Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Reproductive Justice and Gender

Is Wearing Makeup a Feminist Act?

By Kate Ward, Sirens Magazine. Posted January 26, 2008.


Forget thinking beauty products are one more form of patriarchy. Your next trip to Sephora might as well be a bra-burning.
Advertisement

With all the self-tanners on the market today, it's hard to believe that women in the 18th and 19th centuries sought white, pale skin -- the beauty ideal at the time. But just as we use product to make us look like we returned from a week in Cancun, Victorian women used primitive cosmetics to achieve their version of the perfect skin tone.

Interesting dichotomy, sure, but more interesting still is the political ramifications -- or lack thereof -- of a few ounces of powder brushed onto the skin of different eras. Victorian women likely weren't as worried about setting their gender back a decade or two just by going all goth with the face makeup -- but does hitting the Nars Laguna powder these days make us traitors to our gender? Some radical feminists have been known to blame patriarchy for coercing women into using beauty products. On the surface, they have a point: After all, anything we're expected to do that men aren't is cause for suspicion. But a look at the history of beauty products suggests otherwise:

A GIRL-POWERED INDUSTRY

First -- and maybe even foremost -- women have always been the pioneers of the cosmetics industry. Names like Helena Rubinstein, Elizabeth Arden, Madam C.J. Walker, Estee Lauder and Mary Kay Ash are still recognized to this day, nearly a century after starting their own companies. And though entrepreneurs like Hazel Bishop and Annie Turnbo Malone may be less well-known, they were responsible for the development of smudge-free lipstick and African-American-centric cosmetics, respectively -- no small feats (and evidence of some great business minds).

But women's leadership in makeup dates back way further than that -- and further than the word "feminism" itself. Though Egyptians were known to use kohl (an early form of eyeliner/mascara) and Native Americans were recognized for their plant-infused formulas meant to fix facial flaws, the majority of cosmetic recipes are traced back to Queen Elizabeth and other women of the Victorian era, according to "Inventing Beauty" author Teresa Riordan. Most were simple homemade creations, made by bringing egg whites and alum to a boil until it thickened. Newspapers chronicled similar recipes, but no one thought to make a business out of such products until Harriet Hubbard Ayer decided to market her homemade brand of beauty cream in the late 19th century, making her one of the first female businesswomen in the industry.

Of course, the industry did host its fair share of male moguls. Max Factor emerged as the leading Hollywood cosmetics expert in the 1920s and 1930s. But behind every man in the business was a woman's voice: T.L. Williams -- the man who created the first modern form of Maybelline mascara -- was inspired by his sister Mabel's makeup techniques.

PAINTED LADIES

Widespread criticism of makeup existed as far back as the early 1600s, when young women would mix household products to create rouges and lip colors. Puritan Thomas Tuke, for one, wrote a discourse in 1616 condemning makeup for creating a "false face." When cosmetics use popularized in the 19th Century, many continued to see makeup purely as a mask for women's sins and vices. As author Kathy Peiss writes in her book, "Hope In A Jar: The Making of America's Beauty Culture," moralists felt these women "invoked Jezebel." And for quite some time, prostitutes were the only women to brave a "painted face." But with the female oppression of the 1800s came a sexual awakening, prompting many assertive women to wear cosmetics to enhance their sexuality and individuality.

Much to the chagrin of traditionalists, women began to promote their independence through rouges and lipsticks, bucking the homemaker stereotype in favor of dancing, city life and fashion. Though they continued to live the chaste life expected of them, women began to define their individuality through made-up facades that seemed to reflect a newfound sexual yearning.

But men feared women's new sense of identity, believing that such attention to makeup and beauty was only a cover-up for their desire to "unsex" themselves and demand equality, according to Peiss. Women who used cosmetics were viewed as rebellious, uncontrollable and dangerous.

It was only a matter of time before lipsticks and rouges made their way into the workplace. Women who predated Rosie the Riveter were indeed some of the first to shamelessly display their cosmetics use. Peiss writes, "Moving into public life, they staked a claim to public attention, demanded that others look. This was not a fashion dictated by Parisian, or other authorities, but a new mode of feminine self-presentation, a tiny yet resonant sign of a larger cultural contest over women's identity."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: makeup, cosmetics, feminism, patriarchy

Kate Ward is a recent graduate of the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University and has worked for several publications in her lifetime, including Glamour, SCREEN Magazine, and Today's Chicago Woman. She currently works at Entertainment Weekly.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Reproductive Justice and Gender! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Youth is lost on the young so the aging buy it in jars and tubes.
Posted by: Sojourner on Jan 26, 2008 12:27 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The dominant style of makeup attempts to preserve the look of a young girl. I realized that one time when a young lady boarding the same plane I was on stood in the doorway. She had no makeup on and yet her skin, lips, and eyes gave the feminine appearance we see in advertising or on television. I guessed her to have been 12 or 13.

