Apr 162012
Beloved readers, I have received more than one inquiry about make up reviews.
I am flattered that my reviews are thorough enough to be helpful, and always appreciate suggestions of where I can improve, or future areas of interest to blog about. Make up and its whimsical world will get some attention from me in 2012 –but not in the form of reviews. There are hordes of bloggers and vloggers that do a far better job than I ever could.
I will be touching on make-up in regards to Femininity in greater detail in the coming months, but the short of it is this:
I believe make-up is to enhance, balance, and “blur” imperfections in that order.
I have had at least six different MUAs from MAC, to Bobbi Brown, to Nars counters catch me on the rare occasions I wore full-face make up and not believe I was wearing any make-up at all –then ask about my application methods. I have also had three (Clinique, Lancome, Urban Decay) call me over upon hearing I am not wearing foundation and ask me what I do to take care of my skin.
I am glad to be able to say: It is NOT my genes. I’m not one of those women blessed with “perfect skin”. I had acne that only Accutane and a clean diet could fix. From the age of ten until the age of 22 (I turned 25 this year), my face was COVERED in PATCHES of PURPLE scars and CYSTIC NODES.
I learned how to wield make-up with an expert touch from a young age, in order to curtail a fraction of the bullying and torment I was put through by my classmates. Hence, now that my skin is clear, I work hard to keep it 98% flawless at all times. I invest heavily in skincare and rely on extensive skincare routines, more so than extensive make-up application to allow me “wake up beautiful(ish)”.
I ABSOLUTELY recognize that make-up can enhance the fine-as-it-is natural and de-emphasize the not-so-awesome natural.
That fits under the “blur” category, in my opinion and that is just what make-up is designed to do! When my skin rejects a new product or I have one of those random “Darnit, I’m going to break out ’cause I want to –deal with it!” skin days, I reach for the tinted moisturizer and treat my skin to even more attention so I can get back to wearing just my usual sunscreen ASAP.
Make-up is not to make you something you are not. (What you are is just blasted wonderful in and of itself!) It took me twelve years to get to that point. My belief in that statement does waver from time to time, to be brutally honest with you, beloved readers.
This make-up “thing” can be a touchy issue, because as women, society socializes us and objectifies us in a very particular way that has a great deal to do with our appearance and the Eurocentric beauty standard. This can be even more delicate an issue for WOC like myself, who have colonialism, caste systems, colorism, slavery, xenophobia, and racism to add into the mix.
I understand.
If you do not have what the Eurocentric beauty standard says you must to be beautiful, it is worth asking yourself: ”Do I really need _____ to be beautiful”?
The cosmetic industry, like the fashion industry does push a certain look. A bone is thrown here or there to “diversity”, but there is a Euro-centric standard of beauty that is pushed across the globe, that few women, even supermodels, can achieve.
That doesn’t make it the “right” one. It is the profitable one.
Gorgeous eyes do not require a full fringe of lashes. Nor does it require blue, green, grey, or hazel irises, round eyes, cat eyes, almond eyes, or a defined crease.
Gorgeous skin can be matte, glowy, and for some complexions and features “shiny” is just right!
Not everyone needs blush –some complexions do not even show a “flush”; painting one on can look bizarre, even if it is “accepted” by the beauty standard that rules your culture. For some ladies, bronzer and highlighter are what will enhance your gorgeous deep tones –not a faux flush.
Not everyone needs bronzer. Some of us were meant to be pale –no complexion is superior to another. The idea itself makes absolutely not sense, biologically speaking. “Nurture” and socio-economics have tried to make that case –not nature. No matter what history and the “shenanigans” of cultures towards one another have wrought, that truth remains.
Not all eyebrows need to be full. Delicate brows look right on some faces, full brows are best on others. Find what works for you –not what’s “in”.
I have an oval-shaped face. That means it is balanced, supposedly. It is no requirement for “beauty”. (Some women are having their jaw bones, shaved to achieve heart and oval-shaped faces!) Women far, far, far,far, far lovelier than myself have square, round, oblong, and diamond faces –do not try to contour your face to death for a shape you do not have. They are all lovely when they are “rocked” by a woman who knows how to show off the unique beauty each one possesses. I know –cheesy– but, true.
I would also like to say, to the ladies who are still battling acne and choose to go through life make-up free:
Grace, courage, peace, and success to you! It is hard to understand how painful that walk is, unless you’ve walked it yourself. Having done so, I know you must create your own space for dealing with it emotionally and to deal with society (which rarely responds to the issue with tact and decency). Whether or not that space includes make-up is a personal one (as mine did), that I highly respect. I respect your battle, ladies, I absolutely respect it.
