Post Hoc Rationalisation

I was listening to a radio phone-in programme yesterday where the subject of the moment was makeup in schools.

After listening to the opinions of the callers, it struck me that this is one of those subjects where people have opinions that aren't rationally considered. They are essentially emotional judgements for which rational arguments are made post hoc, almost all of which don't stand up to scrutiny, which is usually the case in post hoc rationalisations and the result of the human condition.

Some justified cosmetics being used by girls under the age of 16 as a means of gaining self-confidence, whereas the counter argument was that self-confidence should therefore be taught in schools, but not allowed through the use of cosmetics. Easier said than done, when one considers that a lack of self-confidence is invariably why cosmetics are used by women over the age of 16. A lack of self-confidence is at the root of a lot of things we, as humans, do. 

The judgement on cosmetics being used by school children is invariably one made on the basis of one's own past experience - if you weren't allowed to use cosmetics as a child, then future children shouldn't. No rational analysis, simply a continuation of what happened to you, but for which you feel compelled to come up with a rational justification. It actually stifles progress and is at the heart of a lot of what ails us as a species. I can think of a lot of hideous things that are perpetuated in this manner.

One caller suggested cosmetics should not be allowed so as to level the playing field, but beauty is not a level playing field to start with. One kid is beautiful and another is ugly - where's the level playing field in that? The use of cosmetics by the ugly kid is that very levelling of the playing field.

Cosmetics are a fashion and there's no justifiable, logical or rational reason why a kid under the age of 16 shouldn't be allowed to utilise fashion, especially when parents utilise fashion when they dress their kids or style their hair.

Could it be to do with the sexualisation of children? However, it's the very act of prohibiting cosmetics use by children until they reach puberty and beyond that creates this sexualisation link, which is entirely contextual. The link is created by the action.

All girls try to emulate their mothers - we smile when a kid plasters itself in its mother's makeup. They also care for dolls, which emulate their mothers. Why don't we frown when this happens in the same manner we frown at childhood cosmetic use?

I too feel kids under the age of 16 shouldn't use cosmetics, but I can't think of a single, rational argument why not. Can you?