It reminds me of the hero's mother character in "Brazil" whose repeated trips to the plastic surgeon in the hyper-modern world of the tale ends up with her physically falling apart. All her tucks untuck and her tightening melts down.

Men today use growth hormones not only for sports but to preserve their youth. "Looking old" is still the greatest disgrace in a culture that denies death. The malady of youth worship pervades our society. We will do anything, including injure ourselves, to not grow up.

As I am a male and no longer following feminist preachments, it is only when men are blamed for attraction to young girls that the hypocrisy of leading feminists, made-up meticulously, gets my goat.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Maybe "Sirens" Should Change Its Name to "Yawns"?
Posted by: hagwind on Jan 26, 2008 4:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Read my (unpainted) lips. What wearing makeup "means" varies from place to place, time to time, and individual to individual. In one scene, a 12-year-old sneaking out of the house with makeup on is an act of rebellion and declaration of independence. In another, sneaking out with no makeup on is an act of rebellion and declaration of independence. For one woman, making herself up and decking herself out is a prelude to performance -- a kind of theater. For another woman (or maybe the same woman on a different day), it's a form of concealment. Let's not get hung up on "makeup is good" or "makeup is bad" or "why wearing makeup is a feminist thing to do" or "why wearing makeup makes you a tool of the patriarchy." On the individual level, it's worth asking oneself questions like "Can I imagine leaving the house without my face on?" (Not unlike "Can I get through a whole social event without drinking any alcohol?") On the social level, the questions might include "How much money are we spending on cosmetics?" and "Are they safe?" and "What are the side effects and possible long-term damage?" and "What are the cosmetics advertisers really selling?" The same kind of questions we ask, or should be asking, about cars and professional football, stuff like that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I love these articles.
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Jan 26, 2008 5:44 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The modern feminist is so confused, paranoid, manipulative, and probably bored. Can't makeup just be makeup?

It's so easy to make this stuff up as you go:


Is tying your shoes a feminist act? Or is it an oppressive, misogynistic tradition imposed upon women by the patriarchy?

The first thing we should ask is why a larger percentage of men's shoes have laces than women's shoes. By denying women the opportunity to tie their own shoes, our male-dominated society reduces their ability to take control over their shoes, their feet, and by extension, their lives. Furthermore, it implies that women cannot tie their own shoes, reducing them to children.

In those cases where women's shoes do have laces, this represents the bondage that our male-dominated society has over women. It not only symbolizes the "tying down" of women to domestic life and reproduction, but also violent pornographic acts where women are tied up.

Some prostitutes and go-go dancers embrace high-heeled and even open-toed shoes as a means of using their foot-sexuality as power over money and over men's eyes and minds. But in reality, they are deluding themselves by accepting the role of foot-object-commodity imposed by the partriarchy.

In order for feminism to move forward, and cast off the buckles of patriarchy, we must first understand the role of shoes and laces in our lives, and how they have been used historically as tools of control and oppression. Thank you, sisters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I love these articles. Posted by: R.I.P.
» RE: I love these articles. Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: I love these articles. Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: I love these articles. Posted by: morticia
» Foot Bottoms.... Posted by: gellero
» Unlike.... Posted by: morticia
» RE: I love these articles. Posted by: hagwind
» LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL Posted by: gellero
» Sorry, kep Posted by: MartianBachelor
article misses several things
Posted by: andrewf on Jan 26, 2008 7:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I’m worried that the author never mentions that some chemicals in commonly-used cosmetics are known to cause cancer (especially breast cancer). More information can be found at this website:
thinkbeforeyoupink

Another good site with resources:
http://bcaction.org/

The author claims that wearing makeup can be an act of creativity and individual expression. But it seems to me that most women in cosmetics ads look very much the same. There are never any lines or wrinkles. Their pores are not visible. Now part of this is computer retouching. But the point is that ideal that women are pressured to strive for is always the same. On the whole, women are allowed very little variation in how they can apply their makeup in our culture.

Referring to applying makeup to the face, Philosopher Sandra Bartky writes, “It might be described as painting the same picture over and over again with minor variations. Little latitude is permitted in what is considered appropriate make-up for the office and for most social occasions; indeed the woman who uses cosmetics in a genuinely novel and imaginative way is liable to be seen not as an artist but as an eccentric.”

