NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/soc/motss/54673

Text File | 1993-01-03 | 6.6 KB | 158 lines

Newsgroups: soc.motss
Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!ames!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!zazen!anderson
From: [e-mail] (Jess Anderson)
Subject: Re: Changing standards of female beauty
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: Mon, 4 Jan 93 02:53:43 GMT
Lines: 146


In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Arne Adolphson) writes:

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

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

>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.

There's some peril, ideologically speaking, in abstracting
too slavishly from one's own examples.  You or I and many
people we know may well be able to be more self-determining
in these regards than, say, youngsters of high-school age or
others who are bound by various strategies to more dependent
standards.  Deviating (in the conventional social sense) from
certain standards comes at a price in this society.  Sure,
we pay it without even giving it a second thought, even feel
liberated relative to those less free than we, perhaps.  But
it *is* still there, I think, and until one knows how easily
such standards are defeated, one can be very much in their
grip.  For those who *are* in that grip, your formulation
probably lies beyond their *own* ideas of what's reachable.

>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.

I think that's pretty facile, as generalizations go.  It may
be impossible completely to shed certain kinds of
perceptions that correspond to your masks idea.  Hiding
seems to me too limiting and too emotionally charged an
idea, in context.  The masks idea, in my opinion, in not so
much wrong as not very useful.  For example, eyeglasses are
somewhat masking, even if they are not dark glasses.  Wrt to
makeup, I think your much stronger point comes later: body
decoration has been present in virtually all civilizations.

>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.

You give the impression (perhaps only to my ear, which would
then say something more about me) that you don't entirely
approve of this invasion of emollients into your bath.
Maybe this violates your sense of the simple, but it's my
impression most gay men have very well furnished baths, with
most of that stuff.  Besides, quite a lot of these products
are rather fun.

>>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.

For every one of you (blashpemy!), there are dozens of
people who buy into all that without the least hesitation.
After all, West Hollywood *is* the capital of it, and they
came from somewhere to make it so.

>>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?

I think the question itself is spurious, which was the
thrust of my remark.

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

>>>Oh puh-leeze.

>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.

Personal decoration goes back much further than that, I'm
sure, and in all cultures.  However, I don't think this
entirely sweeps away the thrust of Todd's remark, either.
Makeup, as we know it here, is considerably more than just
personal body decoration; it is part of a large-scale
business enterprise, one in which patriarchal ideas play an
integral part.

>>>>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.

This is a curious comment, I think.  Irrespective of how
many repetitions over how many years, we seem (to me) hardly
a step closer to a society structured otherwise than Todd
says.  I can't imagine being bored with that; frustrated,
exhausted, perplexed, outraged, all manner of things, but
hardly bored.  What is it, then, that we are "beyond?"

>>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.

So would I.

--
[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 <---------]