RSS

Spas for spoiled little American girls

13 Jan

Yeah.

AURORA, Colo. — It was a day out at the spa for Paige Ehresman and her closest friends. Manicures. Hairdos. Makeup. And some gossip — about second grade.

The spa industry has begun to target children in a big way, going way beyond mother-daughter manicures. Adult spas are adding separate menus of services for girls, usually ages 4 to 14. In most major cities, there are now dedicated day spas for children, offering a range of massages, facials and other treatments for girls (and sometimes boys) too young to have had their first pimple.

“I feel like the best princess in the world,” said Paige, who celebrated her seventh birthday at Sweet and Sassy, a national chain of spas that boasts that its cosmetologists are specially trained to work with children. After the beauty treatments, Paige and her guests walked down a red carpet and disappeared into a hot pink limousine, which took the squealing children on a spin around the parking lot. One 6-year-old guest documented the revelry in a series of selfies.

[…]

The International Spa Association, which tracks industry trends, said that 25 percent of the country’s approximately 20,000 spas now offer services specifically for the under-13 set — up from 15 percent just four years ago. And half of all spas offer services for teenagers, up from a third over the same time period.

Some are new businesses focused exclusively on children, while others have expanded into the child market, offering kid-friendly music, banana-scented facials and an age-appropriate vocabulary — customers are “princesses” and toes are “pigglies.”

The spa association’s president, Lynne McNees, said it was good for girls to learn that beauty treatments can reduce stress and promote health. “It’s very similar to taking little kids to the dentist,” Ms. McNees said. “Let’s get them early, and get those really good habits.”

Most of the child-oriented spas make their money on birthday party packages, billing the events as sophisticated alternatives to a day of pizza and Skee-Ball at the local Chuck E. Cheese. At one New York-area chain, Seriously Spoiled Salon and Spa, parties cost $500 to $3,000, and options include a “bath-bakery” experience, with lotions that smell like edible treats. (Tag line: “Where the main ingredient is you.”)

Lisa Gadzinski, 48, and her sister opened Seriously Spoiled on Long Island in 2008. The business, based in Patchogue, N.Y., has not only weathered the recession, but thrived, expanding to two more locations. Several clients are single fathers, lost in the world of girl-care, who bring in their daughters, Ms. Gadzinski said.

“Don’t we all want to spoil our children?” she asked.

[…]

“I feel reeeeeeeally relaxed,” said Peyton Ruddell, who had just turned 10. She sat on a soft couch with soapy water bubbling at her heels while a cosmetologist, LiShall Michel, 47, clipped her toenails.

Peyton’s mother, Love Ruddell, 37, is a mechanic at the Denver Zoo who wears steel-toed boots and gloves to work, but also wears her fingernails long, manicured and painted a saucy red. She said she tried to teach her daughter that “you can be beautiful and tough.”

“This is honoring the feminine,” Ms. Ruddell added.

Nearby, Ken and Jen Brown raved about the manicure given to their toddler, Faith, 3, as a birthday treat. As Faith scooted her diapered rear out of her seat, Mr. Brown, 41, explained that they had arranged for her to take a ride in the spa’s limousine.

And after that?

“Well,” he said somewhat sheepishly, “we want to get her potty trained.”

Advertisements
 

37 responses to “Spas for spoiled little American girls

  1. Will S.

    January 13, 2015 at 1:20 am

    Reblogged this on Will S.' Culture War Blog.

     
  2. Eric

    January 13, 2015 at 1:26 am

    That whole article is one of the best advertisements for marrying foreign women that I’ve seen in a long time. Anybody who seriously believes anymore that American women are qualified to be mothers, needs to read articles like this.

     
  3. Will S.

    January 13, 2015 at 2:16 am

    Agreed, on both counts.

    Just imagine what these little princesses will be like, too, having been pampered thus by their mothers since age 3!

    I feel for the generation of men to come after the Millennials…

     
  4. Carnivore

    January 13, 2015 at 8:06 am

    It’s also economic. As the 1% get richer, dropping $3K is nothing. For the middle class, that $500 spa treatment for a 3 year old will get put on the credit card.

     
  5. realgaryseven

    January 13, 2015 at 9:30 am

    A three year old in diapers? That says it all.