Don't get me wrong. Neither I nor Bartky are saying that the way to equality is to encourage women to wear makeup more creatively. Hiding one's natural facial features with chemicals in order to look more "attractive" is a problem in itself. But can we please stop pretending that applying makeup is an outlet for creative and artistic expression? It's not.

The author also quotes a statistics about men disapproving of makeup. This is misleading. What I’ve found from talking to men about this is that they only disapprove of makeup if it is obvious that a woman is wearing it. In other words, if a woman has on a lot of makeup and it shows, men often say they disapprove. But what it really means is that they’d rather women be “beautiful enough” (according to how it’s defined in our culture) to not have to wear makeup. But rest assured that if a woman who is not conventionally-attractive does not wear makeup, many men would think her more attractive if she wore makeup on (and would prefer she wear it).

And finally, the fact that some cosmetics companies are headed by women in no way makes these companies, their products, and the message they sell women any better. They are still making millions of dollars by selling women harmful products that are supposed to make them more attractive to men--while women and girls are dying of breast cancer and eating disorders.

An excellent analysis of the feminine beauty practices, their harms to women, their roots in patriarchy, and the way they are justified by third-wave so-called “feminists” can be found in Sheila Jeffreys’s book Beauty and Misogyny. I highly recommend it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

To the author of the article:
Posted by: P. Hermes on Jan 26, 2008 8:12 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are you merely a shallow person with no sense of self-worth or cannot see the worthiness of the human spirit and form sans artifice?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Poised on the edge of planetary demise
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Jan 26, 2008 8:36 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Poised on the edge of planetary demise, glamourtrash is just toxic landfill. Make up and most other personal care products are invented needs that waste resources to create, package, sell and dispose of.
It's all garbage. Add animal testing, cancer causing ingredients, bazillions of dollars women spend on beauty products instead of spending that money for more critical things...absolutely non essential and wasteful.
If we separate what is seen as essential self care items from the non-essential ones, we would see most beauty products are fluff.
Essential: soap, toothpaste, shampoo,conditioner, lotion (oil), deodorant, nail clippers, pumice stones, lip balm.
Maybe a few more items.
Non-essential: base, rouge, eye shadow, lipstick,nail polish,fake nails, glitter make-up, hair dyes, hair straighter, tanning gels, and multitudes more. It all ends up GARBAGE in landfill and chemicals leach into the water table, yadda ya.
Instead of self-beauty, we need to keep mother earth beautiful. And the cosmetic industry just trashes the earth.
(Apologizes to a few cosmetic companies using all organic, cruetly free, recycled and recyclable materials, etc)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Read "The Beauty Myth" by Naomi Wolf
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Jan 26, 2008 8:38 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Read "The Beauty Myth" by Naomi Wolf- a bit outdated but still true.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NOOOO!!!
Posted by: ankhet on Jan 26, 2008 9:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please stop obsessing about trivialities! Makeup is customary in some periods and not in others, for some castes and not for others. Indian mystics wear makeup; Native warriors wore makeup. Alexander the Great, Napoleon, etc. didn't care about what shade of lipstick or blush they used the day they invaded wherever. They just did it. There were also lots of kings who wore makeup - most of the Louis's and his courtiers, the Egyptian pharaohs and their courtiers, probably Mesopotamians and ancient Greeks - but they didn't waste their energy obsessing about makeup. Elizabeth I, Catherine the Great dragged around at least 2 pounds of makeup on a daily basis at a time when the personal ornamentation codes for commoners were pretty strict.

Can we please get past that? You'll never lead if you worry about how you look on a horse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Maiden Voyage to Sephora...
Posted by: drmimi94954 on Jan 26, 2008 9:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I made my first visit to Sephora a few weeks ago. Much like going into an opium den. Pleasant perky people pushing tiny pots of 40 dollar special eye creams, lip products, all sorts of silliness. Some products even in the 80-100 dollar range for a single item.
In the midst of a recession, it is truly OBSCENE to write about the need of women to spend the equivalent of a day's worth of food for a family of four for beauty products.
Just another sign of the affluenza and frivolity that occupies the minds of many "progessives."
Sticking to my discount store and drug store products.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NOOOO!!! part 2
Posted by: ankhet on Jan 26, 2008 9:11 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My point is, let's obsess about improving the world, not what we smear on our faces. Focus on more important matters than the few always offered to women - food, sex, fashion, makeup/hair...shoppin etc etc.