To be clear: I do not dislike make-up. I do not love it either. It is just a tool.
All too often society tells us as women we “NEED” it in a way that is rather unhealthy. No woman NEEDS make-up. I firmly believe that.
The real issue is that society at large NEEDS to learn tact, respect, and to mature enough to recognize beauty is NOT the end all be all of another human’s worth. That typed and read, since that will never happen until that occurs, I make no judgments about where a woman falls on choosing to use or not use make-up, so long as she understands and accepts the ramifications (good and bad) of her choice (though, the fact women must choose is unfair in and of itself, but that is for another blog to parse out).
If you love a full face of make-up –by all means enjoy it! Please recognize what it can and cannot do for you in regards to relationships (social, professional, romantic). Make sure you find and maintain a particular “look” that meshes in with your personal brand and life style. PLEASE be sure to MASTER its application (take classes if you must!) as you do so!!
If you do not like wearing ANY make-up at all, please know that society does have negative social sanctions waiting for you (as it does for “overdone faces” society is quite unfair to women, which I am sure you will know, beloved readers). How you choose to adorn or not adorn you body is YOUR choice. Stand firm in it!
My suggestion (if you care to know, other wise disregard it)? Try to find a minimum that suits your face, and be consistent with it.
Most importantly –take twice as much care of the skin, lips, lashes, and lids you paint, so that the make-up you love, does not become a crutch you may come to hate.
You ARE lovely, as you are, simply by being a lady.
Beauty DOES NOT equal femininity. (My breakdown of why that is true can be read here.)
Some days I can shout that from the roof tops.
Other days I have to whisper it.
No matter what my volume, I still believe it.
I hope you do too, beloved readers.
I’m a woman and I don’t appreciate you attempting to victimize women with all these appeals to an unfair “society” (which I reckon is a code word for “men” as they are the gender who aren’t the victimized women).
You know as well as I do that there is an emphasis on female beauty as it is a signaler for youth and fecundity. It is weaved into the very fabric of our biological beings to find features like full lips, long/lustrous hair, clear complexion, big eyes, etc attractive in women. Nothing more and nothing less. It’s only us human beings who keep trying to invoke morality into what is biological and thus — immutable.
You can’t accept some beauty markers and argue that a .7 whr is attractive as it signals fertility (which you’ve done in the past and I agree), but then claim it is a result of feminine oppression by “society.” Which one is it? Beauty is what it is and like it or not we operate in a societal model that places emphasis on feminine beauty as a result of our biological imperatives. Biology is the influence not hatred of women. Please understand this distinction.
I’ll also have you know that men are also held to standards of their own. Men can’t simply be human “beings,” but human “doings.” Male value is primarily measured by how much value they can create, how much power and status they can accrue, social aptitude, charisma, how well he leads to name a few. There is nothing more ridiculed and derided than a dead beat man with no job or a low status job — he is romantically invisible to most women. Also most women have a preference for men of a certain height, another standard that is placed on men. However do I consider the standards women place on men unfair? No. It just is. Just as I certainly don’t consider the standards that men have for women (reasonable attractiveness) unfair. It just is.
Nobody is the victim here. Men and women both have their struggles. Different, yes, but complimentary? Certainly.
I’m going to reply in bold here, for clarity’s sake.
I’m a woman and I don’t appreciate you attempting to victimize women with all these appeals to an unfair “society” (which I reckon is a code word for “men” as they are the gender who aren’t the victimized women).
I am not attempting to victimize women. Please, do not put words in my little, golden mouth or make unnecessary accusations, beloved reader. This is an unfair and unwarranted assumption.
Your assumption about coding for “men” is also wrong and unfortunate. Society, as far as I am aware, is made up of men AND women.
Women can be complicit in oppressing other women –however you define oppression, which must be noted as well. I find it curious that “men” would have to be “the enemy” if one were to be defined, for this post, by you. Society is more than just “men” and “women” — politics, racism, economics/money, media, etc. are maintained by both men and women and are major aspects of “society”.
You know as well as I do that there is an emphasis on female beauty as it is a signaler for youth and fecundity.
As I said in a previous post, Esther didn’t save her people by being pretty on the inside. I also noted that my entire life I’ve experienced the backlash of not having those signalers until I “bloomed” late in life…and I didn’t go from ugly duckling to swan. It was more of a transition from ugly duckling to parakeet.