     
  6. Will S.

    January 13, 2015 at 10:39 am

    @ Carnivore: Yep. Have money; will spend…

    @ RG7: Indeed…

     
  7. Carnivore

    January 13, 2015 at 7:37 pm

    @Will – HA! More like, have no money, charge it!! 🙂

     
  8. Will S.

    January 13, 2015 at 10:40 pm

    @ Carnivore: Yeah, no doubt… 🙂

     
  9. ray

    January 14, 2015 at 1:27 am

    Men freeze and die in America’s streets. (Male) veterans have little or no access to decent medical care. But America has endless money to spend sending her kindergarten daughters to spas to get their toenails painted pink.

    “How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.

    “Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.” (Rev. 18)

     
  10. Will S.

    January 14, 2015 at 1:29 am

    Hear, hear!

    Spot on, ray.

    There will be a Day of Reckoning.

     
  11. Prince LaQroix

    January 14, 2015 at 1:44 am

    Eric: couldn’t have put it better. The types of women these girls will grow up to be makes me shudder. I somehow lucked out.

     
  12. Prince LaQroix

    January 14, 2015 at 1:50 am

    Reblogged this on Forgotten Paths and commented:
    Spas for girls under 13.
    $3000? That’s just obscene.
    Now all of it, I have seen
    As to oblivion we careen.

     
  13. Will S.

    January 14, 2015 at 1:18 pm

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_training#History_in_the_United_States

    Until the mid-1900s, the vast majority of babies finished toilet training by 2 years, and achieved nighttime dryness by 3 years.[8] Since then, the age for toilet training has increased dramatically. The convenience of disposable diapers, pull-up diapers and more efficient laundry facilities may contribute to this trend.

    In 1957, the average age of starting toilet training was still under the age of one year old, 11 months, and 90% of children were dry during the day by 2 years.[8]

    In 2002, the average age that parents recognized their child “showing an interest in using the potty” was 24–25 months, and daytime dryness was achieved on average at almost 3 years of age.[3] Now nighttime accidents are considered normal until 5 or 6 years of age.[9]

     
  14. Eric

    January 14, 2015 at 3:03 pm

    Will:
    I don’t always agree with Laura Schlessinger, but today she said quoted something profound from one of her listeners:

    “I homeschool because I’ve seen the Village and I don’t want it raising my child.”

     
    • Will S.

      January 14, 2015 at 3:04 pm

      Damn straight!

       
  15. Eric

    January 14, 2015 at 3:06 pm

    Will & LeCroix:
    I’ve fairly well decided that I ever marry a foreign girl any daughters we have would likely go to their mother’s country of origin for their education—at least around the secondary level. The culture here is so toxic you not have to look for wives abroad, you practically have to send your daughters out of the country for their own protection.

     
    • Will S.

      January 14, 2015 at 3:08 pm

      Eric, what about private schools, church schools, or homeschooling? Sending them abroad would surely be highly expensive, even moreso than private education etc. there in the States…

       
  16. Eric

    January 14, 2015 at 3:25 pm

    Will:
    It would be option I would consider if a prospective future foreign wife had a large family abroad and lived in a decent neighborhood. Private schools are good but you’d have to screen them because there’s a fair percentage of them headed by Libtards/Progs too. Church schooling and homeschooling would also be good options.

    But of course the first part is that I’d have to marry a foreign girl first, so there’s still plenty of time to decide LOL

     
    • Will S.

      January 14, 2015 at 6:14 pm

      Well, yeah; indeed. 🙂

       
  17. feeriker

    January 15, 2015 at 1:57 am

    Yet another reason to be embarrassed to be a 21st Century American (I think this one is number 1,975, or somewhere near that mark).

     
    • Will S.

      January 15, 2015 at 2:54 am

      Hey, it’s not your fault. 🙂

       
  18. Lena S.

    January 15, 2015 at 9:58 am

    “Don’t we all want to spoil our children?” she asked.

    Uh, no. When did “spoiling” become a good thing? How can someone say this with a straight face? Boggles the mind, but then, there have always been morons; just now they seem to garner a lot of attention because they have a lot of disposable income.

    This is what happens when you give women money, since all but a vanishing few (so few as to be insignificant) are in fact, morons (i.e. mental age of 8 to 12) that need to be managed. I’m serious here – is there anything women do that a reasonable 8-12 year-old couldn’t do?

     
    • Will S.

      January 15, 2015 at 10:01 am

      Indeed. 🙂

       
  19. Will S.

    January 15, 2015 at 10:04 am

    The spa association’s president, Lynne McNees, said it was good for girls to learn that beauty treatments can reduce stress and promote health. “It’s very similar to taking little kids to the dentist,” Ms. McNees said. “Let’s get them early, and get those really good habits.”