Stop Bridget Jonesing your way through life and get something done!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: NOOOO!!! part 2 Posted by: coldestcaress
difference between skincare and makeup
Posted by: first wave bluestocking on Jan 26, 2008 9:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Using skincare products to guard against skin cancer and damaging free radicals in a polluted city is different from feeling obliged to spend over a hundred a month on makeup and painstaking time and effort to be suitable to leave the house. It's a fun form of art when it's done for the right reason. But I watched a history on makeup documentary as a kid, and a line from it stuck with me. A man on it said, "these women would have been nothing without their makeup." I don't cater to that ideal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What about
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Jan 26, 2008 9:56 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
all the emo loser dudes who wear more makeup than any teenage girl? You mean they're feminists and not just whinging jackasses?

plur

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

shockingly reductionist, simplistic and strange (for Alternet) article
Posted by: lagusta on Jan 26, 2008 11:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My comments are too long for this box, so I blogged about this bizarre article here.

Alternet, you can do better. You usually do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The irony....
Posted by: morticia on Jan 26, 2008 11:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...is that makeup looks a lot better on very young skin. On older women (and the occasional man), it imparts that corpse-painted-for-open-casket-viewing look...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The irony.... Posted by: hagwind
» RE: The irony.... Posted by: NoKidding
» RE: The irony.... Posted by: morticia
Ladies
Posted by: meetmeineleusis on Jan 26, 2008 4:39 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Makeup makes you look like a clown, sans rubber nose and floppy shoes.

Pass on the makeup. (it's loaded with formaldehyde and will age you prematurely anyway)

Just wash your face and apply a modest moisturizer/sunblock. It's all you, or anyone, needs and you'll be healthier for it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: Makeup
Posted by: Realliberal87 on Jan 26, 2008 6:12 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author of that article has a good point.
Not only should feminuts wear a huge amount of makeup, some should wear bags on their heads.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can we please retire...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jan 27, 2008 7:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can we please retire the " is blank a feminist act" header?

I'm still waiting for "Is having a vagina a feminist act?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's next, fashion?
Posted by: YogiBear on Jan 27, 2008 10:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Would you say that buying obscene amount so f clothes only to toss them out half a year later is feminist? Would you say that wearing high heels if feminist, even knowing women only got to wear them once men were tired of it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sirens brings us another hard-hitting story!
Posted by: ninakat on Jan 27, 2008 1:33 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I always read these articles in this magazine--hoping that once something approaching intelligent, nuanced reporting might occur--and I'm always disappointed. Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards said it eight years ago in Manifesta--if you have time to obsess about whether wearing glitter nail polish is a "feminist act," then you're probably white, middle-class, educated, and privileged beyond belief. This issue is such fluff, and the fact that the media talks about Hillary's looks and Dennis Kucinich's "hottie" wife says that: YES, U.S. CULTURE IS DEEPLY OBSESSED WITH ISSUES OF BEAUTY AND APPEARANCE, ESPECIALLY AS IT LINKS TO THE REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN!!!

As I recall, there was an article on wearing high heels and there was an article on the difficulties of being a "heterosexual" single woman--both news articles in Sirens. These aren't articles about real oppressions and inequalities. Feminism right now should focus on things that really matter--and in my world, it does.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

totally relevant
Posted by: jaytee on Jan 27, 2008 1:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a feminist. And I love wearing makeup. To me, it's all about pampering myself and emphasizing my features. I'm glad that I get to do that. In the 21st century I have so many viable options on how to live my life: I don't have to get married and I don't have to have kids and I can have an amazingly successful career. I can spend my money on whatever I want. I can also choose not to wear make-up and wear pyjamas all day long on my day off, if I feel like it.
Let's not kid ourselves, humans are shallow and trivial. There is absolutely no way for us to escape the fact the we judge by appearances. We can only arm ourselves with the awareness that we do.
I love make-up. I like getting dressed up and I love wearing high heels. But I don't feel like I have to, and I definitely don't think it's anti-feminist to enjoy it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: totally relevant Posted by: P. Hermes
» RE: totally relevant Posted by: skybluesky
The values of a $20 hooker
Posted by: cafesombra on Jan 27, 2008 3:00 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, Alternet's first rule of comments is no personal attacks toward writer's so, I won't mention my opinion of Ms. Ward's mental skills.

