COMMENTS: 62
Is Wearing Makeup a Feminist Act?
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Reproductive Justice headlines via email.
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."
Not surprisingly, cosmetics thus infuriated a misogynistic early 20th Century society that found makeup use insulting and deceiving. According to Riordan, a 1936 Vogue survey of men found that nearly 100 percent of respondents disapproved of noticeable makeup.
But women continued to ignore their husbands' and fathers' requests. Two years later, Volupte introduced two new lipstick shades to American women, labeled "Lady" and "Hussy." "Lady" was marketed toward women who prefer lighter shades and "quiet, smart clothes and tiny strands of pearls," while "Hussy" was developed for women who wear dark shades and "like to be just a little bit shocking," according to Mademoiselle magazine in 1936. "Hussy" outsold "Lady" five to one.
As the golden age of Hollywood began to emerge in the 1930s, however, some widespread opinions regarding cosmetics began to change. The success of Hollywood's heavily made-up stars led society to realize the marketability of makeup. With an increased commercialization of products came an acceptance of cosmetics among those who once deemed them brazen and shameful. Beauty writer Nell Vinick wrote that cosmetics were no longer tied to morality, or the lack thereof, and were "merely symbols of the social revolution that has gone on; the spiritual and mental forces that women have used to break away from conventions and to forward the cause of women's freedom."
NO BOYS ALLOWED
Some may wonder why men never caught onto such trends, choosing instead to go completely au naturale. After all, a look back at centuries-old paintings shows women and men alike caked with powder and lip color. But it wasn't long after the United States achieved independence that men began to assert their masculinity by ridding themselves of cosmetics. This change in attitude traces back to the most curious of places -- the White House itself. Several decades after Ben Franklin ditched his wig and thus the "effete affections of their continental counterparts" in what's labeled the "Great Masculine Renunciation," the 1830s saw a sharp decline in product sales to men after presidential nominee Charles Ogle ridiculed current president Martin Van Buren for using various creams, labeling him effeminate. Soon men began to dodge makeup faster than commitment.
Not that there wasn't any demand for men-centric cosmetics. In 1918, Cutex produced ads complete with coupons for free samples of its manicure products. Ten percent of respondents who requested samples were men. These men, however, never received their swag: Cutex employees intentionally threw out their requests. And in 1918, a journal named Toilet Requisites suggested that beauty-based businesses market products tailor-made for men, only to be laughed off because of society's inflexible stereotypes.
But just before the dawn of the new century came a new man who seemed to finally start turning the tide back: the metrosexual. Gay culture took off, and straight men found themselves mimicking fashion trends once reserved for homosexuals -- namely creams, colognes, and hair products. But, yes, in some cases, even makeup.
But who can we thank for men's newfound attention to looking better, dressing better and -- let's face it -- smelling better? You got it: women. A 1986 survey in Gentleman's Quarterly found that men developed a "more polished appearance" after noticing the refined looks of their female counterparts in the workplace.
So why not celebrate these innate refined tastes of ours by opening our cosmetic bags and embracing our inner make-up artist? Who knows? Maybe soon the words lipstick, eyeshadow, blush, bronzer, and mascara will conjure up feelings of empowerment. It certainly did for our sisters decades -- and even centuries -- back.
Stay up to date with the latest Reproductive Justice headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sojourner on Jan 26, 2008 12:27 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hagwind on Jan 26, 2008 4:21 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Maybe "Sirens" Should Change Its Name to "Superficiality"
Posted by: Juniper
» And what about the time women spend thinking about this too?
Posted by: SalB
» RE: And what about the time women spend thinking about this too?