It is weaved into the very fabric of our biological beings to find features like full lips, long/lustrous hair, clear complexion, big eyes, etc attractive in women. Nothing more and nothing less. It’s only us human beings who keep trying to invoke morality into what is biological and thus — immutable.
I absolutely agree with you here. I have said so in regards to complexion, body type, face shape, etc. It’s humans who place a moral value on certain traits.
You can’t accept some beauty markers and argue that a .7 whr is attractive as it signals fertility (which you’ve done in the past and I agree), but then claim it is a result of feminine oppression by “society.”
You have put words in my little, golden mouth here, my dear.
I never said that things that are bio-markers for fertility are a result of feminine oppression by society.
“Beauty standards” of various cultures often encompasses bio-markers as well as things that actually fly in the face of what is biologically “beautiful” due to events in history, certain beliefs, etc. (“nurture”)
Which one is it?
Neither, as I have not said such.
Beauty is what it is and like it or not we operate in a societal model that places emphasis on feminine beauty as a result of our biological imperatives. Biology is the influence not hatred of women. Please understand this distinction.
Please, understand my distinctions. Please, do not assume I do not understand this. Please, understand that I do, in fact, understand society has views that I do and do not like.
Biology obviously has nothing to do with colonialism, racism, religion, politics, and etc. I’ve mentioned as part of the “nurture” that undermines “nature”.
I’ll also have you know that men are also held to standards of their own.
You assume I do not know this. Please, do not make that assumption.
Men can’t simply be human “beings,” but human “doings.” Male value is primarily measured by how much value they can create, how much power and status they can accrue, social aptitude, charisma, how well he leads to name a few.
You assume I do not know this. Please, do not make this assumption.
There is nothing more ridiculed and derided than a dead beat man with no job or a low status job — he is romantically invisible to most women. Also most women have a preference for men of a certain height, another standard that is placed on men. However do I consider the standards women place on men unfair? No. It just is. Just as I certainly don’t consider the standards that men have for women (reasonable attractiveness) unfair. It just is.
I am well aware of all of this. Please do not make the assumption I am not; however, if people said “It is what is!” or “It is unfair, but it just is.” to slavery –I would be in chains.
I disagree with you about SOME women’s views of men and vice versa –some of them ARE unfair.
You seem to speak for all/most women and men in mass, here.
Nobody is the victim here.
You assume/believe there are no victims, in anything relate to beauty and how society treats people, particularly women? I find that extremely interesting. I was certainly victimized growing up, in direct relation to my appearance and sex, but chose to respond with a desire to survive and thrive. Victimization is real, but my goal is not to make women victims, as I’ve already stated. This is all an aside.
Men and women both have their struggles. Different, yes, but complimentary? Certainly.
I agree, somewhat. “Complimentary struggles” I will need to see a better argument for, but society has (different) unfair standards for both that cause real harm –that can be changed.
I greatly appreciate the time you took to voice your reply. I type that with no snark, beloved reader. I would have appreciated it even more if you had presented your (well articulated!) views a bit more civilly, rather than simply attack what seems to be a misunderstanding at best with hordes of assumptions –and perhaps what could be jabs my cognitive abilities and level of social capitol.
Personally, for the record, I’m pleased by vigorous debate –sans assumptions and attacks on assumed levels of understanding or lack there of.
I hope you continue to read my blog. I like your spirit, m’dear. Take care!
I apologize if my tone comes off as slightly annoyed, I just don’t agree with that particular point in which you made. But I do find the majority of this post to be quite sound.
I agree that women shouldn’t use makeup as a crutch nor mask, but as a tool to enhance their looks and take a bit o f the edge off in the room.Makeup is a great tool, but it can be used for good or for deception; one should ideally remain recognizable upon taking off their makeup. One should also spend considerably more time and resources investing in their natural appearance than relying on enhancers and masks.
This is you slightly annoyed, m’dear? You are a passionate lady!
The point you feel I made, was not the one present. I’m glad we have some things to agree on, in this post.
I’d like to know what you felt victimized women in my post, to clear up misunderstandings for future readers. I’d find it really helpful, if you choose to reply.
Thank you for reading!
I mentioned you were attempting to victimize women by making statements such as “If you don’t like wearing ANY make-up at all, please know that society does have negative social sanctions waiting for you (as it does for “overdone faces” society is quite unfair to women, which I’m sure you will know, beloved readers)” among similar ones.
The implication is that “society” — which we’ve established encompasses both men and women — is somehow exclusively or particularly unfair to women. Not that society is unfair to people, but you mentioned women in particular and I disagree with that implication. In my opinion, the unfairness against men in North American society in this day and age is far greater than that which women as a whole encounter.
