NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/soc/motss/54657

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-03 | 8.4 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!usc!not-for-mail
From: [e-mail] (adolphson)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Changing standards of female beauty (Is: the empowerment of women)
Date: 3 Jan 1993 15:46:21 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 214
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizar.usc.edu

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Jess Anderson) writes:

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

No, I think I prefer the title "Grand Faggot".  But maybe I'll
add it anyway: Arne Adolphson, Grand Faggot and Bad Guy
Recidivist.

> >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.

OK, how's this instead.  Fashion dictates only what you -- each
and every one of you -- allow it to dictate.  If you don't want
to wear makeup, dress fashionably -- and anyone who's ever seen
me knows that I'm rarely out of jeans, t-shirts and scuffed up
Reeboks -- slim down, pump up, whatever, then don't.  As I've
written here more than once, I think the most beautiful woman
alive today is Celia Cruz.  She's knows she's beautiful, fashion
be damned, and she's not shy about letting you know how much
pleasure she takes in being herself and being alive.  You're
only as beautiful as you think you are.

In any case, each and every one of us "hides" behind masks,
whether makeup-based or not, every public moment of our
lives, and I don't see what's so wrong with that.

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

I had jumped all over *X* for his historically inaccurate
comment that the "look" for women since the 1930s has been
slim, small-breasted and -hipped, adolescent boy-like.  Where
this article came from is beyond me.

> 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.

Absolutely.  My roommate's most recent boytoy moved in a couple
of weeks ago, and the bathroom is now filled with styling mousse,
hairspray, skin bronzer (although since he's Mexican, and hence
naturally dark-skinned, I wonder why), clay masques, two different
shampoos and a collection of conditioners and moisturizers for
his hair, all sorts of skin moisturizers and who knows what else.

> 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.

Sure, I'd be interested to see the debate, too.  But I think
I should point out that 12+ years of living in West Hollywood,
the world capital of perfectly coiffed, tanned, pumped-up
muscleboys has not prompted me even once to pick up a barbell,
or to join a gym, or to get my hair cut at a fab place, or
to buy really nice clothes, or anything like that.

> 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.

If you do wear makeup, wear it because it makes *you* feel
good.  If it makes you uncomfortable, then to hell with it.

> >>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.

Obviously I react differently to a man wearing eyeliner than
I would to a woman, only because eyeliner means something very
different on a man than on a woman in our culture.  But I
don't have a problem with it on either men or women.

> 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).

Hmmm.  I have a problem with this.  Some men I've known have
only had "camp" selves.  Is an impeccably made-up woman less
her "real" self than she is without makeup?  How?  Why?

> >>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.

Jeez (is that still safe?), Jess.  OK, how's this: it is facile
to claim that the idea of makeup is perpetuated solely by a
handful of investors in Revlon in order to make money.  Cosmetics
have been used by women (and men) in Western culture going all
the way back to the ancient Egyptians.  Makeup has *always* been
inextricably a part of our notions of personal grooming and
beauty.

> 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).

Well, yes.  And these scent patches really do have to go.
They're just awful.

> >>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.

Thanks.

> >>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.

No, it's boring because it's been repeated over and over and
over for the past 20 years, and I would have thought we were
beyond it.

> Is soap a
> bad thing, even if people make a lot of money from it?

Good question.

> [ ... ]  Is there something "wrong"
> with women who use cosmetics; are they just brainwashed, or
> what?  In that case, what about men?

I'd love to hear the answer to that most central of questions
in this debate.

> >>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?  :-)

Eeeew, ick.  And what about polish on <shudder> toe nails?

> >>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?

Let me guess.  Umm, yes?

> >>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.

I remember one demonstration during which a number of women
dropped bras into a large trashcan and set them on fire.  I
*don't* remember repeated, mass bra-burnings, but perhaps
others have a better memory than I do.  (Yes, I was 15 in 1970.)

> 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?

With us all living in grass huts?

Arne