Posted by: skybluesky
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Jan 26, 2008 5:44 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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: Afban
» 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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: andrewf on Jan 26, 2008 7:48 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: P. Hermes on Jan 26, 2008 8:12 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Jan 26, 2008 8:36 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» eye liner, mascara, etc..is more plastic container than product
Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: eye liner, mascara, etc..is more plastic container than product
Posted by: bitsfick
» RE: eye liner, mascara, etc..is more plastic container than product
Posted by: NoKidding
Comments are closed-
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Jan 26, 2008 8:38 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ankhet on Jan 26, 2008 9:03 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: drmimi94954 on Jan 26, 2008 9:08 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ankhet on Jan 26, 2008 9:11 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: first wave bluestocking on Jan 26, 2008 9:25 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Jan 26, 2008 9:56 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
plur
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lagusta on Jan 26, 2008 11:01 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alternet, you can do better. You usually do.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: shockingly reductionist, simplistic and strange (for Alternet) article
Posted by: hagwind
» RE: shockingly reductionist, simplistic and strange (for Alternet) article
Posted by: hagwind
Comments are closed-
Posted by: morticia on Jan 26, 2008 11:02 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« 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
» RE: imparts that corpse-painted-for-open-casket-viewing look
Posted by: bitsfick
» RE: imparts that corpse-painted-for-open-casket-viewing look
Posted by: skybluesky
» RE: imparts that corpse-painted-for-open-casket-viewing look
Posted by: morticia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: meetmeineleusis on Jan 26, 2008 4:39 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Realliberal87 on Jan 26, 2008 6:12 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jan 27, 2008 7:56 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: YogiBear on Jan 27, 2008 10:21 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ninakat on Jan 27, 2008 1:33 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jaytee on Jan 27, 2008 1:51 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cafesombra on Jan 27, 2008 3:00 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sfdenizen on Jan 27, 2008 10:04 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
» RE: Muslim women covering their hair
Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: I admire non-lipstick lesbians and some Muslim women...
Posted by: morticia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 27, 2008 11:21 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BlueTigress on Jan 28, 2008 5:23 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: skybluesky on Jan 28, 2008 11:01 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gellero on Jan 29, 2008 12:28 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: coldestcaress on Jan 31, 2008 2:11 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob on Feb 1, 2008 1:04 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sojourner on Jan 26, 2008 12:27 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hagwind on Jan 26, 2008 4:21 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Maybe "Sirens" Should Change Its Name to "Superficiality"
Posted by: Juniper
» And what about the time women spend thinking about this too?
Posted by: SalB
» RE: And what about the time women spend thinking about this too?
Posted by: skybluesky
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Jan 26, 2008 5:44 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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: Afban
» 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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: andrewf on Jan 26, 2008 7:48 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: P. Hermes on Jan 26, 2008 8:12 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Jan 26, 2008 8:36 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» eye liner, mascara, etc..is more plastic container than product
Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: eye liner, mascara, etc..is more plastic container than product
Posted by: bitsfick
» RE: eye liner, mascara, etc..is more plastic container than product
Posted by: NoKidding
Comments are closed-
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Jan 26, 2008 8:38 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ankhet on Jan 26, 2008 9:03 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: drmimi94954 on Jan 26, 2008 9:08 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ankhet on Jan 26, 2008 9:11 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: first wave bluestocking on Jan 26, 2008 9:25 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Jan 26, 2008 9:56 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
plur
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lagusta on Jan 26, 2008 11:01 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alternet, you can do better. You usually do.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: shockingly reductionist, simplistic and strange (for Alternet) article
Posted by: hagwind
» RE: shockingly reductionist, simplistic and strange (for Alternet) article
Posted by: hagwind
Comments are closed-
Posted by: morticia on Jan 26, 2008 11:02 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« 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
» RE: imparts that corpse-painted-for-open-casket-viewing look
Posted by: bitsfick
» RE: imparts that corpse-painted-for-open-casket-viewing look
Posted by: skybluesky
» RE: imparts that corpse-painted-for-open-casket-viewing look
Posted by: morticia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: meetmeineleusis on Jan 26, 2008 4:39 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Realliberal87 on Jan 26, 2008 6:12 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jan 27, 2008 7:56 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: YogiBear on Jan 27, 2008 10:21 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ninakat on Jan 27, 2008 1:33 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jaytee on Jan 27, 2008 1:51 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cafesombra on Jan 27, 2008 3:00 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sfdenizen on Jan 27, 2008 10:04 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
» RE: Muslim women covering their hair
Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: I admire non-lipstick lesbians and some Muslim women...
Posted by: morticia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 27, 2008 11:21 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BlueTigress on Jan 28, 2008 5:23 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: skybluesky on Jan 28, 2008 11:01 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gellero on Jan 29, 2008 12:28 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: coldestcaress on Jan 31, 2008 2:11 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob on Feb 1, 2008 1:04 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Updated: Catholic Bishops Embrace Anti-Abortion Terrorizers Missy Smith and Randall Terry
10 Defining Feminist Moments of 2009
Going Undercover in the Crazy, Tragic World of Christian Gay-Conversion Therapy




