NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/soc/motss/54621

Text File | 1993-01-03 | 5.4 KB | 142 lines

Newsgroups: soc.motss
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!zazen!anderson
From: [e-mail] (Jess Anderson)
Subject: Re: Changing standards of female beauty (Is: the empowerment of women)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 93 15:23:58 GMT
Lines: 130


In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Arne Adolphson), West Hollywood's
Bad Guy Recidivist, scoffs:

>In article <[e-mail]>
>[e-mail] (Todd Merriman) writes:

>>It's sad that fashion dictates that women must hide behind
>>a mask of makeup to be "beautiful."

>Yawn.

Right up there with "get a life" and other Usenet artifacts,
I really detest this response (and "snore," which you use
later); for one thing, Arne, since you *can* say it with
style, why don't you?  Anyhow, this is a minor point.

The more major one is that perhaps I missed something
preceding; it looks to me like Todd's article appeared
out of the blue.

Cosmetics involves men as consumers, too, after all, so I
question some of this on that basis.  Furthermore, it seems
to me cosmetics exist in a complex set of relationships
(along with, inter alia, soap and water, mirrors, the
weather, and self-images derived from really *a lot* of
sources) with various sets and settings.

I think it would be great if this debate sparked a lot of
responses from women, because I'm less than confident (even
when I do it) of broad claims made by men as to what
oppresses or disempowers women.  I'm quite sure there are
people here (both men and women) who would never wear
makeup, for various reasons, as well as people of both
genders who do wear makeup (of one kind or another) for
reasons that seem to them good and sufficient.

>>The idea that women are attractive only when you cannot see
>>their real selves

>Their "real" selves?  What, if I may be so bold as to ask,
>is a "real" self?  And why is a "real" self obscured by a
>little mascara and lipliner?

I think part of the answer, if any, must involve whether you
have different reactions to women wearing eyeliner than you
do to men wearing eyeliner.  Then there's the "real" self,
the "camp" self (less real?  more real?), and the self in
context (you don't appear on TV wearing no makeup, unless
you enjoy looking dead).

>>is an idea perpetuated by men because (1) it support a
>>multi-billion dollar cosmetics industry owned mostly by men,

>Oh puh-leeze.

Oh yeah, that one too, so *very* tired.

The men's cosmetics industry is also a billion-plus market,
so that has to figure in here somewhere (mostly really
horrible scents, if you ask me; if you thumb through GQ or
Esquire looking for Marky Mark ads, your hands are going to
stink for days, because lots of these scents do *not* wash
off with anything less than lye (then you'll need a
moisturizer, of course).

>>and (2) it is demeaning to women to not be able to be
>>accepted as they really are.

>Women somehow aren't really themselves when they put on a
>little powder?

Fair question, I think.

>>Thus, men are able to maintain a power structure that
>>obviously favors men and puts-down women; and makes lots of
>>money in the doing!

>Snore.

Not so much boring, to my mind, as unfocussed.  Is soap a
bad thing, even if people make a lot of money from it?  Is
good old lard/lye the only kind of soap allowed?  Can soap
come in colors and scents and shapes without putting women
down, or is that endemic to soap?  Oh, you say, soap is
another matter.  To that I say, no it's not, it's the same
matter.  And what about lotions (massage oils, moisturizers,
night cremes, you name it)?  Are men who use these things
putting women down by that use?  Is there something "wrong"
with women who use cosmetics; are they just brainwashed, or
what?  In that case, what about men?

>>As long as women continue to smear that ridiculous colored
>>stuff all over their faces, they cannot be taken seriously.

>By you, perhaps.  I don't have any problems taking women
>seriously whether or not they're wearing makeup.

Touch'e, couldn't agree with you more.  Hey, and what about
long nails and nail polish?  I mean, long nails are *really*
bad, right?  :-)

>>Don't even ask me what I think about high-heels!

>Let me guess.  You don't like them?

And just on women, I bet.  Do boots with heels (notorious
for ruining feet and backs) come in here somewhere?  Are
birkies and Reeboks the only PC footwear?

>>Rember the "bra burning" of the 70's?  Maybe it's time to
>>have a "makeup burning" of the 90's.

>Well, no, I don't remember the "bra burning" of the '70s.

You don't?  You would have been 15 or so in 1970, right?
Bras are another, uh, big subject, very complicated.

So what's to be done?  All of us in natural cotton, no dyes,
no design, no frou-frou, sensible shoes, dirty skin, no
toothpastes, no hair conditioners, no (god forbid!)
haircuts.  Not only: where does it all end, but also: where
does it all start?

--
[Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin]
[Internet: [e-mail] <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson]
[Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone [phone]]
[---------> Discrimination, Bigotry, and Hate are not Family Values <---------]