bills
House Democratic leaders will not whip against the landmark cryptocurrency bills that will be on the floor later this week despite opposition from the party's top member on the Financial Services Committee. The decision highlights an ongoing split on the left over the risks and rewards of digital assets. A notice sent to Democrats on Monday by Whip Katherine Clark 's office, which was obtained by POLITICO, sharply criticized both a crypto market structure bill and a Senate stablecoin measure that the lower chamber is slated to vote on, but did not tell members how to vote. The industry-backed bills are poised to split Democrats on the House floor. Financial Services ranking member Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) has sought to rally opposition to the bills, saying they pose a risk to the financial system and would enable corruption by President Donald Trump, whose family runs several crypto ventures. But other Democrats are on board with the GOP-led pro-crypto push, and Republicans are scrambling to win as much bipartisan support as they can before floor votes on Wednesday and Thursday. The market structure bill, led by Financial Services Chair French Hill (R-Ark.), 'has a number of oversights and omissions that, when coupled with the actions of the Executive Branch, raise significant and long-term issues that may undermine the possibilities of new technologies,' Clark's whip notice said. It also noted that Waters 'strongly opposes this bill as written.' Hill's bill, which is expected to be on the floor Wednesday, seeks to divvy up oversight of digital assets between securities and commodities regulators and is the centerpiece of the GOP's crypto policy agenda. It faces an uncertain future in the Senate, despite Banking Chair Tim Scott 's pledge to advance a crypto market structure bill in September. Democratic leaders also did not whip against an earlier GOP-led crypto market structure bill that got 71 Democratic votes on the House floor last year. The House will vote Thursday on bipartisan Senate legislation that would create new, light-touch rules for so-called stablecoins, which are pegged to the value of the dollar. That bill is poised to become the first major crypto law enacted by Congress after House Republicans opted to accept the Senate's approach. 'While this bill moves in the direction of greater regulation, there are no community reinvestment requirements, no third-party vendor federal oversight, and weak federal oversight of stablecoin issuers licensed by states or overseas — unlike regulations governing the banking industry,' the whip notice said of the stablecoin bill. 'In addition, this bill still narrowly permits private commercial companies (e.g., Elon Musk's X) to issue stablecoins, jeopardizing a decades-old separation of banking and commerce created to prevent consolidations of economic and political power.' Waters, who has dubbed this 'anti-crypto corruption week,' is focusing heavily on concerns about Trump's crypto business entanglements in her own whipping efforts. Her office hosted a Democratic staff briefing Monday afternoon featuring a roundtable of consumer advocates. Clark's whip notice also did not provide a vote recommendation for a third crypto measure the House is taking up this week that would ban a central bank digital currency in the U.S., though the vote on that bill is expected to be more partisan.


The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Graham, Blumenthal hail Trump's new Russia sanctions plan
Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who have been pushing for a Russia sanctions bill, on Monday hailed President Trump's threat of tougher sanctions on Moscow if Russian President Vladimir Putin doesn't wind down his country's attacks on Ukraine in the coming weeks. 'It is long overdue for the financial backers of Russia's atrocities in Ukraine to pay a price for buying cheap energy products and marking it up in order to benefit their economies. The days of doing this without consequences are coming to an end,' the senators said in a joint statement after Trump's remarks at the White House. 'The combination of more American-made, European-purchased weapons for Ukraine and tariffs on the financial backers of Putin's brutal war has changed the game.' Trump warned Russia on Monday that he's prepared to levy 100-percent secondary economic sanctions in 50 days, which would target other nations that do business with Russia. 'We're very, very unhappy with [Russia], and we're going to be doing very severe tariffs if we don't have a deal in about 50 days,' Trump said during a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. 'We are very unhappy — I am — with Russia.' Graham and Blumenthal have a Russia sanctions bill with more than 80 co-sponsors in the Senate. The latest version would empower Trump to impose a 500 percent tariff on imports from any nation that purchases Russian uranium, gas and oil. 'Finally, as President Trump indicated, we will join our colleagues in continuing to work with the White House on our bipartisan Russia sanctions legislation that would implement up to 500 percent tariffs on countries that buy Russian oil and gas, and do not help Ukraine,' the senators said Monday. 'The congressional legislation authorizing tariffs and sanctions would truly be a sledgehammer for President Trump to end this war, and it will allow for maximum flexibility to achieve that end.' 'The benefit of our approach is that it blends congressional authorization of tariffs and sanctions with flexibility for presidential implementation, making it rock solid legally and politically,' they added. Trump, who has previously praised Putin, has been expressing increasing frustration with Russia's leader over what he described as disingenuous efforts to end the conflict with Ukraine. Trump campaigned on brokering a peace deal between the warring rivals last year. He reiterated that position during Monday's White House meeting. 'I go home and tell the first lady, 'I spoke with Vladimir today. We had a wonderful conversation.' She says, 'Oh really? Another [Ukranian] city was just hit,'' Trump recalled. 'We're very, very unhappy with them and we're going to be doing very severe tariffs if we don't have a deal in 50 days,' he said. 'Tariffs at about 100 percent.' The White House later clarified that Trump meant 'secondary sanctions' and not tariffs. 'You can do tariffs or you can do sanctions, those are both tools in his toolbox,' Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told reporters after the president's remarks.


Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
Voting in Wisconsin's governor's race is a year away, but the ads are starting
MADISON, Wis. — Wisconsin's race for governor is hitting the airwaves more than a year before voting begins. Republican candidate Bill Berrien announced the purchase of about $400,000 in cable TV, radio and online ads Monday. The buy comes 13 months before the Aug. 11, 2026, primary. Berrien is the first candidate to purchase ads of any kind in the race.