    It’s amazing to me that Ms. McNees could compare spa treatments to dental care, and keep a straight face; it’s even more amazing that the NYT writer could just pass over it without comment… Then again, it is the New York Times…

    ‘Let’s get them early’, indeed…

     
  20. Lena S.

    January 15, 2015 at 10:25 am

    @Will S.

    I thought the same think about the dentist comment. WTF? Also note that there is a daughter with a boys’ name (Peyton) with a mother named “Love”. That kind of says it all. Remember when I wrote “What’s in a Name?”

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/11/15/whats-in-a-name/

    (Side note: The link to the Forgetful Muse blog is weird because I deleted that, yet it seems to be up there with nothing on it and someone else’s name on it. Not sure what that’s all about).

     
  21. Lena S.

    January 15, 2015 at 10:37 am

    Somehow I’ve managed to get through life without having been to a spa or getting a manicure, facial or any of that stuff. It’s tough, but doable.

     
  22. Will S.

    January 15, 2015 at 11:07 am

    @ Lena S.: Yes, that annoys me to no end, when boys’ names or family names end up as first names for girls… Ugh.

    I don’t even like ostensibly masculine newfangled boys’ names like ‘Hunter’; it just sounds too try-hard. Want a masculine name for your boy? Name him ‘Michael’ or ‘Robert’, etc. So far, unlike ‘Sean’ or ‘Ryan’, girls whose parents want to name them ‘Michael’ or ‘Robert’ get the ‘a’ suffix attached to them, so there’s no confusing ‘Michael’ or ‘Robert’ as anything other than a masculine name.

    Re: your old blog being taken over: I think blogger allows that, unfortunately, once a BlogSpot blog has been deleted. I’ve noticed it before, and it’s almost always an automated, robo-spam blog, not a real one…

    “Somehow I’ve managed to get through life without having been to a spa or getting a manicure, facial or any of that stuff. It’s tough, but doable.”

    What, and you don’t feel like less of a woman? Why, one might conclude that such things are frivolous and unnecessary! 😉

     
  23. Lena S.

    January 15, 2015 at 12:11 pm

    I didn’t know blogspot did that. Another mystery solved then.

    I don’t like names like Hunter either. I remember somewhere hearing of or seeing at the local park years ago a boy named Catcher. Yeesh. Maybe he has a brother named Centre-Forward.

     
  24. Lena S.

    January 15, 2015 at 12:23 pm

    LOL Oh dear. Didn’t know that either. Of course, the prog parents are probably raising him “gay” anyway, to show the world how enlightened they are, so maybe it’ll all work out. Between that and the princess girls, I think I’m glad I’m getting old!

     
  25. Will S.

    January 15, 2015 at 12:24 pm

    It also sounds like something one would name a dog.

    “Here, Catcher! Catch the ball! Good dog!” 🙂

     
  26. Will S.

    January 15, 2015 at 12:26 pm

    “Of course, the prog parents are probably raising him “gay” anyway, to show the world how enlightened they are, so maybe it’ll all work out.”

    Alas, I can just see him being raised ‘without sexual stereotypes’, so if he ends up gay or trans, nobody should be surprised…

    “Between that and the princess girls, I think I’m glad I’m getting old!”

    Me too! 🙂

     
  27. feeriker

    January 15, 2015 at 11:03 pm

    Yes, that annoys me to no end, when boys’ names or family names end up as first names for girls… Ugh.

    I’d seriously prefer to see parents give their children numbers rather than some of the names that have become popular among the SWPL classes (and don’t even get me started on what nonsense urban blacks have wrought in the naming department). Honestly, one of these days my tongue is going to break free of its restraint and say, probably at the wrong time and in the wrong place, “what the F*** is with the unisex name, and have you not given an ounce of conscious thought to the ‘aging factor’ (imagine the child born in the late 60s whose hippy parents named her ‘Groovy’). Are you that f***ing shallow and stupid?”

     
    • Will S.

      January 16, 2015 at 12:25 am

      Yes, they are, though they don’t realize it. 🙂

       
  28. Will S.

    January 16, 2015 at 12:36 am

    “I’d seriously prefer to see parents give their children numbers rather than some of the names that have become popular among the SWPL classes”

    I remember a ‘Peanuts’ character who had a number instead of a name:

    http://peanuts.wikia.com/wiki/555_95472

    I don’t know why it never caught on. I mean, numbers are “gender-neutral” and not “cis-normative”; why, you’d think progs would be all over that, numbering all their children.

    “This is my offspring, non-gender-specific human unit #209.”

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s