But as I’ve stated, the value placed on a woman’s looks is one that is biologically inspired, thus immutable and invoking morality of wrong and right isn’t applicable as it is an embedded human feature which in part has enabled us to be a successful and prosperous species.
With that said, I agree that there actually is something “unfair” about one’s value being based on something that is bequeathed upon them, purely by chance, prior to their first of consciousness — beauty or lack thereof — however, I disagree that it is an unfairness that therefore must be remedied. Women who don’t achieve value in the societal model which we operate in must either attempt to improve their looks the little or much they can or resign themselves to their unfortunate genetic fate and accept their lower status.
You chose to take a self deterministic attitude and improve your lot in life and I commend you for that. I too was not considered beautiful in my early youth, but now in my early twenties I am considered reasonably attractive because instead of claiming victim status, I made do with what I could and improved myself.
That leads me to say: as I’m sure you know, that life just simply isn’t fair and will never be fair. There is no way for us to ever control for the multitudes of variables which places human beings in relative standings of one another. Some of us will simply always embody more traits which are deemed favorable by society and will be accommodated greatly for it while others will greatly lack in said traits, but most of us will be somewhere in the middle. That’s life. Privilege or lack thereof is just really an intrinsic part of the human experience, but not all of is intrinsically immoral and therefore must be corrected.
Hello, there! I’m glad you came back. I want to speak to a few points here, in bold, as before:
The implication is that “society” — which we’ve established encompasses both men and women — is somehow exclusively or particularly unfair to women. Not that society is unfair to people, but you mentioned women in particular and I disagree with that implication.
This “implication” you speak of is again putting a few words in my little, golden mouth, m’dear. As I’ve stated my sole focus is women. Hence my mentioning the unfair things WOMEN go through specifically. Not mentioning everyone and everything else that suffers injustice under the sun does not imply that no one else deals with hardship.
That would be like someone having a blog about the difficulties associated with living on $1.50 a day in the Global South, as many people do and then someone saying: “Well people in the Global North starve, too. It’s hard all around! You’re being unfair talking about everything people in the Global South go through (only).”
It is true people in the Global North suffer economically; however, if the focus of that blog is the particular impact of $1.50 a day in the Global South vs. the Global North, there’s no need to muddy the conversation with listing everyone else’s (potentially, equally unfortunate) experience. Not listing all experiences in creation does not mean said author is implying those in the Global North, with meager funds, are some how not suffering, or not suffering as much. It simply is not their focus.
To infer such, would be incorrect.
In my opinion, the unfairness against men in North American society in this day and age is far greater than that which women as a whole encounter.
We can agree to disagree here. Society has unfair standards that are particular to men and to women. Both unfair, but specific to sex in the execution and types of “unfairness”.
Noting the difference does not mean one is saying those unfair standards do not exist for both sexes.
Focusing on one group does not mean the other is sans problems. To infer such, would be incorrect.
When men are more likely to be victims of domestic violence, rape, bias in salary, fight for control of their bodies, etc. then I’ll likely see men as suffering more of certain kinds of “unfairness”.
That typed and read, I’m not a fan of “pity olympics.” They are distracting to the over all point of this blog and unnecessary for its purpose. Sex apologetics are for another blog. Many others tackle the issue brilliantly.
This is a great conversation one that should most certainly be had(!), but again, it is one for another blog. My focus is on women.
I fully intend to keep my blog, and its comment threads on topic/focus.
“But as I’ve stated, the value placed on a woman’s looks is one that is biologically inspired, thus immutable and invoking morality of wrong and right isn’t applicable as it is an embedded human feature which in part has enabled us to be a successful and prosperous species.”
The biologically inspired (I rather like that!) is often circumvented by “nurture”. We (and yes, “we” includes men and women, it’s not code for anything else, beloved reader) can and usually do draw up beauty standards that actually fly in the face of what is “biologically attractive”. Then we indoctrinate one another to “drink the Kool-Aid,” so to speak.
Those “nurture-bound” standards CAN change –and should be when necessary. Of course, that is far easier said then done. It doesn’t mean like-minded folks shouldn’t try. Slavery in the US was hard to reverse (Civil War, anyone?) and I am glad to have the “privilege” to be a free woman.
Thanks for stopping by again. Take care!
So do you plan on continuing your posts about femininity? I’ve enjoyed them so far. I also enjoyed reading the debate you and this fellow reader had on the subject : )
On a hair related note, have you ever tried french perm stabilizer?
I responded to your question and comment here. Take Care!