Really sad when women sing praises for clown colors. Try reading "Is Your Lipstick Giving You Cancer?" (you'll have to cut and paste, the url is too long for the comment sheet)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
pages/live/articles/health/
thehealthnews.html?in_article
_id=499967&in_page_id=1797

Is it a feminist act to shop til you drop for ridiculous luxury items, and if so please move to another planet. Try reading this National Geographics article published years ago re "As Consumerism Spreads, Earth Suffers" (2004) excepted here:

"...Some aspects of rampant consumerism have resulted in startling anomalies. Worldwatch reports that worldwide annual expenditures for cosmetics total U.S. $18 billion; the estimate for annual expenditures required to eliminate hunger and malnutrition is $19 billion..."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/
news/2004/01/0111_040112_
consumerism.html

Please join the 21st century. We can't afford 20$ hooker values anymore.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» amen! Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: amen! Posted by: NoKidding
» I love lipstick feminism Posted by: MartianBachelor
I admire non-lipstick lesbians and some Muslim women...
Posted by: sfdenizen on Jan 27, 2008 10:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... because they don't give a rat's ass if men think they're sexy or not. The Muslim women in my family are strong independent women who dress very simply, cover their hair (by choice), don't wear make-up or high-heeled painful shoes, and don't spend oodles of money on fashion and its trappings. Same with many of my lesbian friends -- except the covering the hair part :) I feel they're not enslaved to the male gaze and thus much freer to be themselves and focus on what's really valuable in their lives.

Of course, I'm a gay male, so I most likely don't represent most straight males' views. Or do I?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Muslim women covering their hair Posted by: BlueTigress
Makeup is usually made from PETROLEUM which comes from
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 27, 2008 11:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATING Saudi Arabia which has no fucking respect for women and children and kills the working class to DEATH ! My wife doesn't wear makeup and still ok.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Color Trends
Posted by: BlueTigress on Jan 28, 2008 5:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
White women went pale pre-Coco Chanel to show that they did not have to work outside because working outside was seen as low-class. When Coco Chanel went to the tropics in the winter one year and came back with a tan, all of a sudden being tan was seen as being able to afford to goof off in the sun. Then came the whole beach-culture thing so being tan became part of the description for being healthy and normal. Duh, people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Some radical feminists have been known to blame patriarchy for coercing women into using beauty..."
Posted by: skybluesky on Jan 28, 2008 11:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Some radical feminists have been known to blame patriarchy for coercing women into using beauty products."

This isn't a radical feminist perspective. It is also held by many nonradical feminists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Guy with Makeup
Posted by: gellero on Jan 29, 2008 12:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who you kidding???? I'm a guy (at least DNA type + Penis ) and I'd wear makeup if I thought it would get me laid more or attract pretty people...........wouldn't take a 'matriarchy' to convince me to do it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hm.
Posted by: coldestcaress on Jan 31, 2008 2:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I agree that the "Is [blank] a feminist act?" title is irrelevant, I can't help but wonder, after reading some of these comments...

When did being a feminist become about bludgeoning other women about the head with YOUR ideals?

And here I was, thinking that the feminist movement had given me the right to make my own decisions as a woman... apparently not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Back in the day, feminists were also environmentally aware, they advocated going natural
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob on Feb 1, 2008 1:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
meaning they understood that cosmetics had cancer causing chemicals, and that going natural or mostly natural was much healthier, and if you were concerned with your health then you were also committing an environmentalist act for your body, your self, and the earth. It's odd that those ideas have become disconnected from some feminists thought.

Do whatever you want, whatever makes you happy. But to wear cosmetics as a feminist act? Well, ok if that's what makes you happy. It's funny though, I remember the time when it was vigorously argued that wearing no makeup was a feminist act, and those women who wore make up were just catering to misogynist men and the patriarchal industries that force women to have an unrealistic standard of beauty. The stereotype was that a feminist woman would wear no makeup and not shave her legs for men. Of course over the years, we then had feminists who argued that being feminine was part of feminism,and that therefore included frilly outfits, pink colors, dresses, shaved legs, and make up. Now the opposite of being natural is argued, and somewhat absurdly I add, that somehow putting chemicals on your face makes you more feminist. Whatever makes you happy.

Make up. There's animal testing, and the cancer causing chemicals, and the smearing and unpleasant odors and textures that aren't natural. But if that's what makes you happy, go ahead. It doesn't like a consciousness raising act to me, but what do I know.

I do know that I think that being natural or mostly natural conveys more of one's genuine self and natural beauty than enhancements that smell, drip, smear, clot, and clump. But that's just me. Whatever makes you happy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]