How TikTok’s “Types of Pretty” Have Their Roots In Eugenics

Make it stand out

Trends come and go, some more questionable than others, but have any of them had you thinking, “Hmm, I wonder what kind of pretty I am…”? If not, you’re a lucky soul who hasn’t had the misfortune of finding yourselves on the specific corner of TikTok where there is an ongoing slew of content trying to get you to label what you look like. Specifically, asking, “What type of pretty are you?” 

Sometimes, a girl will pose with a filter that all so subtly changes her eye shape and gives her some bonus lashes and lets the comments decide what type she is. Other times, an influencer runs through different pictures of beautiful women, while trying to get you to categorise yourself as fox pretty, cat pretty, model pretty, or natural pretty. Whatever the hell those combinations of words mean - a round face over a pointed one, a wide nose or an upturned one - the need to categorise our and others' physical appearances isn't new, but how it is being repackaged is a slippery slope into outright misogyny, racism and literal eugenics.

At the surface of this trend, all appears harmless. Yet there's something to be said about how irresponsible it is to have women or, more specifically, young girls analyse their appearances to try and fit into an entirely made-up, nonsense filing system. The only outcome is to highlight parts of ourselves that we don't like, where we may have never noticed them before. Lead example: the coining of terms like ‘hip dips’, which never existed as an insecurity prior to the phrase's existence.

As someone who spent most of her teens and a concerning portion of her early 20s trying to work out how pretty she was, I would rather not start my mid-20s and onwards pondering on what type of animal I look like -  particularly not as a Black woman. 

___STEADY_PAYWALL___

Though I would like to assume that the intended purpose was to provide an identity for everybody, I can't shake the creepy feeling I get from a trend that aligns itself so much with classifications. Before expanding the TikTok beauty trend to eugenics pipeline, I should first establish what eugenics is:

Disclaimer - for the purpose of this article, this is an extremely simplified definition.

'Eugenics' is the scientifically inaccurate and immoral theory of "racial improvement". It's believed that human beings could be perfected by eliminating so-called “undesirable traits” through genetics and breeding. Eugenics is morally and historically rooted in xenophobia, anti-Blackness, antisemitism, sexism, colonialism and imperialism.

Despite being baseless and generally violent, eugenics – as a tool of white supremacy can and will find ways to adapt to our current society. 

Looking at the roundness of your face or the distance between your eyes to determine your attractiveness is arguably a version of watered-down entry-level eugenics. By demarking different types of pretty as more desirable than others, those in one of the less sought-after types is automatically placed as lower than those in a more celebrated looks. I saw a comment on one of these TikTok videos saying something like, "I'm bunny pretty; how do I be fox pretty?" which only exemplifies how adding the ‘pretty’ suffix to categorisations will never eradicate the inherent hierarchy produced when allotting each other and ourselves into different groups.

As luck would have it, I had the misfortune of coming across a TikTok where it was sharing the difference between an 'angel skull' and a 'witch skull'. The image labelled 'angel skull' had features like a petite nose and a sharp jawline. However, the 'witch skull' was depicted with a hooked nose and a weaker chin. Given that the media depiction of witches is rooted in antisemitism, it’s hard to understand what this particular classification can be alluding to, if not that.

More recently, a 'canthal tilt' filter has made its way onto the current digital trend cycle. But what is a ‘canthal tilt’? The ‘canthi’ are the corners of your eyes, and the ‘tilt’ is basically the angle at which your eyes sit when you draw a horizontal line through the inner and outer corners. Whilst many are using the filter to determine the perfect angle for their eyeliner, others are shamelessly using it to judge whether or not someone is attractive — a positive canthal tilt, where one's eyes angle upwards, is considered attractive. A negative canthal tilt, where the eyes are dangled downwards, is considered unattractive.

Let's please free ourselves from the spiritual bondage of obsessing over the aesthetics of facial features. The compulsion to highlight and categorise what features are desirable is unsubtly veiled in various flavours of white supremacy. More often than not, the faces being heralded as acceptable are ones with eurocentric features.

At the risk of being dramatic, there's something very sinister about how eugenics can seamlessly merge and rebrand to something undetectable or palatable, such as in the form of a TikTok trend. But the classification of our bodies is nothing new; look back at the times when magazines or blogs would describe women’s bodies as ‘apple’ or ‘pear-shaped’. Maybe you’ve heard about the ‘Kibbe body-type system’, which has been dusted off and revived by the digital age. It was created by image consultant David Kibbe in the 80s, whose book lists 13 “image identities” that are grouped into five main families – those being ‘dramatics’, ‘classics’, ‘naturals’, ‘gamines’, and ‘romantics’ and outlines how to determine which type you are.

The existence of this type of content lends itself to the system of desirability politics without us even realising it. These trends are setting themselves up to be hijacked by right-winged 'trad fem' white women, who I’m sure would have no problem deciding what features are ‘more feminine’ than others. Something that is reminiscent of current TERF rhetoric is seeking to invalidate the womanhood of Trans women. Furthermore, when it comes to darker skinned Black women – especially those with ‘stronger’ features, are masculinised and accused of ‘secretly being men’. In both circumstances, the focus it places on perceived femininity is dangerously transphobic. 

By getting comfortable with the idea of being categorised in any form, even if it is seemingly harmless, we unknowingly set ourselves up into toxic ways of thinking. The narrative you create for yourself won’t only warp your own self-perception but your perception of other people and how you interact with them.

Words: Tola Folarin-Coker